Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Big 12/PAC reorganization?
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 13,885
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 700
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #41
RE: Big 12/PAC reorganization?
(08-21-2017 10:08 PM)Underdog Wrote:  
(08-21-2017 10:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-21-2017 09:51 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(08-21-2017 08:42 PM)Underdog Wrote:  If the B12 had added BYU with TCU, do you think the ACC still takes Louisville?

That is an excellent question. I'm sure the ACC would've taken a LONG look at WVU (which it may still add someday).

The resurgence of Pitt and Virginia Tech coupled with the addition of W.V.U. is exactly what the ACC needs to be able to split into truer North / South divisions which will make Clemson, Georgia Tech and F.S.U. happier. Better football in the North and the two division champs meeting would be like what the SEC once had with the East and West divisions when Florida and Tennessee were peaking.

I think the SEC will recycle into that but will probably make the transition more permanently if we add two good schools to the West and shift Alabama and Auburn to the East.

But we'll see.

I think the SEC will ultimately set another standard and have 4 divisions of four with 2 semifinal games.

I think this will be the likely outcome. But the beauty and importance of moving to 4 divisions is that it equally accommodates 5 or even 6 members per division. And if we move to all P games having 20 or 24 schools in a conference divided in such a way would vary the regional premium match ups wonderfully. 11 conference games would not be out of the question with a 12th reserved for a rival in another conference.

So it is the logical concluding point that we should end this round of realignment with 4 divisions of 4 because it sets up the potential for the future so very well.
08-21-2017 10:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Underdog Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,682
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation: 114
I Root For: The American
Location: Cloud Nine
Post: #42
RE: Big 12/PAC reorganization?
(08-21-2017 10:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-21-2017 10:08 PM)Underdog Wrote:  
(08-21-2017 10:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-21-2017 09:51 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(08-21-2017 08:42 PM)Underdog Wrote:  If the B12 had added BYU with TCU, do you think the ACC still takes Louisville?

That is an excellent question. I'm sure the ACC would've taken a LONG look at WVU (which it may still add someday).

The resurgence of Pitt and Virginia Tech coupled with the addition of W.V.U. is exactly what the ACC needs to be able to split into truer North / South divisions which will make Clemson, Georgia Tech and F.S.U. happier. Better football in the North and the two division champs meeting would be like what the SEC once had with the East and West divisions when Florida and Tennessee were peaking.

I think the SEC will recycle into that but will probably make the transition more permanently if we add two good schools to the West and shift Alabama and Auburn to the East.

But we'll see.

I think the SEC will ultimately set another standard and have 4 divisions of four with 2 semifinal games.

I think this will be the likely outcome. But the beauty and importance of moving to 4 divisions is that it equally accommodates 5 or even 6 members per division. And if we move to all P games having 20 or 24 schools in a conference divided in such a way would vary the regional premium match ups wonderfully. 11 conference games would not be out of the question with a 12th reserved for a rival in another conference.

So it is the logical concluding point that we should end this round of realignment with 4 divisions of 4 because it sets up the potential for the future so very well.

I think all FBS realignment ends if the ACC, B1G, and PAC follow the SEC’s lead. I also see a split occurring in football after this happens….
08-21-2017 10:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Lenvillecards Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,766
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 318
I Root For: Louisville
Location:
Post: #43
Big 12/PAC reorganization?
(08-21-2017 10:02 PM)Underdog Wrote:  
(08-21-2017 09:51 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(08-21-2017 08:42 PM)Underdog Wrote:  If the B12 had added BYU with TCU, do you think the ACC still takes Louisville?

That is an excellent question. I'm sure the ACC would've taken a LONG look at WVU (which it may still add someday).

I lean toward WV because it put up 70 on Clemson in a bowl game; thus, it was probably perceived as the better football program at the time—which the ACC was looking for….


WV would have definitely gotten a long look. FSU & Clemson wanted to improve football & WV would have had the strongest brand available but they still would have had the same issues that has kept them out, admission standards for instance. Louisville would have been a good compromise for both sides.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
08-23-2017 08:18 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Soobahk40050 Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 480
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 34
I Root For: Tennessee
Location:
Post: #44
RE: Big 12/PAC reorganization?
(08-21-2017 10:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-21-2017 10:08 PM)Underdog Wrote:  
(08-21-2017 10:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-21-2017 09:51 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(08-21-2017 08:42 PM)Underdog Wrote:  If the B12 had added BYU with TCU, do you think the ACC still takes Louisville?

That is an excellent question. I'm sure the ACC would've taken a LONG look at WVU (which it may still add someday).

The resurgence of Pitt and Virginia Tech coupled with the addition of W.V.U. is exactly what the ACC needs to be able to split into truer North / South divisions which will make Clemson, Georgia Tech and F.S.U. happier. Better football in the North and the two division champs meeting would be like what the SEC once had with the East and West divisions when Florida and Tennessee were peaking.

