(08-15-2013 02:25 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 02:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 01:11 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 12:47 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 10:51 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I think it is foolish to only take the P5 into a new division. Everybody wants their obligatory cupcakes to pad those records.

The best way would be to bring along all of FBS and the best of FCS (SoCon, Big Sky, CAA). Give non-P5 members a half vote if you're worried about having so many of them they can swing votes. Now everybody can still have their cupcakes, and you're far more safe from anti-trust suits.

These schools have been playing FCS schools for years. Only recently has it become an issue. I would argue that it is because they know what is they want to happen. Thus due to the time line involved in scheduling future matchups many years in advance, they have to act now to stop those matchups so that they are not playing programs that are TWO divisions below them.

The programs left in FBS will be the new FCS in the eyes of the Majors. Those games can continue. Hell those schools will still have bowl contracts. It will be a brand new relationship that folks will have to get used to. The relations between the new division and the current division they would be leaving, in my opinion, will be closer than what we see now between FBS and FCS.

Maybe they bring that many along, we shall see. I still doubt it though.

Yeah, I agree, Heinous. For all intents and purposes, the G5 already serves as the FCS to the FBS. There is the occasional entrant for a BCS bowl, but that is about the only overlap.

Almost everybody looks at this problem from the wrong end. It is not a conference, or school issue that is driving for separation. It is the networks pushing for the separation. They don't want Alabama vs Louisiana Choose Your Direction for either an early season game or a November game the week before Alabama plays Auburn. That's dead weight on their schedule and advertising rates drop off the charts for those games.

It is the networks, and the networks only, that are pushing for that "upper division" or "breakaway" so that they can maximize their revenue streams by not having dud games in their lineup. Take the Big 10 for instance. Does anyone really want to watch the first 4 weeks of the Big 10 season aside from a couple of games where their schools might schedule a PAC school or have the rare 1st game against the SEC (a mistake Michigan will not repeat).

Alden, Saban, and Alvarez all said between 60 to 70 teams in the upper tier. But they also said something else that has dropped from the recent remarks, "with all games against other upper tier teams". There is the smoking gun still in the network's hand. It is also the reason the G5 schools are screaming bloody murder. If we went to 3 conferences of 20 each and only played each other we would have mandated schedules in which 10 games would be against conference foes, and 1 each cross overs against the other two conferences. What's more the networks would pay everyone included significantly more money because those 60 teams would essentially cover the national markets without having to pay a varying degree of money to 200 other schools.

This is why there is talk of antitrust issues and why the G5 claims that such a move would make them irrelevant have weight. The networks are shooting for the moon but will likely settle for that gate keeper conference which will be comprised of 10 to 20 of the best of the remaining potential schools. If there are 4 divisions they will either be relatively equally divided into 18 schools each or disproportionately divided into 4 x 20 where all the strongest are in 3 conferences and you have the one that is the gatekeeper conference that the networks pay less but do give their champion access to an 8 team playoff.

For now some model like that will dissuade antitrust threats, whittle down the cash outlay for the networks, still enhance their match ups, and settle down the coaches who have all been scared to death of 12 upper tier games. And that is why the talking points have shifted from upper tier and everyone plays only upper tier teams to just upper tier.

So my prediction is that we see 4 x 18 with balanced conferences in which those conferences will be the ACC, PAC, Big 10 and SEC, or we go to 4 x 20 where three of the conferences are the PAC, Big 10 and SEC and the 4th is an amalgamation of the best of the remainders of the MWC, AAC, Big 12, and ACC.

Those left out from MWC, AAC, SBC, and CUSA are still going to sue in that case.

Your problem will be arbitrarily pulling the carrot away after everyone spent lots of resources following your rules to get to the carrot.

I can't see a way to do it and still remain in the NCAA. Forcing schools back down is what is problematic.

Entry standards will be set, athletic endowment amounts, attendance (actual and sold), stipend amounts up to full cost, facilities requirements, number of scholarship sports requirements, type of scholarship sports requirements, and the above does not preclude a breakaway. If the rules are met by existing members the standard cannot be found to be exclusionary as those applying will have the opportunity to meet them.

