NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Sat Aug 30, 2014 7:11 am

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 511 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 ... 35  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 12:33 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm
Posts: 7398
Article out of South Bend with comments from ND AD regarding the Irish and conference realignment at http://www.wsbt.com/sports/sbt-notre-da ... 7084.story


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2011 10:11 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 2:27 am
Posts: 478
Location: Jacksonville, FL
seanbo wrote:
Notre Dame vs. Florida State in Champs Bowl---a 5th ACC game :lol:

Irish 15, Pitt 12
Irish 24, Wake 17
Irish 45, Maryland 21
Irish 16, BC 14


well, 4 and 1 :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:08 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1539
The ACC, Big10, Big12, & prior BE fb, have been hoping and dreaming to add Notre Dame. A ND decision is allegedly a factor per the ACC going to 16, or the Big10 doing any further expansion, like going to 14 themselves. Ex-Commish of the Big12, Beebe, conveyed they would take ND for bb only stuff.

I don't blame ND for continuing to take advantage of their current, special situation. The BE, for now, has come through with an even more diverse hybrid, that ND can exploit to their satisfaction.

ND changes their mind when:
(a) BCS beomes all super-conferences in size
(b) A super conference member's revenue from all the top four or so, significantly exceeds what ND receives via their future, independent TV contract
(c) ND finds it difficult to schedule late season games with quality opponents in fb.
(d) Future BCS provisions further reduce or elminate special selection status and/or revenue output assured to ND.
(e) Schools such as USC, Michigan, MSU, Pitt, etc. decide yearly scheduling of ND becomes less of a priority.

If all these major conferences want ND in a conference with more peer-type resources and expectations, then they will have to stop the enabling first.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:26 am 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 2:27 am
Posts: 478
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Article also posted on BCS/Playoff thread

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootbal ... off-berths

Will Plus 1 force the Irish into a conference?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 10:32 am 
Online
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3811
seanbo wrote:
Article also posted on BCS/Playoff thread

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootbal ... off-berths

Will Plus 1 force the Irish into a conference?


Since the playoff push really started this year (thanks to supports by more and more conferences), the 4 team model has been at the top of the list. The problem of course being that the 4 school model only really made perfect sense when it appeared last year and the year before, that the Big 12 would be falling apart. We almost had 4 Big 12 schools, with 2.5 of the big programs (Texas, OU, OSU) to join the Pac-16. The ACC brought in Syracuse and Pitt...and with a conference-champ-only playoff system, we could almost assume Notre Dame and Uconn would be on their way to the ACC-16. The Big Ten and SEC at 12 and 14 members would fill out the other 2 spots. That would leave the Big East (a conference that would have only Rutgers from it's original BCS qualified conference) along with the CUSA/MWC hybrid. We can also assume that the Big East would have brought in the Big 12 leftovers in Kansas, KSU, Iowa St. and Baylor rather than perhaps the moves they made with BSU, SDSU, Memphis, SMU, Houston, UCF, Temple, Navy (sure, maybe some of them would have been included but the Big East HAD discussed bringing in the Big 12 leftovers last year).

But we DO have the Big 12 still, so that's 5 conferences. And the Big East is now much bigger, despite losing WVU, Pitt and Syracuse thus far. And we DO have the CUSA/MWC merger.

So it would seem that the only thing that would really work at this point would be to scrap the 4 team playoff model and replace it with a single extra round, moving the number to 8.

What it would mean:
5 conference champion auto-bids for...
* SEC
* Big Ten
* Pac-12
* Big 12
* ACC

The other 8 spots would be wild-cards, selected by committee vote, to come from all FBS conferences. So this means that if say, Boise St. is a 1 loss team, ranked in both polls as #5 in the country, then they will likely get the spot over 2 loss ranked #7 Auburn. Sure, some years they might get passed over if they had a weak schedule. But if LSU finishes #2 in their division with a single loss, and Alabama wins the SEC, that poll ranked #2 or #3 LSU won't be left out as they would get a wild card spot. And if in that same year, Hawaii goes undefeated, their would be a wild-card spot for them too perhaps over a 2 loss Big Ten school.

Just don't see a 4 team model working since it means a BCS TOP 5 conference will be left out every year, as well as Big East, CUSA/MWC. A move to 8 schools also increases the chances of a second conference school getting in, something we've seen often from the Big Ten and SEC.

_________________
Image

Image@ncaasports Image csi.com/facebook

Image
Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:05 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm
Posts: 1705
Quinn -

What you are proposing makes sense, if we were starting from scratch, but there are problems implementing that into the framework that exists today.
The big problem wiht 8 is squeezing a 3-week playoff into the available calendar.
Although, the article posted about the PAC noted that they would even consider shortening the season (eliminating a meaningless "body-bag" game),
if it helped from a scheduling aspect.
That was an intersting article, as the PAC (and champion Oregon) were "jobbed" in the BCS Championship pairing, similar to Big XII (and their champion Ok. State),
both squuezed out by Alabama, who failed to win its division in the SEC.
This year's all-SEC pairing seems to have created a major "attitude adjustment" among the other conferences.

