(11-14-2014 11:37 AM)CintiFan Wrote:  

(11-14-2014 08:36 AM)XLance Wrote:  If the B1G stiffs ESPN.....then it's on.

ESPN will move Missouri and Arkansas to the Big 12 and they will invite BYU.
Florida State will move to the SEC.
Kentucky, West Virginia and Notre Dame join the ACC.
40 teams aligned in a 12, 12 16 configuration, marketed together will bury anything the B1G and PAC could ever put on TV. Two great football conferences spread out over three time zones. The best basketball conference ever assembled. Plus baseball, soccer, women's softball, track, lacrosse, you name it......it's the best. Intersectional play between the three would be like bowl season and the final four wrapped into one.

Delany won't stiff ESPN. He'll play ESPN and Fox off against one another to get the maximum value and in the end divide the pie up in a way that keeps both networks interested and competing with each other.

I also don't necessarily see ESPN having the power to dictate the result JR lays out. That's a lot of presidents, trustees, donors and alumni support to line up to make it happen. ESPN has lots of power, of course, but the schools will not fall in line just because ESPN says jump.

Remember the Big East? Aresco says he has to think about the ESPN low offer and voila. B.C.'s president openly spoke of ESPN's power there. ESPN realized that once Delany caught on that some of the prime Big East properties could be lost to the Big 10 and suddenly Pitt and Syracuse are in the ACC. So out of the former Big East the ACC bleeds them for B.C., Miami, Pitt & Syracuse and even land their hybrid partner Notre Dame on the same terms. ESPN has a lot more power than most posters realize. ESPN was worried about the prime properties they wanted in the Big 12 once FOX through YES bought into the BTN. In come Texas A&M and Missouri and suddenly Texas and Kansas have prime T3 deals. The only property that got away so to speak was Oklahoma who signed a tidy T3 deal with FOX. So far ESPN has come out way ahead in the realignment game. I have no doubt but what they will continue to do so.

On the Big 10 issue however, I strongly suspect that Delany will do exactly as you say. The conversation bait was "what if he doesn't". That question opens a quite different set of possibilities.

Now as to XLance's suggestion I would say this, there are presently 39 schools accounted for between the Big 12, SEC, and ACC. Why not do one of the following? Drop 4 from the Big 12 with realignment with the PAC for increased interest in that conference, add one, then divide the three conferences into 6 six team divisions under one banner and one network. Or, simply add one and break into 8 five team divisions and do the same.

Region 1 Division 1: Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

Region 1 Division 2: Baylor, Brigham Young, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech

Region 2 Division 1: Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Texas A&M

Region 2 Division 2: Alabama, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Mississippi State, Tennessee

Region 3 Division 1: Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Miami, Vanderbilt

Region 3 Division 2: Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, South Carolina, Wake Forest,

Region 4 Division 1: Kentucky, Louisville, Virginia, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Region 4 Division 2: Boston College, Connecticut, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse

You play the 4 schools in your division, rotate 5 from the other regions, and have 3 permanent rivals.

Now I ask you is there a bad division there? I don't think so. The network footprint would be huge as would its content. The leverage would be huge too and probably the reason this won't come to pass. Academically you would have 11 AAU schools and several privates that while not AAU are ranked quite highly.

Now regions would consist of two divisions. The division champs play down to 4 regional champions which play down to two super regional champs. Those two are automatic qualifiers for the 4 team playoff.

Do you actually believe in this kind of crazy **** JR? I wouldn't even ask but the way you tried to direct our Kansas friend over here.

Why do you post 500 of these? Do you actually believe this would happen?

(11-14-2014 07:16 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:   Do you actually believe in this kind of crazy **** JR? I wouldn't even ask but the way you tried to direct our Kansas friend over here.

Why do you post 500 of these? Do you actually believe this would happen?

If for no other reason it always gets a rile out of you. I said that I didn't think Delany would reject ESPN, but the point was to see what could happen if he did.

