Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Making a Case for the PAC to stay at 12 schools.
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,887
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1
Making a Case for the PAC to stay at 12 schools.
Dodds has said that Texas's future was to the East. The PAC has rejected the notion of adding Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. Reportedly Oklahoma and Texas don't want to move to be in a pod with Iowa State. Reportedly Stanford doesn't want association with Kansas State, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech. Whether this information is factual or not there is one compelling reason for the PAC to stay at 12, money. Let's assume that Texas doesn't want to move West after all and that Oklahoma can't shake little brother. Let's further assume that B.Y.U. will never be acceptable to Palo Alto and that Nevada and New Mexico don't really add enough.

If the PAC does nothing and the Big 12 is still parsed out, or reconstituted with remnants from another conference, then the playoff share of the PAC would move up about 1.5 million per team due to the elimination of the 5th share. So how does this play out? There are several ways to accomplish this feat.

1. The SEC & ACC move to 18 and the Big 10 moves to 16.

This only works if the ACC cooperates in an unexpected way. Virginia Tech and N.C. State join Oklahoma and West Virginia in the SEC. This permits the ACC to make a Western division of 6 teams: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Baylor, Kansas State, and T.C.U.. The Big 10 adds Kansas and Connecticut to go to 16. (Maybe Buffalo and Iowa State get added in the future, big maybe.)

2. The Two Big Dogs Eat:

The SEC adds Texas and Oklahoma plus North Carolina and either Virginia or Virginia Tech to move to 18.

The Big 10 adds Kansas, Syracuse, Boston College, and either Virginia or Virginia Tech to move to 18.

A third conference is formed:
East: Cincinnati, Louisville, N.C. State, Pittsburgh, Wake Forest, West Virginia
South: Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, Tulane
West: Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, T.C.U., Texas Tech

Notre Dame goes wherever they can find a connection, or they join the Big 10 instead of B.C. or Virginia Tech. If either of these is bumped they move to the new conference and Tulane is out when Wake gets bumped to the South division.

3. The SEC and Big 10 get greedy:
The SEC adds Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Georgia Tech, Clemson, and Florida State.

The Big 10 adds Kansas, Texas, Oklahoma, Syracuse, Boston College, and Notre Dame.

A new conference is formed:
North: Cincinnati, Connecticut, Pittsburgh, West Virginia
East: Louisville, Miami, N.C. State, Wake Forest
South: Baylor, Oklahoma State, T.C.U., Tulane
West: Brigham Young, Iowa State, Kansas State, Texas Tech

As you can see it is doable, just not likely, and not the optimum balanced outcome we are looking for. What could fix it?

*******************************************************

First you have to understand that Stanford and the PAC core are the biggest problem to their own long term success. The West coast is not the place for academic snootiness. There simply aren't very many viable candidates and those that could add aren't acceptable academically.

The Big 10 thinks it needs to move East to for money, but maybe not.

California, Colorado, U.C.L.A., U.S.C., Stanford, and Washington would all fit nicely into the 14 team Big 10. All of the are AAU and their addition would be profitable for everyone concerned. That would leave the remnant of the PAC to expand profitably without having to pay undue attention to academics. It would also permit Texas and Oklahoma to move as kings.

What we would have would be this:

SEC:
Arkansas, L.S.U., Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Florida State, Mississippi, Mississippi State
Clemson, Duke, Georgia, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, South Carolina
Kentucky, N.C. State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia, Virginia Tech,

Big 10:
California, Colorado, U.C.L.A., U.S.C., Stanford, Washington
Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, Wisconsin
Boston College, Maryland, Notre Dame, Penn State, Rutgers, Syracuse

New Conference:
Cincinnati, Connecticut, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Wake Forest, W. Virginia
Arizona, Arizona State, Brigham Young, New Mexico, San Diego St., Utah
Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas State, Miami, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech
Boise State, Fresno State, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Nevada

Don't get hung up on the placement of teams. The idea is that if you remove the schools that prohibit reasonable inclusion for other Western schools you can satisfy the Big 10 and those schools by making them a Western division of the Big 10 and then building an all time zone conference out of the remainder, but also by keeping their geographical divisions within reasonable travel distances.

