(05-02-2016 09:59 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 08:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 07:02 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 06:54 PM)Maize Wrote:  My take is the Big XII isn't the only league looking at the financial gap...the Pac 12 and ACC if they don't do something-(ACC Network and better Orange Bowl Deal) faces the same

That's true. But that's not because of how many members they have. The B1G and SEC have inherent advantages that are going to be very hard for anybody to overcome.

The advantages the B1G has are structural, and nobody is going to duplicate them, at least in my lifetime. To overcome the SEC's advantages, somebody is going to have to figure out a way to poach some of their crown jewels, while retaining all their own jewels. I don't see either the B12 or ACC being able to pull that off.

I don't see how adding Cincinnati + 1 enables the Big 12 to close any gap that is there. It might make it bigger as CFP money and ccg money gets split 2 more ways.

Connecticut alone brings 1.5m TV subscribers who already pay SNY $2.70 a month for tier 3 games.

I'm sure that B12N could get $1.50 x 12 x 1.5m for tier 3. The question is, does ESPN then make the B12 whole.

If the Big 12 took UCONN that would be a conference that had multiple schools from the state of Texas and a school from Connecticut in it. Hahaha, that would be crazy! That can't happen, no way! Oh...wait...never mind.
Cheers!

(05-02-2016 09:17 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 08:28 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I think 4-5% is reasonable, but it's hard to judge and I'm still not sold on the fact it's not advantageous long term for the CFP to only have 10. Keep in mind, with all 8 of the CCGs in the Big Ten, the ACC, the SEC, and PAC-12 the past 2 years, the higher ranked team won. Of course in those situations, it helped those winners. However, we're not going to keep up with that ratio. If Clemson lost the ACC Championship last year, the ACC wouldn't have had a team. If Alabama had lost the SEC Championship, the SEC probably wouldn't have either. With the Big 12's luck, they'll add a CCG and in the first year, they'll have a high ranking team lose to someone ranked too low to make the CFP and be locked out because they added a CCG.

The difference is, without a CCG, more times than not you are hoping for the other teams to lose. You generally will not have control over your own destiny. For example, had Stanford lost one less game, Oklahoma likely would have been at home, with no real chance to earn their way in. Since it is VERY unlikely for the Big 12 to get two in, what little advantage they get from not potentially knocking off their top team, is erased by the opportunity cost left on the table, by not having your champion on an even playing field.

Plus two more teams, allows you to spread losses around, and statistically gives you two more opportunities to make it. 3 years ago, who'd have thought TCU would be a playoff contender two years in a row?

EXACTLY. If all things are equal among the other conferences (which is what occurred in 2014), then the Big 12 loses out. There might be years where the Big 12 might avoid a negative fate due to not having a conference championship game, but the overall point is that if the other conferences will always get preference over the Big 12 when all else is equal right now... and that is going to be a nagging, grating issue for the league until that changes. Whether the Big 12 wants to admit it or not, they don't want to be in a position where the only way that they get into the CFP is because they're able to "back in" because there were upsets in other leagues. Ultimately, you want to be able to control your own destiny - THAT is real power and is much more important than even the 4% to 5% statistical boost.

I think the Big XII is screwed whether they expand or not. Adding two teams will not change anything. If and when the Big Ten/SEC want to expand, the Big XII will get poached.

(05-02-2016 10:25 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  The flip side of that argument though is that Oklahoma was in after just 12 games. If they had played a CCG, they very well could have lost a rematch and whomever they lost to would have been highly unlikely to beat out Stanford for the last spot.

This.

Because Stanford already had 2 losses, 1-loss OU was a lock for the playoff without playing a 13th game. They didn't have to risk a 2nd loss in a CCG, they could just turn on the TV and see whether other conferences' best teams would blow it. The same will be true in any year when a conference other than the B12 has a 2-loss champ (assuming that the B12 does the smart thing and doesn't add a CCG).

To put it another way: If the B12 adds a CCG, they are actually increasing the chances of the other P5 conferences to place a team in the playoff. Using last season as an example again: Stanford's only hope of making the playoff was if at least one of the other 3 P5 conference leaders was upset in their CCG. If the B12 adds a CCG, then instead of having only 3 chances to "get lucky" with an upset in another conference, the 2-loss champ will have 4 chances to get lucky.

