(01-02-2018 07:34 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (01-02-2018 06:20 PM)Win5002 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-02-2018 06:07 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (01-02-2018 05:24 PM)Win5002 Wrote: [ -> ]I think 4 equal leagues and preferably even negotiating as 1 is the best answer but even if it was network driven JR on another board was real close to what I think could be the best answer. To get 4 leagues equal leagues brand, and competitive wise its really a question of do we divide the PAC or the ACC because the Big 12 really doesn't work very well but you can build a very good conference around Texas & OU.
JR's leagues were:
Big 10:
California, Oregon, Stanford, Washington *****My only edit is Cal or Stanford goes to the Big 12 and USC or UCLA comes to the B1G. Rivals play OOC.
Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue
Illinois, Northwestern, Ohio State, Penn State
Big 12
Arizona, Arizona State, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal
Brigham Young, T.C.U., Texas Tech, Utah
Iowa State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Nebraska
Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, Texas
ACC
Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse
Boston College, Maryland, Virginia, Virginia Tech
Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Wake Forest
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville
SEC
Arkansas, L.S.U., Missouri, Texas A&M
Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State
Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, West Virginia
Florida, Georgia, Miami, South Carolina
1.) The biggest correction I would suggest is the B1G gets one Southern California team and the Big 12 gets one. You can Stanford & CAL in any direction after that. This gives each league access to Southern Cal and Northern Cal tv markets and recruiting. The California teams can play their rivals OOC as the SEC & ACC do but if you don't think USC & UCLA can be split, I think actually the B1G would end up with USC/UCLA and the Big 12 with CAL/Stanford. You already helped the Big 12 a lot with Neb. coming back(and I think it helps Neb). The B1G needs the relationship with Southern California more for recruiting to keep them strong and for them to gain something. I mention a few minor consolation prizes below with the Big 12 if they don't get one Southern California team.
2.) A next biggest suggestion is would help the B1G to keep the PSU brand strong. I would almost let them have 18 teams and keep Maryland & Rutgers they need those recruiting grounds. Let the ACC fill in with UCONN & Cincy. One out of the box trade might be PSU for ND then the other schools in the B1G are not as important except I would say the B1G should get USC & Stanford for the ND rivalry and let UCLA/Cal go to the Big 12. PSU may not be the brand ND was or is considered to be but they could actually help the ACC be a better football conference(just an interesting thought).
3.) A minor change might be does the SEC want a Dallas Fort Worth team in TCU for more exposure in Dallas if they did either Missouri or Arkansas could head to the Big 12 in their place because I think revenues would be getting close among the leagues. The SEC would have to think its beneficial but if they liked the TCU option, the B1G could take Missouri and the Big 12 could take Colorado with the new realignment. I think Colorado is a better fit for the Big 12 and Missouri for the B1G if they didn't go to the Big 12. But these are minor changes.
Your minor changes are all reasonable options. But the question is does that division not achieve balance better than dividing up the Big 12?
And as for Rutgers and Maryland the ACC has to get something. Solidifying their hold up the Atlantic Coast North is that payoff for losing Miami. The question is whether Oregon, Washington, 2 Cali schools are worth Maryland and Rutgers? Obviously they are worth far more. Is Colorado worth Nebraska? It's probably a pretty even trade athletically and win academically.
Maybe you saw it later, it was your dialogue with Redhawk and I posted your divisions.
The only real change I think that really needs to be done then is split the two Southern Cal teams. I'm not sure 2 northern Cal teams helps the league as much since PSU could suffer going forward. I really think the B1G needs access to recruiting grounds in Southern Cal would help that.
Just curious what you thought of the ND for PSU exchange between the ACC & B1G assuming the B1G took USC & Stanford? I'm not sold either way but thought it was interesting. Brand wise the ACC might suffer a little but it would help their football balance in the north IMO especially since Maryland, Rutgers went to the ACC and they have the states of Virginia and North Carolina for recruiting already. ND would have a league with 4 rivals Mich/MSU/USC/Stanford.
I think Penn State for Notre Dame would work, but I'm not sold that N.D. would do it. USC / Stanford would tempt them however.
ND football is not going to join the Big Ten, a fantasy addition of Southern Cal and Stanford to the latter notwithstanding.
