(04-08-2015 06:33 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 04:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 04:23 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 02:20 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  Link

Quote:The move would directly impact the Big 12 and ACC, which developed the legislation. The Big 12, which is the only Power Five league without a championship game, is merely seeking the option of staging such a contest with 10 teams. The ACC's ultimate intentions with a 14-team league in football, one which already holds a championship game, are not clear.

Current NCAA rules state a league must have at least 12 teams in order to play a conference title game. Those teams also must play a round-robin within each division.

If this is true, P5 expansion is off the table.

Time to shore up the best of the G5 status, and maximize our CFP contention.

We need that 4 pod setup asap.

Why?

Exactly. All a 4 pod set up does is make it harder to determine which 2 pod champs should be in the CCG. With 3 pods, you just have to eliminate one--plus its easier to preserve and encourage rivalries.

What actually is kind of an interesting idea is to go with 3 6-team pods and a 7 game conference schedule. That gives you 5 games in your pod, one game vs each of the other pods, and one extra opportunity to schedule a P5 OOC game. That's one way to potentially allow conference members to upgrade their schedules. The down side is that it causes unbalanced home-away conference schedules.

I made a reddit post based on your idea.

Let's see how it pans out.

Oh and 9 > 7, in terms of conference games.

lol....That might be interesting. Im assuming its a different kind of reader there.

(04-08-2015 07:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 06:33 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 04:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 04:23 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 02:20 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  Link


If this is true, P5 expansion is off the table.

Time to shore up the best of the G5 status, and maximize our CFP contention.

We need that 4 pod setup asap.

Why?

Exactly. All a 4 pod set up does is make it harder to determine which 2 pod champs should be in the CCG. With 3 pods, you just have to eliminate one--plus its easier to preserve and encourage rivalries.

What actually is kind of an interesting idea is to go with 3 6-team pods and a 7 game conference schedule. That gives you 5 games in your pod, one game vs each of the other pods, and one extra opportunity to schedule a P5 OOC game. That's one way to potentially allow conference members to upgrade their schedules. The down side is that it causes unbalanced home-away conference schedules.

I made a reddit post based on your idea.

Let's see how it pans out.

Oh and 9 > 7, in terms of conference games.

lol....That might be interesting. Im assuming its a different kind of reader there.

Very pro-p5. Lots of t-shirt fans. I had to title it thusly to draw in casual readers. And of course, true to form, the majority of the comments so far are about the ACC instead of the subject.

Ya just as I thought. Not many bites, and anything mentioned is either ACC related, or not very constructive at all.

(04-07-2015 04:35 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 04:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 04:23 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 02:20 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  Link

Quote:The move would directly impact the Big 12 and ACC, which developed the legislation. The Big 12, which is the only Power Five league without a championship game, is merely seeking the option of staging such a contest with 10 teams. The ACC's ultimate intentions with a 14-team league in football, one which already holds a championship game, are not clear.

Current NCAA rules state a league must have at least 12 teams in order to play a conference title game. Those teams also must play a round-robin within each division.

If this is true, P5 expansion is off the table.

Time to shore up the best of the G5 status, and maximize our CFP contention.

We need that 4 pod setup asap.

Why?

Exactly. All a 4 pod set up does is make it harder to determine which 2 pod champs should be in the CCG. With 3 pods, you just have to eliminate one--plus its easier to preserve and encourage rivalries.

What actually is kind of an interesting idea is to go with 3 6-team pods and a 7 game conference schedule. That gives you 5 games in your pod, one game vs each of the other pods, and one extra opportunity to schedule a P5 OOC game. That's one way to potentially allow conference members to upgrade their schedules. The down side is that it causes unbalanced home-away conference schedules.

The only way we could make an even 10 game schedule with 3 pods is if each pod had 7 members. I don't think a 21 team conference will fly.

4 pods, if championships are truly deregulated, allows for a semifinal, which would draw eyeballs imo. 4 pods of 4 is not too cumbersome, and fills our needs to the extent that we need it.

If my school is ever in a conference with pods im done with college sports

Pods. Please just shoot me and throw my body in the river

(04-08-2015 11:03 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 04:35 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 04:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 04:23 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 02:20 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  Link


If this is true, P5 expansion is off the table.

Time to shore up the best of the G5 status, and maximize our CFP contention.

We need that 4 pod setup asap.

Why?

Exactly. All a 4 pod set up does is make it harder to determine which 2 pod champs should be in the CCG. With 3 pods, you just have to eliminate one--plus its easier to preserve and encourage rivalries.

