(08-10-2015 10:13 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-10-2015 09:53 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-07-2015 10:57 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  If OU and KU went B1G and Texas went ACC, the rest of the Big 12 may really have a problem getting a spot in any of the remaining P4 conferences.

I'm not sure the SEC takes any of them. The biggest question I have is whether the SEC sees itself as a 16 team conference or would go bigger. The SEC wants to expand into Virginia and North Carolina if possible, and if the SEC thinks 16 is the max, then they will take no one and wait to see what happens when the ACC's GOR expires.

The PAC needs more teams, and I could see them taking TTech because it's so close to Arizona and is an engineering school with a fairly good academic reputation. But who goes with them? OSU is the little brother team in a small state and has mediocre academics - not really PAC material. KSU is the same, except the Kansas has a larger population. ISU is an AAU school and its academics and athletics would be attractive to the PAC, but it would be somewhat of a geographic outlier. Maybe TTech and ISU to the PAC because the PAC wouldn't have many other options.

The ACC has 14 teams now and if Texas went there as an independent, with and ND type deal, the ACC may not want to add anyone else either. They may want to reserve the 15th and 16th spots for ND and Texas hoping they join full-time. The ACC seems to me less likely than the B1G or SEC to go beyond 16 teams because it has the lowest media revenues. Dividing the small pot among more teams just exacerbates the gap between the ACC's per team revenue and the per team revenue of SEC and B1G teams.

I think the result is that the leftover Big 12 teams backfill with BYU, Houston or other teams and try to survive as a lesser conference.

Other than the question of whether the PAC needs to expand, it's hard to argue with your main points here. I see the present situation much like a game of musical chairs. With five major conferences, everybody is jockeying to be sure they get one of the four chairs in the CFP when the music stops.

With OU and Texas out of the B12, the other four conferences are going to be a lot less worried about that most of the time. So, unless another specific Big 12 school has some special appeal to one of those four, I think the P4 would be content to leave the Big 12 as the strongest G6, and most likely to produce an access bowl team.

Frankly, once OU leaves the B12, I'm not even sure anybody feels a need to give Texas a sweetheart deal. Sometimes I think we give Texas too much credit. They may be rich, and they may be more of a national brand than a lot of schools, but I don't think they pull nearly as many eyeballs outside of Texas as Notre Dame does. I'd even bet Ohio State and Alabama do as well as UT outside their respective markets.

If it weren't for their ego and their (unjustified) academic snobbery, I think Texas would see that the SEC is a much better home for them than the ACC. I'm just not sure the SEC wants or needs any part of UT.

Let me play devil's advocate a bit here. Let's say only Texas, OU and KU leave the XII.

That means the XII is still viable and with the CFP locked in pace for the next 11 seasons, it means the XII is still technically a "Power" conference, getting the same CFP payout as the other four and the same auto-bid to the NY6 bowls as the other four. (even though their media deal payout might sink lower per school than the ACC)


Texas and OU haven't been serious contenders for the national championship in a few years. Last year it was TCU and Baylor. I don't think that's going to change.

Both could be title contenders again this year.


So that means someone is going to get skunked again for one of the four CFP slots. Maybe it will always be the XII, because of no CCG. But then again ... is it worth the risk?

Or would the other four conferences feel safer if they just dismantled the XII?

You raise a point I'm not sure I've ever seen addressed. I haven't read the CFP contract in detail (at all, actually). I'm not sure who has, since I doubt it's subject to FOIA requests. Are we 100% sure that the CFP has no contractual out available in the event one of the P5 conferences suffers a major hit to its membership? What if the Big 12 lost five members, and had to backfill with a bunch of G5 schools? Would the CFP be bound to give them the same deal the current B12 has?

(08-07-2015 10:57 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  If OU and KU went B1G and Texas went ACC, the rest of the Big 12 may really have a problem getting a spot in any of the remaining P4 conferences. I'm not sure the SEC takes any of them.

I can envision the SEC taking WVU and Okie State. Not claiming they definitely, positively would, but it's not a stretch. Both very strong on the field and at the gate. OSU in particular has buckets of money.

