(06-14-2013 09:10 AM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  I think that the KU/KSU tandem is tied tightly enough to preclude KU from making a move if the Big 12 remains essentially intact - that is, if OU and UT remain as anchors. If one or both of them were to leave and put the whole conference on the brink, however, I think that if (and nothing is certain about this by any means) KU got an invitation and KSU did not, the state legislature would grudgingly allow KU to leave to ensure that at least one state school was in a major conference.

The days of nibbling off chunks of conferences in terms of the Majors is over. Now it is all or nothing. That means if any Big 12 schools are going to move then the conference will have to be dissolved. Homes for everybody or the vote doesnt happen.

(06-14-2013 07:40 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 09:10 AM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  I think that the KU/KSU tandem is tied tightly enough to preclude KU from making a move if the Big 12 remains essentially intact - that is, if OU and UT remain as anchors. If one or both of them were to leave and put the whole conference on the brink, however, I think that if (and nothing is certain about this by any means) KU got an invitation and KSU did not, the state legislature would grudgingly allow KU to leave to ensure that at least one state school was in a major conference.

The days of nibbling off chunks of conferences in terms of the Majors is over. Now it is all or nothing. That means if any Big 12 schools are going to move then the conference will have to be dissolved. Homes for everybody or the vote doesnt happen.

That is true only if you believe the Grant of Rights for the Big 12 and ACC are an absolute barrier. I do not.

(06-14-2013 07:38 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 07:29 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 12:24 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 12:11 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  OSU has upped it's game lately. Perhaps them paired up with WVU would be enticing enough for the SEC as long as the Networks were promising them a big pay day to go along with the program so that the next phase could happen. OU and KU to the Big Ten. As you say, Texas alone could bring Tech, K State and ISU out West perhaps but that is a tough deal for Texas. They might prefer instead to go East to the ACC along with one other Texas school and then the PAC would be left with the rest.

Who knows, way too early for any serious talk like that. Such a complicated mess.

No way the SEC looks at WVU and OSU for #15/16. The SEC is going to be patient and wait for the B1G to make its next move...so it could be a while.

Correct. It really is amazing how many posters do not realize the sec is being just as selective as the b1g. Most of the southern targets of the b!g are also targets of the sec. If the sec goes to 20 it is possible for them to take ncs, fsu or clemson

Now you are talking ACC targets. The rest of us were looking in the direction of the Big 12. So how bout talkin some Big 12 targets for the SEC not including Texas or Texas Tech or probably not even Baylor.

You and plenty of others keep thinking in this conflict oriented state of mind while some of us realize that for that next step to happen there is absolutely going to have to be some boardroom negotiating going on behind the scenes between the benefactor conferences.

That means schools will say which of the conferences they prefer.

I have been talking consistently about Big 12 schools going to the SEC for three years now. I believe the Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas are desired by the B1G, SEC and PAC with the PAC being the only one of the three willing to take one big brother each.

(06-14-2013 08:33 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 07:40 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 09:10 AM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  I think that the KU/KSU tandem is tied tightly enough to preclude KU from making a move if the Big 12 remains essentially intact - that is, if OU and UT remain as anchors. If one or both of them were to leave and put the whole conference on the brink, however, I think that if (and nothing is certain about this by any means) KU got an invitation and KSU did not, the state legislature would grudgingly allow KU to leave to ensure that at least one state school was in a major conference.

The days of nibbling off chunks of conferences in terms of the Majors is over. Now it is all or nothing. That means if any Big 12 schools are going to move then the conference will have to be dissolved. Homes for everybody or the vote doesnt happen.

That is true only if you believe the Grant of Rights for the Big 12 and ACC are absolute. I do not.

I think GOR is so much easier to deal with than exit fees.
GOR just doesn't mean anything unless the value of a league's TV deal goes down.

Back around the time ISL was pitching a college playoff I had a conversation with a guy who had been an AD in the SEC. We talked about where college athletics were heading.

He thought the ISL plan was going nowhere for two reasons. First, the presidents weren't ready and second, ISL was proposing 8 teams (though stated they were open to 12 or 16) and he didn't believe the commissioners of the six top leagues would agree to any plan that didn't give their champions an auto bid. He believed that the NCAA's principle that no more than half the field of a tournament go to auto bids. That would have dictated a 12 team field at a minimum, but would mean that 2 auto-bid earners would have to play in the early round while (presumably) four others got a bye, that would then make 16 the number but then at least two more league would gain equal status with an auto-bid. Four rounds and two leagues becoming peers would kill any chance.

His guess was a playoff would arrive as an 8 team field when there were four power conferences. His guess was that eventually the Big 10 would go to 12 and the best of the ACC and Big East would form a new league of 16 teams and the Pac-10 would shed two and the Big XII would shed four and form a 16 team league leaving us with four power leagues, he didn't buy into the idea that the SEC or Big 10 would go above 12 because of the importance of rivalries.

He also believed there would be a breakaway.

