(02-15-2015 04:26 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I just don't see the big 10 or sec being able to bring in ACC school's without going past 16. The only way it might happen would be if UVA and V tech joined the big 10 which would than put UNC and Duke in the SEC. Yet, that is doubtful since UVA, UNC and Duke don't want to be split up. Now if the big 10 or SEC offered unc, duke, v tech, and UVA as a 4 team deal it might work but i just don't see a weak link. I guess V tech to the big 10 could be the weak link but if UVA doesn't want to move, not sure the big 10 moves. I don't have any doubt the big 10 and sec would love to crack the acc and lots of bluffs might occur but if uva, unc, duke and nd stick together, its hard to impossible to crack.

The same thing applies to the big 12 for the sec. I think the only way the sec gets texas is if they jump to 18 with texas, texas tech, ou and ok state. I like the setup of 3 pods of 6. They could force the issue with invites to ou and ok state, which would than require texas to make a move. Worst case, isn't a bad league with the additions of OU and OK state, those 2 might be from a small state but close enough to dallas to bring TV eyes. Pretty much the same with the big 10 to get texas. I think they could jump to 16 with OU and KU pretty easy and that would force texas to make a move. If the chose the big 10, just bring in Missouri with 3 pods of 6.

I still think the best option for everybody if your gonna work together is a pac 20 with texas, texas tech, OU, OK state, KU and Kstate+ 2 others joining + throw wvu in the acc. Sure Colorado and UTah might not be happy but the original pac 10 school would love, the 7-8 big 12 school's would love, so they get out voted. The big 10 and SEC stay at 14 which is an advantage being smaller. 4 team playoff with auto bids to the big 10, sec, pac 20 and acc.

There isn't going to be any "working together". These conferences are competing with one another. The TV networks even more so. If the Big 12 or the ACC looks to be in jeopardy, it will be every man for himself. We know that the B1G had discussions with many ACC schools and that they talked to Oklahoma. Maybe some "unity pacts" have been made (UVA & Tech or UVA & NC). Who knows. But any of those would likely be informal agreements. If a fissure occurs, expect all hell to break loose. University administrators, I'm sure, have discussed this, and made assurances to one another. Won't mean a thing when them storm comes.

(02-15-2015 06:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-15-2015 05:32 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-15-2015 04:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-15-2015 02:14 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(02-15-2015 01:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  When we move to a P4 there will be little reason to play many OOC games because the need to do so will have been removed (comparisons). If we have a P4 through which the final 4 are decided by winning conference championships then some of the bloom would come of the rose so to speak if a couple of the champs had already played. I expect that in the era of mega conferences the emphasis will be upon major regional matches played between brand schools. In as much as there are some OOC rivals those will be the only OOC games of consequence and they will be few.

This of course also defeats the myth of having too many strong schools in a conference. Since any conference will only send its champion to the national playoffs then the need to impress pollsters, computers, or committees will be gone. Content will be the only bus driver for season revenues. Gradually major schools fans will get used to the idea that 9 and 3 is a great year worthy of being a divisional champion and playing for your conference title. Since the emphasis will be upon attaining the conference championship then the larger number of games played within conference will make that access fairer. In short the whole dynamic changes. Playing 10 conference games with two OOC will likely become the norm. Having no G5 games will be expected, unless one is deemed preseason in place of the Spring Game and played in August instead of April. The networks will eventually insist that all regular season games are P4 with 6 home and 6 away. A preseason game the second week of August could permit an instate G5 opponent a nice payday and serve as the 7th home ticket even though it would be treated as an exhibition contest.

The need to milk the system for as much revenue as possible would eventually wind up with something like this:
1 preseason exhibition match against a G5
12 seasonal games 10 of which are in conference 2 of which are against OOC P4 schools.
Semi finals and finals for the conference championship.
National Semi finals and finals.

Each school is guaranteed a minimum of 13 games counting the exhibition. Non division winners with winning records add a 14th as a bowl.

Division winners who play in the conference semis have 14 games (counting the exhibition game).
Division winners who play in the conference finals have 15 games (counting the exhibition game).
Conference champions have 16 games (counting the exhibition game).
National finalists have 17 games (counting the exhibition game).

Nobody has a spring game or spring practices. Practice for the Fall starts in mid June.

Now all P5 schools have 7 home games to sell (counting the preseason game).
Now all conferences keep their semi and finals money.
Now all conferences are guaranteed National Semi Finals money.

All schools not participating in their conference playoffs are eligible for bowls with a .500 record.

All revenue sources are kept and new ones are generated.

There will never be a nation championship playoff comprised of only conference champions for reasons you so cavalierly discarded. Why would the SEC, or any of the top three strongest conferences, agree to a system that would make it harder for its members to win a national championship, and pave an easier path for members of conferences that are not as strong?

This would also be against the interests of consolidation and conference realignment. Why would the SEC, for instance, make it harder to win the national championship when it would be seeking additional members who would already be concerned about playing in the mighty SEC?

The playoffs will be expanded for these reasons like boatloads of money and enormous exposure, but also because it will allow conference realignment to happen, but not until the 4 team playoff finishes its role as a motivating factor in conference consolidation.

Once we head down the road of consolidation then internal playoffs for conference championships will be the expanded road. It might also very well wind up being 2 large conferences and the champions only would in essence be the Super Bowl of college football. There is a lot of ground to cover between now and then. We'll see. But Lurker if there is consolidation the playoff money will be made internal of the conferences and the expansion of the field will be contained within those structures.

I've thought about the possibility of 2 megaconferences, and I've struggled to see how it could come about. Mind you, I'm not saying it should happen, or that I want it to happen. I can only see one way it could happen.

