(06-11-2016 11:39 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (06-11-2016 10:06 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote: [ -> ]Ok. New "by the numbers" evaluation.
Criteria:
1) academics
2) revenue
3) football attendance
4) TV ratings
5) NCAA tournament appearances
6) new markets
Academics based on average of us news and ARWU rankings. 3 tiers: above, meets, below. Above defined as over 5 or more standings ahead of average. Below was 5 or more below average. Above worth 4 points, meets 2
Revenue: three tiers: more than 5 mill above average, average, and more than 5 mil below average. Above is 2 points, meets is 1 point. Rationale: revenue is valuable, but entry to sec can improve it to sec levels in close cases.
Attendance: above 5k more on average, meets, below 5k: above 4, meets 2
TV ratings: using texags 2014 data. Avg sec game was 15th. 11-20 was meets. Above 4, meets 2
NCAA appearances: over past ten years, sec averages 4.1 bids a seasons. 3-5 Bids in past ten years was meets, more was above. Above 4, meets 2
Markets: 0 for any state we were already in, 1 for a state in bottom half of population, 2 for states in top half
Schools evaluated: ACC minus Boston college and Syracuse, all big 12
Possible points:20
Results:
FSU 16
Texas 14
Ok 11
Pitt, unc, Duke, NC State 10
Virginia 8
Kansas, Iowa state 7
Clemson, Miami, vtech, Louisville, baylor, wake Forest 6
West Virginia, Kansas state 5
Georgia tech, ok state 4
Texas tech, TCU 0
Markets skewed Texas schools low. I assume a school like TCU would have some value. Also, FSU was only school above on TV, NC State met. Popular schools like vtech were low due to attendance and low basketball (which could change with a new coach, if you count Bristol this year, etc).
Pitt impressed because of location and academics and decent basketball. NC State under this evaluation provides similar value to Duke and UNC because it was also considered above in academics and met sec standards under the TV category.
Most of us would admit that Texas, FSU, and OK would be awesome grabs. This shows that we might want to stop at 16, but that of we go further, in addition to schools like NC State and v Tech, a school like Iowa state might offer value.
That's a very nice method. I would have halved those basketball points because it is only 15% of the total revenue, but still a very fine methodology.
Now if you compare those targets to the those I found using the method in the just by the numbers thread you will find that the top targets are essentially the same but the order may have changed slightly. Still it supports Florida State and Oklahoma as two very nice lock downs to 16. But there are other strong pairs as well.
I do think that since Slive stated and Sankey upheld our desire to stay culturally cohesive that schools like Pitt would be excluded and quite possibly Kansas as well. But we'll wait and see about that.
Note: When I did the analysis for the just by the numbers thread I weighted new markets more heavily than content. I think that is reversed now.
As a Clemson fan, I continue to dream that one day we can play in the SEC. I think that Clemson by far is the best
cultural fit of any school not already in the SEC. Our attendance figures and academics match up well (or exceed). I believe that our revenue would easily meet or exceed the mean once we began playing in the SEC. We do have a strong regional following and if we can string a few more years like this year together, our national following will be greatly improved. Our basketball is mediocre at best so we do not bring anything to the table for the SEC in this regard but our other olympic sports would fit right in. We do not add anything in terms of new markets and this is of course a big deal. Oh well, I know an invite to the SEC is a VERY long shot for Clemson but it is nice to have dreams of routine football games with UT, Auburn, A&M, and of course UGA!
I'd take Clemson in a heartbeat.
(06-11-2016 02:59 PM)IR4CU Wrote: [ -> ] (06-11-2016 11:39 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (06-11-2016 10:06 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote: [ -> ]Ok. New "by the numbers" evaluation.
Criteria:
1) academics
2) revenue
3) football attendance
4) TV ratings
5) NCAA tournament appearances
6) new markets
Academics based on average of us news and ARWU rankings. 3 tiers: above, meets, below. Above defined as over 5 or more standings ahead of average. Below was 5 or more below average. Above worth 4 points, meets 2
Revenue: three tiers: more than 5 mill above average, average, and more than 5 mil below average. Above is 2 points, meets is 1 point. Rationale: revenue is valuable, but entry to sec can improve it to sec levels in close cases.
Attendance: above 5k more on average, meets, below 5k: above 4, meets 2
TV ratings: using texags 2014 data. Avg sec game was 15th. 11-20 was meets. Above 4, meets 2
NCAA appearances: over past ten years, sec averages 4.1 bids a seasons. 3-5 Bids in past ten years was meets, more was above. Above 4, meets 2
Markets: 0 for any state we were already in, 1 for a state in bottom half of population, 2 for states in top half
Schools evaluated: ACC minus Boston college and Syracuse, all big 12
Possible points:20
Results:
FSU 16
Texas 14
Ok 11
Pitt, unc, Duke, NC State 10
Virginia 8
Kansas, Iowa state 7
Clemson, Miami, vtech, Louisville, baylor, wake Forest 6
West Virginia, Kansas state 5
Georgia tech, ok state 4
Texas tech, TCU 0
Markets skewed Texas schools low. I assume a school like TCU would have some value. Also, FSU was only school above on TV, NC State met. Popular schools like vtech were low due to attendance and low basketball (which could change with a new coach, if you count Bristol this year, etc).
Pitt impressed because of location and academics and decent basketball. NC State under this evaluation provides similar value to Duke and UNC because it was also considered above in academics and met sec standards under the TV category.
Most of us would admit that Texas, FSU, and OK would be awesome grabs. This shows that we might want to stop at 16, but that of we go further, in addition to schools like NC State and v Tech, a school like Iowa state might offer value.
That's a very nice method. I would have halved those basketball points because it is only 15% of the total revenue, but still a very fine methodology.
Now if you compare those targets to the those I found using the method in the just by the numbers thread you will find that the top targets are essentially the same but the order may have changed slightly. Still it supports Florida State and Oklahoma as two very nice lock downs to 16. But there are other strong pairs as well.
I do think that since Slive stated and Sankey upheld our desire to stay culturally cohesive that schools like Pitt would be excluded and quite possibly Kansas as well. But we'll wait and see about that.
Note: When I did the analysis for the just by the numbers thread I weighted new markets more heavily than content. I think that is reversed now.
As a Clemson fan, I continue to dream that one day we can play in the SEC. I think that Clemson by far is the best cultural fit of any school not already in the SEC. Our attendance figures and academics match up well (or exceed). I believe that our revenue would easily meet or exceed the mean once we began playing in the SEC. We do have a strong regional following and if we can string a few more years like this year together, our national following will be greatly improved. Our basketball is mediocre at best so we do not bring anything to the table for the SEC in this regard but our other olympic sports would fit right in. We do not add anything in terms of new markets and this is of course a big deal. Oh well, I know an invite to the SEC is a VERY long shot for Clemson but it is nice to have dreams of routine football games with UT, Auburn, A&M, and of course UGA!
IMO, Clemson and Florida State are the two schools that finish out the SEC the best. They are essentially SEC schools in their athletics and certainly fit the mean of the SEC academically plus or minus a little bit. And, your fan bases are the most SEC like remaining along with Oklahoma.
I'd be a happy old man if it came to pass. Why? Florida State locks down Florida, Clemson breaks contiguity for any expansion down the Atlantic Coast. If we could Oklahoma and Georgia Tech along with them it is an academic addition, and a lock down on a new but small state which carries DFW.
What else would we need? With Ga Tech the Big 10 has no access even to Miami.
We wouldn't need North Carolina or Virginia to keep them at bay. All of the additions would suit our culture and old rivalries could be renewed (Auburn / Tech the oldest in the South) or preserved. In that scenario I would imagine that the Big 10 would pick up U.N.C., Virginia, Duke, and Notre Dame and would add plenty of revenue, but with the exception of N.D. no football value per se.
Then Boston College, Pittsburgh, N.C. State, Virignia Tech, and Syracuse could join Connecticut as part of the Big 12 Northeast. Miami could join them as part of the Big 12 South with Texas, Texas Tech, T.C.U., Baylor, and Oklahoma State. Cincinnati, Louisville, West Virginia, Iowa State, Kansas, and Kansas State would form the Big 12 North.
Now the Big 10, SEC, and Big 12 all stand at 18 and all have networks that are profitable.
(06-11-2016 02:59 PM)IR4CU Wrote: [ -> ]As a Clemson fan, I continue to dream that one day we can play in the SEC. I think that Clemson by far is the best cultural fit of any school not already in the SEC. Our attendance figures and academics match up well (or exceed). I believe that our revenue would easily meet or exceed the mean once we began playing in the SEC. We do have a strong regional following and if we can string a few more years like this year together, our national following will be greatly improved. Our basketball is mediocre at best so we do not bring anything to the table for the SEC in this regard but our other olympic sports would fit right in. We do not add anything in terms of new markets and this is of course a big deal. Oh well, I know an invite to the SEC is a VERY long shot for Clemson but it is nice to have dreams of routine football games with UT, Auburn, A&M, and of course UGA!
