I don't need to look at Frank's listings. If anything Frank has looked at mine. I remember when he was talking about a potential 20 team Big Ten. Yeah he talked about that a month after I started bringing it up.

Sorry, but Frank isn't really that far ahead of everyone else in the Big Ten sphere.

I have no doubt realignment will occur again, but I think all the evidence points heavily against it for the next few years. The grant of rights make raiding likely impossible and most conference leaders want a lull. You need to digest what has already happened and see the risks in the new system before moving on again.

I have no doubt that networks have a major influence in the realignment world, but I also suspect that conferences are trying to be strategic about the content that they have under their umbrella. It can give them leverage over entities even as powerful as ESPN, as long as there are other external networks like Fox and/or NBC available. If the time comes that they decide that traditional networks are outmoded and internet delivery is key, they're also trying to amass compelling packages for those different delivery channels.

9. Realignment is not a one-way street. The Southern Conference was up to 23 teams before the SEC schools split. It was back up to 17 when the ACC schools split. The WAC was up to 16 teams when it split. At some point the smaller budget schools in any conference are going to be more of a drag (money-wise) than they are worth.

(08-11-2014 09:11 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  9. Realignment is not a one-way street. The Southern Conference was up to 23 teams before the SEC schools split. It was back up to 17 when the ACC schools split. The WAC was up to 16 teams when it split. At some point the smaller budget schools in any conference are going to be more of a drag (money-wise) than they are worth.

Yes but the issues weren't about more money as much as more autonomy. I'm sure the wheel will come around on that again but right now the issue is revenue.

(08-11-2014 09:11 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  9. Realignment is not a one-way street. The Southern Conference was up to 23 teams before the SEC schools split. It was back up to 17 when the ACC schools split. The WAC was up to 16 teams when it split. At some point the smaller budget schools in any conference are going to be more of a drag (money-wise) than they are worth.

Anything can happen, but getting kicked out of a P5 or voluntarily leaving is going to be a lot rarer I think.

(08-11-2014 09:11 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  9. Realignment is not a one-way street. The Southern Conference was up to 23 teams before the SEC schools split. It was back up to 17 when the ACC schools split. The WAC was up to 16 teams when it split. At some point the smaller budget schools in any conference are going to be more of a drag (money-wise) than they are worth.

The game in those days was very regional and cost of travel was a much bigger deal. Fans were all about more regional match ups.

That has ALL changed. The situation then is nothing like the situation now so to use the situation then as a supposition of what could happen, well that would be a faulty argument to make.

(08-11-2014 04:26 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 03:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 03:24 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  The only thing different this time is that the P5'ers are filling up. Movement from that direction will probably be rarer.

That's probably going to prove to be more true than not, but the court cases in particular may cause enough distress that some programs reconsider their priorities. That's truly a wait and see.

And after that I wouldn't be surprised if there is some further movement into the P5 as content requirements for P5 games goes up (and it will because networks will want it in exchange for modest raises in income). If the schedules crowd out the room for games with the G5 then the AD's and commissioner's solution will be to include some of the stronger G5 schools. Then those games count as P5 games contractually and niche markets are added to the conference networks. Having a slightly larger pool I believe will be required by the top echelon of the P5 anyway. Their alumni will want better records than 8-4 and 9-3 in a championship season. Having a larger pool of competitors is the best way to enhance that IMO.

The schools to keep an eye on are the privates. Do some of them get fed up with the system? The costs of football are going up.

Duke doesn't "need" football. Neither do Northwestern or Vanderbilt. Tulsa, SMU, Rice and Tulane may not be able (or willing) to afford football.

Good point. I believe that at some point some of the privates schools (and hopefully some public academic schools) are going to wake up and quit chasing the athletics dream and realize that academics is what makes a great university.

I would like to see SMU, Rice, Tulane, Tulsa and some of the other privates take a stand and say enough is enough. I think people would be surprised at the positive reaction they would get from fans and the media

(08-11-2014 10:48 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 04:26 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 03:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 03:24 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  The only thing different this time is that the P5'ers are filling up. Movement from that direction will probably be rarer.

That's probably going to prove to be more true than not, but the court cases in particular may cause enough distress that some programs reconsider their priorities. That's truly a wait and see.

And after that I wouldn't be surprised if there is some further movement into the P5 as content requirements for P5 games goes up (and it will because networks will want it in exchange for modest raises in income). If the schedules crowd out the room for games with the G5 then the AD's and commissioner's solution will be to include some of the stronger G5 schools. Then those games count as P5 games contractually and niche markets are added to the conference networks. Having a slightly larger pool I believe will be required by the top echelon of the P5 anyway. Their alumni will want better records than 8-4 and 9-3 in a championship season. Having a larger pool of competitors is the best way to enhance that IMO.

