Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Let's play with this major realignment senario
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,969
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 144
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #1
Toungue Let's play with this major realignment senario
MHver3 ‏@MHver3 2h2 hours ago
Cincy and Uconn both have representatives attending B12 meetings for at least part of the day tomorrow.not sure who is there but someone is

Also heard that UT will be "made whole" mostly from graduated rate the new additions will be paid.

Tier 1 and 2 revenue will go up pro rata but new teams will get less than 55% first year and won't reach 100% until year 5

This includes all other streams of revenues as well

Lots of info to share now. Don't know where to start. Good stuff. Bear with me because I'm kind of busy right now.

ESPN rep was very forthcoming about quite a bit of things.

ESPN needs UT and the B12.

ESPN is not going to be able to afford the next B10 contract-Numbers being thrown around by other networks dwarf what ESPN can pay

ESPN also knows it is going to lose schools from ACC to B10-big deal schools on the Bball side

And big markets that give good Ratings.

Getting Cincy in the B12 helps keep an Ohio presence for ESPN college football.

ESPN needs to protect what it has with ACC and B12 but does not want a merger if ACC loses schools to B10-can't afford to pay(cont)

(Cont) competitive shares to 20 schools in a mega conf.

ESPN will let B12 and SEC get the big programs left in ACC(UM FSU Clemson VT) and refill the ACC remnants with AAC teams and pay them less

ESPN will let B12 and SEC get the big programs left in ACC(UM FSU Clemson VT) and refill the ACC remnants with AAC teams and pay them less

ESPN wants Uconn in B12 for TV market purposes for the LHN/B12N. Simple as that. Also gives B12 another blueblood in BB

ACC GOR is going to be a non-issue since ACCN was not created. It can be beaten in court now.

@agentmdo Uconn has NYC and the state of Connecticut. It alone almost doubles the B12 market penetration.

ESPN wants sec and B12 to play nice. Needs them to stay strong.backdoor deals with sec that 2 schools in B12 were working on(cont)

(Cont) will not be endorsed by ESPN and will be fought.




Not bad. If I had to guess, I would assume the following movement given the above, if it's true:

B1G: would add UVA, UNC, Duke, and GT.

SEC: would add VT, OU, WVU, NC State

B12: retains Iowa State, Kansas State, Baylor, OSU, Kansas, TCU, Tech, Texas
B12: adds Cincy, UConn, FSU, Clemson, Louisville, Miami

B1G and SEC would sit at 18 members while B12 at 14. ND could help shape the leftover ACC and remain an independent in football while working themselves into a chance to play in that conference's CCG.

I took two teams from the B12 and added them to the SEC as Mhver3 mentioned that there were two back door deals that ESPN wouldn't like. I'm assuming the SEC would use TV and market values of FSU and Clemson as leverage to pry OU out. B12 might agree to that deal as long as anther school also goes, assuming WVU is the other one looking around.

As an easy reference, use this link to organized the movements:
http://res.dallasnews.com/graphics/2011_09/realignment/
(This post was last modified: 02-04-2016 09:28 PM by murrdcu.)
02-04-2016 09:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,913
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #2
RE: Let's play with this major realignment senario
(02-04-2016 09:22 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  MHver3 ‏@MHver3 2h2 hours ago
Cincy and Uconn both have representatives attending B12 meetings for at least part of the day tomorrow.not sure who is there but someone is

Also heard that UT will be "made whole" mostly from graduated rate the new additions will be paid.

Tier 1 and 2 revenue will go up pro rata but new teams will get less than 55% first year and won't reach 100% until year 5

This includes all other streams of revenues as well

Lots of info to share now. Don't know where to start. Good stuff. Bear with me because I'm kind of busy right now.

ESPN rep was very forthcoming about quite a bit of things.

ESPN needs UT and the B12.

ESPN is not going to be able to afford the next B10 contract-Numbers being thrown around by other networks dwarf what ESPN can pay

ESPN also knows it is going to lose schools from ACC to B10-big deal schools on the Bball side

And big markets that give good Ratings.

Getting Cincy in the B12 helps keep an Ohio presence for ESPN college football.

ESPN needs to protect what it has with ACC and B12 but does not want a merger if ACC loses schools to B10-can't afford to pay(cont)

(Cont) competitive shares to 20 schools in a mega conf.