I'd also love to have Clemson.
My grand plan involves going either to 20 or 24. I'd take all of the in-state rivals for the current SEC schools...Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, and Louisville. I'd also take NC State and Virginia Tech to add new markets.
If Oklahoma ended up in that mix somewhere then that would be fine too.
(06-12-2016 09:58 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ] (06-11-2016 02:59 PM)IR4CU Wrote: [ -> ]As a Clemson fan, I continue to dream that one day we can play in the SEC. I think that Clemson by far is the best cultural fit of any school not already in the SEC. Our attendance figures and academics match up well (or exceed). I believe that our revenue would easily meet or exceed the mean once we began playing in the SEC. We do have a strong regional following and if we can string a few more years like this year together, our national following will be greatly improved. Our basketball is mediocre at best so we do not bring anything to the table for the SEC in this regard but our other olympic sports would fit right in. We do not add anything in terms of new markets and this is of course a big deal. Oh well, I know an invite to the SEC is a VERY long shot for Clemson but it is nice to have dreams of routine football games with UT, Auburn, A&M, and of course UGA!
I'd also love to have Clemson.
My grand plan involves going either to 20 or 24. I'd take all of the in-state rivals for the current SEC schools...Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, and Louisville. I'd also take NC State and Virginia Tech to add new markets.
If Oklahoma ended up in that mix somewhere then that would be fine too.
Concur. At 24, the SEC could take Miami, FSU, GT, Clemson, UNC, NCSU, Duke, UVa, VT, Louisville. It would make the SEC the unquestioned king of both football and basketball and forever lock the B1G out of the south.
(06-14-2016 01:14 PM)ren.hoek Wrote: [ -> ] (06-12-2016 09:58 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ] (06-11-2016 02:59 PM)IR4CU Wrote: [ -> ]As a Clemson fan, I continue to dream that one day we can play in the SEC. I think that Clemson by far is the best cultural fit of any school not already in the SEC. Our attendance figures and academics match up well (or exceed). I believe that our revenue would easily meet or exceed the mean once we began playing in the SEC. We do have a strong regional following and if we can string a few more years like this year together, our national following will be greatly improved. Our basketball is mediocre at best so we do not bring anything to the table for the SEC in this regard but our other olympic sports would fit right in. We do not add anything in terms of new markets and this is of course a big deal. Oh well, I know an invite to the SEC is a VERY long shot for Clemson but it is nice to have dreams of routine football games with UT, Auburn, A&M, and of course UGA!
I'd also love to have Clemson.
My grand plan involves going either to 20 or 24. I'd take all of the in-state rivals for the current SEC schools...Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, and Louisville. I'd also take NC State and Virginia Tech to add new markets.
If Oklahoma ended up in that mix somewhere then that would be fine too.
Concur. At 24, the SEC could take Miami, FSU, GT, Clemson, UNC, NCSU, Duke, UVa, VT, Louisville. It would make the SEC the unquestioned king of both football and basketball and forever lock the B1G out of the south.
Now if you could only boot Pitt, Syracuse, B.C. & Wake and offer N.D. as a partial we'd be fine.
That's tough isn't it! Between us we stand at 29. If we added Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas we could stop. Who cares where we put them. Texas and N.D. all in with the ACC and Kansas and Oklahoma with the SEC and what else would ESPN need? It's much easier to add 3 than to kick anyone out. Then we form the Great South League which consists of two conferences the ACC & SEC. We share a network. Done.
(06-12-2016 11:54 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (06-11-2016 02:59 PM)IR4CU Wrote: [ -> ] (06-11-2016 11:39 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (06-11-2016 10:06 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote: [ -> ]Ok. New "by the numbers" evaluation.
Criteria:
1) academics
2) revenue
3) football attendance
4) TV ratings
5) NCAA tournament appearances
6) new markets
Academics based on average of us news and ARWU rankings. 3 tiers: above, meets, below. Above defined as over 5 or more standings ahead of average. Below was 5 or more below average. Above worth 4 points, meets 2
Revenue: three tiers: more than 5 mill above average, average, and more than 5 mil below average. Above is 2 points, meets is 1 point. Rationale: revenue is valuable, but entry to sec can improve it to sec levels in close cases.
Attendance: above 5k more on average, meets, below 5k: above 4, meets 2
TV ratings: using texags 2014 data. Avg sec game was 15th. 11-20 was meets. Above 4, meets 2
NCAA appearances: over past ten years, sec averages 4.1 bids a seasons. 3-5 Bids in past ten years was meets, more was above. Above 4, meets 2
Markets: 0 for any state we were already in, 1 for a state in bottom half of population, 2 for states in top half
Schools evaluated: ACC minus Boston college and Syracuse, all big 12
Possible points:20
Results:
FSU 16
Texas 14
Ok 11
Pitt, unc, Duke, NC State 10
Virginia 8
Kansas, Iowa state 7
Clemson, Miami, vtech, Louisville, baylor, wake Forest 6
West Virginia, Kansas state 5
Georgia tech, ok state 4
Texas tech, TCU 0
Markets skewed Texas schools low. I assume a school like TCU would have some value. Also, FSU was only school above on TV, NC State met. Popular schools like vtech were low due to attendance and low basketball (which could change with a new coach, if you count Bristol this year, etc).
Pitt impressed because of location and academics and decent basketball. NC State under this evaluation provides similar value to Duke and UNC because it was also considered above in academics and met sec standards under the TV category.
Most of us would admit that Texas, FSU, and OK would be awesome grabs. This shows that we might want to stop at 16, but that of we go further, in addition to schools like NC State and v Tech, a school like Iowa state might offer value.
That's a very nice method. I would have halved those basketball points because it is only 15% of the total revenue, but still a very fine methodology.
Now if you compare those targets to the those I found using the method in the just by the numbers thread you will find that the top targets are essentially the same but the order may have changed slightly. Still it supports Florida State and Oklahoma as two very nice lock downs to 16. But there are other strong pairs as well.
I do think that since Slive stated and Sankey upheld our desire to stay culturally cohesive that schools like Pitt would be excluded and quite possibly Kansas as well. But we'll wait and see about that.
Note: When I did the analysis for the just by the numbers thread I weighted new markets more heavily than content. I think that is reversed now.
As a Clemson fan, I continue to dream that one day we can play in the SEC. I think that Clemson by far is the best cultural fit of any school not already in the SEC. Our attendance figures and academics match up well (or exceed). I believe that our revenue would easily meet or exceed the mean once we began playing in the SEC. We do have a strong regional following and if we can string a few more years like this year together, our national following will be greatly improved. Our basketball is mediocre at best so we do not bring anything to the table for the SEC in this regard but our other olympic sports would fit right in. We do not add anything in terms of new markets and this is of course a big deal. Oh well, I know an invite to the SEC is a VERY long shot for Clemson but it is nice to have dreams of routine football games with UT, Auburn, A&M, and of course UGA!
IMO, Clemson and Florida State are the two schools that finish out the SEC the best. They are essentially SEC schools in their athletics and certainly fit the mean of the SEC academically plus or minus a little bit. And, your fan bases are the most SEC like remaining along with Oklahoma.
I'd be a happy old man if it came to pass. Why? Florida State locks down Florida, Clemson breaks contiguity for any expansion down the Atlantic Coast. If we could Oklahoma and Georgia Tech along with them it is an academic addition, and a lock down on a new but small state which carries DFW.
What else would we need? With Ga Tech the Big 10 has no access even to Miami.
We wouldn't need North Carolina or Virginia to keep them at bay. All of the additions would suit our culture and old rivalries could be renewed (Auburn / Tech the oldest in the South) or preserved. In that scenario I would imagine that the Big 10 would pick up U.N.C., Virginia, Duke, and Notre Dame and would add plenty of revenue, but with the exception of N.D. no football value per se.
Then Boston College, Pittsburgh, N.C. State, Virignia Tech, and Syracuse could join Connecticut as part of the Big 12 Northeast. Miami could join them as part of the Big 12 South with Texas, Texas Tech, T.C.U., Baylor, and Oklahoma State. Cincinnati, Louisville, West Virginia, Iowa State, Kansas, and Kansas State would form the Big 12 North.
Now the Big 10, SEC, and Big 12 all stand at 18 and all have networks that are profitable.
