(03-19-2014 02:41 AM)john01992 Wrote:  two major things would of developed, neither of which the OP got into.

1. the b12 would of had to gone to a divisions setup.
the b12 by its demographic nature is a very hard conference to split up into divisions. this would of led to more conference in-fighting and giving schools that had already tried to leave an even bigger incentive to leave. it would of effectively destabilized the league even more than it already was. this is why only adding 2 schools was a genius move by the b12 because it was one less internal fight to deal with at a time when the conference couldn't afford to have any in-fighting.

the pac12 nearly had a mutiny over this issue* and the ACC is trying so hard to eliminate divisions because so many of its members from within the conference are pissed off about the new divisions. with a 12 team b12 the schools would be a lot less inclined to sign a GOR, the member schools would not be standing together in the same manner as they were in reality. this may sound silly but schools being all on the same page actually goes a very long way in gaining leverage during tv negotiations. with 12 schools the b12 would of ended up with less money, split more ways, no GOR, and more resentment between the schools. it effectively would of guaranteed more defections within 1-3 years.

*this is most likely the biggest reason as to why the pac did not add any more schools after going to 12. they would of ran into the same "divisions problem" as the b12.

for those of you calling me crazy for saying by adding 4 schools the b12 would of ended up with less money split more ways:

while people will continue to blast the wvu/tcu move because they failed to secure ville and eventually lost them to the ACC. what people fail to realize is that the b12 had all but signed a TV contract negotiated for a 10 team league before the texas a&m/missouri departures. all the b12 needed was two replacements. with 12 teams they effectively would of had to start over in tv negotiations with 4 less than ideal schools on the negotiating table. no offense to these 4 but they are not the "total package." on top of that the b12 would of lost the money that would of gone to mizz/aggie....money that the b12 managed to retain adding tcu/wvu. remember that in this scenario it would be very hard to fathom the b12 signing a GOR......do you honestly believe fox would be as willing to pay out big bucks without that safety net?

2. the ACC timeline of events completely changes
with the b12 going to 4 and making less money maryland would not feel as threatened staying in the ACC. you may go WTF......."how can I say that" but it is the threat of revenue disparity.....the feeling of being left behind in the never ending cash grab that is CFB that scares college admins into conference realignment more so than the prosperity of making more money.

TBH i think most schools could care less what their TV payout is ==> just as long as it's in the same league as their competition. so what we will see is with the b12 not getting that blockbuster 20 mill per school contract maryland would have had a smaller incentive to leave. while UMD was facing budget problems, the truth is that the line of thought among college admins across the nation would be in a completely different state of thought.

On top of that think of this from the perspective of other conferences.......

the b10
the b12 would of been extremely unstable. while I have been a huge proponent that maryland was an academic driven move by the b10. part of the reason they went to the east in the first place is because texas wasn't an option in the west.

in this alternate version the b10 would of been working with a different lineup. the east would of been harder for them to expand in while they would of had an easier time in the west. something that was the complete opposite in reality.

I can not fathom the b10 settling/focusing on rutgers or maryland (let alone both) when they had a goldmine in the west (texas). the b10 could of even swiped mizz and/or aggie away from the sec before they ever played a game in that conference as part of a texas combo.

the pac12
in reality the p12 rejected the texahoma in this time period and the b12 quickly stabilized soon after. but in this alternate version the b12 would never have stabilized which meant:

-the pac would have had time to reconsider after watching events unfold

-the pac would have to bite the bullet on the "divisions problem" add the texahoma or risk losing them to the sec, acc, or b10

which brings us back full circle to the whole "b10 going east with rutgers/maryland"

the truth is that what you are proposing is like changing a key event in world history and having to guess how it affected future events. you can't do it and it is all speculative at best. but regardless of what happens in this version of events the ACC would never have had to deal with "the uconn problem" because there's a chance they never would of lost maryland in the first place. but if they did they still would of been in a much better position to add rutgers or raid the b12.

You just don't get it regarding the B1G taking anyone from the SEC, but then again, I guess you just haven't experienced the SEC. No one is leaving...EVER.

(03-18-2014 09:38 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  most likely IMO UConn would go to ACC instead of Louisville. ND as well. USF being left would probably have to go back to cusa and anyone else that was invited prior to this point would back out. thus no American conference. The BE would probably still be what it is today

This^^^....

(03-18-2014 09:38 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  most likely IMO UConn would go to ACC instead of Louisville. ND as well. USF being left would probably have to go back to cusa and anyone else that was invited prior to this point would back out. thus no American conference. The BE would probably still be what it is today

To follow through on this, I agree that ND still goes to the ACC and that UConn simply replaces UL to the ACC.

Following the departure of Cincy, UL, and WVU, the Big East would have been left with SU, UConn, Pitt, Rutgers and USF, with SU and Pitt as lame ducks for the 2012 football season, and Temple, Memphis, UCF, SMU, and Houston on he way as full members for 2013 and BSU, Navy, and SDSU on the way as partial members. I'm guessing BSU and SDSU pull the plug, as they later did.

It's certainly not clear how the BE could have conducted a football schedule in 2012, even if Temple had come early. More likely, it seems to me, UL and Cincy would have stayed for 2012 with WVU leaving when they did.

It seems pretty likely that the basketball schools would have pulled the same move with Fox, leaving the American Conference as UConn, Rutgers, Temple, Memphis, UCF, SMU, and Houston for 2013 with Tulane and ECU invited for 2014. UConn and Rutgers leave, I would guess Tulsa, UMass and USM are invited to make 12 when Navy comes on in 2015.

Bottom line, UConn replaces UL to the ACC, the BE still splits, the AAC still forms, UConn and Cincy are replaced by USM and UMass.

(03-21-2014 12:26 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 02:41 AM)john01992 Wrote:  two major things would of developed, neither of which the OP got into.