(05-02-2016 10:25 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 09:49 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 09:17 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 08:28 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I think 4-5% is reasonable, but it's hard to judge and I'm still not sold on the fact it's not advantageous long term for the CFP to only have 10. Keep in mind, with all 8 of the CCGs in the Big Ten, the ACC, the SEC, and PAC-12 the past 2 years, the higher ranked team won. Of course in those situations, it helped those winners. However, we're not going to keep up with that ratio. If Clemson lost the ACC Championship last year, the ACC wouldn't have had a team. If Alabama had lost the SEC Championship, the SEC probably wouldn't have either. With the Big 12's luck, they'll add a CCG and in the first year, they'll have a high ranking team lose to someone ranked too low to make the CFP and be locked out because they added a CCG.

The difference is, without a CCG, more times than not you are hoping for the other teams to lose. You generally will not have control over your own destiny. For example, had Stanford lost one less game, Oklahoma likely would have been at home, with no real chance to earn their way in. Since it is VERY unlikely for the Big 12 to get two in, what little advantage they get from not potentially knocking off their top team, is erased by the opportunity cost left on the table, by not having your champion on an even playing field.

Plus two more teams, allows you to spread losses around, and statistically gives you two more opportunities to make it. 3 years ago, who'd have thought TCU would be a playoff contender two years in a row?

Spot on. I think people forget, OU dropped a spot via the committee ranking for the last week. Unless they add a ccg, they're going to be biting nails during championship week, everytime.

The flip side of that argument though is that Oklahoma was in after just 12 games. If they had played a CCG, they very well could have lost a rematch and whomever they lost to would have been highly unlikely to beat out Stanford for the last spot. Meanwhile 2 years ago, a CCG for either/both of TCU/Baylor wasn't guaranteed to get the winner in the CFP even with a win (I personally think TCU would have pushed out Ohio State, but Baylor would not have).

I'm not saying a CCG is always bad (far from it), but I think in the long run, it will puts teams into the CFP about as often as it pushes teams out.

On the somewhat separate issue of 10 vs. 12, 12 does give a little more room for error, but at the same time you really only talking about 1 possible play contender for the Big 12 per year most years regardless so I'm not sure it makes all that much difference. Ironically, it probably would help the conferences playoff chances the most if they brought in 2 cellar dwellers and went down to 8 conference games (to reduce the number of games between potential playoff teams prior to a CCG). The problem with that though is while it might increase your playoff chances, it also reduces your TV value which is still the bigger deal.

That's what every P5 goes through. If their highest ranked team loses in the championship they're out. It'd be no different for anyone else. The only difference is the top team controls its own destiny.

It's what 4 of them currently go through, but that doesn't mean it's in the Big 12's best interest to follow suit. I know when the shoe was on the other foot, I was arguing hard for the Big Ten to stick to tradition and avoid a CCG. The games have worked out, but I ultimately do not think in the long term the Big Ten will put more teams in the CFP with a CCG than the CCG will kick out (although will grant the 2014 Buckeyes were an exception).

The Big XII was to short sighted to see what their best move could have been. When the Big East was falling apart they could have easily taken the 3 best FB programs from a BCS conference with WVU, UofL and Cincy but didn't. Now they will have to settle for Memphis in their place.

The Big 12 don't need another Kansas in the Big 12 for tv ratings. Kansas and Iowa State are the bottom rung on the ladder in the big 12 in tv ratings. Adding UConn adds another one that does not bring viewers in. The teams that are ratings gold are BYU and Boise State. Houston, San Diego State, Cincinnati, UCF, USF, UTEP, Toledo, Northern Illinois, Fresno State. Colorado State, North Dakota State, Memphis, Southern Miss, Montana and some others come after those two. This is based when their games are on ESPN and ESPN2.

(05-02-2016 09:55 PM)PlayBall! Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 09:50 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I would like to know what the data shows for a 10 team round robin schedule plus a CCG.

If we stay at ten my hope would be that a CCG would only be played if there's a tie at the top in a particular year.

Can't do that in reality...you didn't think that through.

