(08-07-2013 11:13 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 02:24 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 01:09 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-05-2013 10:46 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Think there is less than nothing to these rumors. Everyone is set till the grant of rights come close to expiring next decade and this isn't any different than the hundreds of other fake expansion rumors that have spread.

Yeah, its hit-bait in the summer doldrums between the end of the last of the Spring sports and the first snap of the first 2013 college football season.

Except that the Oklahoma AD just spoke and was reported today that he doesn't think realignment is over. That it is his "gut feeling". It really isn't just hit bait, things are heating up again with all that is going on with the NCAA.

That could literally mean anything from OK moving, to the XII adding a couple of teams. I don't think you can construe that comment as anything definitive.

Agreed, the comment itself on it's own merit is as you say. Taken with the bigger picture though.....we know the big 12 doesn't think too highly of their expansion possibilities.

(08-07-2013 02:24 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 01:09 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-05-2013 10:46 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Think there is less than nothing to these rumors. Everyone is set till the grant of rights come close to expiring next decade and this isn't any different than the hundreds of other fake expansion rumors that have spread.

Yeah, its hit-bait in the summer doldrums between the end of the last of the Spring sports and the first snap of the first 2013 college football season.

Except that the Oklahoma AD just spoke and was reported today that he doesn't think realignment is over. That it is his "gut feeling". It really isn't just hit bait, things are heating up again with all that is going on with the NCAA.

ADs have said a lot of things about realignment and most it is has been nothing more than a personal opinion/feeling. They aren't the ones making decisions though and while they might have somewhat a better feel for their own situations than us, they probably aren't keeping track of every move like we are. With thousands of ADs, presidents, boosters, etc there are always comments coming out. I don't think we have seen anything yet to push this above most the other fake rumors. It's possible that will change, but right now I don't think it has.

(08-07-2013 10:14 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Does anyone today question the worthiness of the Giants being Super Bowl champions at 9-7? No, because they earned that through competition. As my earlier point, teams do not reach their true potential until some point during the season. Some losses early on do not necessarily make for a garbage team. Yes, for a few years people will impose the mentality we have today upon such a new system but if a team earns their way through then kudo's to them. I love a Cinderella story.

It's all personal opinion and nothing more, but we are the opposite here then. I think college football has the best regular season by far because of how one loss can effect the national title race and how conference losses usually mean a lot. I'd rather emphasize that than have more Cinderella stories.

(08-07-2013 10:14 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Here is the problem though, if you have a 6 win team getting to the conference tournament then they will likely be the #4 seed going up against the strongest team in the conference during that semifinal match up. The odds would be stacked heavily against them and as a conference is it really so bad that our top nationally ranked team would have an easier road to the championship game? In competition nationally, that is not a bad thing for the conference. It puts the odds in that #1 team's favor that they go all the way through and thus will be representing the conference in the National Tournament.

The scenario you bring up isn't necessarily a bad one when you take a look at the bigger picture that broadens out from that aspect.

It's still setting up a system where we will routinely IMO be giving the overall #8-9 team in the conference a chance to win it all and at a minimum upset the top team. Maybe this is our biggest difference, I think the measure of greatness should be how a team does throughout the season with only a small amount of added emphasis at the end. This is more true in college football than in any other sport since that's the way its always been and I love that tradition.

Thinking about if the conference ever did go this kind of route with divisions (again something I don't support, but for the sake of discussion), how about this for a compromise. The top 3 divisional winners are automatically in the playoff. The 4th spot goes to team with best record not yet in the tournament (using tie breakers if need be, one of which could be being a division winner).

That compromise would make sure that if you did have a 8-1 team (and #2 overall in the conference) as second in a division and 5-4 division winner, the 8-1 team would be the one going.

(08-07-2013 10:14 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  In terms of protecting old rivalries? It can be done. You give each school one protected rival pick from other divisions and then your school ends up playing the other teams in that division every three years instead of every other year. No big deal.

Rivalries are best in division though. It heightens them as they are competing for the same thing. That said, I guess yours divisions kept almost as many in as my pods (although the pods would occasionally allow in division that's only about 1/3 the time).

