I think it'd start earlier than that...

look at when tv deals are up:
Big 12- 24/25 season
Pac 12 23/24 season
ACC- 26/27 season
SEC- 23/24 for CBS 33/34 for ESPN
Big 10- 15/16

So Pac 12 is first one up in 9 years along with the SEC with CBS. Given you have to do moves a year in advance- so a move in place for the 23/24 season would need to be done by June of 22- that's only 7 years away.

(04-10-2015 01:14 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 01:08 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 12:26 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 11:51 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 11:29 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Look, I am far from an ACC fan. But.....

Why didn't that powerful 10 school voting bloc snag FSU and Clemson in the 2010-12 time span prior to the signing of the ACC grant of rights?

The ACC was far easier to "rip apart" in 2010-2012 than prior to the inclusion of Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville and ND, the adoption of the $52 million exit fee and the signing of the GOR.

The Big 12 missed its chance, if it even ever existed.

at the time everything was going on the ACC had just landed a new TV deal and the Big 12 had not yet had their first tier TV deal renegotiated several years early

ADs of major teams were concerned with the ACC making less money in the future, but with a new TV deal for the ACC in place and the Big 12 still not having an commissioner that could convince others that they would get their first tier deal renegotiated early (much less get any boost to a second tier deal that was signed with 10 teams that included A&M and MU at the time) it was not as easy to convince others to jump ship

if all things had gone according to plan the Big 10 would have taken MU and possibly a couple of teams from the ACC and they would have been happy and the Big 12 would have had an easier chance to back fill with ACC teams and they would have been happy

instead the AD from MU ran his big mouth and and NU got wind of it

then NU started to let the Big 12 know they were looking around and word got out and the ACC started to react and that started to make it harder for the Big 10 to make a move on ACC schools......this is why the Big 10 ended up telling MU "thanks, but no thanks" and MU had to go to the SEC

while the Big 12 knew change was going to happen they and the Big 10 were not prepared for the ACC to move so quick and for the Big East to be even less prepared to not get fully pulled apart and for the ACC to get a deal worked so quick that would satisfy the major football schools

In other words:

The Big 12 was a huge Charlie Fox Trot and all of these "plans" were nothing but big dreams and hot air that came to naught.

programs like FSU do not have "issues" go public and major PUBLIC discussions with ADs commenting and major alumni commenting publicly based on hot air and "nothing to see here"

when the chairman of the BOT is on record saying he would like to explore options that is not hot air

https://floridastate.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1364755

when the head coach is on record saying they would be open to a move that is not hot air

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012...r-acc-s-tv

it seems only the FSU president was not on board with looking around or considering a move and that is why it did not go further

but again when two major players at a university including the chairman of the BOT go on record for an interview and state without question they have issues and are open to other options that is far from hot air

Yeah, but in the end, FSU committed to the ACC and signed the GOR, didn't they? So whether or not the talk was "hot air", the end result was the same, wasn't it?

can you show me anywhere that I stated that FSU did not sign with the ACC or sign the GOR?

no you can't so do you have a point for this post?

the question is why did the Big 12 not pick up FSU and Clemson before they signed the GOR

and the answer was because the ACC got a new TV deal and the Big 12 did not have their new tier 1 part of the deal in place yet and the ACC was able to make the GOR demands before that tier 1 deal was in place and the FSU president clearly was not prepared to sit out the GOR and have that fight with the ACC before knowing what the Big 12 would have to offer

that does not mean that the Big 12 discussions with FSU were hot air or just BS because clearly they were not because the highest university official (the BOT chairman) went on record saying he was open to discussions

it just means that FSU decided that slightly less money from the ACC was OK with them and was not worth a fight over with the ACC

you are wrong.

The Big 12 tv deal with ESPN/ABC got announced September 7,2012
The ACC GOR was announced on April 22,2013.

The ACC exit fee went up looks like September 12,2012. Coincidence?

(04-10-2015 01:31 PM)stever20 Wrote:  you are wrong.

The Big 12 tv deal with ESPN/ABC got announced September 7,2012
The ACC GOR was announced on April 22,2013.

The ACC exit fee went up looks like September 12,2012. Coincidence?

September 2012 is when ND joined. That lead right after that to the exit fee increase.

(04-10-2015 01:31 PM)stever20 Wrote:  you are wrong.

The Big 12 tv deal with ESPN/ABC got announced September 7,2012
The ACC GOR was announced on April 22,2013.

