(07-13-2012 07:50 PM)TerryD Wrote:  I will stick with my comments, thanks.

And, Delany is 0-2 this summer.

I don't hate the Big 10. I am pretty indifferent to it.

I was just sort of amused by the by "sports journalists" of Delany as "the smartest man in sports" and the man who had allegedly "checkmated" ND in 2010.

Just because a few journalists have spoke about checkmating ND doesn't mean that is the expressed goal of the Big Ten. That is just you focusing on certain comments that really have no truth to them.

As far as we know, maybe Delaney really didnt care all that much about making sure the scheduling alliance happened. Just the talk alone had a pretty large affect on other events. The combination of the B1G and PAC trying to protect the Rose Bowl caused the SEC and Big 12 to counter with the Champions Bowl. That move caused the ACC to be weakened in the eyes of the country that was comparing the ACC to the Big 12 trying to see who was stronger.

For all we know the Big Ten doesn't care all that much for the scheduling alliance either. Yes it would have tied our schedules together and increased our SoS's but the Big Ten can do that by itself by not scheduling four easy games and instead having one of those be a very strong OOC game. That in itself will have the same affect as the scheduling alliance with the PAC would have.

I would say that the success of the BTN outweighs any little "0-2" efforts that you can point out. As far as we know the Big Ten is fine with the scheduling alliance not working out. I highly doubt every Big Ten institution was extremely thrilled with the idea. I know when Iowa travelled to Arizona, the time differential caused us to play Extremely flat. To be honest Im not all that bothered with not having a structured schedule with the PAC.

If these quotes from ADs are on the level, then it looks like Utah, not Colorado, was the fourth objector to the series with the Big Ten:

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-pac-...4097.story

Quote:"With our intensely competitive nine-game conference schedule, this will allow us to maintain flexibility in our nonconference scheduling. We look forward to continuing our historic partnership with the Big Ten in the future, including our scheduled football home-and-home series with Michigan," Utah Athletic Director Chris Hill said.

Colorado Athletic Director Mike Bohn remained hopeful that a mutually beneficial collaboration of some kind is still possible between the Pac-12 and the Big Ten.

"It would be terrific. It's a wonderful vision. I'm disappointed we haven't been able to pull it together," Bohn said.

(07-13-2012 09:40 PM)ringmaster Wrote:  

(07-13-2012 06:01 PM)phil77 Wrote:  Big question is does the ACC jump quick at the Big Ten?

I think that's a pretty good idea if we aren't already angling for that type of relationship with the SEC.

Puts FSU, Clemson and GT (at least) in the exact same shoes that the objectors in the PAC-12 were in. 9 game conference schedule, one NC rivalry game and you want them to play a Big Ten school annually too?

I think before it's all said and done that the Big 5 conferences (and Notre Dame) will be required to play a certain number of BCS level teams per year to qualify for the 4 team playoff. This will eliminate the inequity of the 8 game conference schedule.
The SEC is already licking their chops because of an 8 game schedule and are touting it as if it were some kind of victory.

(07-14-2012 06:15 AM)bronconick Wrote:  

(07-13-2012 09:40 PM)ringmaster Wrote:  

(07-13-2012 06:01 PM)phil77 Wrote:  Big question is does the ACC jump quick at the Big Ten?

I think that's a pretty good idea if we aren't already angling for that type of relationship with the SEC.

Puts FSU, Clemson and GT (at least) in the exact same shoes that the objectors in the PAC-12 were in. 9 game conference schedule, one NC rivalry game and you want them to play a Big Ten school annually too?

Well, there are 14 ACC teams and 12 Big Ten teams. If you leave out FSU, Clemson and GT, that's 11 ACC teams. If the Big Ten leaves out Iowa, citing their game with Iowa State, that's 11 and 11.

The problem there is that you're taking out 3 of the 5 most valuable ACC matchups, leaving Miami and VT. Is it still worth it? Or do you just go back to the drawing board with the PAC, putting together a smaller slate to buff up BTN and PACnet?

Leave out Notre Dame's opponents, figure Penn State will have a rivalry game against Alabama, or against Pitt or Maryland, Iowa plays Iowa State. Oh, and figure that Utah plays BYU. So you have Ohio State, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota and sometimes Michigan State from the Big Ten, UCLA, Oregon, Cal, Washington, Washington State, Arizona, Arizona State and Colorado from the PAC.