ESPN will let B12 and SEC get the big programs left in ACC(UM FSU Clemson VT) and refill the ACC remnants with AAC teams and pay them less

ESPN will let B12 and SEC get the big programs left in ACC(UM FSU Clemson VT) and refill the ACC remnants with AAC teams and pay them less

ESPN wants Uconn in B12 for TV market purposes for the LHN/B12N. Simple as that. Also gives B12 another blueblood in BB

ACC GOR is going to be a non-issue since ACCN was not created. It can be beaten in court now.

@agentmdo Uconn has NYC and the state of Connecticut. It alone almost doubles the B12 market penetration.

ESPN wants sec and B12 to play nice. Needs them to stay strong.backdoor deals with sec that 2 schools in B12 were working on(cont)

(Cont) will not be endorsed by ESPN and will be fought.




Not bad. If I had to guess, I would assume the following movement given the above, if it's true:

B1G: would add UVA, UNC, Duke, and GT.

SEC: would add VT, OU, WVU, NC State

B12: retains Iowa State, Kansas State, Baylor, OSU, Kansas, TCU, Tech, Texas
B12: adds Cincy, UConn, FSU, Clemson, Louisville, Miami

B1G and SEC would sit at 18 members while B12 at 14. ND could help shape the leftover ACC and remain an independent in football while working themselves into a chance to play in that conference's CCG.

I took two teams from the B12 and added them to the SEC as Mhver3 mentioned that there were two back door deals that ESPN wouldn't like. I'm assuming the SEC would use TV and market values of FSU and Clemson as leverage to pry OU out. B12 might agree to that deal as long as anther school also goes, assuming WVU is the other one looking around.

As an easy reference, use this link to organized the movements:
http://res.dallasnews.com/graphics/2011_09/realignment/

There are some things that I think will drive the Big 10 & SEC more toward 20.

Look if the Big 10 nabs Duke, Virginia and North Carolina then I think they get Syracuse and Notre Dame as well. Then maybe the go for Georgia Tech or maybe the get an add for the Big 10 hockey presence and pick up B.C.

The SEC won't let F.S.U. and Clemson get away. Virginia Tech & N.C. State round out the markets. I think Georgia Tech stays here and looks to come home. Then the question comes down to Louisville.

If the Big 12 gets a network then I think OU stays put with OSU. They add Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Connecticut, Brigham Young, Miami and maybe Colorado State.

Why FSU, Clemson, Georgia Tech, & Louisville? Because those are the most important donation games for their SEC counterparts. And, because if football comes under pressure it will happen in the SEC last and having the key schools already in our region will be a big plus content wise and recruiting wise.
(This post was last modified: 02-04-2016 10:37 PM by JRsec.)
02-04-2016 10:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,969
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 144
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #3
RE: Let's play with this major realignment senario
(02-04-2016 10:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-04-2016 09:22 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  MHver3 ‏@MHver3 2h2 hours ago
Cincy and Uconn both have representatives attending B12 meetings for at least part of the day tomorrow.not sure who is there but someone is

Also heard that UT will be "made whole" mostly from graduated rate the new additions will be paid.

Tier 1 and 2 revenue will go up pro rata but new teams will get less than 55% first year and won't reach 100% until year 5

This includes all other streams of revenues as well

Lots of info to share now. Don't know where to start. Good stuff. Bear with me because I'm kind of busy right now.

ESPN rep was very forthcoming about quite a bit of things.

ESPN needs UT and the B12.

ESPN is not going to be able to afford the next B10 contract-Numbers being thrown around by other networks dwarf what ESPN can pay

ESPN also knows it is going to lose schools from ACC to B10-big deal schools on the Bball side

And big markets that give good Ratings.

Getting Cincy in the B12 helps keep an Ohio presence for ESPN college football.

ESPN needs to protect what it has with ACC and B12 but does not want a merger if ACC loses schools to B10-can't afford to pay(cont)

(Cont) competitive shares to 20 schools in a mega conf.

ESPN will let B12 and SEC get the big programs left in ACC(UM FSU Clemson VT) and refill the ACC remnants with AAC teams and pay them less

ESPN will let B12 and SEC get the big programs left in ACC(UM FSU Clemson VT) and refill the ACC remnants with AAC teams and pay them less

ESPN wants Uconn in B12 for TV market purposes for the LHN/B12N. Simple as that. Also gives B12 another blueblood in BB

ACC GOR is going to be a non-issue since ACCN was not created. It can be beaten in court now.

