(01-22-2013 05:50 AM)BRtransplant Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 01:30 AM)exflash Wrote:  

(01-21-2013 08:36 PM)cleburneslim Wrote:  Will happen again if the b12 moved suddenly before an SBC move. Same thing happened to the WAC. Too much too fast.

Cajuns getting a market restructure---As our living alumni approaches 100K we can see various groups really taking off in areas from Houston, lake Charles, Alexandria, Baton Rouge, Houma Morgan City, and as evidenced by the recent NO bowl the crescent City----The LC, Alex, BR, Houma/MC areas are within an hour drive and ALL are in very good economic areas (maybe not Alex)---With stadium expansion and winning to go with Lafayette a great era awaits the Cajuns!!! Location with 2 interstates and easy air travel out of Dallas, Houston, and Atlanta we seem to be an logical choice for CUSA!!! BTW look for a huge budget report increase!!! Ticket sales and seats, t-gating revenue, and RCAF membership---our time has come!!!

With the choices CUSA will have, you have to think that ULL will be one of the favorites when it comes time for another round of CUSA expansion. If ULL is passed over again, I will be convinced that there is something that is preventing you guys from getting into CUSA that none of us know about.

If they don't consider the cajuns, they are dumber than I thought they were. UTEP will never allow themselves to be in a conference with NMSU. If UTEP leaves for the MWC, taking NMSU is a brain dead move by CUSA. WKU is a slam dunk for them, and they should be. Good location, good basketball program, and rising football program, despite their open admissions policy. stAte and UL should be next in line. If they even enter the thought of taking Georgia State instead of either stAte or UL, then CUSA has no idea what they are doing, whatsoever. If they want WKU lite, take South Al. That team is going to explode sooner rather than later. CUSA would be wise to cast aside it's "markets" model in the face of another season of being dead last in the conference rankings. Eventually that will catch on.

(01-20-2013 07:58 PM)cleburneslim Wrote:  What if?

The mountain west added two
Cusa went to 16
And the big twelve went to 16.

All of which is possible and could happen quickly whether now or June or next year.

If you think the Big 12 going to 16 in the next two years is possible, you really have no business participating in this conversation.

(01-22-2013 10:04 AM)Panthersville Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 07:58 PM)cleburneslim Wrote:  What if?

The mountain west added two
Cusa went to 16
And the big twelve went to 16.

All of which is possible and could happen quickly whether now or June or next year.

If you think the Big 12 going to 16 in the next two years is possible, you really have no business participating in this conversation.

Seriously? Stop being a jackwaggon. You must really have gotten a D in conduct every reporting period in school.

(01-22-2013 10:04 AM)Panthersville Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 07:58 PM)cleburneslim Wrote:  What if?

The mountain west added two
Cusa went to 16
And the big twelve went to 16.

All of which is possible and could happen quickly whether now or June or next year.

If you think the Big 12 going to 16 in the next two years is possible, you really have no business participating in this conversation.

You are a fool to not think it is a very real possibility that the ACC could be a victim of the current destabilization of college football. Not saying it will happen, but it is definitely within the realm of possibility. There is no need to keep your head in the sand because you do not like the potential outcome. Look what happened to the BE when they could not/would not come to terms over a media deal. Money is driving this all.

The ACC is the current target right now. The lack of ownership of their 3rd tier content, poor overall TV deal, lukewarm reception by ESPN to create a conference network, their potential overlap with the SEC N distribution regions< loss of a charter ACC member, pending lawsuit over a potential punitive exit fee and the inability to push through a GOR pretty much makes it known that the ACC is at best unstable and has teams looking around and at worst on the path to destruction. Until the ACC stabilizes the possibility that the ACC gets raided is there and the possibility of the 4x16 model is growing.

Something people need to accept is that we are about the see the break off of the upper revenue schools to form their own playoff. The money is there for it to work and, truth be told, it is probably needed to promote equality on the field. It sucks to put it this way, but it is what it is. When UT's football budget is 20 times UNT's, maybe it is time to seperate and break apart.

(01-22-2013 10:39 AM)panama Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 10:04 AM)Panthersville Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 07:58 PM)cleburneslim Wrote:  What if?

The mountain west added two
Cusa went to 16
And the big twelve went to 16.

All of which is possible and could happen quickly whether now or June or next year.

If you think the Big 12 going to 16 in the next two years is possible, you really have no business participating in this conversation.

