(08-02-2014 06:38 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 06:35 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 06:33 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 06:08 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 05:56 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  By ACC Network I am not talking the current digital network. I am talking a full fledged Cable Network. ESPN could promise to take the infrastructure of the Longhorn Network and turn it into an ACC network that allows each school the ability to put on some regional programming. Texas will still want the opportunity to show off some of their own programming but that will mean that the other ACC schools can bargain for the same ability to do so on the ACC Network that gets started up. It is a win/win.

I think Texas will have OU, ND and Texas Tech as yearly preserved OOC match ups.

But how does that justify the ACC taking on two Texas teams full-time to accommodate Texas? That infra-structure is there for the state of Texas regardless of whether or not the ACC adds two teams they won't want from Texas.

Cheers,
Neil

Big picture bud, big picture. Think bigger than just the ACC on this one.

I am thinking BIG picture. I question whether you are though, especially when you state the two Texas teams should be Baylor and TCU.

Cheers,
Neil

So how else are you going to get the ENTIRETY of the Big 12 landing spots in one of the other four major conferences hmmm? I don't think you are thinking that big.

I think you see clearly the problem that Texas has. But why should the ACC take on the two Big 12 members nobody else would want, just to give Texas what it wants? And even if they did, how do you divide up the other seven schools? It might be easier to negotiate a lasting peace in the Middle East.

(08-02-2014 05:34 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 04:48 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 04:38 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 04:32 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 04:22 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The Notre Dame AD is a class act. I'm not a ND fan, but you've got a good one.

That being said.

Notre Dame really isn't in a good place right now as an independent. But they'll find a full conference home. If Notre Dame isn't a credible threat to join the B1G, the ACC can just tell them, youre coming over with your TV or you're going to be an independent. And it will likely happen eventually.

But the real issue is that Notre Dame would probably make more money as a member of the B1G as they will as an independent.

By the way, Notre Dame will make less money than MISSISSIPPI STATE or VANDERBILT from football. http://www.foxsports.com/college-footbal...ame-072314

Would ND be in a better place if Texas were also an independent?

Doubtful, because neither ND nor Texas really have enough inventory to sell a block of content for a premium. The value of the SEC and B1G networks is that they gain access to more cable systems PLUS have content.

You do know that ND gets $20 mill from NBC and Texas gets $15 mill from ESPN for their content?

Mississippi State will get 20+ million from SEC Network and then 21+ million from CBS/ESPN.

You are 0-2 on your assumptions.

1) ND is a bona fide, regular, voting member of the ACC just like North Carolina. The ACC is not going to "evict" ND, ever.


2) ND does not care if other schools make more TV money. It just wants to stay a football independent for lots of reasons that have nothing to do with TV money.

If that were the issue, ND would have already joined the Big Ten.

(08-02-2014 06:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  College Football is a money making industry.
The Networks want a higher profit yield.
The Conferences want a higher profit yield.
The Schools want a higher profit yield.

The Networks want a higher concentration of high content games to keep advertising rates peaked. They need those games from all regions of the country.

There are about 4 dozen schools that provide high viewership regionally on a weekly basis. It doesn't matter if they are playing less appealing P5 schools, it just matters that the schools they play have a name and a decent sized alumni base. There are about 2 dozen schools that draw well nationally. Spread those 2 dozen among the regions (and they are essentially well dispersed) and when they play one of the strong regional schools you have a ratings win. When they play anyone with a name people watch.

Therefore it is the agenda of the networks to cull schools that don't boost their ratings. It has never been the desire of the AD's to do this since their schools need about 3 or 4 guaranteed wins a year to have a shot at a bowl and their coach gets a guaranteed 7-5 year.

The schools have lost a percentage of their state funding in many states due to the economic situation and changing demographics, and rearranged political priorities. They are therefore susceptible to any changes that guarantee new revenue or revenue streams for their schools. TV fills that bill. Therefore conferences are growing and the content is being escalated.

When Saban talked about only playing P5 opponents he was vetting a network talking point to gauge not only the reaction of the coaches and AD's but also of the public. The public seemed to be receptive. That's all that matters. More importantly he has introduced the idea so that the public can get used to it and when change comes they won't be surprised or have a knee jerk reaction to it.

Why is all of this important?

Because the new paradigm of college football will be the steady increase of content games until the P5 schedule does consist at least of 10 if not all P5 games. Some schools are already there. Moving to 4 regional conferences will not only concentrate the content but spread it in a manner that insures higher advertising yields in each region of the country and guarantees a playoff format that energizes all regions through the national semis.