@agentmdo Uconn has NYC and the state of Connecticut. It alone almost doubles the B12 market penetration.

ESPN wants sec and B12 to play nice. Needs them to stay strong.backdoor deals with sec that 2 schools in B12 were working on(cont)

(Cont) will not be endorsed by ESPN and will be fought.




Not bad. If I had to guess, I would assume the following movement given the above, if it's true:

B1G: would add UVA, UNC, Duke, and GT.

SEC: would add VT, OU, WVU, NC State

B12: retains Iowa State, Kansas State, Baylor, OSU, Kansas, TCU, Tech, Texas
B12: adds Cincy, UConn, FSU, Clemson, Louisville, Miami

B1G and SEC would sit at 18 members while B12 at 14. ND could help shape the leftover ACC and remain an independent in football while working themselves into a chance to play in that conference's CCG.

I took two teams from the B12 and added them to the SEC as Mhver3 mentioned that there were two back door deals that ESPN wouldn't like. I'm assuming the SEC would use TV and market values of FSU and Clemson as leverage to pry OU out. B12 might agree to that deal as long as anther school also goes, assuming WVU is the other one looking around.

As an easy reference, use this link to organized the movements:
http://res.dallasnews.com/graphics/2011_09/realignment/

There are some things that I think will drive the Big 10 & SEC more toward 20.

Look if the Big 10 nabs Duke, Virginia and North Carolina then I think they get Syracuse and Notre Dame as well. Then maybe the go for Georgia Tech or maybe the get an add for the Big 10 hockey presence and pick up B.C.

The SEC won't let F.S.U. and Clemson get away. Virginia Tech & N.C. State round out the markets. I think Georgia Tech stays here and looks to come home. Then the question comes down to Louisville.

If the Big 12 gets a network then I think OU stays put with OSU. They add Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Connecticut, Brigham Young, Miami and maybe Colorado State.

Why FSU, Clemson, Georgia Tech, & Louisville? Because those are the most important donation games for their SEC counterparts. And, because if football comes under pressure it will happen in the SEC last and having the key schools already in our region will be a big plus content wise and recruiting wise.

I could see the SEC adding FSU and Clemson for content multiplying. VT and the best of what's left from North Carolina would be great for the SEC footprint. But Kentucky already schedules Louisville in football and basketball OOC. Why not add some value elsewhere like WVU. I don't see GT getting passed over by the B1G with all those TV sets and recruits in the state of Georgia. I could even see the B1G going all in on Vanderbilt to build a bridge to GT if the Carolina schools stay put.

So Jr is going with a 20 team SEC model with additions being:
FSU, Clemson, VT, NC State, GT, L'ville
My 20 team model would be:
FSU, Clemson, VT, NC State, OU, WVU

I like them both 04-cheers
02-04-2016 10:47 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: #4
RE: Let's play with this major realignment senario
This sounds like the endgame for realignment. If the ACC GOR really is a paper tiger because ESPN did not form a network, then lots of scenarios are possible. Here's my guess.

B1G adds UVA, UNC, Duke and GTech from ACC, giving it the east coast presence it really wants. I think that move is precipitated by Florida State telling the ACC its will leave, destabilizing the ACC and giving the four schools a reason to consider a move. The B1G then also adds Kansas and Oklahoma to gain an outstanding BB school and add another storied football rivalry game, Neb/OK. B1G stands at 20.

SEC adds VT and NC State, rounding out its southern stronghold and maximizing the monetary payout to its schools. SEC decides to stand at 16 when FSU decides not to join.

Instead, Florida State joins Notre Dame and Texas as founding members of a new conference, with each selecting 4-5 schools to take with them. FSU takes Clemson, Miami, West Virginia and Louisville. ND takes Pitt, Syracuse, BC and UConn. Texas takes Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Iowa State and Kansas State. That's 15 and maybe to get to 18 they add Wake, Cincinnati and either Baylor or TCU.

The PAC looks at the leftovers and decides not to add.