Why do people keep dredging up "ND to the Big Ten" scenarios?
ND football is not likely to join the ACC , let alone the Big Ten.
(01-14-2018 06:07 PM)TerryD Wrote: [ -> ] (01-02-2018 07:34 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (01-02-2018 06:20 PM)Win5002 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-02-2018 06:07 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (01-02-2018 05:24 PM)Win5002 Wrote: [ -> ]I think 4 equal leagues and preferably even negotiating as 1 is the best answer but even if it was network driven JR on another board was real close to what I think could be the best answer. To get 4 leagues equal leagues brand, and competitive wise its really a question of do we divide the PAC or the ACC because the Big 12 really doesn't work very well but you can build a very good conference around Texas & OU.
JR's leagues were:
Big 10:
California, Oregon, Stanford, Washington *****My only edit is Cal or Stanford goes to the Big 12 and USC or UCLA comes to the B1G. Rivals play OOC.
Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue
Illinois, Northwestern, Ohio State, Penn State
Big 12
Arizona, Arizona State, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal
Brigham Young, T.C.U., Texas Tech, Utah
Iowa State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Nebraska
Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, Texas
ACC
Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse
Boston College, Maryland, Virginia, Virginia Tech
Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Wake Forest
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville
SEC
Arkansas, L.S.U., Missouri, Texas A&M
Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State
Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, West Virginia
Florida, Georgia, Miami, South Carolina
1.) The biggest correction I would suggest is the B1G gets one Southern California team and the Big 12 gets one. You can Stanford & CAL in any direction after that. This gives each league access to Southern Cal and Northern Cal tv markets and recruiting. The California teams can play their rivals OOC as the SEC & ACC do but if you don't think USC & UCLA can be split, I think actually the B1G would end up with USC/UCLA and the Big 12 with CAL/Stanford. You already helped the Big 12 a lot with Neb. coming back(and I think it helps Neb). The B1G needs the relationship with Southern California more for recruiting to keep them strong and for them to gain something. I mention a few minor consolation prizes below with the Big 12 if they don't get one Southern California team.
2.) A next biggest suggestion is would help the B1G to keep the PSU brand strong. I would almost let them have 18 teams and keep Maryland & Rutgers they need those recruiting grounds. Let the ACC fill in with UCONN & Cincy. One out of the box trade might be PSU for ND then the other schools in the B1G are not as important except I would say the B1G should get USC & Stanford for the ND rivalry and let UCLA/Cal go to the Big 12. PSU may not be the brand ND was or is considered to be but they could actually help the ACC be a better football conference(just an interesting thought).
3.) A minor change might be does the SEC want a Dallas Fort Worth team in TCU for more exposure in Dallas if they did either Missouri or Arkansas could head to the Big 12 in their place because I think revenues would be getting close among the leagues. The SEC would have to think its beneficial but if they liked the TCU option, the B1G could take Missouri and the Big 12 could take Colorado with the new realignment. I think Colorado is a better fit for the Big 12 and Missouri for the B1G if they didn't go to the Big 12. But these are minor changes.
Your minor changes are all reasonable options. But the question is does that division not achieve balance better than dividing up the Big 12?
And as for Rutgers and Maryland the ACC has to get something. Solidifying their hold up the Atlantic Coast North is that payoff for losing Miami. The question is whether Oregon, Washington, 2 Cali schools are worth Maryland and Rutgers? Obviously they are worth far more. Is Colorado worth Nebraska? It's probably a pretty even trade athletically and win academically.
Maybe you saw it later, it was your dialogue with Redhawk and I posted your divisions.
The only real change I think that really needs to be done then is split the two Southern Cal teams. I'm not sure 2 northern Cal teams helps the league as much since PSU could suffer going forward. I really think the B1G needs access to recruiting grounds in Southern Cal would help that.
Just curious what you thought of the ND for PSU exchange between the ACC & B1G assuming the B1G took USC & Stanford? I'm not sold either way but thought it was interesting. Brand wise the ACC might suffer a little but it would help their football balance in the north IMO especially since Maryland, Rutgers went to the ACC and they have the states of Virginia and North Carolina for recruiting already. ND would have a league with 4 rivals Mich/MSU/USC/Stanford.