His theory was that there would be a "super division" that would have 120 to 200 schools and it would be structured differently. The "super division" would have minimum standards higher than Division I had at the time to knock the smallest leagues out. Those willing and/or able to meet the standards would be divided into two groups. Members and Equity members. To be an equity member you would have to meet even higher standards of budget and attendance. In exchange for an agreement that they would be immune from future membership criteria changes the non-equity members would give up the right to vote.

Obviously his crystal ball was pretty hazy but there were some interesting thoughts that have some relevance.
1. Consolidation into 4 power leagues. If the Big 10 goes to 16, this is a likely result.
2. An eight team playoff (with four auto bids). We've already got a number of leaders saying the 4 team is an interim step.
3. The possibility of a breakaway and the probability that a voting would be the key to the breakaway (ie. the stipend repeal).

what does ISL stand for?

(06-15-2013 12:36 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  what does ISL stand for?

Marketing firm that offered fat bucks for colleges to start a playoff

inb4 louisville to b1g rumors begin

(06-14-2013 11:44 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 08:33 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 07:40 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 09:10 AM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  I think that the KU/KSU tandem is tied tightly enough to preclude KU from making a move if the Big 12 remains essentially intact - that is, if OU and UT remain as anchors. If one or both of them were to leave and put the whole conference on the brink, however, I think that if (and nothing is certain about this by any means) KU got an invitation and KSU did not, the state legislature would grudgingly allow KU to leave to ensure that at least one state school was in a major conference.

The days of nibbling off chunks of conferences in terms of the Majors is over. Now it is all or nothing. That means if any Big 12 schools are going to move then the conference will have to be dissolved. Homes for everybody or the vote doesnt happen.

That is true only if you believe the Grant of Rights for the Big 12 and ACC are absolute. I do not.

I think GOR is so much easier to deal with than exit fees.
GOR just doesn't mean anything unless the value of a league's TV deal goes down.

Maybe, but then Texas would have definitely needed an escape clause because of the value they bring to the Big 12. Of course, they did have all the leverage they would have needed two years ago when the sh!t hit the Big 12 fan.

(06-15-2013 12:23 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Back around the time ISL was pitching a college playoff I had a conversation with a guy who had been an AD in the SEC. We talked about where college athletics were heading.

He thought the ISL plan was going nowhere for two reasons. First, the presidents weren't ready and second, ISL was proposing 8 teams (though stated they were open to 12 or 16) and he didn't believe the commissioners of the six top leagues would agree to any plan that didn't give their champions an auto bid. He believed that the NCAA's principle that no more than half the field of a tournament go to auto bids. That would have dictated a 12 team field at a minimum, but would mean that 2 auto-bid earners would have to play in the early round while (presumably) four others got a bye, that would then make 16 the number but then at least two more league would gain equal status with an auto-bid. Four rounds and two leagues becoming peers would kill any chance.

His guess was a playoff would arrive as an 8 team field when there were four power conferences. His guess was that eventually the Big 10 would go to 12 and the best of the ACC and Big East would form a new league of 16 teams and the Pac-10 would shed two and the Big XII would shed four and form a 16 team league leaving us with four power leagues, he didn't buy into the idea that the SEC or Big 10 would go above 12 because of the importance of rivalries.

He also believed there would be a breakaway.

His theory was that there would be a "super division" that would have 120 to 200 schools and it would be structured differently. The "super division" would have minimum standards higher than Division I had at the time to knock the smallest leagues out. Those willing and/or able to meet the standards would be divided into two groups. Members and Equity members. To be an equity member you would have to meet even higher standards of budget and attendance. In exchange for an agreement that they would be immune from future membership criteria changes the non-equity members would give up the right to vote.

Obviously his crystal ball was pretty hazy but there were some interesting thoughts that have some relevance.
1. Consolidation into 4 power leagues. If the Big 10 goes to 16, this is a likely result.
2. An eight team playoff (with four auto bids). We've already got a number of leaders saying the 4 team is an interim step.
3. The possibility of a breakaway and the probability that a voting would be the key to the breakaway (ie. the stipend repeal).

I was reading your post with the usual half interest that I read most posts of such "prophetic nature" due to how many we see until I got to the part I put in bold. That is the one part of this whole scenario that actually got me to sit up and take notice.

To most folks sitting at home, they dont even think of that issue but for the folks making all the decisions the voting rights within the NCAA have been the biggest cause of consternation and headaches. To be honest I dont know if I would be a supporter of such a system or if I should dislike it purely on principle. In practice I think this set up would get the sport to a place where I personally would enjoy it more and that I think more sports fans in general would follow college football in greater numbers.

Don't know about the reasonings behind having to only have half of a tournament be autobids. That has never been my personal reasoning for why an 8 team tournament is inevitable and is also very likely as large as it gets. Having four major conferences makes it easy then to install autobids for those four conferences but I dont really see that as a necessity in the end. We Will eventually see that 8 team tournament even if we end up with 5 major conferences. The logistics though of moving past 8 teams gets to be too much.