I think the SEC will recycle into that but will probably make the transition more permanently if we add two good schools to the West and shift Alabama and Auburn to the East.

But we'll see.

I think the SEC will ultimately set another standard and have 4 divisions of four with 2 semifinal games.

I think this will be the likely outcome. But the beauty and importance of moving to 4 divisions is that it equally accommodates 5 or even 6 members per division. And if we move to all P games having 20 or 24 schools in a conference divided in such a way would vary the regional premium match ups wonderfully. 11 conference games would not be out of the question with a 12th reserved for a rival in another conference.

So it is the logical concluding point that we should end this round of realignment with 4 divisions of 4 because it sets up the potential for the future so very well.

My only issue with this is that realignment has been incremental. What I mean is that it may make more sense to do two divisions of eight, then 3 of six, not go from four of four to three of six, then back to four of five at 20, or four of six at 24.
08-23-2017 02:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 13,885
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 700
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #45
RE: Big 12/PAC reorganization?
(08-23-2017 02:07 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(08-21-2017 10:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-21-2017 10:08 PM)Underdog Wrote:  
(08-21-2017 10:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-21-2017 09:51 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  That is an excellent question. I'm sure the ACC would've taken a LONG look at WVU (which it may still add someday).

The resurgence of Pitt and Virginia Tech coupled with the addition of W.V.U. is exactly what the ACC needs to be able to split into truer North / South divisions which will make Clemson, Georgia Tech and F.S.U. happier. Better football in the North and the two division champs meeting would be like what the SEC once had with the East and West divisions when Florida and Tennessee were peaking.

I think the SEC will recycle into that but will probably make the transition more permanently if we add two good schools to the West and shift Alabama and Auburn to the East.

But we'll see.

I think the SEC will ultimately set another standard and have 4 divisions of four with 2 semifinal games.

I think this will be the likely outcome. But the beauty and importance of moving to 4 divisions is that it equally accommodates 5 or even 6 members per division. And if we move to all P games having 20 or 24 schools in a conference divided in such a way would vary the regional premium match ups wonderfully. 11 conference games would not be out of the question with a 12th reserved for a rival in another conference.

So it is the logical concluding point that we should end this round of realignment with 4 divisions of 4 because it sets up the potential for the future so very well.

My only issue with this is that realignment has been incremental. What I mean is that it may make more sense to do two divisions of eight, then 3 of six, not go from four of four to three of six, then back to four of five at 20, or four of six at 24.

I think we move to sixteen and then later we jump in a much more comprehensive move to whatever configuration is decided upon. I still hearken back to an interview with Slive last year and hear him saying that the next series of moves could lead to "very, very large conferences". If we move to 16 then we will likely set up 1/2 divisions if we don't set up 4 divisions. We would still play 8 but 4 of those 8 would rotate every year.

What I was saying is that at 16 with 4 pods, or divisions, we could jump to 20 or 24 without having to change the structure. If such a move ever occurred we would be absorbing a substantial number of schools from another conference and not just adding one or two.
08-23-2017 02:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,781
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 71
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #46
RE: Big 12/PAC reorganization?
(08-23-2017 02:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I think we move to sixteen and then later we jump in a much more comprehensive move to whatever configuration is decided upon. I still hearken back to an interview with Slive last year and hear him saying that the next series of moves could lead to "very, very large conferences". If we move to 16 then we will likely set up 1/2 divisions if we don't set up 4 divisions. We would still play 8 but 4 of those 8 would rotate every year.

What I was saying is that at 16 with 4 pods, or divisions, we could jump to 20 or 24 without having to change the structure. If such a move ever occurred we would be absorbing a substantial number of schools from another conference and not just adding one or two.

I'm really surprised how little attention Slive's comments received. Tom Osbourne speaks and the internet blows up despite the fact he said very little of any substance. One of the most accomplished and well-connected leaders in all of college athletics speaks and barely a blip.

Anyway, I was doing a little searching of old news and came across some of those Osbourne comments again. The only schools he mentioned having old friends at were Iowa State, Kansas, and Kansas State...nothing about Oklahoma or Texas or any other big player. Could it be that the B1G is going to expand with schools that most would consider little brothers?

If Slive is right and the next wave is a movement to very large conferences then schools like that are going to have to go somewhere I suppose.

If content is driving future expansions then I think there may yet be some G5 additions. In other words, the Big 12, if split evenly, isn't big enough to turn all the others into very large conferences.
08-23-2017 07:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,302
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 67
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #47
RE: Big 12/PAC reorganization?
(08-23-2017 07:48 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(08-23-2017 02:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I think we move to sixteen and then later we jump in a much more comprehensive move to whatever configuration is decided upon. I still hearken back to an interview with Slive last year and hear him saying that the next series of moves could lead to "very, very large conferences". If we move to 16 then we will likely set up 1/2 divisions if we don't set up 4 divisions. We would still play 8 but 4 of those 8 would rotate every year.