(11-15-2014 03:05 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-14-2014 07:16 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:   Do you actually believe in this kind of crazy **** JR? I wouldn't even ask but the way you tried to direct our Kansas friend over here.

Why do you post 500 of these? Do you actually believe this would happen?

If for no other reason it always gets a rile out of you. I said that I didn't think Delany would reject ESPN, but the point was to see what could happen if he did.

Fair enough. It is bat **** crazy though.

(11-14-2014 04:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-14-2014 11:37 AM)CintiFan Wrote:  

(11-14-2014 08:36 AM)XLance Wrote:  If the B1G stiffs ESPN.....then it's on.

ESPN will move Missouri and Arkansas to the Big 12 and they will invite BYU.
Florida State will move to the SEC.
Kentucky, West Virginia and Notre Dame join the ACC.
40 teams aligned in a 12, 12 16 configuration, marketed together will bury anything the B1G and PAC could ever put on TV. Two great football conferences spread out over three time zones. The best basketball conference ever assembled. Plus baseball, soccer, women's softball, track, lacrosse, you name it......it's the best. Intersectional play between the three would be like bowl season and the final four wrapped into one.

Delany won't stiff ESPN. He'll play ESPN and Fox off against one another to get the maximum value and in the end divide the pie up in a way that keeps both networks interested and competing with each other.

I also don't necessarily see ESPN having the power to dictate the result JR lays out. That's a lot of presidents, trustees, donors and alumni support to line up to make it happen. ESPN has lots of power, of course, but the schools will not fall in line just because ESPN says jump.

Remember the Big East? Aresco says he has to think about the ESPN low offer and voila. B.C.'s president openly spoke of ESPN's power there. ESPN realized that once Delany caught on that some of the prime Big East properties could be lost to the Big 10 and suddenly Pitt and Syracuse are in the ACC. So out of the former Big East the ACC bleeds them for B.C., Miami, Pitt & Syracuse and even land their hybrid partner Notre Dame on the same terms. ESPN has a lot more power than most posters realize. ESPN was worried about the prime properties they wanted in the Big 12 once FOX through YES bought into the BTN. In come Texas A&M and Missouri and suddenly Texas and Kansas have prime T3 deals. The only property that got away so to speak was Oklahoma who signed a tidy T3 deal with FOX. So far ESPN has come out way ahead in the realignment game. I have no doubt but what they will continue to do so.

On the Big 10 issue however, I strongly suspect that Delany will do exactly as you say. The conversation bait was "what if he doesn't". That question opens a quite different set of possibilities.

Now as to XLance's suggestion I would say this, there are presently 39 schools accounted for between the Big 12, SEC, and ACC. Why not do one of the following? Drop 4 from the Big 12 with realignment with the PAC for increased interest in that conference, add one, then divide the three conferences into 6 six team divisions under one banner and one network. Or, simply add one and break into 8 five team divisions and do the same.

Region 1 Division 1: Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

Region 1 Division 2: Baylor, Brigham Young, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech

Region 2 Division 1: Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Texas A&M

Region 2 Division 2: Alabama, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Mississippi State, Tennessee

Region 3 Division 1: Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Miami, Vanderbilt

Region 3 Division 2: Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, South Carolina, Wake Forest,

Region 4 Division 1: Kentucky, Louisville, Virginia, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Region 4 Division 2: Boston College, Connecticut, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse

You play the 4 schools in your division, rotate 5 from the other regions, and have 3 permanent rivals.

Now I ask you is there a bad division there? I don't think so. The network footprint would be huge as would its content. The leverage would be huge too and probably the reason this won't come to pass. Academically you would have 11 AAU schools and several privates that while not AAU are ranked quite highly.

Now regions would consist of two divisions. The division champs play down to 4 regional champions which play down to two super regional champs. Those two are automatic qualifiers for the 4 team playoff.

