Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
How to keep college football from becoming a regional sport?
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
Win5002 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 182
Joined: Oct 2015
Reputation: 5
I Root For: Big 12 & B1G
Location:
Post: #1
How to keep college football from becoming a regional sport?
I saw a good thread on another message board about college football becoming too regionalized in the Southeast and I want to hear Southeastern perspective. For the sake of argument I think OU & Texas while in the southern half should be lumped in the central part of the US because it is centrally located as well.

The question becomes how do you keep the sport national because I think while I'm sure its great to say look at the way we dominate the sport in the Southeast, what does that do eventually to the viewership of the product and its popularity long term.

While I think Texas, OU and USC should have enough recruits with Texas and California to have a chance at national championships from time to time(and maybe UCLA especially with the right coach), other schools in that list such as Washington, Oregon or a Stanford really need the sun, moon and stars to align if they are to win a national title.

In the North its OSU, PSU, Mich., and ND and maybe some secondary schools like Neb., Wisconsin, MSU and as a stretch Iowa if everything goes right but lets focus primarily on the 4 major brands. Outside of OSU while these these have great brands they have to work harder for recruits and its a big disadvantage to FSU/Clemson and SEC.

The southeast is going to win more just based on the number of recruits that come from the area. But should the combo of the West, Central(Texas & OU) and north win 2 out of 4 yrs or 2 out of 5 years?Would that be balanced enough, I think so. The B1G has been disadvantaged by recruits as well as playing all the bowl games, NC games on the road. I think part of the problem is Delaney cared more about the "brand" of the Rose Bowl than a competitive advantage for his teams.

I will mention bad coaching hires have really limited Texas, USC, PSU, Mich & Neb the last 15 to 20 years. ND has had hiring issues for 30 yrs possibly with the exception of Kelly but I am sure ND & CFB fans are divided on him as a hire. While I don't expect the northern brands to win as many as Texas, USC & OU they should win some. I think bad coaching hires have cost the north a possible championship or two but is not the whole answer. Would just good coaching hires and an equal footing in playoff venues fix this? That might get them closer but I'm still not sure that puts them over the hump.

Some questions:
1. Do CFB fans in the southeast see this as an issue or do they just want to dominate the sport which could come to the detriment of it?

2. Is it just coaching hire blunders and playoff location disadvantage? Realizing the north will not win as many but should be pulling in 1 NC every 4 yrs where also the west or central gets one as well and the southeast gets 2 out of 4.

3. What league do you think is best to be consolidated to meet brand and competitive play requirements or do you think we are best off with 5 leagues and an 8 team playoff? Either way you don't have to go through the full realignment maybe just a high level discussion of what league is consolidated or if its recruiting for the B1G what area they get and what two leagues are consolidated after that.

4. If all the conferences and networks come to the conclusion we are too regionalized could this be where we see the tv revenues negotiated as 1 for a new P4 or P5 football that splits away? If so some minor trading for geographical fits even among the B1G & SEC could happen.

My take is some of this is coaching hires but I don't know if that will completely fix the problem especially with one of the 2 biggest brands being the B1G. You need 4 strong balanced divisions brand wise and talent wise where CFP is played in by conference champions and equal footing for the playoff game venues.

1. The SEC is set.

2. The B1G is set brand wise and has made progress talent with PSU & Mich. lately but they are not there yet. Everyone laughed at Rutgers and Maryland but I believe it has helped them recruiting wise and to rebuild the PSU brand. But they need more. You can help the B1G recruiting issue 3 ways:
A. Coastal Atlantic states. Would a small step in just adding Virginia to already go with New Jersey and the Maryland/DC area be enough? It might be too early to tell with PSU having Franklin and Mich. having Harbaugh(lets forget the SC game from what I hear lol). Its the least intrusive and leaves the option of keeping the ACC for the most part intact. Or do they need North Carolina also and Ga. Tech wouldn't hurt also but I don't know the politics of being a southern school vs. academics. I know Ga. Tech is dwarfed by the Bulldogs but it still is exposure. B. Central contingent with OU & TX but I don't believe they want enough Texas school representation that is meaningful to Texas.
C. Addition of PAC schools where the B1G gets the brands they want but some decent schools are left for the Big 12. I'm thinking USC, Stanford, Az., WAsh., Colorado. It still leaves 2 California schoos for the Big 12, and ASU.

3. ACC has won enough but still lags brand wise which is why they NEED ND eventually. But what happens if FSU & Clemson go through a down period are they out of luck? Maybe Miami could step up and carry them as their standard bearer, I don't think Va. Tech can long term and I'm ND can either.

4. Big 12- Has 2 strong brands and solid ratings but additions would need to be good partners. If the B1G took 6 PAC teams as long as the B1G only took 2 California schools and USC & UCLA were in opposite leagues you can make a solid Big 12.

