(04-14-2015 09:49 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-14-2015 09:14 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(04-14-2015 09:01 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 09:20 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 11:15 AM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  I don't think an on-campus stadium would be impossible for UConn if that is what Big Ten membership required. I honestly think the state would build it and the highway to get to it, if we had to, to get in. I also don't think we'd have any problem filling it with a Big Ten schedule, even though it would be harder to get to for everyone in the state, except the students. So while the Big Ten may not move mountains for UConn, I think the state of CT would move mountains for UConn and the Big Ten.

Maybe that could happen. I know with a Big 10 schedule, UConn would need a 60,000+ seat stadium. Against Michigan, we sold 42,500 tickets (?) and it could have been many, many more.

I don't know if that's true. But if it is, that's a reason why UConn wants the B1G and not a reason why the B1G should want UConn. In essence, what you are saying is that people in Connecticut aren't interested in watching the Huskies play, but they are interested in watching schools like Michigan play. I don't believe I would use that argument to plead my case to the B1G presidents.

UConn had the same fan interest for football that Rutgers did.

Rutgers was invited.

I'll grant that they were close. UConn averaged 35K attendance in the four years before Rutgers went to the B1G, while Rutgers averaged 46K. Membership in the B1G helped the Knights, with an increase in average attendance of nearly 9%.

UConn would no doubt have a bigger increase, since their attendance had declined to 30K by 2013. If you put a 9-10% increase on top of its highest attendance number during that 4 year period, you would get up to around 42K. That sounds reasonable, based on the 42K that showed up for Michigan - one of the top drawing teams in the Big Ten. Schools like Maryland, Rutgers, Purdue and Indiana, who would be in the same division as UConn, would probably draw considerably fewer.

That's not to say the B1G wouldn't be huge for UConn. But it wouldn't justify a 60K seat stadium.

Apples and Oranges comparison though. UConn for some bizarre reason measures people that show up (as evidenced by attendance at games being below season tix sold) while Rutgers used to do this:

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/12...eld_b.html

Quote:This year, roughly 59 percent of the fans bought a ticket, down from 76 percent in 2009. And despite a liberal use of complimentary tickets, the team still played in front of thousands of empty seats this year, even though it went into its final home game with a chance to win its first Big East title.

(04-14-2015 10:34 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-14-2015 09:42 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I don't think it's impossible UConn makes it in, but I also think they have a lot bigger hurdles. Rutgers was invited, but there were a lot of factors which got us to that point that are no longer relevant.

1. Penn State was always on an island. That fact became very dangerous when the ACC invited most the major east coast teams and became Notre Dame's main opponent. Long run, the Big Ten was going to lose the area and quite possibly Penn State if they didn't do something while they still had the advantage.

2. The Big Ten looked at a lot of east coast teams. From the indications out there, it seems Maryland was a definite. Rutgers got in as #14, but if one of the others in the ACC that the Big Ten was looking for had jumped, it probably would have been at Rutgers expense.

My point is basically that it's going to be a bigger hurdle for UConn to get in. It's not impossible and maybe the TV values dictate it, but it's something I'll be surprised (not shocked, but definitely surprised) about if true at this point. UConn doesn't have the advantage of the Big Ten knowing it has to look east to keep Penn State or the advantage of it having one team and needing another to go with it. Further, they put a lot of work into the schedules and they announced quite a few years out. While they can certainly change the schedules, I suspect the conference figured it was done by posting out so many years in advance (when most conferences don't bother more than a year or two). I'm pretty sure I also remember a quote where they said expansion was going from active status to alert status (in contrast to most the 2000s where it was both inactive and un-alert).

Your points are well taken. The argument that UConn would have been as good a choice as Rutgers may be true. But if your plan was to take only one of the two teams that might give you access to a single market you are interested in, once you have made your choice the team you didn't pick is no longer attractive. If you are the Big Ten, with Rutgers, you got what you were after.

If, after they weren't selected, UConn had demonstrated that it could deliver another market (New England), that could be taken into account for the next Big Ten decision. Instead, UConn has shown that they couldn't even deliver their own market without the benefit of being in a BCS conference. Their attendance has steadily declined since 2010, reaching a low of 27K in 2014. This is during a period in which the school was (or should have been) highly motivated to make a good showing for potential suitors.