I think Penn State for Notre Dame would work, but I'm not sold that N.D. would do it. USC / Stanford would tempt them however.
ND football is not going to join the Big Ten, a fantasy addition of Southern Cal and Stanford to the latter notwithstanding.
Why do people keep dredging up "ND to the Big Ten" scenarios?
ND football is not likely to join the ACC , let alone the Big Ten.
Because it's a Pavlovian exercise to summon you. Works every time!
And just because something has never happened before, doesn't mean eventually that it won't, especially if we move to a P4 champs only format which got a swift kick in the pants with this year's CFP.
(01-14-2018 06:07 PM)TerryD Wrote: [ -> ] (01-02-2018 07:34 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (01-02-2018 06:20 PM)Win5002 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-02-2018 06:07 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (01-02-2018 05:24 PM)Win5002 Wrote: [ -> ]I think 4 equal leagues and preferably even negotiating as 1 is the best answer but even if it was network driven JR on another board was real close to what I think could be the best answer. To get 4 leagues equal leagues brand, and competitive wise its really a question of do we divide the PAC or the ACC because the Big 12 really doesn't work very well but you can build a very good conference around Texas & OU.
JR's leagues were:
Big 10:
California, Oregon, Stanford, Washington *****My only edit is Cal or Stanford goes to the Big 12 and USC or UCLA comes to the B1G. Rivals play OOC.
Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue
Illinois, Northwestern, Ohio State, Penn State
Big 12
Arizona, Arizona State, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal
Brigham Young, T.C.U., Texas Tech, Utah
Iowa State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Nebraska
Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, Texas
ACC
Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse
Boston College, Maryland, Virginia, Virginia Tech
Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Wake Forest
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville
SEC
Arkansas, L.S.U., Missouri, Texas A&M
Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State
Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, West Virginia
Florida, Georgia, Miami, South Carolina
1.) The biggest correction I would suggest is the B1G gets one Southern California team and the Big 12 gets one. You can Stanford & CAL in any direction after that. This gives each league access to Southern Cal and Northern Cal tv markets and recruiting. The California teams can play their rivals OOC as the SEC & ACC do but if you don't think USC & UCLA can be split, I think actually the B1G would end up with USC/UCLA and the Big 12 with CAL/Stanford. You already helped the Big 12 a lot with Neb. coming back(and I think it helps Neb). The B1G needs the relationship with Southern California more for recruiting to keep them strong and for them to gain something. I mention a few minor consolation prizes below with the Big 12 if they don't get one Southern California team.
2.) A next biggest suggestion is would help the B1G to keep the PSU brand strong. I would almost let them have 18 teams and keep Maryland & Rutgers they need those recruiting grounds. Let the ACC fill in with UCONN & Cincy. One out of the box trade might be PSU for ND then the other schools in the B1G are not as important except I would say the B1G should get USC & Stanford for the ND rivalry and let UCLA/Cal go to the Big 12. PSU may not be the brand ND was or is considered to be but they could actually help the ACC be a better football conference(just an interesting thought).
3.) A minor change might be does the SEC want a Dallas Fort Worth team in TCU for more exposure in Dallas if they did either Missouri or Arkansas could head to the Big 12 in their place because I think revenues would be getting close among the leagues. The SEC would have to think its beneficial but if they liked the TCU option, the B1G could take Missouri and the Big 12 could take Colorado with the new realignment. I think Colorado is a better fit for the Big 12 and Missouri for the B1G if they didn't go to the Big 12. But these are minor changes.
Your minor changes are all reasonable options. But the question is does that division not achieve balance better than dividing up the Big 12?
And as for Rutgers and Maryland the ACC has to get something. Solidifying their hold up the Atlantic Coast North is that payoff for losing Miami. The question is whether Oregon, Washington, 2 Cali schools are worth Maryland and Rutgers? Obviously they are worth far more. Is Colorado worth Nebraska? It's probably a pretty even trade athletically and win academically.
Maybe you saw it later, it was your dialogue with Redhawk and I posted your divisions.
The only real change I think that really needs to be done then is split the two Southern Cal teams. I'm not sure 2 northern Cal teams helps the league as much since PSU could suffer going forward. I really think the B1G needs access to recruiting grounds in Southern Cal would help that.