Now the remaining 5 after that (TT, TCU, Baylor, KSU, ISU)... yes they would be in a very tight spot.

Quote:The PAC needs more teams

Hmmm...

Quote:OSU is the little brother team in a small state and has mediocre academics - not really PAC material. KSU is the same, except the Kansas has a larger population.

If you're talking in terms of overall, statewide population, Oklahoma has more people than Kansas.

Quote:The ACC has 14 teams now and if Texas went there as an independent, with an ND type deal, the ACC may not want to add anyone else either.

Agreed.

(08-09-2015 12:55 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  New Mexico, Hawaii, Colorado State, UTEP, UTSA, Montana, Montana State, North Dakota, North Dakota State, Idaho, south Dakota and South Dakota State are close or at with PAC 12 schools academics wise along with the PAC 12.

That is one of the weirdest comments posted here since... since the last time DavidSt posted here.

Quote:I could see a New Mexico and Texas Tech as a pair, or Texas Tech and UTSA as a pair.

To the PAC-12? smh...

(08-09-2015 06:49 PM)MKPitt Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 06:12 PM)ArQ Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 01:09 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-08-2015 08:45 PM)ArQ Wrote:  Don't see PAC12 and SEC take the leftover after B1G takes the jewels of B12. Especially SEC is the king of all conferences and can pick any school they want. SEC should offer Michigan and Ohio State membership then B1G could pick whatever B12 schools they like.

The SEC can offer to TSUN all they want ... they are too much academic snobs to, as they would perceive it, go slumming in the SEC.

Academically Florida is as good as Michigan, and LSU is better than Ohio State. When people migrated to South, they took their money with them. This is no longer your grandpa's SEC.

SEC should catch up with B1G in the next 30 years in academics.

Michigan is a better school academically than Florida and Ohio State is a much better school than LSU. You are completely wrong here.

It was true in year 2000. But things changed drastically in the past 15 years. New money are flowing into the south and out of north. LSU and Texas A&M are the most beneficiary from the oil money in the Gulf.

(08-10-2015 12:20 PM)ken d Wrote:  You raise a point I'm not sure I've ever seen addressed. I haven't read the CFP contract in detail (at all, actually). I'm not sure who has, since I doubt it's subject to FOIA requests. Are we 100% sure that the CFP has no contractual out available in the event one of the P5 conferences suffers a major hit to its membership? What if the Big 12 lost five members, and had to backfill with a bunch of G5 schools? Would the CFP be bound to give them the same deal the current B12 has?

My hunch is that the Big 12 gets the Sugar Bowl for the duration of the contract, regardless of its membership. So, the Big 12 leftovers would have a safety valve for up to the next decade. Remember, the realigned Big East remained a BCS conference for the BCS' duration, even after realignment.

Of course, the other autonomy conferences and the CFP bowls could decide to restructure/replace the existing CFP deal with an 8-team playoff and a revised contract that could effectively lock the Big 12 out more quickly.

(08-10-2015 01:17 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-10-2015 12:20 PM)ken d Wrote:  You raise a point I'm not sure I've ever seen addressed. I haven't read the CFP contract in detail (at all, actually). I'm not sure who has, since I doubt it's subject to FOIA requests. Are we 100% sure that the CFP has no contractual out available in the event one of the P5 conferences suffers a major hit to its membership? What if the Big 12 lost five members, and had to backfill with a bunch of G5 schools? Would the CFP be bound to give them the same deal the current B12 has?

My hunch is that the Big 12 gets the Sugar Bowl for the duration of the contract, regardless of its membership. So, the Big 12 leftovers would have a safety valve for up to the next decade. Remember, the realigned Big East remained a BCS conference for the BCS' duration, even after realignment.

Of course, the other autonomy conferences and the CFP bowls could decide to restructure/replace the existing CFP deal with an 8-team playoff and a revised contract that could effectively lock the Big 12 out more quickly.

IIRC, that was for a much shorter time than the CFP would have to keep a gutted Big 12 in the picture. It was easier, politically and every other way, to just let the BCS structure come to an orderly end than risk ugly legal battles.