As long as the SEC and the ACC are beholden to ESPN: Florida, Georgia and South Carolina (and Kentucky too) will remain in the SEC, and Florida State, Georgia Tech, and Clemson (and Louisville too) will remain in the ACC.
It's just business.
ESPN is able to sell advertising to one customer and give them two completely different markets in the same broadcasting area (one set of contracts with media outlets). They are getting twice the return for the same dollar outlay.
When ESPN is no longer the sugar daddy of both conferences.....you may have a reason for further conversation.
(06-14-2016 02:42 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (06-12-2016 11:54 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (06-11-2016 02:59 PM)IR4CU Wrote: [ -> ] (06-11-2016 11:39 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (06-11-2016 10:06 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote: [ -> ]Ok. New "by the numbers" evaluation.
Criteria:
1) academics
2) revenue
3) football attendance
4) TV ratings
5) NCAA tournament appearances
6) new markets
Academics based on average of us news and ARWU rankings. 3 tiers: above, meets, below. Above defined as over 5 or more standings ahead of average. Below was 5 or more below average. Above worth 4 points, meets 2
Revenue: three tiers: more than 5 mill above average, average, and more than 5 mil below average. Above is 2 points, meets is 1 point. Rationale: revenue is valuable, but entry to sec can improve it to sec levels in close cases.
Attendance: above 5k more on average, meets, below 5k: above 4, meets 2
TV ratings: using texags 2014 data. Avg sec game was 15th. 11-20 was meets. Above 4, meets 2
NCAA appearances: over past ten years, sec averages 4.1 bids a seasons. 3-5 Bids in past ten years was meets, more was above. Above 4, meets 2
Markets: 0 for any state we were already in, 1 for a state in bottom half of population, 2 for states in top half
Schools evaluated: ACC minus Boston college and Syracuse, all big 12
Possible points:20
Results:
FSU 16
Texas 14
Ok 11
Pitt, unc, Duke, NC State 10
Virginia 8
Kansas, Iowa state 7
Clemson, Miami, vtech, Louisville, baylor, wake Forest 6
West Virginia, Kansas state 5
Georgia tech, ok state 4
Texas tech, TCU 0
Markets skewed Texas schools low. I assume a school like TCU would have some value. Also, FSU was only school above on TV, NC State met. Popular schools like vtech were low due to attendance and low basketball (which could change with a new coach, if you count Bristol this year, etc).
Pitt impressed because of location and academics and decent basketball. NC State under this evaluation provides similar value to Duke and UNC because it was also considered above in academics and met sec standards under the TV category.
Most of us would admit that Texas, FSU, and OK would be awesome grabs. This shows that we might want to stop at 16, but that of we go further, in addition to schools like NC State and v Tech, a school like Iowa state might offer value.
That's a very nice method. I would have halved those basketball points because it is only 15% of the total revenue, but still a very fine methodology.
Now if you compare those targets to the those I found using the method in the just by the numbers thread you will find that the top targets are essentially the same but the order may have changed slightly. Still it supports Florida State and Oklahoma as two very nice lock downs to 16. But there are other strong pairs as well.
I do think that since Slive stated and Sankey upheld our desire to stay culturally cohesive that schools like Pitt would be excluded and quite possibly Kansas as well. But we'll wait and see about that.
Note: When I did the analysis for the just by the numbers thread I weighted new markets more heavily than content. I think that is reversed now.
As a Clemson fan, I continue to dream that one day we can play in the SEC. I think that Clemson by far is the best cultural fit of any school not already in the SEC. Our attendance figures and academics match up well (or exceed). I believe that our revenue would easily meet or exceed the mean once we began playing in the SEC. We do have a strong regional following and if we can string a few more years like this year together, our national following will be greatly improved. Our basketball is mediocre at best so we do not bring anything to the table for the SEC in this regard but our other olympic sports would fit right in. We do not add anything in terms of new markets and this is of course a big deal. Oh well, I know an invite to the SEC is a VERY long shot for Clemson but it is nice to have dreams of routine football games with UT, Auburn, A&M, and of course UGA!
IMO, Clemson and Florida State are the two schools that finish out the SEC the best. They are essentially SEC schools in their athletics and certainly fit the mean of the SEC academically plus or minus a little bit. And, your fan bases are the most SEC like remaining along with Oklahoma.
I'd be a happy old man if it came to pass. Why? Florida State locks down Florida, Clemson breaks contiguity for any expansion down the Atlantic Coast. If we could Oklahoma and Georgia Tech along with them it is an academic addition, and a lock down on a new but small state which carries DFW.
What else would we need? With Ga Tech the Big 10 has no access even to Miami.
We wouldn't need North Carolina or Virginia to keep them at bay. All of the additions would suit our culture and old rivalries could be renewed (Auburn / Tech the oldest in the South) or preserved. In that scenario I would imagine that the Big 10 would pick up U.N.C., Virginia, Duke, and Notre Dame and would add plenty of revenue, but with the exception of N.D. no football value per se.
Then Boston College, Pittsburgh, N.C. State, Virignia Tech, and Syracuse could join Connecticut as part of the Big 12 Northeast. Miami could join them as part of the Big 12 South with Texas, Texas Tech, T.C.U., Baylor, and Oklahoma State. Cincinnati, Louisville, West Virginia, Iowa State, Kansas, and Kansas State would form the Big 12 North.
Now the Big 10, SEC, and Big 12 all stand at 18 and all have networks that are profitable.
As long as the SEC and the ACC are beholden to ESPN: Florida, Georgia and South Carolina (and Kentucky too) will remain in the SEC, and Florida State, Georgia Tech, and Clemson (and Louisville too) will remain in the ACC.
It's just business.
ESPN is able to sell advertising to one customer and give them two completely different markets in the same broadcasting area (one set of contracts with media outlets). They are getting twice the return for the same dollar outlay.
When ESPN is no longer the sugar daddy of both conferences.....you may have a reason for further conversation.
The same applies to Virginia and Virginia Tech; Duke, North Carolina & N.C. State; Tennessee and Vanderbilt; Auburn and Alabama; and Ole Miss and Mississippi State only history has prevented it. There isn't much history with Georgia Tech, Florida State or Miami, Louisville or even with Virginia Tech in the ACC. Clemson and the North Carolina schools are your only exception.
(06-14-2016 03:00 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (06-14-2016 02:42 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (06-12-2016 11:54 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (06-11-2016 02:59 PM)IR4CU Wrote: [ -> ] (06-11-2016 11:39 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]That's a very nice method. I would have halved those basketball points because it is only 15% of the total revenue, but still a very fine methodology.
Now if you compare those targets to the those I found using the method in the just by the numbers thread you will find that the top targets are essentially the same but the order may have changed slightly. Still it supports Florida State and Oklahoma as two very nice lock downs to 16. But there are other strong pairs as well.
I do think that since Slive stated and Sankey upheld our desire to stay culturally cohesive that schools like Pitt would be excluded and quite possibly Kansas as well. But we'll wait and see about that.
Note: When I did the analysis for the just by the numbers thread I weighted new markets more heavily than content. I think that is reversed now.
As a Clemson fan, I continue to dream that one day we can play in the SEC. I think that Clemson by far is the best cultural fit of any school not already in the SEC. Our attendance figures and academics match up well (or exceed). I believe that our revenue would easily meet or exceed the mean once we began playing in the SEC. We do have a strong regional following and if we can string a few more years like this year together, our national following will be greatly improved. Our basketball is mediocre at best so we do not bring anything to the table for the SEC in this regard but our other olympic sports would fit right in. We do not add anything in terms of new markets and this is of course a big deal. Oh well, I know an invite to the SEC is a VERY long shot for Clemson but it is nice to have dreams of routine football games with UT, Auburn, A&M, and of course UGA!
IMO, Clemson and Florida State are the two schools that finish out the SEC the best. They are essentially SEC schools in their athletics and certainly fit the mean of the SEC academically plus or minus a little bit. And, your fan bases are the most SEC like remaining along with Oklahoma.
I'd be a happy old man if it came to pass. Why? Florida State locks down Florida, Clemson breaks contiguity for any expansion down the Atlantic Coast. If we could Oklahoma and Georgia Tech along with them it is an academic addition, and a lock down on a new but small state which carries DFW.
What else would we need? With Ga Tech the Big 10 has no access even to Miami.
We wouldn't need North Carolina or Virginia to keep them at bay. All of the additions would suit our culture and old rivalries could be renewed (Auburn / Tech the oldest in the South) or preserved. In that scenario I would imagine that the Big 10 would pick up U.N.C., Virginia, Duke, and Notre Dame and would add plenty of revenue, but with the exception of N.D. no football value per se.
