(01-21-2016 11:41 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(01-21-2016 11:28 AM)bluesox Wrote:  Money shouldn't be the key. The key is one of the two biggest brands in the big 12 is demanding expansion, i would want to make them content. Throw in all the other power conferences are at 12+ with title games, its not a big effort to expand to just 12 + a title game at 10 is just stupid. BYU is the best football power out there, pair them with either cincy or uconn for a hoop market balance.

Money is going to be an important factor no matter what. It may not be the only one, but it will be a big one. I do agree that perception/ assuaging OU's concerns is a big reason to expand. But its a more complex decision than that. There are factors on the other side of the ledger that can't be ignored. And the cloud over the whole discussion is the fact that the power/revenue gradient is going to get steeper and steeper toward the SEC/Big 10. If that continues, there will never be "stability".

Money is breakeven, more or less. Perception and visibility are the issues. When you have 14 teams, you get on the air 40% more than a 10 team conference. Its only 16% when you have 12. You also have a better chance of having more ranked teams. Not everyone has a good year at the same time. In past, more traditional times, there would not be justification for expanding. We are in different times where ESPN is calling a lot of the shots even, indirectly by who they publicize, on who makes the playoff.

Also, look at the playoff committee. Big 12 has only one with Big 12 ties. All the other 5 have at least 2 with some strong ties.

(01-21-2016 01:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-21-2016 11:41 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(01-21-2016 11:28 AM)bluesox Wrote:  Money shouldn't be the key. The key is one of the two biggest brands in the big 12 is demanding expansion, i would want to make them content. Throw in all the other power conferences are at 12+ with title games, its not a big effort to expand to just 12 + a title game at 10 is just stupid. BYU is the best football power out there, pair them with either cincy or uconn for a hoop market balance.

Money is going to be an important factor no matter what. It may not be the only one, but it will be a big one. I do agree that perception/ assuaging OU's concerns is a big reason to expand. But its a more complex decision than that. There are factors on the other side of the ledger that can't be ignored. And the cloud over the whole discussion is the fact that the power/revenue gradient is going to get steeper and steeper toward the SEC/Big 10. If that continues, there will never be "stability".

Money is breakeven, more or less. Perception and visibility are the issues. When you have 14 teams, you get on the air 40% more than a 10 team conference. Its only 16% when you have 12. You also have a better chance of having more ranked teams. Not everyone has a good year at the same time. In past, more traditional times, there would not be justification for expanding. We are in different times where ESPN is calling a lot of the shots even, indirectly by who they publicize, on who makes the playoff.

Also, look at the playoff committee. Big 12 has only one with Big 12 ties. All the other 5 have at least 2 with some strong ties.

I think the more or less is important to quantify. Is it 1 million more or less? 2 million? 5 million? The details matter. And if I'm on the Big 12 board, I want to see not just a sunny projection, but pessimistic ones as well, and a comparison of the different models.

I do agree that the more teams, the more chances for a good team. But there is the opposite side of the ledger for that, too. You face traditional rivals less, and its harder to make new rivals. As Mandel says in his piece, 10 is the perfect number from a competitive standpoint. You're giving that up by expanding.

(01-21-2016 02:05 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(01-21-2016 01:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-21-2016 11:41 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(01-21-2016 11:28 AM)bluesox Wrote:  Money shouldn't be the key. The key is one of the two biggest brands in the big 12 is demanding expansion, i would want to make them content. Throw in all the other power conferences are at 12+ with title games, its not a big effort to expand to just 12 + a title game at 10 is just stupid. BYU is the best football power out there, pair them with either cincy or uconn for a hoop market balance.

Money is going to be an important factor no matter what. It may not be the only one, but it will be a big one. I do agree that perception/ assuaging OU's concerns is a big reason to expand. But its a more complex decision than that. There are factors on the other side of the ledger that can't be ignored. And the cloud over the whole discussion is the fact that the power/revenue gradient is going to get steeper and steeper toward the SEC/Big 10. If that continues, there will never be "stability".