5. PAC- they need to combine with the Big 12 but I'm not sure this helps one of the 2 biggest brands in the sport in the B1G.
(This post was last modified: 01-02-2018 11:22 PM by Win5002.)
01-02-2018 04:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 14,484
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 735
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #2
RE: How to keep college football from becoming a regional sport?(high level)
(01-02-2018 04:32 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  I saw a good thread on another message board about college football becoming too regionalized in the Southeast and I want to hear Southeastern perspective. For the sake of argument I think OU & Texas while in the southern half should be lumped in the central part of the US because it is centrally located as well.

The question becomes how do you keep the sport national because I think while I'm sure its great to say look at the way we dominate the sport in the Southeast, what does that do eventually to the viewership of the product and its popularity long term.

While I think Texas, OU and USC should have enough recruits with Texas and California to have a chance at national championships from time to time(and maybe UCLA especially with the right coach), other schools in that list such as Washington, Oregon or a Stanford really need the sun, moon and stars to align if they are to win a national title.

In the North its OSU, PSU, Mich., and ND and maybe some secondary schools like Neb., Wisconsin, MSU and as a stretch Iowa if everything goes right but lets focus primarily on the 4 major brands. Outside of OSU while these these have great brands they have to work harder for recruits and its a big disadvantage to FSU/Clemson and SEC.

The southeast is going to win more just based on the number of recruits that come from the area. But should the combo of the West, Central(Texas & OU) and north win 2 out of 4 yrs or 2 out of 5 years?Would that be balanced enough, I think so. The B1G has been disadvantaged by recruits as well as playing all the bowl games, NC games on the road. I think part of the problem is Delaney cared more about the "brand" of the Rose Bowl than a competitive advantage for his teams.

I will mention bad coaching hires have really limited Texas, USC, PSU, Mich & Neb the last 15 to 20 years. ND has had hiring issues for 30 yrs possibly with the exception of Kelly but I am sure ND & CFB fans are divided on him as a hire. While I don't expect the northern brands to win as many as Texas, USC & OU they should win some. I think bad coaching hires have cost the north a possible championship or two but is not the whole answer. Would just good coaching hires and an equal footing in playoff venues fix this? That might get them closer but I'm still not sure that puts them over the hump.

Some questions:
1. Do CFB fans in the southeast see this as an issue or do they just want to dominate the sport which could come to the detriment of it?

2. Is it just coaching hire blunders and playoff location disadvantage? Realizing the north will not win as many but should be pulling in 1 NC every 4 yrs where also the west or central gets one as well and the southeast gets 2 out of 4.

3. What league do you think is best to be consolidated to meet brand and competitive play requirements or do you think we are best off with 5 leagues and an 8 team playoff? Either way you don't have to go through the full realignment maybe just a high level discussion of what league is consolidated or if its recruiting for the B1G what area they get and what two leagues are consolidated after that.

4. If all the conferences and networks come to the conclusion we are too regionalized could this be where we see the tv revenues negotiated as 1 for a new P4 or P5 football that splits away? If so some minor trading for geographical fits even among the B1G & SEC could happen.

My take is some of this is coaching hires but I don't know if that will completely fix the problem especially with one of the 2 biggest brands being the B1G. You need 4 strong balanced divisions brand wise and talent wise where CFP is played in by conference champions and equal footing for the playoff game venues.

1. The SEC is set.

2. The B1G is set brand wise and has made progress talent with PSU & Mich. lately but they are not there yet. Everyone laughed at Rutgers and Maryland but I believe it has helped them recruiting wise and to rebuild the PSU brand. But they need more. You can help the B1G recruiting issue 3 ways:
A. Coastal Atlantic states. Would a small step in just adding Virginia to already go with New Jersey and the Maryland/DC area be enough? It might be too early to tell with PSU having Franklin and Mich. having Harbaugh(lets forget the SC game from what I hear lol). Its the least intrusive and leaves the option of keeping the ACC for the most part intact. Or do they need North Carolina also and Ga. Tech wouldn't hurt also but I don't know the politics of being a southern school vs. academics. I know Ga. Tech is dwarfed by the Bulldogs but it still is exposure. B. Central contingent with OU & TX but I don't believe they want enough Texas school representation that is meaningful to Texas.
C. Addition of PAC schools where the B1G gets the brands they want but some decent schools are left for the Big 12. I'm thinking USC, Stanford, Az., WAsh., Colorado. It still leaves 2 California schoos for the Big 12, and ASU.

3. ACC has won enough but still lags brand wise which is why they NEED ND eventually. But what happens if FSU & Clemson go through a down period are they out of luck? Maybe Miami could step up and carry them as their standard bearer, I don't think Va. Tech can long term and I'm ND can either.

4. Big 12- Has 2 strong brands and solid ratings but additions would need to be good partners. If the B1G took 6 PAC teams as long as the B1G only took 2 California schools and USC & UCLA were in opposite leagues you can make a solid Big 12.

5. PAC- they need to combine with the Big 12 but I'm not sure this helps one of the 2 biggest brands in the sport in the B1G.