If we stay in the NCAA (not the best idea IMO) then you set the bar where it currently is for FBS:

Invite only for individual schools or a whole conference can move up if it has at least 8 members and averages 50K REAL attendance 2 of 3 years, full cost attendance, etc.

Still easier to just break away and take 2-3 of the better bball only conferences and be done with it. The G5s goal is to turn the playoff into the NCAA tournament which benefits them at our expense.

In our own NCAA, there is none of this nonsense of a Georgia team who has 1loss by 7 to Bama in the SEC CCG sitting at home while 8-4 Directional Florida plays for it all because they won the mighty CUSA

(08-15-2013 03:40 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  If we stay in the NCAA (not the best idea IMO) then you set the bar where it currently is for FBS:

Invite only for individual schools or a whole conference can move up if it has at least 8 members and averages 50K REAL attendance 2 of 3 years, full cost attendance, etc.

Still easier to just break away and take 2-3 of the better bball only conferences and be done with it. The G5s goal is to turn the playoff into the NCAA tournament which benefits them at our expense.

In our own NCAA, there is none of this nonsense of a Georgia team who has 1loss by 7 to Bama in the SEC CCG sitting at home while 8-4 Directional Florida plays for it all because they won the mighty CUSA

Really endowment requirements will raise the bar sufficiently for football. It will help some schools like Tulane and S.M.U. but many of the others wouldn't be able to come close to meeting the requirement. Attendance then culls the rest.

Let's have a revision on this thread given what may transpire with regards to the grants of rights should the networks work this out.

SEC 16:
Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia
Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Vanderbilt
Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Texas A&M

B1G:
Boston College, Maryland, Penn State, Syracuse
Indiana, Ohio State, Purdue, Rutgers
Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern
Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin
*Notre Dame as an Independent

PAC 16:
Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas
Arizona, Arizona State, U.C.L.A., U.S.C.
California, Colorado, Stanford, Utah
Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State

New 16:
Louisville, Pittsburgh, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
Duke, Clemson, N.C. State, Wake Forest
Baylor, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami
Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Christian, Texas Tech

Fox gets exposure in the Southeast and along the Atlantic Coast with the new hybrid conference of which they would have tier 1 rights with ESPN getting some time slot games in the evening.

ESPN gets to keep tier 1 rights in the Big 10. FOX gets in on the rest.

FOX and ESPN share the rights to the PAC 16 games much as they have in the Big 12 and present PAC.

NBC keeps Notre Dame home games and Notre Dame agrees to play 6 games against Big 10 opponents. That gives them games against Michigan State, Michigan, Purdue, and Syracuse. The 5th & 6th games rotate.

CBS keeps the 3:30 ET slot for the SEC and ESPN retains all other rights.

The Hybrid conference is paid in line with the other conferences average and retains their own tier 3 rights (unless they opt to try for a network).

(08-02-2013 10:11 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 09:00 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Nice overall...still just can't see us taking Okie Lite, there's just nothing about them that screams "worth a priceless SEC expansion slot"

I'd rather we invested in one of the DFW privates like TCU or SMU than the number 2 team in a tiny market

Once again though, the Big 12 won't be picked apart piece by piece. It will be an all or nothing effort. Unfortunately SMU does not help with that. If Texas ends up taking two programs with them to the ACC, they will have to be easily accessible. TCU tops the list in accessibility.

Oklahoma State may be a number 2 team in a tiny market but they are a very strong program for a number 2 team. They are in the top 25 most profitable college football programs. They have a great coach that seems to be there for the long haul. They have great financial backing, in particular Mr Pickens. That means they have outstanding facilities and they will look great on the SECN where as SMU.....not so much. TCU has a nice stadium but it isn't really SEC sized. It is more of an ACC stadium and TCU itself is oh so very tiny. OSU just seems more like an SEC program than either TCU or SMU.

Our choices might be limited if we can't crack the ACC. For that matter the same goes for the B1G.

