(04-23-2015 02:58 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 02:03 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 11:01 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 09:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 09:25 AM)ken d Wrote:  Adding both Oklahoma and West Virginia makes some sense to me, though Oklahoma and Baylor would allow them to move Missouri to the west and shift Alabama and Auburn to the east. That helps to balance the divisions competitively, while largely removing any need to assign permanent cross division opponents. Either one would seriously damage the Big 12, and could even be a fatal blow.

If you look at the SEC or B1G, what does one see? Flagships. These conferences want flagships, nothing else, unless it's a super-power private, read Notre Dame*, or in the case of TAMU, a school so big and powerful it would be a flagship if it was in just about any other state. The SEC never wants to settle for the second, much less third, banana school in any state. Baylor and TCU don't come close to being flagships so I can't see the SEC ever being interested in either. WVU, as flawed as it is, could possibly be on the SEC radar because it is a flagship. I doubt it, as WVU doesn't really bring any eyeballs and the SEC has passed on them before, but it is possible.

Beyond that, I don't see why the SEC has any real desire to damage the Big 12. The Big 12 is a good partner: Close enough for fans to care a lot about games vs Big 12 teams, lots of history between the southern Big 12 teams and SEC West teams, a sharing with the Texas schools and Oklahoma schools in that deep-south football culture, but not really a threat in terms of market overlap and the like. I think that's why the SEC chose to partner with the Big 12, not the ACC, in the Sugar Bowl.

Would the SEC love to acquire Texas or Oklahoma? Of course, who wouldn't? But I don't see the SEC plotting to bust up the Big 12 by taking lesser schools.


* ... and likely Duke.

I agree with you that the SEC has no desire to damage the Big 12. In fact, I think they want to see it remain strong and viable. Personally, I think their desire to have the Big 12 as a friendly rival outweighs their desire to add individual schools like Oklahoma and Texas. Fact is, the SEC doesn't really need much of anything that it cares about that it doesn't already have.

The SEC needs to improve its basketball content....

That's why I included the phrase "that it cares about" in my statement.

The SEC might be aggressive about a new market it really wants, but mostly I think we will be defensive about our core identity. For instance if something threatened the ACC the SEC would be proactive in acquiring the properties that would either put a rival in the heart of our area, or schools that would be the most SEC like so that our brand was preserved. There aren't many but Florida State and Clemson would be the two that are most brand like. North Carolina and Virginia schools would be the markets. If a partnership with the Big 12 remained the focus and the ACC was threatened then I'm not sure that we would protect Clemson and Florida State. If on the other hand the Big 10 made an offer to F.S.U. then I think you would see an SEC offer on the table. If the ACC remains stable and trouble befalls the Big 12 then we would likely protect our interests from Oklahoma to Texas.

So in short guys we don't have a problem with Tobacco Road being Tobacco Road, or Texas and Oklahoma being Texas and Oklahoma. But we would have a hard time letting the Big 10 pretend that they too were Tobacco Road, or pretend that they too were Texas an Oklahoma.

You are absolutely ridiculous, do you know that JR? Do you actually believe this bs that you type. You are sounding more and more like nothing more than a t shirt fan.

That is why Memphis should be in the Big 12. They have rivalry games against Tennessee and Vanderbilt every year. They used to play against the 2 SEC teams every year which drew lots of fans to watch the games. If there is an agreement between Big 12 and SEC to play each other in the regular seasons and not in bowl games. You could have a Memphis Vs Tennessee in the last game of the season like you have with Florida/Florida State, Georgia/Georgia Tech, Clemson/South Carolina. It would reunite the old football rivalries between Memphis and Tennessee.

(04-23-2015 01:16 PM)XLance Wrote:  And then there is that old question that nobody really seems to have the answer to: Would Oklahoma be able to separate from Oklahoma State? Whether it's legal, political or maybe just not publicly popular there has always been the notion that those schools could not be divided. Does anyone really know the truth?

I'm still looking for one of you to jump in and at least venture an educated guess.
The future of realignment could hinge on the answer.

(04-24-2015 07:20 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 01:16 PM)XLance Wrote:  And then there is that old question that nobody really seems to have the answer to: Would Oklahoma be able to separate from Oklahoma State? Whether it's legal, political or maybe just not publicly popular there has always been the notion that those schools could not be divided. Does anyone really know the truth?

I'm still looking for one of you to jump in and at least venture an educated guess.
The future of realignment could hinge on the answer.

