(10-29-2017 12:22 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-29-2017 10:32 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-29-2017 10:23 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-26-2017 11:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-26-2017 08:41 PM)XLance Wrote:  Don't feel too bad about Auburn. They would still be in the top 4 in the new conference in gross revenue and value.

Hey dummy, you can't add & subtract can you? Auburn at the same pay, would be #1 in the ACC and by a wide margin!

First of all, I am no dummy.
Secondly, I'm not sure where you get your numbers, but from everything I read you would still be behind Texas and Notre Dame.
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com...-programs/

https://www.outkickthecoverage.com/the-2...ms-122215/

The scenario you gave didn't include Notre Dame (in full) and Texas. It was I believe Vandy and Auburn for Virginia Tech and N.C. State. So we would be significantly ahead of Florida State which would be your top earner of the full and present ACC members. But OKTC is about as reliable as the Bleacher Report.

And really X, an article from 2015? I have the current numbers at the top of the page.

Your reading comprehension needs some remedial work JR. But even so, that's one heck of a league and covers a lot of real estate.

This might give us a conference that looks like this:

Notre Dame, Texas, Vanderbilt, Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College, Miami.
Auburn, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, North Carolina, Duke, Wake Forest, UVa.

I could support that X.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(10-25-2017 02:15 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  B1G takes Notre Dame, Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina, NC State, Duke, and Georgia Tech

IF GT ends up with a bunch of damned Yankees I hope there is a Harbaugh/Meyer recruiting coaching clinic, on GT's own campus, free of charge, every weekend year round. If we're going to the wastelands burn it all down with us.

(10-30-2017 08:02 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(10-25-2017 02:15 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  B1G takes Notre Dame, Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina, NC State, Duke, and Georgia Tech

IF GT ends up with a bunch of damned Yankees I hope there is a Harbaugh/Meyer recruiting coaching clinic, on GT's own campus, free of charge, every weekend year round. If we're going to the wastelands burn it all down with us.

I wouldn't do that to you GTS, but I was just trying to think of a way to make each move a benefit to the respective conference.

What I'd do if I could wave a magic wand...

West: Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Missouri
Central: LSU, Arkansas, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn
East: Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky
Atlantic: Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson, NC State, Virginia Tech

(10-31-2017 01:41 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I wouldn't do that to you GTS, but I was just trying to think of a way to make each move a benefit to the respective conference.

What I'd do if I could wave a magic wand...

West: Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Missouri
Central: LSU, Arkansas, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn
East: Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky
Atlantic: Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson, NC State, Virginia Tech

Why give away basketball tournament units, basketball titles, academic prestige, and padded football win columns? Bring on board Duke, UNC, and UVA. Pair with TTU or TCU and you've got 7 in each division, which is perfect for scheduling because that way you get byes or crossovers every week quite easily.

(10-31-2017 01:09 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(10-31-2017 01:41 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I wouldn't do that to you GTS, but I was just trying to think of a way to make each move a benefit to the respective conference.

What I'd do if I could wave a magic wand...

West: Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Missouri
Central: LSU, Arkansas, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn
East: Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky
Atlantic: Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson, NC State, Virginia Tech

Why give away basketball tournament units, basketball titles, academic prestige, and padded football win columns? Bring on board Duke, UNC, and UVA. Pair with TTU or TCU and you've got 7 in each division, which is perfect for scheduling because that way you get byes or crossovers every week quite easily.

You could do that too.

There's a lot of quality schools between the Big 12 and the ACC that could be included. I think it would be a matter of diminishing returns at some point though.

(10-31-2017 01:56 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  You could do that too.

There's a lot of quality schools between the Big 12 and the ACC that could be included. I think it would be a matter of diminishing returns at some point though.

What you call diminishing returns I call the long term health of all fan bases. You want enough teams to give almost everybody a chance to field a Top 25 caliber team at least once in a while. If you have a conference of nothing but football factories ... well ... I've got an even stronger law than diminishing marginal returns to throw at you ... mathematics. If you remake the SEC into some 20+ team monster where you ONLY expand with football factories ... then why bother to even field a football team any more if you're ... say ... Kentucky. Or Vandy. Hell, even Miss State. Is it worth suffering huge losing seasons year after year to catch a great recruit or a great coach briefly before they're hired away? As with all things in life ... YOU ... WANT... BALANCE. Bring in some basketball factories who pad the football win column like Kentucky while still being at least somewhat respectable year in and year out (all those ACC schools I mentioned). The only sport where I don't think you can remedy this is baseball. The entire SEC and the entire ACC are a bunch of killers in baseball. The baseball Top 25 more or less is the ACC+SEC+(10 or 12 teams of potluck)

(10-31-2017 04:57 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(10-31-2017 01:56 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  You could do that too.