What I was saying is that at 16 with 4 pods, or divisions, we could jump to 20 or 24 without having to change the structure. If such a move ever occurred we would be absorbing a substantial number of schools from another conference and not just adding one or two.

I'm really surprised how little attention Slive's comments received. Tom Osbourne speaks and the internet blows up despite the fact he said very little of any substance. One of the most accomplished and well-connected leaders in all of college athletics speaks and barely a blip.

Anyway, I was doing a little searching of old news and came across some of those Osbourne comments again. The only schools he mentioned having old friends at were Iowa State, Kansas, and Kansas State...nothing about Oklahoma or Texas or any other big player. Could it be that the B1G is going to expand with schools that most would consider little brothers?

If Slive is right and the next wave is a movement to very large conferences then schools like that are going to have to go somewhere I suppose.

If content is driving future expansions then I think there may yet be some G5 additions. In other words, the Big 12, if split evenly, isn't big enough to turn all the others into very large conferences.

Contraction could also happen. Imagine a couple of P5 schools dropping out, say Wake Forest and Boston college. Now if the ACC replaces them with West Virginia and UConn, improved payouts could happen with the improved content.
08-24-2017 11:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 13,885
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 700
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #48
RE: Big 12/PAC reorganization?
(08-23-2017 07:48 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(08-23-2017 02:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I think we move to sixteen and then later we jump in a much more comprehensive move to whatever configuration is decided upon. I still hearken back to an interview with Slive last year and hear him saying that the next series of moves could lead to "very, very large conferences". If we move to 16 then we will likely set up 1/2 divisions if we don't set up 4 divisions. We would still play 8 but 4 of those 8 would rotate every year.

What I was saying is that at 16 with 4 pods, or divisions, we could jump to 20 or 24 without having to change the structure. If such a move ever occurred we would be absorbing a substantial number of schools from another conference and not just adding one or two.

I'm really surprised how little attention Slive's comments received. Tom Osbourne speaks and the internet blows up despite the fact he said very little of any substance. One of the most accomplished and well-connected leaders in all of college athletics speaks and barely a blip.

Anyway, I was doing a little searching of old news and came across some of those Osbourne comments again. The only schools he mentioned having old friends at were Iowa State, Kansas, and Kansas State...nothing about Oklahoma or Texas or any other big player. Could it be that the B1G is going to expand with schools that most would consider little brothers?

If Slive is right and the next wave is a movement to very large conferences then schools like that are going to have to go somewhere I suppose.

If content is driving future expansions then I think there may yet be some G5 additions. In other words, the Big 12, if split evenly, isn't big enough to turn all the others into very large conferences.

That's because TV will not boost a radio story and because what Slive said doesn't line up with TV's short term objectives so why give it air time? When those very very large conferences happen it will be certainly motivated for leverage for future contract negotiations. That's not TV network friendly talk.
08-24-2017 11:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,781
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 71
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #49
RE: Big 12/PAC reorganization?
(08-24-2017 11:28 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-23-2017 07:48 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(08-23-2017 02:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I think we move to sixteen and then later we jump in a much more comprehensive move to whatever configuration is decided upon. I still hearken back to an interview with Slive last year and hear him saying that the next series of moves could lead to "very, very large conferences". If we move to 16 then we will likely set up 1/2 divisions if we don't set up 4 divisions. We would still play 8 but 4 of those 8 would rotate every year.

What I was saying is that at 16 with 4 pods, or divisions, we could jump to 20 or 24 without having to change the structure. If such a move ever occurred we would be absorbing a substantial number of schools from another conference and not just adding one or two.

I'm really surprised how little attention Slive's comments received. Tom Osbourne speaks and the internet blows up despite the fact he said very little of any substance. One of the most accomplished and well-connected leaders in all of college athletics speaks and barely a blip.

Anyway, I was doing a little searching of old news and came across some of those Osbourne comments again. The only schools he mentioned having old friends at were Iowa State, Kansas, and Kansas State...nothing about Oklahoma or Texas or any other big player. Could it be that the B1G is going to expand with schools that most would consider little brothers?

If Slive is right and the next wave is a movement to very large conferences then schools like that are going to have to go somewhere I suppose.

If content is driving future expansions then I think there may yet be some G5 additions. In other words, the Big 12, if split evenly, isn't big enough to turn all the others into very large conferences.

That's because TV will not boost a radio story and because what Slive said doesn't line up with TV's short term objectives so why give it air time? When those very very large conferences happen it will be certainly motivated for leverage for future contract negotiations. That's not TV network friendly talk.

Maybe that's why most major outlets only hint at incremental movement...because they're too bust pushing an agenda to really see what's being planned behind the scenes?
08-24-2017 08:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2017 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.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2017 MyBB Group.