I think it would be difficult for Notre Dame to join an existing conference and counter the perception that ND was being forced to give up football independence. As a founding member of a new conference, ND would be viewed as controlling its future and voluntarily joining a conference. I think that gives ND cover to finally join one. I also don't think Florida State would want to join the Big 12 and be viewed as joining Texas' conference. ND and FSU will demand equal treatment with Texas - and that means Texas must put it in writing in the conference charter. A new conference means a fresh start and equal treatment, but the three will be able to reserve special privileges to themselves as founding members that are not available to the other members.

The TV networks would be lined up to pay big money for the combination of ND, UT and FSU football games, along with strong regional games for the other teams. LHN would morph into a very profitable conference network, with a presence in at least 13 states, including Texas and Florida, along with major metropolitan areas like Chicago, Boston and New York - plus, of course, the national presence of Notre Dame.
(This post was last modified: 02-05-2016 01:20 AM by CintiFan.)
02-05-2016 01:18 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
5thTiger Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 175
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 6
I Root For: Missouri
Location:
Post: #5
RE: Let's play with this major realignment senario
1. I just don't see any conference going beyond 16. 16 is still an easy number to have divisions.

2. I'm not sure the Tobacco Road schools separate. I just don't see it.

3. The B1G doesn't take anyone they don't want
02-05-2016 11:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Win5002 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 618
Joined: Oct 2015
Reputation: 31
I Root For: Big 12 & B1G
Location:
Post: #6
RE: Let's play with this major realignment senario
I was fascinated until I went back and saw you were quoting McHver. Not a great source.
02-05-2016 12:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,969
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 144
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #7
RE: Let's play with this major realignment senario
(02-05-2016 12:47 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  I was fascinated until I went back and saw you were quoting McHver. Not a great source.


None of the twitter guys are. Just having fun with the "what if" game.
02-05-2016 07:27 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: #8
RE: Let's play with this major realignment senario
(02-04-2016 10:47 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(02-04-2016 10:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  There are some things that I think will drive the Big 10 & SEC more toward 20.

Look if the Big 10 nabs Duke, Virginia and North Carolina then I think they get Syracuse and Notre Dame as well. Then maybe the go for Georgia Tech or maybe the get an add for the Big 10 hockey presence and pick up B.C.

The SEC won't let F.S.U. and Clemson get away. Virginia Tech & N.C. State round out the markets. I think Georgia Tech stays here and looks to come home. Then the question comes down to Louisville.

If the Big 12 gets a network then I think OU stays put with OSU. They add Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Connecticut, Brigham Young, Miami and maybe Colorado State.

Why FSU, Clemson, Georgia Tech, & Louisville? Because those are the most important donation games for their SEC counterparts. And, because if football comes under pressure it will happen in the SEC last and having the key schools already in our region will be a big plus content wise and recruiting wise.

I could see the SEC adding FSU and Clemson for content multiplying. VT and the best of what's left from North Carolina would be great for the SEC footprint. But Kentucky already schedules Louisville in football and basketball OOC. Why not add some value elsewhere like WVU. I don't see GT getting passed over by the B1G with all those TV sets and recruits in the state of Georgia. I could even see the B1G going all in on Vanderbilt to build a bridge to GT if the Carolina schools stay put.

So Jr is going with a 20 team SEC model with additions being:
FSU, Clemson, VT, NC State, GT, L'ville
My 20 team model would be:
FSU, Clemson, VT, NC State, OU, WVU

I like them both 04-cheers

I've always liked the number 20 if we're going beyond 16 as opposed to 18. I think you can do a lot more with 4 divisions as opposed to 3.

I also like taking the in-state rivals that are out there. I agree that the SEC wouldn't let FSU and Clemson get away. I also think that while the B1G wouldn't overlook GT, that GT would probably prefer the SEC if given a choice. They would be a huge geographical outlier in that league.

It also multiplies content in a way that bringing schools from other regions couldn't do. Adding regions is great if we're landing a very solid program, but the core SEC following is not going to care much about their games. Throw in the in-state rivals that their counterparts are already used to playing and the fan bases of other SEC schools are already used to interacting with because of geographic proximity; and a lot of new secondary rivalries could emerge.

FSU, GT, Clemson, and Louisville...imagine all the additional interesting games could be played with SEC members that would not otherwise play these schools regularly.