(10-26-2013 11:33 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 10:11 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 09:00 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Nice overall...still just can't see us taking Okie Lite, there's just nothing about them that screams "worth a priceless SEC expansion slot"

I'd rather we invested in one of the DFW privates like TCU or SMU than the number 2 team in a tiny market

Once again though, the Big 12 won't be picked apart piece by piece. It will be an all or nothing effort. Unfortunately SMU does not help with that. If Texas ends up taking two programs with them to the ACC, they will have to be easily accessible. TCU tops the list in accessibility.

Oklahoma State may be a number 2 team in a tiny market but they are a very strong program for a number 2 team. They are in the top 25 most profitable college football programs. They have a great coach that seems to be there for the long haul. They have great financial backing, in particular Mr Pickens. That means they have outstanding facilities and they will look great on the SECN where as SMU.....not so much. TCU has a nice stadium but it isn't really SEC sized. It is more of an ACC stadium and TCU itself is oh so very tiny. OSU just seems more like an SEC program than either TCU or SMU.

Our choices might be limited if we can't crack the ACC. For that matter the same goes for the B1G.

What really does the SEC need? Already the darlings of ESPN. The propaganda machine will continue to churn out the storyline of the SEC being supreme whether or not such distinction continues on into the future. You already have plenty of top tier programs to fill out your hierarchy.

I realize you would like to see the States of North Carolina and Virginia within the "Empire" but that is such a superficial thing. The SEC will have the SECN within those two states with or without in state members in the conference.

Is the choice of the exact make up of the two added programs more important than what can be achieved after the move is made and new rules applied?

The SEC with a conference tournament made up of it's four division winners? How much would that be worth? Would it not be the most valuable of all conference football tournaments?

Do not get caught up in the small stuff, the bigger picture is where it is at. The ACC being raided is not necessary. ESPN will not allow it, they also have the basketball season to keep in mind.

(10-26-2013 01:19 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 11:33 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 10:11 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 09:00 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Nice overall...still just can't see us taking Okie Lite, there's just nothing about them that screams "worth a priceless SEC expansion slot"

I'd rather we invested in one of the DFW privates like TCU or SMU than the number 2 team in a tiny market

Once again though, the Big 12 won't be picked apart piece by piece. It will be an all or nothing effort. Unfortunately SMU does not help with that. If Texas ends up taking two programs with them to the ACC, they will have to be easily accessible. TCU tops the list in accessibility.

Oklahoma State may be a number 2 team in a tiny market but they are a very strong program for a number 2 team. They are in the top 25 most profitable college football programs. They have a great coach that seems to be there for the long haul. They have great financial backing, in particular Mr Pickens. That means they have outstanding facilities and they will look great on the SECN where as SMU.....not so much. TCU has a nice stadium but it isn't really SEC sized. It is more of an ACC stadium and TCU itself is oh so very tiny. OSU just seems more like an SEC program than either TCU or SMU.

Our choices might be limited if we can't crack the ACC. For that matter the same goes for the B1G.

What really does the SEC need? Already the darlings of ESPN. The propaganda machine will continue to churn out the storyline of the SEC being supreme whether or not such distinction continues on into the future. You already have plenty of top tier programs to fill out your hierarchy.

I realize you would like to see the States of North Carolina and Virginia within the "Empire" but that is such a superficial thing. The SEC will have the SECN within those two states with or without in state members in the conference.

Is the choice of the exact make up of the two added programs more important than what can be achieved after the move is made and new rules applied?

The SEC with a conference tournament made up of it's four division winners? How much would that be worth? Would it not be the most valuable of all conference football tournaments?

Do not get caught up in the small stuff, the bigger picture is where it is at. The ACC being raided is not necessary. ESPN will not allow it, they also have the basketball season to keep in mind.