1. the b12 would of had to gone to a divisions setup.
the b12 by its demographic nature is a very hard conference to split up into divisions. this would of led to more conference in-fighting and giving schools that had already tried to leave an even bigger incentive to leave. it would of effectively destabilized the league even more than it already was. this is why only adding 2 schools was a genius move by the b12 because it was one less internal fight to deal with at a time when the conference couldn't afford to have any in-fighting.

the pac12 nearly had a mutiny over this issue* and the ACC is trying so hard to eliminate divisions because so many of its members from within the conference are pissed off about the new divisions. with a 12 team b12 the schools would be a lot less inclined to sign a GOR, the member schools would not be standing together in the same manner as they were in reality. this may sound silly but schools being all on the same page actually goes a very long way in gaining leverage during tv negotiations. with 12 schools the b12 would of ended up with less money, split more ways, no GOR, and more resentment between the schools. it effectively would of guaranteed more defections within 1-3 years.

*this is most likely the biggest reason as to why the pac did not add any more schools after going to 12. they would of ran into the same "divisions problem" as the b12.

for those of you calling me crazy for saying by adding 4 schools the b12 would of ended up with less money split more ways:

while people will continue to blast the wvu/tcu move because they failed to secure ville and eventually lost them to the ACC. what people fail to realize is that the b12 had all but signed a TV contract negotiated for a 10 team league before the texas a&m/missouri departures. all the b12 needed was two replacements. with 12 teams they effectively would of had to start over in tv negotiations with 4 less than ideal schools on the negotiating table. no offense to these 4 but they are not the "total package." on top of that the b12 would of lost the money that would of gone to mizz/aggie....money that the b12 managed to retain adding tcu/wvu. remember that in this scenario it would be very hard to fathom the b12 signing a GOR......do you honestly believe fox would be as willing to pay out big bucks without that safety net?

2. the ACC timeline of events completely changes
with the b12 going to 4 and making less money maryland would not feel as threatened staying in the ACC. you may go WTF......."how can I say that" but it is the threat of revenue disparity.....the feeling of being left behind in the never ending cash grab that is CFB that scares college admins into conference realignment more so than the prosperity of making more money.

TBH i think most schools could care less what their TV payout is ==> just as long as it's in the same league as their competition. so what we will see is with the b12 not getting that blockbuster 20 mill per school contract maryland would have had a smaller incentive to leave. while UMD was facing budget problems, the truth is that the line of thought among college admins across the nation would be in a completely different state of thought.

On top of that think of this from the perspective of other conferences.......

the b10
the b12 would of been extremely unstable. while I have been a huge proponent that maryland was an academic driven move by the b10. part of the reason they went to the east in the first place is because texas wasn't an option in the west.

in this alternate version the b10 would of been working with a different lineup. the east would of been harder for them to expand in while they would of had an easier time in the west. something that was the complete opposite in reality.

I can not fathom the b10 settling/focusing on rutgers or maryland (let alone both) when they had a goldmine in the west (texas). the b10 could of even swiped mizz and/or aggie away from the sec before they ever played a game in that conference as part of a texas combo.

the pac12
in reality the p12 rejected the texahoma in this time period and the b12 quickly stabilized soon after. but in this alternate version the b12 would never have stabilized which meant:

-the pac would have had time to reconsider after watching events unfold

-the pac would have to bite the bullet on the "divisions problem" add the texahoma or risk losing them to the sec, acc, or b10

which brings us back full circle to the whole "b10 going east with rutgers/maryland"

the truth is that what you are proposing is like changing a key event in world history and having to guess how it affected future events. you can't do it and it is all speculative at best. but regardless of what happens in this version of events the ACC would never have had to deal with "the uconn problem" because there's a chance they never would of lost maryland in the first place. but if they did they still would of been in a much better position to add rutgers or raid the b12.

You just don't get it regarding the B1G taking anyone from the SEC, but then again, I guess you just haven't experienced the SEC. No one is leaving...EVER.

Exactly. A&M would never have joined the B1G. It is a great league full of great schools but it's not a geographic or cultural fit for us (ie the same argument we made against joining the PAC when UT and friends tried to leave the first time). IMO the B1G made a big mistake not grabbing NU, MU and KU to get to 14 but now its too late. Mizzou is not leaving the SEC even for the B1G at this point.

(03-21-2014 02:30 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(03-21-2014 12:26 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 02:41 AM)john01992 Wrote:  two major things would of developed, neither of which the OP got into.

1. the b12 would of had to gone to a divisions setup.
the b12 by its demographic nature is a very hard conference to split up into divisions. this would of led to more conference in-fighting and giving schools that had already tried to leave an even bigger incentive to leave. it would of effectively destabilized the league even more than it already was. this is why only adding 2 schools was a genius move by the b12 because it was one less internal fight to deal with at a time when the conference couldn't afford to have any in-fighting.

the pac12 nearly had a mutiny over this issue* and the ACC is trying so hard to eliminate divisions because so many of its members from within the conference are pissed off about the new divisions. with a 12 team b12 the schools would be a lot less inclined to sign a GOR, the member schools would not be standing together in the same manner as they were in reality. this may sound silly but schools being all on the same page actually goes a very long way in gaining leverage during tv negotiations. with 12 schools the b12 would of ended up with less money, split more ways, no GOR, and more resentment between the schools. it effectively would of guaranteed more defections within 1-3 years.

*this is most likely the biggest reason as to why the pac did not add any more schools after going to 12. they would of ran into the same "divisions problem" as the b12.

for those of you calling me crazy for saying by adding 4 schools the b12 would of ended up with less money split more ways:

while people will continue to blast the wvu/tcu move because they failed to secure ville and eventually lost them to the ACC. what people fail to realize is that the b12 had all but signed a TV contract negotiated for a 10 team league before the texas a&m/missouri departures. all the b12 needed was two replacements. with 12 teams they effectively would of had to start over in tv negotiations with 4 less than ideal schools on the negotiating table. no offense to these 4 but they are not the "total package." on top of that the b12 would of lost the money that would of gone to mizz/aggie....money that the b12 managed to retain adding tcu/wvu. remember that in this scenario it would be very hard to fathom the b12 signing a GOR......do you honestly believe fox would be as willing to pay out big bucks without that safety net?