The ACC exit fee went up looks like September 12,2012. Coincidence?

then FSU was not prepared to pay an exit fee or go to court to try and lower it for a few million more per year

the point being that teams and conferences prefer to negotiate movements in private and not in the media

when everything blew up with Nebraska and The Big 12 and The Big 10 it brought a lot of things to the surface that people were not prepared to react to and they were not prepared to make a major move under the pressure of those moves being very public

the chancellor of NU has gone on record in a lengthy interview about The Big 10 move stating that NU was tipped off at a conference for athletics officials that major mover were probably going to happen and that NU was not mentioned in any of them

at that same conference NU officials contacted Big 10 officials and ask to talk and started making plans

now there will never be proof of who let that "leak", but I think it is pretty clear that MU officials had run their mouths too much to the wrong people and those people tipped off NU officials and everything blew up and went public

it was well known that MU wanted to talk with the Big 10 and it was well known that the Big 10 liked AAU members

it was also well known (for at least a decade) that NU was on the verge of being ask to leave the AAU and in fact two Big 10 members were major forces behind that

so even while the Big 10 was talking with NU it was well known to all Big 10 schools that NU was probably going to be ask to leave the AAU and that there was absolutely going to be a vote on that

and it was well known that MU was not in that same position and their place in the AAU was not in doubt

so again who would have been talking to the Big 10 if it was not MU.....why suddenly did the Big 10 pretty much drop MU from any consideration and start aggressive negotiations with NU when it was well known that the AAU membership for NU was in doubt and was absolutely going to be voted on and two members of the Big 10 were going to vote against further AAU membership for NU

and it is my opinion that the Big 10 became angry that MU had run their mouths and let plans go public and started all other conferences going into defensive mode and started many athletic and university officials having to go into damage mode before the Big 10 could get all their desired moves lined up and done

it was also well known and published in that same article with NU officials that Texas and the 5 other members of the Big 12 that were rumored to be talking to the PAC 12 absolutely committed to the Big 12 if NU would do the same....NU specifically requested that and after Texas and the other 5 agreed to that if NU did the same NU declined to offer that same assurance and instead ask for a week to 10 days to talk more with the Big 10

at that time CU said "we are going to talk to the PAC 12 on our own" and A&M them said "we do not want to go to the PAC 12 no matter what" and again things were in tatters VS what people expected to happen and Vs what had been discussed behind closed doors and the Big 10, PAC 10 and others were not prepared for that which is why instead of the PAC 10 landing 6 members of the Big 12 including Texas and OU they instead ended up with CU and Utah (which I suppose means that Texas to the PAC 12 was all "hot air and Charlie Tango Foxtrot" right?

it is well known that 14 teams is not optimum, but here we have the SEC and Big 10 at 14 teams.....why is that....well it is because no one was prepared for things to leak out (almost certainly because of MU) and thus conferences had to make moves they did not want to make in a time frame they were not wanting to make those moves in

certainly no one was expecting Utah to the PAC 10, MU to the SEC or Rutgers and Maryland to the Big 10 and the Big 10 and SEC with the odd arrangement of 14 teams

but again when you get caught flat footed and things go public not all university presidents are prepared to jump like NU did

sure Utah and TCU were prepared to move immediately to the first P5 that called them

and MU was clearly not prepared to have the SEC as their only option, but they had been prepared to bail on the Big 12, but ran their mouths, queered the deal for the Big 10 (and possibly the PAC 10 and even the SEC) and the Big 10 shut the door on them and the were now faced with the same thing that NU felt they were faced with.....not having a home if things broke up

clearly FSU and Clemson officials do not make hasty decisions or decisions that will take a long time to pay off if ever

NU was prepared to make that decision....and as of now NU is still in a major financial hole relative to where they would be if the had stayed in the Big 12 and will continue to be for a number of years

so when things changed in a hurry The Big 12 was not able to get a TV deal in place fast enough to lure other teams away before those teams were pressured to make a decision.....and the reality is the same can be said for the Big 10 unless one thinks the big 10 went into expansion targeting Maryland and Rutgers.....and clearly the same can be said for the PAC 10 unless one thinks the PAC 10 went into expansion targeting CU and Utah specifically an they were content to land those two programs alone

so it was not the GOR that kept FSU in the ACC it was a 50 million buy out.....again same difference conferences including the Big 12, Big 10 and PAC 10 and probably including the SEC were not ready for things to go public in the way that they did or at the tie that they did

unless of course you believe that CU and Utah was the goal of the PAC 1o and 14 teams with MU was the goal of the SEC and 14 teams with Rutgers and Maryland was the goal of the Big 10

and I don't think anyone with any common sense would say "yes that was the end game for those conferences" along with The Big 12 and ACC having a GOR in place that may (or may not) be much more difficult to exit from in the near term

so it is clear that FSU and the Big 12 was not just smoke and it is clear from all evidence and all results and all known information that conference realignment did not go down as planned for anyone other than Utah and TCU with the goal of "get in P5" and even that did not happen how I would imagine their officials expected it too

(04-10-2015 02:04 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 01:31 PM)stever20 Wrote:  you are wrong.

The Big 12 tv deal with ESPN/ABC got announced September 7,2012
The ACC GOR was announced on April 22,2013.

