(04-29-2015 09:55 PM)He1nousOne Wrote: You are absolutely right about there not being much evidence. That is purposefully done.
Just because it's just the ACC and big 12 talking about deregulation, that doesn't mean the other conferences don't care about it or that they will just go ahead and throw a life preserver to the big 12 so that the big 12 can continue to operate under different rules than the other four.
It doesn't mean the others aren't talking about it, but you don't get major structural changes anywhere close to happening without it getting out to the media. Those take major posturing, back and forth, and the powers-that-be use the media to their advantage in those. Maybe you get CCGs changes at some point for semi-finals, but when serious negotiations start on that, we'll definitely hear about it. Think about the CFP discussions.
This isn't an issue of the Big 12 vs. the 4. The Big 12 could have a CCG next year if they expand. That might not be ideal, but if it's a make or break situation, they can probably even do so without it being too revenue negative (add football onlys and a CCG which pays most the cost of the additions). There is nothing for the other 4 in forcing that to happen though so why wouldn't they vote for it. It's bad business to make one person you work with regularly angry with nothing in it for you.
Additionally, they all operate on different set-ups. The PAC-12 has a championship with 12 while the other 3 have one with 14. The ACC and SEC by with only 8 conference games while the Big Ten and PAC-12 do 9.
(04-29-2015 09:55 PM)He1nousOne Wrote: Just because you see single events happening in "bits and pieces", that doesn't mean there isn't any planning going on behind the scenes. No planning generally means failure in the professional world.
I'll argue the reverse. Yes there is planning at the conference level, but any attempt to put all the various moves into one central grand plan is ignoring that these are hundreds moves by hundreds of parties (conferences, networks, schools, athletic/academic groups, etc) and all these plans change as circumstances do.
The Big Ten is certainly looking at it's exposure in various areas and considering if they can increase it and what are the risks of trying it. Knowing they can't undue expansion though will make them reluctant to take too many risks though (same applies for other conferences). The PAC-10 had a grand plan of becoming the PAC-16. The plan failed and the new plan was a large western conference and thus they rejected Oklahoma/Oklahoma State a year later.
Beyond this, there is planning, but there is no planning between conferences on raids. If you have two parties agreeing to jointly go after a third with the intent on destroying it, you have major legal problems.
(04-29-2015 09:55 PM)He1nousOne Wrote: I don't see Texas as being happy with the current situation, not at all.
They had every chance to leave and go elsewhere. Any conference would have made room for them, but they choose the Big 12. New leaders might have different ideas, but the time they'll be approached is after the GoRs get closer to expiring.
(04-29-2015 09:55 PM)He1nousOne Wrote: If the big 12 GoR was absolutely about keeping the big 12 around for the long haul then why such a short time period for the GoR? The Big Ten's BTN GoR is of a much longer time period.
I'm actually not arguing over the over haul (although don't think the conference is doomed either). If a major conference looses most it's members in the next decade, it will be the Big 12. They did all sign the agreement though and it wasn't that long ago. Very little has changed since then. Given it another 6-7 years and maybe things will be different, but right now things are little changed from when they all signed the agreement.
(04-29-2015 09:55 PM)He1nousOne Wrote: I am fine with folks needing to follow the hand outs that media pundits hand out after they have received their hand outs but as I have said before...I am not a herd animal and I don't prefer hand outs.
I know I come off as brash and rude, that is purposeful. I know you don't take it personally.
Don't mistake disagreeing as taking media pundit handouts. They are taken with a healthy grain of salt, but also not ignored in evidence either. The most knowledgeable of us on these boards are actually a lot better at discerning the truth from the crap than most the sports media and have called out the false stuff when we see it. Examples: 1. There was a time not so long ago when the media was looking for four 16 team conferences. Most of us here knew things didn't work out like that in the real world as the conferences all acted independently and 16 was not ideal for all of them given available choices. 2. There's been a ton of reports of conference movement that no one who understood the process would think was real. The Big Ten wasn't going to take a Pitt team in a city they already had major coverage. The Big East stood zero chance of taking Boston College and Maryland from the ACC.