2. the ACC timeline of events completely changes
with the b12 going to 4 and making less money maryland would not feel as threatened staying in the ACC. you may go WTF......."how can I say that" but it is the threat of revenue disparity.....the feeling of being left behind in the never ending cash grab that is CFB that scares college admins into conference realignment more so than the prosperity of making more money.

TBH i think most schools could care less what their TV payout is ==> just as long as it's in the same league as their competition. so what we will see is with the b12 not getting that blockbuster 20 mill per school contract maryland would have had a smaller incentive to leave. while UMD was facing budget problems, the truth is that the line of thought among college admins across the nation would be in a completely different state of thought.

On top of that think of this from the perspective of other conferences.......

the b10
the b12 would of been extremely unstable. while I have been a huge proponent that maryland was an academic driven move by the b10. part of the reason they went to the east in the first place is because texas wasn't an option in the west.

in this alternate version the b10 would of been working with a different lineup. the east would of been harder for them to expand in while they would of had an easier time in the west. something that was the complete opposite in reality.

I can not fathom the b10 settling/focusing on rutgers or maryland (let alone both) when they had a goldmine in the west (texas). the b10 could of even swiped mizz and/or aggie away from the sec before they ever played a game in that conference as part of a texas combo.

the pac12
in reality the p12 rejected the texahoma in this time period and the b12 quickly stabilized soon after. but in this alternate version the b12 would never have stabilized which meant:

-the pac would have had time to reconsider after watching events unfold

-the pac would have to bite the bullet on the "divisions problem" add the texahoma or risk losing them to the sec, acc, or b10

which brings us back full circle to the whole "b10 going east with rutgers/maryland"

the truth is that what you are proposing is like changing a key event in world history and having to guess how it affected future events. you can't do it and it is all speculative at best. but regardless of what happens in this version of events the ACC would never have had to deal with "the uconn problem" because there's a chance they never would of lost maryland in the first place. but if they did they still would of been in a much better position to add rutgers or raid the b12.

You just don't get it regarding the B1G taking anyone from the SEC, but then again, I guess you just haven't experienced the SEC. No one is leaving...EVER.

Exactly. A&M would never have joined the B1G. It is a great league full of great schools but it's not a geographic or cultural fit for us (ie the same argument we made against joining the PAC when UT and friends tried to leave the first time). IMO the B1G made a big mistake not grabbing NU, MU and KU to get to 14 but now its too late. Mizzou is not leaving the SEC even for the B1G at this point.

I would go even further. If the B1G had been really farsighted when they added Nebraska, they would have tried to make that a package deal: invite the Huskers along with Kansas, Missouri and Oklahoma, leaving one slot open for Texas. At that point, the Big 12 is dead in the water and the Longhorns' leverage to negotiate any kind of a special revenue deal goes out the window. Their only real options at that point are the SEC or PAC 12, and neither of them are going to agree to a sweetheart deal for Texas.

Assuming Texas joins the B1G, that limits the SEC's options, leaving them with TAMU and OK State. Both of these are good fits, but that pretty much ends all the westward options they have.

(03-21-2014 02:49 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-21-2014 02:30 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(03-21-2014 12:26 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 02:41 AM)john01992 Wrote:  two major things would of developed, neither of which the OP got into.

1. the b12 would of had to gone to a divisions setup.
the b12 by its demographic nature is a very hard conference to split up into divisions. this would of led to more conference in-fighting and giving schools that had already tried to leave an even bigger incentive to leave. it would of effectively destabilized the league even more than it already was. this is why only adding 2 schools was a genius move by the b12 because it was one less internal fight to deal with at a time when the conference couldn't afford to have any in-fighting.

the pac12 nearly had a mutiny over this issue* and the ACC is trying so hard to eliminate divisions because so many of its members from within the conference are pissed off about the new divisions. with a 12 team b12 the schools would be a lot less inclined to sign a GOR, the member schools would not be standing together in the same manner as they were in reality. this may sound silly but schools being all on the same page actually goes a very long way in gaining leverage during tv negotiations. with 12 schools the b12 would of ended up with less money, split more ways, no GOR, and more resentment between the schools. it effectively would of guaranteed more defections within 1-3 years.

*this is most likely the biggest reason as to why the pac did not add any more schools after going to 12. they would of ran into the same "divisions problem" as the b12.

for those of you calling me crazy for saying by adding 4 schools the b12 would of ended up with less money split more ways:

while people will continue to blast the wvu/tcu move because they failed to secure ville and eventually lost them to the ACC. what people fail to realize is that the b12 had all but signed a TV contract negotiated for a 10 team league before the texas a&m/missouri departures. all the b12 needed was two replacements. with 12 teams they effectively would of had to start over in tv negotiations with 4 less than ideal schools on the negotiating table. no offense to these 4 but they are not the "total package." on top of that the b12 would of lost the money that would of gone to mizz/aggie....money that the b12 managed to retain adding tcu/wvu. remember that in this scenario it would be very hard to fathom the b12 signing a GOR......do you honestly believe fox would be as willing to pay out big bucks without that safety net?

2. the ACC timeline of events completely changes
with the b12 going to 4 and making less money maryland would not feel as threatened staying in the ACC. you may go WTF......."how can I say that" but it is the threat of revenue disparity.....the feeling of being left behind in the never ending cash grab that is CFB that scares college admins into conference realignment more so than the prosperity of making more money.

TBH i think most schools could care less what their TV payout is ==> just as long as it's in the same league as their competition. so what we will see is with the b12 not getting that blockbuster 20 mill per school contract maryland would have had a smaller incentive to leave. while UMD was facing budget problems, the truth is that the line of thought among college admins across the nation would be in a completely different state of thought.