The reality, for me, is that conferences can't/won't kick out a current member, even if they basically stink at football. So the driving force for such consolidation, IMO, has to be the two most powerful (financially) existing P5 conferences inviting others to join them. Because of the long standing relationship between the B1G and the PAC, I arrive at 27 as the eventual size of each megaconference. Since those two currently have 26 members, they would only have to peel one away from someone else. I figure Kansas to be logical candidate.

That leaves the 14 team SEC needing to poach 13 teams from the Big 12 and ACC. That's going to leave a few big names out, which could trigger legal action. But assuming that hurdle can be cleared, the 13 I would probably pick are:

From the Big 12: Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Kansas St, and West Virginia

From the ACC: FSU, Ga Tech, Miami, Clemson, UVa, Va Tech, UNC and Notre Dame

27 members allows for a format of 3 nine-team divisions with a balanced 4 home/4 away schedule. A playoff format with each conference having 3 division champs, plus 2 wild cards at large playing into the quarterfinal round accommodates nearly 20% of the total teams in this mini-NFL.

Left out are 4 Big 12 schools and 7 ACC schools, including some teams demonstrably better on the gridiron than some who get a golden ticket. Kind of like what just happened in the last realignment. The hardest part, though, might be to sort out which networks get the kids in the divorce.

Now, if the ACC thought figuring out who should be in which division was hard......

I like your number set up Ken D, but I think what you would really see is around 30 to 32 in each. Brigham Young would likely join the PAC / Big 10 mix as would Notre Dame, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Boston College and Iowa State. That gives the Big 10 / PAC alliance 32 schools. In the South if you add the 9 of the 10 members of the Big 12 to the SEC and then add 9 of the 10 schools of the ACC that are in the South you now have 32. You now have a bit more balance between the top schools and the bottom ones athletically. With 8 divisions of 4 you now have an 8 member playoff in both conferences culminating in the champions playing for it all.

The main thing about what Lurker suggests with strong conferences like the SEC getting more than its champ in is that it defeats the national advertising strategy of the networks which drive the ad rates and keep the payouts high. So I don't think we will get an expanded playoff under the present system. For the networks the idea is to keep as many regions of the country involved as possible through the semis. Most will watch the finals no matter what. So if you divide the Big 10 into Eastern and Western 16 team zones and do the same with the Southeast and Southwest then you really keep the basic 4 conference regional structure with tweaks, but combine the bargaining power of two conferences with the networks and keep all conference championship money internal. So the conference championships really represent what a 4 champs model would give you in regional involvement through the semis and then the grand finale for the nation.

You also get a much larger market for your conference networks and you cut the overhead of conference structures and conference networks in half.

For non profit sports the regional play then becomes cost effective. For sports like baseball, softball, and basketball the games become much more accessible for traveling parents and fans.

With football you have plenty of content to please season ticket holders and networks. Subtle shifts of schools could be made without causing the major ripples it would have caused between two conferences. Ultimately it has much more upside than not.

Where you and I disagree about the future of the college football playoff is that you envision a large NFL type format and I envision more of a NCAA basketball tournament format incorporating the conference playoffs.

(02-15-2015 05:06 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Its the difference in TV money that can be found in the B1G/SEC over the ACC moving forward that will crack that nut.

The ACC was the highest payout conference prior to the realignment. That previously made the ACC off limits to any raiding. Maryland was raided by the B1G for more TV money. Now of course academics of the B1G and geography played a factor in Maryland wanting to come on board too.

If you take a look at Virginia right now, they are adjacent to a B1G state and Maryland is one of their biggest rivals. Like Maryland, they've had a difficult time getting that football stadium filled. If they can make 20 million more in the B1G and have the money to bring in 5 million dollar FB/BB coaches to compete there it could make some sense. Recruiting against Virginia Tech B1G membership would help.

There was a time 30 or 40 years ago where I believe it was a priority for UVA to marry itself from an image standpoint in its region to UNC/Duke/Wake Forest when its academic reputation was still developing. Now UVA transcends its region academically but athletically is hindered by the ACC.

From the B1G perspective, they only have to take 1 ACC school. If they want 16, UConn can easily move to the B1G as the 16th and in the B1G add some value with its basketball program and location in New England. They don't even need to bother with UNC/Duke. Penn State becomes the focal point of the B1G East with UConn, Rutgers, Maryland and Virginia orbiting.

Maybe losing UVA is still not enough to break up the North Carolina schools. The ACC could add Cincinnati and keep rolling at 14 without too much disruption. Just like Louisville was and upgrade over Maryland athletically the same could largely be said of Cincinnati over Virginia as they diversify the recruiting territory.

West Virginia and Clemson were Maryland's football rivals. Virginia? Not so much.

(02-15-2015 07:09 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(02-15-2015 06:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-15-2015 05:32 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-15-2015 04:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-15-2015 02:14 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  There will never be a nation championship playoff comprised of only conference champions for reasons you so cavalierly discarded. Why would the SEC, or any of the top three strongest conferences, agree to a system that would make it harder for its members to win a national championship, and pave an easier path for members of conferences that are not as strong?

This would also be against the interests of consolidation and conference realignment. Why would the SEC, for instance, make it harder to win the national championship when it would be seeking additional members who would already be concerned about playing in the mighty SEC?

The playoffs will be expanded for these reasons like boatloads of money and enormous exposure, but also because it will allow conference realignment to happen, but not until the 4 team playoff finishes its role as a motivating factor in conference consolidation.

Once we head down the road of consolidation then internal playoffs for conference championships will be the expanded road. It might also very well wind up being 2 large conferences and the champions only would in essence be the Super Bowl of college football. There is a lot of ground to cover between now and then. We'll see. But Lurker if there is consolidation the playoff money will be made internal of the conferences and the expansion of the field will be contained within those structures.

