CSNbbs

(06-04-2010 09:20 AM)dgrace4cards Wrote: [ -> ]http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/...er-in-play

Won't happen.

You know if they really wanted to do this the right way, all six conferences would "merge" and negotiate TV deals as a single entity and then worry about slicing and dicing the pie after they know how much money they can get.

I could see them bumping it up to include kansas and kansas state for a 8 team expansion from the big 12, figuring mo and neb are already gone to the big 10. I would not include iowa state or baylor under any pac 10 expansion format but rather hit utah and either tcu or byu to get to 20 or why not offer mo and neb i guess before the big 10. Yet, i'm not sure of the framework of a 10 and 10 division set up

(06-04-2010 09:28 AM)bluesox Wrote: [ -> ]I could see them bumping it up to include kansas and kansas state for a 8 team expansion from the big 12, figuring mo and neb are already gone to the big 10. I would not include iowa state or baylor under any pac 10 expansion format but rather hit utah and either tcu or byu to get to 20 or why not offer mo and neb i guess before the big 10. Yet, i'm not sure of the framework of a 10 and 10 division set up

NCAA rules require a full round robin within each division to allow a playoff game. A full merger would be two 11 team divisions, with CU most likely moving to the P10 side. All schools would have 10 conference football games, with no cross over games between divisions. Can't imagine how hoops would work as one 22 team conference. I think a full round robin is required, but I don't know that for sure.

With 2 ten team divisions, I guess you could have 9 division games with one rotated game between divisions for 10 total games. As for hoops, maybe 16-18 games against your division with 2 rotated games from the other division for 18-20 total, so basically its 2 separate leagues. I would think the football title game would need to be on campus considering the travel pretty much ko's neutral sites between the divisions. The hoop tourney, i might want to have 2 tourneys so each division gets a tourney if that could be allowed, maybe have the final 2 teams from each tourney play... or maybe phoenix would work with its dome and hockey arena next door if your bring in 20 school's.

The money isn't going to be any greater, might as well make out better with 16 than 20.

I can't see anyone going past 16. I know there are rumors of 20+, but there's just not value there imho. You create massive scheduling problems and you don't have a conference...you just have a handful of schools that play each other. Conferences work because the schools are generally on the same page and work for the betterment of the conference. You can't get that in a 20 team conference, where some of the schools never even play each other.

Personally, I think this 16 team conference stuff won't last past one or two TV contracts before it comes apart at the seams for various reasons. But I really don't see anyone going past 16.

depends if they can seal the deal with 16...add kansas and kan state might get them over the top...now if they can snag neb and mo too instead of them jumping to the big 10, that's huge. Otherwise, i would add utah and one from tcu/byu/nmex to go along ku and ksu to get to 20. I think going up to 20 or 24 works for the sec/acc and big 12/pac 10 combo's. The divisions are basically the "conference" but having such an alliance works with 2 separate divisions under a conf umbrella

To me that defeats the purpose of expansion: how many tag-alongs does the PAC10 have to tolerate in order to get Texas? That's what is about - getting Texas.

I'm sorry, I don't have a lot of symphathy for those that get left out. The Iowa States and Baylors of the world have had it pretty good for years. Welcome to our world! You'll find that recruiting as a outsider ain't quite that easy.

No way would this happen or work, now they're just providing Internet forum fodder again. The 6 team approach that was mentioned yesterday can definitely be made to work and be attractive although if I'm the Pac 10 I want nothing to do with Texas Tech but rather bring in Utah. MWC grabs Boise, Houston and the Kansas schools and doesn't skip a beat in football and actually upgrades their basketball profile immensely. If they're willing to go 14 take Texas Tech and Fresno in and call it a day.

I can handle a 14 team conference but more and more I detest this 16 team nonsense far more than I used to. Granted I'm still a believer in a 10 team conference as the ideal number with 12 working in some instances and at least 9 conference games for everyone with 10 or more members. You shouldn't go more than 2 years without playing a fellow conference-mate and the number of teams you don't play annually should be minimized. For instance the ACC would benefit from a 9 game conference schedule. You'd get your 5 division opponents, 2 permanent cross-division rivals and 2 rotating amongst the other 4 in the opposite division. That doesn't seem so bad to me.

