Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Time, Monetary Disparity, Pressure, and No Brokering Equals Unexpected Consequences
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1
Time, Monetary Disparity, Pressure, and No Brokering Equals Unexpected Consequences
Allow the coming economic disparity between the SEC / Big 10 and the Big 12 and ACC continue for just 5 or 6 years and the whole prospect for realignment will dramatically change and for the better for the SEC and Big 10 and the unintended consequences of not brokering out moves, and for sticking with current GOR's will have dramatic consequences for the best of the G5 schools, some of the private schools in P5 conferences now, and for some of the last FBS schools that got into the P5 and some that were already in it. Why?

5 or 6 years will make the breaking of most of the GOR's economically viable. Which means that networks won't have to pay for duplicate schools that need to attach themselves to larger more brand recognizable schools, and they won't have to pay for small alumni based privates either, and they won't have to worry about G5 Schools being added to the P ranks. In fact the whole P4 structure will quit talking about 64 schools and will be talking instead about 54.

The failure to broker out moves from the Big 12 now means that the ACC is actually going to be much more vulnerable in 5 or 6 years, as well. It means that Baylor, T.C.U., West Virginia, Louisville, Syracuse, Pitt, Boston College, Wake Forest and Miami are all also vulnerable to varying degrees of getting left behind in a move to 54 schools, instead of 64.

Think in terms of Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Kansas State to the PAC; Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Florida State and Clemson to the SEC; North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia Tech, and Notre Dame to the Big 10.

No B.Y.U., no Cincinnati, no Duke, no Wake Forest, etc. etc. etc.

How? Won't there be lawsuits? Will it be the end of college football as we know it?

As to the last 2 questions, no and no. The separation will be over expenditures. With Big 10 and SEC schools paying out full cost scholarships (and the Big 10 will) and with privates having a tough time doing so (except Stanford, Notre Dame, and the other larger privates), and with the growing gap in money earned to spend on such, there will be a natural drop off of those wanting the upper tier. Time therefore becomes the ally of separation, less overhead, and better content. A P3 could well emerge with 18 schools each. It will be more profitable for those who stay the course, will provide some room for those who want to be there, and the necessary monetary facts for those who don't wish to be a part of it to exit with some political cover.

So the time has passed for this year's movement to happen. We wait. And each year we do wait the better it will be for the networks, those who want the upper tier, and the more difficult it will grow for others to remain.
08-17-2015 07:20 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


XLance Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,231
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #2
RE: Time, Monetary Disparity, Pressure, and No Brokering Equals Unexpected Consequences
Texas by being stubborn (again) has now placed the onus on the SEC.
08-17-2015 07:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #3
RE: Time, Monetary Disparity, Pressure, and No Brokering Equals Unexpected Consequences
(08-17-2015 07:29 AM)XLance Wrote:  Texas by being stubborn (again) has now placed the onus on the SEC.

Eh, the SEC doesn't have to expand just yet. I think it's time to sit back and let nature take its course. Face it XLance, Carolina screwed up the first time around, and now is potentially damaged goods.

Texas is just being smart. I don't think your ACC is as stable as many believe it to be. 5 years will separate a lot of wheat from an even larger amount of chaff. Texas and Oklahoma can afford to wait, especially if by doing so it frees them from little brothers.
08-17-2015 12:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #4
RE: Time, Monetary Disparity, Pressure, and No Brokering Equals Unexpected Consequences
(08-17-2015 07:20 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Allow the coming economic disparity between the SEC / Big 10 and the Big 12 and ACC continue for just 5 or 6 years and the whole prospect for realignment will dramatically change and for the better for the SEC and Big 10 and the unintended consequences of not brokering out moves, and for sticking with current GOR's will have dramatic consequences for the best of the G5 schools, some of the private schools in P5 conferences now, and for some of the last FBS schools that got into the P5 and some that were already in it. Why?

5 or 6 years will make the breaking of most of the GOR's economically viable. Which means that networks won't have to pay for duplicate schools that need to attach themselves to larger more brand recognizable schools, and they won't have to pay for small alumni based privates either, and they won't have to worry about G5 Schools being added to the P ranks. In fact the whole P4 structure will quit talking about 64 schools and will be talking instead about 54.

The failure to broker out moves from the Big 12 now means that the ACC is actually going to be much more vulnerable in 5 or 6 years, as well. It means that Baylor, T.C.U., West Virginia, Louisville, Syracuse, Pitt, Boston College, Wake Forest and Miami are all also vulnerable to varying degrees of getting left behind in a move to 54 schools, instead of 64.

Think in terms of Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Kansas State to the PAC; Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Florida State and Clemson to the SEC; North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia Tech, and Notre Dame to the Big 10.

No B.Y.U., no Cincinnati, no Duke, no Wake Forest, etc. etc. etc.

How? Won't there be lawsuits? Will it be the end of college football as we know it?

As to the last 2 questions, no and no. The separation will be over expenditures. With Big 10 and SEC schools paying out full cost scholarships (and the Big 10 will) and with privates having a tough time doing so (except Stanford, Notre Dame, and the other larger privates), and with the growing gap in money earned to spend on such, there will be a natural drop off of those wanting the upper tier. Time therefore becomes the ally of separation, less overhead, and better content. A P3 could well emerge with 18 schools each. It will be more profitable for those who stay the course, will provide some room for those who want to be there, and the necessary monetary facts for those who don't wish to be a part of it to exit with some political cover.

So the time has passed for this year's movement to happen. We wait. And each year we do wait the better it will be for the networks, those who want the upper tier, and the more difficult it will grow for others to remain.

My first concern is always the SEC and so all my questions end up leading back to what the conference will do, can do, and would not do.

If the league is amenable to 18 then it makes sense they are amenable to 20.

So I would propose under this scenario that the SEC take a long hard look at not just the 4 you mentioned but Georgia Tech and Pitt(who have apparently made a renewed commitment to their athletic department) as well. That's 2 more AAU schools, another good market, and a defensive move to keep the B1G from moving too far South.