It would basically be the two conference scenario in the end. The B1G and PAC would do something similar to counter. Have conference playoffs then have the conference final be the national semi-finals (Sugar and Rose Bowls) and the winners square off in the championship game (Bid out each year to highest bidder). Be crazy though not having early season match ups with PAC and B1G schools. I'd miss those. The OOC P5 match-ups are always fun to see how you compare and for bragging rights.

Would be a winner for me just because it would all be decided on the field. No more beauty pageant. I hate the beauty pageant aspect of it all. This year could be a great example if the 4th school in the playoff has 2 losses. There would be many schools that would have legitimate claims to that fourth spot.

I think eventually something similar will happen, but I think it is too radical for university presidents at this time unless the money is just too insane to turn down. They are still holding onto those corrupt bowls that rape them on tickets and other things just so they can get free perks for themselves. For the most part they do not seem very visionary in any way.

Add Oklahoma and Oklahoma State

SEC EAST
Alabama
Auburn
Georgia
South Carolina
Florida
Tennessee
Vanderbilt
Kentucky

SEC WEST
LSU
Arkansas
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Texas A&M
Ole Miss
Miss State
Missouri

(11-25-2014 03:44 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  Add Oklahoma and Oklahoma State

SEC EAST
Alabama
Auburn
Georgia
South Carolina
Florida
Tennessee
Vanderbilt
Kentucky

SEC WEST
LSU
Arkansas
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Texas A&M
Ole Miss
Miss State
Missouri

If you had to take a pair of schools from 1 state at least those two can compete. The problem is that just one of them helps to deliver DFW and the state of Oklahoma. The conference office isn't going to want to spend two slots for 1 demographic. So we sit. The issue is 19 million combined viewers in North Carolina and Virginia or some additional viewers in DFW and 3.3 million in Oklahoma? If we took 2 from the Big 12 the preference would be for either a second Texas school and Oklahoma, an Oklahoma school and West Virginia, or an Oklahoma school and a Kansas school. State Flagships would be sought first. So we sit and wait to see which happens first, Texas and Oklahoma want better digs and to be with peer institutions, or whether the ACC gets a network anytime soon and actually makes up the disparity in future income with regards to the Big 10 and SEC. We'll see, eventually.

No network will be powerful enough to force a Mizzou/ Arkansas move to the Big XII. If you are from Missouri you know how utterly ridiculous that notion is... Ninety percent sure the Razorback folks share the same sentiment. I think OU would be such a prize for the SEC, they might go ahead and invite OSU. They can still look east if we expand to 18 or 20.

(11-26-2014 12:06 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  No network will be powerful enough to force a Mizzou/ Arkansas move to the Big XII. If you are from Missouri you know how utterly ridiculous that notion is... Ninety percent sure the Razorback folks share the same sentiment. I think OU would be such a prize for the SEC, they might go ahead and invite OSU. They can still look east if we expand to 18 or 20.

Medic it's a long thread and I'm not sure which post you are referring to, but I can't conceive of a scenario in which Missouri would be asked to move. The SEC has a few traditions that go unspoken but are rock solid. One of them is that we have never asked a member of the conference to leave and promised all members that we never would. This issue arose way back in the 1960's when Georgia Tech and Tulane opted out to pursue independence. So, as far as all SEC administrations are concerned Mizzou, A&M, South Carolina, and Arkansas are as if they had always been SEC and always will be.

Part of me knows that a Carolina and Virginia school are best for the SEC, but that two more from the West would do so much to make A&M and Missouri and Arkansas for that matter feel even more at home. For that reason it would be fine with me if we expanded to 16 with Oklahoma and Kansas. And you are correct in that if the other two came available a move to 18 or 20 would be possible.

(11-26-2014 03:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-26-2014 12:06 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  No network will be powerful enough to force a Mizzou/ Arkansas move to the Big XII. If you are from Missouri you know how utterly ridiculous that notion is... Ninety percent sure the Razorback folks share the same sentiment. I think OU would be such a prize for the SEC, they might go ahead and invite OSU. They can still look east if we expand to 18 or 20.