Did you read my response to Redhawk's post at LT? It answers your question.
01-02-2018 04:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Win5002 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 182
Joined: Oct 2015
Reputation: 5
I Root For: Big 12 & B1G
Location:
Post: #3
RE: How to keep college football from becoming a regional sport?(high level)
I think 4 equal leagues and preferably even negotiating as 1 is the best answer but even if it was network driven JR on another board was real close to what I think could be the best answer. To get 4 leagues equal leagues brand, and competitive wise its really a question of do we divide the PAC or the ACC because the Big 12 really doesn't work very well but you can build a very good conference around Texas & OU.


JR's leagues were:
Big 10:

California, Oregon, Stanford, Washington *****My only edit is Cal or Stanford goes to the Big 12 and USC or UCLA comes to the B1G. Rivals play OOC.

Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin

Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue

Illinois, Northwestern, Ohio State, Penn State

Big 12

Arizona, Arizona State, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal

Brigham Young, T.C.U., Texas Tech, Utah

Iowa State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Nebraska

Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, Texas

ACC

Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse

Boston College, Maryland, Virginia, Virginia Tech

Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Wake Forest

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville


SEC

Arkansas, L.S.U., Missouri, Texas A&M

Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State

Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, West Virginia

Florida, Georgia, Miami, South Carolina

1.) The biggest correction I would suggest is the B1G gets one Southern California team and the Big 12 gets one. You can Stanford & CAL in any direction after that. This gives each league access to Southern Cal and Northern Cal tv markets and recruiting. The California teams can play their rivals OOC as the SEC & ACC do but if you don't think USC & UCLA can be split, I think actually the B1G would end up with USC/UCLA and the Big 12 with CAL/Stanford. You already helped the Big 12 a lot with Neb. coming back(and I think it helps Neb). The B1G needs the relationship with Southern California more for recruiting to keep them strong and for them to gain something. I mention a few minor consolation prizes below with the Big 12 if they don't get one Southern California team.

2.) A next biggest suggestion is would help the B1G to keep the PSU brand strong. I would almost let them have 18 teams and keep Maryland & Rutgers they need those recruiting grounds. Let the ACC fill in with UCONN & Cincy. One out of the box trade might be PSU for ND then the other schools in the B1G are not as important except I would say the B1G should get USC & Stanford for the ND rivalry and let UCLA/Cal go to the Big 12. PSU may not be the brand ND was or is considered to be but they could actually help the ACC be a better football conference(just an interesting thought).

3.) A minor change might be does the SEC want a Dallas Fort Worth team in TCU for more exposure in Dallas if they did either Missouri or Arkansas could head to the Big 12 in their place because I think revenues would be getting close among the leagues. The SEC would have to think its beneficial but if they liked the TCU option, the B1G could take Missouri and the Big 12 could take Colorado with the new realignment. I think Colorado is a better fit for the Big 12 and Missouri for the B1G if they didn't go to the Big 12. But these are minor changes.
(This post was last modified: 01-02-2018 05:49 PM by Win5002.)
01-02-2018 05:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 14,484
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 735
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #4
RE: How to keep college football from becoming a regional sport?(high level)
(01-02-2018 05:24 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  I think 4 equal leagues and preferably even negotiating as 1 is the best answer but even if it was network driven JR on another board was real close to what I think could be the best answer. To get 4 leagues equal leagues brand, and competitive wise its really a question of do we divide the PAC or the ACC because the Big 12 really doesn't work very well but you can build a very good conference around Texas & OU.


JR's leagues were:
Big 10:

California, Oregon, Stanford, Washington *****My only edit is Cal or Stanford goes to the Big 12 and USC or UCLA comes to the B1G. Rivals play OOC.

Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin

Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue

Illinois, Northwestern, Ohio State, Penn State

Big 12

Arizona, Arizona State, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal

Brigham Young, T.C.U., Texas Tech, Utah

Iowa State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Nebraska

Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, Texas

ACC

Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse

Boston College, Maryland, Virginia, Virginia Tech

Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Wake Forest

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville


SEC

Arkansas, L.S.U., Missouri, Texas A&M

Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State

Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, West Virginia

Florida, Georgia, Miami, South Carolina

1.) The biggest correction I would suggest is the B1G gets one Southern California team and the Big 12 gets one. You can Stanford & CAL in any direction after that. This gives each league access to Southern Cal and Northern Cal tv markets and recruiting. The California teams can play their rivals OOC as the SEC & ACC do but if you don't think USC & UCLA can be split, I think actually the B1G would end up with USC/UCLA and the Big 12 with CAL/Stanford. You already helped the Big 12 a lot with Neb. coming back(and I think it helps Neb). The B1G needs the relationship with Southern California more for recruiting to keep them strong and for them to gain something. I mention a few minor consolation prizes below with the Big 12 if they don't get one Southern California team.