XLance there is no state requirement of which I am aware. Boren is the one who has made the statement in the past that both schools would have to be taken care of, but then he has been affiliated with both. I would hazard the guess that as long as the Cowboys land in another P conference that the two could be separated as long as Bedlam was played annually. What has driven this so far is that any move in which Oklahoma has been considered (PAC & SEC and maybe others) Oklahoma has insisted on the inclusion of O.S.U. but this is not because of the state. It is because both times OU's discussions were somewhat secret and because of that the easiest way to take care of the Cowboys was to ask that they be a part of the deal.

The issue seems to be that OSU is simply a small market school. They draw okay on regional games, they have a very profitable athletic department, and they have Boone Pickens, which is where politics come into this. The only conference for which Oklahoma State could have any market appeal would be the SEC for a larger slice of DFW. The problem there is Oklahoma does a better job of delivering that market, and Baylor, Texas Tech, or T.C.U. could do about as well as O.S.U. in doing so. O.S.U. is out for the Big 10. That's why OU has tried the "you must take O.S.U. approach with both the SEC and PAC. I would think that if both landed separate P conference invites that the issue would be resolved under the condition I have already stated.

(04-24-2015 07:20 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 01:16 PM)XLance Wrote:  And then there is that old question that nobody really seems to have the answer to: Would Oklahoma be able to separate from Oklahoma State? Whether it's legal, political or maybe just not publicly popular there has always been the notion that those schools could not be divided. Does anyone really know the truth?

I'm still looking for one of you to jump in and at least venture an educated guess.
The future of realignment could hinge on the answer.

I wouldn't call this an educated guess - just a guess. I believe they would be able to separate, just as I believe Texas could move without Texas Tech. IMO, it would be harder for Texas to move without Baylor. It wasn't that long ago that most people believed that UT and A&M had to be connected at the hip, and we have seen how that worked out.

(04-24-2015 07:34 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 07:20 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 01:16 PM)XLance Wrote:  And then there is that old question that nobody really seems to have the answer to: Would Oklahoma be able to separate from Oklahoma State? Whether it's legal, political or maybe just not publicly popular there has always been the notion that those schools could not be divided. Does anyone really know the truth?

I'm still looking for one of you to jump in and at least venture an educated guess.
The future of realignment could hinge on the answer.

I wouldn't call this an educated guess - just a guess. I believe they would be able to separate, just as I believe Texas could move without Texas Tech. IMO, it would be harder for Texas to move without Baylor. It wasn't that long ago that most people believed that UT and A&M had to be connected at the hip, and we have seen how that worked out.

There is another complication that is overlooked. Texas and Oklahoma State cannot reasonably be in the same conference because it provides scheduling difficulties for Oklahoma (which I believe is the biggest reason that Boren wants the Cowboys with the Sooners). If OU and UT wind up in separate conferences then OU would have to have 2 of it's likely 3 OOC games annually held against those two schools. If just one of them is in the same conference as OU then the dilemma is avoided. Since OU has no control over UT they wrongly assume that OSU must be the one to stay with them. But that assumption is only wrong if OSU doesn't make a P conference. The SEC won't take OSU first as long as they hope to land both OU and UT. The PAC won't take OSU because of academics, but mostly because they think as the SEC does. The Big 10 simply won't take OSU.

So as long as the SEC and PAC hold out hopes for OU and UT they won't cave on OSU and neither of them would take the Cowboys if they think that frees OU and Texas to the Big 10.

The workaround would be OU and KU to the Big 10 and UT and OSU to the SEC only OU realizes that letting the Cowboys move with Texas to the SEC would essentially kill their recruiting because the Cowboys would then be seen as the best place for recruits to go to be able to play regionally where parents could easily attend.

So the issue isn't really so much a political requirement as a scheduling and power
conundrum for the Sooners.

(04-24-2015 06:06 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  That is why Memphis should be in the Big 12. They have rivalry games against Tennessee and Vanderbilt every year. They used to play against the 2 SEC teams every year which drew lots of fans to watch the games. If there is an agreement between Big 12 and SEC to play each other in the regular seasons and not in bowl games. You could have a Memphis Vs Tennessee in the last game of the season like you have with Florida/Florida State, Georgia/Georgia Tech, Clemson/South Carolina. It would reunite the old football rivalries between Memphis and Tennessee.