The ACC exit fee went up looks like September 12,2012. Coincidence?

then FSU was not prepared to pay an exit fee or go to court to try and lower it for a few million more per year

the point being that teams and conferences prefer to negotiate movements in private and not in the media

when everything blew up with Nebraska and The Big 12 and The Big 10 it brought a lot of things to the surface that people were not prepared to react to and they were not prepared to make a major move under the pressure of those moves being very public

the chancellor of NU has gone on record in a lengthy interview about The Big 10 move stating that NU was tipped off at a conference for athletics officials that major mover were probably going to happen and that NU was not mentioned in any of them

at that same conference NU officials contacted Big 10 officials and ask to talk and started making plans

now there will never be proof of who let that "leak", but I think it is pretty clear that MU officials had run their mouths too much to the wrong people and those people tipped off NU officials and everything blew up and went public

it was well known that MU wanted to talk with the Big 10 and it was well known that the Big 10 liked AAU members

it was also well known (for at least a decade) that NU was on the verge of being ask to leave the AAU and in fact two Big 10 members were major forces behind that

so even while the Big 10 was talking with NU it was well known to all Big 10 schools that NU was probably going to be ask to leave the AAU and that there was absolutely going to be a vote on that

and it was well known that MU was not in that same position and their place in the AAU was not in doubt

so again who would have been talking to the Big 10 if it was not MU.....why suddenly did the Big 10 pretty much drop MU from any consideration and start aggressive negotiations with NU when it was well known that the AAU membership for NU was in doubt and was absolutely going to be voted on and two members of the Big 10 were going to vote against further AAU membership for NU

and it is my opinion that the Big 10 became angry that MU had run their mouths and let plans go public and started all other conferences going into defensive mode and started many athletic and university officials having to go into damage mode before the Big 10 could get all their desired moves lined up and done

it was also well known and published in that same article with NU officials that Texas and the 5 other members of the Big 12 that were rumored to be talking to the PAC 12 absolutely committed to the Big 12 if NU would do the same....NU specifically requested that and after Texas and the other 5 agreed to that if NU did the same NU declined to offer that same assurance and instead ask for a week to 10 days to talk more with the Big 10

at that time CU said "we are going to talk to the PAC 12 on our own" and A&M them said "we do not want to go to the PAC 12 no matter what" and again things were in tatters VS what people expected to happen and Vs what had been discussed behind closed doors and the Big 10, PAC 10 and others were not prepared for that which is why instead of the PAC 10 landing 6 members of the Big 12 including Texas and OU they instead ended up with CU and Utah (which I suppose means that Texas to the PAC 12 was all "hot air and Charlie Tango Foxtrot" right?

it is well known that 14 teams is not optimum, but here we have the SEC and Big 10 at 14 teams.....why is that....well it is because no one was prepared for things to leak out (almost certainly because of MU) and thus conferences had to make moves they did not want to make in a time frame they were not wanting to make those moves in

certainly no one was expecting Utah to the PAC 10, MU to the SEC or Rutgers and Maryland to the Big 10 and the Big 10 and SEC with the odd arrangement of 14 teams

but again when you get caught flat footed and things go public not all university presidents are prepared to jump like NU did

sure Utah and TCU were prepared to move immediately to the first P5 that called them

and MU was clearly not prepared to have the SEC as their only option, but they had been prepared to bail on the Big 12, but ran their mouths, queered the deal for the Big 10 (and possibly the PAC 10 and even the SEC) and the Big 10 shut the door on them and the were now faced with the same thing that NU felt they were faced with.....not having a home if things broke up

clearly FSU and Clemson officials do not make hasty decisions or decisions that will take a long time to pay off if ever

NU was prepared to make that decision....and as of now NU is still in a major financial hole relative to where they would be if the had stayed in the Big 12 and will continue to be for a number of years

so when things changed in a hurry The Big 12 was not able to get a TV deal in place fast enough to lure other teams away before those teams were pressured to make a decision.....and the reality is the same can be said for the Big 10 unless one thinks the big 10 went into expansion targeting Maryland and Rutgers.....and clearly the same can be said for the PAC 10 unless one thinks the PAC 10 went into expansion targeting CU and Utah specifically an they were content to land those two programs alone

so it was not the GOR that kept FSU in the ACC it was a 50 million buy out.....again same difference conferences including the Big 12, Big 10 and PAC 10 and probably including the SEC were not ready for things to go public in the way that they did or at the tie that they did

unless of course you believe that CU and Utah was the goal of the PAC 1o and 14 teams with MU was the goal of the SEC and 14 teams with Rutgers and Maryland was the goal of the Big 10

and I don't think anyone with any common sense would say "yes that was the end game for those conferences" along with The Big 12 and ACC having a GOR in place that may (or may not) be much more difficult to exit from in the near term

so it is clear that FSU and the Big 12 was not just smoke and it is clear from all evidence and all results and all known information that conference realignment did not go down as planned for anyone other than Utah and TCU with the goal of "get in P5" and even that did not happen how I would imagine their officials expected it too

I think that I have seen this movie:

(04-10-2015 02:08 PM)TerryD Wrote:  I think that I have seen this movie:

so it is your contention that the current alignment of conferences is what conference officials had as a goal when they started talking to other teams about making a move to a new conference

and are you discounting the lengthy article from the chancellor of NU where he states he was caught flat footed at a conference about major moves that did not include NU and thus he immediately contacted the Big 10 and opened discussions at that same conference?