A full round-robin or a full conference-vs-conference challenge might not be doable, but six games a year seems pretty easy to reach.

There really was trouble from the start with this when the commissioners talked about leaving it up to the ADs. If this wasn't set-up fully at the conference level with everyone agreeing for the conference to set-up the games (2 home, 2 road over a 4 year period), it was always going to be difficult. Honestly I'm half surprised it was the PAC-12 which had more opposition in spite of the 9 games. On the Big Ten end, there are more teams that wouldn't want home and home games with several of the PAC-12 over their current schedules. Ohio State for instance just had a one and done with Colorado. I'm not sure it liked the idea of all of a sudden replacing Tennessee (a game we cancelled for this) with a home and home with them.

I do kind of hope they scale this down and keep it though. Have 5 games a year, all on the same weekend. The 5th would be a night game and a neutral game somewhere controlled by the conferences (but with substantial money for the 2 teams). You can take volunteers at that size and call it the Big Ten-PAC-12 (rotating which name comes first) Challenge. Put it on weekend that is traditionally light for games and make a small trophy for the commissioners that is awarded at the neutral site game (first one could be in the Rose Bowl).

(07-14-2012 09:45 AM)XLance Wrote:  I think before it's all said and done that the Big 5 conferences (and Notre Dame) will be required to play a certain number of BCS level teams per year to qualify for the 4 team playoff. This will eliminate the inequity of the 8 game conference schedule.
The SEC is already licking their chops because of an 8 game schedule and are touting it as if it were some kind of victory.

It is only a victory for home town revenue throughout the Southeast. Other than the fact that an extra game reduces home games by one every other year it was not that big of a deal. Only once ever did the SEC place that second team in the championship game and our chances of getting a second in the final four are really no better than anyone else's. JR

(07-13-2012 11:45 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(07-13-2012 11:40 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-13-2012 11:34 AM)TerryD Wrote:  This development and the somewhat of a dud that is the "Champions Bowl", seems to put a crimp to the "Big 4" and the alleged 16 school "superconference" idea.

My belief is that in 15 years or so, the move will be towards more schools like Texas going independent and the breakup of current conferences into new "power" conferences without "dead weight" schools and the formation of some smaller, regional conferences.

I really wouldn't call the champions bowl a dud at all. I mean, it's a game that would have had 2 of the previous BCS teams games in all but like last year I believe. however, if you look- what it does is prevent 100% what happened last year, where Arkansas and Kansas St(who still played in the Cotton Bowl) would have been in the Champions Bowl with all that extra revenue for the conferences.

I think what's happened is geography. The Pac 12 can't really expand much at all.

It'll be very interesting to see what happens in 10-15 years. I don't necessarily see the independent route at all.

The blogs cite the 8 vs. 9 game schedules but also the rivalry games by USC and Stanford against Notre Dame as one reason this "alliance" dissolved.

I found that very interesting.

Translation: Those two schools would rather play ND than a Big Ten school.


The "Champions Bowl" is no "champions bowl" at all. No "champions" will play in that bowl.

It seems more like a glorified Cotton Bowl to me.

There was a lot of rah rah over the "Champions Bowl" because at the time it was announced it seemed to add pressure to the ACC football oriented programs to consider moving, and because it appeared to prop up the Big 12. Then there was the counter to the Rose Bowl argument being touted by Delany. But, Terry the real importance of this game, and we will see if it happens this way, is that supposedly the local bowl committee take is going to get cut out and it is to model the kinds of post-season games that profit both teams more by allowing them to decide the payouts and limit the expenses. With such a small allotment of tickets generally in the hands of the two schools for a traditional bowl, and so many in the hands of the tourism and hospitality industries of the host site, the games to nobody's surprise have been about the local economies more than about the teams.

Jim Delany proposed home site playoff rounds to get around this and to earn the schools more money and give the fans better access to the games without having to buy extra nights that they would never use at expensive hotels just so they could obtain tickets to the game. Those tickets, sometimes well over 50% of the stadium capacity, are revenue that the schools never see. Needless to say there is a lot of coercion that goes along with these kinds of arrangements. I think if Slive and Bowlsby can successfully pull of the conference business end of the "Champions Bowl" it can be replicated for the benefit of all of our schools through the future restructuring of what bowls are and what is acceptable for how they are to be run. In as much as that is the case, and it actually unfolds that way, the "Champions Bowl" may well be a very good thing. JR

http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&q=http://...0Ev-0hDeRA

More on the "whodunit" aspect:

As noted above, Utah was one of the four no's. Washington was another no, as their AD confirmed. Surprisingly, according to Bud Withers, USC and Stanford were both willing to go along with the Pac-B1G games. Wazzu and CU were also among the 8 Pac schools that wanted to make it work.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/co...ces14.html

So who were the other two no's?