(06-04-2010 09:56 AM)bluesox Wrote: [ -> ]depends if they can seal the deal with 16...add kansas and kan state might get them over the top...now if they can snag neb and mo too instead of them jumping to the big 10, that's huge. Otherwise, i would add utah and one from tcu/byu/nmex to go along ku and ksu to get to 20. I think going up to 20 or 24 works for the sec/acc and big 12/pac 10 combo's. The divisions are basically the "conference" but having such an alliance works with 2 separate divisions under a conf umbrella

There comes a point where you're effectively creating two conferences under an alliance because going beyond two 8 team divisions there is a good chance that kids will go through a full 5 year career in football and not once play a given conference mate or two from the other division. There is something to be said for cohesion in a league. Ask the B12.

(06-04-2010 10:36 AM)brista21 Wrote: [ -> ]No way would this happen or work, now they're just providing Internet forum fodder again. The 6 team approach that was mentioned yesterday can definitely be made to work and be attractive although if I'm the Pac 10 I want nothing to do with Texas Tech but rather bring in Utah. MWC grabs Boise, Houston and the Kansas schools and doesn't skip a beat in football and actually upgrades their basketball profile immensely. If they're willing to go 14 take Texas Tech and Fresno in and call it a day.

I can handle a 14 team conference but more and more I detest this 16 team nonsense far more than I used to. Granted I'm still a believer in a 10 team conference as the ideal number with 12 working in some instances and at least 9 conference games for everyone with 10 or more members. You shouldn't go more than 2 years without playing a fellow conference-mate and the number of teams you don't play annually should be minimized. For instance the ACC would benefit from a 9 game conference schedule. You'd get your 5 division opponents, 2 permanent cross-division rivals and 2 rotating amongst the other 4 in the opposite division. That doesn't seem so bad to me.

100% agree. 16 teams? 18 teams? 20 teams? These are no longer conferences but business arrangements. It's very sad to see the road that college athletics is now taking.

I could see the big 12 meetings going like this...

Baylor: Wh... Wha... What do you mean you LEAVING? ALL 6 of you, well at least take the REST OF US with you!

Texas: Alright, I swing it by the guys in the PAC, maybe we'll just make this conference "Texas sized"

Pac 10: HELL NO we don't want the rest of those teams, half of them shouldn't even be in the BCS in the first place...

Texas: Ok, were coming anyways...

it is an alliance more than a conference...given the distance that's what to expect with the pac x...the real conference is your division foes with the added benefit of cross over champ game between divisions, which needs to be on campus. I still think it works better in this case at 20 teams rather than 16 to make sure it happens, so i add ksu, ku, and also offer neb + mo before the big 10 moves or settle with utah + new mex/byu and control the western part of the country.

(06-04-2010 11:10 AM)UCF-ENG Wrote: [ -> ]I could see the big 12 meetings going like this...

Baylor: Wh... Wha... What do you mean you LEAVING? ALL 6 of you, well at least take the REST OF US with you!

Texas: Alright, I swing it by the guys in the PAC, maybe we'll just make this conference "Texas sized"

Pac 10: HELL NO we don't want the rest of those teams, half of them shouldn't even be in the BCS in the first place...

Texas: Ok, were coming anyways...

that sounds about right

(06-04-2010 09:26 AM)JunkYardCard Wrote: [ -> ]You know if they really wanted to do this the right way, all six conferences would "merge" and negotiate TV deals as a single entity and then worry about slicing and dicing the pie after they know how much money they can get.

That's the way it used to be. The NCAA did the negotiating. But Georgia and Oklahoma sued, and gave each college and/or conference the right to do its own deal. That's exactly wow we got to where we are now.

I would guess the pac 10 has 3 plans in mind:

1) expand to 16 current offers on the table
2) expand to 20, add 4 more school's to make it happen if plan 1 doesn't work
3) expand to 12 with colorado and utah if texas lead coalition declines plan 1 or 2

(06-04-2010 09:36 AM)orangefan Wrote: [ -> ]NCAA rules require a full round robin within each division to allow a playoff game.

That rule can be changed.

(06-04-2010 01:19 PM)Theodoresdaddy Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-04-2010 11:10 AM)UCF-ENG Wrote: [ -> ]I could see the big 12 meetings going like this...

Baylor: Wh... Wha... What do you mean you LEAVING? ALL 6 of you, well at least take the REST OF US with you!

Texas: Alright, I swing it by the guys in the PAC, maybe we'll just make this conference "Texas sized"

Pac 10: HELL NO we don't want the rest of those teams, half of them shouldn't even be in the BCS in the first place...

Texas: Ok, were coming anyways...

that sounds about right

Yup, it's the Big 8/Southwest Conference "merger" all over again.