Money is breakeven, more or less. Perception and visibility are the issues. When you have 14 teams, you get on the air 40% more than a 10 team conference. Its only 16% when you have 12. You also have a better chance of having more ranked teams. Not everyone has a good year at the same time. In past, more traditional times, there would not be justification for expanding. We are in different times where ESPN is calling a lot of the shots even, indirectly by who they publicize, on who makes the playoff.

Also, look at the playoff committee. Big 12 has only one with Big 12 ties. All the other 5 have at least 2 with some strong ties.

I think the more or less is important to quantify. Is it 1 million more or less? 2 million? 5 million? The details matter. And if I'm on the Big 12 board, I want to see not just a sunny projection, but pessimistic ones as well, and a comparison of the different models.

I do agree that the more teams, the more chances for a good team. But there is the opposite side of the ledger for that, too. You face traditional rivals less, and its harder to make new rivals. As Mandel says in his piece, 10 is the perfect number from a competitive standpoint. You're giving that up by expanding.

I ran the numbers on conference distributions. If you assume a ccg is not realistic with 10 teams, you come out ahead by an average of 675k per school over the next 10 years or about 2%. If you don't make that assumption, you are behind about $1.3 million or about 4%. But you can stretch out the buy-in from 5 years (like TCU and WVU) to around 8 and make it break-even. Everything is really too uncertain beyond 10 years to make any assumptions. And with the time value of money, differences 10 years from now don't make a big difference. Much beyond 20 years from now and they are virtually irrelevant.

(01-21-2016 02:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-21-2016 02:05 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(01-21-2016 01:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-21-2016 11:41 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(01-21-2016 11:28 AM)bluesox Wrote:  Money shouldn't be the key. The key is one of the two biggest brands in the big 12 is demanding expansion, i would want to make them content. Throw in all the other power conferences are at 12+ with title games, its not a big effort to expand to just 12 + a title game at 10 is just stupid. BYU is the best football power out there, pair them with either cincy or uconn for a hoop market balance.

Money is going to be an important factor no matter what. It may not be the only one, but it will be a big one. I do agree that perception/ assuaging OU's concerns is a big reason to expand. But its a more complex decision than that. There are factors on the other side of the ledger that can't be ignored. And the cloud over the whole discussion is the fact that the power/revenue gradient is going to get steeper and steeper toward the SEC/Big 10. If that continues, there will never be "stability".

Money is breakeven, more or less. Perception and visibility are the issues. When you have 14 teams, you get on the air 40% more than a 10 team conference. Its only 16% when you have 12. You also have a better chance of having more ranked teams. Not everyone has a good year at the same time. In past, more traditional times, there would not be justification for expanding. We are in different times where ESPN is calling a lot of the shots even, indirectly by who they publicize, on who makes the playoff.

Also, look at the playoff committee. Big 12 has only one with Big 12 ties. All the other 5 have at least 2 with some strong ties.

I think the more or less is important to quantify. Is it 1 million more or less? 2 million? 5 million? The details matter. And if I'm on the Big 12 board, I want to see not just a sunny projection, but pessimistic ones as well, and a comparison of the different models.

I do agree that the more teams, the more chances for a good team. But there is the opposite side of the ledger for that, too. You face traditional rivals less, and its harder to make new rivals. As Mandel says in his piece, 10 is the perfect number from a competitive standpoint. You're giving that up by expanding.

I ran the numbers on conference distributions. If you assume a ccg is not realistic with 10 teams, you come out ahead by an average of 675k per school over the next 10 years or about 2%. If you don't make that assumption, you are behind about $1.3 million or about 4%. But you can stretch out the buy-in from 5 years (like TCU and WVU) to around 8 and make it break-even. Everything is really too uncertain beyond 10 years to make any assumptions. And with the time value of money, differences 10 years from now don't make a big difference. Much beyond 20 years from now and they are virtually irrelevant.

I didn't try to evaluate the impact on school generated revenue (home attendance) as obviously, that would be a total guess.

As to your point on rivalries, that's another reason UConn makes no sense while someone like Houston has some value.

(01-21-2016 02:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-21-2016 02:05 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(01-21-2016 01:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-21-2016 11:41 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(01-21-2016 11:28 AM)bluesox Wrote:  Money shouldn't be the key. The key is one of the two biggest brands in the big 12 is demanding expansion, i would want to make them content. Throw in all the other power conferences are at 12+ with title games, its not a big effort to expand to just 12 + a title game at 10 is just stupid. BYU is the best football power out there, pair them with either cincy or uconn for a hoop market balance.