The only two games in which they drew more than 30K last year were their premier OOC opponents. Against BYU in their opener they pulled in 35,150 and a couple of weeks later Boise State drew 30,098. Both of these games were played before UConn's dismal record hurt attendance further as the lost season wore on.

UConn's only hope at this point to get into a P5 conference would appear to hinge on that conference not caring about what they bring to the table in football. That goes strongly against the grain.

You're looking at ticket sales. The BTN is looking at TVs and cable. Without it, UConn doesn't make sense for the BTN. As for a Rutgers to UConn comparison, the demographic is similar, but Rutgers has 2.5x as many people in its state. In other words, Rutgers was a demographics money winner--indeed, much bigger even than Maryland.

(04-14-2015 11:30 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(04-14-2015 09:49 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-14-2015 09:14 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(04-14-2015 09:01 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 09:20 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Maybe that could happen. I know with a Big 10 schedule, UConn would need a 60,000+ seat stadium. Against Michigan, we sold 42,500 tickets (?) and it could have been many, many more.

I don't know if that's true. But if it is, that's a reason why UConn wants the B1G and not a reason why the B1G should want UConn. In essence, what you are saying is that people in Connecticut aren't interested in watching the Huskies play, but they are interested in watching schools like Michigan play. I don't believe I would use that argument to plead my case to the B1G presidents.

UConn had the same fan interest for football that Rutgers did.

Rutgers was invited.

I'll grant that they were close. UConn averaged 35K attendance in the four years before Rutgers went to the B1G, while Rutgers averaged 46K. Membership in the B1G helped the Knights, with an increase in average attendance of nearly 9%.

UConn would no doubt have a bigger increase, since their attendance had declined to 30K by 2013. If you put a 9-10% increase on top of its highest attendance number during that 4 year period, you would get up to around 42K. That sounds reasonable, based on the 42K that showed up for Michigan - one of the top drawing teams in the Big Ten. Schools like Maryland, Rutgers, Purdue and Indiana, who would be in the same division as UConn, would probably draw considerably fewer.

That's not to say the B1G wouldn't be huge for UConn. But it wouldn't justify a 60K seat stadium.

Apples and Oranges comparison though. UConn for some bizarre reason measures people that show up (as evidenced by attendance at games being below season tix sold) while Rutgers used to do this:

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/12...eld_b.html

Quote:This year, roughly 59 percent of the fans bought a ticket, down from 76 percent in 2009. And despite a liberal use of complimentary tickets, the team still played in front of thousands of empty seats this year, even though it went into its final home game with a chance to win its first Big East title.

Your statement above regarding how Uconn counts FB attendance does not appear to be accurate. As noted in the Hartford Courant, reported attendance at Uconn's season ending game this past season as 22,921, yet only a little over 5300 actually showed up. Pretty obvious they are reporting tickets distributed, not butts in the seats.

http://www.courant.com/sports/uconn-foot...tml#page=1

(04-14-2015 12:00 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(04-14-2015 11:30 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(04-14-2015 09:49 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-14-2015 09:14 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(04-14-2015 09:01 AM)ken d Wrote:  I don't know if that's true. But if it is, that's a reason why UConn wants the B1G and not a reason why the B1G should want UConn. In essence, what you are saying is that people in Connecticut aren't interested in watching the Huskies play, but they are interested in watching schools like Michigan play. I don't believe I would use that argument to plead my case to the B1G presidents.

UConn had the same fan interest for football that Rutgers did.

Rutgers was invited.

I'll grant that they were close. UConn averaged 35K attendance in the four years before Rutgers went to the B1G, while Rutgers averaged 46K. Membership in the B1G helped the Knights, with an increase in average attendance of nearly 9%.

UConn would no doubt have a bigger increase, since their attendance had declined to 30K by 2013. If you put a 9-10% increase on top of its highest attendance number during that 4 year period, you would get up to around 42K. That sounds reasonable, based on the 42K that showed up for Michigan - one of the top drawing teams in the Big Ten. Schools like Maryland, Rutgers, Purdue and Indiana, who would be in the same division as UConn, would probably draw considerably fewer.