Medic it's a long thread and I'm not sure which post you are referring to, but I can't conceive of a scenario in which Missouri would be asked to move. The SEC has a few traditions that go unspoken but are rock solid. One of them is that we have never asked a member of the conference to leave and promised all members that we never would. This issue arose way back in the 1960's when Georgia Tech and Tulane opted out to pursue independence. So, as far as all SEC administrations are concerned Mizzou, A&M, South Carolina, and Arkansas are as if they had always been SEC and always will be.

Part of me knows that a Carolina and Virginia school are best for the SEC, but that two more from the West would do so much to make A&M and Missouri and Arkansas for that matter feel even more at home. For that reason it would be fine with me if we expanded to 16 with Oklahoma and Kansas. And you are correct in that if the other two came available a move to 18 or 20 would be possible.

If the MASTER (ESPN) needs to move some parked inventory, they will. There IS a network powerful enough to have Arkansas and Missouri move into the Big 12, or other parked inventory move to a different conference (even an ACC team) if it served their long term interest.

(11-26-2014 05:38 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-26-2014 03:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-26-2014 12:06 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  No network will be powerful enough to force a Mizzou/ Arkansas move to the Big XII. If you are from Missouri you know how utterly ridiculous that notion is... Ninety percent sure the Razorback folks share the same sentiment. I think OU would be such a prize for the SEC, they might go ahead and invite OSU. They can still look east if we expand to 18 or 20.

Medic it's a long thread and I'm not sure which post you are referring to, but I can't conceive of a scenario in which Missouri would be asked to move. The SEC has a few traditions that go unspoken but are rock solid. One of them is that we have never asked a member of the conference to leave and promised all members that we never would. This issue arose way back in the 1960's when Georgia Tech and Tulane opted out to pursue independence. So, as far as all SEC administrations are concerned Mizzou, A&M, South Carolina, and Arkansas are as if they had always been SEC and always will be.

Part of me knows that a Carolina and Virginia school are best for the SEC, but that two more from the West would do so much to make A&M and Missouri and Arkansas for that matter feel even more at home. For that reason it would be fine with me if we expanded to 16 with Oklahoma and Kansas. And you are correct in that if the other two came available a move to 18 or 20 would be possible.

If the MASTER (ESPN) needs to move some parked inventory, they will. There IS a network powerful enough to have Arkansas and Missouri move into the Big 12, or other parked inventory move to a different conference (even an ACC team) if it served their long term interest.

Yeah, but Missouri and A&M are worth more to ESPN in the SEC than they were in the Big 12. Arkansas is worth more to ESPN in the SEC than in the Big 12. But the funny part XLance is that any Southern ACC school is worth more in the SEC and it's much easier to park 100% owned property than partially owned property. And there are a lot of disparate parked properties in the ACC. You see it's important to know what associations up your value and which ones diminish it.

(11-27-2014 12:29 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-26-2014 05:38 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-26-2014 03:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-26-2014 12:06 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  No network will be powerful enough to force a Mizzou/ Arkansas move to the Big XII. If you are from Missouri you know how utterly ridiculous that notion is... Ninety percent sure the Razorback folks share the same sentiment. I think OU would be such a prize for the SEC, they might go ahead and invite OSU. They can still look east if we expand to 18 or 20.

Medic it's a long thread and I'm not sure which post you are referring to, but I can't conceive of a scenario in which Missouri would be asked to move. The SEC has a few traditions that go unspoken but are rock solid. One of them is that we have never asked a member of the conference to leave and promised all members that we never would. This issue arose way back in the 1960's when Georgia Tech and Tulane opted out to pursue independence. So, as far as all SEC administrations are concerned Mizzou, A&M, South Carolina, and Arkansas are as if they had always been SEC and always will be.

Part of me knows that a Carolina and Virginia school are best for the SEC, but that two more from the West would do so much to make A&M and Missouri and Arkansas for that matter feel even more at home. For that reason it would be fine with me if we expanded to 16 with Oklahoma and Kansas. And you are correct in that if the other two came available a move to 18 or 20 would be possible.