Seriously? Stop being a jackwaggon. You must really have gotten a D in conduct every reporting period in school.

Lighten up, Francis. It is sarcasm - and I thought it was over-the-top enough to be clearly identified as such.

Was it justified sarcasm? I think so given that the Big 12 schools just raked-in the highest amount per school. They may go to 12 to get a Championship game if the extra money will justify having to split the take with two more schools, but beyond that the math simply will not support the addition of more schools.

You posted your proverbial popcorn picture, so you know how completely out-of-hand this discussion has gotten. We don't even bother posting about GSU anymore because everyone is simply out to make their case based on factors that nobody in a decision-making role is paying attention to.

But by all means, let's continue to have pages and pages of threads that toss-up some "what if" scenarios that would open up the possibility for Troy to be in the Big East, and ULL in the Big 12......

(01-22-2013 10:52 AM)Panthersville Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 10:39 AM)panama Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 10:04 AM)Panthersville Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 07:58 PM)cleburneslim Wrote:  What if?

The mountain west added two
Cusa went to 16
And the big twelve went to 16.

All of which is possible and could happen quickly whether now or June or next year.

If you think the Big 12 going to 16 in the next two years is possible, you really have no business participating in this conversation.

Seriously? Stop being a jackwaggon. You must really have gotten a D in conduct every reporting period in school.

Lighten up, Francis. It is sarcasm - and I thought it was over-the-top enough to be clearly identified as such.

Was it justified sarcasm? I think so given that the Big 12 schools just raked-in the highest amount per school. They may go to 12 to get a Championship game if the extra money will justify having to split the take with two more schools, but beyond that the math simply will not support the addition of more schools.

No it wasn't.

(01-22-2013 10:56 AM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 10:52 AM)Panthersville Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 10:39 AM)panama Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 10:04 AM)Panthersville Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 07:58 PM)cleburneslim Wrote:  What if?

The mountain west added two
Cusa went to 16
And the big twelve went to 16.

All of which is possible and could happen quickly whether now or June or next year.

If you think the Big 12 going to 16 in the next two years is possible, you really have no business participating in this conversation.

Seriously? Stop being a jackwaggon. You must really have gotten a D in conduct every reporting period in school.

Lighten up, Francis. It is sarcasm - and I thought it was over-the-top enough to be clearly identified as such.

Was it justified sarcasm? I think so given that the Big 12 schools just raked-in the highest amount per school. They may go to 12 to get a Championship game if the extra money will justify having to split the take with two more schools, but beyond that the math simply will not support the addition of more schools.

No it wasn't.

Agreed.. Not in the least

(01-22-2013 10:51 AM)laxtonto Wrote:  You are a fool to not think it is a very real possibility that the ACC could be a victim of the current destabilization of college football. Not saying it will happen, but it is definitely within the realm of possibility. There is no need to keep your head in the sand because you do not like the potential outcome. Look what happened to the BE when they could not/would not come to terms over a media deal. Money is driving this all.

The ACC is the current target right now. The lack of ownership of their 3rd tier content, poor overall TV deal, lukewarm reception by ESPN to create a conference network, their potential overlap with the SEC N distribution regions< loss of a charter ACC member, pending lawsuit over a potential punitive exit fee and the inability to push through a GOR pretty much makes it known that the ACC is at best unstable and has teams looking around and at worst on the path to destruction. Until the ACC stabilizes the possibility that the ACC gets raided is there and the possibility of the 4x16 model is growing.

Is the ACC vulnerable? Yes. Have they improved their football product at every step of the way in the realignment process? Yes.

Here is the thing though, the Big 12 would have to add SIX teams to get to 16 and there is no way the money would work out to where adding that many teams would improve their per-school contract.

As for the 4 x 16 model, please, tell me where is the PAC 12 going to get four more teams? The MWC? They barely were able to stomach adding Utah, and they have no interest in Boise because of Academics. The problem with this "everybody's going to 16" mantra is that it is only legitimate in two places - the studios of ESPN and the conference offices of smaller conferences desperate to make a splash. The academics and finances of 16-team conferences do not make sense to the top 4 conferences - and would only make sense to the ACC if it was necessary to get ND as a full member.

Also, what everyone here seems to ignore is that if the top conference do go to 16, that means there as lees spots for teams to move-up, not more, as at least one conference would completely go away.