2.) A next biggest suggestion is would help the B1G to keep the PSU brand strong. I would almost let them have 18 teams and keep Maryland & Rutgers they need those recruiting grounds. Let the ACC fill in with UCONN & Cincy. One out of the box trade might be PSU for ND then the other schools in the B1G are not as important except I would say the B1G should get USC & Stanford for the ND rivalry and let UCLA/Cal go to the Big 12. PSU may not be the brand ND was or is considered to be but they could actually help the ACC be a better football conference(just an interesting thought).

3.) A minor change might be does the SEC want a Dallas Fort Worth team in TCU for more exposure in Dallas if they did either Missouri or Arkansas could head to the Big 12 in their place because I think revenues would be getting close among the leagues. The SEC would have to think its beneficial but if they liked the TCU option, the B1G could take Missouri and the Big 12 could take Colorado with the new realignment. I think Colorado is a better fit for the Big 12 and Missouri for the B1G if they didn't go to the Big 12. But these are minor changes.

Your minor changes are all reasonable options. But the question is does that division not achieve balance better than dividing up the Big 12?

And as for Rutgers and Maryland the ACC has to get something. Solidifying their hold up the Atlantic Coast North is that payoff for losing Miami. The question is whether Oregon, Washington, 2 Cali schools are worth Maryland and Rutgers? Obviously they are worth far more. Is Colorado worth Nebraska? It's probably a pretty even trade athletically and win academically.
01-02-2018 06:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

Win5002 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 182
Joined: Oct 2015
Reputation: 5
I Root For: Big 12 & B1G
Location:
Post: #5
RE: How to keep college football from becoming a regional sport?(high level)
(01-02-2018 06:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-02-2018 05:24 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  I think 4 equal leagues and preferably even negotiating as 1 is the best answer but even if it was network driven JR on another board was real close to what I think could be the best answer. To get 4 leagues equal leagues brand, and competitive wise its really a question of do we divide the PAC or the ACC because the Big 12 really doesn't work very well but you can build a very good conference around Texas & OU.


JR's leagues were:
Big 10:

California, Oregon, Stanford, Washington *****My only edit is Cal or Stanford goes to the Big 12 and USC or UCLA comes to the B1G. Rivals play OOC.

Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin

Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue

Illinois, Northwestern, Ohio State, Penn State

Big 12

Arizona, Arizona State, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal

Brigham Young, T.C.U., Texas Tech, Utah

Iowa State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Nebraska

Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, Texas

ACC

Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse

Boston College, Maryland, Virginia, Virginia Tech

Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Wake Forest

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville


SEC

Arkansas, L.S.U., Missouri, Texas A&M

Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State

Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, West Virginia

Florida, Georgia, Miami, South Carolina

1.) The biggest correction I would suggest is the B1G gets one Southern California team and the Big 12 gets one. You can Stanford & CAL in any direction after that. This gives each league access to Southern Cal and Northern Cal tv markets and recruiting. The California teams can play their rivals OOC as the SEC & ACC do but if you don't think USC & UCLA can be split, I think actually the B1G would end up with USC/UCLA and the Big 12 with CAL/Stanford. You already helped the Big 12 a lot with Neb. coming back(and I think it helps Neb). The B1G needs the relationship with Southern California more for recruiting to keep them strong and for them to gain something. I mention a few minor consolation prizes below with the Big 12 if they don't get one Southern California team.

2.) A next biggest suggestion is would help the B1G to keep the PSU brand strong. I would almost let them have 18 teams and keep Maryland & Rutgers they need those recruiting grounds. Let the ACC fill in with UCONN & Cincy. One out of the box trade might be PSU for ND then the other schools in the B1G are not as important except I would say the B1G should get USC & Stanford for the ND rivalry and let UCLA/Cal go to the Big 12. PSU may not be the brand ND was or is considered to be but they could actually help the ACC be a better football conference(just an interesting thought).

3.) A minor change might be does the SEC want a Dallas Fort Worth team in TCU for more exposure in Dallas if they did either Missouri or Arkansas could head to the Big 12 in their place because I think revenues would be getting close among the leagues. The SEC would have to think its beneficial but if they liked the TCU option, the B1G could take Missouri and the Big 12 could take Colorado with the new realignment. I think Colorado is a better fit for the Big 12 and Missouri for the B1G if they didn't go to the Big 12. But these are minor changes.

Your minor changes are all reasonable options. But the question is does that division not achieve balance better than dividing up the Big 12?

And as for Rutgers and Maryland the ACC has to get something. Solidifying their hold up the Atlantic Coast North is that payoff for losing Miami. The question is whether Oregon, Washington, 2 Cali schools are worth Maryland and Rutgers? Obviously they are worth far more. Is Colorado worth Nebraska? It's probably a pretty even trade athletically and win academically.

Maybe you saw it later, it was your dialogue with Redhawk and I posted your divisions.

The only real change I think that really needs to be done then is split the two Southern Cal teams. I'm not sure 2 northern Cal teams helps the league as much since PSU could suffer going forward. I really think the B1G needs access to recruiting grounds in Southern Cal would help that.