(07-14-2012 01:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I think if Slive and Bowlsby can successfully pull of the conference business end of the "Champions Bowl"....

I don't think there's any question they can, but sometimes I'm stupid. How different is setting up a bowl game from setting up a neutral-site conference championship game?

(07-15-2012 05:27 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-14-2012 01:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I think if Slive and Bowlsby can successfully pull of the conference business end of the "Champions Bowl"....

I don't think there's any question they can, but sometimes I'm stupid. How different is setting up a bowl game from setting up a neutral-site conference championship game?

More old guys in ugly blazers getting strippers and blow on the universities' dime.

(07-15-2012 05:27 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-14-2012 01:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I think if Slive and Bowlsby can successfully pull of the conference business end of the "Champions Bowl"....

I don't think there's any question they can, but sometimes I'm stupid. How different is setting up a bowl game from setting up a neutral-site conference championship game?

Practically none. Their obstacle will be the pressure from the numerous ties that bowl committee people have built within the NCAA, and political influence they have built and wielded within the states that host the bowls. And those states are predominantly within the Big 12 and SEC territories (California and Arizona excluded for these purposes. Which is why it will be such an interesting test case for the rest of the college football world.)

Neutral site games (championship or otherwise) are not a paradigm shift in revenue. They augment existing revenue streams. Changing the bowl structure is and will be. The fallout will come from the latter not the former. The former was seen as a boost to the host site's state, but only a boost because the bowl revenue in the site city and state is expected to be a given. Therefore distribution and control over a neutral site game was nothing for local & state politicians to scream about as it was just an added bonus over and above the status quo. Replacing bowls with arrangements heretofore reserved for a few regular season games is and will be a whole different matter for them.

If we have been paying attention signs of the political blow back are already happening. There are stories suggesting that this game be played within the existing bowl structure. Stories that purposely exclude the independent angle of the proposal. These are just the initial pressures to send a warning flag to Slive and Bowlsby that there can and will be opposition.

If the desire to make the game, as originally stated, independent of the traditional bowl structure is acted upon. Then I expect to see articles about the local businesses that will be hurt, and how tax revenues from these games help boost somebodies (probably school teachers or state employees) pension funds, and yadda yadda yadda.

The reason this plan is a very real threat to the present bowl system is that it is a new bowl. It is not replacing an older bowl. It will be harder for the tactics I mentioned above to work because making such arguments as the ones I alluded to will not have the same impact unless somehow it can be proven that the creation of this game has harmed existing bowls and their revenue. But make no mistake, the bowl committees all know this is a test case to cut them out. They will put up a public opinion fight and that will be the difficulty of which I spoke.

The bowl lobby already won the first round of this fight. 1. There is a committee that selects the playoff teams, not a structure that does so. Now this wouldn't even be a point if the second victory wasn't achieved. 2. The four team playoff structure will utilize their system. That means that the the selection committee may still be utilized to gain favorable match-ups for their sites and that they will still be guaranteed the revenue and power they have grown to expect. That is why the news pieces implying, or even assuming, that the Champions Bowl will be played within their structure are circulating. Some of the pieces may be written with misunderstandings by those writing the pieces, but most of those writers are a lot more savvy than that and they already know which side their bread is buttered on.

Remember too, Jim Delany has already fired a shot across ESPN's bow. Having Slive and Bowlsby do the same to the bowl structure signifies that there is rebellion against the old structure underway. Rebellion that Delany likely supports given his desire to see the first round of the playoffs at campus locations. If the Champions Bowl stays independent of the bowl structure things are going to get really hot, and really interesting. JR

When I think about the State of Utah in regards to college football it is:

1. BYU
2. Anyone else

It's cool Utah is in the PAC 12 which is completely overrated conference. About as bad as the ACC in my opinion. Swap locations of the two conferences and you basically have the same football product. Back to the topic, BYU has something that Utah will probably never have; a National Championship. BYU is the top dawg in the state and regardless of what conference Utah is in or how much more publicity the Utes get, BYU trumps Utah in attendance, history, and a National Championship.

