(04-05-2017 12:50 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 10:47 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-02-2017 01:17 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  1) See below:
A) It would give a clear cut path to the CFP, no more committees or computers. It would add value to the regular season & the extended conference championships. Why? More $$$. A champs only model was originally considered & would be easily done with a P4. $$$ has already been the overruling factor thus far.

B) 2 nobody schools? TCU just won the NIT & Baylor was a 3 seed in the tournament this year. Not to mention that their football teams has contended for CFP spots recently. While Baylor maybe in the middle of nowhere, TCU is in DFW area. The ACC is already going to a 20 game basketball schedule, so you may have to go to TCU instead of WF. Syracuse will still likely get Pitt & BC H&H. I'm not seeing the big deal here.

C) The divisions can be sit up differently, mine was just an example. Here's another: Texas/TCU/Baylor/UofL/Miami/WF, ND/Pitt/Syr/BC/VT/NCST, FSU/Clemson/NC/Duke/GT/Virginia.

D) The ACC would be better off financially with Texas in fully. If the ACC can get Texas without 2 tagalongs that would be ideal. Why have them though, for the same scheduling reasons you keep referring to for Syracuse. Without them Texas would always be traveling for away games. Their value would come from the ACCN & in their help in landing Texas. They also add 2 quality football teams as well.

E) Texas will need a conference for their Olympic sports. ESPN owns the LHN, good luck to them in convincing ESPN to let them go to FOX. I don't see Texas playing second fiddle to Alabama either. If the ACC were to land Texas, my preference would be with Houston & Cincinnati as the tagalongs.

2) Nice cherry picking of games there. Alabama/Tennessee, Auburn/Georgia & Florida/LSU could all be rivalry games. They would get Kansas once every six years.

If they could be convinced that Maryland & Rutgers football belonged in the B1G, I don't think UCONN would be that far off. We'll agree to disagree on Missouri & UCONN.

3) Actually in this scenario 7 teams would have left the B12 & all going to ESPN. You're right though that the PAC could stay at 12 but they wouldn't get the extra $ from an extended conference championship or the benefits of expanding their network footprint eastward. I could see how FOX & the PAC could go either way here. The only real expense here would be bumping Houston up & a slight bump for the other 15. (Using random numbers for an example: $25 million for Houston plus $30 million to give the other 15 a $2 million bump= $55 million. Compare that to paying a new version of the B12: 10 teams X $10 million each= $100 million minus the decrease for 3 schools 3X$13 million)= $39 million. So that's about $6 million more to revamp the B12. That's also without any gains they may get by having those 4 included in the PACN.)

4) See below:
A) Nebraska was still a member of the AAU when they joined. I don't make the B1G guidelines, I just predict that they will follow them. Name 1 university that the B1G has invited that isn't an AAU member.

B) Obviously it's just my opinion that the B1G is snobbier but it has merit when you compare the history of the 2 conferences. For the record, I didn't think that UofL had shot at the ACC either but here we are. Has anyone in the ACC ever made comparable comments to Gee's?

C) I expect the B1G to show class, dignity & respect for others. Did you read Gee comments about ND & the SEC? They set their own guidelines, I think they will follow them.

5) If it weren't for the $, which Clemson & FSU are focused on, I would be happier with Cincinnati & WV IF the ACC were to expand at all. I really don't want Louisville stuck in a western division with Texas schools.

1) See below.
A) All the controversy adds value in and of itself, but that point aside, the prospect of adding a second school adds more value than any increase in the regular season. I don't think that counting on either the SEC or the B1G to vote for a conf champ-only requirement is realistic. They haven't in the past.
B) The fact that winning the NIT is a highlight for TCU basketball speaks volumes. Also, neither school has ever had sustained success in football. Both have/had really great coaches which over-performed. But even then, Baylor was cheating like crazy and is about to get sanctioned into the Stone Age. Plus Baylor went from 1991-2 until 2010-11 without winning a bowl game, and TCU is ~4 years removed from the MWC. Keep that in mind. Also Dallas might as well be Los Angeles, which might as well be the Twin Cities for half the conference. It's the middle of nowhere. And I think you missed my point about the 20 game schedule.
C) Now you're breaking up the NC 4. There are a lot of ways to divide divisions, but there aren't any ways that I see which are cleaner than the current setup. That's because you're trying to add 2 schools that aren't interesting to any existing ACC schools.
D) You're ignoring the possibility of Texas as a partial. And Texas can definitely swing the travel pains. Schools have done it for decades. Except that Texas would A) have access to the best olympic sports conference in the country and B) the most favorable football schedule in the country. Additionally, TCU and Baylor are flavor of the week football programs that have never had sustained success, and Baylor might be finished - especially if they get sanctioned into the stone age.
E) I don't see Texas in the SEC, either. The same goes for B1G. They'd be trading being second fiddle to Alabama to being second fiddle to Ohio State/Michigan. But those limitations strengthen the ACC's hand. We can argue about the LHN and their relationship w/ ESPN, but if you're right, then that factor also strengthen's the ACC's hand. So, assuming that you don't think that Baylor + TCU + 4 Texas football games are worth ~$60 million (or more), then I think keeping Texas as indy is a better move for the conference. As I mentioned earlier, it also lets half the conference see (and recruit) Texas way more often.