The Networks earn more, the conferences earn more, and the schools earn more. Flies in the ointment like an independent Notre Dame will be leveraged into compliance and Swarbrick knows it. There is no doubt but what Texas and Notre Dame carry tremendous content clout. But, their price will be found and games like N.D. vs Navy while historic and quaint simply won't cut it. Neither will a steady diet of Pitt, B.C., Wake Forest, N.C. State etc. For the bucks N.D. will be expected to keep U.S.C., Stanford, and have home and home's with schools like Michigan, Penn State, Alabama, Georgia, Oklahoma and Texas. Those are content games and that is what will draw the money. Conference affiliation will likely be required at some point.

This is the new paradigm. Everything happening now is just a various stage of the transition. Every coach's comment to the media has essentially been an approved leak of the changes and ideas to come to both gauge the response and to acclimate the audience to the changes that have already been decided and are carefully and slowly being implemented.

Maybe the final P4 will consist of 60, 64, 72, or even 80 schools. The number will be determined by several factors. Audience size, brand recognition, tradition, market niche, and the number needed to have an adequate number of annual winners will all be determining factors.

The content is already at 9 P5 games with some schools playing 10. That will be ratcheted up after the first couple of playoff selections. Schools will become more paranoid about their SOS ruling them out than they will about losing to a good P5 school. The mindset is already changing. Give it a decade and we are there. Gee, that's just about the time the GOR's expire. Imagine that.

The first highlighted point is EXACTLY why the players should be paid, in my opinion.

As far as the second highlighted point, I respect your position but simply think that you are wrong about ND conference affiliation and the Navy game.

If the ACC can take 3 from the Big 12 to get to 18 then the Pac could add 6 to get to 18. Thats 9 of the 10 & more than enough for dissolution. The Pac could also take 5 with BYU & then the last 2 could join the B1G or SEC.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

(08-02-2014 05:34 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 04:48 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 04:38 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 04:32 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 04:22 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The Notre Dame AD is a class act. I'm not a ND fan, but you've got a good one.

That being said.

Notre Dame really isn't in a good place right now as an independent. But they'll find a full conference home. If Notre Dame isn't a credible threat to join the B1G, the ACC can just tell them, youre coming over with your TV or you're going to be an independent. And it will likely happen eventually.

But the real issue is that Notre Dame would probably make more money as a member of the B1G as they will as an independent.

By the way, Notre Dame will make less money than MISSISSIPPI STATE or VANDERBILT from football. http://www.foxsports.com/college-footbal...ame-072314

Would ND be in a better place if Texas were also an independent?

Doubtful, because neither ND nor Texas really have enough inventory to sell a block of content for a premium. The value of the SEC and B1G networks is that they gain access to more cable systems PLUS have content.

You do know that ND gets $20 mill from NBC and Texas gets $15 mill from ESPN for their content?

Mississippi State will get 20+ million from SEC Network and then 21+ million from CBS/ESPN.

Noone outside ESPN and the SEC knows what they are making from CBS/ESPN and they haven't made public any projections that high on the SEC Network. They haven't even made any projections public other than the numbers Missouri was showing to their board members and those weren't that high.

Honestly, if Texas goes Independent, I could see schools like FSU and USC strongly consider it.

(08-02-2014 09:13 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 06:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  College Football is a money making industry.
The Networks want a higher profit yield.
The Conferences want a higher profit yield.
The Schools want a higher profit yield.

The Networks want a higher concentration of high content games to keep advertising rates peaked. They need those games from all regions of the country.

There are about 4 dozen schools that provide high viewership regionally on a weekly basis. It doesn't matter if they are playing less appealing P5 schools, it just matters that the schools they play have a name and a decent sized alumni base. There are about 2 dozen schools that draw well nationally. Spread those 2 dozen among the regions (and they are essentially well dispersed) and when they play one of the strong regional schools you have a ratings win. When they play anyone with a name people watch.

Therefore it is the agenda of the networks to cull schools that don't boost their ratings. It has never been the desire of the AD's to do this since their schools need about 3 or 4 guaranteed wins a year to have a shot at a bowl and their coach gets a guaranteed 7-5 year.

The schools have lost a percentage of their state funding in many states due to the economic situation and changing demographics, and rearranged political priorities. They are therefore susceptible to any changes that guarantee new revenue or revenue streams for their schools. TV fills that bill. Therefore conferences are growing and the content is being escalated.