Then Boston College, Pittsburgh, N.C. State, Virignia Tech, and Syracuse could join Connecticut as part of the Big 12 Northeast. Miami could join them as part of the Big 12 South with Texas, Texas Tech, T.C.U., Baylor, and Oklahoma State. Cincinnati, Louisville, West Virginia, Iowa State, Kansas, and Kansas State would form the Big 12 North.
Now the Big 10, SEC, and Big 12 all stand at 18 and all have networks that are profitable.
As long as the SEC and the ACC are beholden to ESPN: Florida, Georgia and South Carolina (and Kentucky too) will remain in the SEC, and Florida State, Georgia Tech, and Clemson (and Louisville too) will remain in the ACC.
It's just business.
ESPN is able to sell advertising to one customer and give them two completely different markets in the same broadcasting area (one set of contracts with media outlets). They are getting twice the return for the same dollar outlay.
When ESPN is no longer the sugar daddy of both conferences.....you may have a reason for further conversation.
The same applies to Virginia and Virginia Tech; Duke, North Carolina & N.C. State; Tennessee and Vanderbilt; Auburn and Alabama; and Ole Miss and Mississippi State only history has prevented it. There isn't much history with Georgia Tech, Florida State or Miami, Louisville or even with Virginia Tech in the ACC. Clemson and the North Carolina schools are your only exception.
The reason that the SEC will not get into North Carolina or Virginia and that the ACC will not get into Alabama, Tennessee or Mississippi is that ESPN does not want to disturb the "cultural identity" of each conference.
(06-10-2016 08:15 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (06-10-2016 07:37 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote: [ -> ]JRSec,
In your "expansion by the numbers 2015" you posted revenue and attendance numbers for SEC and expansion candidates. You pointed to Texas, OK, FSU and ND as schools that help us improve.
Since these are two of the criteria you mentioned, what would you say would be SEC-like numbers or minimum needing for entry into SEC, especially if we need to go to 18 or 20 and need more than OK/FSU?
Is there a weight involved? Like is revenue more important since joining the SEC and football success can improve attendance? I'm looking at schools like Virginia and especially Duke whose revenue is below SEC average but still substantial, but have middling (UVA) and bad (Duke) attendance numbers.
Using your criteria, I'm not sure a home run candidate exists, who can mark all four boxes in terms of great TV get, huge revenue and attendance numbers, and an academic stud. Settling for a "threw star school" won't necessarily be a bad thing.
You use the mean of each category. For instance if the mean on attendance last year was 78,000 you look for schools in that category that meet or exceed that mean.
If the mean athletic department revenue was 107 million (and it was close to that) then you look for schools that if they had had an SEC share of TV revenue last year instead of that of the conference they were in, would have met, or exceeded that mean. I think the mean at the time Missouri entered for stadium capacity was around 72,000. A&M's addition has bumped that up now. Also Vandy is the literally the boat anchor in that regard. I would think the fewest we could handle in a stadium capacity would be in the 60,000 range with promises of expansion. The fourth metric is harder to find. What is the % of a national market that the school you are considering received in their televised games? What is the % of a regional market that the school you are considering received for their televised games?
So,
1. Average attendance: Priority level medium / (Travel crowd size important).
Virginia Tech & N.C. State (66,000 & 60,000) Iowa State & Oklahoma (66,000 & 75,000) Oklahoma & Iowa State actually travel better.
2. Gross revenue: Priority level high. (lesser targets must meet the mean)
Oklahoma top 7 nationally, Oklahoma State could come close to the mean. N.C. State and Virginia Tech nowhere close.
3. % of market pulled: Priority level high (Brands a big plus)
Virginia Tech decent regionally. N.C. State not. Oklahoma a big plus. Iowa State not.
4. Academic credentials: Meet or exceed the mean for lower priority targets. Be near the mean for high priority targets (brands). Virginia Tech & N.C. State a plus. Oklahoma near the mean. Oklahoma State near the mean depending upon the rating service, but meets or exceeds the mean in none of them.
Those are some examples considering a pair.
Florida State and Clemson both either at or exceeding the mean in academics. Average attendance 80,000 for Clemson above 72,000 for F.S.U. (needs to expand).
Both could be near the mean with SEC revenue. Both travel very well. Florida State has solid national numbers and Clemson is beginning to have a national recognition and are very strong regionally.
Texas and N.D. meet or exceed all expectations except for collegiality.
BTW: Kansas football attendance & following: horrid
West Virginia attendance in the 60,000 range, does not meet the mean on revenue, is nowhere near the metrics on academics, has a decent following in parts of surrounding regions, but not nationally. Doesn't offer required requisite sports.
The ISU attendance is Iowa's football attendance in 2015 which ironically even though they went undefeated was a low year at 66K because fans were disappointed with Iowa's mediocre results the previous 5 yrs. and a very weak home schedule, they normally get 70K(70.5 capacity I believe).
ISU was closer to 55K which was not bad for a football team that only won 3 games. Basketball for ISU is over 14K, although that probably doesn't tend to matter.
As for brand in the state of Iowa, Iowa still leads but that gap has narrowed the last 10 years, probably 60/40 split. Also, ISU has increased the enrollment to to about 29K/36K with post grad to Iowa's 22.5K and the margin is growing. Iowa was always larger until the last 5 years and from what I understand the ISU surplus is increasing. So ISU may be able to get it closer to a 50/50 mix in the future.
(06-14-2016 03:05 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (06-14-2016 03:00 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (06-14-2016 02:42 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (06-12-2016 11:54 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (06-11-2016 02:59 PM)IR4CU Wrote: [ -> ]As a Clemson fan, I continue to dream that one day we can play in the SEC. I think that Clemson by far is the best cultural fit of any school not already in the SEC. Our attendance figures and academics match up well (or exceed). I believe that our revenue would easily meet or exceed the mean once we began playing in the SEC. We do have a strong regional following and if we can string a few more years like this year together, our national following will be greatly improved. Our basketball is mediocre at best so we do not bring anything to the table for the SEC in this regard but our other olympic sports would fit right in. We do not add anything in terms of new markets and this is of course a big deal. Oh well, I know an invite to the SEC is a VERY long shot for Clemson but it is nice to have dreams of routine football games with UT, Auburn, A&M, and of course UGA!
IMO, Clemson and Florida State are the two schools that finish out the SEC the best. They are essentially SEC schools in their athletics and certainly fit the mean of the SEC academically plus or minus a little bit. And, your fan bases are the most SEC like remaining along with Oklahoma.
I'd be a happy old man if it came to pass. Why? Florida State locks down Florida, Clemson breaks contiguity for any expansion down the Atlantic Coast. If we could Oklahoma and Georgia Tech along with them it is an academic addition, and a lock down on a new but small state which carries DFW.
What else would we need? With Ga Tech the Big 10 has no access even to Miami.
We wouldn't need North Carolina or Virginia to keep them at bay. All of the additions would suit our culture and old rivalries could be renewed (Auburn / Tech the oldest in the South) or preserved. In that scenario I would imagine that the Big 10 would pick up U.N.C., Virginia, Duke, and Notre Dame and would add plenty of revenue, but with the exception of N.D. no football value per se.
Then Boston College, Pittsburgh, N.C. State, Virignia Tech, and Syracuse could join Connecticut as part of the Big 12 Northeast. Miami could join them as part of the Big 12 South with Texas, Texas Tech, T.C.U., Baylor, and Oklahoma State. Cincinnati, Louisville, West Virginia, Iowa State, Kansas, and Kansas State would form the Big 12 North.
Now the Big 10, SEC, and Big 12 all stand at 18 and all have networks that are profitable.
As long as the SEC and the ACC are beholden to ESPN: Florida, Georgia and South Carolina (and Kentucky too) will remain in the SEC, and Florida State, Georgia Tech, and Clemson (and Louisville too) will remain in the ACC.
It's just business.
ESPN is able to sell advertising to one customer and give them two completely different markets in the same broadcasting area (one set of contracts with media outlets). They are getting twice the return for the same dollar outlay.
When ESPN is no longer the sugar daddy of both conferences.....you may have a reason for further conversation.
The same applies to Virginia and Virginia Tech; Duke, North Carolina & N.C. State; Tennessee and Vanderbilt; Auburn and Alabama; and Ole Miss and Mississippi State only history has prevented it. There isn't much history with Georgia Tech, Florida State or Miami, Louisville or even with Virginia Tech in the ACC. Clemson and the North Carolina schools are your only exception.
The reason that the SEC will not get into North Carolina or Virginia and that the ACC will not get into Alabama, Tennessee or Mississippi is that ESPN does not want to disturb the "cultural identity" of each conference.