Problem with Memphis is they bring nothing to the table in terms of revenue-generation. They would just be a mouth to feed, eating a $30m annual share of TV and Bowl money that would come from the other teams in the conference.

(04-24-2015 07:20 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 01:16 PM)XLance Wrote:  And then there is that old question that nobody really seems to have the answer to: Would Oklahoma be able to separate from Oklahoma State? Whether it's legal, political or maybe just not publicly popular there has always been the notion that those schools could not be divided. Does anyone really know the truth?

I'm still looking for one of you to jump in and at least venture an educated guess.
The future of realignment could hinge on the answer.

Yes, I do know the truth and yes I already told you so I am not telling you again.

(04-24-2015 07:34 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 07:20 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 01:16 PM)XLance Wrote:  And then there is that old question that nobody really seems to have the answer to: Would Oklahoma be able to separate from Oklahoma State? Whether it's legal, political or maybe just not publicly popular there has always been the notion that those schools could not be divided. Does anyone really know the truth?

I'm still looking for one of you to jump in and at least venture an educated guess.
The future of realignment could hinge on the answer.

I wouldn't call this an educated guess - just a guess. I believe they would be able to separate, just as I believe Texas could move without Texas Tech. IMO, it would be harder for Texas to move without Baylor. It wasn't that long ago that most people believed that UT and A&M had to be connected at the hip, and we have seen how that worked out.

Baylor has no pull on anyone anymore. They don't have the Governor, Lt. Governor, and head of the senate appropriations committee like they did in 1994 or a joint interest with Texas Tech who also had the Speaker of the House and a connection with the Lt. Governor.

(04-20-2015 10:06 AM)jgkojak Wrote:  If the SEC wanted to make it interesting, they would make a play for WVU and TCU (for Dallas/FW/recruiting). Both would fit in well w/SEC. Considering that OU and OSU have made it clear they're not going to the SEC (same for Texas), you take out those two teams and what does the B12 do?

Add BYU and Colorado State?

How about we finish this, move to a P4, include the most worthy G5, and enter a 4 champs model.

SEC: Florida State, Oklahoma, E.C.U. & West Virginia
Big 10: Kansas, Virginia Tech, Connecticut, Iowa State
ACC: Texas, Baylor, Texas Tech, Cincinnati, Tulane, and Notre Dame.
PAC: Brigham Young, Kansas State, Nevada Las Vegas, Oklahoma State, Rice, T.C.U.

The Tobacco Road crowd gets rid of F.S.U. as the chief malcontent in the ACC. They gain huge markets and lose none of their footprint and gain one powerful network and arguably two of the best 4 or 5 brands in the nation (certainly the best two programs still on the board).

The SEC adds content, picks up DFW, promotes E.C.U. for which ESPN agrees to give full credit for North Carolina to the SECN, and gains a slither of what they had hoped to gain with a Virginia school.

The Big 10 gets a football brand and two basketball brands while picking up 2 AAU schools and a couple of more with potential. They also get a larger foothold in New England and New York and gain Virginia.

The PAC gets time zones and markets for the PACN and the schools they add are very respectable as a whole. And, nobody who is in the P5 now gets left out. Connecticut, Cincinnati, East Carolina, Nevada Las Vegas, and academic additions Rice and Tulane all get in. The vast majority of the board goes home happy and we just get on with football.

(04-25-2015 11:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 10:06 AM)jgkojak Wrote:  If the SEC wanted to make it interesting, they would make a play for WVU and TCU (for Dallas/FW/recruiting). Both would fit in well w/SEC. Considering that OU and OSU have made it clear they're not going to the SEC (same for Texas), you take out those two teams and what does the B12 do?

Add BYU and Colorado State?

How about we finish this, move to a P4, include the most worthy G5, and enter a 4 champs model.

SEC: Florida State, Oklahoma, E.C.U. & West Virginia
Big 10: Kansas, Virginia Tech, Connecticut, Iowa State
ACC: Texas, Baylor, Texas Tech, Cincinnati, Tulane, and Notre Dame.
PAC: Brigham Young, Kansas State, Nevada Las Vegas, Oklahoma State, Rice, T.C.U.

The Tobacco Road crowd gets rid of F.S.U. as the chief malcontent in the ACC. They gain huge markets and lose none of their footprint and gain one powerful network and arguably two of the best 4 or 5 brands in the nation (certainly the best two programs still on the board).

The SEC adds content, picks up DFW, promotes E.C.U. for which ESPN agrees to give full credit for North Carolina to the SECN, and gains a slither of what they had hoped to gain with a Virginia school.