When Saban talked about only playing P5 opponents he was vetting a network talking point to gauge not only the reaction of the coaches and AD's but also of the public. The public seemed to be receptive. That's all that matters. More importantly he has introduced the idea so that the public can get used to it and when change comes they won't be surprised or have a knee jerk reaction to it.

Why is all of this important?

Because the new paradigm of college football will be the steady increase of content games until the P5 schedule does consist at least of 10 if not all P5 games. Some schools are already there. Moving to 4 regional conferences will not only concentrate the content but spread it in a manner that insures higher advertising yields in each region of the country and guarantees a playoff format that energizes all regions through the national semis.

The Networks earn more, the conferences earn more, and the schools earn more. Flies in the ointment like an independent Notre Dame will be leveraged into compliance and Swarbrick knows it. There is no doubt but what Texas and Notre Dame carry tremendous content clout. But, their price will be found and games like N.D. vs Navy while historic and quaint simply won't cut it. Neither will a steady diet of Pitt, B.C., Wake Forest, N.C. State etc. For the bucks N.D. will be expected to keep U.S.C., Stanford, and have home and home's with schools like Michigan, Penn State, Alabama, Georgia, Oklahoma and Texas. Those are content games and that is what will draw the money. Conference affiliation will likely be required at some point.

This is the new paradigm. Everything happening now is just a various stage of the transition. Every coach's comment to the media has essentially been an approved leak of the changes and ideas to come to both gauge the response and to acclimate the audience to the changes that have already been decided and are carefully and slowly being implemented.

Maybe the final P4 will consist of 60, 64, 72, or even 80 schools. The number will be determined by several factors. Audience size, brand recognition, tradition, market niche, and the number needed to have an adequate number of annual winners will all be determining factors.

The content is already at 9 P5 games with some schools playing 10. That will be ratcheted up after the first couple of playoff selections. Schools will become more paranoid about their SOS ruling them out than they will about losing to a good P5 school. The mindset is already changing. Give it a decade and we are there. Gee, that's just about the time the GOR's expire. Imagine that.

The first highlighted point is EXACTLY why the players should be paid, in my opinion.

As far as the second highlighted point, I respect your position but simply think that you are wrong about ND conference affiliation and the Navy game.

If Notre Dame gets another 10 or so wins in a row, they will reconsider whether they really need to play Navy every single year. Maybe every other year. Navy won 3 out of 4, but has now lost 3 straight and 47 out of the 50 since Roger Staubach graduated. And I'm not sure the service academies continue in the top division much longer. Personally, I don't think they should. It clashes with their mission.

(08-02-2014 09:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 05:34 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 04:48 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 04:38 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 04:32 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Would ND be in a better place if Texas were also an independent?

Doubtful, because neither ND nor Texas really have enough inventory to sell a block of content for a premium. The value of the SEC and B1G networks is that they gain access to more cable systems PLUS have content.

You do know that ND gets $20 mill from NBC and Texas gets $15 mill from ESPN for their content?

Mississippi State will get 20+ million from SEC Network and then 21+ million from CBS/ESPN.

Noone outside ESPN and the SEC knows what they are making from CBS/ESPN and they haven't made public any projections that high on the SEC Network. They haven't even made any projections public other than the numbers Missouri was showing to their board members and those weren't that high.

Who knows what the total is? Just suffice it say that it will be higher than what was expected and higher than the most probable estimates that were made prior to seeking distribution.

(08-02-2014 09:47 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Honestly, if Texas goes Independent, I could see schools like FSU and USC strongly consider it.

I think radical realignment is more likely than the Big 12 dissolving and having a P4. Radical realignment is a superconference with a dozen or so top football programs who only play a 6 game or so conference schedule while scheduling other schools so they don't only beat up on each other. For example, USC, UCLA, Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio St., Michigan, Penn St., Nebraska, Notre Dame, Alabama, Florida, Florida St. The rest would scramble to make the best conference they could with the leftovers.

(08-02-2014 09:47 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 09:13 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 06:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  College Football is a money making industry.
The Networks want a higher profit yield.
The Conferences want a higher profit yield.
The Schools want a higher profit yield.

The Networks want a higher concentration of high content games to keep advertising rates peaked. They need those games from all regions of the country.

There are about 4 dozen schools that provide high viewership regionally on a weekly basis. It doesn't matter if they are playing less appealing P5 schools, it just matters that the schools they play have a name and a decent sized alumni base. There are about 2 dozen schools that draw well nationally. Spread those 2 dozen among the regions (and they are essentially well dispersed) and when they play one of the strong regional schools you have a ratings win. When they play anyone with a name people watch.