I've thought about the possibility of 2 megaconferences, and I've struggled to see how it could come about. Mind you, I'm not saying it should happen, or that I want it to happen. I can only see one way it could happen.

The reality, for me, is that conferences can't/won't kick out a current member, even if they basically stink at football. So the driving force for such consolidation, IMO, has to be the two most powerful (financially) existing P5 conferences inviting others to join them. Because of the long standing relationship between the B1G and the PAC, I arrive at 27 as the eventual size of each megaconference. Since those two currently have 26 members, they would only have to peel one away from someone else. I figure Kansas to be logical candidate.

That leaves the 14 team SEC needing to poach 13 teams from the Big 12 and ACC. That's going to leave a few big names out, which could trigger legal action. But assuming that hurdle can be cleared, the 13 I would probably pick are:

From the Big 12: Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Kansas St, and West Virginia

From the ACC: FSU, Ga Tech, Miami, Clemson, UVa, Va Tech, UNC and Notre Dame

27 members allows for a format of 3 nine-team divisions with a balanced 4 home/4 away schedule. A playoff format with each conference having 3 division champs, plus 2 wild cards at large playing into the quarterfinal round accommodates nearly 20% of the total teams in this mini-NFL.

Left out are 4 Big 12 schools and 7 ACC schools, including some teams demonstrably better on the gridiron than some who get a golden ticket. Kind of like what just happened in the last realignment. The hardest part, though, might be to sort out which networks get the kids in the divorce.

Now, if the ACC thought figuring out who should be in which division was hard......

I like your number set up Ken D, but I think what you would really see is around 30 to 32 in each. Brigham Young would likely join the PAC / Big 10 mix as would Notre Dame, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Boston College and Iowa State. That gives the Big 10 / PAC alliance 32 schools. In the South if you add the 9 of the 10 members of the Big 12 to the SEC and then add 9 of the 10 schools of the ACC that are in the South you now have 32. You now have a bit more balance between the top schools and the bottom ones athletically. With 8 divisions of 4 you now have an 8 member playoff in both conferences culminating in the champions playing for it all.

The main thing about what Lurker suggests with strong conferences like the SEC getting more than its champ in is that it defeats the national advertising strategy of the networks which drive the ad rates and keep the payouts high. So I don't think we will get an expanded playoff under the present system. For the networks the idea is to keep as many regions of the country involved as possible through the semis. Most will watch the finals no matter what. So if you divide the Big 10 into Eastern and Western 16 team zones and do the same with the Southeast and Southwest then you really keep the basic 4 conference regional structure with tweaks, but combine the bargaining power of two conferences with the networks and keep all conference championship money internal. So the conference championships really represent what a 4 champs model would give you in regional involvement through the semis and then the grand finale for the nation.

You also get a much larger market for your conference networks and you cut the overhead of conference structures and conference networks in half.

For non profit sports the regional play then becomes cost effective. For sports like baseball, softball, and basketball the games become much more accessible for traveling parents and fans.

With football you have plenty of content to please season ticket holders and networks. Subtle shifts of schools could be made without causing the major ripples it would have caused between two conferences. Ultimately it has much more upside than not.

Where you and I disagree about the future of the college football playoff is that you envision a large NFL type format and I envision more of a NCAA basketball tournament format incorporating the conference playoffs.

That's okay since it is all theoretical and anything could still happen. I like hearing your ideas and reading your sources. It's just that I think the form will follow the function and the function will be to maximize profits and reduce expenses. Regionalism reduces the overhead for non profits, consolidation reduces expenses for all schools by cutting in half the overhead and spreading it out among twice as many schools. The market enhancement of essentially merging conferences profits all, and ad rates make a large part of it possible. In the end whichever networks are in control of the super conferences the ad money will be their top priority.

The reason I push internal playoffs is the money all stays in house. With the external playoff we have now part of the money goes to each conference represented but a share remains in network hands. That would remain in expanded national playoffs, but conference playoffs share nothing. That is road to take.

I really like the idea of essentially becoming two conferences under one umbrella and keeping all non profits as regional as possible. In the end efficiency will be as important as ad rates to the bottom line.

(02-15-2015 07:13 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(02-15-2015 05:06 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Its the difference in TV money that can be found in the B1G/SEC over the ACC moving forward that will crack that nut.

The ACC was the highest payout conference prior to the realignment. That previously made the ACC off limits to any raiding. Maryland was raided by the B1G for more TV money. Now of course academics of the B1G and geography played a factor in Maryland wanting to come on board too.

If you take a look at Virginia right now, they are adjacent to a B1G state and Maryland is one of their biggest rivals. Like Maryland, they've had a difficult time getting that football stadium filled. If they can make 20 million more in the B1G and have the money to bring in 5 million dollar FB/BB coaches to compete there it could make some sense. Recruiting against Virginia Tech B1G membership would help.

There was a time 30 or 40 years ago where I believe it was a priority for UVA to marry itself from an image standpoint in its region to UNC/Duke/Wake Forest when its academic reputation was still developing. Now UVA transcends its region academically but athletically is hindered by the ACC.

From the B1G perspective, they only have to take 1 ACC school. If they want 16, UConn can easily move to the B1G as the 16th and in the B1G add some value with its basketball program and location in New England. They don't even need to bother with UNC/Duke. Penn State becomes the focal point of the B1G East with UConn, Rutgers, Maryland and Virginia orbiting.

Maybe losing UVA is still not enough to break up the North Carolina schools. The ACC could add Cincinnati and keep rolling at 14 without too much disruption. Just like Louisville was and upgrade over Maryland athletically the same could largely be said of Cincinnati over Virginia as they diversify the recruiting territory.

West Virginia and Clemson were Maryland's football rivals. Virginia? Not so much.