The Big 10 gets a football brand and two basketball brands while picking up 2 AAU schools and a couple of more with potential. They also get a larger foothold in New England and New York and gain Virginia.

The PAC gets time zones and markets for the PACN and the schools they add are very respectable as a whole. And, nobody who is in the P5 now gets left out. Connecticut, Cincinnati, East Carolina, Nevada Las Vegas, and academic additions Rice and Tulane all get in. The vast majority of the board goes home happy and we just get on with football.

Still BYU will not get in the PAC until they play on Sundays. If BYU refuses, replace them with Boise State. A powerhouse in football and their basketball is on the rise.

(04-26-2015 02:04 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 11:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 10:06 AM)jgkojak Wrote:  If the SEC wanted to make it interesting, they would make a play for WVU and TCU (for Dallas/FW/recruiting). Both would fit in well w/SEC. Considering that OU and OSU have made it clear they're not going to the SEC (same for Texas), you take out those two teams and what does the B12 do?

Add BYU and Colorado State?

How about we finish this, move to a P4, include the most worthy G5, and enter a 4 champs model.

SEC: Florida State, Oklahoma, E.C.U. & West Virginia
Big 10: Kansas, Virginia Tech, Connecticut, Iowa State
ACC: Texas, Baylor, Texas Tech, Cincinnati, Tulane, and Notre Dame.
PAC: Brigham Young, Kansas State, Nevada Las Vegas, Oklahoma State, Rice, T.C.U.

The Tobacco Road crowd gets rid of F.S.U. as the chief malcontent in the ACC. They gain huge markets and lose none of their footprint and gain one powerful network and arguably two of the best 4 or 5 brands in the nation (certainly the best two programs still on the board).

The SEC adds content, picks up DFW, promotes E.C.U. for which ESPN agrees to give full credit for North Carolina to the SECN, and gains a slither of what they had hoped to gain with a Virginia school.

The Big 10 gets a football brand and two basketball brands while picking up 2 AAU schools and a couple of more with potential. They also get a larger foothold in New England and New York and gain Virginia.

The PAC gets time zones and markets for the PACN and the schools they add are very respectable as a whole. And, nobody who is in the P5 now gets left out. Connecticut, Cincinnati, East Carolina, Nevada Las Vegas, and academic additions Rice and Tulane all get in. The vast majority of the board goes home happy and we just get on with football.

Still BYU will not get in the PAC until they play on Sundays. If BYU refuses, replace them with Boise State. A powerhouse in football and their basketball is on the rise.

1. I would think B.Y.U. has a better chance of getting into the PAC than Boise. The differences between B.Y.U. and the PAC can at least be compromised upon. Boise State doesn't offer what the PAC wants in the way of all sports and the academic issue is real.

2. My post above was a touch tongue in cheek. There are so many here that always speak of G5 inclusion so I thought I would give it a good effort and then illustrate what the P4 would really look like should it happen. It's not bad, but neither is it going to happen. If you check the gross revenue chart that I have linked in this thread you will see where the cutoff numbers should be for the P4 or P5. Below 60 million gross revenue things start getting dicey and you run the risk of having a school in a conference where their earnings will never allow them to keep up.

Colorado, Utah, and Washington State are below that mark but all are in the PAC where these kinds of issues, while important, are not as crucial as in the other P conferences. The chart doesn't include the privates but Boston College, Syracuse, Miami, Vanderbilt, Stanford, Duke, U.S.C., Northwestern, Baylor, T.C.U., and Notre Dame of course all make more than two of those three schools (at least by figures that are two years old). Wake might not but was close either way. UConn makes enough to be included in the P5. B.Y.U.'s earnings were around where Colorado is in the High 50's two years ago and may be more now. But that is why 60,000,000 is going to be your Mendoza line of College Football's upper division when this is over and done with and it is why I called this thread realignment by the numbers.

It is my opinion that revenue, attendance, television ratings, and market demographics, and finally geography will combine to decide how all of this plays out.

That is why the SEC will likely only consider the following school:

Texas and Oklahoma both of which are major TV ratings schools that both match or exceed the SEC's gross revenue numbers and enhance slightly the SEC's attendance numbers.

A North Carolina and Virginia school which provides large new markets although they would be a drain on our mean numbers in almost every other way.

and possible members if a companion school is needed:

Florida State as a content add with attendance numbers near our mean and revenue numbers within our range.