This is a concept idea, not intended for hurt feelings on anyone's part. Cuss and discuss as you see fit. But understand that its purpose is to work around certain West coast obstacles while trying to please the Big 10 and SEC.
(This post was last modified: 11-15-2013 07:46 PM by JRsec.)
11-15-2013 07:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


john01992 Offline
Former ESPNer still in recovery mode

Posts: 16,277
Joined: Jul 2013
I Root For: John0 out!!!!
Location: The Worst P5 Program
Post: #2
RE: Making a Case for the PAC to stay at 12 schools.
the best options for the pac IMO

option #1
texas oklahoma osu & tech

option #2
take just texas & OU

option #3
take CSU & new mexico as a building project addition

option #4
do nothing
11-15-2013 09:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
john01992 Offline
Former ESPNer still in recovery mode

Posts: 16,277
Joined: Jul 2013
I Root For: John0 out!!!!
Location: The Worst P5 Program
Post: #3
RE: Making a Case for the PAC to stay at 12 schools.
Big 10:
California, Colorado, U.C.L.A., U.S.C., Stanford, Washington
Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, Wisconsin
Boston College, Maryland, Notre Dame, Penn State, Rutgers, Syracuse


Jresc,

i just wanna say that i love you for making this hypothetical. i have said many times that i would run naked in the streets doing cartwheels if syracuse ever got a b10 invite. but if syracuse, colorado AND the core of the pac ALL got a b10 invite and accepted......i would be 10x more excited add in ND and this is basically a wet dream for me.

the only school that i would hate to see added to the b10 is KU but other than that....i like it
11-15-2013 09:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,887
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #4
RE: Making a Case for the PAC to stay at 12 schools.
(11-15-2013 09:26 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Big 10:
California, Colorado, U.C.L.A., U.S.C., Stanford, Washington
Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, Wisconsin
Boston College, Maryland, Notre Dame, Penn State, Rutgers, Syracuse


Jresc,

i just wanna say that i love you for making this hypothetical. i have said many times that i would run naked in the streets doing cartwheels if syracuse ever got a b10 invite. but if syracuse, colorado AND the core of the pac ALL got a b10 invite and accepted......i would be 10x more excited add in ND and this is basically a wet dream for me.

the only school that i would hate to see added to the b10 is KU but other than that....i like it

Well, if you wanted to make a custom adjustment then slide Colorado into the Iowa / Nebraska grouping replacing Kansas and add Arizona to the West. Then place Kansas in the new conference and slide Texas Tech into the Arizona State grouping.
11-15-2013 11:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
john01992 Offline
Former ESPNer still in recovery mode

Posts: 16,277
Joined: Jul 2013
I Root For: John0 out!!!!
Location: The Worst P5 Program
Post: #5
RE: Making a Case for the PAC to stay at 12 schools.
big ten

pod A
syracuse
maryland
rutgers
pitt
psu
BC

pod B
michigan
msu
osu
minn
wisc
iowa

pod C
NW
illinois
notre dame
IU
purdue
nebraska

pod D
ucla
stanford
usc
cal
colorado
wash

honestly, this is a lot more than reasonable than i ever could imagine. normally i say all these b10 hypotheticals are insane but this is one that i really like and think is workable (the only time i have ever said that). heres why

1. the power program distribution. normally people overload a pod with too many power programs. however this setup is a 1-2-2-1 for power programs. usc & psu should be in their own pod anyways, while osu/um must be together. UNL & ND actually have a little bit of history and would work nicely together. this does a tremendous job at balancing the FB powers.

2. the pods as the stand do a very good job of keeping most of the b10 rivalries intact. only the newer psu ones (who gains its old rvals back anyways), the notre dame rivalries, and a little know IU-osu rivalry get affected. i am quite surprised how well the traditional rivalries have been kept

3. the b10 wants colorado, colorado wants the 4 cali schools, the 4 cali schools want wash. it really doesnt get any easier than that

4. culturally this conference works. you have like minded institutions and a heavy aau presence. (20/24 aau membership is very impressive) and of the 4 non aau are 2 elite academia's and 2 former aau. not only does this conference have just 4 non aau's but those are the 4 best non aau's in all of FBS. 23/24 are academic first schools (unl being the exception).

my only real hesitation is that if theres gonna be a sec-24 you should include UNL in it. they can pair up with ou again and it would make the power program split 5-5 instead of 6-4.