On top of that think of this from the perspective of other conferences.......

the b10
the b12 would of been extremely unstable. while I have been a huge proponent that maryland was an academic driven move by the b10. part of the reason they went to the east in the first place is because texas wasn't an option in the west.

in this alternate version the b10 would of been working with a different lineup. the east would of been harder for them to expand in while they would of had an easier time in the west. something that was the complete opposite in reality.

I can not fathom the b10 settling/focusing on rutgers or maryland (let alone both) when they had a goldmine in the west (texas). the b10 could of even swiped mizz and/or aggie away from the sec before they ever played a game in that conference as part of a texas combo.

the pac12
in reality the p12 rejected the texahoma in this time period and the b12 quickly stabilized soon after. but in this alternate version the b12 would never have stabilized which meant:

-the pac would have had time to reconsider after watching events unfold

-the pac would have to bite the bullet on the "divisions problem" add the texahoma or risk losing them to the sec, acc, or b10

which brings us back full circle to the whole "b10 going east with rutgers/maryland"

the truth is that what you are proposing is like changing a key event in world history and having to guess how it affected future events. you can't do it and it is all speculative at best. but regardless of what happens in this version of events the ACC would never have had to deal with "the uconn problem" because there's a chance they never would of lost maryland in the first place. but if they did they still would of been in a much better position to add rutgers or raid the b12.

You just don't get it regarding the B1G taking anyone from the SEC, but then again, I guess you just haven't experienced the SEC. No one is leaving...EVER.

Exactly. A&M would never have joined the B1G. It is a great league full of great schools but it's not a geographic or cultural fit for us (ie the same argument we made against joining the PAC when UT and friends tried to leave the first time). IMO the B1G made a big mistake not grabbing NU, MU and KU to get to 14 but now its too late. Mizzou is not leaving the SEC even for the B1G at this point.

I would go even further. If the B1G had been really farsighted when they added Nebraska, they would have tried to make that a package deal: invite the Huskers along with Kansas, Missouri and Oklahoma, leaving one slot open for Texas. At that point, the Big 12 is dead in the water and the Longhorns leverage to negotiate any kind of a special revenue deal goes out the window. Their only real options at that point are the SEC or PAC 12, and neither of them are going to agree to a sweetheart deal for Texas.

Assuming Texas joins the B1G, that limits the SEC's options, leaving them with TAMU and OK State. Both of these are good fits, but that pretty much ends all the westward options they have.

I still think that when the GOR comes up, the PAC and B1G will both be trying to woo OU/UT/KU

(03-21-2014 03:04 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(03-21-2014 02:49 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-21-2014 02:30 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(03-21-2014 12:26 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 02:41 AM)john01992 Wrote:  two major things would of developed, neither of which the OP got into.

1. the b12 would of had to gone to a divisions setup.
the b12 by its demographic nature is a very hard conference to split up into divisions. this would of led to more conference in-fighting and giving schools that had already tried to leave an even bigger incentive to leave. it would of effectively destabilized the league even more than it already was. this is why only adding 2 schools was a genius move by the b12 because it was one less internal fight to deal with at a time when the conference couldn't afford to have any in-fighting.

the pac12 nearly had a mutiny over this issue* and the ACC is trying so hard to eliminate divisions because so many of its members from within the conference are pissed off about the new divisions. with a 12 team b12 the schools would be a lot less inclined to sign a GOR, the member schools would not be standing together in the same manner as they were in reality. this may sound silly but schools being all on the same page actually goes a very long way in gaining leverage during tv negotiations. with 12 schools the b12 would of ended up with less money, split more ways, no GOR, and more resentment between the schools. it effectively would of guaranteed more defections within 1-3 years.

*this is most likely the biggest reason as to why the pac did not add any more schools after going to 12. they would of ran into the same "divisions problem" as the b12.

for those of you calling me crazy for saying by adding 4 schools the b12 would of ended up with less money split more ways:

while people will continue to blast the wvu/tcu move because they failed to secure ville and eventually lost them to the ACC. what people fail to realize is that the b12 had all but signed a TV contract negotiated for a 10 team league before the texas a&m/missouri departures. all the b12 needed was two replacements. with 12 teams they effectively would of had to start over in tv negotiations with 4 less than ideal schools on the negotiating table. no offense to these 4 but they are not the "total package." on top of that the b12 would of lost the money that would of gone to mizz/aggie....money that the b12 managed to retain adding tcu/wvu. remember that in this scenario it would be very hard to fathom the b12 signing a GOR......do you honestly believe fox would be as willing to pay out big bucks without that safety net?

2. the ACC timeline of events completely changes
with the b12 going to 4 and making less money maryland would not feel as threatened staying in the ACC. you may go WTF......."how can I say that" but it is the threat of revenue disparity.....the feeling of being left behind in the never ending cash grab that is CFB that scares college admins into conference realignment more so than the prosperity of making more money.

TBH i think most schools could care less what their TV payout is ==> just as long as it's in the same league as their competition. so what we will see is with the b12 not getting that blockbuster 20 mill per school contract maryland would have had a smaller incentive to leave. while UMD was facing budget problems, the truth is that the line of thought among college admins across the nation would be in a completely different state of thought.

On top of that think of this from the perspective of other conferences.......

the b10
the b12 would of been extremely unstable. while I have been a huge proponent that maryland was an academic driven move by the b10. part of the reason they went to the east in the first place is because texas wasn't an option in the west.

in this alternate version the b10 would of been working with a different lineup. the east would of been harder for them to expand in while they would of had an easier time in the west. something that was the complete opposite in reality.