That's probably wise as at this point in the game. We don't need to raid each other. The SEC needs to add two. The ACC needs to add one and make N.D. commit or leave. If they leave add another. Then we form a league with two conferences in it with one network. The Obama court ruling today on Net Neutrality probably favors the footprint carriage model for a while longer and may hurt cord cutters. It will be interesting to see how it impacts things.
(06-07-2016 11:31 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2016 10:37 AM)megadrone Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2016 09:29 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]They aren't going to expand. If they were going to do it they would have done it in 2011. There is nobody out there that would pack their stadiums, nobody out there that would bring more than the contractually guaranteed revenue, and nobody out there that meets their profile.
The addition of anyone will keep their top brands from having options. Texas might not care but Oklahoma and Kansas do.
I agree B.Y.U. would have been a better addition than WVU but BYU supposedly rejected initial overtures because of their private network. If so that issue was bit hypocritical for no other reason than the existence of the LHN.
There are dozens of threads on the CS&CR board discussing G5 realignment. We don't need them here. It's not happening. It's a fantasy. If anything, if we wait until the expiration of the GOR's before the next moves, the P5 will become a P4 and likely with fewer than 64 school.
There is a better chance that we move to a P alignment of 54 to 60 schools than there is that we stay at 64 or increase to 72.
I tend to agree. If schools 11 and 12 were out there, they would be in by now. Cincinnati would have left the Big East/American in a heartbeat when all their conference mates were bailing. The numbers just don't work.
Additionally the only AQ conference that was willing to take on projects was the Big East (Cincinnati, Temple, Rutgers, VT, BC, et. al.). The Big 12 doesn't have to do that.
True. What I'm about to say is idealistic, not realistic, but the best thing for college football is to end this garbage as soon as possible. At first it was fascinating but now it has taken so long to play out that many people are being turned off by the continued stress over it.
Ideally I'd say let's all move to 18 and have 72 schools included or move to 18 and have 54 schools included. Either way we would have more balance and some balance makes for a better product.
The PAC really needs the exposure and the brands. Let Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State all head West to form a PAC 18.
The SEC can pick up Clemson, Florida State, Virginia/Virginia Tech, and North Carolina/N.C. State to get to 18.
The Big 10 can pick up Virginia/Virginia Tech, North Carolina/N.C.State, Georgia Tech, and Notre Dame (cause they'll have to go somewhere!) and we have a very nice and profitable 18 each divided into much more reasonable geographically concentric divisions.
The balance of that would be undeniably better than what we have now. FOX would have the majority rights in the Big 10, ESPN would have them in the ACC, and they could split them in the PAC.
The real problems comes in trying to place the lesser brands from the ACC / Big 12 and if you look at the revenue invested by their respective athletic departments versus those included above it becomes abundantly clear that they have invested less, but expect equal shares.
If we move forward with conferences at all we are going to need more cohesiveness grown by equal investments and equal returns. We can't have those who profit by association or the conferences themselves will come under enough strain that we could wind up every school for itself.
If we must go to 72 the best way to do it, and it is tough, would be to start with the parsing of the Big 12. Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State move to the PAC. The SEC takes T.C.U. to get into DFW and then takes Kansas State (neither of which are even on our top 10 prospects list). The Big 10 takes Kansas and Iowa State (but only because they are both AAU as they are certainly not the high value targets for the Big 10). The ACC takes West Virginia and Baylor. Notre Dame goes all in and Connecticut makes it 18 for the ACC. The SEC and Big 10 now have to get creative. East Carolina gets a look in this scenario as they can average 60,000 plus in attendance, are steadily improving their academics, are adding a medical school, and are decent in all sports. We take Central Florida for exposure South in the Sunshine State. The Big 10 grows Buffalo and looks to take Colorado from the PAC. The PAC adds either Colorado State to keep the Denver market or they add either a Nevada or New Mexico school.
Now we all less profitably and efficiently stand at 18.
I like plan A a helluva lot more! How about you?
JR,
I know there are a lot of replies to this thread and I know the bias is towards contraction not addition of power schools to 72, since you said you preferred that. But if the leagues decided 4 power conferences was the way to go I think I gave as good of a balancing of the 4 conferences football wise, it would definitely help if all of college football negotiated tv, tier 1,2 & 3 as one oranization. Curious what you thought, the full post was #18.
Besides the current 64 we add ND, BYU, UCONN, Cincy, Memphis, CSU, BSU & Houston
PAC
add: OU, Ok. St., Neb., KS, BYU, Boise St.
B1G:
subtract: Neb.
add: ND, VA or Pitt, Syr., UCONN, BC
SEC:
subtract: Arkansas, A&M & Vanderbilt
add: WVU, NC St. Va. Tech, Louisville, Memphis, ISU & KSU
Big 12/ACC:
Texas, Arkansas, A&M, TT, TCU, Baylor, Houston, Colorado St., NC, Duke, WF, Vandy, FSU, Miami, Ga. Tech, Clemson, Cincy, Va or Pitt(whoever B1G doesn't choose)
(06-14-2016 03:13 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (06-14-2016 03:05 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (06-14-2016 03:00 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (06-14-2016 02:42 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (06-12-2016 11:54 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]IMO, Clemson and Florida State are the two schools that finish out the SEC the best. They are essentially SEC schools in their athletics and certainly fit the mean of the SEC academically plus or minus a little bit. And, your fan bases are the most SEC like remaining along with Oklahoma.
I'd be a happy old man if it came to pass. Why? Florida State locks down Florida, Clemson breaks contiguity for any expansion down the Atlantic Coast. If we could Oklahoma and Georgia Tech along with them it is an academic addition, and a lock down on a new but small state which carries DFW.
What else would we need? With Ga Tech the Big 10 has no access even to Miami.
We wouldn't need North Carolina or Virginia to keep them at bay. All of the additions would suit our culture and old rivalries could be renewed (Auburn / Tech the oldest in the South) or preserved. In that scenario I would imagine that the Big 10 would pick up U.N.C., Virginia, Duke, and Notre Dame and would add plenty of revenue, but with the exception of N.D. no football value per se.
Then Boston College, Pittsburgh, N.C. State, Virignia Tech, and Syracuse could join Connecticut as part of the Big 12 Northeast. Miami could join them as part of the Big 12 South with Texas, Texas Tech, T.C.U., Baylor, and Oklahoma State. Cincinnati, Louisville, West Virginia, Iowa State, Kansas, and Kansas State would form the Big 12 North.
Now the Big 10, SEC, and Big 12 all stand at 18 and all have networks that are profitable.
As long as the SEC and the ACC are beholden to ESPN: Florida, Georgia and South Carolina (and Kentucky too) will remain in the SEC, and Florida State, Georgia Tech, and Clemson (and Louisville too) will remain in the ACC.
It's just business.
ESPN is able to sell advertising to one customer and give them two completely different markets in the same broadcasting area (one set of contracts with media outlets). They are getting twice the return for the same dollar outlay.
When ESPN is no longer the sugar daddy of both conferences.....you may have a reason for further conversation.
The same applies to Virginia and Virginia Tech; Duke, North Carolina & N.C. State; Tennessee and Vanderbilt; Auburn and Alabama; and Ole Miss and Mississippi State only history has prevented it. There isn't much history with Georgia Tech, Florida State or Miami, Louisville or even with Virginia Tech in the ACC. Clemson and the North Carolina schools are your only exception.
The reason that the SEC will not get into North Carolina or Virginia and that the ACC will not get into Alabama, Tennessee or Mississippi is that ESPN does not want to disturb the "cultural identity" of each conference.
That's probably wise as at this point in the game. We don't need to raid each other. The SEC needs to add two. The ACC needs to add one and make N.D. commit or leave. If they leave add another. Then we form a league with two conferences in it with one network. The Obama court ruling today on Net Neutrality probably favors the footprint carriage model for a while longer and may hurt cord cutters. It will be interesting to see how it impacts things.
I think that means that we will end up with West Virginia. For a while I really thought they may head to the SEC, but as it will turn out our "merger" with the Big East is almost complete.
(06-14-2016 03:22 PM)Win5002 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2016 11:31 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2016 10:37 AM)megadrone Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2016 09:29 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]They aren't going to expand. If they were going to do it they would have done it in 2011. There is nobody out there that would pack their stadiums, nobody out there that would bring more than the contractually guaranteed revenue, and nobody out there that meets their profile.
The addition of anyone will keep their top brands from having options. Texas might not care but Oklahoma and Kansas do.
I agree B.Y.U. would have been a better addition than WVU but BYU supposedly rejected initial overtures because of their private network. If so that issue was bit hypocritical for no other reason than the existence of the LHN.