He1nous, both the SEC and Big 10 will make more money off of additions to the East. The PAC will wind up laying claim to those in the Midwest and Southwest. Delany's original plan was to dominate New England and become a truly Northern conference. It is where the Big 10 gets the largest boost in television revenues. Syracuse (or eventually Buffalo) and Boston College do two things for the Big 10. 1. Maximize their TV revenue over what Kansas and Oklahoma would do. 2. Set up even more attractive expansion candidates should they ever move to 18 or 20 down the road. North Carolina and Virginia do the same and for the same reasons for the SEC. B.C. is a market and hockey add for the Winter market on the BTN, Syracuse is the same for hoops and a respectable middle of the road football program most of the time. For the SEC neither would be a football addition. Both enhance academics and one enhances hoops. In neither the Big 10 nor the SEC would the main powers be threatened. If 18 is the eventual goal there is no reason for the Big 10 and SEC to forgo these additions as all 4 greatly enhance footprint and regional identification for the respective conferences.

At 18 if the Big 10 would be so bold Kansas is still there for you and at that point perhaps even Notre Dame, Virgina Tech, Duke or even Oklahoma.

For the SEC I would have to think at 18 they too would have interest in Duke, Oklahoma, or possibly even Florida State to lock out the state of Florida. And even if they only picked up one of those three there's Georgia Tech for academics, Clemson for branding and fit, N.C. State if U.N.C. says so, or possibly a second Texas team for market consolidation.

The GOR issue will simply be determined by what the networks want. As long as ESPN has a piece of the Big 10, control over the SEC, and half of a new hybrid conference composed of former Big 12 and ACC schools, and a stake in the PAC they have all they could want. Sharing some ACC schools with FOX would just lower their overhead.

As for FOX if whatever product goes to the PAC from the Big 12 is not a loss, or gain. Anything they gain from a composite ACC/Big 12 conference gives them coverage in the Southeast and along the Atlantic coast. That's a win win for them.

So anything is possible and if the SEC and Big 10 are the most valuable properties I think they just might get what they want, especially if it helps the networks maximize the value of their brand teams caught in the ACC and Big 12.

I've had a new idea so here it is let's play with it.

SEC:
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Texas A&M
Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State
Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Vanderbilt
Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia
* Duke as a partial member in football, full member in everything else.

Big 10:
Boston College, Maryland, Penn State, Rutgers
Indiana, Ohio State, Purdue, Syracuse
Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern
Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin
* Notre Dame as a partial member in football, full member in everything else.

PAC 16:
Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech
Arizona, Arizona State, Cal Los Angeles, Southern California
California, Colorado, Stanford, Utah
Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State
* Texas as a partial member in football, full member in everything else.

New 16:
Cincinnati, Connecticut, Pittsburgh, West Virginia
Louisville, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami
Baylor, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Christian
* Brigham Young as a partial member in football, full member in everything else.

This format gives Notre Dame and Texas the flexibility they are looking for, gives inclusion and flexibility to Brigham Young, includes Cincinnati and Connecticut who deserve to be included, and helps Duke stay with Virginia and North Carolina without having to massively upgrade for football while still giving the SEC major basketball support.

Big Ten doesn't want Boston College. There are two better schools IN the Boston Area. It is not as if the Big Ten is looking for Harvard quality schools but to have both Harvard and Boston University in the same Metro area while Boston College isn't looked at all that highly in regards to Academics and Especially in the realm of Research, that really doesn't lend BC to receiving Unanimous support within the Big Ten.

I know this is the SEC forum but using the Big Ten as your dumpster for the leftovers isn't really taking a serious attempt at what could happen.

(10-28-2013 06:31 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Big Ten doesn't want Boston College. There are two better schools IN the Boston Area. It is not as if the Big Ten is looking for Harvard quality schools but to have both Harvard and Boston University in the same Metro area while Boston College isn't looked at all that highly in regards to Academics and Especially in the realm of Research, that really doesn't lend BC to receiving Unanimous support within the Big Ten.

I know this is the SEC forum but using the Big Ten as your dumpster for the leftovers isn't really taking a serious attempt at what could happen.

Boston College has one of the finer D1 hockey teams in the nation. And if you remember it was the 6th place team on the Big 10 hit list that Frank published as having come from a TV exec for value added to the Big 10.

Nobody is using the Big 10 as a dumpster. Syracuse is a better fit for hoops as well and should be preferable to Buffalo for delivering New York. And I would hardly call Notre Dame as a partial a bust either. In fact it's pretty much what Delany started out to get.

I don't know what crawled up your butt, but I hope you get over it.