(01-22-2013 10:56 AM)mathenis89 Wrote:  No it wasn't.

I feel for you, I really do. It is an INTERNET BOARD - saying someone has no business participating in a conversation on an internet board is like saying grass on a football field has no business growing.

(01-22-2013 11:09 AM)Panthersville Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 10:51 AM)laxtonto Wrote:  You are a fool to not think it is a very real possibility that the ACC could be a victim of the current destabilization of college football. Not saying it will happen, but it is definitely within the realm of possibility. There is no need to keep your head in the sand because you do not like the potential outcome. Look what happened to the BE when they could not/would not come to terms over a media deal. Money is driving this all.

The ACC is the current target right now. The lack of ownership of their 3rd tier content, poor overall TV deal, lukewarm reception by ESPN to create a conference network, their potential overlap with the SEC N distribution regions< loss of a charter ACC member, pending lawsuit over a potential punitive exit fee and the inability to push through a GOR pretty much makes it known that the ACC is at best unstable and has teams looking around and at worst on the path to destruction. Until the ACC stabilizes the possibility that the ACC gets raided is there and the possibility of the 4x16 model is growing.

Is the ACC vulnerable? Yes. Have they improved their football product at every step of the way in the realignment process? Yes.

Here is the thing though, the Big 12 would have to add SIX teams to get to 16 and there is no way the money would work out to where adding that many teams would improve their per-school contract.

As for the 4 x 16 model, please, tell me where is the PAC 12 going to get four more teams? The MWC? They barely were able to stomach adding Utah, and they have no interest in Boise because of Academics. The problem with this "everybody's going to 16" mantra is that it is only legitimate in two places - the studios of ESPN and the conference offices of smaller conferences desperate to make a splash. The academics and finances of 16-team conferences do not make sense to the top 4 conferences - and would only make sense to the ACC if it was necessary to get ND as a full member.

Also, what everyone here seems to ignore is that if the top conference do go to 16, that means there as lees spots for teams to move-up, not more, as at least one conference would completely go away.

The 4x16 model is most likely initially going to be a 3x16 plus a 1x12 with the other spot in a 8 team playoff filled with the best non-big 4 team.. Once the teams hit 16, the NCAA will allow semi-finals to conf title games. Do the Pac 12 title game a the same week as the semi-finals, then the Pac-12 vs X is one leg, and the conference title games would be the other 3 legs.

As far as $$ not making sense, it is actually more profitable because the addition of a semi-final and a much easier scheduling matrix. 16 is much more likely than 14, and we already have 14. The SEC has already shown what a sched nightmare 14 is. If the B12 gets a pushback from the new members to have a more geographically stable set, going to 14 makes not sense, that is why the acceptable idea is to go to 16.

The Pac 12 will eventually have to expand, but there is plenty of time. Even though we are seeing realignment right now, I still expect one more group of this after this current round.

(01-22-2013 11:35 AM)laxtonto Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 11:09 AM)Panthersville Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 10:51 AM)laxtonto Wrote:  You are a fool to not think it is a very real possibility that the ACC could be a victim of the current destabilization of college football. Not saying it will happen, but it is definitely within the realm of possibility. There is no need to keep your head in the sand because you do not like the potential outcome. Look what happened to the BE when they could not/would not come to terms over a media deal. Money is driving this all.

The ACC is the current target right now. The lack of ownership of their 3rd tier content, poor overall TV deal, lukewarm reception by ESPN to create a conference network, their potential overlap with the SEC N distribution regions< loss of a charter ACC member, pending lawsuit over a potential punitive exit fee and the inability to push through a GOR pretty much makes it known that the ACC is at best unstable and has teams looking around and at worst on the path to destruction. Until the ACC stabilizes the possibility that the ACC gets raided is there and the possibility of the 4x16 model is growing.

Is the ACC vulnerable? Yes. Have they improved their football product at every step of the way in the realignment process? Yes.

Here is the thing though, the Big 12 would have to add SIX teams to get to 16 and there is no way the money would work out to where adding that many teams would improve their per-school contract.

As for the 4 x 16 model, please, tell me where is the PAC 12 going to get four more teams? The MWC? They barely were able to stomach adding Utah, and they have no interest in Boise because of Academics. The problem with this "everybody's going to 16" mantra is that it is only legitimate in two places - the studios of ESPN and the conference offices of smaller conferences desperate to make a splash. The academics and finances of 16-team conferences do not make sense to the top 4 conferences - and would only make sense to the ACC if it was necessary to get ND as a full member.