Therefore it is the agenda of the networks to cull schools that don't boost their ratings. It has never been the desire of the AD's to do this since their schools need about 3 or 4 guaranteed wins a year to have a shot at a bowl and their coach gets a guaranteed 7-5 year.

The schools have lost a percentage of their state funding in many states due to the economic situation and changing demographics, and rearranged political priorities. They are therefore susceptible to any changes that guarantee new revenue or revenue streams for their schools. TV fills that bill. Therefore conferences are growing and the content is being escalated.

When Saban talked about only playing P5 opponents he was vetting a network talking point to gauge not only the reaction of the coaches and AD's but also of the public. The public seemed to be receptive. That's all that matters. More importantly he has introduced the idea so that the public can get used to it and when change comes they won't be surprised or have a knee jerk reaction to it.

Why is all of this important?

Because the new paradigm of college football will be the steady increase of content games until the P5 schedule does consist at least of 10 if not all P5 games. Some schools are already there. Moving to 4 regional conferences will not only concentrate the content but spread it in a manner that insures higher advertising yields in each region of the country and guarantees a playoff format that energizes all regions through the national semis.

The Networks earn more, the conferences earn more, and the schools earn more. Flies in the ointment like an independent Notre Dame will be leveraged into compliance and Swarbrick knows it. There is no doubt but what Texas and Notre Dame carry tremendous content clout. But, their price will be found and games like N.D. vs Navy while historic and quaint simply won't cut it. Neither will a steady diet of Pitt, B.C., Wake Forest, N.C. State etc. For the bucks N.D. will be expected to keep U.S.C., Stanford, and have home and home's with schools like Michigan, Penn State, Alabama, Georgia, Oklahoma and Texas. Those are content games and that is what will draw the money. Conference affiliation will likely be required at some point.

This is the new paradigm. Everything happening now is just a various stage of the transition. Every coach's comment to the media has essentially been an approved leak of the changes and ideas to come to both gauge the response and to acclimate the audience to the changes that have already been decided and are carefully and slowly being implemented.

Maybe the final P4 will consist of 60, 64, 72, or even 80 schools. The number will be determined by several factors. Audience size, brand recognition, tradition, market niche, and the number needed to have an adequate number of annual winners will all be determining factors.

The content is already at 9 P5 games with some schools playing 10. That will be ratcheted up after the first couple of playoff selections. Schools will become more paranoid about their SOS ruling them out than they will about losing to a good P5 school. The mindset is already changing. Give it a decade and we are there. Gee, that's just about the time the GOR's expire. Imagine that.

The first highlighted point is EXACTLY why the players should be paid, in my opinion.

As far as the second highlighted point, I respect your position but simply think that you are wrong about ND conference affiliation and the Navy game.

If Notre Dame gets another 10 or so in a row, they will reconsider whether they really need to play Navy every single year. Maybe every other year. And I'm not sure the service academies continue in the top division much longer. Personally, I don't think they should. It clashes with their mission.

Bullet the Commandants have already agreed that due to the size differential with P5 schools that the Academies were not going to pursue an upper tier affiliation. They felt that a schedule against what amounts to an 80lb deficit across the lines due to height and weight restrictions at the Academies multiplied against a 7 or 8 game commitment to playing P5 schools would generate too many injuries and that the tax payers investments in the athletes and the military's investment were just to high to be worth the risk on any level. They suffer deficits in size at the G5 level but not on a sustained weekly basis that would multiply the likelihood of injury that a P5 schedule would generate.

Vandiver and I have tried to tell folks around here not to expect Army, Navy, or Air Force to be a part of P5 conference, but to no avail of course. Personally I think the Academies would be better served playing an Ivy schedule. The course work, the time commitment to study and training and the size restrictions are far more in step with true amateurism than with either the G5 or P5 as they are presently comported.

(08-02-2014 09:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 09:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 05:34 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 04:48 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 04:38 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Doubtful, because neither ND nor Texas really have enough inventory to sell a block of content for a premium. The value of the SEC and B1G networks is that they gain access to more cable systems PLUS have content.

You do know that ND gets $20 mill from NBC and Texas gets $15 mill from ESPN for their content?

Mississippi State will get 20+ million from SEC Network and then 21+ million from CBS/ESPN.

Noone outside ESPN and the SEC knows what they are making from CBS/ESPN and they haven't made public any projections that high on the SEC Network. They haven't even made any projections public other than the numbers Missouri was showing to their board members and those weren't that high.