You know me JR, I'm just brutally honest. It's not like I havn't said the same thing about Boston College many times before.

Yay, great..hockey. It's a Big Ten sport yes, but it's not a major needle mover.

(10-28-2013 07:54 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  You know me JR, I'm just brutally honest. It's not like I havn't said the same thing about Boston College many times before.

Yay, great..hockey. It's a Big Ten sport yes, but it's not a major needle mover.

I'll refer you again to the list provided by Frank the Tank prior to Nebraska's invitation to the Big 10. The list provided by a television guy who did a value added analysis for the prospective additions to the Big 10. Obviously since Texas was listed as choice #1 the Big 10 had pre-considered Oklahoma and left them off of this list. Since Kansas was on there I assume that their intention was to ask Texas and Kansas at the time.

Order / Team / Value / Conference Affiliation Then / Conference Affiliation Now
1. Texas: 101,368,004 / Big 12 / Big 12
2. Rutgers: 67,798,609 / Big East / Big 10
3. Nebraska: 59,467,990 / Big 12 / Big 10
4. Maryland: 50,818,889 / ACC / Big 10
5. Boston Col.: 48,382,692/ ACC / ACC
6. Notre Dame: 47,629,255/ Ind. / Ind.
7. Kansas: 46,320,092 / Big 12 / Big 12
8. Missouri: 45,901,459 / Big 12 / SEC
9. Syracuse: 43,504,813 / Big East / ACC
10: Connecticut: 38,080,271 / Big East / AAC
11: Pittsburgh: 34,365,175 / Big East / ACC

So I was wrong H1. Boston College wasn't the 6th most valuable team listed as a Big 10 prospect, they were the 5th.

So if Texas doesn't move to the Big 10 and they aren't. And if the Big 10 has already landed choices #2, 3, & 4 is it really illogical to assume that Delany would take Boston College since he is trying to form a hockey conference and Boston College is an elite hockey program? Is it illogical to assume that B.C. being the 5th most profitable team on the list would be considered? Academically they are rated in the top 30 to 40 schools.

Notice that Notre Dame is 6th and even under a partial membership would be a big plus.

Kansas comes in at 7th and still might be a go. Missouri is now in the SEC so there goes number 8. Number 9 is.....drum roll please....Syracuse who would certainly be preferable to Buffalo to get into the Empire State. And I would call New York a key state in Delany's plans. Notre Dame helps them there. Rutgers helps them there. Add Syracuse and color the state Big 10.

I hardly think the post is out of line. You must admit that Oklahoma the lowest ranking ARWU program the Big 10 would have by almost 30 places would be a hard sell. And odds are the Sooners go with the Longhorns if they move.

Perhaps Virginia would lean Big 10 but would they go without lifetime buddy North Carolina? And what about Duke? As much as people scream academics those schools still have to rely upon their states and the people of those states to support them and in that regard history counts.

So I don't think my solution, and that is all that it is an exercise to see if there is an equitable way to distribute 16 teams to 4 conferences without leaving out the next 4 deserving, could be done. I think it works pretty well for regional fit, cultural fit, okay for academics, and terrifically for inclusion.

That little metric that Frank used is nice and yes there are business aspects to taking Boston College that absolutely make sense. What in my response though was about the business side of taking Boston College? That is not what I was talking about.

I understand the list as you show, I get it. That is not everything though when it comes to the PRESIDENTS making a decision.

Yes, Boston College is a possibility in the sense of how it would work for the Big Ten in terms of business. In terms of Academic viability, and cultural affinity? Boston College doesn't fit at all. You really think The Big Ten Presidents would be excited about Jesuit U. being apart of the collective?

Oklahoma is not on the list but if Nebraska is listed as three then I am pretty sure Oklahoma would be listed even higher. Frank even admitted that Oklahoma was not considered by this supposed TV Network Guy that he knows. You think I don't know "guys"? I just don't come on and list unnamed persons as "sources" in order to make my opinion be more credible than anyone else's. I will say it again, that is a nice list and I wont dispute the values depicted but at the same time, that is not the holy grail of what order of value that the Big Ten will see.