Also, what everyone here seems to ignore is that if the top conference do go to 16, that means there as lees spots for teams to move-up, not more, as at least one conference would completely go away.

The 4x16 model is most likely initially going to be a 3x16 plus a 1x12 with the other spot in a 8 team playoff filled with the best non-big 4 team.. Once the teams hit 16, the NCAA will allow semi-finals to conf title games. Do the Pac 12 title game a the same week as the semi-finals, then the Pac-12 vs X is one leg, and the conference title games would be the other 3 legs.

As far as $$ not making sense, it is actually more profitable because the addition of a semi-final and a much easier scheduling matrix. 16 is much more likely than 14, and we already have 14. The SEC has already shown what a sched nightmare 14 is. If the B12 gets a pushback from the new members to have a more geographically stable set, going to 14 makes not sense, that is why the acceptable idea is to go to 16.

The Pac 12 will eventually have to expand, but there is plenty of time. Even though we are seeing realignment right now, I still expect one more group of this after this current round.

I don't believe the tripe that gets passed around about FBS splitting though I can see Division I overall splitting. A de jure split of FBS just has too many hassles without enough gain.

What I do believe in is de facto split.

There are five leagues sharing the wealth. Those 65 teams are basically all of the large TV value out there but in reality, you can get nearly the same raw dollar figures in TV with 40 teams. Start culling the Washington State's, Miss. State's, Baylor's, and Wake Forest's of the world and the TV figures don't drop. Same dollars, fewer sharing.

The ACC and Big XII are no awash with a lot of high value programs. The Big XII has Texas and OU and arguably Kansas basketball. The ACC has Clemson, Florida State, North Carolina, and Va.Tech along with Duke basketball.

If you take the 24 teams that make up the Big XII and ACC you can easily reduce it to 16 produce nearly the same gross dollars but with fewer schools sharing.

But nothing ever happens that neatly or organized.

Let's say the latest mutterings are true that Big 10 wants UVA and UNC and can get them.

The SEC will probably invite Va.Tech and NC State so fast it makes your head swim.

If that happens Big XII saunters in and takes Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Pitt, and take your pick of two more.

The bulk of ACC TV value is now dispersed, they are no longer in the contract mix and 75% off the contract revenue is now divided four ways rather than 5.

(01-22-2013 11:35 AM)laxtonto Wrote:  The 4x16 model is most likely initially going to be a 3x16 plus a 1x12 with the other spot in a 8 team playoff filled with the best non-big 4 team.. Once the teams hit 16, the NCAA will allow semi-finals to conf title games. Do the Pac 12 title game a the same week as the semi-finals, then the Pac-12 vs X is one leg, and the conference title games would be the other 3 legs.

Seriously? Do you actually think that the NCAA, or the conferences independently, will ever have an eight-team playoff PLUS conference semifinals? That would be 17 games for the National Champions - never gonna happen.

This is what I mean by these "predictions" getting off the rails. No thought at all as to the overall implications of what is being tossed out there.

(01-22-2013 11:35 AM)laxtonto Wrote:  As far as $$ not making sense, it is actually more profitable because the addition of a semi-final and a much easier scheduling matrix. 16 is much more likely than 14, and we already have 14. The SEC has already shown what a sched nightmare 14 is. If the B12 gets a pushback from the new members to have a more geographically stable set, going to 14 makes not sense, that is why the acceptable idea is to go to 16.

Where are you getting this stuff? 14 is harder than 16? Every conference commish has said that 16 is exponentially more difficult. With 14 you have six division games, one permanent cross-division rival and then you play the rest of the cross division games, 2 per year on a three-year rotation. The only problem comes when conferences get greedy and only want eight conference games instead of nine.

Conference semi-finals aren't going to happen unless the Big 10 and SEC go to 20 teams.

(01-22-2013 12:42 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Conference semi-finals aren't going to happen unless the Big 10 and SEC go to 20 teams.

For certain conferences, like the SEC, their championship game will already be a de facto semi-final. They aren't going to leave the SEC Champ out of a playoff and will likely be #1 or #2 seed every year.