I also expect the Big Ten to move to 20...perhaps UVA, UNC, Duke, Notre Dame, UConn, and BC.

I can see the PAC grabbing the schools you mentioned as they are tied together in a manner of speaking. I wonder if the PAC might consider Iowa St and a school like UNLV?

I could see a best of the rest league forming with the potential to have Power status. I think it behooves the leagues not to kick anyone out if it's unnecessary.

BYU, TCU, Baylor, Houston, Tulane, Cincinnati, West Virginia, Miami, UCF, ECU, Wake, and Syracuse. Maybe a few more get in in the future.

This league wouldn't make nearly as much money and functions essentially as the old Big East did for many years. Nonetheless, the number of allies for the Power group is not diminished.
08-17-2015 02:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #5
RE: Time, Monetary Disparity, Pressure, and No Brokering Equals Unexpected Consequences
(08-17-2015 02:46 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(08-17-2015 07:20 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Allow the coming economic disparity between the SEC / Big 10 and the Big 12 and ACC continue for just 5 or 6 years and the whole prospect for realignment will dramatically change and for the better for the SEC and Big 10 and the unintended consequences of not brokering out moves, and for sticking with current GOR's will have dramatic consequences for the best of the G5 schools, some of the private schools in P5 conferences now, and for some of the last FBS schools that got into the P5 and some that were already in it. Why?

5 or 6 years will make the breaking of most of the GOR's economically viable. Which means that networks won't have to pay for duplicate schools that need to attach themselves to larger more brand recognizable schools, and they won't have to pay for small alumni based privates either, and they won't have to worry about G5 Schools being added to the P ranks. In fact the whole P4 structure will quit talking about 64 schools and will be talking instead about 54.

The failure to broker out moves from the Big 12 now means that the ACC is actually going to be much more vulnerable in 5 or 6 years, as well. It means that Baylor, T.C.U., West Virginia, Louisville, Syracuse, Pitt, Boston College, Wake Forest and Miami are all also vulnerable to varying degrees of getting left behind in a move to 54 schools, instead of 64.

Think in terms of Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Kansas State to the PAC; Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Florida State and Clemson to the SEC; North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia Tech, and Notre Dame to the Big 10.

No B.Y.U., no Cincinnati, no Duke, no Wake Forest, etc. etc. etc.

How? Won't there be lawsuits? Will it be the end of college football as we know it?

As to the last 2 questions, no and no. The separation will be over expenditures. With Big 10 and SEC schools paying out full cost scholarships (and the Big 10 will) and with privates having a tough time doing so (except Stanford, Notre Dame, and the other larger privates), and with the growing gap in money earned to spend on such, there will be a natural drop off of those wanting the upper tier. Time therefore becomes the ally of separation, less overhead, and better content. A P3 could well emerge with 18 schools each. It will be more profitable for those who stay the course, will provide some room for those who want to be there, and the necessary monetary facts for those who don't wish to be a part of it to exit with some political cover.

So the time has passed for this year's movement to happen. We wait. And each year we do wait the better it will be for the networks, those who want the upper tier, and the more difficult it will grow for others to remain.

My first concern is always the SEC and so all my questions end up leading back to what the conference will do, can do, and would not do.

If the league is amenable to 18 then it makes sense they are amenable to 20.

So I would propose under this scenario that the SEC take a long hard look at not just the 4 you mentioned but Georgia Tech and Pitt(who have apparently made a renewed commitment to their athletic department) as well. That's 2 more AAU schools, another good market, and a defensive move to keep the B1G from moving too far South.

I also expect the Big Ten to move to 20...perhaps UVA, UNC, Duke, Notre Dame, UConn, and BC.

I can see the PAC grabbing the schools you mentioned as they are tied together in a manner of speaking. I wonder if the PAC might consider Iowa St and a school like UNLV?

I could see a best of the rest league forming with the potential to have Power status. I think it behooves the leagues not to kick anyone out if it's unnecessary.

BYU, TCU, Baylor, Houston, Tulane, Cincinnati, West Virginia, Miami, UCF, ECU, Wake, and Syracuse. Maybe a few more get in in the future.

This league wouldn't make nearly as much money and functions essentially as the old Big East did for many years. Nonetheless, the number of allies for the Power group is not diminished.

I think the point is that by waiting it out we don't any of us have to take or compromise on anyone who on their own couldn't get in. Swaim is saying tonight though that OU and OSU talk to the SEC is heating up. I think it is going to set in on some of the Baylor's and K'State's of the the world that waiting for movement is definitely not in their best interest. We'll see.

But back to the point. If we move to a P3 of 18 each nobody takes anybody but who they want.
08-17-2015 08:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CintiFan Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 386
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 45
I Root For: Ohio St./ Cinti
Location:
Post: #6
RE: Time, Monetary Disparity, Pressure, and No Brokering
(08-17-2015 07:20 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Think in terms of Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Iowa State [Kansas], and Kansas State to the PAC; Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Florida State and Clemson to the SEC; North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia Tech,
Duke, Kansas and Notre Dame to the Big 10.

[/b]

fify
08-17-2015 10:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


hawghiggs Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,792
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 124
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #7
RE: Time, Monetary Disparity, Pressure, and No Brokering Equals Unexpected Consequences
Several things will soon happen. I'm making a list of moves that I believe will happen.

1, Oklahoma and Oklahoma state move to the SEC.

2, Texas joins the ACC but keeps football independent. Gets the same deal as Notre Dame.

3, The ACC gets a network.

4, Kansas and UCONN move to the Big10.

5, Big 12 holds together by adding Colorado state, Houston, New Mexico, SMU, Tulsa, and Wyoming.
08-17-2015 10:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jhawkmvp Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 443
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 35
I Root For: Kansas
Location: Over the Rainbow
Post: #8
RE: Time, Monetary Disparity, Pressure, and No Brokering Equals Unexpected Consequences
I see this a lot, but Texas will not join the ACC in a ND deal without regional partners. It would be a lot more travel for them and they want to dominate TX. It's not going to happen alone. Dodds said in one of his YT vids before they would not want to be in WVU's shoes on an island and that's what going alone to the ACC on ND deal would do. Dodds is gone now, but he had his finger on the pulse of the big cigars at UT. I am pretty open to a lot of things that could happen in realignment. But that is the one thing I am pretty certain of.