2) See below.
A) It wasn't cherry picking. Those are the schools that call the shots. I guess I could have also included TAMU, Arky, and S. Carolina, but that only helps my points. Additionally, those games are protected under the *current* setup. Who knows what would happen w/ expansion. And lastly, you mentioned 3 games. I listed 9 (UT-Bama, UT-LSU, UT-Auburn, UF-Bama, UF-LSU, UF-Auburn, UGA-Bama, UGA-LSU, and UGA-Auburn), but I could have easily more than doubled that list by adding TAMU, USC (east), and Arkansas.

B) You're seeing UMD and RU when I think that you should be seeing Penn State.

3) I don't follow your math, but I will categorically say that the Pac isn't going to add any schools that dilute their TV deal, and TV networks won't willingly pay more incremental money for schools that aren't worth it. Therefore, teams that aren't worth at least the Pac average won't be added. The teams that you listed aren't worth the Pac average, and I think that they're too far away to capture the interest of Pac fans. It is cheaper to trigger the renegotiation clause in the existing Big XII contract and negotiate FMV than it is to pay Pac rates.

You make a solid point about the possibility of semi-final games having value, but I doubt those games would be worth more than a couple million. I'm also not completely sold that some of the upper level MWC schools wouldn't be a better long term add for the Pac, but that's a whole different can of worms.

4) See below.
A) Notre Dame in '99. The AAU thing is correlation. There aren't really any midwestern universities that have formidable athletic departments that aren't AAU. In fact, the vast majority of B1G schools were in the B1G before the AAU was formed.

B) I'll respect your opinion, and I can't prove otherwise. We might just have to agree to disagree on this point.

C) Good luck getting that from the B1G. Ask any old Notre Dame fan as to their opinion on Michigan. And, honestly, look through a number of Gee's comments while he was president of OSU.

5) That's exactly why I think that adding them would be a bad idea. Money ultimately comes from fan interest. I just don't see ACC fans caring about TCU and Baylor. You don't. I don't. Who does?

The B1G & PAC originally supported a champs only model.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/syndication...a.amp.html

The next stance Delany will likely take is asking that only conference champions be eligible for the four-team playoff. This is a direct move against the SEC and Mike Slive, who was been in position to have two teams in a four-team playoff numerous times in the past few seasons.

Slive is understandably on the opposite side of the debate, coming out publicly in favor of taking the top four ranked teams, regardless of conference affiliation. If three SEC, Big 12 or even Big Ten teams are ranked in the top four, then those teams make the playoff.

However, in the current era of six straight BCS championships by the SEC, the top four teams will likely include no more than one team from any conference other than the SEC.

With the sting of an all-SEC championship game fresh in the minds of Delany and others, there is no way the Big Ten university presidents send Delany to the June meetings with instructions to back down on this decision.

And given that college football cannot do something so simple as pick the top four teams for a playoff (that would make too much sense), Delany will likely continue to propose only conference champions make the playoff. He will certainly have the support of the less successful and smaller conferences that struggle every year to rank a champion in front of the second-best SEC team.

With the five old non-automatic-qualifying conferences, the Pac-12 and the Big East on the side of Delany, he will have a lot of pull against Slive and whoever else wants the top four teams in the playoff.


What this will set up is a chance for compromise, and the answer has already been floated publicly by Delany to gain public approval. That idea is to only allow conference champions into the four-team playoff, but only if those conference champions rank in the top six overall.

Would you support a champs only model if you were the B1G commish after this year?

I think a lot has changed in the Midwest since the original setup was negotiated.