If the MASTER (ESPN) needs to move some parked inventory, they will. There IS a network powerful enough to have Arkansas and Missouri move into the Big 12, or other parked inventory move to a different conference (even an ACC team) if it served their long term interest.

Yeah, but Missouri and A&M are worth more to ESPN in the SEC than they were in the Big 12. Arkansas is worth more to ESPN in the SEC than in the Big 12. But the funny part XLance is that any Southern ACC school is worth more in the SEC and it's much easier to park 100% owned property than partially owned property. And there are a lot of disparate parked properties in the ACC. You see it's important to know what associations up your value and which ones diminish it.

I still refuse to believe any network has the power to make anyone move to another conference. They can come up with a ridiculous financial offer to entice a move, but these universities also wield enormous clout. If I am wrong on this, in the end, it makes CFB completely pathetic.

(11-28-2014 08:40 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(11-27-2014 12:29 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-26-2014 05:38 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-26-2014 03:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-26-2014 12:06 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  No network will be powerful enough to force a Mizzou/ Arkansas move to the Big XII. If you are from Missouri you know how utterly ridiculous that notion is... Ninety percent sure the Razorback folks share the same sentiment. I think OU would be such a prize for the SEC, they might go ahead and invite OSU. They can still look east if we expand to 18 or 20.

Medic it's a long thread and I'm not sure which post you are referring to, but I can't conceive of a scenario in which Missouri would be asked to move. The SEC has a few traditions that go unspoken but are rock solid. One of them is that we have never asked a member of the conference to leave and promised all members that we never would. This issue arose way back in the 1960's when Georgia Tech and Tulane opted out to pursue independence. So, as far as all SEC administrations are concerned Mizzou, A&M, South Carolina, and Arkansas are as if they had always been SEC and always will be.

Part of me knows that a Carolina and Virginia school are best for the SEC, but that two more from the West would do so much to make A&M and Missouri and Arkansas for that matter feel even more at home. For that reason it would be fine with me if we expanded to 16 with Oklahoma and Kansas. And you are correct in that if the other two came available a move to 18 or 20 would be possible.

If the MASTER (ESPN) needs to move some parked inventory, they will. There IS a network powerful enough to have Arkansas and Missouri move into the Big 12, or other parked inventory move to a different conference (even an ACC team) if it served their long term interest.

Yeah, but Missouri and A&M are worth more to ESPN in the SEC than they were in the Big 12. Arkansas is worth more to ESPN in the SEC than in the Big 12. But the funny part XLance is that any Southern ACC school is worth more in the SEC and it's much easier to park 100% owned property than partially owned property. And there are a lot of disparate parked properties in the ACC. You see it's important to know what associations up your value and which ones diminish it.

I still refuse to believe any network has the power to make anyone move to another conference. They can come up with a ridiculous financial offer to entice a move, but these universities also wield enormous clout. If I am wrong on this, in the end, it makes CFB completely pathetic.

Xlance, all of our schools lost their honor the first time they admitted someone to play sports who was not qualified. They went down a road that led to a loss of integrity the first time they altered a grade, bribed a professor, got a tutor to take a test, permitted cheating, or, as I once for which I turned in my own school, got a ringer to take an SAT and ACT. It is very much like the oldest joke in the book. A guy asks a beautiful woman to sleep with him for a million dollars and she says yes. He then offers her a $100. She says, "No! What do you think I am!" He says, "We've already established that, now we are just haggling over the price."

State budgets are hurting all across the country. Federal grant money has been slowly but perceptibly declining. Most professors, just as with high school teachers, want their annual COLA. To appease the budget process new revenue streams were sought. ESPN saw the opportunity to lock down a very profitable product. Ever since we all have been haggling over the price, but I'm afraid we long ago put on our red dresses, rouged our cheeks, and started performing tricks for cash.