Money is going to be an important factor no matter what. It may not be the only one, but it will be a big one. I do agree that perception/ assuaging OU's concerns is a big reason to expand. But its a more complex decision than that. There are factors on the other side of the ledger that can't be ignored. And the cloud over the whole discussion is the fact that the power/revenue gradient is going to get steeper and steeper toward the SEC/Big 10. If that continues, there will never be "stability".

Money is breakeven, more or less. Perception and visibility are the issues. When you have 14 teams, you get on the air 40% more than a 10 team conference. Its only 16% when you have 12. You also have a better chance of having more ranked teams. Not everyone has a good year at the same time. In past, more traditional times, there would not be justification for expanding. We are in different times where ESPN is calling a lot of the shots even, indirectly by who they publicize, on who makes the playoff.

Also, look at the playoff committee. Big 12 has only one with Big 12 ties. All the other 5 have at least 2 with some strong ties.

I think the more or less is important to quantify. Is it 1 million more or less? 2 million? 5 million? The details matter. And if I'm on the Big 12 board, I want to see not just a sunny projection, but pessimistic ones as well, and a comparison of the different models.

I do agree that the more teams, the more chances for a good team. But there is the opposite side of the ledger for that, too. You face traditional rivals less, and its harder to make new rivals. As Mandel says in his piece, 10 is the perfect number from a competitive standpoint. You're giving that up by expanding.

I ran the numbers on conference distributions. If you assume a ccg is not realistic with 10 teams, you come out ahead by an average of 675k per school over the next 10 years or about 2%. If you don't make that assumption, you are behind about $1.3 million or about 4%. But you can stretch out the buy-in from 5 years (like TCU and WVU) to around 8 and make it break-even. Everything is really too uncertain beyond 10 years to make any assumptions. And with the time value of money, differences 10 years from now don't make a big difference. Much beyond 20 years from now and they are virtually irrelevant.

Good job, but with all due respect, if I'm a board member, I would want to see it from the league accountants, with all expenses and revenues and the highs, lows and what ifs built in. One or two faulty assumptions can create totally different pictures.

(01-21-2016 11:18 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  What are the reasons to expand?

Money? Obviously this is a big one, but if only minimal to modest increases, prob not a big factor.

If there isn't a pot of gold, what are other reasons?

Power/ influence? I don't think any league is going to threaten the Big 10 and SEC in terms of power, no matter what they do.

Postseason positioning? I think having more teams is probably a slight net positive, but not much. Probably not a reason to expand on its own.

Perception? This is the big one in Boren's mind and I do think a valid reason. By being smaller/ different the league appears weaker. It's a valid reason to expand, I think. And expansion assuages OU and Boren's concerns and provides stability giving the appearance that the conference isn't totally run by UT.

But...

What are the reasons not to expand?

Money? I think there is a real question that the per team revenue could go down, especially if there isn't a conference network pot of gold. If there is a revenue gradient toward the SEC and Big 10, it could push the big fish out of the league quicker.

Flexibility? Does expanding limit options down the road, especially scenarios where the ACC gets raided.

Loss of center of balance? The round robin, 1-35 centric, historical rivals focused model is a stabilizing force right now. If the league spreads to 3 time zones or far flung divisions at the expense of traditional rivalries is that a destabilizing force, especially if money isn't significantly better? I wonder about that.

I think the key is money. And the corollary to that key is the conference network. A profitable conference network model pushes the pros to expansion. If impossible or not very profitable, I don't see how expansion happens. And either way I don't think as long as there is a revenue/power gradient to the SEC/Big 10 the league will ever be "stable".

I'm just completely spitballing, but there certainly is a possiblity that Boren thinks that the future is 4 all-powerful conferences and he sees that it clearly comes down to the Big 12 or the ACC on the cutting floor when the GORs are over and settled. He probably sees the Big 12 as the psychologically disadvantaged at this moment in time. He's on record that his preference is to stay together and the Big 12 to thrive.

