Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
The Rocky Mountain Work Around
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,837
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 150
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #31
RE: The Rocky Mountain Work Around
Two years ago if you looked at the Irish's schedules there were no B1G teams. They had cleared their mid-west schedule to make room for bi-annual games in Cincinnati.
Look at their future schedule today http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa/indep/no...irish.php.
Yep! a B1G team every year except 2019 when they play Bowling Green. Those B1G games run through 2028.
Cincinnati is out, 15 is in (and it saves ESPN a ton).
(This post was last modified: 08-31-2017 07:27 AM by XLance.)
08-30-2017 09:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 13,335
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 664
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #32
RE: The Rocky Mountain Work Around
(08-30-2017 09:04 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  I think there is one reason why the Big Ten might be open to a merger with the Pac-12, or at least an association: a big FU to the four-letter monster. However, I don't think it'll go that far, if Disney plays their cards right. I think most fans of programs in the SEC/Pac/B1G would prefer playing a SEC/Pac/B1G schedule, even with the recent additions.

At the end of the day, conferences still have the ability to make internal changes. Contracts have a lifespan, so the restrictions placed on the parties involved only last until a particular date is reached. It's just that, so far, conferences have been content with leaving the networks to do the legwork for them, and then do the pomp and circumstance of making a conference change after the economics have already been worked out.
Transic there is a lot of truth in what you are saying. I've quipped before that we won't know how safe the ACC is until the SEC leaves ESPN. Then we will no longer have our hands contractually tied.

Have you considered that in 12 years the BTN might decide to buy back their shares and then merge with the PAC. Both networks would be self owned so their cumulative value should they decide to market their own product might be substantially more valuable at a time when self producing overhead has already been covered, their own announcers utilized for broadcasts (at least then ESPN & FOX won't be calling our teams by the wrong nicknames) and all of the profits could then be gleaned including the advertising, which is after all what keeps ESPN in business.

The three conferences you propose could do quite well working together.
08-30-2017 09:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Lenvillecards Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,526
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 306
I Root For: Louisville
Location:
Post: #33
The Rocky Mountain Work Around
I prefer partially merging the B12 & the PAC. It could be done several ways.

Move the SEC, B1G & ACC to 15. The SEC could grab TCU for DFW. The B1G could grab Kansas & the ACC could grab WV & leave ND as a partial. The 6 remaining B12 schools, minus Baylor, would become a new eastern division of the 18 team PAC.

Move the SEC, B1G & ACC to 16. The SEC could grab TCU & WV. The B1G could grab Kansas & UCONN. The ACC could grab ND & Cincinnati. Baylor joins the AAC. The 6 remaining B12 schools would become a new eastern division of the 18 team PAC.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
08-31-2017 09:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 13,335
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 664
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #34
RE: The Rocky Mountain Work Around
(08-30-2017 09:10 PM)XLance Wrote:  Two years ago if you looked at the Irish's schedules there were no B1G teams. They had cleared their mid-west schedule to make room for bi-annual games in Cincinnati.
Look at their future schedule today http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa/indep/no...irish.php.
Yep! a B1G team every year except 2019 when they play Bowling Green. Those B1G games run through 2028.
Cincinnati is out, 15 is in (and it saves ESPN a ton).

X, while this indicates what others have said in that Cincinnati is not that crucial to N.D., it doesn't automatically mean we move to just 15. That may be a number that the ACC sticks with until N.D. decides if they are ever going full in, but from a scheduling perspective I still think 16 is the next number.
08-31-2017 10:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DawgNBama Online
NCR Ranger
*

Posts: 2,164
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation: 46
I Root For: p-natal vitamin
Location: prenatal vitamins
Post: #35
RE: The Rocky Mountain Work Around
(08-28-2017 03:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I posted a suggestion in the realignment thread on the Big 10 board. There is a work around that would be highly profitable for the Big 10 should they not really want Oklahoma due to academics, or should Oklahoma choose to go elsewhere.

The PAC contract is up 1 year after that of the Big 10. I know Colorado made the move to the PAC, but the Big 10 offers a better academic climate overall (even though their core isn't as solid as the California schools and Washington). And by 2018 the Big 10 will be paying out 14 million more per year than the PAC in TV revenue money.