There are dozens of threads on the CS&CR board discussing G5 realignment. We don't need them here. It's not happening. It's a fantasy. If anything, if we wait until the expiration of the GOR's before the next moves, the P5 will become a P4 and likely with fewer than 64 school.
There is a better chance that we move to a P alignment of 54 to 60 schools than there is that we stay at 64 or increase to 72.
I tend to agree. If schools 11 and 12 were out there, they would be in by now. Cincinnati would have left the Big East/American in a heartbeat when all their conference mates were bailing. The numbers just don't work.
Additionally the only AQ conference that was willing to take on projects was the Big East (Cincinnati, Temple, Rutgers, VT, BC, et. al.). The Big 12 doesn't have to do that.
True. What I'm about to say is idealistic, not realistic, but the best thing for college football is to end this garbage as soon as possible. At first it was fascinating but now it has taken so long to play out that many people are being turned off by the continued stress over it.
Ideally I'd say let's all move to 18 and have 72 schools included or move to 18 and have 54 schools included. Either way we would have more balance and some balance makes for a better product.
The PAC really needs the exposure and the brands. Let Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State all head West to form a PAC 18.
The SEC can pick up Clemson, Florida State, Virginia/Virginia Tech, and North Carolina/N.C. State to get to 18.
The Big 10 can pick up Virginia/Virginia Tech, North Carolina/N.C.State, Georgia Tech, and Notre Dame (cause they'll have to go somewhere!) and we have a very nice and profitable 18 each divided into much more reasonable geographically concentric divisions.
The balance of that would be undeniably better than what we have now. FOX would have the majority rights in the Big 10, ESPN would have them in the ACC, and they could split them in the PAC.
The real problems comes in trying to place the lesser brands from the ACC / Big 12 and if you look at the revenue invested by their respective athletic departments versus those included above it becomes abundantly clear that they have invested less, but expect equal shares.
If we move forward with conferences at all we are going to need more cohesiveness grown by equal investments and equal returns. We can't have those who profit by association or the conferences themselves will come under enough strain that we could wind up every school for itself.
If we must go to 72 the best way to do it, and it is tough, would be to start with the parsing of the Big 12. Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State move to the PAC. The SEC takes T.C.U. to get into DFW and then takes Kansas State (neither of which are even on our top 10 prospects list). The Big 10 takes Kansas and Iowa State (but only because they are both AAU as they are certainly not the high value targets for the Big 10). The ACC takes West Virginia and Baylor. Notre Dame goes all in and Connecticut makes it 18 for the ACC. The SEC and Big 10 now have to get creative. East Carolina gets a look in this scenario as they can average 60,000 plus in attendance, are steadily improving their academics, are adding a medical school, and are decent in all sports. We take Central Florida for exposure South in the Sunshine State. The Big 10 grows Buffalo and looks to take Colorado from the PAC. The PAC adds either Colorado State to keep the Denver market or they add either a Nevada or New Mexico school.
Now we all less profitably and efficiently stand at 18.
I like plan A a helluva lot more! How about you?
JR,
I know there are a lot of replies to this thread and I know the bias is towards contraction not addition of power schools to 72, since you said you preferred that. But if the leagues decided 4 power conferences was the way to go I think I gave as good of a balancing of the 4 conferences football wise, it would definitely help if all of college football negotiated tv, tier 1,2 & 3 as one oranization. Curious what you thought, the full post was #18.
Besides the current 64 we add ND, BYU, UCONN, Cincy, Memphis, CSU, BSU & Houston
PAC
add: OU, Ok. St., Neb., KS, BYU, Boise St.
B1G:
subtract: Neb.
add: ND, VA or Pitt, Syr., UCONN, BC
SEC:
subtract: Arkansas, A&M & Vanderbilt
add: WVU, NC St. Va. Tech, Louisville, Memphis, ISU & KSU
Big 12/ACC:
Texas, Arkansas, A&M, TT, TCU, Baylor, Houston, Colorado St., NC, Duke, WF, Vandy, FSU, Miami, Ga. Tech, Clemson, Cincy, Va or Pitt(whoever B1G doesn't choose)
If you are going to think 4 x 18 then you have to assess schools by conference. For instance East Carolina would make a lot more sense as a G5 for the SEC as might U.C.F.. For the ACC it would be UConn & Cincinnati. For the Big 12 C.S.U. and B.Y.U. make a lot of sense. For the PAC a Nevada school along with a Boise State or New Mexico or even a San Diego State makes some sense. If they are serious about the Pacific Rim then Hawaii if that program even survives.
Memphis is essentially a basketball school that plays and loves football but is buried market wise between giants. Houston would be great for the ACC if they had a bridge, or for the PAC if they had a bridge. The problem for Houston is that A&M delivers the city for the SEC, the Big 12 already has 4 Texas schools, and unless the PAC can grab one or two of those 4 Big 12 Texas schools they aren't going to reach out to the Cougars.
I suppose the Big 10 could cultivate Buffalo, but then who? Maybe C.S.U.?
We have to get to a 4 x 16 before a 4 x 18 is ever even considered.
(06-14-2016 03:40 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (06-14-2016 03:22 PM)Win5002 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2016 11:31 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2016 10:37 AM)megadrone Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2016 09:29 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]They aren't going to expand. If they were going to do it they would have done it in 2011. There is nobody out there that would pack their stadiums, nobody out there that would bring more than the contractually guaranteed revenue, and nobody out there that meets their profile.
The addition of anyone will keep their top brands from having options. Texas might not care but Oklahoma and Kansas do.
I agree B.Y.U. would have been a better addition than WVU but BYU supposedly rejected initial overtures because of their private network. If so that issue was bit hypocritical for no other reason than the existence of the LHN.
There are dozens of threads on the CS&CR board discussing G5 realignment. We don't need them here. It's not happening. It's a fantasy. If anything, if we wait until the expiration of the GOR's before the next moves, the P5 will become a P4 and likely with fewer than 64 school.
There is a better chance that we move to a P alignment of 54 to 60 schools than there is that we stay at 64 or increase to 72.
I tend to agree. If schools 11 and 12 were out there, they would be in by now. Cincinnati would have left the Big East/American in a heartbeat when all their conference mates were bailing. The numbers just don't work.
Additionally the only AQ conference that was willing to take on projects was the Big East (Cincinnati, Temple, Rutgers, VT, BC, et. al.). The Big 12 doesn't have to do that.
True. What I'm about to say is idealistic, not realistic, but the best thing for college football is to end this garbage as soon as possible. At first it was fascinating but now it has taken so long to play out that many people are being turned off by the continued stress over it.
Ideally I'd say let's all move to 18 and have 72 schools included or move to 18 and have 54 schools included. Either way we would have more balance and some balance makes for a better product.
The PAC really needs the exposure and the brands. Let Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State all head West to form a PAC 18.
The SEC can pick up Clemson, Florida State, Virginia/Virginia Tech, and North Carolina/N.C. State to get to 18.
The Big 10 can pick up Virginia/Virginia Tech, North Carolina/N.C.State, Georgia Tech, and Notre Dame (cause they'll have to go somewhere!) and we have a very nice and profitable 18 each divided into much more reasonable geographically concentric divisions.
The balance of that would be undeniably better than what we have now. FOX would have the majority rights in the Big 10, ESPN would have them in the ACC, and they could split them in the PAC.
The real problems comes in trying to place the lesser brands from the ACC / Big 12 and if you look at the revenue invested by their respective athletic departments versus those included above it becomes abundantly clear that they have invested less, but expect equal shares.
If we move forward with conferences at all we are going to need more cohesiveness grown by equal investments and equal returns. We can't have those who profit by association or the conferences themselves will come under enough strain that we could wind up every school for itself.
If we must go to 72 the best way to do it, and it is tough, would be to start with the parsing of the Big 12. Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State move to the PAC. The SEC takes T.C.U. to get into DFW and then takes Kansas State (neither of which are even on our top 10 prospects list). The Big 10 takes Kansas and Iowa State (but only because they are both AAU as they are certainly not the high value targets for the Big 10). The ACC takes West Virginia and Baylor. Notre Dame goes all in and Connecticut makes it 18 for the ACC. The SEC and Big 10 now have to get creative. East Carolina gets a look in this scenario as they can average 60,000 plus in attendance, are steadily improving their academics, are adding a medical school, and are decent in all sports. We take Central Florida for exposure South in the Sunshine State. The Big 10 grows Buffalo and looks to take Colorado from the PAC. The PAC adds either Colorado State to keep the Denver market or they add either a Nevada or New Mexico school.
Now we all less profitably and efficiently stand at 18.