The schools to keep an eye on are the privates. Do some of them get fed up with the system? The costs of football are going up.

Duke doesn't "need" football. Neither do Northwestern or Vanderbilt. Tulsa, SMU, Rice and Tulane may not be able (or willing) to afford football.

Good point. I believe that at some point some of the privates schools are going to wake up and quit chasing the athletics dream and realize that academics is what makes a great university.

I would like to see SMU, Rice, Tulane, Tulsa and some of the other privates take a stand and say enough is enough. I think people would be surprised at the positive reaction they would get from fans and the media

The O'Bannon case makes that much more difficult.

(08-11-2014 10:50 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 10:48 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 04:26 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 03:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 03:24 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  The only thing different this time is that the P5'ers are filling up. Movement from that direction will probably be rarer.

That's probably going to prove to be more true than not, but the court cases in particular may cause enough distress that some programs reconsider their priorities. That's truly a wait and see.

And after that I wouldn't be surprised if there is some further movement into the P5 as content requirements for P5 games goes up (and it will because networks will want it in exchange for modest raises in income). If the schedules crowd out the room for games with the G5 then the AD's and commissioner's solution will be to include some of the stronger G5 schools. Then those games count as P5 games contractually and niche markets are added to the conference networks. Having a slightly larger pool I believe will be required by the top echelon of the P5 anyway. Their alumni will want better records than 8-4 and 9-3 in a championship season. Having a larger pool of competitors is the best way to enhance that IMO.

The schools to keep an eye on are the privates. Do some of them get fed up with the system? The costs of football are going up.

Duke doesn't "need" football. Neither do Northwestern or Vanderbilt. Tulsa, SMU, Rice and Tulane may not be able (or willing) to afford football.

Good point. I believe that at some point some of the privates schools are going to wake up and quit chasing the athletics dream and realize that academics is what makes a great university.

I would like to see SMU, Rice, Tulane, Tulsa and some of the other privates take a stand and say enough is enough. I think people would be surprised at the positive reaction they would get from fans and the media

The O'Bannon case makes that much more difficult.

Does the O'Banon case require all levels and Divisions of athletics to comply with that ruling? In other words all 350 D1 schools and even FCS etc, .

(08-11-2014 10:57 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 10:50 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 10:48 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 04:26 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 03:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  That's probably going to prove to be more true than not, but the court cases in particular may cause enough distress that some programs reconsider their priorities. That's truly a wait and see.

And after that I wouldn't be surprised if there is some further movement into the P5 as content requirements for P5 games goes up (and it will because networks will want it in exchange for modest raises in income). If the schedules crowd out the room for games with the G5 then the AD's and commissioner's solution will be to include some of the stronger G5 schools. Then those games count as P5 games contractually and niche markets are added to the conference networks. Having a slightly larger pool I believe will be required by the top echelon of the P5 anyway. Their alumni will want better records than 8-4 and 9-3 in a championship season. Having a larger pool of competitors is the best way to enhance that IMO.

The schools to keep an eye on are the privates. Do some of them get fed up with the system? The costs of football are going up.

Duke doesn't "need" football. Neither do Northwestern or Vanderbilt. Tulsa, SMU, Rice and Tulane may not be able (or willing) to afford football.

Good point. I believe that at some point some of the privates schools are going to wake up and quit chasing the athletics dream and realize that academics is what makes a great university.

I would like to see SMU, Rice, Tulane, Tulsa and some of the other privates take a stand and say enough is enough. I think people would be surprised at the positive reaction they would get from fans and the media

The O'Bannon case makes that much more difficult.

Does the O'Banon case require all levels and Divisions of athletics to comply with that ruling? In other words all 350 D1 schools and even FCS etc, .

Nah, but it will allow the Big Program Schools to end up smelling like Roses and everyone else looking bad if they don't follow suit in whatever those schools end up setting aside for their athletes. If nothing else, it will destroy the recruiting of such Privates. Not all football players make it to the NFL but if they can come out of college with a degree AND twenty thousand dollars....or more, then that is going to be one hell of an insane recruiting tool for that second tier of athlete.

But the small schoools do not often get the recruits the big boys want anyway. I know SMU does not often beat UT or A&M etc. for a recruit and I know Tulsa does not usually get recruits that OU or OSU wants. As long as the 85 scholarship limt is in place, I do not see it making much of a difference, since they are taking what is left anyway.

(08-11-2014 11:39 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  But the small schoools do not often get the recruits the big boys want anyway. I know SMU does not often beat UT or A&M etc. for a recruit and I know Tulsa does not usually get recruits that OU or OSU wants. As long as the 85 scholarship limt is in place, I do not see it making much of a difference, since they are taking what is left anyway.