All the same, the best way to keep all rivalries if we are going for a rule change is to eliminate all divisions and simply lock 3 teams per school. I haven't done it with 16 schools, but I mapped it out with 14 and you could keep every major or semi-major rivalry that way (I think the biggest I didn't have was Nebraska-Minnesota and I only even count that as one in the loosest sense since they used to play a lot).

(08-08-2013 10:09 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 02:24 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 01:09 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-05-2013 10:46 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Think there is less than nothing to these rumors. Everyone is set till the grant of rights come close to expiring next decade and this isn't any different than the hundreds of other fake expansion rumors that have spread.

Yeah, its hit-bait in the summer doldrums between the end of the last of the Spring sports and the first snap of the first 2013 college football season.

Except that the Oklahoma AD just spoke and was reported today that he doesn't think realignment is over. That it is his "gut feeling". It really isn't just hit bait, things are heating up again with all that is going on with the NCAA.

ADs have said a lot of things about realignment and most it is has been nothing more than a personal opinion/feeling. They aren't the ones making decisions though and while they might have somewhat a better feel for their own situations than us, they probably aren't keeping track of every move like we are. With thousands of ADs, presidents, boosters, etc there are always comments coming out. I don't think we have seen anything yet to push this above most the other fake rumors. It's possible that will change, but right now I don't think it has.

As long as things can still happen, then the axe swings both ways. There is nothing to prove that there is nothing to these statements made by the AD's.

Personally for me the "thing" that really pushes this will be the creation of a new division. If that happens then there is a much more favorable atmosphere for expansion to the point of 16.

OU will never be added to the B10 due to academics, UT absolutely. Instead of UT, B10 should consider Miami. Rising academics and with Al Golden running football they will get better soon. He did a tremendous job at Temple. Miami also won the ACC hoops last year and would be a great addition for baseball.

Getting the big dog in Texas and a piece of the Florida fanbase would be a great win. A huge % of Miami's student body is from the midwest(5% from Illinois alone) and the Northeast. Their attendance has foundered in the ACC as there are only 2 football programs of note that will bring out casual non alum fans to a game (FSU & maybe Clemson, definetly Notre Dame but that's only 4 games a year)
Put Miami in the east with Michigan, PSU & OSU; those 3 games will be sellouts along with Nebraska and Iowa traveling very well

(08-08-2013 11:11 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  As long as things can still happen, then the axe swings both ways. There is nothing to prove that there is nothing to these statements made by the AD's.

Personally for me the "thing" that really pushes this will be the creation of a new division. If that happens then there is a much more favorable atmosphere for expansion to the point of 16.

I don't think a new division changes much. The grant of rights agreements are the thing that is locking the Big 12 and ACC schools in place until they get closer to expiring. Otherwise you are talking about more than a decade worth of the teams true market value to pay back to the departing conferences and they have little incentive to compromise (unlike the exit fees, the Big 12/ACC actually own the media rights in this battle instead of the school now). The only other way around that would be to let the Big 12/ACC keep the media rights, but that would mean every home game for expansion teams (including conferences ones) would be controlled by the Big 12/ACC and the old teams probably wouldn't even be getting money for that (depending on contract language).

(08-08-2013 12:00 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(08-08-2013 11:11 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  As long as things can still happen, then the axe swings both ways. There is nothing to prove that there is nothing to these statements made by the AD's.

Personally for me the "thing" that really pushes this will be the creation of a new division. If that happens then there is a much more favorable atmosphere for expansion to the point of 16.

I don't think a new division changes much. The grant of rights agreements are the thing that is locking the Big 12 and ACC schools in place until they get closer to expiring. Otherwise you are talking about more than a decade worth of the teams true market value to pay back to the departing conferences and they have little incentive to compromise (unlike the exit fees, the Big 12/ACC actually own the media rights in this battle instead of the school now). The only other way around that would be to let the Big 12/ACC keep the media rights, but that would mean every home game for expansion teams (including conferences ones) would be controlled by the Big 12/ACC and the old teams probably wouldn't even be getting money for that (depending on contract language).

That is absolutely the cover story of those two conferences. What if Texas and Oklahoma along with maybe Kansas, they all decide to leave knowing their departure tanks the Big 12's value. Yes, the Networks wont mind because they can show the home games of those teams against their new conference mates but at the same time they lose all the away games of those teams because they wont be against Big 12 teams anymore. That will be a dramatic loss of value for the Big 12. Those contracts absolutely get renegotiated at that point.