Just curious what you thought of the ND for PSU exchange between the ACC & B1G assuming the B1G took USC & Stanford? I'm not sold either way but thought it was interesting. Brand wise the ACC might suffer a little but it would help their football balance in the north IMO especially since Maryland, Rutgers went to the ACC and they have the states of Virginia and North Carolina for recruiting already. ND would have a league with 4 rivals Mich/MSU/USC/Stanford.
01-02-2018 06:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 14,484
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 735
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #6
RE: How to keep college football from becoming a regional sport?(high level)
(01-02-2018 06:20 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  
(01-02-2018 06:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-02-2018 05:24 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  I think 4 equal leagues and preferably even negotiating as 1 is the best answer but even if it was network driven JR on another board was real close to what I think could be the best answer. To get 4 leagues equal leagues brand, and competitive wise its really a question of do we divide the PAC or the ACC because the Big 12 really doesn't work very well but you can build a very good conference around Texas & OU.


JR's leagues were:
Big 10:

California, Oregon, Stanford, Washington *****My only edit is Cal or Stanford goes to the Big 12 and USC or UCLA comes to the B1G. Rivals play OOC.

Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin

Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue

Illinois, Northwestern, Ohio State, Penn State

Big 12

Arizona, Arizona State, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal

Brigham Young, T.C.U., Texas Tech, Utah

Iowa State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Nebraska

Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, Texas

ACC

Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse

Boston College, Maryland, Virginia, Virginia Tech

Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Wake Forest

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville


SEC

Arkansas, L.S.U., Missouri, Texas A&M

Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State

Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, West Virginia

Florida, Georgia, Miami, South Carolina

1.) The biggest correction I would suggest is the B1G gets one Southern California team and the Big 12 gets one. You can Stanford & CAL in any direction after that. This gives each league access to Southern Cal and Northern Cal tv markets and recruiting. The California teams can play their rivals OOC as the SEC & ACC do but if you don't think USC & UCLA can be split, I think actually the B1G would end up with USC/UCLA and the Big 12 with CAL/Stanford. You already helped the Big 12 a lot with Neb. coming back(and I think it helps Neb). The B1G needs the relationship with Southern California more for recruiting to keep them strong and for them to gain something. I mention a few minor consolation prizes below with the Big 12 if they don't get one Southern California team.

2.) A next biggest suggestion is would help the B1G to keep the PSU brand strong. I would almost let them have 18 teams and keep Maryland & Rutgers they need those recruiting grounds. Let the ACC fill in with UCONN & Cincy. One out of the box trade might be PSU for ND then the other schools in the B1G are not as important except I would say the B1G should get USC & Stanford for the ND rivalry and let UCLA/Cal go to the Big 12. PSU may not be the brand ND was or is considered to be but they could actually help the ACC be a better football conference(just an interesting thought).

3.) A minor change might be does the SEC want a Dallas Fort Worth team in TCU for more exposure in Dallas if they did either Missouri or Arkansas could head to the Big 12 in their place because I think revenues would be getting close among the leagues. The SEC would have to think its beneficial but if they liked the TCU option, the B1G could take Missouri and the Big 12 could take Colorado with the new realignment. I think Colorado is a better fit for the Big 12 and Missouri for the B1G if they didn't go to the Big 12. But these are minor changes.

Your minor changes are all reasonable options. But the question is does that division not achieve balance better than dividing up the Big 12?

And as for Rutgers and Maryland the ACC has to get something. Solidifying their hold up the Atlantic Coast North is that payoff for losing Miami. The question is whether Oregon, Washington, 2 Cali schools are worth Maryland and Rutgers? Obviously they are worth far more. Is Colorado worth Nebraska? It's probably a pretty even trade athletically and win academically.

Maybe you saw it later, it was your dialogue with Redhawk and I posted your divisions.

The only real change I think that really needs to be done then is split the two Southern Cal teams. I'm not sure 2 northern Cal teams helps the league as much since PSU could suffer going forward. I really think the B1G needs access to recruiting grounds in Southern Cal would help that.

Just curious what you thought of the ND for PSU exchange between the ACC & B1G assuming the B1G took USC & Stanford? I'm not sold either way but thought it was interesting. Brand wise the ACC might suffer a little but it would help their football balance in the north IMO especially since Maryland, Rutgers went to the ACC and they have the states of Virginia and North Carolina for recruiting already. ND would have a league with 4 rivals Mich/MSU/USC/Stanford.

I think Penn State for Notre Dame would work, but I'm not sold that N.D. would do it. USC / Stanford would tempt them however.
01-02-2018 07:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Win5002 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 182
Joined: Oct 2015
Reputation: 5
I Root For: Big 12 & B1G
Location:
Post: #7
RE: How to keep college football from becoming a regional sport?(high level)
(01-02-2018 07:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-02-2018 06:20 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  
(01-02-2018 06:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-02-2018 05:24 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  I think 4 equal leagues and preferably even negotiating as 1 is the best answer but even if it was network driven JR on another board was real close to what I think could be the best answer. To get 4 leagues equal leagues brand, and competitive wise its really a question of do we divide the PAC or the ACC because the Big 12 really doesn't work very well but you can build a very good conference around Texas & OU.