More money will be dangled, things will continue to change, and we all will regret it in the end, .....that is when self denial is no longer possible and we realize that the kinds of things that have happened at Penn State, Florida State, Ohio State, North Carolina, and I know at more than a few SEC schools Georgia and Alabama and Auburn included, are all merely reflections of a society without a soul, hollow to the point that we sell integrity for bragging rights, and bereft of any semblance of the character that once built our nation. Truly it is the coliseum and the sated shallow citizens of Rome turn out to be seen by the crowd, to hold seats establishing their societal position, revel in drunkenness, and to buy a cheap thrill at the price of another's potential pain and suffering.

I'm a sociologist. I took up realignment to see just how many cherished institutions would be forfeit to corporate greed before the average citizen had their fill. After three years of talking this stuff ad nauseam I have come to the conclusion that most people accept it all gleefully citing how much more their schools are going to make, and ignoring the passing of a century of tradition and memories. To me it means our nation is more than ripe for the same kinds of theft of traditions, liberties, and rights, and that little more than a whimper will be forthcoming on that. College football was a beloved and remarkably unchanged touchstone to our heritage and therefore a perfect litmus test for greater societal change and as a people we've failed. But then that's what happens when everything you hold dear is measured by the dollar instead of out of honor, love, and morality.

I apologize if at times I've provoked you. I wanted to see just how long you would stand by your traditions. In that regard I'm proud of you. But as an alumni of North Carolina I challenge you to stop your defense and demand a return to the character that Chapel Hill once stood for. They need that kind of support now more than ever.

I confess that realignment's innumerable potential permutations are a fascinating topic, but one that is closely akin to deciding by what method to wreak the most havoc and bring the greatest outcry. A dark, but fascinating look into the capacity of people to permit what they love to first be stolen, and then transformed into something that when examined by the measuring stick of the long line of our ancestor's matriculation, is unrecognizable and perverted, and hardly dear to us at all.

Take care, JR

(11-29-2014 02:46 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I'm a sociologist. I took up realignment to see just how many cherished institutions would be forfeit to corporate greed before the average citizen had their fill. After three years of talking this stuff ad nauseam I have come to the conclusion that most people accept it all gleefully citing how much more their schools are going to make, and ignoring the passing of a century of tradition and memories. To me it means our nation is more than ripe for the same kinds of theft of traditions, liberties, and rights, and that little more than a whimper will be forthcoming on that. College football was a beloved and remarkably unchanged touchstone to our heritage and therefore a perfect litmus test for greater societal change and as a people we've failed. But then that's what happens when everything you hold dear is measured by the dollar instead of out of honor, love, and morality.

It's interesting now in light of the rumors surrounding the UAB football program. This could be an anomaly or signal the start of radical change in the FBS sphere. I don't know if this change would be limited to the G5 or whether this could creep up to the P5 level. Some of this might be inevitable with the need to appease the student-athletes with stipends, medical insurance, etc..

What's not in dispute is that the bill for competing in the FBS is now coming due.

(11-30-2014 10:25 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(11-29-2014 02:46 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I'm a sociologist. I took up realignment to see just how many cherished institutions would be forfeit to corporate greed before the average citizen had their fill. After three years of talking this stuff ad nauseam I have come to the conclusion that most people accept it all gleefully citing how much more their schools are going to make, and ignoring the passing of a century of tradition and memories. To me it means our nation is more than ripe for the same kinds of theft of traditions, liberties, and rights, and that little more than a whimper will be forthcoming on that. College football was a beloved and remarkably unchanged touchstone to our heritage and therefore a perfect litmus test for greater societal change and as a people we've failed. But then that's what happens when everything you hold dear is measured by the dollar instead of out of honor, love, and morality.

It's interesting now in light of the rumors surrounding the UAB football program. This could be an anomaly or signal the start of radical change in the FBS sphere. I don't know if this change would be limited to the G5 or whether this could creep up to the P5 level. Some of this might be inevitable with the need to appease the student-athletes with stipends, medical insurance, etc..