Who knows what the total is? Just suffice it say that it will be higher than what was expected and higher than the most probable estimates that were made prior to seeking distribution.

Just pointing out that what he is implying is fact, is merely conjecture and is pretty uninformed at that. We're all pretty uninformed on where the SEC is at and probably will be until next summer when they do their next distribution. All we really know is that the SEC presidents are reasonably happy but that CBS didn't give them a dime extra, just a little more flexibility. ESPN has been very tight lipped. The best information I've seen was Delo$$ Dodd$ comment that the SEC would be making a lot of money on their network, and Delo$$ knows $.

(08-02-2014 09:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 09:47 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Honestly, if Texas goes Independent, I could see schools like FSU and USC strongly consider it.

I think radical realignment is more likely than the Big 12 dissolving and having a P4. Radical realignment is a superconference with a dozen or so top football programs who only play a 6 game or so conference schedule while scheduling other schools so they don't only beat up on each other. For example, USC, UCLA, Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio St., Michigan, Penn St., Nebraska, Notre Dame, Alabama, Florida, Florida St. The rest would scramble to make the best conference they could with the leftovers.

I don't think it'll be that radical. I see the top grossing members of the PAC 12, ACC, and Big 12 potentially pulling the trigger.

(08-02-2014 10:14 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 09:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 09:47 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Honestly, if Texas goes Independent, I could see schools like FSU and USC strongly consider it.

I think radical realignment is more likely than the Big 12 dissolving and having a P4. Radical realignment is a superconference with a dozen or so top football programs who only play a 6 game or so conference schedule while scheduling other schools so they don't only beat up on each other. For example, USC, UCLA, Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio St., Michigan, Penn St., Nebraska, Notre Dame, Alabama, Florida, Florida St. The rest would scramble to make the best conference they could with the leftovers.

I don't think it'll be that radical. I see the top grossing members of the PAC 12, ACC, and Big 12 potentially pulling the trigger.

Hypothetically that would present an interesting scenario for movement to as few as 54 schools in an upper tier. Let's say that the PAC contributed Stanford, Oregon, U.S.C., U.C.L.A., Washington, Cal, Arizona, and Arizona State and the Big 12 contributed Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, Baylor and Iowa State. There is an eightteen team conference within a reasonable geographical area.

The Big 10 and SEC have no real monetary advantage in being part of such a venture so they both take 4 each of the present ACC. Notre Dame, North Carolina, Duke, and Virginia to the Big 10, N.C. State, Florida State, Clemson and Virginia Tech to the SEC. There's your upper tier whittled down to 54 schools.

But while the "super conference" idea of the top 16 or 24 schools has been around for 4 decades the truth is Michigan, Ohio State, Auburn, Alabama, Georgia, Florida and now Penn State and Wisconsin simply have no monetary incentive, no cultural incentive, and relatively little fan support to abandon the traditions necessary to make those moves.

That is why if something like this ever does happen then having the top schools of the PAC and Big 12 merge would be more likely than what Bullet suggests.

Forty years ago the psychological stumbling block to the "super conference" was that it was a conference constructed of elite programs none of whom were accustomed to losing more than 2 or 3 games a year on a bad year. Put them together into a conference and the bell curve takes over and perennial winners suddenly become losers and none of them have the kinds of egos to take that risk.

(08-02-2014 09:47 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 09:13 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 06:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  College Football is a money making industry.
The Networks want a higher profit yield.
The Conferences want a higher profit yield.
The Schools want a higher profit yield.

The Networks want a higher concentration of high content games to keep advertising rates peaked. They need those games from all regions of the country.

There are about 4 dozen schools that provide high viewership regionally on a weekly basis. It doesn't matter if they are playing less appealing P5 schools, it just matters that the schools they play have a name and a decent sized alumni base. There are about 2 dozen schools that draw well nationally. Spread those 2 dozen among the regions (and they are essentially well dispersed) and when they play one of the strong regional schools you have a ratings win. When they play anyone with a name people watch.

Therefore it is the agenda of the networks to cull schools that don't boost their ratings. It has never been the desire of the AD's to do this since their schools need about 3 or 4 guaranteed wins a year to have a shot at a bowl and their coach gets a guaranteed 7-5 year.

The schools have lost a percentage of their state funding in many states due to the economic situation and changing demographics, and rearranged political priorities. They are therefore susceptible to any changes that guarantee new revenue or revenue streams for their schools. TV fills that bill. Therefore conferences are growing and the content is being escalated.