Just curious what you thought of the ND for PSU exchange between the ACC & B1G assuming the B1G took USC & Stanford? I'm not sold either way but thought it was interesting. Brand wise the ACC might suffer a little but it would help their football balance in the north IMO especially since Maryland, Rutgers went to the ACC and they have the states of Virginia and North Carolina for recruiting already. ND would have a league with 4 rivals Mich/MSU/USC/Stanford.
I think Penn State for Notre Dame would work, but I'm not sold that N.D. would do it. USC / Stanford would tempt them however.
ND football is not going to join the Big Ten, a fantasy addition of Southern Cal and Stanford to the latter notwithstanding.
Why do people keep dredging up "ND to the Big Ten" scenarios?
ND football is not likely to join the ACC , let alone the Big Ten.
Notre Dame will stay semi-independent as long as they can, which will probably be a few more years.
(01-14-2018 06:17 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (01-14-2018 06:07 PM)TerryD Wrote: [ -> ] (01-02-2018 07:34 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (01-02-2018 06:20 PM)Win5002 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-02-2018 06:07 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]Your minor changes are all reasonable options. But the question is does that division not achieve balance better than dividing up the Big 12?
And as for Rutgers and Maryland the ACC has to get something. Solidifying their hold up the Atlantic Coast North is that payoff for losing Miami. The question is whether Oregon, Washington, 2 Cali schools are worth Maryland and Rutgers? Obviously they are worth far more. Is Colorado worth Nebraska? It's probably a pretty even trade athletically and win academically.
Maybe you saw it later, it was your dialogue with Redhawk and I posted your divisions.
The only real change I think that really needs to be done then is split the two Southern Cal teams. I'm not sure 2 northern Cal teams helps the league as much since PSU could suffer going forward. I really think the B1G needs access to recruiting grounds in Southern Cal would help that.
Just curious what you thought of the ND for PSU exchange between the ACC & B1G assuming the B1G took USC & Stanford? I'm not sold either way but thought it was interesting. Brand wise the ACC might suffer a little but it would help their football balance in the north IMO especially since Maryland, Rutgers went to the ACC and they have the states of Virginia and North Carolina for recruiting already. ND would have a league with 4 rivals Mich/MSU/USC/Stanford.
I think Penn State for Notre Dame would work, but I'm not sold that N.D. would do it. USC / Stanford would tempt them however.
ND football is not going to join the Big Ten, a fantasy addition of Southern Cal and Stanford to the latter notwithstanding.
Why do people keep dredging up "ND to the Big Ten" scenarios?
ND football is not likely to join the ACC , let alone the Big Ten.
Because it's a Pavlovian exercise to summon you. Works every time! And just because something has never happened before, doesn't mean eventually that it won't, especially if we move to a P4 champs only format which got a swift kick in the pants with this year's CFP.
That is not likely to happen.
(01-14-2018 09:33 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]Notre Dame will stay semi-independent as long as they can, which will probably be a few more years.
I would prefer more independents. I'd have Notre Dame, BYU, Army, Navy, Air Force (they would reject the idea), Miami, Penn St, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse, Boston College, Cincinnati, Louisville, Memphis, East Carolina, Southern Miss, UAB, and maybe a couple others.
(01-14-2018 09:33 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]Notre Dame will stay semi-independent as long as they can, which will probably be a few more years.
As they should.
ND is a national brand because they chose to play a national schedule as an independent as opposed to a regional one in the Big Ten.
Notre Dame upgraded their conference affiliation when they moved to the ACC. They still keep their Eastern basketball ties and historic football rivalries but now add better slate of 5 conference games.
I could see more independents added in the future vs less as larger conferences will run into scheduling issues. Soon.
(01-15-2018 04:49 PM)murrdcu Wrote: [ -> ] (01-14-2018 09:33 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]Notre Dame will stay semi-independent as long as they can, which will probably be a few more years.
As they should.
ND is a national brand because they chose to play a national schedule as an independent as opposed to a regional one in the Big Ten.