At every school the players would have rights to make endorsement revenue for their likeness and things symbolic of their play. It affects everyone. Whether or not to pay full cost of tuition or a living stipend is where the school will have options, unless the courts get involved there as well, but that remains to be seen.

(08-11-2014 11:39 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  But the small schoools do not often get the recruits the big boys want anyway. I know SMU does not often beat UT or A&M etc. for a recruit and I know Tulsa does not usually get recruits that OU or OSU wants. As long as the 85 scholarship limt is in place, I do not see it making much of a difference, since they are taking what is left anyway.

Scholarship limits will change as well if necessary.

Also, SMU may not care that much but was not the conversation about such schools as Duke and their ilk? Let me remind you that Duke is in the process of building their football program. They have a coach that can take them far and whom seems to be very loyal to the school. He has already taken them to the conference championship.

You think such a well endowed school as is Duke, is going to allow themselves to be outspent to the point of losing all that they are working on right now?

No, I am sorry, they will not.

(08-12-2014 12:28 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 11:39 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  But the small schoools do not often get the recruits the big boys want anyway. I know SMU does not often beat UT or A&M etc. for a recruit and I know Tulsa does not usually get recruits that OU or OSU wants. As long as the 85 scholarship limt is in place, I do not see it making much of a difference, since they are taking what is left anyway.

Scholarship limits will change as well if necessary.

Also, SMU may not care that much but was not the conversation about such schools as Duke and their ilk? Let me remind you that Duke is in the process of building their football program. They have a coach that can take them far and whom seems to be very loyal to the school. He has already taken them to the conference championship.

You think such a well endowed school as is Duke, is going to allow themselves to be outspent to the point of losing all that they are working on right now?

No, I am sorry, they will not.

Agreed. Duke will likely not drop football and will continue to spend what is necessary.

So will Stanford, ND and other private schools with lots of resources.

(08-11-2014 03:42 PM)TerryD Wrote:  , the best answer is " I don't know. It all depends."

, the best answer is "I don't know. It all stipends."

(08-11-2014 03:56 PM)Cali_Cat Wrote:  9. Never listen to a fan of a desperate school (namely Cincinnati) when they explain to you how their school is better than "xyz" but they were lucky to be included 50 years ago. That talk is pure bs.

Don't forget to go upstairs and high-five mom for your "sick burn."

(08-11-2014 11:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 11:39 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  But the small schoools do not often get the recruits the big boys want anyway. I know SMU does not often beat UT or A&M etc. for a recruit and I know Tulsa does not usually get recruits that OU or OSU wants. As long as the 85 scholarship limt is in place, I do not see it making much of a difference, since they are taking what is left anyway.

At every school the players would have rights to make endorsement revenue for their likeness and things symbolic of their play. It affects everyone. Whether or not to pay full cost of tuition or a living stipend is where the school will have options, unless the courts get involved there as well, but that remains to be seen.

It seems that TV money is included in the ruling, but how do you value the NILs of a Tulsa player compared to an Ohio St. player?

(08-12-2014 09:40 AM)bullet Wrote:  It seems that TV money is included in the ruling, but how do you value the NILs of a Tulsa player compared to an Ohio St. player?

I would let the companies that want to use likenesses for various reasons do the valuation. That's their business to know that.

(08-12-2014 06:46 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 12:28 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 11:39 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  But the small schoools do not often get the recruits the big boys want anyway. I know SMU does not often beat UT or A&M etc. for a recruit and I know Tulsa does not usually get recruits that OU or OSU wants. As long as the 85 scholarship limt is in place, I do not see it making much of a difference, since they are taking what is left anyway.

Scholarship limits will change as well if necessary.

Also, SMU may not care that much but was not the conversation about such schools as Duke and their ilk? Let me remind you that Duke is in the process of building their football program. They have a coach that can take them far and whom seems to be very loyal to the school. He has already taken them to the conference championship.

You think such a well endowed school as is Duke, is going to allow themselves to be outspent to the point of losing all that they are working on right now?

No, I am sorry, they will not.

Agreed. Duke will likely not drop football and will continue to spend what is necessary.

So will Stanford, ND and other private schools with lots of resources.

Just like Yale, Harvard, Penn, Princeton, Dartmouth, Brown, Cornell, Columbia and Chicago have?

The faculty mostly hates football and what it does to the university. I wouldn't be so certain things don't change, especially with O'Bannon and concussion issues.

It won't change at Notre Dame. But football is not as big a part of those other schools' identities as it is at Notre Dame.