That's not to say the B1G wouldn't be huge for UConn. But it wouldn't justify a 60K seat stadium.

Apples and Oranges comparison though. UConn for some bizarre reason measures people that show up (as evidenced by attendance at games being below season tix sold) while Rutgers used to do this:

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/12...eld_b.html

Quote:This year, roughly 59 percent of the fans bought a ticket, down from 76 percent in 2009. And despite a liberal use of complimentary tickets, the team still played in front of thousands of empty seats this year, even though it went into its final home game with a chance to win its first Big East title.

Your statement above regarding how Uconn counts FB attendance does not appear to be accurate. As noted in the Hartford Courant, reported attendance at Uconn's season ending game this past season as 22,921, yet only a little over 5300 actually showed up. Pretty obvious they are reporting tickets distributed, not butts in the seats.

http://www.courant.com/sports/uconn-foot...tml#page=1

Eagle is right, this year they changed the metric to tickets sold. In prior years it was 'butts-in-seats.'

(04-14-2015 12:26 PM)uconnwhaler Wrote:  

(04-14-2015 12:00 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(04-14-2015 11:30 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(04-14-2015 09:49 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-14-2015 09:14 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  UConn had the same fan interest for football that Rutgers did.

Rutgers was invited.

I'll grant that they were close. UConn averaged 35K attendance in the four years before Rutgers went to the B1G, while Rutgers averaged 46K. Membership in the B1G helped the Knights, with an increase in average attendance of nearly 9%.

UConn would no doubt have a bigger increase, since their attendance had declined to 30K by 2013. If you put a 9-10% increase on top of its highest attendance number during that 4 year period, you would get up to around 42K. That sounds reasonable, based on the 42K that showed up for Michigan - one of the top drawing teams in the Big Ten. Schools like Maryland, Rutgers, Purdue and Indiana, who would be in the same division as UConn, would probably draw considerably fewer.

That's not to say the B1G wouldn't be huge for UConn. But it wouldn't justify a 60K seat stadium.

Apples and Oranges comparison though. UConn for some bizarre reason measures people that show up (as evidenced by attendance at games being below season tix sold) while Rutgers used to do this:

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/12...eld_b.html

Quote:This year, roughly 59 percent of the fans bought a ticket, down from 76 percent in 2009. And despite a liberal use of complimentary tickets, the team still played in front of thousands of empty seats this year, even though it went into its final home game with a chance to win its first Big East title.

Your statement above regarding how Uconn counts FB attendance does not appear to be accurate. As noted in the Hartford Courant, reported attendance at Uconn's season ending game this past season as 22,921, yet only a little over 5300 actually showed up. Pretty obvious they are reporting tickets distributed, not butts in the seats.

http://www.courant.com/sports/uconn-foot...tml#page=1

Eagle is right, this year they changed the metric to tickets sold. In prior years it was 'butts-in-seats.'

That makes their decline to a reported number of 27K even worse. It says local support for UConn is eroding sharply. Now, I'm inclined to dismiss the SMU game as an aberration because of awful weather conditions. But 23K is what they were getting in good weather this year. Couple that with the Huskies' failure to make the NCAAT field this year, and it's hard to see anything trending up.

If the B1G has UConn on its radar, surely they would want to wait and see if those trends reverse before giving them the keys to the store. If they can turn it around, they will still be there if you want them. If not, you saved yourself a lot of heartache by waiting.

Why do some people get wrapped around the axle about stadium capacity? Ticket sales are not the primary revenue generator for college football - it's TV. If stadium capacity was a P5 requirement, then you need to ask the following schools to leave the P5:

P5 schools with stadiums <40,000:
Vanderbilt
Washington State
Duke
Wake Forest

and if you're requirement is 50,000+ seat capacity, then kick out these schools, too:
Boston College
TCU
Baylor
Utah
Oregon State
Northwestern
Syracuse

and by the way, most college stadiums are not sold out so actual attendance at many games is <40,000, regardless their capacity. So for those who say a school isn't P5 worthy because there stadium is too small... stop beating a dead horse - stadium size doesn't matter!

