Somehow I can’t see ESPN shooting itself in the foot by trying to convince the Big 12 to raid the ACC. ESPN has a lot of money invested in the ACC.

The Big 12 is getting a lot more money from ESPN simply because it became a much stronger football conference in football which is driving the revenue of college sports. More importantly it became a stable conference again.

In you factor in the tier 2 rights of each Big 12 school are already committed for the next six years and according to this latest contract could extend each Big 12 school tier commitment out to year 2025, the Big 12 is just a good long term investment for ESPN.

Assuming the current Big 12 Commissioner is correct and he has stated that each school will commit their tier 2 sports to the conference for the length of any new contact, the Big 12 schools will not be going anywhere for very long time. The Big 12 has become a very solid conference after a couple near fatal blows just a few months ago by making very good decisions based on expansion replacements and adding tier 2 rights ownership for each school to the Big 12 Conference.

I could see ESPN offering more money if the conference expands to 12 to hurt the Big East and not necessarily impacting the ACC.

What I see as a possibility is for the Big 12 to take Louisville for all sports and Notre Dame for all sports and partial football schedule alliance.

ESPN by providing possible funding for to expand with Louisville and Notre Dame would most surely cause the Big East to finally split from basketball only and football schools and further damage any chances of demanding large contracts from other networks. Without Syracuse and Notre Dame, why would the basketball only schools want or need to remain a part of a hybrid?

Expanding with Louisville for football would accomplish balance Big 12 football schedules of 5 home and 5 away conference games, provide more football inventory for TV, and to some extent provide a close by rivalry game for West Virginia.

Most important it would ease the fear of having a highly ranked team lose out on the most likely four team playoff that will replace the BCS. Texas does not like taking a chance on losing out on playing for the national title by having a championship game for football. In most years Texas will probably have a good shot at winning the regular season Big 12 title and a very good chance of making one of the four team playoff replacing the BCS. Oklahoma benefits from this scenario as well.

Notre Dame for all sports would obviously enhance the varsity sports for TV and would provide some very good Big 12 conference football games including possible regular Thanksgiving weekend game to replace Texas/Texas A&M.

The thing I can’t figure out is how the Big 12 would address Notre Dame having to be in position to take the conference title assuming Notre Dame went undefeated.

The new proposal by the Pac 12 for BCS post season of taking four team playoff has a very good chance of getting passed and will be a mandatory requirement to only include conference champions. Otherwise the Pac 12 will walk away from the BCS most likely taking the Big Ten with it.

The Pac 12 is not going to sit back and watch a rematch of two SEC members each year play for the title and this is the reasons for the requirement of conference champions only included in a four team playoff. Otherwise the Pac 12 will push to go back to old system of allowing the bowls to select which team that want and the AP polls vote on a champion for college football.

If somehow the Big 12 could work out a plan to take Notre Dame partially and allow for Notre Dame to somehow play as the Big 12 champion with partial schedules, then Notre Dame could select the Big 12 over any other BCS conference.

Otherwise I see Notre Dame moving to the Big Ten or most likely ACC due to mandatory requirement of conference champions included in a four team BCS playoff.

Notre Dame’s only possibility way to remain independent is if the BCS fails and the old system of college football is resumed.

I believe the SEC will cave in to Pac 12 demands as most years will get its conference champion in the four team BCS playoff that is being proposed.

The big question is where will Notre Dame end up? If the Big 12 can think out of box, there could be enormous TV revenue benefits with Notre Dame having partial membership in the Big 12. This is a different situation than the hybrid which occurred in the Big East. Notre Dame would have to make many more commitments to the Big 12 similar commitment the U of Texas has with tier rights.

One idea could have Notre Dame agreeing to play six Big 12 football game each year and for example having to win all six games and a certain type of ranking to ensure Notre Dame would get into the four team BCS playoff if a Big 12 team did not qualify.

