yeah that how it works, all home games are in TV package
Networks are paying more for conf games because AQ schools
put together weak OOC

(04-11-2012 10:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-11-2012 10:07 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  In the long term I'd think the Big East has to expand enough west so that it makes sense for all west teams to become all-sports members. Also, if Air Force does become a member I wounldn't be surprised if Navy wanted to be in that 'western division' with both Air Force and San Diego State (and the Pacific Naval Base there). Fresno State, Colorado State, and an outside chance at BYU are also additional viable options in the west IMO.

In the long run, if we add enough teams out west, they will break off and form their own conference. The travel geography is inherently unstable. That is why these western schools clamor for more west teams to begin with.

Only if TV money makes it worth the sever. That's the reason West Virginia is in the Big 12 with Kansas. Why Nebraska is in the Big 10. And Big East east / west divisions, if and when there are enough on the west side, help with travel.

(04-11-2012 10:22 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(04-11-2012 10:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-11-2012 10:07 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  In the long term I'd think the Big East has to expand enough west so that it makes sense for all west teams to become all-sports members. Also, if Air Force does become a member I wounldn't be surprised if Navy wanted to be in that 'western division' with both Air Force and San Diego State (and the Pacific Naval Base there). Fresno State, Colorado State, and an outside chance at BYU are also additional viable options in the west IMO.

In the long run, if we add enough teams out west, they will break off and form their own conference. The travel geography is inherently unstable. That is why these western schools clamor for more west teams to begin with.

Only if TV money makes it worth the sever. That's the reason West Virginia is in the Big 12 with Kansas. Why Nebraska is in the Big 10. And Big East east / west divisions, if and when there are enough on the west side, help with travel.

In the long run, i can't see a conference with USF, Boise, SDSU, and Uconn staying together. Those distances are much greater than Nebraska in the B1G or WV in the Big12. Not just geographic distance but cultural too.

I prefer 8 conference games because nobody gets the advantage of an extra home game. [/b]

(04-11-2012 10:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  In the long run, i can't see a conference with USF, Boise, SDSU, and Uconn staying together. Those distances are much greater than Nebraska in the B1G or WV in the Big12. Not just geographic distance but cultural too.

Since Boise and SDSU are keeping their olympic sports in the West, I don't think culture and distance are significant factors at all (especially culture). Besides, with the prominance of television in all of this, most fanbases are quite familiar with the Broncos program.
The pros have been spreading out their divisions for years without cultural issues (i.e. the Dallas Cowboys vs the NY Giants in the NFC East).

(04-11-2012 10:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  In the long run, if we add enough teams out west, they will break off and form their own conference. The travel geography is inherently unstable. That is why these western schools clamor for more west teams to begin with.

If they wanted to have a western conference, though, they would have just stayed in the MWC. The issue for them is that the western schools by themselves have shown that they can't get a good TV deal. So, the best alternative is to have a league cherry pick the strongest schools outside of the 5 power conferences from coast-to-coast. Sure, it's better to have logical geography like the Big Ten/SEC/Pac-12/ACC. The Big East (and MWC and C-USA and everyone else) would absolutely rather have that setup, but that's not really a choice for anyone outside of the 5 power conferences now (and even then, it wasn't even a choice for the Big 12). So, you can either decide to fold it altogether or try to make the best of what's available to you.

(04-11-2012 11:11 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  If they wanted to have a western conference, though, they would have just stayed in the MWC. The issue for them is that the western schools by themselves have shown that they can't get a good TV deal. So, the best alternative is to have a league cherry pick the strongest schools outside of the 5 power conferences from coast-to-coast. Sure, it's better to have logical geography like the Big Ten/SEC/Pac-12/ACC. The Big East (and MWC and C-USA and everyone else) would absolutely rather have that setup, but that's not really a choice for anyone outside of the 5 power conferences now (and even then, it wasn't even a choice for the Big 12). So, you can either decide to fold it altogether or try to make the best of what's available to you.

And don't shortsell the growing significance of television/multimedia. Growing the footprint was a big step but they're not off the mark when it comes to providing content in multiple timezones.

This is a different environment than it was just a short while ago. The Big East is keeping up with the joneses through forward thinking.

(04-11-2012 10:55 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(04-11-2012 10:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  In the long run, i can't see a conference with USF, Boise, SDSU, and Uconn staying together. Those distances are much greater than Nebraska in the B1G or WV in the Big12. Not just geographic distance but cultural too.

Since Boise and SDSU are keeping their olympic sports in the West, I don't think culture and distance are significant factors at all (especially culture). Besides, with the prominance of television in all of this, most fanbases are quite familiar with the Broncos program.
The pros have been spreading out their divisions for years without cultural issues (i.e. the Dallas Cowboys vs the NY Giants in the NFC East).

If anything, i think the cultural issues trump the geographic ones. Geography can be solved by throwing enough money at at it (though i have doubts about whether the new TV deal will give us enough money to throw at it).

But cultural issues are harder to overcome. The top conferences are culturally cohesive, and cultural cohesiveness leads to kind of fan interest that money can't buy. I seriously doubt USF fans will ever care much about playing San Diego State, or that Rutgers fans will ever care much about playing Houston. And vice-versa.

(04-11-2012 11:11 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-11-2012 10:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  In the long run, if we add enough teams out west, they will break off and form their own conference. The travel geography is inherently unstable. That is why these western schools clamor for more west teams to begin with.