(08-17-2015 08:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Swaim is saying tonight though that OU and OSU talk to the SEC is heating up.

The next time Swaim is right is the first time. Guy is a miserable realignment source on the level of the Dude or MHV3. For entertainment purposes only.
08-18-2015 02:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #9
RE: Time, Monetary Disparity, Pressure, and No Brokering Equals Unexpected Consequences
(08-18-2015 02:27 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  I see this a lot, but Texas will not join the ACC in a ND deal without regional partners. It would be a lot more travel for them and they want to dominate TX. It's not going to happen alone. Dodds said in one of his YT vids before they would not want to be in WVU's shoes on an island and that's what going alone to the ACC on ND deal would do. Dodds is gone now, but he had his finger on the pulse of the big cigars at UT. I am pretty open to a lot of things that could happen in realignment. But that is the one thing I am pretty certain of.

(08-17-2015 08:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Swaim is saying tonight though that OU and OSU talk to the SEC is heating up.

The next time Swaim is right is the first time. Guy is a miserable realignment source on the level of the Dude or MHV3. For entertainment purposes only.

I know that, but he is good for baiting conversation.
08-18-2015 07:12 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #10
RE: Time, Monetary Disparity, Pressure, and No Brokering Equals Unexpected Consequences
(08-17-2015 10:46 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  
(08-17-2015 07:20 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Think in terms of Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Iowa State [Kansas], and Kansas State to the PAC; Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Florida State and Clemson to the SEC; North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia Tech,
Duke, Kansas and Notre Dame to the Big 10.

[/b]

fify

No you didn't fix anything. With the other targets available Kansas doesn't add enough and there would be no need to take Duke. You missed the whole point. The closer we get to the end of GOR's the less need there will be to compromise on tag-a-longs. Duke is a tag-a-long. Sure they are one with great basketball and impeccable academics, but as far as economic impact upon the Big 10 with Carolina already in tow, they aren't that profitable. And don't bother to give me the CIC angle as it really doesn't add to the payouts of any particular school. But it does help to pool disciplines to land grants. Basketball is probably more coach driven than football. When an aged coach K leaves where will Duke be?
08-18-2015 07:18 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #11
RE: Time, Monetary Disparity, Pressure, and No Brokering Equals Unexpected Consequences
(08-17-2015 02:46 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(08-17-2015 07:20 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Allow the coming economic disparity between the SEC / Big 10 and the Big 12 and ACC continue for just 5 or 6 years and the whole prospect for realignment will dramatically change and for the better for the SEC and Big 10 and the unintended consequences of not brokering out moves, and for sticking with current GOR's will have dramatic consequences for the best of the G5 schools, some of the private schools in P5 conferences now, and for some of the last FBS schools that got into the P5 and some that were already in it. Why?

5 or 6 years will make the breaking of most of the GOR's economically viable. Which means that networks won't have to pay for duplicate schools that need to attach themselves to larger more brand recognizable schools, and they won't have to pay for small alumni based privates either, and they won't have to worry about G5 Schools being added to the P ranks. In fact the whole P4 structure will quit talking about 64 schools and will be talking instead about 54.

The failure to broker out moves from the Big 12 now means that the ACC is actually going to be much more vulnerable in 5 or 6 years, as well. It means that Baylor, T.C.U., West Virginia, Louisville, Syracuse, Pitt, Boston College, Wake Forest and Miami are all also vulnerable to varying degrees of getting left behind in a move to 54 schools, instead of 64.

Think in terms of Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Kansas State to the PAC; Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Florida State and Clemson to the SEC; North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia Tech, and Notre Dame to the Big 10.

No B.Y.U., no Cincinnati, no Duke, no Wake Forest, etc. etc. etc.

How? Won't there be lawsuits? Will it be the end of college football as we know it?

As to the last 2 questions, no and no. The separation will be over expenditures. With Big 10 and SEC schools paying out full cost scholarships (and the Big 10 will) and with privates having a tough time doing so (except Stanford, Notre Dame, and the other larger privates), and with the growing gap in money earned to spend on such, there will be a natural drop off of those wanting the upper tier. Time therefore becomes the ally of separation, less overhead, and better content. A P3 could well emerge with 18 schools each. It will be more profitable for those who stay the course, will provide some room for those who want to be there, and the necessary monetary facts for those who don't wish to be a part of it to exit with some political cover.

So the time has passed for this year's movement to happen. We wait. And each year we do wait the better it will be for the networks, those who want the upper tier, and the more difficult it will grow for others to remain.

My first concern is always the SEC and so all my questions end up leading back to what the conference will do, can do, and would not do.

If the league is amenable to 18 then it makes sense they are amenable to 20.

So I would propose under this scenario that the SEC take a long hard look at not just the 4 you mentioned but Georgia Tech and Pitt(who have apparently made a renewed commitment to their athletic department) as well. That's 2 more AAU schools, another good market, and a defensive move to keep the B1G from moving too far South.

I also expect the Big Ten to move to 20...perhaps UVA, UNC, Duke, Notre Dame, UConn, and BC.

I can see the PAC grabbing the schools you mentioned as they are tied together in a manner of speaking. I wonder if the PAC might consider Iowa St and a school like UNLV?

I could see a best of the rest league forming with the potential to have Power status. I think it behooves the leagues not to kick anyone out if it's unnecessary.

BYU, TCU, Baylor, Houston, Tulane, Cincinnati, West Virginia, Miami, UCF, ECU, Wake, and Syracuse. Maybe a few more get in in the future.

This league wouldn't make nearly as much money and functions essentially as the old Big East did for many years. Nonetheless, the number of allies for the Power group is not diminished.

Yeah, sure, act overly defensive in an aggressive manner and see what happens when you try to pass anything through Autonomy.