(05-03-2016 04:47 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 09:55 PM)PlayBall! Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 09:50 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I would like to know what the data shows for a 10 team round robin schedule plus a CCG.

If we stay at ten my hope would be that a CCG would only be played if there's a tie at the top in a particular year.

Can't do that in reality...

Sure they could if they set their rules that way, and there's plenty of facilities around here that would jump at the chance to host the game. I'd rather see two good teams added though.

(05-03-2016 06:12 AM)PlayBall! Wrote:  

(05-03-2016 04:47 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 09:55 PM)PlayBall! Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 09:50 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I would like to know what the data shows for a 10 team round robin schedule plus a CCG.

If we stay at ten my hope would be that a CCG would only be played if there's a tie at the top in a particular year.

Can't do that in reality...

Sure they could if they set their rules that way, and there's plenty of facilities around here that would jump at the chance to host the game. I'd rather see two good teams added though.

But it would mean walking away from almost all of the media value of the CCG, since a broadcaster is not going to open up a big hole in their CCG week broadcasting schedule just in case the Big12 ends up with a tie.

(05-02-2016 07:20 PM)Stay Cool Wrote:  Take Cinci or Uconn B12, and BYU. Then grab NIU AAC. Plz

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Early Christmas gift cards to every member of the AAC isn't a bad start.

(05-02-2016 09:50 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 09:17 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 08:28 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I think 4-5% is reasonable, but it's hard to judge and I'm still not sold on the fact it's not advantageous long term for the CFP to only have 10. Keep in mind, with all 8 of the CCGs in the Big Ten, the ACC, the SEC, and PAC-12 the past 2 years, the higher ranked team won. Of course in those situations, it helped those winners. However, we're not going to keep up with that ratio. If Clemson lost the ACC Championship last year, the ACC wouldn't have had a team. If Alabama had lost the SEC Championship, the SEC probably wouldn't have either. With the Big 12's luck, they'll add a CCG and in the first year, they'll have a high ranking team lose to someone ranked too low to make the CFP and be locked out because they added a CCG.

The difference is, without a CCG, more times than not you are hoping for the other teams to lose. You generally will not have control over your own destiny. For example, had Stanford lost one less game, Oklahoma likely would have been at home, with no real chance to earn their way in. Since it is VERY unlikely for the Big 12 to get two in, what little advantage they get from not potentially knocking off their top team, is erased by the opportunity cost left on the table, by not having your champion on an even playing field.

Plus two more teams, allows you to spread losses around, and statistically gives you two more opportunities to make it. 3 years ago, who'd have thought TCU would be a playoff contender two years in a row?

I would like to know what the data shows for a 10 team round robin schedule plus a CCG. 4-5% increase for 12 teams and 8 game schedule, but what about 10 team and a 9 game schedule plus a CCG? Is it the same 4-5%?

I don't think you can answer that, because I believe the 4-5% figure was simply pulled out of the air (or someplace darker).

What about staying at 10 but playing an 8 game schedule? IOW, is it because there are fewer conference games that improves your chances, or because you have a 13th game? Personally, I think the BCS plus CFP history suggests that fewer losses trump more wins. But if it's not, a simpler way for the B12 to get more wins would just be to take more advantage of the Hawaii exemption, and schedule their marquee teams on the CCG weekend.

Opponents of CCG deregulation were smart to require 10 team leagues to play a full round robin to get a CCG. If they were out to screw the B12, they succeeded.

I would like to see the percentage if the Big12 did not expand but held a CCG. My guess is that 4-5% shrinks a bit. The bigger question for the Big12 members is what is that 4-5% worth if they are taking a financial hit adding two teams.

I would be surprised if the Big 12 added two more mouths to feed just to increase their playoff chances by 4%. That's one additional playoff participant every 25 years for crissakes.

[quote='Maize' pid='13237466' dateline='1462232260']
And the $$$$ quote from Bowlsby:

“If we do nothing, we'll fall behind the SEC and the Big Ten in terms of [revenue],” Bowlsby said. “We may be every bit as competitive as we are today, but we'll fall behind financially.”
[quote]


If you are just as competitive, what difference does it make if you fall behind financially? If you have more money and aren't any more competitive, you are just pissing away the extra money anyway.