are you trying to say that is is not clear that FSU was open to moving conferences even if they did not end up and do so?

like another movie says..."stupid is as stupid does"

(04-10-2015 02:13 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 02:08 PM)TerryD Wrote:  I think that I have seen this movie:

so it is your contention that the current alignment of conferences is what conference officials had as a goal when they started talking to other teams about making a move to a new conference

and are you discounting the lengthy article from the chancellor of NU where he states he was caught flat footed at a conference about major moves that did not include NU and thus he immediately contacted the Big 10 and opened discussions at that same conference?

are you trying to say that is is not clear that FSU was open to moving conferences even if they did not end up and do so?

like another movie says..."stupid is as stupid does"

I think much of this stuff is hit and miss, wishful thinking and unintended consequences.

I think folks give too much credit to college presidents and Boards of Trustees.

They are not Titans, they are a bunch of old men mostly out of their element.

I think that folks talk but that most of that talk is just that, talk. There are different reasons to talk.

For instance, some people at FSU may have been more interested in extracting some concessions from the ACC than actually being interested in changing conferences, especially out to the prairie lands of the Middle West in the Big 12.

I don't think that there is any master plan. I think a lot of it is act, react, and so forth.

This isn't physics, there is no "science" to it. There are a lot of parochial interests and competing factors.

I think that in 2010, Jim Delany had as his "conference goal" the inclusion of Texas and/or ND. If so, he failed.

Your view is too simplistic. Sorry. (You called me stupid first, though).

(04-10-2015 02:19 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 02:13 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 02:08 PM)TerryD Wrote:  I think that I have seen this movie:

so it is your contention that the current alignment of conferences is what conference officials had as a goal when they started talking to other teams about making a move to a new conference

and are you discounting the lengthy article from the chancellor of NU where he states he was caught flat footed at a conference about major moves that did not include NU and thus he immediately contacted the Big 10 and opened discussions at that same conference?

are you trying to say that is is not clear that FSU was open to moving conferences even if they did not end up and do so?

like another movie says..."stupid is as stupid does"

I think much of this stuff is hit and miss, wishful thinking and unintended consequences.

I think folks give too much credit to college presidents and Boards of Trustees.

They are not Titans, they are a bunch of old men mostly out of their element.

I think that folks talk but that most of that talk is just that, talk. There are different reasons to talk.

For instance, some people at FSU may have been more interested in extracting some concessions from the ACC than actually being interested in changing conferences.

I don't think that there is any master plan. I think a lot of it is act, react, and so forth.

This isn't physics, there is no "science" to it. There are a lot of parochial interests and competing factors.

Your view is too simplistic. Sorry.

so it is your "complex" way of thinking that conference officials like to just go to the media and say "we are going to take some new teams" and then they sit back and let other conferences start upping their buyout clauses, trying to negotiate TV contracts and other conferences start making spur of the moment offers to teams and then when a lot of that is done those same officials that leaked to the press "we are going to expand" pick up the leftovers to add ot their conference and everyone is happy?

that sounds like a great way to run a conference....if you are a moron

and do a degree you and I actually agree.....because again I am stating that FSU (and others) were not prepared to make a long term major decision in the matter of a few months while the media is climbing all over them asking for answers and asking what they are going to do

the difference is that instead of believing as I do that university and conference officials like to take things nice and slow behind closed doors and get everything squared away before they make a move

you seem to feel that they like to leak plans publicly with no real clarity other than "things are going to happen" and then everyone reacts in sporadic and uncoordinated and unexpected ways and when things settle they all just accept the results

and of course we know some of that is not true because we know for a fact from published reports that major moves were being discussed and that was leaked to the chancellor of NU and that is when things became public

I suppose in your "enlightened mind" it could have been Big 10 officials that leaked that to NU and set off a panic because the Big 10 really did not care who they expanded with just as long as they got the the magic number of FOURTEEN......but I find that highly unlikely since 14 sucks for a conference and I do not think any conference that expanded ended up with the teams the found the most desirable

but hey maybe you are right they just like to leak things, watch things blow up and then pick up the pieces, shrug their shoulders and repeat that a few years down the road

(04-10-2015 02:33 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 02:19 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 02:13 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 02:08 PM)TerryD Wrote:  I think that I have seen this movie:

so it is your contention that the current alignment of conferences is what conference officials had as a goal when they started talking to other teams about making a move to a new conference

and are you discounting the lengthy article from the chancellor of NU where he states he was caught flat footed at a conference about major moves that did not include NU and thus he immediately contacted the Big 10 and opened discussions at that same conference?

are you trying to say that is is not clear that FSU was open to moving conferences even if they did not end up and do so?

like another movie says..."stupid is as stupid does"

I think much of this stuff is hit and miss, wishful thinking and unintended consequences.

I think folks give too much credit to college presidents and Boards of Trustees.