You guys just don't get it when you think these entities are being standoffish with each other. If they were, then they would not have created the Autonomy Council together.
08-18-2015 07:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #12
RE: Time, Monetary Disparity, Pressure, and No Brokering Equals Unexpected Consequences
(08-18-2015 07:51 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(08-17-2015 02:46 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(08-17-2015 07:20 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Allow the coming economic disparity between the SEC / Big 10 and the Big 12 and ACC continue for just 5 or 6 years and the whole prospect for realignment will dramatically change and for the better for the SEC and Big 10 and the unintended consequences of not brokering out moves, and for sticking with current GOR's will have dramatic consequences for the best of the G5 schools, some of the private schools in P5 conferences now, and for some of the last FBS schools that got into the P5 and some that were already in it. Why?

5 or 6 years will make the breaking of most of the GOR's economically viable. Which means that networks won't have to pay for duplicate schools that need to attach themselves to larger more brand recognizable schools, and they won't have to pay for small alumni based privates either, and they won't have to worry about G5 Schools being added to the P ranks. In fact the whole P4 structure will quit talking about 64 schools and will be talking instead about 54.

The failure to broker out moves from the Big 12 now means that the ACC is actually going to be much more vulnerable in 5 or 6 years, as well. It means that Baylor, T.C.U., West Virginia, Louisville, Syracuse, Pitt, Boston College, Wake Forest and Miami are all also vulnerable to varying degrees of getting left behind in a move to 54 schools, instead of 64.

Think in terms of Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Kansas State to the PAC; Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Florida State and Clemson to the SEC; North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia Tech, and Notre Dame to the Big 10.

No B.Y.U., no Cincinnati, no Duke, no Wake Forest, etc. etc. etc.

How? Won't there be lawsuits? Will it be the end of college football as we know it?

As to the last 2 questions, no and no. The separation will be over expenditures. With Big 10 and SEC schools paying out full cost scholarships (and the Big 10 will) and with privates having a tough time doing so (except Stanford, Notre Dame, and the other larger privates), and with the growing gap in money earned to spend on such, there will be a natural drop off of those wanting the upper tier. Time therefore becomes the ally of separation, less overhead, and better content. A P3 could well emerge with 18 schools each. It will be more profitable for those who stay the course, will provide some room for those who want to be there, and the necessary monetary facts for those who don't wish to be a part of it to exit with some political cover.

So the time has passed for this year's movement to happen. We wait. And each year we do wait the better it will be for the networks, those who want the upper tier, and the more difficult it will grow for others to remain.

My first concern is always the SEC and so all my questions end up leading back to what the conference will do, can do, and would not do.

If the league is amenable to 18 then it makes sense they are amenable to 20.

So I would propose under this scenario that the SEC take a long hard look at not just the 4 you mentioned but Georgia Tech and Pitt(who have apparently made a renewed commitment to their athletic department) as well. That's 2 more AAU schools, another good market, and a defensive move to keep the B1G from moving too far South.

I also expect the Big Ten to move to 20...perhaps UVA, UNC, Duke, Notre Dame, UConn, and BC.

I can see the PAC grabbing the schools you mentioned as they are tied together in a manner of speaking. I wonder if the PAC might consider Iowa St and a school like UNLV?

I could see a best of the rest league forming with the potential to have Power status. I think it behooves the leagues not to kick anyone out if it's unnecessary.

BYU, TCU, Baylor, Houston, Tulane, Cincinnati, West Virginia, Miami, UCF, ECU, Wake, and Syracuse. Maybe a few more get in in the future.

This league wouldn't make nearly as much money and functions essentially as the old Big East did for many years. Nonetheless, the number of allies for the Power group is not diminished.

Yeah, sure, act overly defensive in an aggressive manner and see what happens when you try to pass anything through Autonomy.

You guys just don't get it when you think these entities are being standoffish with each other. If they were, then they would not have created the Autonomy Council together.

Eh, I think there's a difference between overly defensive and strategic.

I think Pitt would rather go to the Big Ten, but that league doesn't appear to be interested. GT in the SEC? Not saying it would happen, but there's a long history there, rivals, and travel concerns that would make that move more intriguing for them compared to the B1G. The difference is that the SEC needs AAU schools so I think they would probably lean in that direction if they can get one. The B1G would be no worse off without GT.

I do think there is a measure of cooperation between the major leagues which is why I don't think too many schools will be left out if any.
08-18-2015 10:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Transic_nyc Online
1st String
*

Posts: 2,401
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 194
I Root For: Return To Stability
Location:
Post: #13
RE: Time, Monetary Disparity, Pressure...
(08-17-2015 07:20 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Allow the coming economic disparity between the SEC / Big 10 and the Big 12 and ACC continue for just 5 or 6 years and the whole prospect for realignment will dramatically change and for the better for the SEC and Big 10 and the unintended consequences of not brokering out moves, and for sticking with current GOR's will have dramatic consequences for the best of the G5 schools, some of the private schools in P5 conferences now, and for some of the last FBS schools that got into the P5 and some that were already in it. Why?

5 or 6 years will make the breaking of most of the GOR's economically viable. Which means that networks won't have to pay for duplicate schools that need to attach themselves to larger more brand recognizable schools, and they won't have to pay for small alumni based privates either, and they won't have to worry about G5 Schools being added to the P ranks. In fact the whole P4 structure will quit talking about 64 schools and will be talking instead about 54.

The failure to broker out moves from the Big 12 now means that the ACC is actually going to be much more vulnerable in 5 or 6 years, as well. It means that Baylor, T.C.U., West Virginia, Louisville, Syracuse, Pitt, Boston College, Wake Forest and Miami are all also vulnerable to varying degrees of getting left behind in a move to 54 schools, instead of 64.

Think in terms of Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Kansas State to the PAC; Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Florida State and Clemson to the SEC; North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia Tech, and Notre Dame to the Big 10.

No B.Y.U., no Cincinnati, no Duke, no Wake Forest, etc. etc. etc.