I almost think they need to go to 8 to make the money work out (a different driver for 8, than what you are thinking).
Say a 4-team seeded playoff is chosen... each year a least one of the big 5 conferences is not playing in it.
However, you can bet that when they set this up to cash in on this new financial windfall, those 5 big boys are going to want a guaranteed chunk of the money.
Yet it looks very contrived to have say, the ACC get $50 million, and the WAC (if it still exists) get no money in a year when neither conference is represented.
You could agree to give all 120 FBS teams an equal cut, but that just encourages a lot of mediocre teams to move up from FCS,
and the Big Boys feel they have more invested in top-level FBS football, so they should receive most of the rewards.

NOT ONCE in these BCS revision articles, have I seen money distribution discussed - yet it is THE HUGE ISSUE.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 2:20 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1430
All I want (for now) is to go to a 4 team playoff (and get the ball rolling), hopefully the new system will make it pretty hard to have 2 teams from one conference (say take the #1 and #2 team regardless of which conference they come from and then take the next two champions of another conference like the PAC suggested). Then after a season or two of the 2nd team from the SEC/Big12 and possibly B1G/PAC getting left out along with a mid-major/Big East team or two they'll expand it to 8 in a couple of years. And I'm not sure why its hard for people to squeeze an 8 team playoff into Winter break.

CCG are the first weekend of Dec. (last year Dec 3rd) (and BTW teams don't have any extra time to prepare for this game why should a playoff be any different? They could easily do it like the NFL if they had to...)

Week off for finals/rest/practice (Army/Navy game, possibly the MWCUSA CCG too)

1st round is the third weekend in Dec (if last year Dec 17th) (kicking off the bowl season)

Week off for Xmas/rest/practice (more tiny bowl games)

2nd round is the last weekend in Dec (if last year Dec 31st/Jan 1st) (during major bowl lineup)

Week off for rest/practice (like the Super Bowl does) (final bowl games)

Final round is the second week in Jan (last year Jan 9th) (just keep it where it is)

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 4:10 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm
Posts: 2803
I hate that they moved the damn title game so far off new years. It should be played on Jan 1 or Jan 2. I don't really give a sh*t about College while the Packers are gearing up for a playoff game, the 2nd week of Jan. They ratings are declining too right? So it's not just me.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:37 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1430
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
I hate that they moved the damn title game so far off new years. It should be played on Jan 1 or Jan 2. I don't really give a sh*t about College while the Packers are gearing up for a playoff game, the 2nd week of Jan. They ratings are declining too right? So it's not just me.

If they just do a plus one then it could be...

CCG are the first weekend of Dec. (last year Dec 3rd)

Week off for finals/rest/practice (Army/Navy game, possibly the MWCUSA CCG too)

1st round is the third weekend in Dec (if last year Dec 17th) (kicking off the bowl season)

Week off for Xmas/rest/practice (more tiny bowl games)

Final round is the last weekend in Dec (if last year Dec 31st/Jan 1st) (during major bowl lineup)

And FSA the networks don't care whether or not its on Jan 1st or 9th its the schools that care. They say that they have a hard time selling a UConn/OU or WV/Clemson bowl when people have to take off more workdays right after taking off ones for Christmas. They claim that's the reason why its hard to sell out their share of ticket which is publicized as the schools losing money, thus they just want to tweak this new system to avoid this bad publicity. As far as ratings go, the ratings have gone up every year but last year (which suffered a slight drop off of less than a million viewers due to the boycott/boredom of "the rematch") but have under preformed predicted rise in the ratings that the networks typically claim in order to sell advertising space (which is a common practice) from what I have read which is probably what your referring to.

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:52 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm
Posts: 2803
New Years is a holiday, have it that day. People don't need to worry about going to work. No one has a job according to the Republican debates :P

I don't really know sh*t about ratings, I just read it on here or heard it on ESPN. I don't get why SJSU would be a better add than Troy to the CTBA. No one watches SJSU so who cares if they had the population in Tokyo in their market. What ever happened to being good?

Funny, Neilson keeps sending me $2 every year to do their ratings. I had the Title game on but I was looking at my computer talking on one of these boards and the game was just background noise. Subtract 1 more person from the rating. How do they even know what we are watching if we don't have a neilson box?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2012 12:46 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1430
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
New Years is a holiday, have it that day. People don't need to worry about going to work. No one has a job according to the Republican debates :P

I don't really know sh*t about ratings, I just read it on here or heard it on ESPN. I don't get why SJSU would be a better add than Troy to the CTBA. No one watches SJSU so who cares if they had the population in Tokyo in their market. What ever happened to being good?

Funny, Neilson keeps sending me $2 every year to do their ratings. I had the Title game on but I was looking at my computer talking on one of these boards and the game was just background noise. Subtract 1 more person from the rating. How do they even know what we are watching if we don't have a neilson box?