Depending on who is left, the SEC might prefer letting the rump Big 12 have one of 8 spots in an expanded playoff than a permanent spot as their opponent in the Sugar Bowl.

(08-10-2015 12:20 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-10-2015 10:13 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-10-2015 09:53 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-07-2015 10:57 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  If OU and KU went B1G and Texas went ACC, the rest of the Big 12 may really have a problem getting a spot in any of the remaining P4 conferences.

I'm not sure the SEC takes any of them. The biggest question I have is whether the SEC sees itself as a 16 team conference or would go bigger. The SEC wants to expand into Virginia and North Carolina if possible, and if the SEC thinks 16 is the max, then they will take no one and wait to see what happens when the ACC's GOR expires.

The PAC needs more teams, and I could see them taking TTech because it's so close to Arizona and is an engineering school with a fairly good academic reputation. But who goes with them? OSU is the little brother team in a small state and has mediocre academics - not really PAC material. KSU is the same, except the Kansas has a larger population. ISU is an AAU school and its academics and athletics would be attractive to the PAC, but it would be somewhat of a geographic outlier. Maybe TTech and ISU to the PAC because the PAC wouldn't have many other options.

The ACC has 14 teams now and if Texas went there as an independent, with and ND type deal, the ACC may not want to add anyone else either. They may want to reserve the 15th and 16th spots for ND and Texas hoping they join full-time. The ACC seems to me less likely than the B1G or SEC to go beyond 16 teams because it has the lowest media revenues. Dividing the small pot among more teams just exacerbates the gap between the ACC's per team revenue and the per team revenue of SEC and B1G teams.

I think the result is that the leftover Big 12 teams backfill with BYU, Houston or other teams and try to survive as a lesser conference.

Other than the question of whether the PAC needs to expand, it's hard to argue with your main points here. I see the present situation much like a game of musical chairs. With five major conferences, everybody is jockeying to be sure they get one of the four chairs in the CFP when the music stops.

With OU and Texas out of the B12, the other four conferences are going to be a lot less worried about that most of the time. So, unless another specific Big 12 school has some special appeal to one of those four, I think the P4 would be content to leave the Big 12 as the strongest G6, and most likely to produce an access bowl team.

Frankly, once OU leaves the B12, I'm not even sure anybody feels a need to give Texas a sweetheart deal. Sometimes I think we give Texas too much credit. They may be rich, and they may be more of a national brand than a lot of schools, but I don't think they pull nearly as many eyeballs outside of Texas as Notre Dame does. I'd even bet Ohio State and Alabama do as well as UT outside their respective markets.

If it weren't for their ego and their (unjustified) academic snobbery, I think Texas would see that the SEC is a much better home for them than the ACC. I'm just not sure the SEC wants or needs any part of UT.

Let me play devil's advocate a bit here. Let's say only Texas, OU and KU leave the XII.

That means the XII is still viable and with the CFP locked in pace for the next 11 seasons, it means the XII is still technically a "Power" conference, getting the same CFP payout as the other four and the same auto-bid to the NY6 bowls as the other four. (even though their media deal payout might sink lower per school than the ACC)


Texas and OU haven't been serious contenders for the national championship in a few years. Last year it was TCU and Baylor. I don't think that's going to change.

Both could be title contenders again this year.


So that means someone is going to get skunked again for one of the four CFP slots. Maybe it will always be the XII, because of no CCG. But then again ... is it worth the risk?

Or would the other four conferences feel safer if they just dismantled the XII?

You raise a point I'm not sure I've ever seen addressed. I haven't read the CFP contract in detail (at all, actually). I'm not sure who has, since I doubt it's subject to FOIA requests. Are we 100% sure that the CFP has no contractual out available in the event one of the P5 conferences suffers a major hit to its membership? What if the Big 12 lost five members, and had to backfill with a bunch of G5 schools? Would the CFP be bound to give them the same deal the current B12 has?

I don't have a factual answer for you.

I can only tell you my hunch, which is that the only out would be if the conference dissolved.