I can not fathom the b10 settling/focusing on rutgers or maryland (let alone both) when they had a goldmine in the west (texas). the b10 could of even swiped mizz and/or aggie away from the sec before they ever played a game in that conference as part of a texas combo.

the pac12
in reality the p12 rejected the texahoma in this time period and the b12 quickly stabilized soon after. but in this alternate version the b12 would never have stabilized which meant:

-the pac would have had time to reconsider after watching events unfold

-the pac would have to bite the bullet on the "divisions problem" add the texahoma or risk losing them to the sec, acc, or b10

which brings us back full circle to the whole "b10 going east with rutgers/maryland"

the truth is that what you are proposing is like changing a key event in world history and having to guess how it affected future events. you can't do it and it is all speculative at best. but regardless of what happens in this version of events the ACC would never have had to deal with "the uconn problem" because there's a chance they never would of lost maryland in the first place. but if they did they still would of been in a much better position to add rutgers or raid the b12.

You just don't get it regarding the B1G taking anyone from the SEC, but then again, I guess you just haven't experienced the SEC. No one is leaving...EVER.

Exactly. A&M would never have joined the B1G. It is a great league full of great schools but it's not a geographic or cultural fit for us (ie the same argument we made against joining the PAC when UT and friends tried to leave the first time). IMO the B1G made a big mistake not grabbing NU, MU and KU to get to 14 but now its too late. Mizzou is not leaving the SEC even for the B1G at this point.

I would go even further. If the B1G had been really farsighted when they added Nebraska, they would have tried to make that a package deal: invite the Huskers along with Kansas, Missouri and Oklahoma, leaving one slot open for Texas. At that point, the Big 12 is dead in the water and the Longhorns leverage to negotiate any kind of a special revenue deal goes out the window. Their only real options at that point are the SEC or PAC 12, and neither of them are going to agree to a sweetheart deal for Texas.

Assuming Texas joins the B1G, that limits the SEC's options, leaving them with TAMU and OK State. Both of these are good fits, but that pretty much ends all the westward options they have.

I still think that when the GOR comes up, the PAC and B1G will both be trying to woo OU/UT/KU

True enough 10th, but at that point OU, UT, and KU will have all of the leverage and little to worry about. It's the rest of the 7 dwarfs that will have an issue. That's why waiting until the GOR expires is suicide for most of the rest of them. They would have a much better shot at a new home riding coattails than fending for themselves.

(03-21-2014 03:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-21-2014 03:04 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(03-21-2014 02:49 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-21-2014 02:30 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(03-21-2014 12:26 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  You just don't get it regarding the B1G taking anyone from the SEC, but then again, I guess you just haven't experienced the SEC. No one is leaving...EVER.

Exactly. A&M would never have joined the B1G. It is a great league full of great schools but it's not a geographic or cultural fit for us (ie the same argument we made against joining the PAC when UT and friends tried to leave the first time). IMO the B1G made a big mistake not grabbing NU, MU and KU to get to 14 but now its too late. Mizzou is not leaving the SEC even for the B1G at this point.

I would go even further. If the B1G had been really farsighted when they added Nebraska, they would have tried to make that a package deal: invite the Huskers along with Kansas, Missouri and Oklahoma, leaving one slot open for Texas. At that point, the Big 12 is dead in the water and the Longhorns leverage to negotiate any kind of a special revenue deal goes out the window. Their only real options at that point are the SEC or PAC 12, and neither of them are going to agree to a sweetheart deal for Texas.

Assuming Texas joins the B1G, that limits the SEC's options, leaving them with TAMU and OK State. Both of these are good fits, but that pretty much ends all the westward options they have.

I still think that when the GOR comes up, the PAC and B1G will both be trying to woo OU/UT/KU

True enough 10th, but at that point OU, UT, and KU will have all of the leverage and little to worry about. It's the rest of the 7 dwarfs that will have an issue. That's why waiting until the GOR expires is suicide for most of the rest of them. They would have a much better shot at a new home riding coattails than fending for themselves.

And with the expiration of the GOR, we also come up against the end of the CFP contract with the 2025 season and the end of the deals for the "contract" bowls.

The confluence of those events will create some pressures in the negotiation process.

Remember when UT was trying to lead the march to the Pac-12 that different scenarios were playing out. The Big East was making overtures to absorb what was left, the MWC was doing likewise and tabled an expected vote to add Boise State, while the SEC was reportedly courting TAMU and OU, and there was talk that the potential left-behinds were contemplating a raid of the Big East.

One thing is different if everything goes crazy, the margin of error will be much smaller unless the way is cleared to make mega-conferences (ie. larger than 16) more viable.

(03-21-2014 03:48 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-21-2014 03:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-21-2014 03:04 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(03-21-2014 02:49 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-21-2014 02:30 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Exactly. A&M would never have joined the B1G. It is a great league full of great schools but it's not a geographic or cultural fit for us (ie the same argument we made against joining the PAC when UT and friends tried to leave the first time). IMO the B1G made a big mistake not grabbing NU, MU and KU to get to 14 but now its too late. Mizzou is not leaving the SEC even for the B1G at this point.

I would go even further. If the B1G had been really farsighted when they added Nebraska, they would have tried to make that a package deal: invite the Huskers along with Kansas, Missouri and Oklahoma, leaving one slot open for Texas. At that point, the Big 12 is dead in the water and the Longhorns leverage to negotiate any kind of a special revenue deal goes out the window. Their only real options at that point are the SEC or PAC 12, and neither of them are going to agree to a sweetheart deal for Texas.

Assuming Texas joins the B1G, that limits the SEC's options, leaving them with TAMU and OK State. Both of these are good fits, but that pretty much ends all the westward options they have.

I still think that when the GOR comes up, the PAC and B1G will both be trying to woo OU/UT/KU

True enough 10th, but at that point OU, UT, and KU will have all of the leverage and little to worry about. It's the rest of the 7 dwarfs that will have an issue. That's why waiting until the GOR expires is suicide for most of the rest of them. They would have a much better shot at a new home riding coattails than fending for themselves.

And with the expiration of the GOR, we also come up against the end of the CFP contract with the 2025 season and the end of the deals for the "contract" bowls.