How? Won't there be lawsuits? Will it be the end of college football as we know it?

As to the last 2 questions, no and no. The separation will be over expenditures. With Big 10 and SEC schools paying out full cost scholarships (and the Big 10 will) and with privates having a tough time doing so (except Stanford, Notre Dame, and the other larger privates), and with the growing gap in money earned to spend on such, there will be a natural drop off of those wanting the upper tier. Time therefore becomes the ally of separation, less overhead, and better content. A P3 could well emerge with 18 schools each. It will be more profitable for those who stay the course, will provide some room for those who want to be there, and the necessary monetary facts for those who don't wish to be a part of it to exit with some political cover.

So the time has passed for this year's movement to happen. We wait. And each year we do wait the better it will be for the networks, those who want the upper tier, and the more difficult it will grow for others to remain.

Notre Dame, Maryland, Penn State, Virginia, UNC, Georgia Tech
Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Rutgers, Indiana, Purdue
Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Northwestern, Illinois

Virginia Tech, NC State, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina
Florida State, Auburn, Bama, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky
Texas A&M, LSU, Missouri, Arkansas, Mississippi State, Ole Miss

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State
Utah, Colorado, Arizona State, Arizona, UCLA, USC
Stanford, Berkeley, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State

My best guess so far. Playoffs would have to expand to at least six to accommodate the additional programs.
08-18-2015 02:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #14
RE: Time, Monetary Disparity, Pressure, and No Brokering Equals Unexpected Consequences
(08-18-2015 02:34 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  
(08-17-2015 07:20 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Allow the coming economic disparity between the SEC / Big 10 and the Big 12 and ACC continue for just 5 or 6 years and the whole prospect for realignment will dramatically change and for the better for the SEC and Big 10 and the unintended consequences of not brokering out moves, and for sticking with current GOR's will have dramatic consequences for the best of the G5 schools, some of the private schools in P5 conferences now, and for some of the last FBS schools that got into the P5 and some that were already in it. Why?

5 or 6 years will make the breaking of most of the GOR's economically viable. Which means that networks won't have to pay for duplicate schools that need to attach themselves to larger more brand recognizable schools, and they won't have to pay for small alumni based privates either, and they won't have to worry about G5 Schools being added to the P ranks. In fact the whole P4 structure will quit talking about 64 schools and will be talking instead about 54.

The failure to broker out moves from the Big 12 now means that the ACC is actually going to be much more vulnerable in 5 or 6 years, as well. It means that Baylor, T.C.U., West Virginia, Louisville, Syracuse, Pitt, Boston College, Wake Forest and Miami are all also vulnerable to varying degrees of getting left behind in a move to 54 schools, instead of 64.

Think in terms of Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Kansas State to the PAC; Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Florida State and Clemson to the SEC; North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia Tech, and Notre Dame to the Big 10.

No B.Y.U., no Cincinnati, no Duke, no Wake Forest, etc. etc. etc.

How? Won't there be lawsuits? Will it be the end of college football as we know it?

As to the last 2 questions, no and no. The separation will be over expenditures. With Big 10 and SEC schools paying out full cost scholarships (and the Big 10 will) and with privates having a tough time doing so (except Stanford, Notre Dame, and the other larger privates), and with the growing gap in money earned to spend on such, there will be a natural drop off of those wanting the upper tier. Time therefore becomes the ally of separation, less overhead, and better content. A P3 could well emerge with 18 schools each. It will be more profitable for those who stay the course, will provide some room for those who want to be there, and the necessary monetary facts for those who don't wish to be a part of it to exit with some political cover.

So the time has passed for this year's movement to happen. We wait. And each year we do wait the better it will be for the networks, those who want the upper tier, and the more difficult it will grow for others to remain.

Notre Dame, Maryland, Penn State, Virginia, UNC, Georgia Tech
Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Rutgers, Indiana, Purdue
Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Northwestern, Illinois

Virginia Tech, NC State, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina
Florida State, Auburn, Bama, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky
Texas A&M, LSU, Missouri, Arkansas, Mississippi State, Ole Miss

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State
Utah, Colorado, Arizona State, Arizona, UCLA, USC
Stanford, Berkeley, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State

My best guess so far. Playoffs would have to expand to at least six to accommodate the additional programs.

I'm not so sure about expanded playoffs. I believe the networks would be quite happy with conference semi finals and 1 at large bid. That gives them some marketing flexibility which they seem to crave.
08-18-2015 02:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #15
RE: Time, Monetary Disparity, Pressure, and No Brokering Equals Unexpected Consequences
(08-18-2015 10:56 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(08-18-2015 07:51 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(08-17-2015 02:46 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(08-17-2015 07:20 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Allow the coming economic disparity between the SEC / Big 10 and the Big 12 and ACC continue for just 5 or 6 years and the whole prospect for realignment will dramatically change and for the better for the SEC and Big 10 and the unintended consequences of not brokering out moves, and for sticking with current GOR's will have dramatic consequences for the best of the G5 schools, some of the private schools in P5 conferences now, and for some of the last FBS schools that got into the P5 and some that were already in it. Why?

5 or 6 years will make the breaking of most of the GOR's economically viable. Which means that networks won't have to pay for duplicate schools that need to attach themselves to larger more brand recognizable schools, and they won't have to pay for small alumni based privates either, and they won't have to worry about G5 Schools being added to the P ranks. In fact the whole P4 structure will quit talking about 64 schools and will be talking instead about 54.

The failure to broker out moves from the Big 12 now means that the ACC is actually going to be much more vulnerable in 5 or 6 years, as well. It means that Baylor, T.C.U., West Virginia, Louisville, Syracuse, Pitt, Boston College, Wake Forest and Miami are all also vulnerable to varying degrees of getting left behind in a move to 54 schools, instead of 64.

Think in terms of Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Kansas State to the PAC; Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Florida State and Clemson to the SEC; North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia Tech, and Notre Dame to the Big 10.

No B.Y.U., no Cincinnati, no Duke, no Wake Forest, etc. etc. etc.