They are not Titans, they are a bunch of old men mostly out of their element.

I think that folks talk but that most of that talk is just that, talk. There are different reasons to talk.

For instance, some people at FSU may have been more interested in extracting some concessions from the ACC than actually being interested in changing conferences.

I don't think that there is any master plan. I think a lot of it is act, react, and so forth.

This isn't physics, there is no "science" to it. There are a lot of parochial interests and competing factors.

Your view is too simplistic. Sorry.

so it is your "complex" way of thinking that conference officials like to just go to the media and say "we are going to take some new teams" and then they sit back and let other conferences start upping their buyout clauses, trying to negotiate TV contracts and other conferences start making spur of the moment offers to teams and then when a lot of that is done those same officials that leaked to the press "we are going to expand" pick up the leftovers to add ot their conference and everyone is happy?

that sounds like a great way to run a conference....if you are a moron

and do a degree you and I actually agree.....because again I am stating that FSU (and others) were not prepared to make a long term major decision in the matter of a few months while the media is climbing all over them asking for answers and asking what they are going to do

the difference is that instead of believing as I do that university and conference officials like to take things nice and slow behind closed doors and get everything squared away before they make a move

you seem to feel that they like to leak plans publicly with no real clarity other than "things are going to happen" and then everyone reacts in sporadic and uncoordinated and unexpected ways and when things settle they all just accept the results

and of course we know some of that is not true because we know for a fact from published reports that major moves were being discussed and that was leaked to the chancellor of NU and that is when things became public

I suppose in your "enlightened mind" it could have been Big 10 officials that leaked that to NU and set off a panic because the Big 10 really did not care who they expanded with just as long as they got the the magic number of FOURTEEN......but I find that highly unlikely since 14 sucks for a conference and I do not think any conference that expanded ended up with the teams the found the most desirable

but hey maybe you are right they just like to leak things, watch things blow up and then pick up the pieces, shrug their shoulders and repeat that a few years down the road

The Big Ten was at 11 schools for twenty years. That number sucked too, but that was the result.

You seem to think that leaks (and conference realignment, overall) are like Operation Overlord, a huge planned, complex, master minded campaign. I don't.

I think that leaks happen for a bunch of reasons, one of them being that folks want something else, not what was said, so they leak it.

Another might be that people love telling things and can't keep their mouths shut. If two people know something, it can remain a secret only if you kill one.

So, no, I don't think that there is any science to this. I think people have grand ideas that sometimes just don't pan out, for any number of reasons.

The United States thought that the Iraqis would welcome us as conquering heroes in 2003. A lot of bright folks endorsed this idea. They were dead wrong.

You have too much faith in the wisdom and planning of decision makers. They are ordinary humans like you and I. They are often wrong, sometimes badly.

(04-10-2015 02:40 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 02:33 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 02:19 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 02:13 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 02:08 PM)TerryD Wrote:  I think that I have seen this movie:

so it is your contention that the current alignment of conferences is what conference officials had as a goal when they started talking to other teams about making a move to a new conference

and are you discounting the lengthy article from the chancellor of NU where he states he was caught flat footed at a conference about major moves that did not include NU and thus he immediately contacted the Big 10 and opened discussions at that same conference?

are you trying to say that is is not clear that FSU was open to moving conferences even if they did not end up and do so?

like another movie says..."stupid is as stupid does"

I think much of this stuff is hit and miss, wishful thinking and unintended consequences.

I think folks give too much credit to college presidents and Boards of Trustees.

They are not Titans, they are a bunch of old men mostly out of their element.

I think that folks talk but that most of that talk is just that, talk. There are different reasons to talk.

For instance, some people at FSU may have been more interested in extracting some concessions from the ACC than actually being interested in changing conferences.

I don't think that there is any master plan. I think a lot of it is act, react, and so forth.

This isn't physics, there is no "science" to it. There are a lot of parochial interests and competing factors.

Your view is too simplistic. Sorry.

so it is your "complex" way of thinking that conference officials like to just go to the media and say "we are going to take some new teams" and then they sit back and let other conferences start upping their buyout clauses, trying to negotiate TV contracts and other conferences start making spur of the moment offers to teams and then when a lot of that is done those same officials that leaked to the press "we are going to expand" pick up the leftovers to add ot their conference and everyone is happy?

that sounds like a great way to run a conference....if you are a moron

and do a degree you and I actually agree.....because again I am stating that FSU (and others) were not prepared to make a long term major decision in the matter of a few months while the media is climbing all over them asking for answers and asking what they are going to do

the difference is that instead of believing as I do that university and conference officials like to take things nice and slow behind closed doors and get everything squared away before they make a move

you seem to feel that they like to leak plans publicly with no real clarity other than "things are going to happen" and then everyone reacts in sporadic and uncoordinated and unexpected ways and when things settle they all just accept the results

and of course we know some of that is not true because we know for a fact from published reports that major moves were being discussed and that was leaked to the chancellor of NU and that is when things became public

I suppose in your "enlightened mind" it could have been Big 10 officials that leaked that to NU and set off a panic because the Big 10 really did not care who they expanded with just as long as they got the the magic number of FOURTEEN......but I find that highly unlikely since 14 sucks for a conference and I do not think any conference that expanded ended up with the teams the found the most desirable

but hey maybe you are right they just like to leak things, watch things blow up and then pick up the pieces, shrug their shoulders and repeat that a few years down the road

The Big Ten was at 11 schools for twenty years. That number sucked too, but that was the result.