I like plan A a helluva lot more! How about you?
JR,
I know there are a lot of replies to this thread and I know the bias is towards contraction not addition of power schools to 72, since you said you preferred that. But if the leagues decided 4 power conferences was the way to go I think I gave as good of a balancing of the 4 conferences football wise, it would definitely help if all of college football negotiated tv, tier 1,2 & 3 as one oranization. Curious what you thought, the full post was #18.
Besides the current 64 we add ND, BYU, UCONN, Cincy, Memphis, CSU, BSU & Houston
PAC
add: OU, Ok. St., Neb., KS, BYU, Boise St.
B1G:
subtract: Neb.
add: ND, VA or Pitt, Syr., UCONN, BC
SEC:
subtract: Arkansas, A&M & Vanderbilt
add: WVU, NC St. Va. Tech, Louisville, Memphis, ISU & KSU
Big 12/ACC:
Texas, Arkansas, A&M, TT, TCU, Baylor, Houston, Colorado St., NC, Duke, WF, Vandy, FSU, Miami, Ga. Tech, Clemson, Cincy, Va or Pitt(whoever B1G doesn't choose)
If you are going to think 4 x 18 then you have to assess schools by conference. For instance East Carolina would make a lot more sense as a G5 for the SEC as might U.C.F.. For the ACC it would be UConn & Cincinnati. For the Big 12 C.S.U. and B.Y.U. make a lot of sense. For the PAC a Nevada school along with a Boise State or New Mexico or even a San Diego State makes some sense. If they are serious about the Pacific Rim then Hawaii if that program even survives.
Memphis is essentially a basketball school that plays and loves football but is buried market wise between giants. Houston would be great for the ACC if they had a bridge, or for the PAC if they had a bridge. The problem for Houston is that A&M delivers the city for the SEC, the Big 12 already has 4 Texas schools, and unless the PAC can grab one or two of those 4 Big 12 Texas schools they aren't going to reach out to the Cougars.
I suppose the Big 10 could cultivate Buffalo, but then who? Maybe C.S.U.?
We have to get to a 4 x 16 before a 4 x 18 is ever even considered.
I tried to take the top 72 schools and then align 4 conferences equally competitiveness wise at least historically.
The G5 schools are lucky to be in under any circumstances and unfortunately I doubt the power conferences go to a total of 72 but if they did hypothetically, the placement of the current 64 power schools & ND right is the key to balance and dwarfs fitting in the G5 schools geographically in terms of making 4 competitive leagues.
The reason I went this route of trying to equalize 4 leagues with changes is I am is I am becoming more convinced it is impossible to not leave one of the existing leagues as a weak league, probably the PAC 12.
Or there is no way to keep certain schools political power at the same levels in expansion or at least have their region have ample representation in the new league. Thats why Texas to the ACC/PAC 12 & probably B1G is never happening. They can't bring enough schools to represent the interests of that region. Its why NC & tobacco road doesn't want to break up as well. I think you could throw in rules/academic political representation matters as well. Texas would really fit in great with the SEC geographically but I don't think they feel they would have a large enough voice concerning items of academics, oversigning, recruiting violations, etc. Whether that's is right or just their perception.
My example tried to take politics/regional representation into effect in the 4 conferences I made as well as overall competitiveness of each league.
Texas, TT, Oklahoma & Oklahoma St to the PAC.
Kansas & Iowa State to the B1G.
TCU & WV to the SEC.
ND & Cincinnati to the ACC.
PAC
Stanford, Cal, Washington, Wash St
USC, UCLA, Arizona, Arizona St
Oregon, Oregon St, Colorado, Utah
Texas, Oklahoma, TT, Oklahoma St
B1G
Nebraska, Iowa, Iowa St, Kansas
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, NW
Ohio St, Penn St, Maryland, Rutgers
Michigan, Mich St, Indiana, Purdue
SEC
A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, TCU
LSU, Miss, Miss St, Kentucky
Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vandy
Florida, Georgia, SC, WV
ACC
ND, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, BC
FSU, Clemson, NC State, WF
Miami, VT, Louisville, Cincinnati
GT, NC, Duke, Virginia
(06-14-2016 05:41 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote: [ -> ]Texas, TT, Oklahoma & Oklahoma St to the PAC.
Kansas & Iowa State to the B1G.
TCU & WV to the SEC.
ND & Cincinnati to the ACC.
PAC
Stanford, Cal, Washington, Wash St
USC, UCLA, Arizona, Arizona St
Oregon, Oregon St, Colorado, Utah
Texas, Oklahoma, TT, Oklahoma St
B1G
Nebraska, Iowa, Iowa St, Kansas
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, NW
Ohio St, Penn St, Maryland, Rutgers
Michigan, Mich St, Indiana, Purdue
SEC
A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, TCU
LSU, Miss, Miss St, Kentucky
Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vandy
Florida, Georgia, SC, WV
ACC
ND, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, BC
FSU, Clemson, NC State, WF
Miami, VT, Louisville, Cincinnati
GT, NC, Duke, Virginia
I would like this as a fan(because I am an ISU & Iowa fan) but I doubt it happens. The PAC 12 would be the biggest winner in expansion, the ACC next with adding ND and the SEC & B1G would be getting marginal brands or less as additions. If its survival of the fittest expect the B1G & SEC to get the best brands.
Plus, under your expansion scenario two of the biggest expansion prizes would have to play a lot of their games on west coast in possible PST time slots. They won't relegate themselves to that. They also would lose their political power because their region would be under represented, the west coast agenda's would trump the Texas/Oklahoma interests always and the PAC 12 does not offer a big enough prize for Texas & OU to do that. I think a full Big 12/PAC 12 merger where each league brings 8 or 9 teams to make 16-18 is more realistic. Also, I think a rule that said no CST teams started a game on the west coast after 7 or 7:30 p.m. CST might help a little.
My example is probably not happening either but if we wanted 72 teams as the final number with 4 equal leagues competition wise, I felt it would provide that.
(06-14-2016 06:12 PM)Win5002 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-14-2016 05:41 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote: [ -> ]Texas, TT, Oklahoma & Oklahoma St to the PAC.
Kansas & Iowa State to the B1G.
TCU & WV to the SEC.
ND & Cincinnati to the ACC.
PAC
Stanford, Cal, Washington, Wash St
USC, UCLA, Arizona, Arizona St
Oregon, Oregon St, Colorado, Utah
Texas, Oklahoma, TT, Oklahoma St
B1G
Nebraska, Iowa, Iowa St, Kansas
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, NW
Ohio St, Penn St, Maryland, Rutgers
Michigan, Mich St, Indiana, Purdue
SEC
A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, TCU
LSU, Miss, Miss St, Kentucky
Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vandy
Florida, Georgia, SC, WV
ACC
ND, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, BC
FSU, Clemson, NC State, WF
Miami, VT, Louisville, Cincinnati
GT, NC, Duke, Virginia
I would like this as a fan(because I am an ISU & Iowa fan) but I doubt it happens. The PAC 12 would be the biggest winner in expansion, the ACC next with adding ND and the SEC & B1G would be getting marginal brands or less as additions. If its survival of the fittest expect the B1G & SEC to get the best brands.
Plus, under your expansion scenario two of the biggest expansion prizes would have to play a lot of their games on west coast in possible PST time slots. They won't relegate themselves to that. They also would lose their political power because their region would be under represented, the west coast agenda's would trump the Texas/Oklahoma interests always and the PAC 12 does not offer a big enough prize for Texas & OU to do that. I think a full Big 12/PAC 12 merger where each league brings 8 or 9 teams to make 16-18 is more realistic. Also, I think a rule that said no CST teams started a game on the west coast after 7 or 7:30 p.m. CST might help a little.
My example is probably not happening either but if we wanted 72 teams as the final number with 4 equal leagues competition wise, I felt it would provide that.
If any of this was easy then it would be done already. I think that it is far more likely that we will have the status quo for about a decade.
Would the PAC schools be better off being absorbed into the B1G & the Big 12?
Arizona, Arizona St, Washington, Washington St, Oregon, Oregon St, Utah, Colorado & BYU to the Big 12.
USC, UCLA, Stanford & Cal to the B1G.
ND & WV to the ACC.
This would put the Big 12 & B1G would be at 18 with the ACC at 16. The SEC would still be strong & with an advantage of splitting the CFP $ fewer ways. What would the SEC do, align with the ACC or raid it?
(06-14-2016 07:23 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote: [ -> ] (06-14-2016 06:12 PM)Win5002 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-14-2016 05:41 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote: [ -> ]Texas, TT, Oklahoma & Oklahoma St to the PAC.