If they wanted to have a western conference, though, they would have just stayed in the MWC. The issue for them is that the western schools by themselves have shown that they can't get a good TV deal. So, the best alternative is to have a league cherry pick the strongest schools outside of the 5 power conferences from coast-to-coast. Sure, it's better to have logical geography like the Big Ten/SEC/Pac-12/ACC. The Big East (and MWC and C-USA and everyone else) would absolutely rather have that setup, but that's not really a choice for anyone outside of the 5 power conferences now (and even then, it wasn't even a choice for the Big 12). So, you can either decide to fold it altogether or try to make the best of what's available to you.

I am all in favor of making the best of what's available to you, i just doubt that a polyglot conference is the best of what's available. You can't force UCF fans to care about games against Boise or SDSU (or vice versa) by making announcements in the stadium about how much more money those games are bringing in on the TV contract ...

(04-11-2012 10:37 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  I prefer 8 conference games because nobody gets the advantage of an extra home game. [/b]

I agree I prefer 8 also. With 2 divisions its not like someone can say you ducked them to win the Conference. I remember when the Pac10 played 8 games there was always a big controversy over teams avoiding each other. I think Oregon State and USC had to share a tittle one year because they never played each other.

(04-11-2012 02:52 PM)Boisestate78 Wrote:  

(04-11-2012 10:37 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  I prefer 8 conference games because nobody gets the advantage of an extra home game. [/b]

I agree I prefer 8 also. With 2 divisions its not like someone can say you ducked them to win the Conference. I remember when the Pac10 played 8 games there was always a big controversy over teams avoiding each other. I think Oregon State and USC had to share a tittle one year because they never played each other.

The B1G is probably the worst example, with many cases of shared titles because all the teams didn't play each other.

There are two ways to produce a legit conference champ: (a) Either everyone plays everyone and the champ is whoever has the best record, and a h2h tiebreaker if two have the same record, or (b) you have two divisions whose champions meet for the title, and within those divisions everyone plays everyone.

(04-11-2012 10:37 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  I prefer 8 conference games because nobody gets the advantage of an extra home game.

I don't like that either, but IMO the advantages of playing nine conference games outweighs that disadvantage.

with conf spread out, there is plenty regional teams to fill OOC
Quiate frankly they could be intresting matchups to sell to TV

I agree - 8 is best for us. There are plenty of "Local" (Texas teams: UT, A&M, TCU, Baylor, Tech, NTU, UTSA, UTEP) that have a good travel fan base along with alumni living in Dallas to help fill our stadium for OOC. They will probably bring more fans than the NBE teams. Same is true for Houston. So let's keep four OOC games available.

(04-11-2012 04:02 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  with conf spread out, there is plenty regional teams to fill OOC
Quiate frankly they could be intresting matchups to sell to TV

Normally I would agree, but most of the BCS boys are moving to 9 conf games which leaves less match ups available, and even that was made worse by the new Pac/Big scheduling agreement.

How would the 8 and 9 game scheduling formats work for 14 teams? That's my biggest concern. I'd be ok with whatever is smoothest on that front. I'm not mathemetician, but am I right in assuming that a 14 team schedule would require a protected rival? I would think so since 7 teams in each division is an odd number.

If that's the case, than we're deciding between a 6-1-1 or a 6-1-2 format. This would mean that under an eight game scenario, it would take six years to play every team in the conference and a whopping 12 years to host each team. A nine game schedule would cut those numbers in half. I think it's much better playing every team over a three year span. It'll help with conference unity, recruiting purposes, and maybe financial reasons as schools will get to host big-name conference opponets more often (I'm making the assumption that it will be tough to schedule a 4th solid OOC team). Looking at it from this perspective is what leads me to prefer nine games. Is there any other potential formats out there that may make an eight game schedule look more attractive?

(04-11-2012 09:24 PM)Bleedin Blue Wrote:  This would mean that under an eight game scenario, it would take six years to play every team in the conference and a whopping 12 years to host each team.

That's exactly why this whole idea of megaconferences makes me sick to my stomach

(04-11-2012 09:28 PM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  

(04-11-2012 09:24 PM)Bleedin Blue Wrote:  This would mean that under an eight game scenario, it would take six years to play every team in the conference and a whopping 12 years to host each team.

That's exactly why this whole idea of megaconferences makes me sick to my stomach

But with 16 teams, a four division allignment makes it much better. You could play each team every other year with a nine-game conference schedule. 14 is just a real difficult number. The mega conference idea isn't necesarily bad as long as you are willing to part from the traditional 2 division format.

(04-11-2012 05:56 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(04-11-2012 04:02 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  with conf spread out, there is plenty regional teams to fill OOC
Quiate frankly they could be intresting matchups to sell to TV

Normally I would agree, but most of the BCS boys are moving to 9 conf games which leaves less match ups available, and even that was made worse by the new Pac/Big scheduling agreement.

Yep.

Much easier to guarantee TV Networks that some of the extra CONF games will be meaningful much more so on a potential non-conf match-up.

With most SEC teams relectant to add more non-conf BCS games to their schedule...with Big 12 going to 9 conf games...Pac-12 at nine conf games PLUS their deal with the Big Ten for another game...it will be harder and harder for most teams to find 4 or 5 non-conf match-ups that might be interesting for a nationwide audience.