After all, think about it like this: where does the CFP derive its value? The teams. Well, just because the conferences realign does not mean the teams evaporate into thin air. We're likely going to see the same elite programs in the playoff, regardless of the patch they wear on their uniforms for the conference. So if the teams stay the same, the value to the networks stays the same and thus the money should remain the same in the deal.

Then it's just a matter of how to distribute that money to the conferences. Of course, that was an integral part of the CFP deal itself.

And so, I think the only way they could change the money disbursements is if they re-do the entire deal.

That just won't happen.

(08-10-2015 01:17 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-10-2015 12:20 PM)ken d Wrote:  You raise a point I'm not sure I've ever seen addressed. I haven't read the CFP contract in detail (at all, actually). I'm not sure who has, since I doubt it's subject to FOIA requests. Are we 100% sure that the CFP has no contractual out available in the event one of the P5 conferences suffers a major hit to its membership? What if the Big 12 lost five members, and had to backfill with a bunch of G5 schools? Would the CFP be bound to give them the same deal the current B12 has?

My hunch is that the Big 12 gets the Sugar Bowl for the duration of the contract, regardless of its membership. So, the Big 12 leftovers would have a safety valve for up to the next decade. Remember, the realigned Big East remained a BCS conference for the BCS' duration, even after realignment.

Of course, the other autonomy conferences and the CFP bowls could decide to restructure/replace the existing CFP deal with an 8-team playoff and a revised contract that could effectively lock the Big 12 out more quickly.

And pigs could fly, if we give them mechanical wings.

CFP is not going to be redone. The effort it would take is far too exhaustive.

They're just going to wait until the negotiations start for CFP II.


Maybe then, they'll consider an expansion of the playoff. But you've got 11 more seasons of this.

(08-10-2015 01:27 PM)ken d Wrote:  IIRC, that was for a much shorter time than the CFP would have to keep a gutted Big 12 in the picture.

The media contract is through to 2025. That's a similar time line for the Big12 GOR, and any gutting of the Big12 is not going to be many years from the end of the GOR, because of the impaired media value until the GOR expires. If its 3-4 years, it seems like it would be too much trouble to try to renegotiate the CFP contract as opposed to just looking ahead to negotiating the new one.

The issue would not be the CFP contract. It guarantees nothing to any conference. It is the Sugar Bowl contract that is the question.

(08-10-2015 12:35 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(08-07-2015 10:57 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  If OU and KU went B1G and Texas went ACC, the rest of the Big 12 may really have a problem getting a spot in any of the remaining P4 conferences. I'm not sure the SEC takes any of them.

I can envision the SEC taking WVU and Okie State. Not claiming they definitely, positively would, but it's not a stretch. Both very strong on the field and at the gate. OSU in particular has buckets of money.

Now the remaining 5 after that (TT, TCU, Baylor, KSU, ISU)... yes they would be in a very tight spot.

Quote:The PAC needs more teams

Hmmm...

Quote:OSU is the little brother team in a small state and has mediocre academics - not really PAC material. KSU is the same, except the Kansas has a larger population.

If you're talking in terms of overall, statewide population, Oklahoma has more people than Kansas.

Quote:The ACC has 14 teams now and if Texas went there as an independent, with an ND type deal, the ACC may not want to add anyone else either.

Agreed.

(08-09-2015 12:55 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  New Mexico, Hawaii, Colorado State, UTEP, UTSA, Montana, Montana State, North Dakota, North Dakota State, Idaho, south Dakota and South Dakota State are close or at with PAC 12 schools academics wise along with the PAC 12.

That is one of the weirdest comments posted here since... since the last time DavidSt posted here.

Quote:I could see a New Mexico and Texas Tech as a pair, or Texas Tech and UTSA as a pair.

To the PAC-12? smh...

Montana and Idaho were part of the same conference with some of the PAC 12. It was a fight that the California schools were screaming that the Oregon and Washington schools of cheating, and the conference fell apart. They slowly put grudges aside, and reform the PAC 8. Idaho and Montana could have rejoin then, but they decided against it after what happened after all the turmoil took place before. Can you blamed Idaho and Montana turned down the invites back then to restart a new conference? Washington State, Oregon State, Utah and a couple of others are similar as Okie State, Kansas State, TCU, Baylor, Texas Tech, and the schools that I have mentioned.

