CSNbbs

Frank the Tank's conference realignment news is as entertaining as a fat dude getting out of a kiddie pool...

I have always liked Frank the Tank and respect a lot of his post on the matter of college sports. I disagree on his Big 12 expansion view point. I believe the Big 12 should look to add Colorado state and New Mexico to get back to 12 and a championship game first.

(12-08-2014 06:51 PM)hawghiggs Wrote: [ -> ]I have always liked Frank the Tank and respect a lot of his post on the matter of college sports. I disagree on his Big 12 expansion view point. I believe the Big 12 should look to add Colorado state and New Mexico to get back to 12 and a championship game first.

And I believe the Big 12 should stand pat. The playoffs will expand to 8 teams sooner than later. No need to add schools that will not increase the current monetary payout Big 12 programs are receiving.

I like the one readers reply that the ACC could trade Pittsburgh to the Big 12 so the ACC could land UConn. All They have to do is ask and UConn would Jump. Some folks must live in a Bubble.

(12-08-2014 07:00 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-08-2014 06:51 PM)hawghiggs Wrote: [ -> ]I have always liked Frank the Tank and respect a lot of his post on the matter of college sports. I disagree on his Big 12 expansion view point. I believe the Big 12 should look to add Colorado state and New Mexico to get back to 12 and a championship game first.

And I believe the Big 12 should stand pat. The playoffs will expand to 8 teams sooner than later. No need to add schools that will not increase the current monetary payout Big 12 programs are receiving.

And That Big 12 logic is the reason or one anyway, why They were left out. 1st reason is Texas and Oklahoma failed to take command of the league by winning it. That would have gotten at least 1 in.

I know folks seem to think Frank is someone to follow but was there really anything at all to take away from that article?

I could tell Frank wanted to once again espouse my views and say that there are no expansion candidates that have enough value for the Big 12 to expand with thus the inevitable must happen but he probably knew I would call him out on it just like I did when he espoused my 20 team Big Ten expansion theory.

(12-08-2014 07:20 PM)CardFan1 Wrote: [ -> ]And That Big 12 logic is the reason or one anyway, why They were left out. 1st reason is Texas and Oklahoma failed to take command of the league by winning it. That would have gotten at least 1 in.

You've been drinking. Not good to drink and post at the same time.

I like Frank's articles. I don't always agree (I think any 8 team playoff would be a very bad move and think the Big 12 is in better shape than he does), but he does bring up good points. I think his best point on this is that if the Big 12 expands, it has little to do with any "playoff snub" and more to do with bigger underlying issues for the conference (fewer markets being the biggest).

Franks a Big 10 homer and always will be. He won't say anything about "Adding Value" because, he knows darn well that any team adds value if the conference has a Conference wide network.

The only thing that makes him even remotely close on the Big 12 with his views is the lack of a Conference network. Other wise, they would be at 14 and pushing for 16 like the rest.

The Pac has been waiting on Texas just like the B1G waited on ND. The B1G finally came to their senses. The Pac will as well, soon enough.

Texas to the PAC. Not happening. Logistics seem lost on some folks. Teams do not travel via teleportation.

(12-09-2014 12:23 AM)He1nousOne Wrote: [ -> ]Texas to the PAC. Not happening. Logistics seem lost on some folks. Teams do not travel via teleportation.

Read what I wrote again. I said it was a dream that the Pac will eventually wake up from. Just as the B1G woke up from their ND dream.

(12-09-2014 12:45 AM)USFRamenu Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-09-2014 12:23 AM)He1nousOne Wrote: [ -> ]Texas to the PAC. Not happening. Logistics seem lost on some folks. Teams do not travel via teleportation.

Read what I wrote again. I said it was a dream that the Pac will eventually wake up from. Just as the B1G woke up from their ND dream.

Late night reading fail on my part.

The playoffs going to eight is an assumption many hold, I think the day probably rolls around but..

Going to 8 before the 2020 season is very unlikely because there are too many others impacted. The conferences have all signed six year deals based on only four teams being pulled out, not eight.

Strategically you wouldn't want to go in and renegotiate a 12 year contract when it has 10 or 11 years on it, even at six years left, that's early unless the numbers are really through the roof for the playoff.

There were 44 CCGs in the BCS era. 34 of them would have had an impact on the CFP field if the CFP would have existed since 1998.

More times than not...the CCGs helped winners move up more than teams that did not play in CCG. In the SEC's case, often times their idle teams also would have ascended into the playoff (2013, 2012, 2011, 2007, 2006).

Sometimes CCGs have seen one lower team swapped for a formerly well-posititioned higher team. See 2013 MSU/OSU or 2007 Mizzou/OU.

CCGs have also hurt losers on occasion (and cost that conference a title game participant). See 2011 VaTech and perhaps 2009 Florida.

(Note--After pouring over a chart of this information again and again, it's fully impossible to make final conclusions on the impact of CCGs, primarily because no one knows exactly how the CFP committee would have ruled in each year. Plus, the BCS buster age is probably finished, and TCU/ND/Boise State/Utah wreaked havoc on the final standing for almost a solid decade. Overall though, like I said above, I think CCGs did more to help than hurt through the years.)

I looked it up. Using the BCS standings (and Massey's BCS simulation), for the last 4 years (when the Big 12 didn't have a title game), 8 of the 16 top 4 teams didn't play in a CCG. Notre Dame, Oklahoma State, STanford, and a bunch of SEC division runner-ups.

(12-09-2014 12:45 AM)USFRamenu Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-09-2014 12:23 AM)He1nousOne Wrote: [ -> ]Texas to the PAC. Not happening. Logistics seem lost on some folks. Teams do not travel via teleportation.

Read what I wrote again. I said it was a dream that the Pac will eventually wake up from. Just as the B1G woke up from their ND dream.

The PAC isn't asleep dreaming of Texas. The PAC is wide awake and realize the only legitimate option is Texas.

Frank is very good at accesing expansion option. I am a little sceptical of his new Memphis assesment based on one good year of Tiger football. Reads a little like Frank is practicing revisionist history in case Memphis gets invited to the Big 12.

Just like everyone else Frank knows little to nothing and has his opinions, that are no more or less valuable than anyone else.

The B12 is very unlikely to expand in the near future. Non of those schools is going to take a pay cut.

(12-09-2014 04:40 PM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ]I looked it up. Using the BCS standings (and Massey's BCS simulation), for the last 4 years (when the Big 12 didn't have a title game), 8 of the 16 top 4 teams didn't play in a CCG. Notre Dame, Oklahoma State, STanford, and a bunch of SEC division runner-ups.

This is worthy of its own thread.