Then invite bring West Virginia and Clemson into the B1G I guess.

(02-15-2015 06:53 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(02-15-2015 06:26 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-15-2015 05:25 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(02-15-2015 04:36 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-15-2015 01:05 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  That one extra game would still be played against Baylor, TCU or some other Texas school due to political pressure or instate interest. And the 6 games against ACC schools would give them 1 or 2 marque games and 4 or 5 that are worse than their current schedule. That does not solve UT's woes.

As to UT's fans, that is a great point, but the reaction may not be so negative if UT shares a division of 5 teams comprised or OU, Kansas, ISU and Nebraska. That set up really is no worse than having conference opponents on the other side of the SEC.

I will reiterate though this discussion reinforces the arguments that geography, culture and money are on the side of the SEC. UT has options, but none are better than the SEC.

No, UT continues to compete against the big 12 teams that it likes to compete against while at the same time no longer having to play the big 12 teams that are no longer worth playing. They shift from playing the likes of ISU, KSU, KU and OSU. Instead they play teams in the more populated East Coast Conference that is The ACC.

The problem with UT to the ACC in a ND type arrangement where they have 6 ACC conference games is that the six OOC games would have to go towards scheduling Texas schools. Can anyone really believe UT would ever schedule less than three home games against fellow Texas schools? If those three teams are home and away then there goes UT's entire OOC schedule. If they only have 5 ACC games, and 7 OOC games, that leaves only one OOC game to play a marque national opponent, which is what they have now.

Additionally, when conferences get bigger there will be less opportunity to find quality games OOC. UT might still be able to schedule ND and BYU, but both of them have their own media deals and would hardly be what ESPN would prefer. And BYU and even ND will find it even harder to schedule quality OOC games in an era of mega conferences. The Texas privates will always be there, but that is what they have now.

As to your east coast exposure argument, UT would only get excellent national and east coast exposure playing FSU, Clemson, Miami and VT, four teams out of 14 and all in the south, plus mid-Atlantic exposure playing UNC and UVA, and somewhat when they play NCS. No one will care when UT plays the Northeastern schools, except UT fans, and they will hate it. Texas to the ACC sounds better in the abstract than when viewed in detail.

Maybe from your Southerner perspective but folks over in Austin are a little different.

What is wrong with scheduling Texas schools oocly?

Possible year? Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, UCLA, North Texas, California, Florida State, North Carolina, Georgia Tech, Syracuse, Baylor, Virginia Tech.

How is that a bad schedule? You could switch any Carolina school for UNC and it is the same quality although folks at UT would probably prefer UNC. You could do plenty of plug and play and it would still be more interesting to the folks that CONTROL UT than their games against ISU, KSU, KU and OSU are now for them. They are ready to move on past the Midwest just like they were ready to move on past most Texas schools when they left the SWC.

You are creating a strawman argument. There is no way that a six game schedule doesn't make for better scheduling than a 9 game big 12 schedule. It boggles me that you are even trying to argue a position that is the opposite of mathematical.

Because you ignored my point where UT would still have to play at least 3 home games against Texas schools because of politics and fan interest in playing instate schools. For example, UT could leave Baylor in another conference, but there is no way UT gets away from playing Baylor. Texas also likes being the big schools in the State of Texas beating up instate inferiors, and the Longhorn fans like those games.

I didn't ignore it, I have done this many times on this forum and I have listed potential schedules for Texas more times than I can count. Yes, it still has plenty of Texas scheduling and Oklahoma. I think Baylor goes with so they are a yearly conference match up. Oklahoma and Tech being yearly OOC match ups. Oklahoma is basically another Texas program. That game is played in Dallas every year. You add one more, as I did in this listing with North Texas, and you have yourself four Texas games. My listing also has Two California games AND the Notre Dame game.

You could scrap a Cali game and put in anyone else from the country but with the ACC match ups covering the entire East Coast, Texas might as well double up in California as they have all their bases covered. A yearly game in California, four games in the State of Texas and plenty of East Coast coverage all the way down to the State of Florida.

My listing has it all covered, if I come off as irritated it is because it gets tedious having to repeat this every time. The six game AAC schedule pretty much gives Texas everything they want while at the same time getting them out of a region that does them no good anymore.

(02-15-2015 08:28 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(02-15-2015 07:13 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(02-15-2015 05:06 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Its the difference in TV money that can be found in the B1G/SEC over the ACC moving forward that will crack that nut.

The ACC was the highest payout conference prior to the realignment. That previously made the ACC off limits to any raiding. Maryland was raided by the B1G for more TV money. Now of course academics of the B1G and geography played a factor in Maryland wanting to come on board too.

If you take a look at Virginia right now, they are adjacent to a B1G state and Maryland is one of their biggest rivals. Like Maryland, they've had a difficult time getting that football stadium filled. If they can make 20 million more in the B1G and have the money to bring in 5 million dollar FB/BB coaches to compete there it could make some sense. Recruiting against Virginia Tech B1G membership would help.

There was a time 30 or 40 years ago where I believe it was a priority for UVA to marry itself from an image standpoint in its region to UNC/Duke/Wake Forest when its academic reputation was still developing. Now UVA transcends its region academically but athletically is hindered by the ACC.

From the B1G perspective, they only have to take 1 ACC school. If they want 16, UConn can easily move to the B1G as the 16th and in the B1G add some value with its basketball program and location in New England. They don't even need to bother with UNC/Duke. Penn State becomes the focal point of the B1G East with UConn, Rutgers, Maryland and Virginia orbiting.

Maybe losing UVA is still not enough to break up the North Carolina schools. The ACC could add Cincinnati and keep rolling at 14 without too much disruption. Just like Louisville was and upgrade over Maryland athletically the same could largely be said of Cincinnati over Virginia as they diversify the recruiting territory.