Why Colorado? For starters the markets are good and the fit with the Big 10 better than some other options. The Buffs would probably be even more competitive in the Big 10 where the top is broad and the bottom is broad and the middle almost non existent. But strategically speaking Colorado may be the key to the Big 10's future. It is THE bridge state to the West Coast, which is why the PAC had an interest in the first place. If Colorado moves to the Big 10 then it opens up not only an alternative and more profitable path to potentially Texas, but it also opens up a path to Utah and from there to all of the West Coast.

It is also important for them to look to Colorado because I do believe the ACC is going to become relatively stable. So their Eastward goals from a decade and a half ago are probably moot.

If the Big 10 took Colorado and Kansas for expansion in the next round that would leave Oklahoma and either Texas, West Virginia, Iowa State, or Oklahoma State as options to take the SEC to 16.

Let's say that the PAC gets with the ESPN program. Texas, Texas Tech, Kansas State, and Iowa State may be able to head West. The fifth replacing Colorado could be Colorado State, or U.N.L.V..

The PAC is stronger for the move. The Big 10 is stronger and better positioned for the the move. And the SEC is somewhat stronger for the move.

The ACC can take W.V.U. or Cincinnati, or Connecticut and add N.D..

If the moves happen this way and further consolidation takes place then two equitable leagues could emerge. PAC/B1G and SEC/ACC.

It's an interesting idea to play around with. Colorado is the pivotal state and in a Big 10 / PAC formed league it is the rug that ties the room together. Texas / California / and the Northern Midwest would rest well on that Buffalo hide.

**************************************************************

Now if the PAC chooses not to ally with ESPN and should they remain isolated, and because of the relative stability of the ACC, the Big 10 might well shift its focus West where the money and academics reside. If so here is what could happen should Penn State, Rutgers and Maryland find themselves outliers in a new Big 10 focus to the West:

ACC North: Connecticut, Penn State, Notre Dame, Rutgers, Syracuse
ACC Mountain: Louisville, N.C. State, Pittsburgh, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
ACC Coastal: Boston College, Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia
ACC South: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, Wake Forest

SEC East: Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Vanderbilt
SEC South: Alabama, Kentucky Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee
SEC North: Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
SEC West: Arkansas, Louisiana State, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech

B1G East: Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue
B1G North: Iowa, Minnesota, Northwestern, Ohio State, Wisconsin
B1G West: Colorado, Nebraska, Oregon, Utah, Washington
B1G West: Arizona, California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal, Stanford

Fascinating idea JR, but could I propose a small change: Colorado State for Colorado. Granted, Colorado probably has better academics than CSU, but CSU might be more willing to change their academics than OU might/would be able to.
08-31-2017 11:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,635
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 68
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #36
RE: The Rocky Mountain Work Around
(08-30-2017 09:10 PM)XLance Wrote:  Two years ago if you looked at the Irish's schedules there were no B1G teams. They had cleared their mid-west schedule to make room for bi-annual games in Cincinnati.
Look at their future schedule today http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa/indep/no...irish.php.
Yep! a B1G team every year except 2019 when they play Bowling Green. Those B1G games run through 2028.
Cincinnati is out, 15 is in (and it saves ESPN a ton).

Link didn't work for me.

Or someone else could be in as 16...like West Virginia or UConn. Wasn't UConn the other school debated in the ACC when Louisville ended up being brought in?

Or perhaps there will be penetration into Texas.
08-31-2017 11:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,635
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 68
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #37
RE: The Rocky Mountain Work Around
I think it's safe to assume we either get an expansion of the CFP or such large conferences that creating semis for the leagues makes sense.

I would argue that the networks getting as many as 8 extra games from conference semis could be very profitable and perhaps more profitable than another round of the CFP as that would only be 4 games. The addition of conference semis would also guarantee that each region of the country was represented in the CFP as the winners of the conferences would either get an auto bid or a de facto bid.