There's a lot of quality schools between the Big 12 and the ACC that could be included. I think it would be a matter of diminishing returns at some point though.

What you call diminishing returns I call the long term health of all fan bases. You want enough teams to give almost everybody a chance to field a Top 25 caliber team at least once in a while. If you have a conference of nothing but football factories ... well ... I've got an even stronger law than diminishing marginal returns to throw at you ... mathematics. If you remake the SEC into some 20+ team monster where you ONLY expand with football factories ... then why bother to even field a football team any more if you're ... say ... Kentucky. Or Vandy. Hell, even Miss State. Is it worth suffering huge losing seasons year after year to catch a great recruit or a great coach briefly before they're hired away? As with all things in life ... YOU ... WANT... BALANCE. Bring in some basketball factories who pad the football win column like Kentucky while still being at least somewhat respectable year in and year out (all those ACC schools I mentioned). The only sport where I don't think you can remedy this is baseball. The entire SEC and the entire ACC are a bunch of killers in baseball. The baseball Top 25 more or less is the ACC+SEC+(10 or 12 teams of potluck)

Balance, absolutely.

But my fear would be a conference could become so large as to become unwieldy and then just split into smaller pieces once again.

That and the money has to be sustainable.

The nature of college athletics demands that tradition and regionalism be considered as far as who partners with who. It's not a matter of cobbling together markets like you see in professional sports. I like it that way, but it also means that intrinsic to the notion of maintaining competitiveness is a relationship between size and frequency of play.

If you're too big and not aligned properly then something gets sacrificed along the way. I don't want a situation where every school is a football power, but each member must contribute something to the whole otherwise the point of the partnership is undermined.

So my thought goes like this...if we have to play tradition rivals, neighbors, and certain schools that bring greater parity to the collective then how big do you need to get before each addition causes you to ask whether or not all goals are continually being met? If each addition doesn't accomplish the stated goals then you've got diminishing returns and eventually you start asking yourself why you're in this arrangement in the first place.

(11-01-2017 02:29 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(10-31-2017 04:57 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(10-31-2017 01:56 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  You could do that too.

There's a lot of quality schools between the Big 12 and the ACC that could be included. I think it would be a matter of diminishing returns at some point though.

What you call diminishing returns I call the long term health of all fan bases. You want enough teams to give almost everybody a chance to field a Top 25 caliber team at least once in a while. If you have a conference of nothing but football factories ... well ... I've got an even stronger law than diminishing marginal returns to throw at you ... mathematics. If you remake the SEC into some 20+ team monster where you ONLY expand with football factories ... then why bother to even field a football team any more if you're ... say ... Kentucky. Or Vandy. Hell, even Miss State. Is it worth suffering huge losing seasons year after year to catch a great recruit or a great coach briefly before they're hired away? As with all things in life ... YOU ... WANT... BALANCE. Bring in some basketball factories who pad the football win column like Kentucky while still being at least somewhat respectable year in and year out (all those ACC schools I mentioned). The only sport where I don't think you can remedy this is baseball. The entire SEC and the entire ACC are a bunch of killers in baseball. The baseball Top 25 more or less is the ACC+SEC+(10 or 12 teams of potluck)

Balance, absolutely.

But my fear would be a conference could become so large as to become unwieldy and then just split into smaller pieces once again.

That and the money has to be sustainable.

The nature of college athletics demands that tradition and regionalism be considered as far as who partners with who. It's not a matter of cobbling together markets like you see in professional sports. I like it that way, but it also means that intrinsic to the notion of maintaining competitiveness is a relationship between size and frequency of play.

If you're too big and not aligned properly then something gets sacrificed along the way. I don't want a situation where every school is a football power, but each member must contribute something to the whole otherwise the point of the partnership is undermined.

So my thought goes like this...if we have to play tradition rivals, neighbors, and certain schools that bring greater parity to the collective then how big do you need to get before each addition causes you to ask whether or not all goals are continually being met? If each addition doesn't accomplish the stated goals then you've got diminishing returns and eventually you start asking yourself why you're in this arrangement in the first place.

Balance is important in realignment and a lot of times fans don't think about that. The sport is better if we have leagues that are fairly equal not a P4 where we have 3 great leagues and subpar league. Its not good for the sport if we rip all the rivalries out of the sport.

Rutgers, Utah, TCU & WVU, Syracuse, Pitt absolutely were going to take a P5 invite and more power too them.

But is any athletic program that moved from a P5 league better off athletically, not financially? Neb/A&M/Missouri/Colorado/Maryland
If you take dollars and cents of tv revenues out I doubt any are any better off. While all the schools had reasons at the time, I wonder if any of those school after thinking about it will come to the conclusion it hasn't helped them.

(11-01-2017 02:29 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(10-31-2017 04:57 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(10-31-2017 01:56 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  You could do that too.