You seem to think that leaks are like Operation Overlord, a huge planned campaign. I don't.

I think that leaks happen for a bunch of reasons, one of them being that folks want something else, not what was said, so they leak it.

Another might be that people love telling things and can't keep their mouths shut. If two people know something, it can remain a secret only if you kill one.

So, no, I don't think that there is any science to this. I think people have grand ideas that just don't pan out.

once again you are not clearly reading what I am saying....I am saying the exact opposite of leaks happening on purpose I am saying the Big 10 did not want a leak and once a leak happened they were forced to move much faster then they desired and they were forced to move against the moves of other conferences trying to react to now published reports that expansion was going to happen

as I first stated things were going along under the table until NU was tipped off at a major university officials conference

the person that tipped of NU clearly did that on purpose, but I do not feel it was to blow things up I feel it is because they had some connection to NU or they felt some loyalty to NU and everything they were hearing NU was not in any of those plans

we know that happened for a fact because the chancellor of NU is on record as saying that is why it all started as far as NU to the Big 10 is concerned

so again I am saying the leak was NOT expected by the Big 10 and NU contacting Big 10 officials at that same conference and asking to talk and bringing up NU to the Big 10 most likely caught the Big 10 off guard

and once all of that went public that was not a desired outcome for the Big 10 because the Big 10 preferred to move slowly and methodically and to get things lined up and firmed up before things went public

but once the Big 10 knew that NU knew and once the Big 10 knew that NU was not just going to sit on that info because NU felt they needed to act so as to not be left behind (as the person that tipped the off stated could be a possibility) the Big 10 had to step up their plans

we also know that larry scott of the PAC 10 then went public with a desire to go to 16 teams.....but of course we know from the published article with the chancellor of NU that the 6 teams that the PAC 10 desired from the Big 12 (Texas, OU, OkState, Tech, CU and A&M) all agreed to commit to the Big 12 as long as NU did the same

and we know from that report that NU did not agree to that and ask for more time to talk with the Big 10

and we know that after that A&M said they were not going to the PAC 10 no matter what and CU said they were going to talk to the PAC 10 alone without anyone else

so again as I stated as to why The Big 12 did not add FSU and others...

it was because things broke in the media before anyone expected them to break and that IMO did not happen because of some designed plan to have that happen it happened because MU was stupid and could not keep their mouth shut....so we agree the leak was not on purpose

and as I stated before once things started to happen rapidly and publicly conferences, university officials and media partners were not prepared to move fast enough to get all the things they desired in place before other pressures forced them into making decisions

IE the Big 12 was not able to show FSU and others the financial numbers that gave them confidence to make a move VS staying where they were (and I incorrectly said before the GOR was in place when judging by the timeline it was not the GOR it was the 50 million buy out)

so again we agree that university and conference officials are not prepared to act rapidly and when faced with acting rapidly they either decide to keep the status quo by staying in their current conference or they end up taking teams they had not planned on taking for their conference and ending up at a less than desirable number of conference members

(04-10-2015 03:00 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 02:40 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 02:33 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 02:19 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 02:13 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  so it is your contention that the current alignment of conferences is what conference officials had as a goal when they started talking to other teams about making a move to a new conference

and are you discounting the lengthy article from the chancellor of NU where he states he was caught flat footed at a conference about major moves that did not include NU and thus he immediately contacted the Big 10 and opened discussions at that same conference?

are you trying to say that is is not clear that FSU was open to moving conferences even if they did not end up and do so?

like another movie says..."stupid is as stupid does"

I think much of this stuff is hit and miss, wishful thinking and unintended consequences.

I think folks give too much credit to college presidents and Boards of Trustees.

They are not Titans, they are a bunch of old men mostly out of their element.

I think that folks talk but that most of that talk is just that, talk. There are different reasons to talk.

For instance, some people at FSU may have been more interested in extracting some concessions from the ACC than actually being interested in changing conferences.

I don't think that there is any master plan. I think a lot of it is act, react, and so forth.

This isn't physics, there is no "science" to it. There are a lot of parochial interests and competing factors.