ive thought about a hypothetical before where the pac merges with the b10. but that was a plan that included the ivy league and no colorado or acc schools as part of a de emphasized sports conference. but this conference right here ==> its scary how well this works. this is the first time that ive ever approved a hypothetical conference like this. (which means i firmly believe that its a) possible, b) the schools would be willing to do this, c) it can survive long term

imma try the sec next
(This post was last modified: 11-16-2013 01:16 AM by john01992.)
11-16-2013 01:14 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
john01992 Offline
Former ESPNer still in recovery mode

Posts: 16,277
Joined: Jul 2013
I Root For: John0 out!!!!
Location: The Worst P5 Program
Post: #6
RE: Making a Case for the PAC to stay at 12 schools.
Pod A (works perfectly)
1. duke
2. WF
3. unc
4. nc state
5. uva
6. vtech

pod B
7. scar
8. clemson
9. uga
10. gtech
12. florida
11. fsu

pod C kinda works
13. miami
17. auburn
18. bama
14 tenn
15. vandy
16. uk

pod D (works perfectly)
19 ole miss
20 miss state
21. lsu
22. arkansas
23. aggie
24. mizz

teams remaining:
lousiville
wvu
texas
ou
tech
okie state
isu
ku
ksu
tcu
baylor
smu
houston
rice
cincy

yeah like i said this is much harder and doesnt quite work as well im almost thinking that you go an sec-28 adding wvu (to pod A) texas, ou, & ku

any suggestions?
11-16-2013 01:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


CintiFan Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 386
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 45
I Root For: Ohio St./ Cinti
Location:
Post: #7
RE: Making a Case for the PAC to stay at 12 schools.
JR – I can’t see NC State or VTech leaving a functioning ACC, nor can I see the BIG picking up UConn. Likewise in the second scenario, I can’t see Florida State and GTech being relegated to the clearly third place conference when the BIG would certainly rather have them than add BC and Syracuse. The third scenario is more likely, assuming the core ACC teams want to stick together and the SEC doesn’t mind doubling up in S. C., Georgia and Florida – and the SEC may well agree to do that in order to keep the BIG and the third conference from competing for recruits in those states. If the BIG has no other options, then maybe Syracuse and BC get invitations, but I still think that’s unlikely.
Your other plan, with the PAC 12 schools joining the BIG would be great, as a BIG fan, but several mountains would have to move before it happens. It would be great for football, but the colleges won't voting in favor of nationwide conferences because of the travel problems for non-football sports.
11-16-2013 02:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,887
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #8
RE: Making a Case for the PAC to stay at 12 schools.
(11-16-2013 02:34 AM)CintiFan Wrote:  JR – I can’t see NC State or VTech leaving a functioning ACC, nor can I see the BIG picking up UConn. Likewise in the second scenario, I can’t see Florida State and GTech being relegated to the clearly third place conference when the BIG would certainly rather have them than add BC and Syracuse. The third scenario is more likely, assuming the core ACC teams want to stick together and the SEC doesn’t mind doubling up in S. C., Georgia and Florida – and the SEC may well agree to do that in order to keep the BIG and the third conference from competing for recruits in those states. If the BIG has no other options, then maybe Syracuse and BC get invitations, but I still think that’s unlikely.
Your other plan, with the PAC 12 schools joining the BIG would be great, as a BIG fan, but several mountains would have to move before it happens. It would be great for football, but the colleges won't voting in favor of nationwide conferences because of the travel problems for non-football sports.
Non football sports would concentrate their activities with home and home series in Baseball, Basketball, Tennis, etc. within their divisions and schedule annual games with the next closest divison for one trip or series alternating the home site every other year. This would comprise 16 games 10 of which would be in division and 3 of which from the other division would be at home. Three travel trips required annually outside of division. A rotation of 6 more games a year (3 home & 3 away) could be set up to play the other 12 more easterly teams. For basketball you would have 12 team tournaments in the East and West to determine the final 8 teams which would then meet for the finals of the conference in a tournament site of their own. Baseball works similarly and country club sports etc. The west coast teams keep water polo and other such sports and the traditional Big East and Big 10 powers keep hockey, lacrosse, etc.
(This post was last modified: 11-16-2013 02:45 AM by JRsec.)
11-16-2013 02:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
john01992 Offline
Former ESPNer still in recovery mode