(04-12-2015 12:24 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  When you get to sixteen, you get to sixteen AFTER new divisional rules are passed. People are getting stuck on the surface of the talking points by the big 12 when it comes to what is currently under way. What, you don't think the silence from Delany means something? They are quietly going about their business.

People think rules giving divisional freedom means that a conference would find it in their best interests to go without divisions. That is only the case if the Networks feel no divisions is more valuable than More divisions. It is pretty well proven that the divisional model works well with general fans a la the NFL.

In regard to the Big Ten team fans that don't like the current situation, when The Big Ten went to 14, it was a loud statement that The Big Ten wasn't finished.

With two divisions and 7 teams in each, you get six divisional games a year. If you want an 8 game schedule then you only get two against the other division. If you have a cross division rival then that takes five years to play every team once, ten years to visit every stadium. A nine game schedule means it's still three years before you play every single team in the conference. It's ugly.

With four divisions, 16 teams and four teams per division it plays out like this. You have your three games in division, preferably at the end of the season in order to boost the value of the divisional rivalries. Then you have your Two games against the other three divisions for your 9 game conference schedule. With a cross division rivalry that means it takes you three years to play every team. So you see? No difference at all than the 14 team, 2 division conference.

If you go with no protected rivalries then it is just a two year situation and you play in every stadium within a four year period, which means your four year players get to experience every atmosphere of the conference.

When you top that with the fact that four divisions easily lead to a divisional champion conference tournament for football and suddenly you have yourself a Final Solution.

Here we go again H1.... You try to impart enlightenment on what could be by presenting a realistic possibility that would improve the current façade called the “College Playoff.” Moreover, you have accurately posted, “People are getting stuck on….” You tactfully left out the word “stup..” I mean “pause” after "stuck on." If someone presents an idea that is contrary to what many believe here, they seem to get stuck on pause, which prevents constructive and interesting dialogue to continue because you have to keep explaining points over and over again (see post #88 below)….

With that said, good luck to you with this thread….

(04-12-2015 12:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 12:01 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  while the Big 10 might go larger or much larger and the SEC might (probably will) go to 16 the reality is many are not happy with the current setup even at 14

go read a Husker fan forum (several of them) and there are threads that were on the front page talking about how they were in the weak half of the conference, they have no real voice in the Big 10, they only play UM, tOSU, MSU and Penn State every not so often and now Rutgers and Maryland are in the mix to make that less often

concerns with the sellout streak ending, the time it takes for them to get a full share, how much it cost them to move, Rutgers and Maryland getting better deals, no rivalries and all the potential rivalries have established rivalries with others and on and on.....hell even a few asking what it would take to make a move

and sure there are ALWAYS complainers and those that were not happy, but the one thing those threads lacked in the multiple responses was strong dissenters and people that were calling out those complaining or trying to totally trash their arguments or them

the strongest defenses of their situation were "well if Bo gets fired and we improve" or "well the Big 12 still has issues"....hell not even the former "got away from Texas" argument was mentioned that I recall....and again more than one forum and more than one thread.....and that was winning 9 games a season and I am not sure that pace keeps up with the new guy

and there are PLENTY of SEC SEC SEC fans that are missing some rivalries and again on multiple forums and multiple threads about how the conference split is wrong.....kids will be in and out of college before they get to see some teams again.....you start getting to 18 teams or more and you are going to start getting "airport meetings"

also when you get to even 16 IMO you get a lot of teams that just are not going to agree on things and it just wears on you over time

also when you break down the budgets you need to look at the school contribution as well because I am not sure that will hold up and there is a chance some of those contributions might not hold up before major expansion gets started and then conferences are not going to want to add more (especially programs that might have major university support) when they already have some teams that have university support issues.....square away what you have before you add

now I do not think there will be contraction of the P5 numbers PERIOD.....I think that 80 teams is probably that would get in a "grouping" if anything, but for that to happen either some conferences are going to have to take teams they do not want or the current P5 is going to have to let some teams in a conference "join the gang"

I see little of any chance that the Big 12 is FORCED to take 6-8-10 teams to get to 16-20 if everyone goes to 16 or 18 or 20.....once you start forcing things you might find yourself in a position you do not want to be in and the major conferences are not going to do that.....it is easier to have the "major underdog" and let a conference or a group of teams in a new conference come along for the ride sitting in the trunk or the rumble seat VS trying to force something....and again I see little chance that any current P5 member gets left out in the cold......64 is just too few teams and there are 65 now.....so 72 ot 80 would be a number to shoot for

Todd this is an open forum and not a Big 12 board so you can drop the SEC, SEC, SEC crap and save it for Shaggy or Landthieves. I understand your position and reasoning I just disagree with it.