I think the point hits home to some of the Big 12 members who know that while the short term is fine, if things really hit the fan, not many of them are absolutely guaranteed a seat somewhere. Most of them would be fine, but as the breakup of the SWC and the Big East shows, not everyone makes the cut every time.

It appears the B1G clearly is more interested in ACC teams, and while any ACC teams won't be going anywhere in the next decade, the B1G clearly had it out for the league with the deregulation vote. Seems to me like the B1G would like the Big 12 to survive in whatever form it chooses and to raid the ACC when the time comes, however far down the road that is. We are talking long term posturing, but it does make some sense that this is why Boren is so adamant about moving now before it becomes too late.

(01-21-2016 03:31 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(01-21-2016 02:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-21-2016 02:05 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(01-21-2016 01:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-21-2016 11:41 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  Money is going to be an important factor no matter what. It may not be the only one, but it will be a big one. I do agree that perception/ assuaging OU's concerns is a big reason to expand. But its a more complex decision than that. There are factors on the other side of the ledger that can't be ignored. And the cloud over the whole discussion is the fact that the power/revenue gradient is going to get steeper and steeper toward the SEC/Big 10. If that continues, there will never be "stability".

Money is breakeven, more or less. Perception and visibility are the issues. When you have 14 teams, you get on the air 40% more than a 10 team conference. Its only 16% when you have 12. You also have a better chance of having more ranked teams. Not everyone has a good year at the same time. In past, more traditional times, there would not be justification for expanding. We are in different times where ESPN is calling a lot of the shots even, indirectly by who they publicize, on who makes the playoff.

Also, look at the playoff committee. Big 12 has only one with Big 12 ties. All the other 5 have at least 2 with some strong ties.

I think the more or less is important to quantify. Is it 1 million more or less? 2 million? 5 million? The details matter. And if I'm on the Big 12 board, I want to see not just a sunny projection, but pessimistic ones as well, and a comparison of the different models.

I do agree that the more teams, the more chances for a good team. But there is the opposite side of the ledger for that, too. You face traditional rivals less, and its harder to make new rivals. As Mandel says in his piece, 10 is the perfect number from a competitive standpoint. You're giving that up by expanding.

I ran the numbers on conference distributions. If you assume a ccg is not realistic with 10 teams, you come out ahead by an average of 675k per school over the next 10 years or about 2%. If you don't make that assumption, you are behind about $1.3 million or about 4%. But you can stretch out the buy-in from 5 years (like TCU and WVU) to around 8 and make it break-even. Everything is really too uncertain beyond 10 years to make any assumptions. And with the time value of money, differences 10 years from now don't make a big difference. Much beyond 20 years from now and they are virtually irrelevant.

Good job, but with all due respect, if I'm a board member, I would want to see it from the league accountants, with all expenses and revenues and the highs, lows and what ifs built in. One or two faulty assumptions can create totally different pictures.

Well they would do a more complex assessment with information on TV ratings and their TV consultants projecting the next TV contract as well. But there would be more soft data.

(01-21-2016 12:00 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(01-21-2016 11:52 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(01-21-2016 11:41 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  Money is going to be an important factor no matter what.

The Big XII can add 2 members without any reduction in revenue shares. The benefits would include bridging the WVU gap, the addition of TV markets and recruiting territory (for a future conference network), improving the chances for long-term survival as a conference and actually having 12 schools.

There are definitely benefits, but what are the negatives.....?

The only "negative" I can think of would be solely in the eyes of the 3 or 4 schools like Texas who are (1) certain that they have a "P5" conference home elsewhere if necessary and (2) are more interested in keeping the membership low enough to enable the conference to be dissolved when the time comes to leave (in order to escape GOR penalties). If there is no loss in revenue shares, what other "negative" could there be??

(01-22-2016 10:09 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(01-21-2016 12:00 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(01-21-2016 11:52 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(01-21-2016 11:41 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  Money is going to be an important factor no matter what.

The Big XII can add 2 members without any reduction in revenue shares. The benefits would include bridging the WVU gap, the addition of TV markets and recruiting territory (for a future conference network), improving the chances for long-term survival as a conference and actually having 12 schools.

There are definitely benefits, but what are the negatives.....?