The confluence of those events will create some pressures in the negotiation process.

Remember when UT was trying to lead the march to the Pac-12 that different scenarios were playing out. The Big East was making overtures to absorb what was left, the MWC was doing likewise and tabled an expected vote to add Boise State, while the SEC was reportedly courting TAMU and OU, and there was talk that the potential left-behinds were contemplating a raid of the Big East.

One thing is different if everything goes crazy, the margin of error will be much smaller unless the way is cleared to make mega-conferences (ie. larger than 16) more viable.

That's the interesting angle of the ACC's request for scheduling flexibility. True it helps conferences of 14 find a better way to schedule than having to have two divisions. But it also makes it easier to manage 18 or more. Just something to think about. So many have claimed that it would negate the need to grow, but that is not so. Elimination of shares if you are taking as few as 4 from the conference that is eliminated is still profitable if the entrants receive base compensation from the networks involved. Add more bowl contracts to the mix and content and markets and I seriously doubt the new rule acts as a deterrent to expansion.

(03-21-2014 04:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  That's the interesting angle of the ACC's request for scheduling flexibility. True it helps conferences of 14 find a better way to schedule than having to have two divisions. But it also makes it easier to manage 18 or more. Just something to think about. So many have claimed that it would negate the need to grow, but that is not so. Elimination of shares if you are taking as few as 4 from the conference that is eliminated is still profitable if the entrants receive base compensation from the networks involved. Add more bowl contracts to the mix and content and markets and I seriously doubt the new rule acts as a deterrent to expansion.

The SEC has never in its history crowned a football champion that played a full round robin league schedule but for most its history hasn't had divisions.

If conference title games are deregulated there is no structural reason why the SEC could not go to 20 or 24 teams or whatever number makes financial sense and scrap divisions.

At the core in any conference you are going to have 2 to 4 games per team (and most schools two or one is the number) you must play annually in order to keep the fans happy and sell tickets. The rest of the league schedule is basically fungible and can be crafted as the league and media see fit to balance the needs of competitive balance and interesting media productions.

We've as yet to play a single season of top classification college football where playing for the the national title is predicated upon winning a specific game. That will change this year, but the point being if the SEC or Big 10 or whomever were to declare that the champion of the league will be determined at the conclusion of the season by pitting the two highest rated teams determined by whatever method it would make conference races even more intense, especially if non-conference games were factored into the rating system.

(03-21-2014 04:50 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-21-2014 04:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  That's the interesting angle of the ACC's request for scheduling flexibility. True it helps conferences of 14 find a better way to schedule than having to have two divisions. But it also makes it easier to manage 18 or more. Just something to think about. So many have claimed that it would negate the need to grow, but that is not so. Elimination of shares if you are taking as few as 4 from the conference that is eliminated is still profitable if the entrants receive base compensation from the networks involved. Add more bowl contracts to the mix and content and markets and I seriously doubt the new rule acts as a deterrent to expansion.

The SEC has never in its history crowned a football champion that played a full round robin league schedule but for most its history hasn't had divisions.

If conference title games are deregulated there is no structural reason why the SEC could not go to 20 or 24 teams or whatever number makes financial sense and scrap divisions.

At the core in any conference you are going to have 2 to 4 games per team (and most schools two or one is the number) you must play annually in order to keep the fans happy and sell tickets. The rest of the league schedule is basically fungible and can be crafted as the league and media see fit to balance the needs of competitive balance and interesting media productions.

We've as yet to play a single season of top classification college football where playing for the the national title is predicated upon winning a specific game. That will change this year, but the point being if the SEC or Big 10 or whomever were to declare that the champion of the league will be determined at the conclusion of the season by pitting the two highest rated teams determined by whatever method it would make conference races even more intense, especially if non-conference games were factored into the rating system.

If we ever go to 3 x 24 or something of that ilk there will be no non conference games unless it is decided they will be against other P3 conferences. Once you get that large with any degree of flexibility every game is going to have to be a content game to get any increase in TV revenue at all.

(03-21-2014 03:04 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(03-21-2014 02:49 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-21-2014 02:30 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(03-21-2014 12:26 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 02:41 AM)john01992 Wrote:  two major things would of developed, neither of which the OP got into.

1. the b12 would of had to gone to a divisions setup.
the b12 by its demographic nature is a very hard conference to split up into divisions. this would of led to more conference in-fighting and giving schools that had already tried to leave an even bigger incentive to leave. it would of effectively destabilized the league even more than it already was. this is why only adding 2 schools was a genius move by the b12 because it was one less internal fight to deal with at a time when the conference couldn't afford to have any in-fighting.

the pac12 nearly had a mutiny over this issue* and the ACC is trying so hard to eliminate divisions because so many of its members from within the conference are pissed off about the new divisions. with a 12 team b12 the schools would be a lot less inclined to sign a GOR, the member schools would not be standing together in the same manner as they were in reality. this may sound silly but schools being all on the same page actually goes a very long way in gaining leverage during tv negotiations. with 12 schools the b12 would of ended up with less money, split more ways, no GOR, and more resentment between the schools. it effectively would of guaranteed more defections within 1-3 years.

*this is most likely the biggest reason as to why the pac did not add any more schools after going to 12. they would of ran into the same "divisions problem" as the b12.

for those of you calling me crazy for saying by adding 4 schools the b12 would of ended up with less money split more ways:

while people will continue to blast the wvu/tcu move because they failed to secure ville and eventually lost them to the ACC. what people fail to realize is that the b12 had all but signed a TV contract negotiated for a 10 team league before the texas a&m/missouri departures. all the b12 needed was two replacements. with 12 teams they effectively would of had to start over in tv negotiations with 4 less than ideal schools on the negotiating table. no offense to these 4 but they are not the "total package." on top of that the b12 would of lost the money that would of gone to mizz/aggie....money that the b12 managed to retain adding tcu/wvu. remember that in this scenario it would be very hard to fathom the b12 signing a GOR......do you honestly believe fox would be as willing to pay out big bucks without that safety net?