(05-02-2016 09:50 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 09:17 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 08:28 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I think 4-5% is reasonable, but it's hard to judge and I'm still not sold on the fact it's not advantageous long term for the CFP to only have 10. Keep in mind, with all 8 of the CCGs in the Big Ten, the ACC, the SEC, and PAC-12 the past 2 years, the higher ranked team won. Of course in those situations, it helped those winners. However, we're not going to keep up with that ratio. If Clemson lost the ACC Championship last year, the ACC wouldn't have had a team. If Alabama had lost the SEC Championship, the SEC probably wouldn't have either. With the Big 12's luck, they'll add a CCG and in the first year, they'll have a high ranking team lose to someone ranked too low to make the CFP and be locked out because they added a CCG.

The difference is, without a CCG, more times than not you are hoping for the other teams to lose. You generally will not have control over your own destiny. For example, had Stanford lost one less game, Oklahoma likely would have been at home, with no real chance to earn their way in. Since it is VERY unlikely for the Big 12 to get two in, what little advantage they get from not potentially knocking off their top team, is erased by the opportunity cost left on the table, by not having your champion on an even playing field.

Plus two more teams, allows you to spread losses around, and statistically gives you two more opportunities to make it. 3 years ago, who'd have thought TCU would be a playoff contender two years in a row?

I would like to know what the data shows for a 10 team round robin schedule plus a CCG. 4-5% increase for 12 teams and 8 game schedule, but what about 10 team and a 9 game schedule plus a CCG? Is it the same 4-5%?

Probably drops the chance. You have the upset possibility without the possibility of missing the other top teams.

(05-02-2016 07:02 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 06:54 PM)Maize Wrote:  My take is the Big XII isn't the only league looking at the financial gap...the Pac 12 and ACC if they don't do something-(ACC Network and better Orange Bowl Deal) faces the same

That's true. But that's not because of how many members they have. The B1G and SEC have inherent advantages that are going to be very hard for anybody to overcome.

The advantages the B1G has are structural, and nobody is going to duplicate them, at least in my lifetime. To overcome the SEC's advantages, somebody is going to have to figure out a way to poach some of their crown jewels, while retaining all their own jewels. I don't see either the B12 or ACC being able to pull that off.

Yes. The SECN and the new B1G deals are surfacing inherent advantages the B1G and SEC have. They are not duplicable by the PAC, Big 12, or ACC merely by doing what the SEC and B1G are doing in terms of the structure of their media deals (networks).

In order to match the SEC and B1G financially, the other three will have to increase fan interest in their football to the same level.

(05-03-2016 08:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 07:02 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 06:54 PM)Maize Wrote:  My take is the Big XII isn't the only league looking at the financial gap...the Pac 12 and ACC if they don't do something-(ACC Network and better Orange Bowl Deal) faces the same

That's true. But that's not because of how many members they have. The B1G and SEC have inherent advantages that are going to be very hard for anybody to overcome.

The advantages the B1G has are structural, and nobody is going to duplicate them, at least in my lifetime. To overcome the SEC's advantages, somebody is going to have to figure out a way to poach some of their crown jewels, while retaining all their own jewels. I don't see either the B12 or ACC being able to pull that off.

Yes. The SECN and the new B1G deals are surfacing inherent advantages the B1G and SEC have. They are not duplicable by the PAC, Big 12, or ACC merely by doing what the SEC and B1G are doing in terms of the structure of their media deals (networks).

In order to match the SEC and B1G financially, the other three will have to increase fan interest in their football to the same level.

The Big 12 does have that interest. But it would also need to add 50 million people (and schools that attract those people). They don't have the population to match the BTN and SECN revenues.

(05-02-2016 09:13 PM)goofus Wrote:  Keep in mind the CCG main purpose is to determine the conference champion in a large conference where all the teams don't play each other. It helps guarantee that all teams get their fair shot. All this business about how it hurts a teams chance at the playoffs is missing the point.

Well, a CCG can have multiple purposes: Make more money for the conference, determine a champion in a large conference, and increase chances for a team to make the playoffs. Nobody can really say that one is the "main purpose" or not.