How? Won't there be lawsuits? Will it be the end of college football as we know it?

As to the last 2 questions, no and no. The separation will be over expenditures. With Big 10 and SEC schools paying out full cost scholarships (and the Big 10 will) and with privates having a tough time doing so (except Stanford, Notre Dame, and the other larger privates), and with the growing gap in money earned to spend on such, there will be a natural drop off of those wanting the upper tier. Time therefore becomes the ally of separation, less overhead, and better content. A P3 could well emerge with 18 schools each. It will be more profitable for those who stay the course, will provide some room for those who want to be there, and the necessary monetary facts for those who don't wish to be a part of it to exit with some political cover.

So the time has passed for this year's movement to happen. We wait. And each year we do wait the better it will be for the networks, those who want the upper tier, and the more difficult it will grow for others to remain.

My first concern is always the SEC and so all my questions end up leading back to what the conference will do, can do, and would not do.

If the league is amenable to 18 then it makes sense they are amenable to 20.

So I would propose under this scenario that the SEC take a long hard look at not just the 4 you mentioned but Georgia Tech and Pitt(who have apparently made a renewed commitment to their athletic department) as well. That's 2 more AAU schools, another good market, and a defensive move to keep the B1G from moving too far South.

I also expect the Big Ten to move to 20...perhaps UVA, UNC, Duke, Notre Dame, UConn, and BC.

I can see the PAC grabbing the schools you mentioned as they are tied together in a manner of speaking. I wonder if the PAC might consider Iowa St and a school like UNLV?

I could see a best of the rest league forming with the potential to have Power status. I think it behooves the leagues not to kick anyone out if it's unnecessary.

BYU, TCU, Baylor, Houston, Tulane, Cincinnati, West Virginia, Miami, UCF, ECU, Wake, and Syracuse. Maybe a few more get in in the future.

This league wouldn't make nearly as much money and functions essentially as the old Big East did for many years. Nonetheless, the number of allies for the Power group is not diminished.

Yeah, sure, act overly defensive in an aggressive manner and see what happens when you try to pass anything through Autonomy.

You guys just don't get it when you think these entities are being standoffish with each other. If they were, then they would not have created the Autonomy Council together.

Eh, I think there's a difference between overly defensive and strategic.

I think Pitt would rather go to the Big Ten, but that league doesn't appear to be interested. GT in the SEC? Not saying it would happen, but there's a long history there, rivals, and travel concerns that would make that move more intriguing for them compared to the B1G. The difference is that the SEC needs AAU schools so I think they would probably lean in that direction if they can get one. The B1G would be no worse off without GT.

I do think there is a measure of cooperation between the major leagues which is why I don't think too many schools will be left out if any.

Much more rational post. Although I must say, there is such a thing as an overly defensive strategy. The word strategic alone isn't a very good descriptor in this case. I don't think Georgia Tech wants anything to do with the SEC. I don't think North Carolina wants anything to do with the SEC. They already could have if they wanted to. The email release showed us that there was little to no opposition coming from outside of the University in regards to joining the SEC. T Shirt fans and money donors were simply anti Big Ten. Yet, UNC chose to double up on the ACC instead of taking off when they could have.
08-18-2015 06:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Dasville Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,796
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 246
I Root For: UofL
Location:
Post: #16
RE: Time, Monetary Disparity, Pressure, and No Brokering Equals Unexpected Consequences
(08-18-2015 06:26 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(08-18-2015 10:56 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(08-18-2015 07:51 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(08-17-2015 02:46 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(08-17-2015 07:20 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Allow the coming economic disparity between the SEC / Big 10 and the Big 12 and ACC continue for just 5 or 6 years and the whole prospect for realignment will dramatically change and for the better for the SEC and Big 10 and the unintended consequences of not brokering out moves, and for sticking with current GOR's will have dramatic consequences for the best of the G5 schools, some of the private schools in P5 conferences now, and for some of the last FBS schools that got into the P5 and some that were already in it. Why?

5 or 6 years will make the breaking of most of the GOR's economically viable. Which means that networks won't have to pay for duplicate schools that need to attach themselves to larger more brand recognizable schools, and they won't have to pay for small alumni based privates either, and they won't have to worry about G5 Schools being added to the P ranks. In fact the whole P4 structure will quit talking about 64 schools and will be talking instead about 54.

The failure to broker out moves from the Big 12 now means that the ACC is actually going to be much more vulnerable in 5 or 6 years, as well. It means that Baylor, T.C.U., West Virginia, Louisville, Syracuse, Pitt, Boston College, Wake Forest and Miami are all also vulnerable to varying degrees of getting left behind in a move to 54 schools, instead of 64.

Think in terms of Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Kansas State to the PAC; Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Florida State and Clemson to the SEC; North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia Tech, and Notre Dame to the Big 10.

No B.Y.U., no Cincinnati, no Duke, no Wake Forest, etc. etc. etc.

How? Won't there be lawsuits? Will it be the end of college football as we know it?

As to the last 2 questions, no and no. The separation will be over expenditures. With Big 10 and SEC schools paying out full cost scholarships (and the Big 10 will) and with privates having a tough time doing so (except Stanford, Notre Dame, and the other larger privates), and with the growing gap in money earned to spend on such, there will be a natural drop off of those wanting the upper tier. Time therefore becomes the ally of separation, less overhead, and better content. A P3 could well emerge with 18 schools each. It will be more profitable for those who stay the course, will provide some room for those who want to be there, and the necessary monetary facts for those who don't wish to be a part of it to exit with some political cover.

So the time has passed for this year's movement to happen. We wait. And each year we do wait the better it will be for the networks, those who want the upper tier, and the more difficult it will grow for others to remain.

My first concern is always the SEC and so all my questions end up leading back to what the conference will do, can do, and would not do.

If the league is amenable to 18 then it makes sense they are amenable to 20.

So I would propose under this scenario that the SEC take a long hard look at not just the 4 you mentioned but Georgia Tech and Pitt(who have apparently made a renewed commitment to their athletic department) as well. That's 2 more AAU schools, another good market, and a defensive move to keep the B1G from moving too far South.