The only "negative" I can think of would be solely in the eyes of schools like Texas who are (1) certain that they have a "P5" conference home elsewhere if necessary and (2) are more interested in keeping the membership low enough to enable the conference to be dissolved when the time comes to leave (in order to escape GOR penalties). If there is no loss in revenue shares, what other "negative" could there be??

For me, loss of yearly rivalries is a big deal. Loss of the round robin is also a bummer. And whenever the discussion turns to divisions splits, it is always contentious with everyone wanting yearly games against UT and OU. I love yearly battles against every team in the conference and home and homes in basketball. Strategically expansion limits future options. You can add teams at any time, but once in you can't get rid of them if some better options become available. And I think break even or a 1.3 million decrease in per team revenue is a negative. If I'm giving up yearly games against rivals, I'd want a significant increase in revenue.

(01-22-2016 10:28 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  And I think break even or a 1.3 million decrease in per team revenue is a negative. If I'm giving up yearly games against rivals, I'd want a significant increase in revenue.

Even if the TV contracts permit the addition of two teams with no loss of per-school revenue, the bowls and CFP would presumably be split 12 ways with expansion, causing a drop in per-school $$$ from that source. And it's a decent source these days. IIRC, the Big 12 made about $100m from the CFP and bowls this year, split 10 ways that's $10m a school, split 12 ways it's $8.3m per school.

(01-22-2016 10:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-22-2016 10:28 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  And I think break even or a 1.3 million decrease in per team revenue is a negative. If I'm giving up yearly games against rivals, I'd want a significant increase in revenue.

Even if the TV contracts permit the addition of two teams with no loss of per-school revenue, the bowls and CFP would presumably be split 12 ways with expansion, causing a drop in per-school $$$ from that source. And it's a decent source these days. IIRC, the Big 12 made about $100m from the CFP and bowls this year, split 10 ways that's $10m a school, split 12 ways it's $8.3m per school.

That's where the negative comes from (along with the ccg presumably fixed regardless of 10 or 12 teams), partly offset by the buy-in.

For anyone wanting to make their own assumptions and run their own numbers:
last years distributions: $252 million
Portion from playoffs $64 million
Portion from NCAA tourney $20 million
Balance (mostly TV) $168 million

Average Sugar Bowl payout in the 2 years out of 3 where it is not a playoff game $40 million
TCU/WVU buy-in (this is what I remember-I didn't re-verify it) 50% of continuing member's distribution yr1, 67% yr2, 75% yr3, 85% yr 4, 100% yr 5

I assumed the value of the ccg was $24 million which matches the Big 10 payout in their 6 year deal (from 3 years ago).
I assumed the new members earned the same level of NCAA tourney credits so that $20 million escalated to $24 million over 5 years.

(01-22-2016 11:21 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-22-2016 10:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-22-2016 10:28 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  And I think break even or a 1.3 million decrease in per team revenue is a negative. If I'm giving up yearly games against rivals, I'd want a significant increase in revenue.

Even if the TV contracts permit the addition of two teams with no loss of per-school revenue, the bowls and CFP would presumably be split 12 ways with expansion, causing a drop in per-school $$$ from that source. And it's a decent source these days. IIRC, the Big 12 made about $100m from the CFP and bowls this year, split 10 ways that's $10m a school, split 12 ways it's $8.3m per school.

That's where the negative comes from (along with the ccg presumably fixed regardless of 10 or 12 teams), partly offset by the buy-in.

I think the big upsurge in B1G and SEC media money actually hurts Big 12 expansion chances. Losing a few dollars on expansion doesn't hurt much if you are in the same financial ballpark, but when these conferences are vaulting upwards, it's difficult to sell the idea of taking even a small step backwards. Especially when the teams you are adding will be G5 who, if anything, lower the average overall brand value of the conference.

I remember that when the Big East was an 8-team football league, probably the biggest reason we didn't expand was because we already lagged behind the other AQ in media money and the only $$$ edge we had was splitting the big BCS check 8 ways instead of 12 or 14. The Big 12 isn't in the same rear-end position that the Big East was, but I bet the psychology is the same. Splitting the money 10 ways is an advantage, and not one that will easily be given up.