It is going to get very interesting with the new BCS contact and the Pac 12 is serious or will surely walk if their demands are not accepted by only taking conference champions.

This also takes away any argument the non AQ BCS conference have because their champions can be in the running to get one of the four sports, however, good luck with that one.

I for one do not want to see another BCS title rematch with SEC teams regardless of how good they both may be. The only way this should occur is there is a true playoff someday of 8 or 16 teams.

I am surprised to see the Big10 and Pac12 backing a 4 team playoff because it may remove their champios from the Rose Bowl with some frequency. A two team chempionship game after the traditional bowls, however, is likely to leave the Rose Bowl rivalry intact.

I'm not sure exactly how a bowl system co-exists wiht a seeded 4-team playoff, either.

Maybe the B1G and PAC work toward guaranteeing that the Rose Bowl hosts either a semi-final or final every year, so they come out ahead financially.
that would seem to give the Rose Bowl favorite treatment, but that may be the price of getting the B1G and PAC to sign on.

I don't exactly understand why those conferences feel beholden to a specific bowl game.
Yeah, it has been THEIR bowl game, and there are kick-backs to the conferences or some financial linkage,
but the playoff system should be much bigger bucks by comparison.

Rose Bowl tradition was thrown away awhile ago. What exists now is what would exist in the future (if the Rose Bowl remained intact, as well as the other bowls...only with less significance if the top 4 teams were in a playoff): if a Big Ten or Pac-12 school makes the playoffs, it means a Big Ten of Pac-12 #2 goes to the Rose. Worst case scenario, #2 B10 vs #2 P12. But we're still talking a matchup like Michigan/Ohio St./Penn St./Nebraska/Wisconsin vs USC/Oregon/Cal etc. Still not a bad game.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


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.

I believe it is very simple to incorporate a four team playoff into the current bowl systems.

Some of this is assumptions, however, the Pac 12 wants to protect the integrity of the Rose Bowl at the same time support a modification to college football post season which most college football fans want a change. The Pac 12 does not own the Rose bowl and would not get any money if a Pac 12 member school did not participate in the Rose Bowl if that Bowl would part of the four team play off.

The Pac 12 simply does not want to squash the tradition of the Rose Bowl and Parade which is part of American culture similar to Macy’s Thanksgiving day parade.

What is missing is the Pac 12 wants the championship football game to played traditionally on New Year’s day which would provide the Rose bowl and really great opportunity to possibly host this game each year. After all the Rose bowl is the granddaddy of all the bowls. It has other benefits with academics in comparison to the current BCS system which plays the BCS championship game several days after New Year’s day which impact players attending classes.

I see college football using the same bowl game or host city for all three football games used in playoff. It would allow fans to travel to one city for 10 days and watch a semi final college football game and if their team wins remain in the same city for the championship game a week later.

I do not see a NFL type playoff for college football where the two top team host the semi finals and game and two weeks latter travel to the super bowl city.

Based on this the Rose bowl could bid on the four teams to play for college football post season using the Christmas holiday break for both fans and students to travel and participate without missing too much time for work or class.

All other bowls could traditionally play as usual including the Sugar, Orange, and Fiesta that could play on or around New Year’s day as well as a build up to the championship game. New Year’s day would finally mean something again for college football.

If the Rose is not included as a host city bowl of the four team playoff would then be free to select a Pac 12 and Big Ten team that did not make the four team playoff.

Either way it would keep the tradition of the Rose Bowl intact and allow what most of us college football fans want at minimum a four team playoff to allow the champion to be determine on the field of play just like all other sports.

Lash sums it up well.

There is no reason that the Rose Bowl could not take the top teams from the PAC and B1G not in the playoffs.

Let's say they take the top 4 ranked conference champions for the playoffs, Oregon and Wisconsin would have been in the playoffs, meaning Stanford and Michigan State could have played in the Rose.

Lash's response to my comment may be the most realistic I've seen from him in some time.