2. the ACC timeline of events completely changes
with the b12 going to 4 and making less money maryland would not feel as threatened staying in the ACC. you may go WTF......."how can I say that" but it is the threat of revenue disparity.....the feeling of being left behind in the never ending cash grab that is CFB that scares college admins into conference realignment more so than the prosperity of making more money.

TBH i think most schools could care less what their TV payout is ==> just as long as it's in the same league as their competition. so what we will see is with the b12 not getting that blockbuster 20 mill per school contract maryland would have had a smaller incentive to leave. while UMD was facing budget problems, the truth is that the line of thought among college admins across the nation would be in a completely different state of thought.

On top of that think of this from the perspective of other conferences.......

the b10
the b12 would of been extremely unstable. while I have been a huge proponent that maryland was an academic driven move by the b10. part of the reason they went to the east in the first place is because texas wasn't an option in the west.

in this alternate version the b10 would of been working with a different lineup. the east would of been harder for them to expand in while they would of had an easier time in the west. something that was the complete opposite in reality.

I can not fathom the b10 settling/focusing on rutgers or maryland (let alone both) when they had a goldmine in the west (texas). the b10 could of even swiped mizz and/or aggie away from the sec before they ever played a game in that conference as part of a texas combo.

the pac12
in reality the p12 rejected the texahoma in this time period and the b12 quickly stabilized soon after. but in this alternate version the b12 would never have stabilized which meant:

-the pac would have had time to reconsider after watching events unfold

-the pac would have to bite the bullet on the "divisions problem" add the texahoma or risk losing them to the sec, acc, or b10

which brings us back full circle to the whole "b10 going east with rutgers/maryland"

the truth is that what you are proposing is like changing a key event in world history and having to guess how it affected future events. you can't do it and it is all speculative at best. but regardless of what happens in this version of events the ACC would never have had to deal with "the uconn problem" because there's a chance they never would of lost maryland in the first place. but if they did they still would of been in a much better position to add rutgers or raid the b12.

You just don't get it regarding the B1G taking anyone from the SEC, but then again, I guess you just haven't experienced the SEC. No one is leaving...EVER.

Exactly. A&M would never have joined the B1G. It is a great league full of great schools but it's not a geographic or cultural fit for us (ie the same argument we made against joining the PAC when UT and friends tried to leave the first time). IMO the B1G made a big mistake not grabbing NU, MU and KU to get to 14 but now its too late. Mizzou is not leaving the SEC even for the B1G at this point.

I would go even further. If the B1G had been really farsighted when they added Nebraska, they would have tried to make that a package deal: invite the Huskers along with Kansas, Missouri and Oklahoma, leaving one slot open for Texas. At that point, the Big 12 is dead in the water and the Longhorns leverage to negotiate any kind of a special revenue deal goes out the window. Their only real options at that point are the SEC or PAC 12, and neither of them are going to agree to a sweetheart deal for Texas.

Assuming Texas joins the B1G, that limits the SEC's options, leaving them with TAMU and OK State. Both of these are good fits, but that pretty much ends all the westward options they have.

I still think that when the GOR comes up, the PAC and B1G will both be trying to woo OU/UT/KU

What I would wonder is, if the B1G killed the Big 12, is it possible the Big East might have survived against all odds? There would have been no reason for West Virginia to leave. If the B1G had gone to 16 by going west, they would not have invited Rutgers, and since they also wouldn't have invited Maryland, Louisville is still in the BE. With Temple and UCF in football, they are still a good eight team football league and a great 16 team basketball league. They wouldn't be P4, but along with the MWC and a reconstituted B12 that adds the SW schools from C-USA, they are almost sure to be part of whatever survives the FBS

(03-21-2014 04:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  That's the interesting angle of the ACC's request for scheduling flexibility. True it helps conferences of 14 find a better way to schedule than having to have two divisions. But it also makes it easier to manage 18 or more. Just something to think about. So many have claimed that it would negate the need to grow, but that is not so. Elimination of shares if you are taking as few as 4 from the conference that is eliminated is still profitable if the entrants receive base compensation from the networks involved. Add more bowl contracts to the mix and content and markets and I seriously doubt the new rule acts as a deterrent to expansion.

Deregulating conference title games does eliminate any "need" to expand -- it means conferences have more flexibility both to expand and to not expand.

It means there's no need to expand just to get 12, or 16, or any even number (e.g., the ACC could have stayed with 13 FB teams after Maryland's departure) but it also means there's flexibility to add an odd number of teams (e.g., the Big 12 could have added Louisville along with WVU even if they didn't want a 12th school, or the Big Ten could have added just Maryland for a 13-team league). There is flexibility to have any number of teams, if you don't have to worry about having two equal-sized football divisions.

(03-21-2014 03:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  True enough 10th, but at that point OU, UT, and KU will have all of the leverage and little to worry about.

How tightly is Kansas bound to KSU? KU flying solo has a lot of leverage while a combo of KSU and KU has much less. What are KU's priorities in realignment? They're pretty seldom discussed despite being a school that would be on at least two realignment radars (PAC and B1G).

(03-21-2014 05:57 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-21-2014 04:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  That's the interesting angle of the ACC's request for scheduling flexibility. True it helps conferences of 14 find a better way to schedule than having to have two divisions. But it also makes it easier to manage 18 or more. Just something to think about. So many have claimed that it would negate the need to grow, but that is not so. Elimination of shares if you are taking as few as 4 from the conference that is eliminated is still profitable if the entrants receive base compensation from the networks involved. Add more bowl contracts to the mix and content and markets and I seriously doubt the new rule acts as a deterrent to expansion.

Deregulating conference title games does eliminate any "need" to expand -- it means conferences have more flexibility both to expand and to not expand.