There's a lot of quality schools between the Big 12 and the ACC that could be included. I think it would be a matter of diminishing returns at some point though.

What you call diminishing returns I call the long term health of all fan bases. You want enough teams to give almost everybody a chance to field a Top 25 caliber team at least once in a while. If you have a conference of nothing but football factories ... well ... I've got an even stronger law than diminishing marginal returns to throw at you ... mathematics. If you remake the SEC into some 20+ team monster where you ONLY expand with football factories ... then why bother to even field a football team any more if you're ... say ... Kentucky. Or Vandy. Hell, even Miss State. Is it worth suffering huge losing seasons year after year to catch a great recruit or a great coach briefly before they're hired away? As with all things in life ... YOU ... WANT... BALANCE. Bring in some basketball factories who pad the football win column like Kentucky while still being at least somewhat respectable year in and year out (all those ACC schools I mentioned). The only sport where I don't think you can remedy this is baseball. The entire SEC and the entire ACC are a bunch of killers in baseball. The baseball Top 25 more or less is the ACC+SEC+(10 or 12 teams of potluck)

Balance, absolutely.

But my fear would be a conference could become so large as to become unwieldy and then just split into smaller pieces once again.

That and the money has to be sustainable.

The nature of college athletics demands that tradition and regionalism be considered as far as who partners with who. It's not a matter of cobbling together markets like you see in professional sports. I like it that way, but it also means that intrinsic to the notion of maintaining competitiveness is a relationship between size and frequency of play.

If you're too big and not aligned properly then something gets sacrificed along the way. I don't want a situation where every school is a football power, but each member must contribute something to the whole otherwise the point of the partnership is undermined.

So my thought goes like this...if we have to play tradition rivals, neighbors, and certain schools that bring greater parity to the collective then how big do you need to get before each addition causes you to ask whether or not all goals are continually being met? If each addition doesn't accomplish the stated goals then you've got diminishing returns and eventually you start asking yourself why you're in this arrangement in the first place.

Everybody loves to bring up the SoCon as the example of how too big means you fail. But look at the ridiculous spectrum of WHO was in the SoCon:

Quote:Southern Conference charter members were Alabama, Auburn, Clemson, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi State, North Carolina, North Carolina State, Tennessee, Virginia, Virginia Tech, and Washington & Lee. In 1922, six more universities – Florida, LSU, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tulane, and Vanderbilt joined the conference. The first year of competition for the conference was in 1922, effective January 1.[9][10] The new rules banned freshman play.[11] Later additions included Sewanee (1923), Virginia Military Institute (1924), and Duke (1929).

Notice ... I'm not promoting the addition of UMD, W&L, Sewanee, Tulane, or VMI. And, just as important, I'm not promoting more games between Alabama and NC State or more games between UNC and TAMU. I want to very strictly align the divisions along regional and traditional interests and have you deliberately play mostly schools in your own division. To the point where in my basketball scheduling I say you play a home-and-home round robin against your division. And how potent the home-and-home round robin is for home attendance in hoops is something even ACC fans are starting to forget. It's really having four conferences underneath one banner. It's collective bargaining within a more cohesive power structure which also allows you to move pieces around much MUCH more easily than you can if every conference has their own TV channel their own GoR their own everything. And this means having a conference commissioner and ADs willing to tell ESPN "NO" when it comes to it. For example .. if TAMU and UNC turn into some Top 10 behemoths in football and ESPN demands they start playing each year. That's when you give ESPN the firm "NO" and calmly explain TAMU will instead be playing Texas and Arkansas and TCU etc.

(11-01-2017 12:54 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  Neb/A&M/Missouri/Colorado/Maryland

In that list I'd say A&M and Missouri were the only clear winners. Missouri's winning was a result of dumb luck ... they entered the SEC East shortly before it imploded on itself. I put their immediate future forecast in the "loser" column now. TAMU is a pretty clear win through and through, but they were the only one coming from a conference with non-equal payout. The problem with the Big 12 is the Big 12 .... namely Texas. Nebraska is a very clear loser, as is Maryland. The jury is out on Colorado. You have to keep in mind the Buffs call Boulder, CO home. And even dyed in the wool progressive lefties think Boulder is going too far left. In the words of stand up comedian Greg Fitzsimmons (a lefty): "Boulder is a little too one note." Culturally ... Colorado's campus might as well be Berkeley-lite. They are a better fit in the Pac-12 than we might imagine at first. Having been to Denver in the last 2 years, I can say with great confidence that they'll only be getting buried year after year after year with more and more Californians fleeing their own policies only to replicate them in Colorado. So the fit will only get better and better for the Buffs.