Your view is too simplistic. Sorry.

so it is your "complex" way of thinking that conference officials like to just go to the media and say "we are going to take some new teams" and then they sit back and let other conferences start upping their buyout clauses, trying to negotiate TV contracts and other conferences start making spur of the moment offers to teams and then when a lot of that is done those same officials that leaked to the press "we are going to expand" pick up the leftovers to add ot their conference and everyone is happy?

that sounds like a great way to run a conference....if you are a moron

and do a degree you and I actually agree.....because again I am stating that FSU (and others) were not prepared to make a long term major decision in the matter of a few months while the media is climbing all over them asking for answers and asking what they are going to do

the difference is that instead of believing as I do that university and conference officials like to take things nice and slow behind closed doors and get everything squared away before they make a move

you seem to feel that they like to leak plans publicly with no real clarity other than "things are going to happen" and then everyone reacts in sporadic and uncoordinated and unexpected ways and when things settle they all just accept the results

and of course we know some of that is not true because we know for a fact from published reports that major moves were being discussed and that was leaked to the chancellor of NU and that is when things became public

I suppose in your "enlightened mind" it could have been Big 10 officials that leaked that to NU and set off a panic because the Big 10 really did not care who they expanded with just as long as they got the the magic number of FOURTEEN......but I find that highly unlikely since 14 sucks for a conference and I do not think any conference that expanded ended up with the teams the found the most desirable

but hey maybe you are right they just like to leak things, watch things blow up and then pick up the pieces, shrug their shoulders and repeat that a few years down the road

The Big Ten was at 11 schools for twenty years. That number sucked too, but that was the result.

You seem to think that leaks are like Operation Overlord, a huge planned campaign. I don't.

I think that leaks happen for a bunch of reasons, one of them being that folks want something else, not what was said, so they leak it.

Another might be that people love telling things and can't keep their mouths shut. If two people know something, it can remain a secret only if you kill one.

So, no, I don't think that there is any science to this. I think people have grand ideas that just don't pan out.

once again you are not clearly reading what I am saying....I am saying the exact opposite of leaks happening on purpose I am saying the Big 10 did not want a leak and once a leak happened they were forced to move much faster then they desired and they were forced to move against the moves of other conferences trying to react to now published reports that expansion was going to happen

as I first stated things were going along under the table until NU was tipped off at a major university officials conference

the person that tipped of NU clearly did that on purpose, but I do not feel it was to blow things up I feel it is because they had some connection to NU or they felt some loyalty to NU and everything they were hearing NU was not in any of those plans

we know that happened for a fact because the chancellor of NU is on record as saying that is why it all started as far as NU to the Big 10 is concerned

so again I am saying the leak was NOT expected by the Big 10 and NU contacting Big 10 officials at that same conference and asking to talk and bringing up NU to the Big 10 most likely caught the Big 10 off guard

and once all of that went public that was not a desired outcome for the Big 10 because the Big 10 preferred to move slowly and methodically and to get things lined up and firmed up before things went public

but once the Big 10 knew that NU knew and once the Big 10 knew that NU was not just going to sit on that info because NU felt they needed to act so as to not be left behind (as the person that tipped the off stated could be a possibility) the Big 10 had to step up their plans

we also know that larry scott of the PAC 10 then went public with a desire to go to 16 teams.....but of course we know from the published article with the chancellor of NU that the 6 teams that the PAC 10 desired from the Big 12 (Texas, OU, OkState, Tech, CU and A&M) all agreed to commit to the Big 12 as long as NU did the same

and we know from that report that NU did not agree to that and ask for more time to talk with the Big 10

and we know that after that A&M said they were not going to the PAC 10 no matter what and CU said they were going to talk to the PAC 10 alone without anyone else

so again as I stated as to why The Big 12 did not add FSU and others...

it was because things broke in the media before anyone expected them to break and that IMO did not happen because of some designed plan to have that happen it happened because MU was stupid and could not keep their mouth shut....so we agree the leak was not on purpose

and as I stated before once things started to happen rapidly and publicly conferences, university officials and media partners were not prepared to move fast enough to get all the things they desired in place before other pressures forced them into making decisions

IE the Big 12 was not able to show FSU and others the financial numbers that gave them confidence to make a move VS staying where they were (and I incorrectly said before the GOR was in place when judging by the timeline it was not the GOR it was the 50 million buy out)

so again we agree that university and conference officials are not prepared to act rapidly and when faced with acting rapidly they either decide to keep the status quo by staying in their current conference or they end up taking teams they had not planned on taking for their conference and ending up at a less than desirable number of conference members

Your last paragraph is interesting in that, whether you intended to or not, you agreed with one of my earlier central premises that universities and similar type institutions tend to be very risk averse. Accordingly, the implementation of exit fees and, more significantly, the GORs, cannot keep a school in a conference. What they are intended to do, IMO, is make it very risky and potentially prohibitively expensive (even with a negotiated settlement) for a school to leave a P5 conference for another in the foreseeable future. When you look at the realignment chaos that existed just a few short years ago and look at the stability in place today, I think one might conclude that these instruments have worked very effectively indeed.

(04-10-2015 03:49 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  Your last paragraph is interesting in that, whether you intended to or not, you agreed with one of my earlier central premises that universities and similar type institutions tend to be very risk averse. Accordingly, the implementation of exit fees and, more significantly, the GORs, cannot keep a school in a conference. What they are intended to do, IMO, is make it very risky and potentially prohibitively expensive (even with a negotiated settlement) for a school to leave a P5 conference for another in the foreseeable future. When you look at the realignment chaos that existed just a few short years ago and look at the stability in place today, I think one might conclude that these instruments have worked very effectively indeed.