West Virginia and Clemson were Maryland's football rivals. Virginia? Not so much.

Then invite bring West Virginia and Clemson into the B1G I guess.

Maryland has two new rivals in Penn State and Rutgers. It may sound a little off now but in a few years it will be as if this is how it should always have been for Maryland. Both of those institutions are much more like Maryland than most, if not all, of their previous rivals.

(02-15-2015 08:38 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-15-2015 06:53 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(02-15-2015 06:26 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-15-2015 05:25 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(02-15-2015 04:36 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  No, UT continues to compete against the big 12 teams that it likes to compete against while at the same time no longer having to play the big 12 teams that are no longer worth playing. They shift from playing the likes of ISU, KSU, KU and OSU. Instead they play teams in the more populated East Coast Conference that is The ACC.

The problem with UT to the ACC in a ND type arrangement where they have 6 ACC conference games is that the six OOC games would have to go towards scheduling Texas schools. Can anyone really believe UT would ever schedule less than three home games against fellow Texas schools? If those three teams are home and away then there goes UT's entire OOC schedule. If they only have 5 ACC games, and 7 OOC games, that leaves only one OOC game to play a marque national opponent, which is what they have now.

Additionally, when conferences get bigger there will be less opportunity to find quality games OOC. UT might still be able to schedule ND and BYU, but both of them have their own media deals and would hardly be what ESPN would prefer. And BYU and even ND will find it even harder to schedule quality OOC games in an era of mega conferences. The Texas privates will always be there, but that is what they have now.

As to your east coast exposure argument, UT would only get excellent national and east coast exposure playing FSU, Clemson, Miami and VT, four teams out of 14 and all in the south, plus mid-Atlantic exposure playing UNC and UVA, and somewhat when they play NCS. No one will care when UT plays the Northeastern schools, except UT fans, and they will hate it. Texas to the ACC sounds better in the abstract than when viewed in detail.

Maybe from your Southerner perspective but folks over in Austin are a little different.

What is wrong with scheduling Texas schools oocly?

Possible year? Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, UCLA, North Texas, California, Florida State, North Carolina, Georgia Tech, Syracuse, Baylor, Virginia Tech.

How is that a bad schedule? You could switch any Carolina school for UNC and it is the same quality although folks at UT would probably prefer UNC. You could do plenty of plug and play and it would still be more interesting to the folks that CONTROL UT than their games against ISU, KSU, KU and OSU are now for them. They are ready to move on past the Midwest just like they were ready to move on past most Texas schools when they left the SWC.

You are creating a strawman argument. There is no way that a six game schedule doesn't make for better scheduling than a 9 game big 12 schedule. It boggles me that you are even trying to argue a position that is the opposite of mathematical.

Because you ignored my point where UT would still have to play at least 3 home games against Texas schools because of politics and fan interest in playing instate schools. For example, UT could leave Baylor in another conference, but there is no way UT gets away from playing Baylor. Texas also likes being the big schools in the State of Texas beating up instate inferiors, and the Longhorn fans like those games.

I didn't ignore it, I have done this many times on this forum and I have listed potential schedules for Texas more times than I can count. Yes, it still has plenty of Texas scheduling and Oklahoma. I think Baylor goes with so they are a yearly conference match up. Oklahoma and Tech being yearly OOC match ups. Oklahoma is basically another Texas program. That game is played in Dallas every year. You add one more, as I did in this listing with North Texas, and you have yourself four Texas games. My listing also has Two California games AND the Notre Dame game.

You could scrap a Cali game and put in anyone else from the country but with the ACC match ups covering the entire East Coast, Texas might as well double up in California as they have all their bases covered. A yearly game in California, four games in the State of Texas and plenty of East Coast coverage all the way down to the State of Florida.

My listing has it all covered, if I come off as irritated it is because it gets tedious having to repeat this every time. The six game AAC schedule pretty much gives Texas everything they want while at the same time getting them out of a region that does them no good anymore.

To change the subject a little, you want the B1G to take in Kansas and Oklahoma without Texas?

People like to speculate if/when Texas leaves for the Pac12, B1G, SEC or ACC...BUT...they NEVER give any reasons why Texas would EVER leave the Big12.

In the Big12, they have most/all of the power, make more money and when they win the Big12, they WILL be in the CFP. You can't say the same thing if they were in any other conference. What does any other conference offer that Texas doesn't already have? NOTHING!

So, PLEASE...if you think Texas will leave, then say WHY.

Texas is staying in the Big12...PERIOD.

If the Big 10 doesn't want Kansas now then they won't when the Big 12 implodes. Kansas will also have difficulty leaving Kansas St.

(02-15-2015 09:54 PM)mac6115cd Wrote:  People like to speculate if/when Texas leaves for the Pac12, B1G, SEC or ACC...BUT...they NEVER give any reasons why Texas would EVER leave the Big12.

In the Big12, they have most/all of the power, make more money and when they win the Big12, they WILL be in the CFP. You can't say the same thing if they were in any other conference. What does any other conference offer that Texas doesn't already have? NOTHING!

So, PLEASE...if you think Texas will leave, then say WHY.

Texas is staying in the Big12...PERIOD.

$$$$$

Did you read the article? It lays out Texas' future revenue problem.

(02-15-2015 09:54 PM)mac6115cd Wrote:  People like to speculate if/when Texas leaves for the Pac12, B1G, SEC or ACC...BUT...they NEVER give any reasons why Texas would EVER leave the Big12.

In the Big12, they have most/all of the power, make more money and when they win the Big12, they WILL be in the CFP. You can't say the same thing if they were in any other conference. What does any other conference offer that Texas doesn't already have? NOTHING!

So, PLEASE...if you think Texas will leave, then say WHY.