I also expect the Big Ten to move to 20...perhaps UVA, UNC, Duke, Notre Dame, UConn, and BC.

I can see the PAC grabbing the schools you mentioned as they are tied together in a manner of speaking. I wonder if the PAC might consider Iowa St and a school like UNLV?

I could see a best of the rest league forming with the potential to have Power status. I think it behooves the leagues not to kick anyone out if it's unnecessary.

BYU, TCU, Baylor, Houston, Tulane, Cincinnati, West Virginia, Miami, UCF, ECU, Wake, and Syracuse. Maybe a few more get in in the future.

This league wouldn't make nearly as much money and functions essentially as the old Big East did for many years. Nonetheless, the number of allies for the Power group is not diminished.

Yeah, sure, act overly defensive in an aggressive manner and see what happens when you try to pass anything through Autonomy.

You guys just don't get it when you think these entities are being standoffish with each other. If they were, then they would not have created the Autonomy Council together.

Eh, I think there's a difference between overly defensive and strategic.

I think Pitt would rather go to the Big Ten, but that league doesn't appear to be interested. GT in the SEC? Not saying it would happen, but there's a long history there, rivals, and travel concerns that would make that move more intriguing for them compared to the B1G. The difference is that the SEC needs AAU schools so I think they would probably lean in that direction if they can get one. The B1G would be no worse off without GT.

I do think there is a measure of cooperation between the major leagues which is why I don't think too many schools will be left out if any.

Much more rational post. Although I must say, there is such a thing as an overly defensive strategy. The word strategic alone isn't a very good descriptor in this case. I don't think Georgia Tech wants anything to do with the SEC. I don't think North Carolina wants anything to do with the SEC. They already could have if they wanted to. The email release showed us that there was little to no opposition coming from outside of the University in regards to joining the SEC. T Shirt fans and money donors were simply anti Big Ten. Yet, UNC chose to double up on the ACC instead of taking off when they could have.

How long before UNC becomes "clean" enough for the B1G? Penn St. wants to know...... or did they tell the B1G when?
08-18-2015 09:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


CintiFan Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 386
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 45
I Root For: Ohio St./ Cinti
Location:
Post: #17
RE: Time, Monetary Disparity, Pressure, and No Brokering
(08-18-2015 07:18 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-17-2015 10:46 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  
(08-17-2015 07:20 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Think in terms of Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Iowa State [Kansas], and Kansas State to the PAC; Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Florida State and Clemson to the SEC; North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia Tech,
Duke, Kansas and Notre Dame to the Big 10.

[/b]

fify

No you didn't fix anything. With the other targets available Kansas doesn't add enough and there would be no need to take Duke. You missed the whole point. The closer we get to the end of GOR's the less need there will be to compromise on tag-a-longs. Duke is a tag-a-long. Sure they are one with great basketball and impeccable academics, but as far as economic impact upon the Big 10 with Carolina already in tow, they aren't that profitable. And don't bother to give me the CIC angle as it really doesn't add to the payouts of any particular school. But it does help to pool disciplines to land grants. Basketball is probably more coach driven than football. When an aged coach K leaves where will Duke be?

Kansas would prefer B1G and B1G takes them because of basketball and to solidify the west by adding another regional rival (Oklahoma would be better, of course) for Nebraska, Iowa and Illinois. Iowa State, an AAU school, would be an acceptable replacement though the PAC would still prefer Kansas.

Duke is not a football power and maybe you are right about when Coach K leaves, but Duke can certainly attract another high profile coach - it's one of the best basketball coaching jobs in the nation. What Duke brings is academic power. It is one of the top schools in the nation and B1G Presidents LOVE it - they get goose bumps just thinking about Duke joining the B1G. The B1G can afford to carry another "Northwestern" if they get UVA, UNC and GT.
08-18-2015 09:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #18
RE: Time, Monetary Disparity, Pressure, and No Brokering Equals Unexpected Consequences
(08-18-2015 09:06 PM)Dasville Wrote:  
(08-18-2015 06:26 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(08-18-2015 10:56 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(08-18-2015 07:51 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(08-17-2015 02:46 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  My first concern is always the SEC and so all my questions end up leading back to what the conference will do, can do, and would not do.

If the league is amenable to 18 then it makes sense they are amenable to 20.

So I would propose under this scenario that the SEC take a long hard look at not just the 4 you mentioned but Georgia Tech and Pitt(who have apparently made a renewed commitment to their athletic department) as well. That's 2 more AAU schools, another good market, and a defensive move to keep the B1G from moving too far South.

I also expect the Big Ten to move to 20...perhaps UVA, UNC, Duke, Notre Dame, UConn, and BC.

I can see the PAC grabbing the schools you mentioned as they are tied together in a manner of speaking. I wonder if the PAC might consider Iowa St and a school like UNLV?

I could see a best of the rest league forming with the potential to have Power status. I think it behooves the leagues not to kick anyone out if it's unnecessary.

BYU, TCU, Baylor, Houston, Tulane, Cincinnati, West Virginia, Miami, UCF, ECU, Wake, and Syracuse. Maybe a few more get in in the future.

This league wouldn't make nearly as much money and functions essentially as the old Big East did for many years. Nonetheless, the number of allies for the Power group is not diminished.

Yeah, sure, act overly defensive in an aggressive manner and see what happens when you try to pass anything through Autonomy.

You guys just don't get it when you think these entities are being standoffish with each other. If they were, then they would not have created the Autonomy Council together.

Eh, I think there's a difference between overly defensive and strategic.

I think Pitt would rather go to the Big Ten, but that league doesn't appear to be interested. GT in the SEC? Not saying it would happen, but there's a long history there, rivals, and travel concerns that would make that move more intriguing for them compared to the B1G. The difference is that the SEC needs AAU schools so I think they would probably lean in that direction if they can get one. The B1G would be no worse off without GT.

I do think there is a measure of cooperation between the major leagues which is why I don't think too many schools will be left out if any.