Edit: In regard to Syracuse? They don't really fit fully with the Big Ten but I have had them listed before in my scenario's and I always saw them as a good grab for The Big Ten. I think they would have a better shot at more general support in the State than Buffalo would. New Yorkers are generally highly motivated by brand name. Buffalo has zero brand name and most folks from the part of the State that The Big Ten cares about more, they don't give a damn about that portion of the State. Syracuse isn't down in the City area either but they are a much more recognized Brand Name due to their basketball. I absolutely like Syracuse as a Big Ten entity, much more so than Boston College in fact.

(10-28-2013 08:53 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  That little metric that Frank used is nice and yes there are business aspects to taking Boston College that absolutely make sense. What in my response though was about the business side of taking Boston College? That is not what I was talking about.

I understand the list as you show, I get it. That is not everything though when it comes to the PRESIDENTS making a decision.

Yes, Boston College is a possibility in the sense of how it would work for the Big Ten in terms of business. In terms of Academic viability, and cultural affinity? Boston College doesn't fit at all. You really think The Big Ten Presidents would be excited about Jesuit U. being apart of the collective?

Oklahoma is not on the list but if Nebraska is listed as three then I am pretty sure Oklahoma would be listed even higher. Frank even admitted that Oklahoma was not considered by this supposed TV Network Guy that he knows. You think I don't know "guys"? I just don't come on and list unnamed persons as "sources" in order to make my opinion be more credible than anyone else's. I will say it again, that is a nice list and I wont dispute the values depicted but at the same time, that is not the holy grail of what order of value that the Big Ten will see.


Edit: In regard to Syracuse? They don't really fit fully with the Big Ten but I have had them listed before in my scenario's and I always saw them as a good grab for The Big Ten. I think they would have a better shot at more general support in the State than Buffalo would. New Yorkers are generally highly motivated by brand name. Buffalo has zero brand name and most folks from the part of the State that The Big Ten cares about more, they don't give a damn about that portion of the State. Syracuse isn't down in the City area either but they are a much more recognized Brand Name due to their basketball. I absolutely like Syracuse as a Big Ten entity, much more so than Boston College in fact.

Well who would you take with Syracuse to get to 16? I do think the Big 10 want's a bigger part of the Big Apple.

(10-28-2013 09:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 08:53 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  That little metric that Frank used is nice and yes there are business aspects to taking Boston College that absolutely make sense. What in my response though was about the business side of taking Boston College? That is not what I was talking about.

I understand the list as you show, I get it. That is not everything though when it comes to the PRESIDENTS making a decision.

Yes, Boston College is a possibility in the sense of how it would work for the Big Ten in terms of business. In terms of Academic viability, and cultural affinity? Boston College doesn't fit at all. You really think The Big Ten Presidents would be excited about Jesuit U. being apart of the collective?

Oklahoma is not on the list but if Nebraska is listed as three then I am pretty sure Oklahoma would be listed even higher. Frank even admitted that Oklahoma was not considered by this supposed TV Network Guy that he knows. You think I don't know "guys"? I just don't come on and list unnamed persons as "sources" in order to make my opinion be more credible than anyone else's. I will say it again, that is a nice list and I wont dispute the values depicted but at the same time, that is not the holy grail of what order of value that the Big Ten will see.


Edit: In regard to Syracuse? They don't really fit fully with the Big Ten but I have had them listed before in my scenario's and I always saw them as a good grab for The Big Ten. I think they would have a better shot at more general support in the State than Buffalo would. New Yorkers are generally highly motivated by brand name. Buffalo has zero brand name and most folks from the part of the State that The Big Ten cares about more, they don't give a damn about that portion of the State. Syracuse isn't down in the City area either but they are a much more recognized Brand Name due to their basketball. I absolutely like Syracuse as a Big Ten entity, much more so than Boston College in fact.

Well who would you take with Syracuse to get to 16? I do think the Big 10 want's a bigger part of the Big Apple.

What kind of scenario are we talking here? Schools from the ACC?