When Saban talked about only playing P5 opponents he was vetting a network talking point to gauge not only the reaction of the coaches and AD's but also of the public. The public seemed to be receptive. That's all that matters. More importantly he has introduced the idea so that the public can get used to it and when change comes they won't be surprised or have a knee jerk reaction to it.

Why is all of this important?

Because the new paradigm of college football will be the steady increase of content games until the P5 schedule does consist at least of 10 if not all P5 games. Some schools are already there. Moving to 4 regional conferences will not only concentrate the content but spread it in a manner that insures higher advertising yields in each region of the country and guarantees a playoff format that energizes all regions through the national semis.

The Networks earn more, the conferences earn more, and the schools earn more. Flies in the ointment like an independent Notre Dame will be leveraged into compliance and Swarbrick knows it. There is no doubt but what Texas and Notre Dame carry tremendous content clout. But, their price will be found and games like N.D. vs Navy while historic and quaint simply won't cut it. Neither will a steady diet of Pitt, B.C., Wake Forest, N.C. State etc. For the bucks N.D. will be expected to keep U.S.C., Stanford, and have home and home's with schools like Michigan, Penn State, Alabama, Georgia, Oklahoma and Texas. Those are content games and that is what will draw the money. Conference affiliation will likely be required at some point.

This is the new paradigm. Everything happening now is just a various stage of the transition. Every coach's comment to the media has essentially been an approved leak of the changes and ideas to come to both gauge the response and to acclimate the audience to the changes that have already been decided and are carefully and slowly being implemented.

Maybe the final P4 will consist of 60, 64, 72, or even 80 schools. The number will be determined by several factors. Audience size, brand recognition, tradition, market niche, and the number needed to have an adequate number of annual winners will all be determining factors.

The content is already at 9 P5 games with some schools playing 10. That will be ratcheted up after the first couple of playoff selections. Schools will become more paranoid about their SOS ruling them out than they will about losing to a good P5 school. The mindset is already changing. Give it a decade and we are there. Gee, that's just about the time the GOR's expire. Imagine that.

The first highlighted point is EXACTLY why the players should be paid, in my opinion.

As far as the second highlighted point, I respect your position but simply think that you are wrong about ND conference affiliation and the Navy game.

If Notre Dame gets another 10 or so wins in a row, they will reconsider whether they really need to play Navy every single year. Maybe every other year. Navy won 3 out of 4, but has now lost 3 straight and 47 out of the 50 since Roger Staubach graduated. And I'm not sure the service academies continue in the top division much longer. Personally, I don't think they should. It clashes with their mission.

ND has repeatedly, and recently, told Navy that they will never cancel the series as long as Navy still desires to play ND.

Not very long ago, Swarbrick said the three untouchable games were Stanford, Southern Cal and......Navy.

(08-02-2014 09:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 09:47 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Honestly, if Texas goes Independent, I could see schools like FSU and USC strongly consider it.

I think radical realignment is more likely than the Big 12 dissolving and having a P4. Radical realignment is a superconference with a dozen or so top football programs who only play a 6 game or so conference schedule while scheduling other schools so they don't only beat up on each other. For example, USC, UCLA, Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio St., Michigan, Penn St., Nebraska, Notre Dame, Alabama, Florida, Florida St. The rest would scramble to make the best conference they could with the leftovers.

I think that neither are very likely at all.

(08-02-2014 06:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  There are about 4 dozen schools that provide high viewership regionally on a weekly basis. It doesn't matter if they are playing less appealing P5 schools, it just matters that the schools they play have a name and a decent sized alumni base. There are about 2 dozen schools that draw well nationally. Spread those 2 dozen among the regions (and they are essentially well dispersed) and when they play one of the strong regional schools you have a ratings win. When they play anyone with a name people watch.

Therefore it is the agenda of the networks to cull schools that don't boost their ratings. It has never been the desire of the AD's to do this since their schools need about 3 or 4 guaranteed wins a year to have a shot at a bowl and their coach gets a guaranteed 7-5 year.

JR, this part of your comment shows the limit of consolidation.

One huge difference between CFB and MLB or the NFL is that the popularity of the most popular programs in CFB is very dependent on those programs winning a lot of games year in and year out, almost every year. The Yankees were still the Yankees even when they went almost 20 years between World Series, and the Cowboys are still a cash machine almost 20 years after their last Super Bowl.