JR's leagues were:
Big 10:

California, Oregon, Stanford, Washington *****My only edit is Cal or Stanford goes to the Big 12 and USC or UCLA comes to the B1G. Rivals play OOC.

Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin

Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue

Illinois, Northwestern, Ohio State, Penn State

Big 12

Arizona, Arizona State, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal

Brigham Young, T.C.U., Texas Tech, Utah

Iowa State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Nebraska

Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, Texas

ACC

Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse

Boston College, Maryland, Virginia, Virginia Tech

Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Wake Forest

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville


SEC

Arkansas, L.S.U., Missouri, Texas A&M

Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State

Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, West Virginia

Florida, Georgia, Miami, South Carolina

1.) The biggest correction I would suggest is the B1G gets one Southern California team and the Big 12 gets one. You can Stanford & CAL in any direction after that. This gives each league access to Southern Cal and Northern Cal tv markets and recruiting. The California teams can play their rivals OOC as the SEC & ACC do but if you don't think USC & UCLA can be split, I think actually the B1G would end up with USC/UCLA and the Big 12 with CAL/Stanford. You already helped the Big 12 a lot with Neb. coming back(and I think it helps Neb). The B1G needs the relationship with Southern California more for recruiting to keep them strong and for them to gain something. I mention a few minor consolation prizes below with the Big 12 if they don't get one Southern California team.

2.) A next biggest suggestion is would help the B1G to keep the PSU brand strong. I would almost let them have 18 teams and keep Maryland & Rutgers they need those recruiting grounds. Let the ACC fill in with UCONN & Cincy. One out of the box trade might be PSU for ND then the other schools in the B1G are not as important except I would say the B1G should get USC & Stanford for the ND rivalry and let UCLA/Cal go to the Big 12. PSU may not be the brand ND was or is considered to be but they could actually help the ACC be a better football conference(just an interesting thought).

3.) A minor change might be does the SEC want a Dallas Fort Worth team in TCU for more exposure in Dallas if they did either Missouri or Arkansas could head to the Big 12 in their place because I think revenues would be getting close among the leagues. The SEC would have to think its beneficial but if they liked the TCU option, the B1G could take Missouri and the Big 12 could take Colorado with the new realignment. I think Colorado is a better fit for the Big 12 and Missouri for the B1G if they didn't go to the Big 12. But these are minor changes.

Your minor changes are all reasonable options. But the question is does that division not achieve balance better than dividing up the Big 12?

And as for Rutgers and Maryland the ACC has to get something. Solidifying their hold up the Atlantic Coast North is that payoff for losing Miami. The question is whether Oregon, Washington, 2 Cali schools are worth Maryland and Rutgers? Obviously they are worth far more. Is Colorado worth Nebraska? It's probably a pretty even trade athletically and win academically.

Maybe you saw it later, it was your dialogue with Redhawk and I posted your divisions.

The only real change I think that really needs to be done then is split the two Southern Cal teams. I'm not sure 2 northern Cal teams helps the league as much since PSU could suffer going forward. I really think the B1G needs access to recruiting grounds in Southern Cal would help that.

Just curious what you thought of the ND for PSU exchange between the ACC & B1G assuming the B1G took USC & Stanford? I'm not sold either way but thought it was interesting. Brand wise the ACC might suffer a little but it would help their football balance in the north IMO especially since Maryland, Rutgers went to the ACC and they have the states of Virginia and North Carolina for recruiting already. ND would have a league with 4 rivals Mich/MSU/USC/Stanford.

I think Penn State for Notre Dame would work, but I'm not sold that N.D. would do it. USC / Stanford would tempt them however.

The more I think about that trade, I come to the conclusion the B1G might not want to make that trade. PSU was involved in some pretty big ratings game this year, none of ND's games had that great of ratings this year. Also, Pennsylvania adds another recruiting state for the league and ND doesn't bring one.
01-02-2018 09:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 14,484
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 735
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #8
RE: How to keep college football from becoming a regional sport?(high level)
(01-02-2018 09:34 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  
(01-02-2018 07:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-02-2018 06:20 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  
(01-02-2018 06:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-02-2018 05:24 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  I think 4 equal leagues and preferably even negotiating as 1 is the best answer but even if it was network driven JR on another board was real close to what I think could be the best answer. To get 4 leagues equal leagues brand, and competitive wise its really a question of do we divide the PAC or the ACC because the Big 12 really doesn't work very well but you can build a very good conference around Texas & OU.