SJSU over Troy is for market penetration, which boiled down just means that ESPN and the other networks would pay more money for SJSU than Troy because they can put a MWCUSA in the Bay Area and a small percent of people (SJSU fans, general football nuts, sports bars, channel surfers, ect) would watch just because, and that percentage would be worth more than that same segment of people with Troy (which is already covered pretty well with UAB/USM). And it's not just for SJSU/Troy fans the networks could also play a CSU/UTEP game over a Utah St/NMSU because the MWCUSA game would have more of an impact on the Bay Area then the other which makes SJSU even more valuable as far as exposure for the new conference which far outweighs Troy unless they turn out to be the next Boise St which then could be added later assuming they don't max out now and go 16/16.

Neilsen is becoming more and more outdated, it's only good for people that don't have cable/satellite boxes, So basically people using free broadcast TV or direct cable with no box.

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2012 2:47 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm
Posts: 2803
tkalmus wrote:
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
New Years is a holiday, have it that day. People don't need to worry about going to work. No one has a job according to the Republican debates :P

I don't really know sh*t about ratings, I just read it on here or heard it on ESPN. I don't get why SJSU would be a better add than Troy to the CTBA. No one watches SJSU so who cares if they had the population in Tokyo in their market. What ever happened to being good?

Funny, Neilson keeps sending me $2 every year to do their ratings. I had the Title game on but I was looking at my computer talking on one of these boards and the game was just background noise. Subtract 1 more person from the rating. How do they even know what we are watching if we don't have a neilson box?

SJSU over Troy is for market penetration, which boiled down just means that ESPN and the other networks would pay more money for SJSU than Troy because they can put a MWCUSA in the Bay Area and a small percent of people (SJSU fans, general football nuts, sports bars, channel surfers, ect) would watch just because, and that percentage would be worth more than that same segment of people with Troy (which is already covered pretty well with UAB/USM). And it's not just for SJSU/Troy fans the networks could also play a CSU/UTEP game over a Utah St/NMSU because the MWCUSA game would have more of an impact on the Bay Area then the other which makes SJSU even more valuable as far as exposure for the new conference which far outweighs Troy unless they turn out to be the next Boise St which then could be added later assuming they don't max out now and go 16/16.

Neilsen is becoming more and more outdated, it's only good for people that don't have cable/satellite boxes, So basically people using free broadcast TV or direct cable with no box.

I have directv, so why do they keep sending me sh*t every year. I won't complain I get 2 crisp shinny new 1 dollar bills every year, w/o saying I'll join neilson. It makes me feel like an NFL hold out, waiting for my big pay day of $5 :lol:

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:00 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm
Posts: 7398
TSN article discussing how new BCS changes may impact ND FB program at http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-footba ... z1pubjywdD


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 2:12 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1539
Teddy Greenstein recent article in Chicago Tribune is revealing per a postseason fb format. (published also in 4/26/12 edition of http://WWW.THESTATE.COM)

Freaked, I am confident you have posted updates on this, but I want to editorialize a moment.

If the top 4 playoff proposal is adapted, the selection process will have to be settled.
PAC12's Larry Scott favors only conference champions. SEC's Slive says it's not a tournament, and prefers to select the best 4......recognizing the 'Bama & LSU situation this past season.
MWC's Craig Thompson predicted contentious discussions regarding revenue distributions.
B1G's Delany spoke about the favorable unintended consequences of adding interest and intrigue to the regular season. His conference wants to protect the Rose Bowl tradition as matters unfold.

While Notre Dame was not directly referenced, if Scott's suggestion prevailed, Notre Dame would certainly want to be looking for a fb conference, or be promised, again, a method of direct access to the playoff arrangement.
Would the big conferences be so generous with ND again on placement procedures and revenue distributions?

Big conferences may have so much as stake, they may not be in the mood to make major concessions to any fb independent school, including ND in particular, who has total control in defining their regular season schedule. Granted, ND plays a few traditional heavyweights each season, but also has the comfort of some less competitive schools, a high proportion of home
games, and some neutral sites. A conference championship is not at stake with them per each regular season games, with fundamentally their overall W-L record being more of a prime criteria.

How this playoff format becomes adopted may be huge in determining whether ND gives up fb independence. The question is, will the major conferences have the desire, will, and strength to draw a line in the sand as to a special access for ND?

If a system emerges whereby ND may get a playoff spot in a given year, and it looks as if it is less earned, and more based on media and bowl influence, that could add to new controversy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2012 1:26 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 2:27 am
Posts: 478
Location: Jacksonville, FL
SI article on Notre Dame's future posted by lash on big 12 forum

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/w ... =cf_t11_a0


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 511 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 ... 35  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
 

 




Looking for College Sports apparel? Support our partner:








Support Our Partners: Search Engine Marketing - Search Engine Optimization - Search Engine Training - Online Marketing for Restuarants

Subway Map Shirts - Food and Travel

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group