Posts: 16,277
Joined: Jul 2013
I Root For: John0 out!!!!
Location: The Worst P5 Program
Post: #9
RE: Making a Case for the PAC to stay at 12 schools.
Pod A (works perfectly)
duke
WF
unc
nc state
uva
vtech
west virginia

pod B
scar
clemson
tenn
vandy
uk
mizz
kansas

pod C (works perfectly)
miami
auburn
bama
florida
fsu
uga
gtech

pod D (works perfectly)
ole miss
miss state
LSU
arkansas
ou
texas
aggie

the only problem with this is that bama/tenn get split up but i just dont see any way around it. i think they do pods with a fixed out of pod rival

my fixed rivals (some of these are great others stink)
tenn-bama
fsu-clemson
Scar-unc
Kansas-OU
Vandy-duke
Gtech-virginia
Wvu-texas
Aggie-mizz

Auburn, uga, FL pair up as best as possible with ole miss, msu, & lsu

Arky, Miami, uk pair up as best as possible with wf, nc state, vtech

i think with the sec you really gotta go with 28 teams here and make it up with only putting 20 teams in the aac. (next up the aac/mwc)
11-16-2013 12:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #10
RE: Making a Case for the PAC to stay at 12 schools.
I think the threat of moving on without the PAC is enough to get the PAC to go along with a plan that most posters wouldn't think possible.

Scenario's like these are the kind that can be used to threaten the PAC to just take the money and the schools suggested to them by the Networks.

It's fun though to exercise the noodle on such scenario's though.
11-16-2013 01:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
john01992 Offline
Former ESPNer still in recovery mode

Posts: 16,277
Joined: Jul 2013
I Root For: John0 out!!!!
Location: The Worst P5 Program
Post: #11
RE: Making a Case for the PAC to stay at 12 schools.
so i just realized that ND is big rivals with usc/stanford, which means ND has to be put in the western pod somehow and since theres absolutely no way colorado, washington & the cali4 are not in a western pod so you gotta go with 7 teams.....

which means the other pods will each need an additional team.

however after Mizz theres really no other team that i want in a hypothetical big-28 besides (ech) texas
11-16-2013 05:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


john01992 Offline
Former ESPNer still in recovery mode

Posts: 16,277
Joined: Jul 2013
I Root For: John0 out!!!!
Location: The Worst P5 Program
Post: #12
RE: Making a Case for the PAC to stay at 12 schools.
hypothetical big 28

western pod #1
notre dame
usc
ucla
stanford
cal
colorado
washington

eastern pod #2
psu
maryland
rutgers
syracuse
boston college
pitt
miami*

texas pod #3
texas**
nebraska
IU
purdue
illinois
northwestern
texas a&m

pod #4
michigan
ohio state
michigan state
wisconsin
minnesota
iowa
mizz

*before joining miami is required to sign a contract stating that under no circumstances will they ever complain about being an outlier or request for more schools to join

**texas must give up the LHN and make the RRR an ooc rivalry
11-16-2013 05:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
vandiver49 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,589
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 315
I Root For: USNA/UTK
Location: West GA
Post: #13
RE: Making a Case for the PAC to stay at 12 schools.
(11-16-2013 01:05 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I think the threat of moving on without the PAC is enough to get the PAC to go along with a plan that most posters wouldn't think possible.

Scenario's like these are the kind that can be used to threaten the PAC to just take the money and the schools suggested to them by the Networks.

It's fun though to exercise the noodle on such scenario's though.

I think this is the biggest hammer. If ESPN and FOX authorize the elimination one conference for financial reasons, the PAC stands to be left behind monetarily. It will functionally irrelevant that the PAC has a permanent playoff spot if the likes of Baylor and KSU are making 1.5-2 times as much money. That type of disparity will take its toll on coaches as well as staffing and would marginalize the PAC far worse than the ACC's past 5 years of irrelevancy.

If all the PAC has to do is to get to 16 teams (4 from the B12) and the schools can agree on some type of North-South split (I just don't see pods working out there) then Standford will probably relent.
11-17-2013 10:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #14
RE: Making a Case for the PAC to stay at 12 schools.
(11-17-2013 10:06 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  
(11-16-2013 01:05 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I think the threat of moving on without the PAC is enough to get the PAC to go along with a plan that most posters wouldn't think possible.

Scenario's like these are the kind that can be used to threaten the PAC to just take the money and the schools suggested to them by the Networks.

It's fun though to exercise the noodle on such scenario's though.

I think this is the biggest hammer. If ESPN and FOX authorize the elimination one conference for financial reasons, the PAC stands to be left behind monetarily. It will functionally irrelevant that the PAC has a permanent playoff spot if the likes of Baylor and KSU are making 1.5-2 times as much money. That type of disparity will take its toll on coaches as well as staffing and would marginalize the PAC far worse than the ACC's past 5 years of irrelevancy.