JR's leagues were:
Big 10:

California, Oregon, Stanford, Washington *****My only edit is Cal or Stanford goes to the Big 12 and USC or UCLA comes to the B1G. Rivals play OOC.

Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin

Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue

Illinois, Northwestern, Ohio State, Penn State

Big 12

Arizona, Arizona State, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal

Brigham Young, T.C.U., Texas Tech, Utah

Iowa State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Nebraska

Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, Texas

ACC

Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse

Boston College, Maryland, Virginia, Virginia Tech

Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Wake Forest

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville


SEC

Arkansas, L.S.U., Missouri, Texas A&M

Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State

Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, West Virginia

Florida, Georgia, Miami, South Carolina

1.) The biggest correction I would suggest is the B1G gets one Southern California team and the Big 12 gets one. You can Stanford & CAL in any direction after that. This gives each league access to Southern Cal and Northern Cal tv markets and recruiting. The California teams can play their rivals OOC as the SEC & ACC do but if you don't think USC & UCLA can be split, I think actually the B1G would end up with USC/UCLA and the Big 12 with CAL/Stanford. You already helped the Big 12 a lot with Neb. coming back(and I think it helps Neb). The B1G needs the relationship with Southern California more for recruiting to keep them strong and for them to gain something. I mention a few minor consolation prizes below with the Big 12 if they don't get one Southern California team.

2.) A next biggest suggestion is would help the B1G to keep the PSU brand strong. I would almost let them have 18 teams and keep Maryland & Rutgers they need those recruiting grounds. Let the ACC fill in with UCONN & Cincy. One out of the box trade might be PSU for ND then the other schools in the B1G are not as important except I would say the B1G should get USC & Stanford for the ND rivalry and let UCLA/Cal go to the Big 12. PSU may not be the brand ND was or is considered to be but they could actually help the ACC be a better football conference(just an interesting thought).

3.) A minor change might be does the SEC want a Dallas Fort Worth team in TCU for more exposure in Dallas if they did either Missouri or Arkansas could head to the Big 12 in their place because I think revenues would be getting close among the leagues. The SEC would have to think its beneficial but if they liked the TCU option, the B1G could take Missouri and the Big 12 could take Colorado with the new realignment. I think Colorado is a better fit for the Big 12 and Missouri for the B1G if they didn't go to the Big 12. But these are minor changes.

Your minor changes are all reasonable options. But the question is does that division not achieve balance better than dividing up the Big 12?

And as for Rutgers and Maryland the ACC has to get something. Solidifying their hold up the Atlantic Coast North is that payoff for losing Miami. The question is whether Oregon, Washington, 2 Cali schools are worth Maryland and Rutgers? Obviously they are worth far more. Is Colorado worth Nebraska? It's probably a pretty even trade athletically and win academically.

Maybe you saw it later, it was your dialogue with Redhawk and I posted your divisions.

The only real change I think that really needs to be done then is split the two Southern Cal teams. I'm not sure 2 northern Cal teams helps the league as much since PSU could suffer going forward. I really think the B1G needs access to recruiting grounds in Southern Cal would help that.

Just curious what you thought of the ND for PSU exchange between the ACC & B1G assuming the B1G took USC & Stanford? I'm not sold either way but thought it was interesting. Brand wise the ACC might suffer a little but it would help their football balance in the north IMO especially since Maryland, Rutgers went to the ACC and they have the states of Virginia and North Carolina for recruiting already. ND would have a league with 4 rivals Mich/MSU/USC/Stanford.

I think Penn State for Notre Dame would work, but I'm not sold that N.D. would do it. USC / Stanford would tempt them however.

The more I think about that trade, I come to the conclusion the B1G might not want to make that trade. PSU was involved in some pretty big ratings game this year, none of ND's games had that great of ratings this year. Also, Pennsylvania adds another recruiting state for the league and ND doesn't bring one.

Value was the reason I left Penn State in the Big 10 to begin with. Every passing year is a year removed from any memory of Notre Dame's national prominence. When's the last time they won a national title in one of the men's big three sports? The last time they played for one against Alabama they got the head and rump handed to them.

Men's Baseball National Championships: None (2 CWS appearances)
Men's Basketball National Championships: None
Last Men's Football National Championship: 1988 (This year will mark 30 years since their last national championship in Football).
(This post was last modified: 01-02-2018 09:55 PM by JRsec.)
01-02-2018 09:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,121
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 158
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #9
RE: How to keep college football from becoming a regional sport?
(01-02-2018 07:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-02-2018 06:20 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  
(01-02-2018 06:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-02-2018 05:24 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  I think 4 equal leagues and preferably even negotiating as 1 is the best answer but even if it was network driven JR on another board was real close to what I think could be the best answer. To get 4 leagues equal leagues brand, and competitive wise its really a question of do we divide the PAC or the ACC because the Big 12 really doesn't work very well but you can build a very good conference around Texas & OU.


JR's leagues were:
Big 10:

California, Oregon, Stanford, Washington *****My only edit is Cal or Stanford goes to the Big 12 and USC or UCLA comes to the B1G. Rivals play OOC.

Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin

Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue

Illinois, Northwestern, Ohio State, Penn State

Big 12

Arizona, Arizona State, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal

Brigham Young, T.C.U., Texas Tech, Utah

Iowa State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Nebraska

Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, Texas

ACC

Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse

Boston College, Maryland, Virginia, Virginia Tech

Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Wake Forest

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville


SEC

Arkansas, L.S.U., Missouri, Texas A&M

Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State

Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, West Virginia

Florida, Georgia, Miami, South Carolina

1.) The biggest correction I would suggest is the B1G gets one Southern California team and the Big 12 gets one. You can Stanford & CAL in any direction after that. This gives each league access to Southern Cal and Northern Cal tv markets and recruiting. The California teams can play their rivals OOC as the SEC & ACC do but if you don't think USC & UCLA can be split, I think actually the B1G would end up with USC/UCLA and the Big 12 with CAL/Stanford. You already helped the Big 12 a lot with Neb. coming back(and I think it helps Neb). The B1G needs the relationship with Southern California more for recruiting to keep them strong and for them to gain something. I mention a few minor consolation prizes below with the Big 12 if they don't get one Southern California team.

2.) A next biggest suggestion is would help the B1G to keep the PSU brand strong. I would almost let them have 18 teams and keep Maryland & Rutgers they need those recruiting grounds. Let the ACC fill in with UCONN & Cincy. One out of the box trade might be PSU for ND then the other schools in the B1G are not as important except I would say the B1G should get USC & Stanford for the ND rivalry and let UCLA/Cal go to the Big 12. PSU may not be the brand ND was or is considered to be but they could actually help the ACC be a better football conference(just an interesting thought).

3.) A minor change might be does the SEC want a Dallas Fort Worth team in TCU for more exposure in Dallas if they did either Missouri or Arkansas could head to the Big 12 in their place because I think revenues would be getting close among the leagues. The SEC would have to think its beneficial but if they liked the TCU option, the B1G could take Missouri and the Big 12 could take Colorado with the new realignment. I think Colorado is a better fit for the Big 12 and Missouri for the B1G if they didn't go to the Big 12. But these are minor changes.

Your minor changes are all reasonable options. But the question is does that division not achieve balance better than dividing up the Big 12?

And as for Rutgers and Maryland the ACC has to get something. Solidifying their hold up the Atlantic Coast North is that payoff for losing Miami. The question is whether Oregon, Washington, 2 Cali schools are worth Maryland and Rutgers? Obviously they are worth far more. Is Colorado worth Nebraska? It's probably a pretty even trade athletically and win academically.

Maybe you saw it later, it was your dialogue with Redhawk and I posted your divisions.

The only real change I think that really needs to be done then is split the two Southern Cal teams. I'm not sure 2 northern Cal teams helps the league as much since PSU could suffer going forward. I really think the B1G needs access to recruiting grounds in Southern Cal would help that.

Just curious what you thought of the ND for PSU exchange between the ACC & B1G assuming the B1G took USC & Stanford? I'm not sold either way but thought it was interesting. Brand wise the ACC might suffer a little but it would help their football balance in the north IMO especially since Maryland, Rutgers went to the ACC and they have the states of Virginia and North Carolina for recruiting already. ND would have a league with 4 rivals Mich/MSU/USC/Stanford.

I think Penn State for Notre Dame would work, but I'm not sold that N.D. would do it. USC / Stanford would tempt them however.

I didn't think the divisions were all that important. It was the concept. IIRC JR even stated that the divisions were a work in progress.
I think that you are correct re: Notre Dame. Penn State for Notre Dame would be a natural, but the Irish won't be giving up their east coast connection. And it's because of Notre Dame that we can't just make a Pitt for Maryland swap. I do think the ACC would lose Louisville in favor of another east coast team.
(This post was last modified: 01-03-2018 05:32 AM by XLance.)
01-03-2018 05:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gamecock Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,877
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 73
I Root For: South Carolina
Location:
Post: #10
RE: How to keep college football from becoming a regional sport?
(01-02-2018 04:32 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  Some questions:
1. Do CFB fans in the southeast see this as an issue or do they just want to dominate the sport which could come to the detriment of it?

I think you will find that 90% of SEC fans want their school to win at all costs and don't care much about the sport as a whole.

To your larger point, I think the sport is fine even if it is Southeastern oriented. The SEC and southern half of the ACC will always dominate but the cannibalistic nature of the sport means only 2-3 can be great at any given time. While the Big Ten, Big 12, and Pac 12 have fewer schools capable to getting to the top, there is also less competition every year which makes it more likely that those schools get in (which is why Ohio St is basically a lock for the playoffs or NY6 bowl every year).

More champions and title game participants are likely to come from the south, but it doesn't mean the sport is doomed. The NFL is very heavy with northern teams but still does very well.
01-03-2018 11:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2018 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, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.