I am not sure where I ever disagreed that a GOR or a large exit fee made it less likely for teams to leave a conference

in fact I am one that has always said that a GOR is more difficult to break because it places the burden on the university to prove damages and to set an amount of damages and when a university does so that opens the conference up to claiming at least that amount of damages if not more

where as an exit fee the burden is on the conferences to prove damages and they can only claim actual damages no punitive damages

also with an exit fee there is never a question that a team has the right to leave and that they own their media rights and can leave with them the only question is to what cost that comes with

with a GOR there is no guarantee that a team will be able to even claim their media rights back or that a conference will still want them if they do not bring their media rights....and there is no ceiling to start with as to damages and again there is only a starting point for damages and that starting point is set by the university not the conference

so if a president of a university ask legal council "what do you feel is the worst possible outcome" they can not even give any reasonable estimate other than "you might not even get your media rights back or if you do get them back we have no clue what the cost will be"

where as with an exit fee the answer is "well if you pay the full exit fee there is nothing for the conference to sue over"

having said that I do feel that well into the future it will be the ACC that gets picked apart

and that is based on the fact that they still make less money than all but the PAC 12 currently

it is based on the idea that if the Big 10 expands it is likely the SEC will go to 16 as well and on the idea that if the SEC goes to 16 the Big 10 will absolutely do the same

and that combination would put 4 schools in play....and the Big 12 does not have 4 schools that satisfy both the desires of the Big 10 and the SEC and thus they will end up taking from the ACC if they want to get the type of programs they actually desire

the Big 10 is not going to take KU and Texas and Texas would not go for that anyway

the Big 10 might take Texas and OU, but the SEC is not going to take any of the teams left in the Big 12 at that point.....now there is the SLIM chance the SEC would stay at 14, but that is doubtful at that point....and thus if they expand it will be at the expense of the ACC

it is also based on the idea that the SEC and PAC 12 have media rights deals that expire at the same time (tier 1 and 2 for both conferences) and they are the earliest set of rights to expire

therefor if one or both wants to expand they will do so then.....but it is well known that Texas has never wanted to go to the SEC and it is well known that Texas has turned down the PAC 12 several times already as well and they do not like the west coast time zone hours

it is also well known that the PAC 12 does not have a lot of other options besides Big 12 members and the Big 12 members that are most desirable know this

and thus the Big 12 members that are most desirable can sit back and wait and see how the SEC and Big 10 react to the new TV contracts for the SEC and PAC 12 and the possibility of those 2 and perhaps the Big 10 expanding and the fact that it will absolutely put ACC schools in play....and thus the Big 12 can wait that out and see what happens and then take some very desirable leftovers from the ACC if they want to expand to 12 or even al the way to 16

because again if the SEC says "new contract time to expand to 16" then the Big 10 will go to 16 if they have not already.....and that means 4 teams and that puts the ACC in play no matter what

and by then there will only be 2 years left on the ACC deal and if enough ACC teams are in play the conference could even dissolve

(04-10-2015 01:14 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think it'd start earlier than that...

look at when tv deals are up:
Big 12- 24/25 season
Pac 12 23/24 season
ACC- 26/27 season
SEC- 23/24 for CBS 33/34 for ESPN
Big 10- 15/16

So Pac 12 is first one up in 9 years along with the SEC with CBS. Given you have to do moves a year in advance- so a move in place for the 23/24 season would need to be done by June of 22- that's only 7 years away.

That also assumes leagues don't extend agreements earlier than deadlines. Many deals get redone early.

(04-10-2015 05:13 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 01:14 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think it'd start earlier than that...

look at when tv deals are up:
Big 12- 24/25 season
Pac 12 23/24 season
ACC- 26/27 season
SEC- 23/24 for CBS 33/34 for ESPN
Big 10- 15/16

So Pac 12 is first one up in 9 years along with the SEC with CBS. Given you have to do moves a year in advance- so a move in place for the 23/24 season would need to be done by June of 22- that's only 7 years away.

That also assumes leagues don't extend agreements earlier than deadlines. Many deals get redone early.

Yes, but the expiration of the GORs is the issue.

(04-10-2015 05:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 05:13 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 01:14 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think it'd start earlier than that...

look at when tv deals are up:
Big 12- 24/25 season
Pac 12 23/24 season
ACC- 26/27 season
SEC- 23/24 for CBS 33/34 for ESPN
Big 10- 15/16

So Pac 12 is first one up in 9 years along with the SEC with CBS. Given you have to do moves a year in advance- so a move in place for the 23/24 season would need to be done by June of 22- that's only 7 years away.

That also assumes leagues don't extend agreements earlier than deadlines. Many deals get redone early.

Yes, but the expiration of the GORs is the issue.

Those can be likewise extended.