(01-22-2013 12:12 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  There are five leagues sharing the wealth. Those 65 teams are basically all of the large TV value out there but in reality, you can get nearly the same raw dollar figures in TV with 40 teams. Start culling the Washington State's, Miss. State's, Baylor's, and Wake Forest's of the world and the TV figures don't drop. Same dollars, fewer sharing.

I don't disagree with most of what you have said, but excluding Baylor from the Big XII (or really just UT) is easier said than done due to political maneuvering.

I'd wager some of these "lesser" universities in the Big 4.5 in different states are in a similar boat.

This is my first post here been reading a long time ...

First off let me say I want APP to go FBS and I think it will happen. I am not in a hurry though since I believe it will happen. I hope we land in the right conference and not just any conference. That may be SBC that might be some other conference.

No hurry here lets wait it out and see what happens.

I dunno where we end up but where ever it is I look forward to establishing new rivalaries and seeing new places. This whole realignment process is a mess and it is hurting college football. No need to rush any of this. Let's be honest if there is a way for us to bypass the Belt then we should jump all over that if it is the right fit. It is the same reason that Belt schools want to be in CUSA or NBE. We always want to better ourselves. Just my oppinion. If the Belt is the right fit and we get an invite then we should take it. If the Belt is not the right fit (after new departures) and we get an invite then we should stay put. IE Montana.

(01-22-2013 12:20 PM)Panthersville Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 11:35 AM)laxtonto Wrote:  The 4x16 model is most likely initially going to be a 3x16 plus a 1x12 with the other spot in a 8 team playoff filled with the best non-big 4 team.. Once the teams hit 16, the NCAA will allow semi-finals to conf title games. Do the Pac 12 title game a the same week as the semi-finals, then the Pac-12 vs X is one leg, and the conference title games would be the other 3 legs.

Seriously? Do you actually think that the NCAA, or the conferences independently, will ever have an eight-team playoff PLUS conference semifinals? That would be 17 games for the National Champions - never gonna happen.

This is what I mean by these "predictions" getting off the rails. No thought at all as to the overall implications of what is being tossed out there.

(01-22-2013 11:35 AM)laxtonto Wrote:  As far as $$ not making sense, it is actually more profitable because the addition of a semi-final and a much easier scheduling matrix. 16 is much more likely than 14, and we already have 14. The SEC has already shown what a sched nightmare 14 is. If the B12 gets a pushback from the new members to have a more geographically stable set, going to 14 makes not sense, that is why the acceptable idea is to go to 16.

Where are you getting this stuff? 14 is harder than 16? Every conference commish has said that 16 is exponentially more difficult. With 14 you have six division games, one permanent cross-division rival and then you play the rest of the cross division games, 2 per year on a three-year rotation. The only problem comes when conferences get greedy and only want eight conference games instead of nine.

I would not be shocked to see 13 +1+1+1, which is 16 not 17. As it is, the issue has been the argument over the student school time. With the new NCAA guidelines that should roll out, seeing a boost to 16 for 2 teams, 15 for teams, is not a huge leap.

As far as 14 vs 16, you have not heard the complaints throughout the SEC about the 14 team sched? The ones that prompted the "LSU needs to go to the B12" article? The 14 team structure is a mess for all sports and 16 is infinitely easier for football and more importantly the nonrevenue sports.

(01-22-2013 11:12 AM)Panthersville Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 10:56 AM)mathenis89 Wrote:  No it wasn't.

I feel for you, I really do. It is an INTERNET BOARD - saying someone has no business participating in a conversation on an internet board is like saying grass on a football field has no business growing.

No, it means that they are arrogant and believe they have more knowledge on the subject than someone else does. You are simply overthinking it. It wasn't sarcasm at all. It was elitism.

(01-22-2013 01:47 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 11:12 AM)Panthersville Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 10:56 AM)mathenis89 Wrote:  No it wasn't.

I feel for you, I really do. It is an INTERNET BOARD - saying someone has no business participating in a conversation on an internet board is like saying grass on a football field has no business growing.

No, it means that they are arrogant and believe they have more knowledge on the subject than someone else does. You are simply overthinking it. It wasn't sarcasm at all. It was elitism.

LOL.....when has anything ever happened on this board that would in any way give any GSU fan the idea that they are "elite" here? It was a response to a ridiculous scenario that even the most ambitious realignment prognosticators would have thought stretched the bounds of reason....and I'm "overthinking"....LOL.