I also like bringing in VT and NC State due to the markets and their similitude to current SEC schools.
(This post was last modified: 02-06-2016 02:37 AM by AllTideUp.)
02-06-2016 02:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,913
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #9
RE: Let's play with this major realignment senario
(02-05-2016 11:48 AM)5thTiger Wrote:  1. I just don't see any conference going beyond 16. 16 is still an easy number to have divisions.

2. I'm not sure the Tobacco Road schools separate. I just don't see it.

3. The B1G doesn't take anyone they don't want

You have 3 prizes in the Big 12: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas
You have 3 academic and market prizes in the ACC: Duke, North Carolina & Virginia.
You have 3 attendance, and either national or regional brands in the ACC and they are not the same as the first three: Florida State, gap, Clemson, gap, Virginia Tech.

For the Big 10 & SEC to move to 16 each with schools that they want, and I agree that neither the Big 10 or SEC is going to take anyone they don't want, then simply moving to just 16 if you plan to do so with only schools you want may not be entirely possible.
02-06-2016 04:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


YNot Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,671
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 298
I Root For: BYU
Location:
Post: #10
RE: Let's play with this major realignment senario
(02-06-2016 02:34 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I've always liked the number 20 if we're going beyond 16 as opposed to 18. I think you can do a lot more with 4 divisions as opposed to 3.

I also like taking the in-state rivals that are out there. I agree that the SEC wouldn't let FSU and Clemson get away. I also think that while the B1G wouldn't overlook GT, that GT would probably prefer the SEC if given a choice. They would be a huge geographical outlier in that league.

It also multiplies content in a way that bringing schools from other regions couldn't do. Adding regions is great if we're landing a very solid program, but the core SEC following is not going to care much about their games. Throw in the in-state rivals that their counterparts are already used to playing and the fan bases of other SEC schools are already used to interacting with because of geographic proximity; and a lot of new secondary rivalries could emerge.

FSU, GT, Clemson, and Louisville...imagine all the additional interesting games could be played with SEC members that would not otherwise play these schools regularly.

I also like bringing in VT and NC State due to the markets and their similitude to current SEC schools.

The nice thing about 18 in three divisions is it allows for the possibility of a 4-school conference championship tournament with three division winners and a wild card.

If you have four divisions winners, then it's more likely to get under-deserving division champs playing for the conference championship. This leaves open the potential for the unranked, dark horse conference champion and, at a minimum, hurts rather than helps the higher-rated teams' CFP chances.

If you have three division champs and one wild card, you're more likely to get most of the top teams playing for the conference championship - and get your conference champion into the CFP.

In many years you could have all four schools in the SEC championship tournament ranked in the top-10. Great for ratings and for CFP chances.
02-06-2016 01:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,913
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #11
RE: Let's play with this major realignment senario
(02-06-2016 01:52 PM)YNot Wrote:  
(02-06-2016 02:34 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I've always liked the number 20 if we're going beyond 16 as opposed to 18. I think you can do a lot more with 4 divisions as opposed to 3.

I also like taking the in-state rivals that are out there. I agree that the SEC wouldn't let FSU and Clemson get away. I also think that while the B1G wouldn't overlook GT, that GT would probably prefer the SEC if given a choice. They would be a huge geographical outlier in that league.

It also multiplies content in a way that bringing schools from other regions couldn't do. Adding regions is great if we're landing a very solid program, but the core SEC following is not going to care much about their games. Throw in the in-state rivals that their counterparts are already used to playing and the fan bases of other SEC schools are already used to interacting with because of geographic proximity; and a lot of new secondary rivalries could emerge.

FSU, GT, Clemson, and Louisville...imagine all the additional interesting games could be played with SEC members that would not otherwise play these schools regularly.

I also like bringing in VT and NC State due to the markets and their similitude to current SEC schools.

The nice thing about 18 in three divisions is it allows for the possibility of a 4-school conference championship tournament with three division winners and a wild card.

If you have four divisions winners, then it's more likely to get under-deserving division champs playing for the conference championship. This leaves open the potential for the unranked, dark horse conference champion and, at a minimum, hurts rather than helps the higher-rated teams' CFP chances.

If you have three division champs and one wild card, you're more likely to get most of the top teams playing for the conference championship - and get your conference champion into the CFP.