If all the PAC has to do is to get to 16 teams (4 from the B12) and the schools can agree on some type of North-South split (I just don't see pods working out there) then Standford will probably relent.

Yeah, most sports fans don't like to mentally tackle such a concept as complex politics mattering more in regards to conference realignment than the simple desires of each conference.

I do disagree with you on the division thing though. The only way the current PAC will get to across the board protect their visits to California is by putting the four California teams in the same four team division. Many of those schools will not only want to protect their own interests directly in terms of playing there but they will also want to indirectly protect their interests by making sure no other non-California schools get more games in California than other non-California schools. As an example, Oregon depends massively upon California recruits. How would a North/South split work for them and would schools like Arizona and Arizona State stand to take over the position that Oregon enjoys now? Schools like Oregon and Washington will not stand for that. They will have the likes of Oregon State and Wash State standing with them on that. Likely Utah and Colorado would too. A North and South split would never be agreed upon. I just cant see it Van.

That means a four team California division is inevitable, in my opinion, if the PAC does as you and I surmise they will be forced into doing.
(This post was last modified: 11-17-2013 10:52 AM by He1nousOne.)
11-17-2013 10:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
USAFMEDIC Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,914
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 189
I Root For: MIZZOU/FSU/USM
Location: Biloxi, MS
Post: #15
RE: Making a Case for the PAC to stay at 12 schools.
Sometimes I fear TV and CFB is destined to destroy what has taken years to grow and prosper. Personally I am against any conference going beyond 16 schools, but that is just my personal opinion. After that I feel school relationships become detached and continuity lost. I did like your four pods proposal you posted sometime back, Jr.. Three games in your own pod with at least six more with the other pods. Nine game conference schedule and you see everyone at least every other year.
(This post was last modified: 11-17-2013 01:18 PM by USAFMEDIC.)
11-17-2013 01:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,887
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #16
RE: Making a Case for the PAC to stay at 12 schools.
(11-17-2013 01:13 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Sometimes I fear TV and CFB is destined to destroy what has taken years to grow and prosper. Personally I am against any conference going beyond 16 schools, but that is just my personal opinion. After that I feel school relationships become detached and continuity lost. I did like your four pods proposal you posted sometime back, Jr.. Three games in your own pod with at least six more with the other pods. Nine game conference schedule and you see everyone at least every other year.

I prefer it too MEDIC. The problem long term for that model is equity. The Big 10 and SEC will be earning 40 plus million a team in 5 years. The ACC will lag well behind and the PACN isn't panning out very well. We'll have two have conferences and two have nots. Long term that won't bode well. The top schools of both will eventually want out. The only way to bring any semblance of economic balance will be to move to 3 conferences of 20 (or perhaps 1 or 2 of 24). That way peers can be grouped and the networks can create a 3rd conference that is marketable and profitable. They could do that with 4 conferences as well except the legal hurdles would be much more difficult IMO. Dissolving conferences are much easier than rebuilding them, and much more legally neat.

We'll see what happens, but whether that happens in 1 or 10 years the logic driving the moves will eventually carry them through to conclusion.

The best way I see to get to a 4 x 16 model would be for the football first, non flagship schools of the ACC & Big 12 to reform a really good athletic conference after Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, North Carolina, Duke and the two Virginia's have gone.

Louisville, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, N.C. State
Florida State, Clemson, Miami, Georgia Tech
Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Cincinnati
Brigham Young, T.C.U., Texas Tech, Baylor

Something like the above could be created which would have enough of a market footprint to make it profitable. It's just that the logistics, legalities, and politics make it just about impossible without first dissolving the ACC & Big 12.
11-17-2013 01:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


john01992 Offline
Former ESPNer still in recovery mode

Posts: 16,277
Joined: Jul 2013
I Root For: John0 out!!!!
Location: The Worst P5 Program
Post: #17
RE: Making a Case for the PAC to stay at 12 schools.
actually,

the pac 16 pods went like this

ucla, usc, asu, zona

cu, utah, cal, stanford

ore, osu, wsu, wash

tech, osu, ou, tx

as much as the WA/OR schools want access to california, they value keeping their regional matchups more.