Clemson as a content add with attendance numbers above our mean and revenue numbers within our lower range.

Oklahoma state with revenue numbers within our range and a market penetration by which we could profit.

The Big 10's targets are essentially the same minus Oklahoma State and Clemson and with Kansas and Georgia Tech added to the mix.

The ACC has much more latitude but would want essentially the same schools (minus their own). Other potentials for them might include Cincinnati and Connecticut.

That's why we are at a present impasse.

(04-26-2015 09:51 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 02:04 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 11:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 10:06 AM)jgkojak Wrote:  If the SEC wanted to make it interesting, they would make a play for WVU and TCU (for Dallas/FW/recruiting). Both would fit in well w/SEC. Considering that OU and OSU have made it clear they're not going to the SEC (same for Texas), you take out those two teams and what does the B12 do?

Add BYU and Colorado State?

How about we finish this, move to a P4, include the most worthy G5, and enter a 4 champs model.

SEC: Florida State, Oklahoma, E.C.U. & West Virginia
Big 10: Kansas, Virginia Tech, Connecticut, Iowa State
ACC: Texas, Baylor, Texas Tech, Cincinnati, Tulane, and Notre Dame.
PAC: Brigham Young, Kansas State, Nevada Las Vegas, Oklahoma State, Rice, T.C.U.

The Tobacco Road crowd gets rid of F.S.U. as the chief malcontent in the ACC. They gain huge markets and lose none of their footprint and gain one powerful network and arguably two of the best 4 or 5 brands in the nation (certainly the best two programs still on the board).

The SEC adds content, picks up DFW, promotes E.C.U. for which ESPN agrees to give full credit for North Carolina to the SECN, and gains a slither of what they had hoped to gain with a Virginia school.

The Big 10 gets a football brand and two basketball brands while picking up 2 AAU schools and a couple of more with potential. They also get a larger foothold in New England and New York and gain Virginia.

The PAC gets time zones and markets for the PACN and the schools they add are very respectable as a whole. And, nobody who is in the P5 now gets left out. Connecticut, Cincinnati, East Carolina, Nevada Las Vegas, and academic additions Rice and Tulane all get in. The vast majority of the board goes home happy and we just get on with football.

Still BYU will not get in the PAC until they play on Sundays. If BYU refuses, replace them with Boise State. A powerhouse in football and their basketball is on the rise.

1. I would think B.Y.U. has a better chance of getting into the PAC than Boise. The differences between B.Y.U. and the PAC can at least be compromised upon. Boise State doesn't offer what the PAC wants in the way of all sports and the academic issue is real.

2. My post above was a touch tongue in cheek. There are so many here that always speak of G5 inclusion so I thought I would give it a good effort and then illustrate what the P4 would really look like should it happen. It's not bad, but neither is it going to happen. If you check the gross revenue chart that I have linked in this thread you will see where the cutoff numbers should be for the P4 or P5. Below 60 million gross revenue things start getting dicey and you run the risk of having a school in a conference where their earnings will never allow them to keep up.

Colorado, Utah, and Washington State are below that mark but all are in the PAC where these kinds of issues, while important, are not as crucial as in the other P conferences. The chart doesn't include the privates but Boston College, Syracuse, Miami, Vanderbilt, Stanford, Duke, U.S.C., Northwestern, Baylor, T.C.U., and Notre Dame of course all make more than two of those three schools (at least by figures that are two years old). Wake might not but was close either way. UConn makes enough to be included in the P5. B.Y.U.'s earnings were around where Colorado is in the High 50's two years ago and may be more now. But that is why 60,000,000 is going to be your Mendoza line of College Football's upper division when this is over and done with and it is why I called this thread realignment by the numbers.

It is my opinion that revenue, attendance, television ratings, and market demographics, and finally geography will combine to decide how all of this plays out.

That is why the SEC will likely only consider the following school:

Texas and Oklahoma both of which are major TV ratings schools that both match or exceed the SEC's gross revenue numbers and enhance slightly the SEC's attendance numbers.

A North Carolina and Virginia school which provides large new markets although they would be a drain on our mean numbers in almost every other way.

and possible members if a companion school is needed:

Florida State as a content add with attendance numbers near our mean and revenue numbers within our range.

Clemson as a content add with attendance numbers above our mean and revenue numbers within our lower range.

Oklahoma state with revenue numbers within our range and a market penetration by which we could profit.