Notre Dame upgraded their conference affiliation when they moved to the ACC. They still keep their Eastern basketball ties and historic football rivalries but now add better slate of 5 conference games.
I could see more independents added in the future vs less as larger conferences will run into scheduling issues. Soon.
Doubtful. Too hard to schedule especially late in the season.
(01-15-2018 08:10 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (01-15-2018 04:49 PM)murrdcu Wrote: [ -> ] (01-14-2018 09:33 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]Notre Dame will stay semi-independent as long as they can, which will probably be a few more years.
As they should.
ND is a national brand because they chose to play a national schedule as an independent as opposed to a regional one in the Big Ten.
Notre Dame upgraded their conference affiliation when they moved to the ACC. They still keep their Eastern basketball ties and historic football rivalries but now add better slate of 5 conference games.
I could see more independents added in the future vs less as larger conferences will run into scheduling issues. Soon.
Doubtful. Too hard to schedule especially late in the season.
Agreed if there’s only a couple but if several go independent then it’d be much easier.
All of those schools left independence for a reason though...
Better able to promote themselves in a major conference.
(01-15-2018 08:24 PM)BePcr07 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-15-2018 08:10 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (01-15-2018 04:49 PM)murrdcu Wrote: [ -> ] (01-14-2018 09:33 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]Notre Dame will stay semi-independent as long as they can, which will probably be a few more years.
As they should.
ND is a national brand because they chose to play a national schedule as an independent as opposed to a regional one in the Big Ten.
Notre Dame upgraded their conference affiliation when they moved to the ACC. They still keep their Eastern basketball ties and historic football rivalries but now add better slate of 5 conference games.
I could see more independents added in the future vs less as larger conferences will run into scheduling issues. Soon.
Doubtful. Too hard to schedule especially late in the season.
Agreed if there’s only a couple but if several go independent then it’d be much easier.
Notre Dame is an anomaly and it's not easy for them. Notre Dame's TV revenue take is roughly 22 million for their independence. That's 7 million less than the PAC and 5 million less than the ACC. Now ND gets a bit from the ACC as well, but even with that it doesn't even put them at Big 12 levels of pay. My point is that the draw of a top conference trumps the draw of any of its single members including Alabama, Ohio State, USC, Texas, and North Carolina. The days of independence is not rewarded as well as the days of conferences. Conferences of multiple brands will be the big pay day of the future. Not conferences built around two brands and that is why Texas and OU can't rebuild the Big 12 without top brands, and why top brands aren't sold on going to the Big 12.
(01-15-2018 09:14 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (01-15-2018 08:24 PM)BePcr07 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-15-2018 08:10 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (01-15-2018 04:49 PM)murrdcu Wrote: [ -> ] (01-14-2018 09:33 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]Notre Dame will stay semi-independent as long as they can, which will probably be a few more years.
As they should.
ND is a national brand because they chose to play a national schedule as an independent as opposed to a regional one in the Big Ten.
Notre Dame upgraded their conference affiliation when they moved to the ACC. They still keep their Eastern basketball ties and historic football rivalries but now add better slate of 5 conference games.
I could see more independents added in the future vs less as larger conferences will run into scheduling issues. Soon.
Doubtful. Too hard to schedule especially late in the season.
Agreed if there’s only a couple but if several go independent then it’d be much easier.
Notre Dame is an anomaly and it's not easy for them. Notre Dame's TV revenue take is roughly 22 million for their independence. That's 7 million less than the PAC and 5 million less than the ACC. Now ND gets a bit from the ACC as well, but even with that it doesn't even put them at Big 12 levels of pay. My point is that the draw of a top conference trumps the draw of any of its single members including Alabama, Ohio State, USC, Texas, and North Carolina. The days of independence is not rewarded as well as the days of conferences. Conferences of multiple brands will be the big pay day of the future. Not conferences built around two brands and that is why Texas and OU can't rebuild the Big 12 without top brands, and why top brands aren't sold on going to the Big 12.
Maybe my point was missed. The initial point brought up was that scheduling would be difficult but I disagree. With more independents, they would just schedule each other. More independents = more scheduling opportunities. I’m not saying they could schedule like Notre Dame or make independent money like them either, but rather that scheduling wouldn’t be as difficult with more independents.