Three divisions of six makes everything for non revenue sports more affordable and addresses the vast majority of real scheduling issues. For instance in an SEC with three divisions of 6 you would have 5 divisional games, and two with each of the other two divisions and one protected rivalry. With three divisions only two protected rivalry games are even essential (Auburn / Georgia and Alabama / Tennessee). All other games are easily covered within the divisional alignment, or weren't wanted to begin with (L.S.U. / Florida).

As for not believing in consolidation as a possibility all I will say is that if there are fiscal, philosophical, political, or legal issues that make it necessary for privates to ultimately withdraw or restructure then shrinking to 3 conferences of 20 makes good business sense for the remaining schools. There is more contract leverage, greater content and larger markets for which to be paid, and the elimination of 2 sets of duplicated conference overhead expenses would be a boon for all, but especially for the absorbed schools. First they divide their new overhead with more schools and secondly they will benefit from receiving their portion of the dispersed conference commercial properties.

Now if nothing prompts the privates to leave then I could see the Big 12 becoming a lynchpin for a new and improved Big 12. At that juncture being able to have a Northeastern division of 6 would be better for the whole conference and many of the issues you raise about playing rivals and scheduling becomes essentially moot.

But hey think what you wish and viva la difference!

This is a example of being stuck on stup.. pause. Instead of constructive and interesting dialogue continuing, JRsec had to interrupt his dialogue and attempt to get the person who was/is stuck on pause to move forward so the conversation can continue....

While football runs the conferences, Connecticut is attractive for more. Name the women's college basketball version of Duke or North Carolina or Kansas- It's Connecticut. Consider the programming and diversity angle, too.

In addition, the ACC is considering 3 5 team divisions. The Big Ten may be considering this, too.

Does anyone know how the ACC is planning on scheduling a 15 team league?

Nebraska
Iowa
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Northwestern

Illinois
Purdue
Indiana
Michigan
Michigan State

Ohio State
Penn State
Maryland
Rutgers
Connecticut

(04-12-2015 09:05 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Let's suppose for a moment that UConn to the Big 10 was true. What does that mean for realignment?

1. The ACC GOR is ironclad and Delany has accepted that there will be no movement from the ACC.

2. The Big 12 GOR is ironclad and Delany has accepted that there will be no movement from the Big 12.

3. That Delany is 100% convinced that North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, Texas and Oklahoma are not interested in ever joining the Big 10 or any other conference and that Kansas can't risk going it alone.

4. That 15 might be the new 16 if we are stuck in the status quo of a P5.

5. That if the SEC wanted into North Carolina or Virginia that it just might be a lucky day for East Carolina or Old Dominion.

6. That if the Big 12 or West Virginia either one got tired of their island situation that perhaps the Big 12 would let West Virginia become the 15th member of the ACC and that B.Y.U. would become the 10th and final member of the Big 12.

7. That the PAC would stand pat.

Now here is the mystery to me. I don't believe the UConn rumors. Why? The Big 10 is strong enough that they will wait and take a plumb when they expand and it will be a large state AAU school preferably a land grant. The SEC will do exactly the same thing. I believe that when it happens the moves will be to 16 or more for both the SEC and Big 10 and that FOX and ESPN will be behind such moves. I also believe that the PAC will expand when a network helps them after gaining a percentage of the PACN and that if that doesn't happen that it is highly likely that one of the networks will try to build a bigger and better Big 12 conference around Texas and Oklahoma when the Big 10 and SEC have moved against their desired targets. But hey, that's just me, and I might be wrong. So where's the mystery?

Most of the rest of the board believes that:

1. The ACC GOR is unassailable.

2. The Big 12 GOR is unassailable.

3. That Texas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Virginia and Duke won't move anywhere.

4. That realignment is over and that the P5 is what we will have for the foreseeable future.

5. That if the Big 10 expands again for their contract that they will have to take somebody like UConn.

6. That if the SEC expands again they will have to take somebody like East Carolina.

7. That West Virginia shouldn't be on an island and some of the ACC folks think it would be nice to reconnect their footprint.