In many years you could have all four schools in the SEC championship tournament ranked in the top-10. Great for ratings and for CFP chances.

And, it's profitable for another reason as well. It keeps more fan bases energized deep into the season as their teams compete for that wild card position long after most divisional crowns have been wrapped up. And it rewards second place schools in years when their division is by far the strongest.
02-06-2016 02:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Win5002 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 618
Joined: Oct 2015
Reputation: 31
I Root For: Big 12 & B1G
Location:
Post: #12
RE: Let's play with this major realignment senario
(02-06-2016 02:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-06-2016 01:52 PM)YNot Wrote:  
(02-06-2016 02:34 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I've always liked the number 20 if we're going beyond 16 as opposed to 18. I think you can do a lot more with 4 divisions as opposed to 3.

I also like taking the in-state rivals that are out there. I agree that the SEC wouldn't let FSU and Clemson get away. I also think that while the B1G wouldn't overlook GT, that GT would probably prefer the SEC if given a choice. They would be a huge geographical outlier in that league.

It also multiplies content in a way that bringing schools from other regions couldn't do. Adding regions is great if we're landing a very solid program, but the core SEC following is not going to care much about their games. Throw in the in-state rivals that their counterparts are already used to playing and the fan bases of other SEC schools are already used to interacting with because of geographic proximity; and a lot of new secondary rivalries could emerge.

FSU, GT, Clemson, and Louisville...imagine all the additional interesting games could be played with SEC members that would not otherwise play these schools regularly.

I also like bringing in VT and NC State due to the markets and their similitude to current SEC schools.

The nice thing about 18 in three divisions is it allows for the possibility of a 4-school conference championship tournament with three division winners and a wild card.

If you have four divisions winners, then it's more likely to get under-deserving division champs playing for the conference championship. This leaves open the potential for the unranked, dark horse conference champion and, at a minimum, hurts rather than helps the higher-rated teams' CFP chances.

If you have three division champs and one wild card, you're more likely to get most of the top teams playing for the conference championship - and get your conference champion into the CFP.

In many years you could have all four schools in the SEC championship tournament ranked in the top-10. Great for ratings and for CFP chances.

And, it's profitable for another reason as well. It keeps more fan bases energized deep into the season as their teams compete for that wild card position long after most divisional crowns have been wrapped up. And it rewards second place schools in years when their division is by far the strongest.

If conferences had 20 teams and we did away with bowl games, there is nothing wrong IMO with going to 6 teams making each conferences playofffs and the top 2 getting a bye like the NFL. If some people complain about too many games, get creative and leave the last game off the year as a floating game and let that start the first round of the playoffs or go back to 11 games and let 8 teams in.
02-06-2016 02:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #13
RE: Let's play with this major realignment senario
(02-06-2016 04:00 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-05-2016 11:48 AM)5thTiger Wrote:  1. I just don't see any conference going beyond 16. 16 is still an easy number to have divisions.

2. I'm not sure the Tobacco Road schools separate. I just don't see it.

3. The B1G doesn't take anyone they don't want

You have 3 prizes in the Big 12: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas
You have 3 academic and market prizes in the ACC: Duke, North Carolina & Virginia.
You have 3 attendance, and either national or regional brands in the ACC and they are not the same as the first three: Florida State, gap, Clemson, gap, Virginia Tech.

For the Big 10 & SEC to move to 16 each with schools that they want, and I agree that neither the Big 10 or SEC is going to take anyone they don't want, then simply moving to just 16 if you plan to do so with only schools you want may not be entirely possible.

Of those 9 schools listed:
The top choices for the B1G would be Texas and Florida State. Why? It puts more eyeballs on their network, and even with subscription slippage the sheer numbers work in the B1G's favor. And if you are looking a content....you couldn't do better than that pair.
Oklahoma and Kansas.....or North Carolina and Virginia....pshaw!
02-06-2016 03:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,913
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #14
RE: Let's play with this major realignment senario
(02-06-2016 03:31 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(02-06-2016 04:00 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-05-2016 11:48 AM)5thTiger Wrote:  1. I just don't see any conference going beyond 16. 16 is still an easy number to have divisions.