(08-10-2015 08:53 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-10-2015 01:27 PM)ken d Wrote:  IIRC, that was for a much shorter time than the CFP would have to keep a gutted Big 12 in the picture.

The media contract is through to 2025. That's a similar time line for the Big12 GOR, and any gutting of the Big12 is not going to be many years from the end of the GOR, because of the impaired media value until the GOR expires. If its 3-4 years, it seems like it would be too much trouble to try to renegotiate the CFP contract as opposed to just looking ahead to negotiating the new one.

Correct.

(08-10-2015 10:34 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  The issue would not be the CFP contract. It guarantees nothing to any conference. It is the Sugar Bowl contract that is the question.

The CFP guarantees nothing to the XII ... except an automatic slot in one of the NY6 bowls and a large base payout, which may be increased per bowl participation.

For the next 11 seasons.


The Sugar Bowl tie-in contract probably has an exit clause that they can exercise at any time, should the media value of the XII conference members drop significantly.

(08-11-2015 08:58 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-10-2015 08:53 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-10-2015 01:27 PM)ken d Wrote:  IIRC, that was for a much shorter time than the CFP would have to keep a gutted Big 12 in the picture.

The media contract is through to 2025. That's a similar time line for the Big12 GOR, and any gutting of the Big12 is not going to be many years from the end of the GOR, because of the impaired media value until the GOR expires. If its 3-4 years, it seems like it would be too much trouble to try to renegotiate the CFP contract as opposed to just looking ahead to negotiating the new one.

Correct.

I would define "gutting of the Big 12" to be the loss of UT, OU and Kansas. The question of how that relates to the Big 12 GoR requires specific knowledge of the media contracts with ABC/ESPN and Fox, which nobody has. If those three schools left in the next couple of years, and if the media contracts allow the networks to cancel their contract because of those departures, then I believe there is enough time that the CFP contract could/would be revisited.

The problem is that nobody outside the conference and those networks know what kind of bailout provisions the networks may have negotiated, and they aren't talking. I strongly suspect that there is a specific confidentiality clause preventing them from disclosing the details of those contracts.

(08-11-2015 02:23 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-11-2015 08:58 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-10-2015 08:53 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-10-2015 01:27 PM)ken d Wrote:  IIRC, that was for a much shorter time than the CFP would have to keep a gutted Big 12 in the picture.

The media contract is through to 2025. That's a similar time line for the Big12 GOR, and any gutting of the Big12 is not going to be many years from the end of the GOR, because of the impaired media value until the GOR expires. If its 3-4 years, it seems like it would be too much trouble to try to renegotiate the CFP contract as opposed to just looking ahead to negotiating the new one.

Correct.

I would define "gutting of the Big 12" to be the loss of UT, OU and Kansas. The question of how that relates to the Big 12 GoR requires specific knowledge of the media contracts with ABC/ESPN and Fox, which nobody has. If those three schools left in the next couple of years, and if the media contracts allow the networks to cancel their contract because of those departures, then I believe there is enough time that the CFP contract could/would be revisited.

The problem is that nobody outside the conference and those networks know what kind of bailout provisions the networks may have negotiated, and they aren't talking. I strongly suspect that there is a specific confidentiality clause preventing them from disclosing the details of those contracts.

First of all, there is a huge different between "could" and "would" when it comes to revisiting the CFP. Perhaps certain events enable the contract to be revisited.

That doesn't mean they'll take the colossal time and effort to essentially start over from scratch on the current CFP, then have to do that all over again in a few years for CFP II. And it sets a precedent of having to re-do the deal all over again for every little change. They won't want that.


Second of all, the XII media deal derives its value solely from the teams in the XII conference -- which could change. The CFP derives its value from the elite P5 programs and to a lesser extent the total P5 programs -- which isn't changing, even if the top XII teams leave for another P conference.

Thus, just because the XII media deal changes, does not imply the CFP media deal should change.