CFB is different. The popularity of its top teams is more like that of top European fùtbol teams -- it's very dependent on racking up lopsided W-L records that are themselves dependent on beating a lot of less-advantaged teams over and over again. Ohio State football doesn't "need" Minnesota per se, but they do "need" teams that have as little success against the Buckeyes as the Gophers do. (Minnesota has beaten Ohio St only twice in 37 times from 1970 to the present.)

If Ohio State, Texas, or Alabama -- or Man U or Real Madrid -- spend 20 years in the wilderness, if they almost never have the fat W-L records their fans have become used to, then most of their bandwagon will be gone after that. Their revenue won't stay as solid as the Cowboys or Yankees. That's why the "king" programs are never going to have a schedule where they play the bulk of their games against each other.

(08-02-2014 11:15 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 06:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  There are about 4 dozen schools that provide high viewership regionally on a weekly basis. It doesn't matter if they are playing less appealing P5 schools, it just matters that the schools they play have a name and a decent sized alumni base. There are about 2 dozen schools that draw well nationally. Spread those 2 dozen among the regions (and they are essentially well dispersed) and when they play one of the strong regional schools you have a ratings win. When they play anyone with a name people watch.

Therefore it is the agenda of the networks to cull schools that don't boost their ratings. It has never been the desire of the AD's to do this since their schools need about 3 or 4 guaranteed wins a year to have a shot at a bowl and their coach gets a guaranteed 7-5 year.

JR, this part of your comment shows the limit of consolidation.

One huge difference between CFB and MLB or the NFL is that the popularity of the most popular programs in CFB is very dependent on those programs winning a lot of games year in and year out, almost every year. The Yankees were still the Yankees even when they went almost 20 years between World Series, and the Cowboys are still a cash machine almost 20 years after their last Super Bowl.

CFB is different. The popularity of its top teams is more like that of top European fùtbol teams -- it's very dependent on racking up lopsided W-L records that are themselves dependent on beating a lot of less-advantaged teams over and over again. Ohio State football doesn't "need" Minnesota per se, but they do "need" teams that have as little success against the Buckeyes as the Gophers do. (Minnesota has beaten Ohio St only twice in 37 times from 1970 to the present.)

If Ohio State, Texas, or Alabama -- or Man U or Real Madrid -- spend 20 years in the wilderness, if they almost never have the fat W-L records their fans have become used to, then most of their bandwagon will be gone after that. Their revenue won't stay as solid as the Cowboys or Yankees. That's why the "king" programs are never going to have a schedule where they play the bulk of their games against each other.

I agree Wedge. Therefore when the sorting out of how things are to run is finally analyzed that is why I am still a proponent of a 72 school upper tier at the minimum with an outside shot eventually at 80. If you include the upper G5 schools you get the benefit (albeit by slight of hand) of calling them victories over P4 schools. Plus 18 per conference allows for better geographically oriented divisions with the balancing mechanism of a best at large school in the 4 school conference championship playoff. (That keeps more fan bases energized late into the season and satisfies the networks desires to keep interest maximized). If the dividing line is established at around 40,000 in attendance and revenue totals over 40 plus million then 72 is a very reasonable division point.

It provides enough of a bottom to the upper tier to allow the gaudy win percentages that the top 24 live on. It keeps the championship looking like champions instead of having 3 or 4 with 8-4 records, and it brings in some nice niche markets for the burgeoning conference networks.

Connecticut, Cincinnati, East Carolina, Central Florida, South Florida, and some others would really extend the reach of some of these conference network markets. You would be more familiar with the best niche schools on the West coast. But you get the general idea.

I think greed will move the initial number to between 60 - 64 schools, but within a couple of years we will be at 72.

(08-02-2014 07:02 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 06:38 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 06:35 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 06:33 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 06:08 PM)omniorange Wrote:  But how does that justify the ACC taking on two Texas teams full-time to accommodate Texas? That infra-structure is there for the state of Texas regardless of whether or not the ACC adds two teams they won't want from Texas.

Cheers,
Neil

Big picture bud, big picture. Think bigger than just the ACC on this one.

I am thinking BIG picture. I question whether you are though, especially when you state the two Texas teams should be Baylor and TCU.

Cheers,
Neil

So how else are you going to get the ENTIRETY of the Big 12 landing spots in one of the other four major conferences hmmm? I don't think you are thinking that big.

I think you see clearly the problem that Texas has. But why should the ACC take on the two Big 12 members nobody else would want, just to give Texas what it wants? And even if they did, how do you divide up the other seven schools? It might be easier to negotiate a lasting peace in the Middle East.