All the while, the legal ramifications of this are kept in process in court.

The pressure will then be on the rest of the conference to either stick around or close up shop for other possible opportunities. I would hedge my bet that they all look for new homes and thus the Big 12 falls apart and the GoR problem for those schools that initially departed, it goes away.

If you think scenarios like that don't get discussed then you aren't giving these people enough credit.

(08-08-2013 10:35 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 10:14 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Does anyone today question the worthiness of the Giants being Super Bowl champions at 9-7? No, because they earned that through competition. As my earlier point, teams do not reach their true potential until some point during the season. Some losses early on do not necessarily make for a garbage team. Yes, for a few years people will impose the mentality we have today upon such a new system but if a team earns their way through then kudo's to them. I love a Cinderella story.

It's all personal opinion and nothing more, but we are the opposite here then. I think college football has the best regular season by far because of how one loss can effect the national title race and how conference losses usually mean a lot. I'd rather emphasize that than have more Cinderella stories.

(08-07-2013 10:14 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Here is the problem though, if you have a 6 win team getting to the conference tournament then they will likely be the #4 seed going up against the strongest team in the conference during that semifinal match up. The odds would be stacked heavily against them and as a conference is it really so bad that our top nationally ranked team would have an easier road to the championship game? In competition nationally, that is not a bad thing for the conference. It puts the odds in that #1 team's favor that they go all the way through and thus will be representing the conference in the National Tournament.

The scenario you bring up isn't necessarily a bad one when you take a look at the bigger picture that broadens out from that aspect.

It's still setting up a system where we will routinely IMO be giving the overall #8-9 team in the conference a chance to win it all and at a minimum upset the top team. Maybe this is our biggest difference, I think the measure of greatness should be how a team does throughout the season with only a small amount of added emphasis at the end. This is more true in college football than in any other sport since that's the way its always been and I love that tradition.

Thinking about if the conference ever did go this kind of route with divisions (again something I don't support, but for the sake of discussion), how about this for a compromise. The top 3 divisional winners are automatically in the playoff. The 4th spot goes to team with best record not yet in the tournament (using tie breakers if need be, one of which could be being a division winner).

That compromise would make sure that if you did have a 8-1 team (and #2 overall in the conference) as second in a division and 5-4 division winner, the 8-1 team would be the one going.

(08-07-2013 10:14 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  In terms of protecting old rivalries? It can be done. You give each school one protected rival pick from other divisions and then your school ends up playing the other teams in that division every three years instead of every other year. No big deal.

Rivalries are best in division though. It heightens them as they are competing for the same thing. That said, I guess yours divisions kept almost as many in as my pods (although the pods would occasionally allow in division that's only about 1/3 the time).

All the same, the best way to keep all rivalries if we are going for a rule change is to eliminate all divisions and simply lock 3 teams per school. I haven't done it with 16 schools, but I mapped it out with 14 and you could keep every major or semi-major rivalry that way (I think the biggest I didn't have was Nebraska-Minnesota and I only even count that as one in the loosest sense since they used to play a lot).

I agree that college football has always been about the body of work instead of streaks. Unfortunately that ceased when we started crowning champions after the bowls. Over the years nothing has killed the momentum of teams who have compiled a terrific season than a month to month and a half layoff between the end of the regular season and the championship bowl played two weeks into January. But then TV writes the checks so I guess we are headed for 4, 5, or 6 team divisions depending on what happens. Why? Because they benefit more than anyone else by keeping teams that would have been out of it, in it, so that their fans keep tuning in. That is a NFL lite mentality.

(08-08-2013 12:06 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  That is absolutely the cover story of those two conferences. What if Texas and Oklahoma along with maybe Kansas, they all decide to leave knowing their departure tanks the Big 12's value. Yes, the Networks wont mind because they can show the home games of those teams against their new conference mates but at the same time they lose all the away games of those teams because they wont be against Big 12 teams anymore. That will be a dramatic loss of value for the Big 12. Those contracts absolutely get renegotiated at that point.

All the while, the legal ramifications of this are kept in process in court.

The pressure will then be on the rest of the conference to either stick around or close up shop for other possible opportunities. I would hedge my bet that they all look for new homes and thus the Big 12 falls apart and the GoR problem for those schools that initially departed, it goes away.