(10-28-2013 09:26 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 09:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 08:53 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  That little metric that Frank used is nice and yes there are business aspects to taking Boston College that absolutely make sense. What in my response though was about the business side of taking Boston College? That is not what I was talking about.

I understand the list as you show, I get it. That is not everything though when it comes to the PRESIDENTS making a decision.

Yes, Boston College is a possibility in the sense of how it would work for the Big Ten in terms of business. In terms of Academic viability, and cultural affinity? Boston College doesn't fit at all. You really think The Big Ten Presidents would be excited about Jesuit U. being apart of the collective?

Oklahoma is not on the list but if Nebraska is listed as three then I am pretty sure Oklahoma would be listed even higher. Frank even admitted that Oklahoma was not considered by this supposed TV Network Guy that he knows. You think I don't know "guys"? I just don't come on and list unnamed persons as "sources" in order to make my opinion be more credible than anyone else's. I will say it again, that is a nice list and I wont dispute the values depicted but at the same time, that is not the holy grail of what order of value that the Big Ten will see.


Edit: In regard to Syracuse? They don't really fit fully with the Big Ten but I have had them listed before in my scenario's and I always saw them as a good grab for The Big Ten. I think they would have a better shot at more general support in the State than Buffalo would. New Yorkers are generally highly motivated by brand name. Buffalo has zero brand name and most folks from the part of the State that The Big Ten cares about more, they don't give a damn about that portion of the State. Syracuse isn't down in the City area either but they are a much more recognized Brand Name due to their basketball. I absolutely like Syracuse as a Big Ten entity, much more so than Boston College in fact.

Well who would you take with Syracuse to get to 16? I do think the Big 10 want's a bigger part of the Big Apple.

What kind of scenario are we talking here? Schools from the ACC? I think if schools from the ACC and Big 12 are on the table the Big 10 earns more with ACC schools (larger markets). But take your pick.

Yeah, see you know my position on the ACC. That makes for a much more complicated scenario. It really does leave out the PAC from the bigger picture. Does the Big 12 also survive in this scenario?

There is a reason why I don't talk much about Syracuse despite the fact that I do think they fit.

If I was to just take one more ACC school without any regard to the Bigger Picture then I would take Virginia Tech for the Big Ten.

I actually think they fit in better than Virginia despite the fact that Virginia would make the Presidents have bigger smiles. Virginia is basically a State sanctioned private school. Tech fits in better with the Big Ten vision. Tech also seems to love the idea of scheduling some of the bigger name brands of the Big Ten so why not?

I think that all works better with a 20 team scenario though. It has to get very complicated for it to actually be viable.

(10-28-2013 09:41 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Yeah, see you know my position on the ACC. That makes for a much more complicated scenario. It really does leave out the PAC from the bigger picture. Does the Big 12 also survive in this scenario?

There is a reason why I don't talk much about Syracuse despite the fact that I do think they fit.

If I was to just take one more ACC school without any regard to the Bigger Picture then I would take Virginia Tech for the Big Ten.

I actually think they fit in better than Virginia despite the fact that Virginia would make the Presidents have bigger smiles. Virginia is basically a State sanctioned private school. Tech fits in better with the Big Ten vision. Tech also seems to love the idea of scheduling some of the bigger name brands of the Big Ten so why not?

I think that all works better with a 20 team scenario though. It has to get very complicated for it to actually be viable.

No. It actually works great. In my scenario these things have happened.
1. The upper tier is set in that all the members of the present P5 are in.
That takes away the liability that the GOR would impose for diminished value due to loss of status should other teams depart.
2. All contracts are honored by agreement between FOX and ESPN since no other networks are involved with the Big 12 and ACC this can be done.
That takes away the loss of contract value should a team depart from either of the conferences. No contract devaluation, and no loss of status equals no GOR damages. We already know that to be legal both parties are still paid should a team leave. Without damages the only negotiated fee of a GOR breech would be the conference established exit fee plus the difference up in value of the departing team to the new conference.