What actually is kind of an interesting idea is to go with 3 6-team pods and a 7 game conference schedule. That gives you 5 games in your pod, one game vs each of the other pods, and one extra opportunity to schedule a P5 OOC game. That's one way to potentially allow conference members to upgrade their schedules. The down side is that it causes unbalanced home-away conference schedules.

The only way we could make an even 10 game schedule with 3 pods is if each pod had 7 members. I don't think a 21 team conference will fly.

4 pods, if championships are truly deregulated, allows for a semifinal, which would draw eyeballs imo. 4 pods of 4 is not too cumbersome, and fills our needs to the extent that we need it.

If my school is ever in a conference with pods im done with college sports

Pods. Please just shoot me and throw my body in the river

The NFL has pods.

East
UConn
Temple
Cincinnati
Navy

South East
ECU
UCF
USF
Tulane

South West
Houston
SMU
Memphis
Tulsa

West
BSU
BYU
SDSU
Fresno State

You would play your pod and one other pod each year in football and then one other team in each pod for 9 games. The winner of each set of round robin pods plays in the CCG. You switch pods every year that in three years you play everybody at least once.

(04-09-2015 03:32 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

Is that the AAC league office?

(04-08-2015 11:31 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 11:03 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 04:35 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 04:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 04:23 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Why?

Exactly. All a 4 pod set up does is make it harder to determine which 2 pod champs should be in the CCG. With 3 pods, you just have to eliminate one--plus its easier to preserve and encourage rivalries.

What actually is kind of an interesting idea is to go with 3 6-team pods and a 7 game conference schedule. That gives you 5 games in your pod, one game vs each of the other pods, and one extra opportunity to schedule a P5 OOC game. That's one way to potentially allow conference members to upgrade their schedules. The down side is that it causes unbalanced home-away conference schedules.

The only way we could make an even 10 game schedule with 3 pods is if each pod had 7 members. I don't think a 21 team conference will fly.

4 pods, if championships are truly deregulated, allows for a semifinal, which would draw eyeballs imo. 4 pods of 4 is not too cumbersome, and fills our needs to the extent that we need it.

If my school is ever in a conference with pods im done with college sports

Pods. Please just shoot me and throw my body in the river

The NFL has pods.

Yeah. I don't watch the nfl unless there is nothing else on and even then I usually fall asleep. The regular season is almost meaningless

(04-09-2015 07:42 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 11:31 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 11:03 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 04:35 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 04:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Exactly. All a 4 pod set up does is make it harder to determine which 2 pod champs should be in the CCG. With 3 pods, you just have to eliminate one--plus its easier to preserve and encourage rivalries.

What actually is kind of an interesting idea is to go with 3 6-team pods and a 7 game conference schedule. That gives you 5 games in your pod, one game vs each of the other pods, and one extra opportunity to schedule a P5 OOC game. That's one way to potentially allow conference members to upgrade their schedules. The down side is that it causes unbalanced home-away conference schedules.

The only way we could make an even 10 game schedule with 3 pods is if each pod had 7 members. I don't think a 21 team conference will fly.

4 pods, if championships are truly deregulated, allows for a semifinal, which would draw eyeballs imo. 4 pods of 4 is not too cumbersome, and fills our needs to the extent that we need it.

If my school is ever in a conference with pods im done with college sports

Pods. Please just shoot me and throw my body in the river

The NFL has pods.

Yeah. I don't watch the nfl unless there is nothing else on and even then I usually fall asleep. The regular season is almost meaningless

You're in the minority. The NFL is the proverbial 800 lb gorilla of sports. If your going to copy any league, that's the one to use as your model.

Why are they called pods? Wouldn't they still just be Divisions but 4 instead of 2.

(04-09-2015 09:35 AM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  Why are they called pods? Wouldn't they still just be Divisions but 4 instead of 2.

The term "pods" came from the WAC which probably just used "pods" to differentiate their 4-team groupings from the NCAA definition of a "division".

The NCAA allows for conferences to divide into TWO divisions that play a round robin within the division. The winners of each division are allowed to play in a CCG. Pods didn't really comply with the rule. However, what the WAC did was to create 4 "pods". Then, they had each pod play a round robin against itself plus one other pod---which would mimic divisional play and thus, comply with the NCAA rules. The old WAC pods rotated to pair with a different pod each year, thereby creating 2-divisions each year with slightly differing make ups. So, I think they just used "pods" to describe their 4-team groupings without causing confusion with the NCAA definition of "divisions".