The Big 10's targets are essentially the same minus Oklahoma State and Clemson and with Kansas and Georgia Tech added to the mix.

The ACC has much more latitude but would want essentially the same schools (minus their own). Other potentials for them might include Cincinnati and Connecticut.

That's why we are at a present impasse.

Boise State does have their own tv rights for their home games as an agreement with the MWC to bring them back. The PAC officials praised both Boise State and San Diego State in improving on their academics that they could be ideal candidates in the PAC 12 in the future. Last year and the year before Boise State rised above other P5 schools in making a profit. With them selling their rights for home games to ESPN and others? Boise is not in the hole like some other schools overall of all of their sports. Some P5 schools are in the hole no matter the tv rights. Schools like Vanderbilt and some of the PAC 12 and ACC athletic departments are in the negative for all sports. It will take some time for the schools to get out of the hole. It is really important to tighten up the geography of the footprint of the conferences so that you can sell tickets and get more fans in the seats. You just can't count on the tv money alone to help.

(04-26-2015 06:23 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 09:51 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 02:04 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 11:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 10:06 AM)jgkojak Wrote:  If the SEC wanted to make it interesting, they would make a play for WVU and TCU (for Dallas/FW/recruiting). Both would fit in well w/SEC. Considering that OU and OSU have made it clear they're not going to the SEC (same for Texas), you take out those two teams and what does the B12 do?

Add BYU and Colorado State?

How about we finish this, move to a P4, include the most worthy G5, and enter a 4 champs model.

SEC: Florida State, Oklahoma, E.C.U. & West Virginia
Big 10: Kansas, Virginia Tech, Connecticut, Iowa State
ACC: Texas, Baylor, Texas Tech, Cincinnati, Tulane, and Notre Dame.
PAC: Brigham Young, Kansas State, Nevada Las Vegas, Oklahoma State, Rice, T.C.U.

The Tobacco Road crowd gets rid of F.S.U. as the chief malcontent in the ACC. They gain huge markets and lose none of their footprint and gain one powerful network and arguably two of the best 4 or 5 brands in the nation (certainly the best two programs still on the board).

The SEC adds content, picks up DFW, promotes E.C.U. for which ESPN agrees to give full credit for North Carolina to the SECN, and gains a slither of what they had hoped to gain with a Virginia school.

The Big 10 gets a football brand and two basketball brands while picking up 2 AAU schools and a couple of more with potential. They also get a larger foothold in New England and New York and gain Virginia.

The PAC gets time zones and markets for the PACN and the schools they add are very respectable as a whole. And, nobody who is in the P5 now gets left out. Connecticut, Cincinnati, East Carolina, Nevada Las Vegas, and academic additions Rice and Tulane all get in. The vast majority of the board goes home happy and we just get on with football.

Still BYU will not get in the PAC until they play on Sundays. If BYU refuses, replace them with Boise State. A powerhouse in football and their basketball is on the rise.

1. I would think B.Y.U. has a better chance of getting into the PAC than Boise. The differences between B.Y.U. and the PAC can at least be compromised upon. Boise State doesn't offer what the PAC wants in the way of all sports and the academic issue is real.

2. My post above was a touch tongue in cheek. There are so many here that always speak of G5 inclusion so I thought I would give it a good effort and then illustrate what the P4 would really look like should it happen. It's not bad, but neither is it going to happen. If you check the gross revenue chart that I have linked in this thread you will see where the cutoff numbers should be for the P4 or P5. Below 60 million gross revenue things start getting dicey and you run the risk of having a school in a conference where their earnings will never allow them to keep up.

Colorado, Utah, and Washington State are below that mark but all are in the PAC where these kinds of issues, while important, are not as crucial as in the other P conferences. The chart doesn't include the privates but Boston College, Syracuse, Miami, Vanderbilt, Stanford, Duke, U.S.C., Northwestern, Baylor, T.C.U., and Notre Dame of course all make more than two of those three schools (at least by figures that are two years old). Wake might not but was close either way. UConn makes enough to be included in the P5. B.Y.U.'s earnings were around where Colorado is in the High 50's two years ago and may be more now. But that is why 60,000,000 is going to be your Mendoza line of College Football's upper division when this is over and done with and it is why I called this thread realignment by the numbers.

It is my opinion that revenue, attendance, television ratings, and market demographics, and finally geography will combine to decide how all of this plays out.