Texas is staying in the Big12...PERIOD.

Right, Texas has all the power....and that is why they got there way when there was a vote to create a conference network for the big 12.

Please....you don't know what you are talking about. Texas is beginning to lose the recruiting battle in the big 12. They NEED it to break up.

The big 12 supports the least amount of sports of any conference. You think Texas AD's like knowing they stand zero chance of ever winning a director's cup?

If there were no reasons for ever leaving the big 12 then Texas would have NEVER openly talked with TWO other conferences. Seriously, stop throwing a digital fit with your fingers. We are all well beyond the discussion and argument that you are trying to make.

(02-15-2015 09:57 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  If the Big 10 doesn't want Kansas now then they won't when the Big 12 implodes. Kansas will also have difficulty leaving Kansas St.

You obviously do not understand HOW the big 12 implodes. We aren't talking about it decaying in 10 years. We are talking a dissolution implosion. Kansas will get a home in that scenario and 99% chance is that there new home would be The Big Ten.

(02-15-2015 09:24 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(02-15-2015 08:38 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-15-2015 06:53 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(02-15-2015 06:26 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-15-2015 05:25 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  The problem with UT to the ACC in a ND type arrangement where they have 6 ACC conference games is that the six OOC games would have to go towards scheduling Texas schools. Can anyone really believe UT would ever schedule less than three home games against fellow Texas schools? If those three teams are home and away then there goes UT's entire OOC schedule. If they only have 5 ACC games, and 7 OOC games, that leaves only one OOC game to play a marque national opponent, which is what they have now.

Additionally, when conferences get bigger there will be less opportunity to find quality games OOC. UT might still be able to schedule ND and BYU, but both of them have their own media deals and would hardly be what ESPN would prefer. And BYU and even ND will find it even harder to schedule quality OOC games in an era of mega conferences. The Texas privates will always be there, but that is what they have now.

As to your east coast exposure argument, UT would only get excellent national and east coast exposure playing FSU, Clemson, Miami and VT, four teams out of 14 and all in the south, plus mid-Atlantic exposure playing UNC and UVA, and somewhat when they play NCS. No one will care when UT plays the Northeastern schools, except UT fans, and they will hate it. Texas to the ACC sounds better in the abstract than when viewed in detail.

Maybe from your Southerner perspective but folks over in Austin are a little different.

What is wrong with scheduling Texas schools oocly?

Possible year? Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, UCLA, North Texas, California, Florida State, North Carolina, Georgia Tech, Syracuse, Baylor, Virginia Tech.

How is that a bad schedule? You could switch any Carolina school for UNC and it is the same quality although folks at UT would probably prefer UNC. You could do plenty of plug and play and it would still be more interesting to the folks that CONTROL UT than their games against ISU, KSU, KU and OSU are now for them. They are ready to move on past the Midwest just like they were ready to move on past most Texas schools when they left the SWC.

You are creating a strawman argument. There is no way that a six game schedule doesn't make for better scheduling than a 9 game big 12 schedule. It boggles me that you are even trying to argue a position that is the opposite of mathematical.

Because you ignored my point where UT would still have to play at least 3 home games against Texas schools because of politics and fan interest in playing instate schools. For example, UT could leave Baylor in another conference, but there is no way UT gets away from playing Baylor. Texas also likes being the big schools in the State of Texas beating up instate inferiors, and the Longhorn fans like those games.

I didn't ignore it, I have done this many times on this forum and I have listed potential schedules for Texas more times than I can count. Yes, it still has plenty of Texas scheduling and Oklahoma. I think Baylor goes with so they are a yearly conference match up. Oklahoma and Tech being yearly OOC match ups. Oklahoma is basically another Texas program. That game is played in Dallas every year. You add one more, as I did in this listing with North Texas, and you have yourself four Texas games. My listing also has Two California games AND the Notre Dame game.

You could scrap a Cali game and put in anyone else from the country but with the ACC match ups covering the entire East Coast, Texas might as well double up in California as they have all their bases covered. A yearly game in California, four games in the State of Texas and plenty of East Coast coverage all the way down to the State of Florida.

My listing has it all covered, if I come off as irritated it is because it gets tedious having to repeat this every time. The six game AAC schedule pretty much gives Texas everything they want while at the same time getting them out of a region that does them no good anymore.

To change the subject a little, you want the B1G to take in Kansas and Oklahoma without Texas?

It's not that I wouldn't want Texas in The Big Ten. It is just that I don't think it is possible. So with that in mind, yeah Oklahoma and Kansas give The Big Ten two Blue Chip programs, one for football and one for basketball. Oklahoma is also pretty good at basketball so The Big Ten should easily hold on to the #2 spot in the basketball conference hierarchy.

So where would texas go if OU and KU joined the big 10? I don't really see how everybody in the big 12 gets a home without it being a pac 20. If you put OU and KU in the big 10, than that will limit things,

SEC- Texas and x, doesn't matter who x is but no texas no expansion
pac 12- Texas and x,x,x doesn't matter who x is but no texas no expansion.
ACC- might take wvu

(02-15-2015 10:25 PM)bluesox Wrote:  So where would texas go if OU and KU joined the big 10? I don't really see how everybody in the big 12 gets a home without it being a pac 20. If you put OU and KU in the big 10, than that will limit things,

SEC- Texas and x, doesn't matter who x is but no texas no expansion
pac 12- Texas and x,x,x doesn't matter who x is but no texas no expansion.
ACC- might take wvu

Ok, I will spell it out for you guys.....again.