(01-16-2018 12:15 AM)BePcr07 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-15-2018 09:14 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (01-15-2018 08:24 PM)BePcr07 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-15-2018 08:10 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (01-15-2018 04:49 PM)murrdcu Wrote: [ -> ]As they should.
ND is a national brand because they chose to play a national schedule as an independent as opposed to a regional one in the Big Ten.
Notre Dame upgraded their conference affiliation when they moved to the ACC. They still keep their Eastern basketball ties and historic football rivalries but now add better slate of 5 conference games.
I could see more independents added in the future vs less as larger conferences will run into scheduling issues. Soon.
Doubtful. Too hard to schedule especially late in the season.
Agreed if there’s only a couple but if several go independent then it’d be much easier.
Notre Dame is an anomaly and it's not easy for them. Notre Dame's TV revenue take is roughly 22 million for their independence. That's 7 million less than the PAC and 5 million less than the ACC. Now ND gets a bit from the ACC as well, but even with that it doesn't even put them at Big 12 levels of pay. My point is that the draw of a top conference trumps the draw of any of its single members including Alabama, Ohio State, USC, Texas, and North Carolina. The days of independence is not rewarded as well as the days of conferences. Conferences of multiple brands will be the big pay day of the future. Not conferences built around two brands and that is why Texas and OU can't rebuild the Big 12 without top brands, and why top brands aren't sold on going to the Big 12.
Maybe my point was missed. The initial point brought up was that scheduling would be difficult but I disagree. With more independents, they would just schedule each other. More independents = more scheduling opportunities. I’m not saying they could schedule like Notre Dame or make independent money like them either, but rather that scheduling wouldn’t be as difficult with more independents.
I didn't miss your point. But you sure missed mine. There aren't going to be more independents because they can't make enough money that way. So that kind of leaves N.D. with that late season scheduling issue, huh?
(01-16-2018 12:15 AM)BePcr07 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-15-2018 09:14 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (01-15-2018 08:24 PM)BePcr07 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-15-2018 08:10 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (01-15-2018 04:49 PM)murrdcu Wrote: [ -> ]As they should.
ND is a national brand because they chose to play a national schedule as an independent as opposed to a regional one in the Big Ten.
Notre Dame upgraded their conference affiliation when they moved to the ACC. They still keep their Eastern basketball ties and historic football rivalries but now add better slate of 5 conference games.
I could see more independents added in the future vs less as larger conferences will run into scheduling issues. Soon.
Doubtful. Too hard to schedule especially late in the season.
Agreed if there’s only a couple but if several go independent then it’d be much easier.
Notre Dame is an anomaly and it's not easy for them. Notre Dame's TV revenue take is roughly 22 million for their independence. That's 7 million less than the PAC and 5 million less than the ACC. Now ND gets a bit from the ACC as well, but even with that it doesn't even put them at Big 12 levels of pay. My point is that the draw of a top conference trumps the draw of any of its single members including Alabama, Ohio State, USC, Texas, and North Carolina. The days of independence is not rewarded as well as the days of conferences. Conferences of multiple brands will be the big pay day of the future. Not conferences built around two brands and that is why Texas and OU can't rebuild the Big 12 without top brands, and why top brands aren't sold on going to the Big 12.
Maybe my point was missed. The initial point brought up was that scheduling would be difficult but I disagree. With more independents, they would just schedule each other. More independents = more scheduling opportunities. I’m not saying they could schedule like Notre Dame or make independent money like them either, but rather that scheduling wouldn’t be as difficult with more independents.
ND also gets $6.4 million from the ACC for its other sports and will get a full share of the ACC Network profits, if any.
So, that is $28.4 million or so a year from TV. ND thinks that is "good enough" as it allows football to continue to remain independent, which is its primary CR goal.
(01-14-2018 06:07 PM)TerryD Wrote: [ -> ]ND football is not going to join the Big Ten, a fantasy addition of Southern Cal and Stanford to the latter notwithstanding.
Why do people keep dredging up "ND to the Big Ten" scenarios?
ND football is not likely to join the ACC , let alone the Big Ten.
Same reason people try to put South Carolina going back to the ACC. It's a realignment board and when real news is lacking people need something to talk about.