there will never be an all cali pac16 pod because it will cripple the other pac12 schools especially utah & colorado.
11-17-2013 07:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #18
RE: Making a Case for the PAC to stay at 12 schools.
Believe what you wish. You are basing your opinion on a failed idea that never went past conceptual stage.
11-17-2013 09:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,231
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #19
RE: Making a Case for the PAC to stay at 12 schools.
(11-17-2013 01:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(11-17-2013 01:13 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Sometimes I fear TV and CFB is destined to destroy what has taken years to grow and prosper. Personally I am against any conference going beyond 16 schools, but that is just my personal opinion. After that I feel school relationships become detached and continuity lost. I did like your four pods proposal you posted sometime back, Jr.. Three games in your own pod with at least six more with the other pods. Nine game conference schedule and you see everyone at least every other year.

I prefer it too MEDIC. The problem long term for that model is equity. The Big 10 and SEC will be earning 40 plus million a team in 5 years. The ACC will lag well behind and the PACN isn't panning out very well. We'll have two have conferences and two have nots. Long term that won't bode well. The top schools of both will eventually want out. The only way to bring any semblance of economic balance will be to move to 3 conferences of 20 (or perhaps 1 or 2 of 24). That way peers can be grouped and the networks can create a 3rd conference that is marketable and profitable. They could do that with 4 conferences as well except the legal hurdles would be much more difficult IMO. Dissolving conferences are much easier than rebuilding them, and much more legally neat.

We'll see what happens, but whether that happens in 1 or 10 years the logic driving the moves will eventually carry them through to conclusion.

The best way I see to get to a 4 x 16 model would be for the football first, non flagship schools of the ACC & Big 12 to reform a really good athletic conference after Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, North Carolina, Duke and the two Virginia's have gone.

Louisville, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, N.C. State
Florida State, Clemson, Miami, Georgia Tech
Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Cincinnati
Brigham Young, T.C.U., Texas Tech, Baylor

Something like the above could be created which would have enough of a market footprint to make it profitable. It's just that the logistics, legalities, and politics make it just about impossible without first dissolving the ACC & Big 12.

We are already killing the goose.
When you can watch 15-18 games on any given Saturday WITHOUT paying a network subscription, college football is being diluted as a marketable product.
At some point marketing decisions will have to take the attending fan into account.
11-17-2013 09:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
john01992 Offline
Former ESPNer still in recovery mode

Posts: 16,277
Joined: Jul 2013
I Root For: John0 out!!!!
Location: The Worst P5 Program
Post: #20
RE: Making a Case for the PAC to stay at 12 schools.
(11-17-2013 09:27 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Believe what you wish. You are basing your opinion on a failed idea that never went past conceptual stage.

dude that was the agreed upon pod system with number of school admins going on the record about their desires for a pac16 with that type of setup. it was reported by every major media outlet.

it may have been a conceptual stage but the texas to pac16 talks had indeed advanced far enough whereas this proposal was already agreed upon.

and at some point common sense needs to prevail here.

-colorado has been chased by the pac for quite some time. they have always been a de-factor pac-10 school because their alumni is based primarily on the west coast and they recruit cali harder than every other state (except colorado) combined. the pac finally adds colorado only to put them in a pod system or 8 team division with none of the core pac schools?????? that makes zero sense

-asu/zona. if you know your pac history you will also know that usc/ucla have a solid connection with them. USC/ucla were the biggest proponents of their pac8 invite and when stanford & washington said that they would block asu/zona USC/UCLA threatened to leave the conference. the point: usc/ucla pairing with zona/asu is not really that unreasonable

and think about it: is the pac really gonna screw four of its members like that?

1. theres no way you could put a pod plan in place like that over the objections of 1/4th of the conference

2. that would single handedly be the dumbest realignment move ever. a conference that doesnt sacrifice for the well being of its newer members screws itself long term. thats why the pac10 added utah with colorado. thats why the sec is pushing LSU/texas A&M to be major rivals, thats why the b10 added MD/RU and even JHU. thats why the ACC is moving tourny games to NYC and the b10 doing the same.

if the pac16 makes a 4 team pod like that they would cause a major rift and resentment within the conference as well single handedly destroy those programs.

believe what you want, i went to a pac12 school when all this went down and i was watching this stuff constantly and not once was there ever serious consideration that that would happen. i even got a student email saying the reports of a utah/arizona pod was false.
(This post was last modified: 11-18-2013 12:18 AM by john01992.)
11-18-2013 12:18 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.