2. I'm not sure the Tobacco Road schools separate. I just don't see it.

3. The B1G doesn't take anyone they don't want

You have 3 prizes in the Big 12: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas
You have 3 academic and market prizes in the ACC: Duke, North Carolina & Virginia.
You have 3 attendance, and either national or regional brands in the ACC and they are not the same as the first three: Florida State, gap, Clemson, gap, Virginia Tech.

For the Big 10 & SEC to move to 16 each with schools that they want, and I agree that neither the Big 10 or SEC is going to take anyone they don't want, then simply moving to just 16 if you plan to do so with only schools you want may not be entirely possible.

Of those 9 schools listed:
The top choices for the B1G would be Texas and Florida State. Why? It puts more eyeballs on their network, and even with subscription slippage the sheer numbers work in the B1G's favor. And if you are looking a content....you couldn't do better than that pair.
Oklahoma and Kansas.....or North Carolina and Virginia....pshaw!

There won't be any geographical islands. No more West Virginia's for the Big 10 and SEC. Things will remain contiguous.
02-06-2016 04:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #15
RE: Let's play with this major realignment senario
(02-06-2016 04:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-06-2016 03:31 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(02-06-2016 04:00 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-05-2016 11:48 AM)5thTiger Wrote:  1. I just don't see any conference going beyond 16. 16 is still an easy number to have divisions.

2. I'm not sure the Tobacco Road schools separate. I just don't see it.

3. The B1G doesn't take anyone they don't want

You have 3 prizes in the Big 12: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas
You have 3 academic and market prizes in the ACC: Duke, North Carolina & Virginia.
You have 3 attendance, and either national or regional brands in the ACC and they are not the same as the first three: Florida State, gap, Clemson, gap, Virginia Tech.

For the Big 10 & SEC to move to 16 each with schools that they want, and I agree that neither the Big 10 or SEC is going to take anyone they don't want, then simply moving to just 16 if you plan to do so with only schools you want may not be entirely possible.

Of those 9 schools listed:
The top choices for the B1G would be Texas and Florida State. Why? It puts more eyeballs on their network, and even with subscription slippage the sheer numbers work in the B1G's favor. And if you are looking a content....you couldn't do better than that pair.
Oklahoma and Kansas.....or North Carolina and Virginia....pshaw!

There won't be any geographical islands. No more West Virginia's for the Big 10 and SEC. Things will remain contiguous.

You would be wrong there JR, the dollars would just be too big. If Texas and Florida State (or even better yet, Florida) went to the B1G with the dollars the B1G would be making the could buy the fill in schools to get contiguous anytime they wanted. With 26 million in Texas and 20 million in Florida it would be like adding two states the with population of Virginia and two states with the population of North Carolina plus Oklahoma and Kansas to boot. Money knows no island.
(This post was last modified: 02-06-2016 04:56 PM by XLance.)
02-06-2016 04:54 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: #16
RE: Let's play with this major realignment senario
(02-06-2016 02:48 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  If conferences had 20 teams and we did away with bowl games, there is nothing wrong IMO with going to 6 teams making each conferences playofffs and the top 2 getting a bye like the NFL. If some people complain about too many games, get creative and leave the last game off the year as a floating game and let that start the first round of the playoffs or go back to 11 games and let 8 teams in.

Not that I don't like your idea, but I don't think we'd ever get rid of the bowl games though. There are too many perks and sweetheart deals being passed between bowl officials and schools presidents for that to happen.
02-06-2016 05:32 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: #17
RE: Let's play with this major realignment senario
(02-06-2016 02:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-06-2016 01:52 PM)YNot Wrote:  
(02-06-2016 02:34 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I've always liked the number 20 if we're going beyond 16 as opposed to 18. I think you can do a lot more with 4 divisions as opposed to 3.

I also like taking the in-state rivals that are out there. I agree that the SEC wouldn't let FSU and Clemson get away. I also think that while the B1G wouldn't overlook GT, that GT would probably prefer the SEC if given a choice. They would be a huge geographical outlier in that league.

It also multiplies content in a way that bringing schools from other regions couldn't do. Adding regions is great if we're landing a very solid program, but the core SEC following is not going to care much about their games. Throw in the in-state rivals that their counterparts are already used to playing and the fan bases of other SEC schools are already used to interacting with because of geographic proximity; and a lot of new secondary rivalries could emerge.