You'd really need 4 fairly distinct regions to pull it off though which somewhat precludes the idea of the B1G taking Colorado and then making inroads to the West Coast. The Big 12 has to be carved up basically, but there's really not anymore room for major shifts unless we pare down to 3 leagues.

I agree with Lance's earlier statement that the networks don't want the conference getting more powerful because they recognize it will end up costing them. The question is...can the networks stop it from happening?

If the leagues go rogue and stop listening to the puppet masters then things could get really interesting. Slive did say after all that the next move would see very, very large conferences. I agree with JR's analysis that the reason the media never really picked up on that is because it doesn't line up with the preferred narrative. It will cost the networks a lot of money so why allow the idea to bear fruit in the mind of the public...

Earlier I proposed both the B1G and SEC slicing up sections of the PAC just to make things a little more interesting although I would be surprised if it actually happened that way.

I also keep going back to Osborne's specific mention of Kansas, Kansas State, and Iowa State. It was one of the more odd things I've seen so far as he took the time to mention schools that one would assume the B1G wouldn't be that interested in. He conspicuously left out major powers like Oklahoma and Texas and I don't think that was coincidental. If you're going to go to the trouble of naming names then it seems you wouldn't be afraid to name who you really thought had a chance.

I do tend to think the SEC will end up with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. Beyond that, I'm not very confident of much although I find Osborne's comments interesting for another reason as well...it would seem to point possibly to the Big Ten's strategy going forward. Perhaps we have to rethink what we think we know...

If the B1G is chasing 3 Big 12 schools then it makes sense they will add at least 4 in total. And if they're looking at a school like Kansas State then perhaps the academic requirement is not exactly what we thought it was. Perhaps it's purely about acquiring content and power through numbers...

What if it's something like this?

B1G adds Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, California, Stanford, UCLA, USC

East: Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Ohio State, Indiana, Purdue
North: Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Northwestern
Central: Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa, Iowa State
West: Washington, Oregon, California, Stanford, UCLA, USC

The new regions are distinct, compact, and balanced. The schools in the Northwest are ecstatic to get to play more regular games in CA as all the teams are in the same division now. The B1G can absorb the PACN and should make a decent profit by concentrating on most of the major markets with fewer mouths to feed.

Perhaps the SEC goes with this...

East: Florida, South Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Kentucky, West Virginia
South: Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Central: Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, LSU, Arkansas, Missouri
West: Texas, Texas Tech, Utah, BYU, Arizona, Arizona State

I know that's all very similar to what I suggested earlier, but there are a few tweaks.

I could really see the AZ schools desiring to align with Texas and schools like Utah and BYU would be low hanging fruit that would allow a more regional lineup to work.

Also in this alignment, I create a scenario where UT and OU can play annually while A&M is not forced to play UT every year if they don't want to. If we're going to offend them then we might as well soften the blow. Adding USF and WVU to the East gives us a little extra exposure in that region as well.

Most importantly, ESPN retains total control of TX without any fear of interference from the PAC.
09-01-2017 01:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Lenvillecards Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,526
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 306
I Root For: Louisville
Location:
Post: #38
The Rocky Mountain Work Around
(09-01-2017 01:54 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I think it's safe to assume we either get an expansion of the CFP or such large conferences that creating semis for the leagues makes sense.

I would argue that the networks getting as many as 8 extra games from conference semis could be very profitable and perhaps more profitable than another round of the CFP as that would only be 4 games. The addition of conference semis would also guarantee that each region of the country was represented in the CFP as the winners of the conferences would either get an auto bid or a de facto bid.

You'd really need 4 fairly distinct regions to pull it off though which somewhat precludes the idea of the B1G taking Colorado and then making inroads to the West Coast. The Big 12 has to be carved up basically, but there's really not anymore room for major shifts unless we pare down to 3 leagues.

I agree with Lance's earlier statement that the networks don't want the conference getting more powerful because they recognize it will end up costing them. The question is...can the networks stop it from happening?

If the leagues go rogue and stop listening to the puppet masters then things could get really interesting. Slive did say after all that the next move would see very, very large conferences. I agree with JR's analysis that the reason the media never really picked up on that is because it doesn't line up with the preferred narrative. It will cost the networks a lot of money so why allow the idea to bear fruit in the mind of the public...