(11-01-2017 01:19 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(11-01-2017 02:29 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(10-31-2017 04:57 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(10-31-2017 01:56 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  You could do that too.

There's a lot of quality schools between the Big 12 and the ACC that could be included. I think it would be a matter of diminishing returns at some point though.

What you call diminishing returns I call the long term health of all fan bases. You want enough teams to give almost everybody a chance to field a Top 25 caliber team at least once in a while. If you have a conference of nothing but football factories ... well ... I've got an even stronger law than diminishing marginal returns to throw at you ... mathematics. If you remake the SEC into some 20+ team monster where you ONLY expand with football factories ... then why bother to even field a football team any more if you're ... say ... Kentucky. Or Vandy. Hell, even Miss State. Is it worth suffering huge losing seasons year after year to catch a great recruit or a great coach briefly before they're hired away? As with all things in life ... YOU ... WANT... BALANCE. Bring in some basketball factories who pad the football win column like Kentucky while still being at least somewhat respectable year in and year out (all those ACC schools I mentioned). The only sport where I don't think you can remedy this is baseball. The entire SEC and the entire ACC are a bunch of killers in baseball. The baseball Top 25 more or less is the ACC+SEC+(10 or 12 teams of potluck)

Balance, absolutely.

But my fear would be a conference could become so large as to become unwieldy and then just split into smaller pieces once again.

That and the money has to be sustainable.

The nature of college athletics demands that tradition and regionalism be considered as far as who partners with who. It's not a matter of cobbling together markets like you see in professional sports. I like it that way, but it also means that intrinsic to the notion of maintaining competitiveness is a relationship between size and frequency of play.

If you're too big and not aligned properly then something gets sacrificed along the way. I don't want a situation where every school is a football power, but each member must contribute something to the whole otherwise the point of the partnership is undermined.

So my thought goes like this...if we have to play tradition rivals, neighbors, and certain schools that bring greater parity to the collective then how big do you need to get before each addition causes you to ask whether or not all goals are continually being met? If each addition doesn't accomplish the stated goals then you've got diminishing returns and eventually you start asking yourself why you're in this arrangement in the first place.

Everybody loves to bring up the SoCon as the example of how too big means you fail. But look at the ridiculous spectrum of WHO was in the SoCon:

Quote:Southern Conference charter members were Alabama, Auburn, Clemson, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi State, North Carolina, North Carolina State, Tennessee, Virginia, Virginia Tech, and Washington & Lee. In 1922, six more universities – Florida, LSU, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tulane, and Vanderbilt joined the conference. The first year of competition for the conference was in 1922, effective January 1.[9] The new rules banned freshman play.[11] Later additions included Sewanee (1923), Virginia Military Institute (1924), and Duke (1929).

Notice ... I'm not promoting the addition of UMD, W&L, Sewanee, Tulane, or VMI. And, just as important, I'm not promoting more games between Alabama and NC State or more games between UNC and TAMU. I want to very strictly align the divisions along regional and traditional interests and have you deliberately play mostly schools in your own division. To the point where in my basketball scheduling I say you play a home-and-home round robin against your division. And how potent the home-and-home round robin is for home attendance in hoops is something even ACC fans are starting to forget. It's really having four conferences underneath one banner. It's collective bargaining within a more cohesive power structure which also allows you to move pieces around much MUCH more easily than you can if every conference has their own TV channel their own GoR their own everything. And this means having a conference commissioner and ADs willing to tell ESPN "NO" when it comes to it. For example .. if TAMU and UNC turn into some Top 10 behemoths in football and ESPN demands they start playing each year. That's when you give ESPN the firm "NO" and calmly explain TAMU will instead be playing Texas and Arkansas and TCU etc.

Couldn't you achieve that better with a partnership between 2 conferences (SEC & ACC) than an expansion? Combining the SECN & ACCN would help us each to get a larger rate in areas that we couldn't without a partnership, for example.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(11-02-2017 09:10 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Couldn't you achieve that better with a partnership between 2 conferences (SEC & ACC) than an expansion? Combining the SECN & ACCN would help us each to get a larger rate in areas that we couldn't without a partnership, for example.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't place much respect at the feet of either conference commissioner. It could happen that way I suppose. I just think Fuhrer Mickey's mouse accountants are more on the ball than either the ACC or SEC commish.

(11-02-2017 12:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

The Neo-Southern Conference:

East:
Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Miami, South Carolina

South:
Alabama, Kentucky, L.S.U., Louisville, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

West:
Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M, T.C.U., Texas Tech

North:
Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Pittsburgh, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest, West Virgina

That's 4 Divisions of 8 each which are grouped Regionally and would permit the culture of each distinct region to stay intact and it groups essential rivals if you permitted 1 annual crossover rivalry game (in this case Auburn/Alabama)

We'll take Duke as the crossover. Where do we sign?