FSU, GT, Clemson, and Louisville...imagine all the additional interesting games could be played with SEC members that would not otherwise play these schools regularly.

I also like bringing in VT and NC State due to the markets and their similitude to current SEC schools.

The nice thing about 18 in three divisions is it allows for the possibility of a 4-school conference championship tournament with three division winners and a wild card.

If you have four divisions winners, then it's more likely to get under-deserving division champs playing for the conference championship. This leaves open the potential for the unranked, dark horse conference champion and, at a minimum, hurts rather than helps the higher-rated teams' CFP chances.

If you have three division champs and one wild card, you're more likely to get most of the top teams playing for the conference championship - and get your conference champion into the CFP.

In many years you could have all four schools in the SEC championship tournament ranked in the top-10. Great for ratings and for CFP chances.

And, it's profitable for another reason as well. It keeps more fan bases energized deep into the season as their teams compete for that wild card position long after most divisional crowns have been wrapped up. And it rewards second place schools in years when their division is by far the strongest.

Both of you are right about the perks of 18, but I'm more concerned about the regular season scheduling.

With 4 divisions of 5; you can play your 4 division mates, a permanent rival from each of the other 3, and rotate one more from each of the other 3. More rivalries can be maintained that way. That's also an even 10 conference games(5 home and away) with plenty of room to schedule interesting match-ups OOC. The 20 team model would allow every school to play each other at least once every 4 years with a balanced schedule. The math is a little funnier with 3 divisions instead of 4.

As to the conference playoff; with smaller divisions and playing more games out of division than within, I think the races will go deep into the season. I don't see the semi-final being measurably more entertaining with a wildcard although I understand the point. What you could do is make a rule that says the 4th division winner will be replaced should a 2nd place school from another division have a better conference record. You would essentially get the best of both worlds.
02-06-2016 05:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,913
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #18
RE: Let's play with this major realignment senario
(02-06-2016 04:54 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(02-06-2016 04:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-06-2016 03:31 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(02-06-2016 04:00 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-05-2016 11:48 AM)5thTiger Wrote:  1. I just don't see any conference going beyond 16. 16 is still an easy number to have divisions.

2. I'm not sure the Tobacco Road schools separate. I just don't see it.

3. The B1G doesn't take anyone they don't want

You have 3 prizes in the Big 12: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas
You have 3 academic and market prizes in the ACC: Duke, North Carolina & Virginia.
You have 3 attendance, and either national or regional brands in the ACC and they are not the same as the first three: Florida State, gap, Clemson, gap, Virginia Tech.

For the Big 10 & SEC to move to 16 each with schools that they want, and I agree that neither the Big 10 or SEC is going to take anyone they don't want, then simply moving to just 16 if you plan to do so with only schools you want may not be entirely possible.

Of those 9 schools listed:
The top choices for the B1G would be Texas and Florida State. Why? It puts more eyeballs on their network, and even with subscription slippage the sheer numbers work in the B1G's favor. And if you are looking a content....you couldn't do better than that pair.
Oklahoma and Kansas.....or North Carolina and Virginia....pshaw!

There won't be any geographical islands. No more West Virginia's for the Big 10 and SEC. Things will remain contiguous.

You would be wrong there JR, the dollars would just be too big. If Texas and Florida State (or even better yet, Florida) went to the B1G with the dollars the B1G would be making the could buy the fill in schools to get contiguous anytime they wanted. With 26 million in Texas and 20 million in Florida it would be like adding two states the with population of Virginia and two states with the population of North Carolina plus Oklahoma and Kansas to boot. Money knows no island.

That's enough of your trolling and that's all you're doing. I haven't been wrong yet. I don't make predictions about who is going where, but I do know how deals are made and why decisions turn out the way they do. College football was taken over by the networks, and while it was quiet and paid well it was hostile. Movement has been forced that otherwise would never have happened and now the models that provoked it are being switched again and that much I forecast 5 years ago. You have tried to do nothing here but irritate, whether that is me, or other SEC posters. So bye! But as for your ridiculous suggestion neither the Big 10 nor the SEC will reach out of their regions for expansion because neither is that desperate and neither wants an isolated outpost, or a school that doesn't fit their culture.
(This post was last modified: 02-06-2016 07:19 PM by JRsec.)
02-06-2016 07:17 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.