Back to the intent of the article... If anybody who reads this doesnt come away with the thought "The Big 12 really doesnt want to expand" then youre just delusional. This is a bunch of work and time invested, just to get a championship game.
For me, this is the proverbial nail in the coffin for any interest in the AAC to go to the Big 12. I can see only 2 possible ways any of us move...

1. Texas, Oklahoma and their 2 step sisters move to the Pac 12. I can then see them adding 6-10 new schools depending on what ESPN and Fox tells them to do. BYU would be the first invited.

2. The Big 12 moves away from their current economic model and makes a Big 12 network. This is a TON of work since each school has their own contract with other companies. Rights would have to be bought out and that would chew up alot of the future earnings.

Outside of those two things happening, let me formally welcome all of you to your new long term home.

(04-09-2015 09:50 AM)mtmedlin Wrote:  Back to the intent of the article... If anybody who reads this doesnt come away with the thought "The Big 12 really doesnt want to expand" then youre just delusional. This is a bunch of work and time invested, just to get a championship game.
For me, this is the proverbial nail in the coffin for any interest in the AAC to go to the Big 12. I can see only 2 possible ways any of us move...

1. Texas, Oklahoma and their 2 step sisters move to the Pac 12. I can then see them adding 6-10 new schools depending on what ESPN and Fox tells them to do. BYU would be the first invited.

2. The Big 12 moves away from their current economic model and makes a Big 12 network. This is a TON of work since each school has their own contract with other companies. Rights would have to be bought out and that would chew up alot of the future earnings.

Outside of those two things happening, let me formally welcome all of you to your new long term home.

The Big-10 is still lurking and as of late, has been the most aggressive P5 conference in expansion. Its Big-10 network model makes expansion pay immediate dividends via carriage fees in new areas. Additionally, its contract is coming up for bid soon. The Pac-12 also might make a move as its earnings are expected to fall behind both the Big-10 and the SEC (once the SEC network really begins to take off). The Pac-12 Network is badly underperforming its peers and is in need of an expanded footprint base to generate the income the other conference networks have created. So, there are still realignment drivers out there, despite what appears to be a likely end to most Big-12 expansion needs.

(04-09-2015 09:50 AM)mtmedlin Wrote:  Back to the intent of the article... If anybody who reads this doesnt come away with the thought "The Big 12 really doesnt want to expand" then youre just delusional. This is a bunch of work and time invested, just to get a championship game.
For me, this is the proverbial nail in the coffin for any interest in the AAC to go to the Big 12. I can see only 2 possible ways any of us move...

1. Texas, Oklahoma and their 2 step sisters move to the Pac 12. I can then see them adding 6-10 new schools depending on what ESPN and Fox tells them to do. BYU would be the first invited.

2. The Big 12 moves away from their current economic model and makes a Big 12 network. This is a TON of work since each school has their own contract with other companies. Rights would have to be bought out and that would chew up alot of the future earnings.

Outside of those two things happening, let me formally welcome all of you to your new long term home.

Agree with this. Realignment is over for at least the next 7-10 years. The Big 12 has not interest in expanding the league, they want to keep all of the money they are getting from their contract. Funding a football team is a never ending battle and require money, money, money. Schools in the P5 want to keep what they have. The Big 12 wanted flexibility in the Championship game and got it, no way they look to expand now.

So goes for the ACC. Why in the world would they want more mouths to feed? If they can get Florida or another big fish, sure they will open the bank, but everyone else is staying put. Look around AAC teams, you are in this league for the long haul. Now we have to see what kind of leader Aresco really is. We have a small window to prove our worth to ESPN. We need to make it count. We are the only relevant G5 conference right now, largely because of our schools and the great tv contract we have. If we could some how add Boise and BYU, we would leave everyone else behind quickly.

In truth the MAC, Conf USA and the Sun BElt are done as competitive football and basketball schools. Their tv contracts spell the end for them. We are barely holding on to some form of relevance. We have to be great over the course of the next 6 years, or we are going to have the same fate as the rest of the G5. Better make our life line work for us.

(04-09-2015 10:01 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 09:50 AM)mtmedlin Wrote:  Back to the intent of the article... If anybody who reads this doesnt come away with the thought "The Big 12 really doesnt want to expand" then youre just delusional. This is a bunch of work and time invested, just to get a championship game.
For me, this is the proverbial nail in the coffin for any interest in the AAC to go to the Big 12. I can see only 2 possible ways any of us move...