(06-15-2013 02:21 AM)Gopper Wrote:  inb4 louisville to b1g rumors begin

Feel free to refer back up to my posted listing of Big Ten preferred candidates. If anyone drastically strays from such listing then likely they aren't dealing with reality very well and yes....Louisville is a drastic straying from such.

Ha, the wvu bloggers are now moving on to the sec school's as targets for the big 12, get idea to get web hits. In theory, i think you can make the case arkansas and missouri would be better off in the big 12 with both the sec and big 12 standing at 12. Yet, overall landscape is way to risky for school's to leave the sec for the big 12, specially arkansas since the big 10 has big 12 targets. I would agree the endgame is probably an 8 team playoff but TBD is if 4 or 5 main feeders go into that playoff. I think a pac 20 would solve most issues, i.e. just get the big 12 and pac 12 to almost merge than operate as basically a football only union. Thus, you would have 4 clear cut feeders. I also like the same concept with the acc, they could bring in wvu, uconn, cincy + some catholic hoop school's to jump to 20 overall and operate as basically 2 separate leagues with a football only tie in. The landscape would be a two 20 team leagues, pac 20 and acc with two 14 team leagues sec and big 10.

Politically speaking, OU, OSU, UT and TT are all pretty much welded together and it would be extremely difficult (but not impossible) for any one to be cherry picked.

As has been pointed out, only the PAC would be willing to take in the duplicating little brothers to get the big brother. Not to mention that both the B1G and SEC have stated they are t interested in moving further into the Midwest so much as they would both like to carve up the Virginia/NC corridor among themselves and are willing to be patient and wait for the chance to do so.

(06-15-2013 08:27 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I was reading your post with the usual half interest that I read most posts of such "prophetic nature" due to how many we see until I got to the part I put in bold. That is the one part of this whole scenario that actually got me to sit up and take notice.

To most folks sitting at home, they dont even think of that issue but for the folks making all the decisions the voting rights within the NCAA have been the biggest cause of consternation and headaches. To be honest I dont know if I would be a supporter of such a system or if I should dislike it purely on principle. In practice I think this set up would get the sport to a place where I personally would enjoy it more and that I think more sports fans in general would follow college football in greater numbers.

Don't know about the reasonings behind having to only have half of a tournament be autobids. That has never been my personal reasoning for why an 8 team tournament is inevitable and is also very likely as large as it gets. Having four major conferences makes it easy then to install autobids for those four conferences but I dont really see that as a necessity in the end. We Will eventually see that 8 team tournament even if we end up with 5 major conferences. The logistics though of moving past 8 teams gets to be too much.

Being a prediction that was over a decade and half old, the accuracy rate was at least as good as most we've seen. :)

The auto bid part I think was partially a function of the time. Other than the NIT no event had not functioned under that principle.

But the next few years of the playoff will be interesting. The math requires that one P5 has to miss the playoff every year and the probability is that two will miss in a given year. The Power leagues draw great TV across wide areas of the country. What do the ratings look like if the Big 10 or ACC or Pac-12 or Big XII or SEC is infrequent participants? What is the impact on the brand of a Power 5 that goes four years without a playoff appearance?

The pressure from fans on coaches, AD's and commissioners will be huge. What happens to a P5 league in recruiting if no team from that league has made the field since a recruit was in junior high?

I wonder how the G5 reacts if their only path to the super division is to yield voting rights on most or all issues? I suspect they take a pragmatic approach shrug their shoulders and say "we never won many votes anyway".

There are ways to weasel around the whole five conferences but only four autobids issue. Final rankings generally arent ever so easily defined.

In most years, the five major conferences end up with a team in the top 8. Will there be some affect if one of them doesn't have a team in the tournament? Yeah there will be some but I dont think it would be as large as you think it would be. There is still a limited amount of top level programs out there for recruits to go to. I dont think it would be a big deal for any of the conferences if they don't get a team in.

Most folks would probably believe that the Big Ten and ACC are at greatest threat to not get a team in but both of them will be fine if that happens. I dont think recruiting will take that big of a hit. Recruiting really isn't That simple of a "game". Getting into the Tournament will be one topic of recruiting conversations out of many topics.

(06-15-2013 11:37 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  There are ways to weasel around the whole five conferences but only four autobids issue. Final rankings generally arent ever so easily defined.

In most years, the five major conferences end up with a team in the top 8. Will there be some affect if one of them doesn't have a team in the tournament? Yeah there will be some but I dont think it would be as large as you think it would be. There is still a limited amount of top level programs out there for recruits to go to. I dont think it would be a big deal for any of the conferences if they don't get a team in.

Most folks would probably believe that the Big Ten and ACC are at greatest threat to not get a team in but both of them will be fine if that happens. I dont think recruiting will take that big of a hit. Recruiting really isn't That simple of a "game". Getting into the Tournament will be one topic of recruiting conversations out of many topics.

True.. I think more importantly to the kids, is getting on TV every week. And in the B1G and SEC that's a pretty good bet.