Texas is going to go indie in football with a similar deal as Notre Dame with the ACC. Baylor will go with them. The SEC will get a couple of nice fillers for the four division future. Oklahoma State goes well with LSU, A&M and Arkansas. WVU goes well with Tennessee, Kentucky and Missouri. The ACC probably ends up being the one leveraged the most as they end up taking UConn in return for ESPN merging the LHN into an ACCN which is a combination of regional networks that allow for each school to have their own creative programming. That last bit is probably what it takes to get Texas signed on to the ACCN.

The big payout has to go to the PAC because they end up with Texas Tech, TCU, KSU and ISU. They are able to provide programming for 90 new Saturday college football time slots with the addition of four Central Time Zone locations.

That IS how it is going to go. It is the ONLY way that it can go without movement having to wait for another decade.


In terms of Network coverage, the loss of the big 12 hits Fox hardest. In order to keep them in this plan, ESPN allows The Big Ten to renegotiate their Tier 1 to allow Fox an equal stake in The Big Ten's Tier 1 rights.

The conferences very quickly create new divisional rules and the Networks immediately buy up the newly created conference tournament semifinal games.

Everyone wins and I mean everyone.

(02-15-2015 11:11 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-15-2015 10:25 PM)bluesox Wrote:  So where would texas go if OU and KU joined the big 10? I don't really see how everybody in the big 12 gets a home without it being a pac 20. If you put OU and KU in the big 10, than that will limit things,

SEC- Texas and x, doesn't matter who x is but no texas no expansion
pac 12- Texas and x,x,x doesn't matter who x is but no texas no expansion.
ACC- might take wvu

Ok, I will spell it out for you guys.....again.

Texas is going to go indie in football with a similar deal as Notre Dame with the ACC. Baylor will go with them. The SEC will get a couple of nice fillers for the four division future. Oklahoma State goes well with LSU, A&M and Arkansas. WVU goes well with Tennessee, Kentucky and Missouri. The ACC probably ends up being the one leveraged the most as they end up taking UConn in return for ESPN merging the LHN into an ACCN which is a combination of regional networks that allow for each school to have their own creative programming. That last bit is probably what it takes to get Texas signed on to the ACCN.

The big payout has to go to the PAC because they end up with Texas Tech, TCU, KSU and ISU. They are able to provide programming for 90 new Saturday college football time slots with the addition of four Central Time Zone locations.

That IS how it is going to go. It is the ONLY way that it can go without movement having to wait for another decade.


In terms of Network coverage, the loss of the big 12 hits Fox hardest. In order to keep them in this plan, ESPN allows The Big Ten to renegotiate their Tier 1 to allow Fox an equal stake in The Big Ten's Tier 1 rights.

The conferences very quickly create new divisional rules and the Networks immediately buy up the newly created conference tournament semifinal games.

Everyone wins and I mean everyone.

Sorry, but no. Your plan has the SEC only getting Oklahoma State and West Virginia. I do not think so. When the SEC starts making $50 million per year, per school in media rights, the end result will not be OSU and WV.

(02-15-2015 11:43 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(02-15-2015 11:11 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-15-2015 10:25 PM)bluesox Wrote:  So where would texas go if OU and KU joined the big 10? I don't really see how everybody in the big 12 gets a home without it being a pac 20. If you put OU and KU in the big 10, than that will limit things,

SEC- Texas and x, doesn't matter who x is but no texas no expansion
pac 12- Texas and x,x,x doesn't matter who x is but no texas no expansion.
ACC- might take wvu

Ok, I will spell it out for you guys.....again.

Texas is going to go indie in football with a similar deal as Notre Dame with the ACC. Baylor will go with them. The SEC will get a couple of nice fillers for the four division future. Oklahoma State goes well with LSU, A&M and Arkansas. WVU goes well with Tennessee, Kentucky and Missouri. The ACC probably ends up being the one leveraged the most as they end up taking UConn in return for ESPN merging the LHN into an ACCN which is a combination of regional networks that allow for each school to have their own creative programming. That last bit is probably what it takes to get Texas signed on to the ACCN.

The big payout has to go to the PAC because they end up with Texas Tech, TCU, KSU and ISU. They are able to provide programming for 90 new Saturday college football time slots with the addition of four Central Time Zone locations.

That IS how it is going to go. It is the ONLY way that it can go without movement having to wait for another decade.


In terms of Network coverage, the loss of the big 12 hits Fox hardest. In order to keep them in this plan, ESPN allows The Big Ten to renegotiate their Tier 1 to allow Fox an equal stake in The Big Ten's Tier 1 rights.

The conferences very quickly create new divisional rules and the Networks immediately buy up the newly created conference tournament semifinal games.

Everyone wins and I mean everyone.

Sorry, but no. Your plan has the SEC only getting Oklahoma State and West Virginia. I do not think so. When the SEC starts making $50 million per year, per school in media rights, the end result will not be OSU and WV.

Sorry bro but you and quite a few others are going to have a shock coming then. ESPN doesn't need the SEC getting any more Elite brands that could throw off the hierarchy like we saw this past season. It is ok if the SEC doesn't make it in every once and awhile but having Too much competition is a marketing pain in the ass. All the SEC needs at this point is some complimentary programs that have good stadiums and strong followings. That is EXACTLY what WVU and OSU have. They have stadiums that can show off well for tv cameras and they have strong fan followings to not just fill them but to make the noise for the cameras.

OSU and WVU are great in terms of filling the roles that the SEC needs.

You can let your pride misguide you but you are going at this all wrong with your perspective.

(02-16-2015 01:04 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-15-2015 11:43 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(02-15-2015 11:11 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-15-2015 10:25 PM)bluesox Wrote:  So where would texas go if OU and KU joined the big 10? I don't really see how everybody in the big 12 gets a home without it being a pac 20. If you put OU and KU in the big 10, than that will limit things,

SEC- Texas and x, doesn't matter who x is but no texas no expansion
pac 12- Texas and x,x,x doesn't matter who x is but no texas no expansion.
ACC- might take wvu

Ok, I will spell it out for you guys.....again.