Maybe so, Bama. But the biggest thing holding BYU back is the LDS church, and it's allowed Utah to move into a position to surpass them in very short order. Don't think that won't be the case in a few years, with the added money and exposure Utah receives in the Pac12...

(07-15-2012 10:02 AM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  When I think about the State of Utah in regards to college football it is:

1. BYU
2. Anyone else

It's cool Utah is in the PAC 12 which is completely overrated conference. About as bad as the ACC in my opinion. Swap locations of the two conferences and you basically have the same football product. Back to the topic, BYU has something that Utah will probably never have; a National Championship. BYU is the top dawg in the state and regardless of what conference Utah is in or how much more publicity the Utes get, BYU trumps Utah in attendance, history, and a National Championship.

This post is so full of inaccurate information it is ridicloous

(07-15-2012 02:48 PM)superdeluxe Wrote:  

(07-15-2012 10:02 AM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  When I think about the State of Utah in regards to college football it is:

1. BYU
2. Anyone else

It's cool Utah is in the PAC 12 which is completely overrated conference. About as bad as the ACC in my opinion. Swap locations of the two conferences and you basically have the same football product. Back to the topic, BYU has something that Utah will probably never have; a National Championship. BYU is the top dawg in the state and regardless of what conference Utah is in or how much more publicity the Utes get, BYU trumps Utah in attendance, history, and a National Championship.

This post is so full of inaccurate information it is ridicloous

No, it actually embodies the national-perspective.

I live in the SLC area... and even I agree with his post.

I think it's amazing the crap folks spew about the Pac 12. To say that the Pac 12 is even remotely close to the ACC is just total crap. Pac 12 has more top 5 finishes, top 10 finishes, and top 25 finishes than the ACC. Over the last 5 years- Pac 12 would have had Stanford or Oregon in playoffs last year, Oregon in playoffs in 2010(with Stanford just missing out), USC in for 2008, and USC once again likely in for 2007. ACC- would have had none likely. (I think it's likely that USC goes to playoff in 2007 over Va Tech with a committee). So P12 with 4 and ACC with 0. And, it's not like the Pac 12 is just 1 team doing everything. All 12 teams have finished in the top 12 in the last 14 years. Hope it makes all the ACC fans feel better to say that about the Pac 12, but it's just not rooted in reality. Pac 12 has one thing that the ACC doesn't have- and that's consistent top 10 finishes.

There's plenty the two conferences have in common. They've both got a couple large schools that take football seriously (FSU, Clemson, VT vs. USC, Washington, Oregon) a whole pile of schools that aren't as serious, average about 50k in attendance and a few that are limited by their locations,school size or cultural interest (Washington State/Wake Forest) to being more than a flash in the pan. They both encourage their schools to have successful athletic departments across the board (ACC & PAC-12 schools dominate the top 25 of the director's cup) Because they're so top heavy in football interest, both conferences have crappy bowls compared to the Big Ten, SEC and even Big XII.

The PAC-12's biggest edge is that the SEC doesn't live in their front yard. Their biggest disadvantage is that they're all forced to recruit out of the same southern California pool, limiting the overall success of the conference. It's what made the Texas grouping so attractive that it almost occurred despite the time zone issues.

(07-15-2012 08:29 PM)bronconick Wrote:  There's plenty the two conferences have in common. They've both got a couple large schools that take football seriously (FSU, Clemson, VT vs. USC, Washington, Oregon) a whole pile of schools that aren't as serious, average about 50k in attendance and a few that are limited by their locations,school size or cultural interest (Washington State/Wake Forest) to being more than a flash in the pan. They both encourage their schools to have successful athletic departments across the board (ACC & PAC-12 schools dominate the top 25 of the director's cup) Because they're so top heavy in football interest, both conferences have crappy bowls compared to the Big Ten, SEC and even Big XII.

The PAC-12's biggest edge is that the SEC doesn't live in their front yard. Their biggest disadvantage is that they're all forced to recruit out of the same southern California pool, limiting the overall success of the conference. It's what made the Texas grouping so attractive that it almost occurred despite the time zone issues.

I think the big difference though is that for whatever reason the Pac 12 is able to at the end of the day, their champion is able to produce top 5-8 champions bare minimum. Maybe part of it is the fact that SEC doesn't live in their back yard, so there's less top OOC competition.