Earlier I proposed both the B1G and SEC slicing up sections of the PAC just to make things a little more interesting although I would be surprised if it actually happened that way.

I also keep going back to Osborne's specific mention of Kansas, Kansas State, and Iowa State. It was one of the more odd things I've seen so far as he took the time to mention schools that one would assume the B1G wouldn't be that interested in. He conspicuously left out major powers like Oklahoma and Texas and I don't think that was coincidental. If you're going to go to the trouble of naming names then it seems you wouldn't be afraid to name who you really thought had a chance.

I do tend to think the SEC will end up with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. Beyond that, I'm not very confident of much although I find Osborne's comments interesting for another reason as well...it would seem to point possibly to the Big Ten's strategy going forward. Perhaps we have to rethink what we think we know...

If the B1G is chasing 3 Big 12 schools then it makes sense they will add at least 4 in total. And if they're looking at a school like Kansas State then perhaps the academic requirement is not exactly what we thought it was. Perhaps it's purely about acquiring content and power through numbers...

What if it's something like this?

B1G adds Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, California, Stanford, UCLA, USC

East: Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Ohio State, Indiana, Purdue
North: Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Northwestern
Central: Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa, Iowa State
West: Washington, Oregon, California, Stanford, UCLA, USC

The new regions are distinct, compact, and balanced. The schools in the Northwest are ecstatic to get to play more regular games in CA as all the teams are in the same division now. The B1G can absorb the PACN and should make a decent profit by concentrating on most of the major markets with fewer mouths to feed.

Perhaps the SEC goes with this...

East: Florida, South Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Kentucky, West Virginia
South: Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Central: Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, LSU, Arkansas, Missouri
West: Texas, Texas Tech, Utah, BYU, Arizona, Arizona State

I know that's all very similar to what I suggested earlier, but there are a few tweaks.

I could really see the AZ schools desiring to align with Texas and schools like Utah and BYU would be low hanging fruit that would allow a more regional lineup to work.

Also in this alignment, I create a scenario where UT and OU can play annually while A&M is not forced to play UT every year if they don't want to. If we're going to offend them then we might as well soften the blow. Adding USF and WVU to the East gives us a little extra exposure in that region as well.

Most importantly, ESPN retains total control of TX without any fear of interference from the PAC.


That's interesting. With the SEC & B1G going to 24 how would the ACC expand? In a P3 would ND be forced to join? I could see the ACC going to 18 with TCU, Houston, Cincinnati & either ND or UCONN, if they expanded at all. Would the ACC find security since there wouldn't be anymore room for the SEC & B1G to expand? How would the CFP be setup in a P3?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
09-01-2017 08:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BePcr07 Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 410
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 21
I Root For: Boise St & Zags
Location:
Post: #39
RE: The Rocky Mountain Work Around
(09-01-2017 08:54 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  
(09-01-2017 01:54 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I think it's safe to assume we either get an expansion of the CFP or such large conferences that creating semis for the leagues makes sense.

I would argue that the networks getting as many as 8 extra games from conference semis could be very profitable and perhaps more profitable than another round of the CFP as that would only be 4 games. The addition of conference semis would also guarantee that each region of the country was represented in the CFP as the winners of the conferences would either get an auto bid or a de facto bid.

You'd really need 4 fairly distinct regions to pull it off though which somewhat precludes the idea of the B1G taking Colorado and then making inroads to the West Coast. The Big 12 has to be carved up basically, but there's really not anymore room for major shifts unless we pare down to 3 leagues.

I agree with Lance's earlier statement that the networks don't want the conference getting more powerful because they recognize it will end up costing them. The question is...can the networks stop it from happening?

If the leagues go rogue and stop listening to the puppet masters then things could get really interesting. Slive did say after all that the next move would see very, very large conferences. I agree with JR's analysis that the reason the media never really picked up on that is because it doesn't line up with the preferred narrative. It will cost the networks a lot of money so why allow the idea to bear fruit in the mind of the public...

Earlier I proposed both the B1G and SEC slicing up sections of the PAC just to make things a little more interesting although I would be surprised if it actually happened that way.