Much more rational post. Although I must say, there is such a thing as an overly defensive strategy. The word strategic alone isn't a very good descriptor in this case. I don't think Georgia Tech wants anything to do with the SEC. I don't think North Carolina wants anything to do with the SEC. They already could have if they wanted to. The email release showed us that there was little to no opposition coming from outside of the University in regards to joining the SEC. T Shirt fans and money donors were simply anti Big Ten. Yet, UNC chose to double up on the ACC instead of taking off when they could have.

How long before UNC becomes "clean" enough for the B1G? Penn St. wants to know...... or did they tell the B1G when?

I honestly don't think UNC wants to be anywhere but in the ACC. A simple comparison is stadium sizes. UNC isn't trying to compete with the likes of Michigan or Ohio State. Their stadium is part of their charm but do they want it compared to the likes of Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State? I think they would rather have it compared to the stadiums in their current conference.

My point wasn't that UNC wants to join The Big Ten, simply that they didn't want to join the SEC when they could have.
08-18-2015 10:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #19
RE: Time, Monetary Disparity, Pressure, and No Brokering Equals Unexpected Consequences
(08-18-2015 09:48 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  
(08-18-2015 07:18 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-17-2015 10:46 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  
(08-17-2015 07:20 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Think in terms of Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Iowa State [Kansas], and Kansas State to the PAC; Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Florida State and Clemson to the SEC; North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia Tech,
Duke, Kansas and Notre Dame to the Big 10.

[/b]

fify

No you didn't fix anything. With the other targets available Kansas doesn't add enough and there would be no need to take Duke. You missed the whole point. The closer we get to the end of GOR's the less need there will be to compromise on tag-a-longs. Duke is a tag-a-long. Sure they are one with great basketball and impeccable academics, but as far as economic impact upon the Big 10 with Carolina already in tow, they aren't that profitable. And don't bother to give me the CIC angle as it really doesn't add to the payouts of any particular school. But it does help to pool disciplines to land grants. Basketball is probably more coach driven than football. When an aged coach K leaves where will Duke be?

Kansas would prefer B1G and B1G takes them because of basketball and to solidify the west by adding another regional rival (Oklahoma would be better, of course) for Nebraska, Iowa and Illinois. Iowa State, an AAU school, would be an acceptable replacement though the PAC would still prefer Kansas.

Duke is not a football power and maybe you are right about when Coach K leaves, but Duke can certainly attract another high profile coach - it's one of the best basketball coaching jobs in the nation. What Duke brings is academic power. It is one of the top schools in the nation and B1G Presidents LOVE it - they get goose bumps just thinking about Duke joining the B1G. The B1G can afford to carry another "Northwestern" if they get UVA, UNC and GT.

Without KU, I don't see the PAC having a motivation to take KSU. Iowa St? Maybe, but they become a little more inconvenient if the Texahoma group is moving together.
08-18-2015 10:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #20
RE: Time, Monetary Disparity, Pressure, and No Brokering Equals Unexpected Consequences
(08-18-2015 06:26 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(08-18-2015 10:56 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(08-18-2015 07:51 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(08-17-2015 02:46 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  My first concern is always the SEC and so all my questions end up leading back to what the conference will do, can do, and would not do.

If the league is amenable to 18 then it makes sense they are amenable to 20.

So I would propose under this scenario that the SEC take a long hard look at not just the 4 you mentioned but Georgia Tech and Pitt(who have apparently made a renewed commitment to their athletic department) as well. That's 2 more AAU schools, another good market, and a defensive move to keep the B1G from moving too far South.

I also expect the Big Ten to move to 20...perhaps UVA, UNC, Duke, Notre Dame, UConn, and BC.

I can see the PAC grabbing the schools you mentioned as they are tied together in a manner of speaking. I wonder if the PAC might consider Iowa St and a school like UNLV?

I could see a best of the rest league forming with the potential to have Power status. I think it behooves the leagues not to kick anyone out if it's unnecessary.

BYU, TCU, Baylor, Houston, Tulane, Cincinnati, West Virginia, Miami, UCF, ECU, Wake, and Syracuse. Maybe a few more get in in the future.

This league wouldn't make nearly as much money and functions essentially as the old Big East did for many years. Nonetheless, the number of allies for the Power group is not diminished.

Yeah, sure, act overly defensive in an aggressive manner and see what happens when you try to pass anything through Autonomy.

You guys just don't get it when you think these entities are being standoffish with each other. If they were, then they would not have created the Autonomy Council together.

Eh, I think there's a difference between overly defensive and strategic.

I think Pitt would rather go to the Big Ten, but that league doesn't appear to be interested. GT in the SEC? Not saying it would happen, but there's a long history there, rivals, and travel concerns that would make that move more intriguing for them compared to the B1G. The difference is that the SEC needs AAU schools so I think they would probably lean in that direction if they can get one. The B1G would be no worse off without GT.

I do think there is a measure of cooperation between the major leagues which is why I don't think too many schools will be left out if any.

Much more rational post. Although I must say, there is such a thing as an overly defensive strategy. The word strategic alone isn't a very good descriptor in this case. I don't think Georgia Tech wants anything to do with the SEC. I don't think North Carolina wants anything to do with the SEC. They already could have if they wanted to. The email release showed us that there was little to no opposition coming from outside of the University in regards to joining the SEC. T Shirt fans and money donors were simply anti Big Ten. Yet, UNC chose to double up on the ACC instead of taking off when they could have.

No question that UNC prefers the status quo. They fear NC State in the SEC though. I don't know that that would be enough to keep them from moving to the B1G in the end, but they don't really want either league.

Personally, I would be fine with the entire Triangle in the SEC. I could also see UVA and VT ending up in the B1G.

Mr SEC used to suggest that the Triangle along with UVA, VT, and Pitt should move to the SEC and be done with it. UNC likes to rule their roost and taking a chunk of their conference with them rather than one or two might actually motivate them to move, but that's just speculation. I don't see it happening.
08-18-2015 10:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.