That is why the SEC will likely only consider the following school:

Texas and Oklahoma both of which are major TV ratings schools that both match or exceed the SEC's gross revenue numbers and enhance slightly the SEC's attendance numbers.

A North Carolina and Virginia school which provides large new markets although they would be a drain on our mean numbers in almost every other way.

and possible members if a companion school is needed:

Florida State as a content add with attendance numbers near our mean and revenue numbers within our range.

Clemson as a content add with attendance numbers above our mean and revenue numbers within our lower range.

Oklahoma state with revenue numbers within our range and a market penetration by which we could profit.

The Big 10's targets are essentially the same minus Oklahoma State and Clemson and with Kansas and Georgia Tech added to the mix.

The ACC has much more latitude but would want essentially the same schools (minus their own). Other potentials for them might include Cincinnati and Connecticut.

That's why we are at a present impasse.

Boise State does have their own tv rights for their home games as an agreement with the MWC to bring them back. The PAC officials praised both Boise State and San Diego State in improving on their academics that they could be ideal candidates in the PAC 12 in the future. Last year and the year before Boise State rised above other P5 schools in making a profit. With them selling their rights for home games to ESPN and others? Boise is not in the hole like some other schools overall of all of their sports. Some P5 schools are in the hole no matter the tv rights. Schools like Vanderbilt and some of the PAC 12 and ACC athletic departments are in the negative for all sports. It will take some time for the schools to get out of the hole. It is really important to tighten up the geography of the footprint of the conferences so that you can sell tickets and get more fans in the seats. You just can't count on the tv money alone to help.

No, the PAC did no such thing. Speaking to a San Diego audience, the PAC commissioner refrained from criticizing the local school in public. He went on to say that SDSU and Boise would be "on the list" of schools the PAC would consider in the future. That list presumably includes every other school in the Pacific or Mountain time zones, plus the schools they would actually want, which are in the Central time zone.

The P5 conferences taken as a whole have every school they need or want already. Further realignment within the P5 may or may not happen largely based on whether they individually or collectively decide that P4 is better than P5. If they do decide that (and I don't believe they will), then the question becomes how will the ACC and Big 12 schools ultimately be divided among the remaining conferences. Will one of those two essentially be the survivor, by adding the prime targets from the other, or will the fourth conference basically just be the leftovers after the P3 have claimed all the prizes?

I think we stay at five conferences and four CFP spots for quite a while, if for no other reason than it makes the season more interesting. The game of musical chairs is only interesting if there is at least one more player than there are chairs. That's where we are now with the CFP. Does that mean there will be a lot of controversy about who gets selected? Absolutely. That's what makes it good theater. Why give that up?

(04-27-2015 10:14 AM)ken d Wrote:  The P5 conferences taken as a whole have every school they need or want already. Further realignment within the P5 may or may not happen largely based on whether they individually or collectively decide that P4 is better than P5. If they do decide that (and I don't believe they will), then the question becomes how will the ACC and Big 12 schools ultimately be divided among the remaining conferences. Will one of those two essentially be the survivor, by adding the prime targets from the other, or will the fourth conference basically just be the leftovers after the P3 have claimed all the prizes?

I think we stay at five conferences and four CFP spots for quite a while, if for no other reason than it makes the season more interesting. The game of musical chairs is only interesting if there is at least one more player than there are chairs. That's where we are now with the CFP. Does that mean there will be a lot of controversy about who gets selected? Absolutely. That's what makes it good theater. Why give that up?

Immediate realignment depends on the belief, in the face of facts, that GORs are worthless, or on the irrational belief that several schools will make a different decision than they just did in the last 2 or 3 years or the idea that a Big 12 without a ccg is at a disadvantage getting into the playoffs and thinks expansion is worth it to reduce that disadvantage. So two beliefs that don't make much sense and one that flies in the face of the Big 12's history where ccgs have hurt several times, but not helped. Or the final theory that ESPN and/or Fox have changed their mind and want to consolidate the conferences and increase their bargaining power vs. the networks.

When we are talking near or beyond the expiration date of the GORs, it requires economic changes (certainly possible) or the acceptance of Scott's idea that they do need to consolidate and that actual consolidation is better than simply doing a joint TV contract.

Here's a few more "JUST BY THE NUMBERS" to chew on:

http://www.foxsports.com/college-footbal...rks-050715

Take 547.3 million divided by half for ESPN's share and that's 273.65 million divided by 15 shares equals about 18.243 million per school payout. Not too bad.