If you think scenarios like that don't get discussed then you aren't giving these people enough credit.

IMO, not a chance on this planet that the Big 12 would disappear. Remember 2 months ago the Big East literally had 12 of 15 members planning on leaving the legal conference (the current American). The ability to outright end a conference that still has members is very tough though and the conference was getting a ton in exit penalties though so it wasn't going to disappear.

Let's say the Big Ten, and SEC despite the grant of rights, all take Big 12 members and somehow find a legal way around the grant of rights (absolute worst case senario in other words). Whomever is left is going to have the option of a) dissolving the conference and forming a new one, b) dissolving the conference and joining other conferences (probably the American and Mountain West), or c) keep the conference going.

By choosing choice c, the remaining teams keep the Big 12 brand name, keep all the exit fees and buyout money, and then can choose for themselves exactly who to add. Short of every single team being invited to another power conference or a super majority knowing they have a place in a power conference all at the same time and thus able to dissolve the conference (knowing later likely does little good as their voting power is probably limited after announcing they are joining another conference), it would be almost impossible to kill the conference.

As for scenarios being discussed, I actually think we talk a lot more about them on message boards like this than the presidents ever do and probably even more than the conference commissioners. From my vantage point, it doesn't look like even one conference move over the past 3 years involved even settling on divisions before deciding on expansion. Heck, sometimes the 2nd team in a pair wasn't even known when the first was announced (Utah as the 2nd to the PAC-10 and Missouri with the SEC).

(08-08-2013 07:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I agree that college football has always been about the body of work instead of streaks. Unfortunately that ceased when we started crowning champions after the bowls. Over the years nothing has killed the momentum of teams who have compiled a terrific season than a month to month and a half layoff between the end of the regular season and the championship bowl played two weeks into January. But then TV writes the checks so I guess we are headed for 4, 5, or 6 team divisions depending on what happens. Why? Because they benefit more than anyone else by keeping teams that would have been out of it, in it, so that their fans keep tuning in. That is a NFL lite mentality.

Agree completely. I think there's big switch from thinking about college football being a lot of leagues to almost thinking of it as one national league. To me, winning the Big Ten and going to the Rose Bowl is the clear goal every season. The national title is icing on the cake, but the primary goal should simply be our conference. That's the old mentality though (odd given I never even watched a game till about a decade ago, but what can I say, I'm a traditionalist). Increasingly, it feels like by both the media and fans, we are treating all I-A as one big league itself and the conference as more like divisions.

(08-08-2013 08:31 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(08-08-2013 12:06 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  That is absolutely the cover story of those two conferences. What if Texas and Oklahoma along with maybe Kansas, they all decide to leave knowing their departure tanks the Big 12's value. Yes, the Networks wont mind because they can show the home games of those teams against their new conference mates but at the same time they lose all the away games of those teams because they wont be against Big 12 teams anymore. That will be a dramatic loss of value for the Big 12. Those contracts absolutely get renegotiated at that point.

All the while, the legal ramifications of this are kept in process in court.

The pressure will then be on the rest of the conference to either stick around or close up shop for other possible opportunities. I would hedge my bet that they all look for new homes and thus the Big 12 falls apart and the GoR problem for those schools that initially departed, it goes away.

If you think scenarios like that don't get discussed then you aren't giving these people enough credit.

IMO, not a chance on this planet that the Big 12 would disappear. Remember 2 months ago the Big East literally had 12 of 15 members planning on leaving the legal conference (the current American). The ability to outright end a conference that still has members is very tough though and the conference was getting a ton in exit penalties though so it wasn't going to disappear.

Let's say the Big Ten, and SEC despite the grant of rights, all take Big 12 members and somehow find a legal way around the grant of rights (absolute worst case senario in other words). Whomever is left is going to have the option of a) dissolving the conference and forming a new one, b) dissolving the conference and joining other conferences (probably the American and Mountain West), or c) keep the conference going.

By choosing choice c, the remaining teams keep the Big 12 brand name, keep all the exit fees and buyout money, and then can choose for themselves exactly who to add. Short of every single team being invited to another power conference or a super majority knowing they have a place in a power conference all at the same time and thus able to dissolve the conference (knowing later likely does little good as their voting power is probably limited after announcing they are joining another conference), it would be almost impossible to kill the conference.