8. That B.Y.U. should be in the Big 12.

So the big danged mystery to me is why more of you don't believe the rumors about UConn since it would mean that everything that you have hoped would be true likely would be!

I do not think the GOR's are perfect barriers. The GOR is simply the school pledging that the rights to their home games will belong to the conference and the conferences have sold those rights lock stock and barrell. To ESPN in the case of the ACC and to ESPN and Fox in the case of the Big XII. The ACC and Big XII have a limited claim. They will get the agreed upon price for their games for the remainder of the contract regardless of whether the signatory schools remain in the conference.

If ESPN thinks Duke and UNC are worth more money in the SEC, ESPN will gladly continue to pay the ACC for the 12 or so home games per year under the contract and pay SEC more for adding them. If rights fees continue their upward climb, a GOR doesn't mean a lot.

The grand unknown is whether defectors get paid. The leagues say they do not but a court may not agree with that position concluding it is an unfair burden on commerce and unjust enrichment of the left-behind league as well as an unacceptable penalty for breach.

I do not believe that Texas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Virginia and Duke WANT to move anywhere, they like the deals they have currently. The average university president remains in place for 7 years, it is likely that all of those schools will have a leadership change before their GOR's expire and with that change may form a different opinion of whether they should maximize dollars of revenue from their conference or remain in leagues that they currently believe help them maximize ticket sales and donor interest.

Realignment over? My belief is that ESPN and Fox have signed very long contracts as a hedge. If prices continue to rise they have deferred increases. If the TV market structure is dramatically disrupted, they hold a lot of valuable content while they figure out how to monetize to the maximum in a disrupted market. If prices do continue to rise then the pressure to realign is increased as time elapses. If the market is disrupted, the leagues have been given a lifeline of stability to figure out how to best monetize after the change whether that be even larger conferences or smaller conferences or a model where schools hold their all or part of their own rights for marketing and the conference becomes a scheduling and awards program.

Personally don't see UConn to Big 10 unless Big 10 and their potential TV partners see UConn as a value buy. I tend to suspect that BTN's basketball product is more valuable to BTN than it is to ESPN or Fox Sports because BTN needs lots of content and basketball provides that. Further considering that NYC by most measures is a stronger college basketball market than college football market (and Chicago and Indianapolis are historically good college hoops markets as well), UConn might well have value to B1G that is greater than UConn's value to say the ACC where ESPN owns the whole banana.

(04-14-2015 04:08 PM)chess Wrote:  In addition, the ACC is considering 3 5 team divisions. The Big Ten may be considering this, too.

This what people have latched onto, but never what was said. It's possible, but if you are going 3 divisions, there is no inherent reason they all need to be 5. An 8 game conference schedule works fine for two divisions of 5 and one of 4. While I doubt the ACC goes the 3 division approach in the end, I think them doing it with 14 is actually more likely than 15, at least in the beginning.

(04-14-2015 02:10 PM)mac6115cd Wrote:  Why do some people get wrapped around the axle about stadium capacity? Ticket sales are not the primary revenue generator for college football - it's TV. If stadium capacity was a P5 requirement, then you need to ask the following schools to leave the P5:

P5 schools with stadiums <40,000:
Vanderbilt
Washington State
Duke
Wake Forest

and if you're requirement is 50,000+ seat capacity, then kick out these schools, too:
Boston College
TCU
Baylor
Utah
Oregon State
Northwestern
Syracuse

and by the way, most college stadiums are not sold out so actual attendance at many games is <40,000, regardless their capacity. So for those who say a school isn't P5 worthy because there stadium is too small... stop beating a dead horse - stadium size doesn't matter!

this is false

UT Austin takes in $40 million in ticket sales and another $40 million in ticket sales contributions for a total of $80 million related to ticket sales and attendance

they take in $25.5 in Big 12 and NCAA contributions

they take in $33 million from LHN ($11.5), Licensing, Royalties and Advertising

so they take in $80 million in relation to attendance and ticket sales/seat licenses and $58.5 from TV AND Merchandise, Royalties and Stajium advertising (which would be related to attendance as well)

so when you look strictly at TV you are looking at about $31.5 million VS $80 million for attendance

(04-14-2015 04:34 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(04-14-2015 04:08 PM)chess Wrote:  In addition, the ACC is considering 3 5 team divisions. The Big Ten may be considering this, too.