It means there's no need to expand just to get 12, or 16, or any even number (e.g., the ACC could have stayed with 13 FB teams after Maryland's departure) but it also means there's flexibility to add an odd number of teams (e.g., the Big 12 could have added Louisville along with WVU even if they didn't want a 12th school, or the Big Ten could have added just Maryland for a 13-team league). There is flexibility to have any number of teams, if you don't have to worry about having two equal-sized football divisions.

Of course that means that once a GOR expires, without the need for symmetry, it will be even harder for some of the little brothers to find a home. There may be many unforeseen consequences of that rule if it passes.

(03-21-2014 06:09 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(03-21-2014 03:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  True enough 10th, but at that point OU, UT, and KU will have all of the leverage and little to worry about.

How tightly is Kansas bound to KSU? KU flying solo has a lot of leverage while a combo of KSU and KU has much less. What are KU's priorities in realignment? They're pretty seldom discussed despite being a school that would be on at least two realignment radars (PAC and B1G).

Given the right circumstances Kansas would be on 4 realignment radars (ACC & SEC as well as the PAC and Big 10).

For KU, OU and UT, any plans for leaving have to have contingencies for ditching little brother(s).

For example, before, I felt certain UT wouldn't get away with ditching the 3 little brothers, but its pretty much a guarantee they will own the governors mansion by the end of the year (abortion barbie has no shot). If they do, then they just follow the same recipe we did. Wait till the legislature is out of session, make your move and tell your governor to ignore all the whining, crying, pleas from other schools to call a special session to try and stop it. They could actually walk scott free without taking any of them under those conditions.

And UT leaving helps OU and KU leave too. They can then tell their legislatures "UT is leaving, the Big 12 is about to implode and the Big 10 will only take us and not OSU/KSU, so you have to let us leave so at least our state's flagship will be taken care of!"

(03-21-2014 06:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-21-2014 05:57 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-21-2014 04:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  That's the interesting angle of the ACC's request for scheduling flexibility. True it helps conferences of 14 find a better way to schedule than having to have two divisions. But it also makes it easier to manage 18 or more. Just something to think about. So many have claimed that it would negate the need to grow, but that is not so. Elimination of shares if you are taking as few as 4 from the conference that is eliminated is still profitable if the entrants receive base compensation from the networks involved. Add more bowl contracts to the mix and content and markets and I seriously doubt the new rule acts as a deterrent to expansion.

Deregulating conference title games does eliminate any "need" to expand -- it means conferences have more flexibility both to expand and to not expand.

It means there's no need to expand just to get 12, or 16, or any even number (e.g., the ACC could have stayed with 13 FB teams after Maryland's departure) but it also means there's flexibility to add an odd number of teams (e.g., the Big 12 could have added Louisville along with WVU even if they didn't want a 12th school, or the Big Ten could have added just Maryland for a 13-team league). There is flexibility to have any number of teams, if you don't have to worry about having two equal-sized football divisions.

Of course that means that once a GOR expires, without the need for symmetry, it will be even harder for some of the little brothers to find a home. There may be many unforeseen consequences of that rule if it passes.

Unforeseen consequences is the name of the game.

The expected consequence of Board of Regents vs. NCAA was the CFA handling the NCAA negotiating role merely cutting the Big West, MAC and smaller indies out of the TV deal.

The point of the championship game legislation was to help a large Division II league (which ended up never using it because of the adoption of a Division II playoff).

The eight member to be an FBS league legislation was expected to stabilize or possibly reduce the size of FBS, it resulted in FBS becoming larger as the WAC and later Sun Belt and CUSA scrambled to get members.

The winners are those who figure out what those unintended results are and capitalize on them.

Frank Broyles at Arkansas saw around the corner that better conferences could get better TV deals and put together a meeting of Arkansas, Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Missouri, Nebraska, and LSU and tried to convince the other seven that they could form their own league and make more money. The idea went nowhere except for LSU sharing the conversation with the SEC.

Roy Kramer saw around the corner with TV and the divisional play rule. He also saw the potential of the BCS idea that was first sketched out on a napkin by an ACC official and the commissioner pitched it to Kramer who ended up carrying the water on the deal.

The odds are in the next 10 to 20 years the TV economic model will change. Maybe that puts independence back in vogue, maybe it puts conferences back in their old role of scheduling games and officials and handing out awards but not negotiating TV deals or maybe (probably more likely) it pushes us in the direction of four or even three mega-conferences who use their larger numbers to create greater leverage.

(03-21-2014 06:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-21-2014 06:09 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(03-21-2014 03:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  True enough 10th, but at that point OU, UT, and KU will have all of the leverage and little to worry about.

How tightly is Kansas bound to KSU? KU flying solo has a lot of leverage while a combo of KSU and KU has much less. What are KU's priorities in realignment? They're pretty seldom discussed despite being a school that would be on at least two realignment radars (PAC and B1G).

Given the right circumstances Kansas would be on 4 realignment radars (ACC & SEC as well as the PAC and Big 10).

personally I have always been under the impression that KU is an option of last resort for the b10 despite their aau/flagship status.

(03-21-2014 09:13 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-21-2014 06:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-21-2014 06:09 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(03-21-2014 03:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  True enough 10th, but at that point OU, UT, and KU will have all of the leverage and little to worry about.

How tightly is Kansas bound to KSU? KU flying solo has a lot of leverage while a combo of KSU and KU has much less. What are KU's priorities in realignment? They're pretty seldom discussed despite being a school that would be on at least two realignment radars (PAC and B1G).

Given the right circumstances Kansas would be on 4 realignment radars (ACC & SEC as well as the PAC and Big 10).

personally I have always been under the impression that KU is an option of last resort for the b10 despite their aau/flagship status.

They would be a bridge selection if the Big 10 could land either Oklahoma or Texas. Otherwise the Big 10 carries a lot of the Kansas TV markets anyway so their addition wouldn't net them as much as an add in the East. Or they might be a selection to balance out a single add in the East.