1. Texas, Oklahoma and their 2 step sisters move to the Pac 12. I can then see them adding 6-10 new schools depending on what ESPN and Fox tells them to do. BYU would be the first invited.

2. The Big 12 moves away from their current economic model and makes a Big 12 network. This is a TON of work since each school has their own contract with other companies. Rights would have to be bought out and that would chew up alot of the future earnings.

Outside of those two things happening, let me formally welcome all of you to your new long term home.

The Big-10 is still lurking and as of late, has been the most aggressive P5 conference in expansion. Its Big-10 network model makes expansion pay immediate dividends via carriage fees in new areas. Additionally, its contract is coming up for bid soon. The Pac-12 also might make a move as its earnings are expected to fall behind both the Big-10 and the SEC (once the SEC network really begins to take off). The Pac-12 Network is badly underperforming its peers and is in need of an expanded footprint base to generate the income the other conference networks have created. So, there are still realignment drivers out there, despite what appears to be a likely end to most Big-12 expansion needs.

The Big 10 doesnt have many options at this point. Look at who they took. A crappy Rutgers who doesnt ever do anything and Maryland who pretty much sucks too. Why? MARKETS.
The ACC passed the GOR along with a $50 million exit fee... Moving someone out of there is going to be expensive. Not saying it cant be done, but its highly unlikely but beyond that, theyre happy. Maryland moved cause they financially were up ***** creek. The rest of the ACC is pretty happy to be there and the ones that arent wont get an ivite.

With the ACC pretty much out of play, that leaves VERY few people who the Big 10 would look at. No matter what anyone says, if a school isnt in the AAU the Big 10 will not take them. They have never taken a non AAU school (invited 1... Notre Dame. Thats it)

So whos AAU... Tulane, Texas, Kansas and Iowas st (then theres a few in the SEC, but nobodies leaving.) Texas isnt going to the Big 10 and Iowa wouldnt ever let Iowa St. The Big 10 isnt coming to New Orleans! That leaves Kansas (who is also under a GOR). I dont see that happening. Kansas is a great school with great basketball history but their market wont move the needle. Rutgers and Maryland brought in tons of new subscribers. Kansas just doesnt do that... and then who would they balance that our with?
Also consider that if the Big 10 takes any Big 12 schools, it hurts a Fox product, who also owns 49% if the Big 10 network and will likely be the Big 10 TV partner.
From everything Ive heard, the Big 10 is done.

The only conference I can see make a move is the Pac12. ESPN and Fox are partners on both the B12 and Pac 12. Swapping around teams to maximize profit benefits them both.

They can move Texas, Ok, OSU and Tech into the new Pac16 and increase their overall tv contract a bit. Then turn a lagging Longhorn network into a regional channel and start producing cash out of it.

This leaves mostly lesser teams that honestly ESPN and Fox are probably over paying for. At this point, it allows them to move BYU and the best pieces of the AAC and MWC into a new Big 16. It wont get a massive TV contract but it would be semi competitive. All other conferences will be making in the $30-40 million range and I can see this new one being in the high teens low 20s.

Now you have the PAC16, Big 16, ACC (who I assume will take UConn at that point and ND will join) will all have 16 teams, and the SEC and Big 10 will have 14 each. Thats 76 teams which is probably good enough to split away from the rest. ( you may see them make a deal for the Academies as independents)

These types of moves allows ESPN and Fox to consolidate the best pieces into conferences they control. If they do this closer to the 2019/20 time frame, it would allow them to lock up those conferences long term (Again) without a bidding process and deny their competition.

(04-09-2015 10:25 AM)mtmedlin Wrote:  The only conference I can see make a move is the Pac12. ESPN and Fox are partners on both the B12 and Pac 12. Swapping around teams to maximize profit benefits them both.

They can move Texas, Ok, OSU and Tech into the new Pac16 and increase their overall tv contract a bit. Then turn a lagging Longhorn network into a regional channel and start producing cash out of it.

This leaves mostly lesser teams that honestly ESPN and Fox are probably over paying for. At this point, it allows them to move BYU and the best pieces of the AAC and MWC into a new Big 16. It wont get a massive TV contract but it would be semi competitive. All other conferences will be making in the $30-40 million range and I can see this new one being in the high teens low 20s.

Now you have the PAC16, Big 16, ACC (who I assume will take UConn at that point and ND will join) will all have 16 teams, and the SEC and Big 10 will have 14 each. Thats 76 teams which is probably good enough to split away from the rest. ( you may see them make a deal for the Academies as independents)

These types of moves allows ESPN and Fox to consolidate the best pieces into conferences they control. If they do this closer to the 2019/20 time frame, it would allow them to lock up those conferences long term (Again) without a bidding process and deny their competition.