As for scenarios being discussed, I actually think we talk a lot more about them on message boards like this than the presidents ever do and probably even more than the conference commissioners. From my vantage point, it doesn't look like even one conference move over the past 3 years involved even settling on divisions before deciding on expansion. Heck, sometimes the 2nd team in a pair wasn't even known when the first was announced (Utah as the 2nd to the PAC-10 and Missouri with the SEC).

In the case of the Big 12 should there be remainders after a mass departure I doubt seriously they would reform. The NCAA says you have to be at 8 within a year to remain a conference. The problem for the remainder of the Big 12 (probably just a couple of teams) is that everyone they might add would be of lesser value than the remaining teams thereby weakening their overall position even if the buyout money is attractive. They would be more likely to pair off with MWC teams or AAC teams or both to form a conference of schools who were closer to being peers.

(08-08-2013 08:37 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(08-08-2013 07:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I agree that college football has always been about the body of work instead of streaks. Unfortunately that ceased when we started crowning champions after the bowls. Over the years nothing has killed the momentum of teams who have compiled a terrific season than a month to month and a half layoff between the end of the regular season and the championship bowl played two weeks into January. But then TV writes the checks so I guess we are headed for 4, 5, or 6 team divisions depending on what happens. Why? Because they benefit more than anyone else by keeping teams that would have been out of it, in it, so that their fans keep tuning in. That is a NFL lite mentality.

Agree completely. I think there's big switch from thinking about college football being a lot of leagues to almost thinking of it as one national league. To me, winning the Big Ten and going to the Rose Bowl is the clear goal every season. The national title is icing on the cake, but the primary goal should simply be our conference. That's the old mentality though (odd given I never even watched a game till about a decade ago, but what can I say, I'm a traditionalist). Increasingly, it feels like by both the media and fans, we are treating all I-A as one big league itself and the conference as more like divisions.

And that's not an accident. Corporate America despises regionalism. They like uniformity because it lends to really predictable outcomes. While it may be a bit of a stretch regional loyalties can still become a binding force that when utilized can lead to unpredictable, therefore undesirable, results. Singular schools in a universal pool all acting only in their self interest are much weaker and therefore more easily manipulated for higher profits. I do believe the push to super-conferences is a move toward the elimination of polarizing behavior like, "SEC, SEC type chants".

I've lived all over the country. I enjoyed Big 10 football in the sixties. The regionalism was strong but anything that unifies people in a region is a great thing in my opinion. It yields a sense of pride, a feeling of some cohesion between the states comprising the region, and establishes a synergy that seems to extend beyond sports. In my opinion what Big Box stores have done to local small town economies is a microcosm of what eliminating regionalism will do to greater America. I don't mind regionalism as it makes the parts of our whole unique, which in my opinion makes for a better quality of life for all. I don't want French cuisine in Kansas City and I don't want barbecue at the Waterfront in San Francisco. I love us the way we are. Corporate America is ruining the vitality of those unique flavors that make each area distinct. When I travel I don't eat at chains either. I don't take the interstate. I drive through small towns (5 miles under the speed limit) and eat at local diners where I can meet local people.

A few years ago I was on a trip and encountered a most interesting phenomenon. While in one area which might be classified as a Blue state area I spoke with a black family about their presidential preferences. They said they didn't like Obama but couldn't trust McCain. In the South in obvious Red state areas I spoke to white families who said they didn't like McCain but couldn't trust Obama. From my little surveys I found that the vast majority of Americans agreed on one thing. Nobody in Washington spoke for them. How sad that we have allowed national politics to become corporately streamlined where independents can no longer get on all ballots with the requisite number of voters signatures. The Dems and Reps can but not independents. That and the lack of media exposure via debates have effectively eliminated third party voices from helping to shape the agenda for elections. I've found that the many races, religions, and regions that make up our country still have some darn good people in them. But the corporate agenda buries their voices and seeks to pit them fictitiously against one another in a very Machiavellian way. That's a lot to say to point out that the same thing is happening to our conferences and the regional schools they represent and to say I think that you are right in your assessment.