Texas is going to go indie in football with a similar deal as Notre Dame with the ACC. Baylor will go with them. The SEC will get a couple of nice fillers for the four division future. Oklahoma State goes well with LSU, A&M and Arkansas. WVU goes well with Tennessee, Kentucky and Missouri. The ACC probably ends up being the one leveraged the most as they end up taking UConn in return for ESPN merging the LHN into an ACCN which is a combination of regional networks that allow for each school to have their own creative programming. That last bit is probably what it takes to get Texas signed on to the ACCN.

The big payout has to go to the PAC because they end up with Texas Tech, TCU, KSU and ISU. They are able to provide programming for 90 new Saturday college football time slots with the addition of four Central Time Zone locations.

That IS how it is going to go. It is the ONLY way that it can go without movement having to wait for another decade.


In terms of Network coverage, the loss of the big 12 hits Fox hardest. In order to keep them in this plan, ESPN allows The Big Ten to renegotiate their Tier 1 to allow Fox an equal stake in The Big Ten's Tier 1 rights.

The conferences very quickly create new divisional rules and the Networks immediately buy up the newly created conference tournament semifinal games.

Everyone wins and I mean everyone.

Sorry, but no. Your plan has the SEC only getting Oklahoma State and West Virginia. I do not think so. When the SEC starts making $50 million per year, per school in media rights, the end result will not be OSU and WV.

Sorry bro but you and quite a few others are going to have a shock coming then. ESPN doesn't need the SEC getting any more Elite brands that could throw off the hierarchy like we saw this past season. It is ok if the SEC doesn't make it in every once and awhile but having Too much competition is a marketing pain in the ass. All the SEC needs at this point is some complimentary programs that have good stadiums and strong followings. That is EXACTLY what WVU and OSU have. They have stadiums that can show off well for tv cameras and they have strong fan followings to not just fill them but to make the noise for the cameras.

OSU and WVU are great in terms of filling the roles that the SEC needs.

You can let your pride misguide you but you are going at this all wrong with your perspective.

No, it appears you have the perspective of someone who thinks he has it all figured out and ignoring the flaws in his master plan. You do realize when the SEC was looking for #14 and was courting OU negotiations broke down because Boren insisted on bringing OSU along? Now the SEC is suppose to take OSU and WV without any other treasure? Sorry pal, no dice. And spare me the bit about how things have changed and how the SEC needs jacks not kings.

The SEC wants Aces. Money making Aces. Kings, Queens, Jacks, and 10s may get an invite, but as part of a Royal Straight, not as a pair of jacks or 10s.

And remember this, the SEC has never feared bringing talent into the family when the conference would benefit.

(02-15-2015 01:14 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(02-15-2015 12:36 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-15-2015 12:23 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-15-2015 12:19 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(02-15-2015 12:12 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Why wouldn't they make similar money with the ACC as they would with the SEC? They are Texas, they make more money than any other University Athletic Department in the country. While that argument of yours matters in regards to Texas, it doesn't matter as much as it does for most other Athletic Departments.

They are making as much with the LHN as anyone will make with the SECN. The ACC payout is equivalent to what the SEC is getting in terms of Network deals. With the addition of Texas and Baylor, the stock of match ups in the ACC goes up. I already see ACC basketball as the premier basketball conference in the country. ESPN see's it the same way. Add in Texas, Baylor and UConn basketball to the mix and it really cannot be debated. ACC basketball would make for a nice pay day for everyone involved.

I think your final sentence about Texas going to the SEC if all those other schools were involved has some merit but I don't think UNC and UVA are interested, sorry.

Every team in the SEC will make more money from the SECN than UT will receive from the LHN. Twice as much. Texas cannot have that. I believe the same thing goes for all in the ACC with options.

Texas is making upwards of seven million with the LHN. Sorry but the SECN is not making EACH school 14 million. There is no need to so stretch the truth in this discussion.

Basketball actually provides more advertising opportunity for a conference network than football does. Advertising revenue from these networks is greater than that which is received in cable fees. Texas, Baylor and UConn being added to the ACC makes for a very strong basketball value on the East Coast in order to market a brand new ACC Network which is made up of multiple regional networks like what the LHN is.

I am sorry but there isn't that much of a money difference.

H1 the start up costs are coming out of the first two years worth of the SECN's payouts. The total is going up, a lot. I'm sure the Big 10 will be getting a bump as well. But remember when their start up costs were over? That's when they jumped ahead. Maryland's figures were fairly accurate. When they receive a full share they will be making over 8 figures more than the ACC members even with their built in contract increases. Maryland estimated optimistically as much as 25 million more. But 15 is probably low. 17 to 19 million more is more likely. The Big 10 and SEC will be doing quite well with a much larger upside. The Big 12 and ACC are the two that will be close but well behind the other two. Right now the Big 12 has the edge but that will be ameliorated by raises in the ACC's contract and larger payouts to T.C.U. and W.V.U. But without a network their upside isn't there and what's more they know it. That's why there is no expansion. However nobody will be doubling Texas's LHN payout. But Lurker is correct in that Texas makes a lot more by adding their cache to the Big 10 or SEC than they do adding it to the ACC or the PAC as it is presently comported and contracted.

Don't bet any money on that.

http://www.americanpress.com/TV-network-...unny-money

This article tells us that any SEC addition (who will be paid a share of the conference jackpot) must be worth $49 million in increased revenue. What school can deliver that? Possibly VaTech, Maybe UNC. Not Texas, not Oklahoma, no school from Florida. The SEC adds one school each from VA and NC or they stand at fourteen. Adding members just to grow larger will reduce the per-school payout.