Your entire argument is plausible however, Fox needs East Coast content. Don't forget they are also partners in the BiG 10 Network with the B1G. So they only really need the southeast. Stretching the Big 12 out will not necessarily accomplish this goal.

There is also the probability that at least two other media entities enter into the market as well, (Comcast/NBC and Turner Broadcasting). Either of those would need coast to coast content or in Turners case, primarily east coast content. Before anyone mentions it, no Comcast would not be subject to the monopoly laws. If that were the case then surely ESPN would be broached for that issue in regards to them owning Conferences and the NCG as well.

There are many way's for this to go but, I doubt the Big 12 makes any smart moves in the near future. In my opinion they have failed to develop their footprint and unlike the PAC whom are saddled with a geographical disadvantage, just failed to utilize common sense in their moves. Any conference can reasonably support the reasoning for having two teams in California, Texas and Florida but not more then that. I'll stop before I get to the top of my soapbox.

(04-09-2015 10:01 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 09:50 AM)mtmedlin Wrote:  Back to the intent of the article... If anybody who reads this doesnt come away with the thought "The Big 12 really doesnt want to expand" then youre just delusional. This is a bunch of work and time invested, just to get a championship game.
For me, this is the proverbial nail in the coffin for any interest in the AAC to go to the Big 12. I can see only 2 possible ways any of us move...

1. Texas, Oklahoma and their 2 step sisters move to the Pac 12. I can then see them adding 6-10 new schools depending on what ESPN and Fox tells them to do. BYU would be the first invited.

2. The Big 12 moves away from their current economic model and makes a Big 12 network. This is a TON of work since each school has their own contract with other companies. Rights would have to be bought out and that would chew up alot of the future earnings.

Outside of those two things happening, let me formally welcome all of you to your new long term home.

The Big-10 is still lurking and as of late, has been the most aggressive P5 conference in expansion. Its Big-10 network model makes expansion pay immediate dividends via carriage fees in new areas. Additionally, its contract is coming up for bid soon. The Pac-12 also might make a move as its earnings are expected to fall behind both the Big-10 and the SEC (once the SEC network really begins to take off). The Pac-12 Network is badly underperforming its peers and is in need of an expanded footprint base to generate the income the other conference networks have created. So, there are still realignment drivers out there, despite what appears to be a likely end to most Big-12 expansion needs.

The B1G will not expand by adding G5 schools, only by raiding other P5.

(04-11-2015 11:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 10:01 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 09:50 AM)mtmedlin Wrote:  Back to the intent of the article... If anybody who reads this doesnt come away with the thought "The Big 12 really doesnt want to expand" then youre just delusional. This is a bunch of work and time invested, just to get a championship game.
For me, this is the proverbial nail in the coffin for any interest in the AAC to go to the Big 12. I can see only 2 possible ways any of us move...

1. Texas, Oklahoma and their 2 step sisters move to the Pac 12. I can then see them adding 6-10 new schools depending on what ESPN and Fox tells them to do. BYU would be the first invited.

2. The Big 12 moves away from their current economic model and makes a Big 12 network. This is a TON of work since each school has their own contract with other companies. Rights would have to be bought out and that would chew up alot of the future earnings.

Outside of those two things happening, let me formally welcome all of you to your new long term home.

The Big-10 is still lurking and as of late, has been the most aggressive P5 conference in expansion. Its Big-10 network model makes expansion pay immediate dividends via carriage fees in new areas. Additionally, its contract is coming up for bid soon. The Pac-12 also might make a move as its earnings are expected to fall behind both the Big-10 and the SEC (once the SEC network really begins to take off). The Pac-12 Network is badly underperforming its peers and is in need of an expanded footprint base to generate the income the other conference networks have created. So, there are still realignment drivers out there, despite what appears to be a likely end to most Big-12 expansion needs.

The B1G will not expand by adding G5 schools, only by raiding other P5.

They already did, unless you want to consider Rutgers, a team relegated to G5 scrap heap, a P5 simply because the Big-10 added them before the clock officially struck midnight turning them into a pumpkin. That's like calling every member of the 2013 AAC a BCS team because we all played that year as an AQ schools.

Frankly, I think the Big-10 will consider adding any school that adds money to their bottom line and is AAU. I don't know that being G5 matters all that much.