It isn't about what Texas wants in regards to why the ACC would do this. It would be about what ESPN wants. If ESPN wants more divisions and conference tournaments based off of those divisions then that is the key to this puzzle. I think they do. I think every network wants more divisions like the NFL has and I think they all want a tournament/playoff system in each conference similar to what the NFL has. Why? Money. They know the people love tournaments. Even folks that don't follow regular seasons for these sports follow playoffs and tournaments at the end of the season.

Your perspective isn't back far enough to see the whole picture. You are stuck at the conference level. They may sign the dotted line to make it happen but they aren't the one putting the contract in front of themselves.

(08-02-2014 11:15 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 06:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  There are about 4 dozen schools that provide high viewership regionally on a weekly basis. It doesn't matter if they are playing less appealing P5 schools, it just matters that the schools they play have a name and a decent sized alumni base. There are about 2 dozen schools that draw well nationally. Spread those 2 dozen among the regions (and they are essentially well dispersed) and when they play one of the strong regional schools you have a ratings win. When they play anyone with a name people watch.

Therefore it is the agenda of the networks to cull schools that don't boost their ratings. It has never been the desire of the AD's to do this since their schools need about 3 or 4 guaranteed wins a year to have a shot at a bowl and their coach gets a guaranteed 7-5 year.

JR, this part of your comment shows the limit of consolidation.

One huge difference between CFB and MLB or the NFL is that the popularity of the most popular programs in CFB is very dependent on those programs winning a lot of games year in and year out, almost every year. The Yankees were still the Yankees even when they went almost 20 years between World Series, and the Cowboys are still a cash machine almost 20 years after their last Super Bowl.

CFB is different. The popularity of its top teams is more like that of top European fùtbol teams -- it's very dependent on racking up lopsided W-L records that are themselves dependent on beating a lot of less-advantaged teams over and over again. Ohio State football doesn't "need" Minnesota per se, but they do "need" teams that have as little success against the Buckeyes as the Gophers do. (Minnesota has beaten Ohio St only twice in 37 times from 1970 to the present.)

If Ohio State, Texas, or Alabama -- or Man U or Real Madrid -- spend 20 years in the wilderness, if they almost never have the fat W-L records their fans have become used to, then most of their bandwagon will be gone after that. Their revenue won't stay as solid as the Cowboys or Yankees. That's why the "king" programs are never going to have a schedule where they play the bulk of their games against each other.

ND went twenty years in the wilderness between 1993 and 2012 and it didn't seem to cause most of their fans to jump ship.

They still fill their stadium every home game and have pretty good TV ratings, bowl attendance and took 35,000 fans to Ireland.

I believe that Alabama was lost in the wilderness for quite some time before Saban, Texas before Mack Brown, Oklahoma before Stoops, Ohio State before Sweatervest, etc..

(08-03-2014 01:25 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 07:02 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 06:38 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 06:35 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 06:33 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Big picture bud, big picture. Think bigger than just the ACC on this one.

I am thinking BIG picture. I question whether you are though, especially when you state the two Texas teams should be Baylor and TCU.

Cheers,
Neil

So how else are you going to get the ENTIRETY of the Big 12 landing spots in one of the other four major conferences hmmm? I don't think you are thinking that big.

I think you see clearly the problem that Texas has. But why should the ACC take on the two Big 12 members nobody else would want, just to give Texas what it wants? And even if they did, how do you divide up the other seven schools? It might be easier to negotiate a lasting peace in the Middle East.

It isn't about what Texas wants in regards to why the ACC would do this. It would be about what ESPN wants. If ESPN wants more divisions and conference tournaments based off of those divisions then that is the key to this puzzle. I think they do. I think every network wants more divisions like the NFL has and I think they all want a tournament/playoff system in each conference similar to what the NFL has. Why? Money. They know the people love tournaments. Even folks that don't follow regular seasons for these sports follow playoffs and tournaments at the end of the season.

Your perspective isn't back far enough to see the whole picture. You are stuck at the conference level. They may sign the dotted line to make it happen but they aren't the one putting the contract in front of themselves.

First, it won't be ESPN controlling what you are saying rather it will be the P5 schools who will negotiate and receive multiple media contracts.

And if the P5 schools ever truly get together and decide that they want a College Athletics Association similar to the NFL, MLB, etc. where everyone gets a piece of the pie nearly equally, except for weighted playoff appearances, then it will likely be 72 total teams with 8 nine-team regional conferences. Which isn't anything close to what you are proposing.

Of course the above isn't going to happen, mainly due to ND and Texas so it doesn't matter.

Cheers,
Neil