I'll preface this and say that I hope this doesn't happen as I'm pumped to be in the ACC and love it there. However, could the Big 12 team up with the Big 10 and SEC to dismantle the ACC by jumping straight to 16 from 10 members? SEC and Big 10 would take 2 ACC schools. Losing 10/14 members would be enough to dissolve the conference/GOR. Something like this:

SEC East:
Florida
Georgia
South Carolina
Kentucky
Tennessee
Vanderbilt
*UNC
*Duke

SEC West:
LSU
Alabama
Auburn
Arkansas
Ole Miss
Miss State
Texas A&M
Missouri

Big 10 East:
Penn State
Maryland
Rutgers
Ohio State
Michigan
Michigan State
*Syracuse
*Pittsburgh

Big 10 West:
Illinois
Indiana
Purdue
Northwestern
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Nebraska
Iowa

Big 12 East:
Iowa State
WVU
*Louisville
*Florida State
*Miami
*Clemson
*Virginia
*Virginia Tech

Big 12 West:
Texas
Oklahoma
Baylor
TCU
Oklahoma State
Kansas
Kansas State
Texas Tech

Big 10 would get their Northeast corner. SEC would shore up hoops. Big 12 would take care of the WVU island issue and strengthen hoops and football.

AAC could then do something like this to be almost defacto P5:

AAC East:
UConn
Cincy
ECU
UCF
USF
Temple
Navy
*Wake
*NC State
*BC

AAC West:
Memphis
Tulane
Houston
Tulsa
SMU
*GT
*BYU
*Air Force
*Boise State
*Colorado State

(01-22-2016 06:52 PM)krux Wrote:  I'll preface this and say that I hope this doesn't happen as I'm pumped to be in the ACC and love it there. However, could the Big 12 team up with the Big 10 and SEC to dismantle the ACC by jumping straight to 16 from 10 members? SEC and Big 10 would take 2 ACC schools. Losing 10/14 members would be enough to dissolve the conference/GOR. Something like this:

SEC East:
Florida
Georgia
South Carolina
Kentucky
Tennessee
Vanderbilt
*UNC
*Duke

SEC West:
LSU
Alabama
Auburn
Arkansas
Ole Miss
Miss State
Texas A&M
Missouri

Big 10 East:
Penn State
Maryland
Rutgers
Ohio State
Michigan
Michigan State
*Syracuse
*Pittsburgh

Big 10 West:
Illinois
Indiana
Purdue
Northwestern
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Nebraska
Iowa

Big 12 East:
Iowa State
WVU
*Louisville
*Florida State
*Miami
*Clemson
*Virginia
*Virginia Tech

Big 12 West:
Texas
Oklahoma
Baylor
TCU
Oklahoma State
Kansas
Kansas State
Texas Tech

Big 10 would get their Northeast corner. SEC would shore up hoops. Big 12 would take care of the WVU island issue and strengthen hoops and football.

AAC could then do something like this to be almost defacto P5:

AAC East:
UConn
Cincy
ECU
UCF
USF
Temple
Navy
*Wake
*NC State
*BC

AAC West:
Memphis
Tulane
Houston
Tulsa
SMU
*GT
*BYU
*Air Force
*Boise State
*Colorado State

You would have to find schools that wanted to leave that the SEC and B1G wanted.

(01-20-2016 04:02 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 03:57 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  I don't think there will be a complete separation of the bowls and playoff....

And if they expand the playoff, I see them going to a 6 team format, with the top 2 getting byes, using the same playoff/bowl schematic they have now, except vacating the New Years Eve date and time.

The format is a complete success IMO....the NYE date is the fail. College football isn't big enough to compete with the biggest party night of the year

ESPN won't let them go only to 6. Too much money involved. Also puts the top 2 teams at a disadvantage having to go 4 weeks between games while team they're playing stays sharp. Remember in the SF how disjointed the early part of the games were(both years actually).

Yeah because that never works in the NFL. smh

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

(01-22-2016 07:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  You would have to find schools that wanted to leave that the SEC and B1G wanted.

I think after the Big 10 took Rutgers to secure the NE that Pitt and Cuse would be desirable. They fit the academic profile.

The SEC would probably kill for UNC and Duke. The big question there is if UNC and Duke would "lower" themselves to the SEC.