Kansas & Iowa State to the B1G.
TCU & WV to the SEC.
ND & Cincinnati to the ACC.
PAC
Stanford, Cal, Washington, Wash St
USC, UCLA, Arizona, Arizona St
Oregon, Oregon St, Colorado, Utah
Texas, Oklahoma, TT, Oklahoma St
B1G
Nebraska, Iowa, Iowa St, Kansas
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, NW
Ohio St, Penn St, Maryland, Rutgers
Michigan, Mich St, Indiana, Purdue
SEC
A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, TCU
LSU, Miss, Miss St, Kentucky
Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vandy
Florida, Georgia, SC, WV
ACC
ND, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, BC
FSU, Clemson, NC State, WF
Miami, VT, Louisville, Cincinnati
GT, NC, Duke, Virginia
I would like this as a fan(because I am an ISU & Iowa fan) but I doubt it happens. The PAC 12 would be the biggest winner in expansion, the ACC next with adding ND and the SEC & B1G would be getting marginal brands or less as additions. If its survival of the fittest expect the B1G & SEC to get the best brands.
Plus, under your expansion scenario two of the biggest expansion prizes would have to play a lot of their games on west coast in possible PST time slots. They won't relegate themselves to that. They also would lose their political power because their region would be under represented, the west coast agenda's would trump the Texas/Oklahoma interests always and the PAC 12 does not offer a big enough prize for Texas & OU to do that. I think a full Big 12/PAC 12 merger where each league brings 8 or 9 teams to make 16-18 is more realistic. Also, I think a rule that said no CST teams started a game on the west coast after 7 or 7:30 p.m. CST might help a little.
My example is probably not happening either but if we wanted 72 teams as the final number with 4 equal leagues competition wise, I felt it would provide that.
If any of this was easy then it would be done already. I think that it is far more likely that we will have the status quo for about a decade.
Would the PAC schools be better off being absorbed into the B1G & the Big 12?
Arizona, Arizona St, Washington, Washington St, Oregon, Oregon St, Utah, Colorado & BYU to the Big 12.
USC, UCLA, Stanford & Cal to the B1G.
ND & WV to the ACC.
This would put the Big 12 & B1G would be at 18 with the ACC at 16. The SEC would still be strong & with an advantage of splitting the CFP $ fewer ways. What would the SEC do, align with the ACC or raid it?
There is too much brand value wrapped up the PAC name itself for the bold to happen.
(06-14-2016 04:02 PM)Win5002 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-14-2016 03:40 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (06-14-2016 03:22 PM)Win5002 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2016 11:31 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2016 10:37 AM)megadrone Wrote: [ -> ]I tend to agree. If schools 11 and 12 were out there, they would be in by now. Cincinnati would have left the Big East/American in a heartbeat when all their conference mates were bailing. The numbers just don't work.
Additionally the only AQ conference that was willing to take on projects was the Big East (Cincinnati, Temple, Rutgers, VT, BC, et. al.). The Big 12 doesn't have to do that.
True. What I'm about to say is idealistic, not realistic, but the best thing for college football is to end this garbage as soon as possible. At first it was fascinating but now it has taken so long to play out that many people are being turned off by the continued stress over it.
Ideally I'd say let's all move to 18 and have 72 schools included or move to 18 and have 54 schools included. Either way we would have more balance and some balance makes for a better product.
The PAC really needs the exposure and the brands. Let Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State all head West to form a PAC 18.
The SEC can pick up Clemson, Florida State, Virginia/Virginia Tech, and North Carolina/N.C. State to get to 18.
The Big 10 can pick up Virginia/Virginia Tech, North Carolina/N.C.State, Georgia Tech, and Notre Dame (cause they'll have to go somewhere!) and we have a very nice and profitable 18 each divided into much more reasonable geographically concentric divisions.
The balance of that would be undeniably better than what we have now. FOX would have the majority rights in the Big 10, ESPN would have them in the ACC, and they could split them in the PAC.
The real problems comes in trying to place the lesser brands from the ACC / Big 12 and if you look at the revenue invested by their respective athletic departments versus those included above it becomes abundantly clear that they have invested less, but expect equal shares.
If we move forward with conferences at all we are going to need more cohesiveness grown by equal investments and equal returns. We can't have those who profit by association or the conferences themselves will come under enough strain that we could wind up every school for itself.
If we must go to 72 the best way to do it, and it is tough, would be to start with the parsing of the Big 12. Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State move to the PAC. The SEC takes T.C.U. to get into DFW and then takes Kansas State (neither of which are even on our top 10 prospects list). The Big 10 takes Kansas and Iowa State (but only because they are both AAU as they are certainly not the high value targets for the Big 10). The ACC takes West Virginia and Baylor. Notre Dame goes all in and Connecticut makes it 18 for the ACC. The SEC and Big 10 now have to get creative. East Carolina gets a look in this scenario as they can average 60,000 plus in attendance, are steadily improving their academics, are adding a medical school, and are decent in all sports. We take Central Florida for exposure South in the Sunshine State. The Big 10 grows Buffalo and looks to take Colorado from the PAC. The PAC adds either Colorado State to keep the Denver market or they add either a Nevada or New Mexico school.
Now we all less profitably and efficiently stand at 18.
I like plan A a helluva lot more! How about you?
JR,
I know there are a lot of replies to this thread and I know the bias is towards contraction not addition of power schools to 72, since you said you preferred that. But if the leagues decided 4 power conferences was the way to go I think I gave as good of a balancing of the 4 conferences football wise, it would definitely help if all of college football negotiated tv, tier 1,2 & 3 as one oranization. Curious what you thought, the full post was #18.
Besides the current 64 we add ND, BYU, UCONN, Cincy, Memphis, CSU, BSU & Houston
PAC
add: OU, Ok. St., Neb., KS, BYU, Boise St.
B1G:
subtract: Neb.
add: ND, VA or Pitt, Syr., UCONN, BC
SEC:
subtract: Arkansas, A&M & Vanderbilt
add: WVU, NC St. Va. Tech, Louisville, Memphis, ISU & KSU
Big 12/ACC:
Texas, Arkansas, A&M, TT, TCU, Baylor, Houston, Colorado St., NC, Duke, WF, Vandy, FSU, Miami, Ga. Tech, Clemson, Cincy, Va or Pitt(whoever B1G doesn't choose)
If you are going to think 4 x 18 then you have to assess schools by conference. For instance East Carolina would make a lot more sense as a G5 for the SEC as might U.C.F.. For the ACC it would be UConn & Cincinnati. For the Big 12 C.S.U. and B.Y.U. make a lot of sense. For the PAC a Nevada school along with a Boise State or New Mexico or even a San Diego State makes some sense. If they are serious about the Pacific Rim then Hawaii if that program even survives.
Memphis is essentially a basketball school that plays and loves football but is buried market wise between giants. Houston would be great for the ACC if they had a bridge, or for the PAC if they had a bridge. The problem for Houston is that A&M delivers the city for the SEC, the Big 12 already has 4 Texas schools, and unless the PAC can grab one or two of those 4 Big 12 Texas schools they aren't going to reach out to the Cougars.
I suppose the Big 10 could cultivate Buffalo, but then who? Maybe C.S.U.?
We have to get to a 4 x 16 before a 4 x 18 is ever even considered.
I tried to take the top 72 schools and then align 4 conferences equally competitiveness wise at least historically.
The G5 schools are lucky to be in under any circumstances and unfortunately I doubt the power conferences go to a total of 72 but if they did hypothetically, the placement of the current 64 power schools & ND right is the key to balance and dwarfs fitting in the G5 schools geographically in terms of making 4 competitive leagues.
The reason I went this route of trying to equalize 4 leagues with changes is I am is I am becoming more convinced it is impossible to not leave one of the existing leagues as a weak league, probably the PAC 12.
Or there is no way to keep certain schools political power at the same levels in expansion or at least have their region have ample representation in the new league. Thats why Texas to the ACC/PAC 12 & probably B1G is never happening. They can't bring enough schools to represent the interests of that region. Its why NC & tobacco road doesn't want to break up as well. I think you could throw in rules/academic political representation matters as well. Texas would really fit in great with the SEC geographically but I don't think they feel they would have a large enough voice concerning items of academics, oversigning, recruiting violations, etc. Whether that's is right or just their perception.
My example tried to take politics/regional representation into effect in the 4 conferences I made as well as overall competitiveness of each league.
I considered that a while back. The PAC stays at 12, the Big 10, SEC & Big 12 go to 18 each. That's 66 schools. But that only happens if the ACC goes. There simply is not enough compelling product in the Big 12 to divide it and come up with even a competitive 4 x 16.