I also keep going back to Osborne's specific mention of Kansas, Kansas State, and Iowa State. It was one of the more odd things I've seen so far as he took the time to mention schools that one would assume the B1G wouldn't be that interested in. He conspicuously left out major powers like Oklahoma and Texas and I don't think that was coincidental. If you're going to go to the trouble of naming names then it seems you wouldn't be afraid to name who you really thought had a chance.

I do tend to think the SEC will end up with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. Beyond that, I'm not very confident of much although I find Osborne's comments interesting for another reason as well...it would seem to point possibly to the Big Ten's strategy going forward. Perhaps we have to rethink what we think we know...

If the B1G is chasing 3 Big 12 schools then it makes sense they will add at least 4 in total. And if they're looking at a school like Kansas State then perhaps the academic requirement is not exactly what we thought it was. Perhaps it's purely about acquiring content and power through numbers...

What if it's something like this?

B1G adds Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, California, Stanford, UCLA, USC

East: Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Ohio State, Indiana, Purdue
North: Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Northwestern
Central: Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa, Iowa State
West: Washington, Oregon, California, Stanford, UCLA, USC

The new regions are distinct, compact, and balanced. The schools in the Northwest are ecstatic to get to play more regular games in CA as all the teams are in the same division now. The B1G can absorb the PACN and should make a decent profit by concentrating on most of the major markets with fewer mouths to feed.

Perhaps the SEC goes with this...

East: Florida, South Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Kentucky, West Virginia
South: Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Central: Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, LSU, Arkansas, Missouri
West: Texas, Texas Tech, Utah, BYU, Arizona, Arizona State

I know that's all very similar to what I suggested earlier, but there are a few tweaks.

I could really see the AZ schools desiring to align with Texas and schools like Utah and BYU would be low hanging fruit that would allow a more regional lineup to work.

Also in this alignment, I create a scenario where UT and OU can play annually while A&M is not forced to play UT every year if they don't want to. If we're going to offend them then we might as well soften the blow. Adding USF and WVU to the East gives us a little extra exposure in that region as well.

Most importantly, ESPN retains total control of TX without any fear of interference from the PAC.


That's interesting. With the SEC & B1G going to 24 how would the ACC expand? In a P3 would ND be forced to join? I could see the ACC going to 18 with TCU, Houston, Cincinnati & either ND or UCONN, if they expanded at all. Would the ACC find security since there wouldn't be anymore room for the SEC & B1G to expand? How would the CFP be setup in a P3?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

B1G (from above)
East: Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Ohio State, Indiana, Purdue
North: Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Northwestern
Central: Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa, Iowa State
West: Washington, Oregon, California, Stanford, UCLA, USC

SEC (from above)
East: Florida, South Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Kentucky, West Virginia
South: Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Central: Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, LSU, Arkansas, Missouri
West: Texas, Texas Tech, Utah, BYU, Arizona, Arizona State

ACC
East: Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina, North Carolina St, Duke, Wake Forest
South: Miami, Florida St, Central Florida, Georgia Tech, Clemson, East Carolina
West: Cincinnati, Louisville, Memphis, Houston, TCU, Baylor
North: Boston College, Connecticut, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Notre Dame, Temple
09-01-2017 09:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,837
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 150
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #40
RE: The Rocky Mountain Work Around
The number of "P" teams will shrink, not get larger. As content and marketability become more important, the elimination of a small school in a duplicate market (Wake Forest) or a little brother in a small market (Kansas State) is more likely than expansion.
I think it's likely that we could lose a couple of schools from the PAC (Washington State and Oregon State) and at least three from the Big 12 (Kansas State, TCU and Baylor) from the Big 12 in this go round. Eliminate Iowa State and let West Virginia seek another home, merge the PAC and Big 12 and add BYU as a football only partial for the PAC and you have a pretty good 16 team league.

B1G and SEC can stay at 14 (they both have plenty of content), West Virginia to the ACC for 16 with Notre Dame.
60 schools means 5 less mouths for FOX/ESPN to feed with no loss of area coverage.
(This post was last modified: 09-01-2017 09:32 AM by XLance.)
09-01-2017 09:30 AM
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.