In other words if Kansas left the Big 12 for the Big 10 and they earned 5 million more a year in the Big 12 then Kansas would owe the Big 12 their exit fee plus the difference they would make in the Big 10. So for the duration of the contract Kansas would earn in the Big 10 what they would have earned in the Big 12 with the Big 12 schools splitting the difference.
But even that won't matter because in this scenario neither the ACC nor Big 12 remain and a new 16 team conference is formed out of their remnants and the networks agree to pay them slightly more than they would have made under their old contracts. And for the duration of their contracts the Big 10, SEC and PAC would receive no more than the amounts needed to pay the additions equal value to what the present teams are making.

If the Big 10 takes Syracuse and Virginia Tech with Notre Dame as a hybrid (like with the ACC) and the SEC takes Virginia and North Carolina with Duke as a hybrid then both conferences stand at 16 plus 1.

If Iowa State (AAU), Kansas (AAU), Oklahoma, and Texas Tech, and Texas goes as a hybrid (AAU) to the PAC then they stand at 16 plus 1.

The new conference then formed would look like this:
Boston College, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Louisville
Pittsburgh, N.C. State, Louisville, Wake Forest
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami
Baylor, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, T.C.U.
and Brigham Young as a hybrid. Which is a pretty darn good conference that stands at 16 plus 1.

And since the new conference is in the upper tier and paid slightly more than they would otherwise have earned in their old conferences and since those conferences have been disbanded there are no GOR to contend with, and may or may not be exit fees.

The Big 10 gets into Virginia, gets the viewing audience of Notre Dame for the BTN (which is extensive) and picks up Syracuse to cement New York.
Buddy that's a damn good day.

The SEC gets into Virginia and North Carolina and picks up 3 schools (with Duke as a Hybrid) to help with their hoops and academics. Which is another great day.

The PAC moves to 16 with 2 AAU schools, another national brand, a travel buddy for Texas, and picks up Texas's viewing audience for the PACN. Larry Scott will think he has died and gone to heaven.

The rest of the teams don't get left behind, boost their football credentials by losing Kansas, Iowa State, Duke, Virginia, and to a certain extent North Carolina and Syracuse. They earn more money and now have a footprint large enough to have their own network and a danged good one at that. Probably larger and better than that of the Big 10, SEC, and PAC individually. And the Mormons add to their network viewership in a big way through their association with them.

I call that a 4 way win and that's what I'm trying to achieve and hope to see happen.

By the way the ARWU rankings for Virginia Tech fit the Big 10 demographic quite well and they are borderline AAU. The campus metrics work as well.

Well, it is definitely a very imaginative scenario you lay out. I am not saying that as a bad thing either, it's just that you have taken the theorizing to a level beyond what I have seen before.

It is not a bad one, will take me a few days to think on it before I know what I think about it.

My first reaction though is that I am not sure I can buy the Notre Dame moving to the Big Ten as a partial.

(10-28-2013 10:23 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Well, it is definitely a very imaginative scenario you lay out. I am not saying that as a bad thing either, it's just that you have taken the theorizing to a level beyond what I have seen before.

It is not a bad one, will take me a few days to think on it before I know what I think about it.

My first reaction though is that I am not sure I can buy the Notre Dame moving to the Big Ten as a partial.

Well actually I was on a Penn State site where their posters were claiming that Delany would tacitly agree to it and the conference presidents would go along if it helped the Big 10 land preferable targets for shoring up and owning New England. Face it. The Irish would love to keep playing Syracuse and to a lesser extent B.C. or Pitt which they could do OOC. If they agreed to play 6 Big 10 games they could include (Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, and Syracuse, or sub Maryland or Penn State for someone, in this case. They could rotate two teams a year outside of those and play everyone in 6 years time. That leaves them six games for Georgia Tech, USC, Navy, Texas etc.). So I think if they get to claim that they are still mostly independent they'll do it. They damn sure don't want to try the same gig with the SEC and they won't want the new conference either and the PAC is too far. Plus Delany has an out as every conference will be accommodating 1 partial for a final upper tier of 68.

As a side note the new conference's footprint would be the old ACC footprint plus the old Big 12 footprint minus New York, Massachusetts, Virginia and Iowa, plus Connecticut, Ohio, and Utah (where there are Mormons watching in all 50 states).