(08-08-2013 08:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  In the case of the Big 12 should there be remainders after a mass departure I doubt seriously they would reform. The NCAA says you have to be at 8 within a year to remain a conference. The problem for the remainder of the Big 12 (probably just a couple of teams) is that everyone they might add would be of lesser value than the remaining teams thereby weakening their overall position even if the buyout money is attractive. They would be more likely to pair off with MWC teams or AAC teams or both to form a conference of schools who were closer to being peers.

Regardless of the technical rules, The American (which for NCAA/legal purposes is the continuation of the Big East under a new name) will only have 3 members of the 16 who were playing next year, but it didn't lose anything from the NCAA (and the new Big East had no problem gaining status).

In the end it doesn't matter that much regardless, NCAA rules are actually only a small piece of the puzzle. The exit fees and grant of rights are tied to the existing legal conference. Whether the NCAA recognized it for purposes of AQ status in tournaments or not wouldn't actually matter in that regard as the conference office would still exist with the remaining schools controlling it and all it owned.

As to the end of regionalism and the direction of politics in the country, I agree it's really sad.

(08-08-2013 08:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  In the case of the Big 12 should there be remainders after a mass departure I doubt seriously they would reform. The NCAA says you have to be at 8 within a year to remain a conference. The problem for the remainder of the Big 12 (probably just a couple of teams) is that everyone they might add would be of lesser value than the remaining teams thereby weakening their overall position even if the buyout money is attractive. They would be more likely to pair off with MWC teams or AAC teams or both to form a conference of schools who were closer to being peers.

The key step in this logic is "thereby weakening their overall position".

And the problem there is that its comparing the Big12 after admitting those lower tier teams to an overall position that does not exist without reloading.

That is, its the loss of critical mass that "weakens their overall position", and starting from that point, reloading with the best available MWC and AAC teams is the move that makes the best of a bad situation.

That is, the relevant comparison is between reloading with those lower tier teams and dissolving the conference and forming a new one. And for the remaining teams after a loss of critical mass by the Big12, the reload option gives them more freedom to make the best of a bad situation than dissolving the Big12 and "pairing off with MWC teams or AAC teams".

Seriously? Now the Big Ten is even getting sucked in? And talk of three or even four divisions in the same conference? Two divisions is already absurd. I've said it before on other threads and will continue to stand by my opinion that conferences should be limited to 10 teams max. Ten teams means everyone plays 9 conference games, with 3 more open for OOC opposition of their choosing. Everyone would play the same schedule, and that's how it should be.

You can't have a TRUE conference champion if teams in the same conference are playing different schedules...lol. Sure, in a two-division conference for example, the East winner can face the West winner in a "title game", but sometimes the top two teams in one division are better than the first-place team in the other. And who's to say either division winner would've still won if they had to play everyone in the other division? Teams match up differently after all.

No method of determining conference champions is more fair than for everyone to play everyone else the same number of times. That would work equally well in basketball and anything else (each school would play home and away against every other school). The conference sizes are spiraling completely out of control, skewing results and compromising the legitimacy of their champions.

(08-08-2013 08:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-08-2013 08:31 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(08-08-2013 12:06 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  That is absolutely the cover story of those two conferences. What if Texas and Oklahoma along with maybe Kansas, they all decide to leave knowing their departure tanks the Big 12's value. Yes, the Networks wont mind because they can show the home games of those teams against their new conference mates but at the same time they lose all the away games of those teams because they wont be against Big 12 teams anymore. That will be a dramatic loss of value for the Big 12. Those contracts absolutely get renegotiated at that point.

All the while, the legal ramifications of this are kept in process in court.

The pressure will then be on the rest of the conference to either stick around or close up shop for other possible opportunities. I would hedge my bet that they all look for new homes and thus the Big 12 falls apart and the GoR problem for those schools that initially departed, it goes away.

If you think scenarios like that don't get discussed then you aren't giving these people enough credit.

IMO, not a chance on this planet that the Big 12 would disappear. Remember 2 months ago the Big East literally had 12 of 15 members planning on leaving the legal conference (the current American). The ability to outright end a conference that still has members is very tough though and the conference was getting a ton in exit penalties though so it wasn't going to disappear.

Let's say the Big Ten, and SEC despite the grant of rights, all take Big 12 members and somehow find a legal way around the grant of rights (absolute worst case senario in other words). Whomever is left is going to have the option of a) dissolving the conference and forming a new one, b) dissolving the conference and joining other conferences (probably the American and Mountain West), or c) keep the conference going.