This what people have latched onto, but never what was said. It's possible, but if you are going 3 divisions, there is no inherent reason they all need to be 5. An 8 game conference schedule works fine for two divisions of 5 and one of 4. While I doubt the ACC goes the 3 division approach in the end, I think them doing it with 14 is actually more likely than 15, at least in the beginning.

Exactly! IMO, when news like this comes out, people often insert their hopes/biases to describe the motivation behind the announcement. - even when no explanation has to date even remotely been given by the Conference. All to often, this comes at the expense of taking into consideration the underlying logic that most likely drove the announcement in the first place.

In the case of the ACC, it seems pretty simple. Given the importance of playing a meaningful conference championship game to tip the balance in securing a spot in the 4 team playoff, they don't want to be in a position where in a given year a highly ranked division winner squares off in the ACCCG against a mediocre winner of the other division (who won in a down year for that division) when clearly the second best team is in the same divisions as the highly ranked team (think, for example, FSU and Clemson in a given year).

All this might mean is to continue the present structure - 2 divisions with the division winners playing each other in the ACCCG, with ONE important change. Specifically, the process is overridden if a team is ranked higher than a division winner. This is unlikely going to be triggered often, but it might occur in any given year and this would address it.

Not rocket science.

(04-14-2015 03:46 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 12:24 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  When you get to sixteen, you get to sixteen AFTER new divisional rules are passed. People are getting stuck on the surface of the talking points by the big 12 when it comes to what is currently under way. What, you don't think the silence from Delany means something? They are quietly going about their business.

People think rules giving divisional freedom means that a conference would find it in their best interests to go without divisions. That is only the case if the Networks feel no divisions is more valuable than More divisions. It is pretty well proven that the divisional model works well with general fans a la the NFL.

In regard to the Big Ten team fans that don't like the current situation, when The Big Ten went to 14, it was a loud statement that The Big Ten wasn't finished.

With two divisions and 7 teams in each, you get six divisional games a year. If you want an 8 game schedule then you only get two against the other division. If you have a cross division rival then that takes five years to play every team once, ten years to visit every stadium. A nine game schedule means it's still three years before you play every single team in the conference. It's ugly.

With four divisions, 16 teams and four teams per division it plays out like this. You have your three games in division, preferably at the end of the season in order to boost the value of the divisional rivalries. Then you have your Two games against the other three divisions for your 9 game conference schedule. With a cross division rivalry that means it takes you three years to play every team. So you see? No difference at all than the 14 team, 2 division conference.

If you go with no protected rivalries then it is just a two year situation and you play in every stadium within a four year period, which means your four year players get to experience every atmosphere of the conference.

When you top that with the fact that four divisions easily lead to a divisional champion conference tournament for football and suddenly you have yourself a Final Solution.

Here we go again H1.... You try to impart enlightenment on what could be by presenting a realistic possibility that would improve the current façade called the “College Playoff.” Moreover, you have accurately posted, “People are getting stuck on….” You tactfully left out the word “stup..” I mean “pause” after "stuck on." If someone presents an idea that is contrary to what many believe here, they seem to get stuck on pause, which prevents constructive and interesting dialogue to continue because you have to keep explaining points over and over again (see post #88 below)….

With that said, good luck to you with this thread….

I appreciate your sentiments and your vision. I guess I have just grown used to the state of affairs around here, the state that you describe. It didn't used to be that way.

I'm not too worried about whether the majority of folks have an eye opening moment when they read what I impart upon them. A few do and that is enough, it tells us what we need to know.

People are starting to realize that I have been right quite a bit. All I'm doing is offering high level analysis of the situation. It's mostly just entertainment for me, sometimes though, it's not. One thing you can say about me is that I stick with a prognosis until something major happens to change the situation. That is the sign of difference between an analyst and a fan.