Problem is, can ESPN force Clemson and Florida State to stay in the ACC if they don't want to stay?

A football school in the ACC witnessing the ACC taking Syracuse and Pittsburgh might be asking a question or two.

Is that scenario I mentioned realistic? Eh? Maybe not... who really wants to get in bed with Texas? OTOH, stick around in the ACC and watch your football suffer more? Tough question.

lol who wants to get into bed with Texas? Despite the fandom's irrational hate of Texas, this question is like asking who wants to get into bed with ND? Just about everybody, sure there are a few exception like Nebraska (who honestly hates us though they would love to get back into Texas for recruiting) and A&M (who's regretting that we won't play anymore), but others like Mizzou, Colorado are just spewing old grievances at Texas though all the problems they helped create with their own voting on Big 12 policies that allowed all of this to happen. There have been reports on this board that Texas could join the PAC, B1G, ACC, SEC, go non fb in BE, CUSA, and MWC, and even start its own elite conference or independent scheduling alliance...so let me ask who doesn't want to be in bed with Texas...the WAC/MAC/SBC/A10?

BTW why is everybody still hating on UT who has locked up their 1st and 2nd TV rights until 2025 with the Big 12, has given up almost 10 million a year (along with OU) to give Baylor/Iowa St double the payout they had 2 years ago, and they have stayed with long time Big8/SWC rivals while others like CU/NU/MU/A&M left for better conferences with no thought to how their departure would effect the rest of us. Hell A&M and Mizzou signed an agreement that they would stay for 5 years only to leave 2/5 months later...

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

Honestly, it depends upon the terms of it. The PAC-12 and Texas couldn't come to terms over 3rd tier rights. Texas wanted a special thing to retain theirs, or revenue guarentees that the minimum that they got from 3rd tier rights were at least as much as what the LHN would bring in (they also wanted an equal share if revenues went above what they'd get from the PAC-12 network). PAC-12 wanted Texas to come in as an equal partner. This, largely, is what blew up the PAC-16 deal. Larry Scott and the PAC-12 wanted Texas on the same footing as Oregon, USC, Stanford, and every other school. If Texas had agreed to give up the LHN, and agreed to come in as an equal partner to the PAC-12, we'd probably already be sitting in the PAC-16.

The Pac 12 is going to set the direction on which conference makes movements in the next few months with its BCS proposal is my prediction.

I am totally convinced the Pac 12 is going to insist the BCS change by eliminating the AQs for each conference and replace the BCS with basically a plus one by taking four teams for college football championship and keeping all other Bowls in tact. What this means is replacing the current 10 BCS bids that include six AQ champions and four at large bids with a plus one of four bids. The current four BCS bowls can either bid on the four teams or revert back to the old system of selecting which two schools that want to play in their bows.

It is a compromise that works by keeping the existing bowls or the ones that can be profitable and at the same time create a major TV cash cow with four team playoff for college football of which most college football fans want and the networks will most likely pay big bucks for the TV rights.

The caveat here is the four teams in the plus one format must come from a conference champion and only be a conference champion. I totally agree with Pac 12 and maybe someday the system can expand to include multiple bids from say the SEC if an expansion to 8 or 16 schools.

This will eliminate at large BCS bids. There is too much money for the other BCS leagues including SEC to not accept this proposal. Otherwise there is chance college football could revert back to the old system of selecting a national champion for college football with the polls. Less assume money talks and they don't go back to the old system. These are baby steps and no way they agree to a 8 team system for a playoff This not a consideration at this time for college football.

What this means is Notre Dame is going to have a join a conference. If you do not take SEC at large teams there is no way Notre Dame is going to get one as an independent.

If you think it was tough getting an at large bid with 8 BCS bids just wait until there are only four possible bids.

This is where Florida State and Clemson could decide to jump to another league or better stated ad stronger football league.

With a four team model there is going to be some type of rating similar to how the NCAA selects at large basketball schools for the basketball tournament.