By choosing choice c, the remaining teams keep the Big 12 brand name, keep all the exit fees and buyout money, and then can choose for themselves exactly who to add. Short of every single team being invited to another power conference or a super majority knowing they have a place in a power conference all at the same time and thus able to dissolve the conference (knowing later likely does little good as their voting power is probably limited after announcing they are joining another conference), it would be almost impossible to kill the conference.

As for scenarios being discussed, I actually think we talk a lot more about them on message boards like this than the presidents ever do and probably even more than the conference commissioners. From my vantage point, it doesn't look like even one conference move over the past 3 years involved even settling on divisions before deciding on expansion. Heck, sometimes the 2nd team in a pair wasn't even known when the first was announced (Utah as the 2nd to the PAC-10 and Missouri with the SEC).

In the case of the Big 12 should there be remainders after a mass departure I doubt seriously they would reform. The NCAA says you have to be at 8 within a year to remain a conference. The problem for the remainder of the Big 12 (probably just a couple of teams) is that everyone they might add would be of lesser value than the remaining teams thereby weakening their overall position even if the buyout money is attractive. They would be more likely to pair off with MWC teams or AAC teams or both to form a conference of schools who were closer to being peers.

Actually the NCAA rules give a conference a two-year grace period to return to the minimum number of schools. Plus, the NCAA doesn't have continuity requirements anymore, so as long as you meet the minimum numbers, it doesn't matter if they are different schools than before. That was how the WAC has survived.

(08-11-2013 04:02 AM)Volkmar Wrote:  Seriously? Now the Big Ten is even getting sucked in? And talk of three or even four divisions in the same conference? Two divisions is already absurd. I've said it before on other threads and will continue to stand by my opinion that conferences should be limited to 10 teams max. Ten teams means everyone plays 9 conference games, with 3 more open for OOC opposition of their choosing. Everyone would play the same schedule, and that's how it should be.

You can't have a TRUE conference champion if teams in the same conference are playing different schedules...lol. Sure, in a two-division conference for example, the East winner can face the West winner in a "title game", but sometimes the top two teams in one division are better than the first-place team in the other. And who's to say either division winner would've still won if they had to play everyone in the other division? Teams match up differently after all.

No method of determining conference champions is more fair than for everyone to play everyone else the same number of times. That would work equally well in basketball and anything else (each school would play home and away against every other school). The conference sizes are spiraling completely out of control, skewing results and compromising the legitimacy of their champions.

Agree completely. Wish the CCG rule (not meant for I-A) had never had been accepted.

If somehow Texas decides they want to join the B10 and can get out it's GOR, the B10 ought to take a hard look at UConn you add a National Championship Women's Hoops program, a Men's Hoops program that won the National Championship in 2011 and 6 Big East titles in the last 15 years along with a 7th Ice Hockey Program and a Football program that either won or tied for the BE title twice in the last decade when it has little FBS football history. On top of that UConn solidifies the Big 10 in metro NYC and gets the Big 10 into New England.

(08-11-2013 04:02 AM)Volkmar Wrote:  You can't have a TRUE conference champion if teams in the same conference are playing different schedules...

Even baseball couldn't resist screwing that one up.

(08-16-2013 11:37 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(08-11-2013 04:02 AM)Volkmar Wrote:  You can't have a TRUE conference champion if teams in the same conference are playing different schedules...

Even baseball couldn't resist screwing that one up.

I guess that means all NFL champions should have their championships annulled too.

God I cant stand traditionals who think their opinion is fact.

The word "cant" in his statement is obviously false because we DO have true conference champions and they DO earn it on the field. Only people who cant deal with change try to make silly statements such as his.

It is just his opinion that such does not make for a "true" conference champion.

Guess what....I bet he watches the NFL and I bet he watches the Super Bowl and I bet he never says that the winner isn't a true winner because they didn't have the same schedule as the team they beat.

How about the conference champions and how they earn that title? They don't play the exact same teams either, does that mean the two competing teams in the NFL are not deserving?

It is a dumb argument and I am not going to sugarcoat it for traditionals. I appreciate folks having their own opinion but that opinion can be expressed intelligently.