Strength of schedule for football will be critical for making the plus one.

No worries here for SEC and we can just pencil the SEC champion in one of the four spots each year. The remaining Big 12 schools can sit back and sort of laugh at Texas A&M and definably Missouri for jumping into conference that you are in bed with Alabama, Auburn, Florida, LSU, South Carolina just to name a few. Maybe being in bed with Texas was not so bad.

This does not mean to say the Big 12 is going to be a cake walk for football and expanding with TCU and WVU was a major benefit for SOS for football.

Most years I am going to pencil in the champion of the Big 12 for one of the four plus one BCS slots.

That leaves two openings of which one will go to either the Big Ten or Pac 12 each year and probably both the Pac 12 and Big Ten will claim the final two spots. With the scheduling alliance between the Pac 12 and Big Ten will only help in this situation with SOS for both leagues.

The ACC is a really bad situation here unless Florida State or Clemson can go undefeated each year and that would include a win over their in state SEC rival as well.

It is not going to help Clemson and Florida State SOS that includes a group of Duke, Wake Forest, Boston College, Syracuse, etc trying to improve your SOS.

This is why I personally believe the ACC made a mistake by expanding with Pitt and Syracuse and not looking more at football in mind for the future.

The saving grace for the ACC could be Notre Dame, however, Notre Dame has got to have the very same concerns as Florida State and Clemson. It just not going to help with SOS by beating up on Duke and Boston College each year and have a shot at one of the four plus one BCS bids.

Notre Dame could jump to a stronger football conference and select the Big Ten or possibly the Big 12.

The Big East has no change in the future even if Boise State goes undefeated by playing the new Big East format of schools and more reason why Notre Dame will never join this league. Money of course is the other issues.

Which conference Notre Dame joins may now become the same critical factor for the ACC that was always a hope of the Big East for survival.

Article out of West Virginia(previously posted in another thread)discussing how new Big 12 tv deal "may" impact future league realignment.Link at http://dailymail.com/Sports/201203180104

There's a huge difference between "Who wants Texas" and "Who wants to get into bed with Texas." Who wants Texas? Everyone would LOVE to have Texas in the fold for their conference. As an equal partner with everyone else. Who wants to get into bed with Texas? No, I would NOT want to be in a league where my cut of the TV deal is based on my number of appearances; AND Texas gets a guarantee on TV cut regardless of their appearances; AND Texas has their own national TV network and I don't.

Schools who want Texas as an equal partner: Everyone.
Schools who want into a league with Texas on UT's terms: Big East, CUSA, MWC, WAC, MAC, Sun Belt schools.
Schools who wouldn't want to get into bed with Texas on UT's terms: Big Ten, SEC, ACC, Pac-12 teams.
Schools with no other options (for now): Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech, West Virginia, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State.


I can't see the ACC raiding the Big 12 or vice versa. The next raid among the BCS AQ Conference levels will come (A) when these current TV deals are up for renegotiation and (B) when NBC says "We're getting the crap kicked out of us by ESPN/ABC. Hey Notre Dame, Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, Texas Tech, Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech, Maryland, Pittsburgh, UConn and Rutgers, we'll give you a TV deal worth each $40 million per season if you form a conference and play on NBC."

_________________
1897-1898 | 1900-06 | 1926-27 | 1929-30 | 1939 | 1942

I believe issues are over exaggerated with the University of Texas and the LHN.

First of all the Pac 10 schools last year were looking into the best possible scenario to obtain revenue streams that would compete or eventually come close with rival Big Ten. While the Pac 12 has yet to create a plan for cable network similar to Big Ten, that was a sticking point on taking Texas along with the other group of Big 12 schools to reach 16 last year. Tier 3 was an issue. Would it require a Pac 10 conference network to come close to Big Ten revenue?

Since then the Pac 12 has created a revenue stream with 12 schools that is comparable to the Big Ten for tier 1 and tier 2 TV rights and really did not need Texas or the other Big 12 schools to accomplish that goal. Would Texas make that big of a difference with tier 3 rights if the Pac 12 eventually creates a network similar to the Big Ten for tier 3 rights. Who knows for sure? My thoughts are 12 schools in the Pac 12 can generate the same revenue as 12 Big Ten schools on a cable network so the issue is mute on needing U of Texas.

What was really happening in the Big 12 were egos of other schools that caused instability in the Big 12. Based on the latest projected Big 12 mended TV contract, money was not the real issue.

Texas A&M could not stand the fact the U of Texas may get an upper hand in requiting with the LHN scheduling high schools games on the exclusive LHN. Maybe there were some benefits to Texas with LHN, however, there were more egos the size of the state of Texas than anything else concerning Texas A&M. This issue would not be of much concern to any schools outside of the state of Texas by having high schools games in Texas on LHN.

Which leads to the defections of Nebraska which had little to do with LHN. The U of Nebraska is wanting to live in the old Big 8 world of big two and little 6 while demanding bigger payouts in the larger expanded conferences. There was just not room enough for Nebraska’s large ego and U of Texas in the same room. Time will time if this issues follows Nebraska to the Big Ten. This year there were two Big Ten BCS bids and neither went to Nebraska.

Missouri and Colorado are both casualties of these ego fights and could have remained in the Big 12 and achieve close to the same revenue. Missouri may be able to make more revenue in the SEC, the school will have to compete in a much larger and tougher football league. Factor in that Missouri never really made a BCS bowl in the Big 12 what can the school expect to achieve in the SEC?

Colorado more than anything wanted stability and with all the concerns of defections of Big 12 schools based on the above and not wanting to be left out of a super Pac 16, made the decision to move to the Pac 12 to ensure a spot in the conference. Again this had nothing to do directly with the LHN by Colorado joining the Pac 12.

I am guessing you are either a Rutgers or UConn supporter. I can fill for you by having both schools left out of the latest musical chairs of conference movement.

I would bet either school would be more than happy to jump in bed with Texas for the very chance to be part of one of the more stable conferences.

By signing over tier 1 and tier 2 rights and additional to very large exit fees, do not look for a group of schools from the existing five top conference to split a form a super conference backed by NBC.

Your best hope is the BCS adopts a plus one format by taking only conference champion and Notre Dame goes looking for the protection of the ACC a brings UConn or Rutgers along for the ride.

Schmack mostly gets my Texas theory, but I'll go one better.

I'm imagining Clemson and Florida State making the jump, then Texas whispering to Oklahoma: "there, we shored up yer football, now we'll go to the B10." (Or, if you just saw Lash's comments on Nebraska, consider Texas in the ACC)

They've merely demonstrated that they're the big ego in that B12 room. They've also all but publicly flirted with the Pac-12 and Big 10. That's the real hazard of getting in bed with them. Of course, Big East schools face bigger hazards at the moment. I'm not so sure the same isn't true of the ACC, and maybe that conference would consider Texas and not harm LHN.

Maybe.

But there's no reason FOR Clemson or Florida State to make the jump.

Is the level of football better in the Big 12? Yes.

Does that matter? No. The dollars do. The ACC's deal is going to be about the same or more than the Big 12. And it should be. The football might be better, but the Big 12 has 38 million people in its footprint. The ACC has 86 million. And that's going to translate to a TV deal richer than they deserve from a football standpoint.

The Big 12 is geographically placed in the middle of the country, where they can be picked by every other BCS conference. The flirting between the Pac-12 and Texas and Oklahoma, the Longhorn Network... and the ability to replenish from the Big East should the SEC or Big Ten raid... anyone in the ACC would respond to a Big 12 invite with a "Uh, we're good, thanks."

_________________
1897-1898 | 1900-06 | 1926-27 | 1929-30 | 1939 | 1942