What's not in dispute is that the bill for competing in the FBS is now coming due.

I believe your suspicions are accurate. The bill is due and maybe a better analogy would be in the high stakes poker game of college athletics the anti has just been raised to thin the table. I use a gambling analogy because unless some legitimacy is at least feigned by transforming the playoff process to a champs only model for a controlled 4 conferences so that the process yields the playoff participants annually and conducts the process in an easily understood and accepted way for the fans to follow then college football will continue to lose fans who just get tired of politics and network profit angles being so obviously in the forefront.

But as you alluded to the thinning is beginning. Remember it is not just U.A.B. that is on the chopping block. Wake Forest has made noises, Hawaii seems to be on the way out, and I am sure there are many right now with fan base support below 30,000 who are considering the high percentage of crowd support they could keep without the high overhead if they only dropped down a division. I mean really if you live where you can draw 20,000 local fans to a Division II game why spend all of that money to compete in the FBS to only draw 27,000 or 30,000 to the games?

Those however that can draw 50,000 plus will do what it takes to stay in the FBS.

I think what we are going to see is a culling of the G5 as schools who in recent years joined drop back down. Then we will see some of the strongest G5 replace some a very few P5 privates that call it quits at the FBS level. In the end I do believe that we wind up with a P4 of about the same number of schools (between 64 -72) which is geographically grouped by division. And it is possible that the G5 actually gets stronger by growing leaner and a bit more competitive.

Important fact about UAB: They were 19th in terms of annual losses among all G5 programs. There are a RAFT of other programs in a similar situation.

I don't think Wake drops down an entire division. I think they are going to stay in the ACC for life. They'll do this is out of respect for tradition, since they are an "old school" ACC team.

However, if the SEC poaches from the ACC - which is unlikely as hell but possible - Wake will NOT be selected into the super-conference. I honestly could see Wake and a few other ACC left-behinds grabbing some peer schools from the American/A10/Big East (think: UConn) to round out the number and create a "new beginning".

I honestly believe we are going to be at 5 power conferences for a long time - at least as long as it takes to cull the herd. I also do not think that the P5 can get rid of everyone - there will be a contingency of survivors that you cannot get rid of.

You can drive the ante up, but there are going to be schools that can call your bet and will make it alive into the turn card and THEN AND ONLY THEN will they see what you're really trying to play - and those will be interesting times, my friends. :)

By the way, I don't understand why the SEC haven't offered Clemson a spot yet. I think they'll actually drive South Carolina to be a better program. There are some states in which the primary in-state rivalry makes both programs great. I think the SEC should get their hands on Clemson.

(12-01-2014 04:09 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 10:25 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(11-29-2014 02:46 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I'm a sociologist. I took up realignment to see just how many cherished institutions would be forfeit to corporate greed before the average citizen had their fill. After three years of talking this stuff ad nauseam I have come to the conclusion that most people accept it all gleefully citing how much more their schools are going to make, and ignoring the passing of a century of tradition and memories. To me it means our nation is more than ripe for the same kinds of theft of traditions, liberties, and rights, and that little more than a whimper will be forthcoming on that. College football was a beloved and remarkably unchanged touchstone to our heritage and therefore a perfect litmus test for greater societal change and as a people we've failed. But then that's what happens when everything you hold dear is measured by the dollar instead of out of honor, love, and morality.

It's interesting now in light of the rumors surrounding the UAB football program. This could be an anomaly or signal the start of radical change in the FBS sphere. I don't know if this change would be limited to the G5 or whether this could creep up to the P5 level. Some of this might be inevitable with the need to appease the student-athletes with stipends, medical insurance, etc..

What's not in dispute is that the bill for competing in the FBS is now coming due.

I believe your suspicions are accurate. The bill is due and maybe a better analogy would be in the high stakes poker game of college athletics the anti has just been raised to thin the table. I use a gambling analogy because unless some legitimacy is at least feigned by transforming the playoff process to a champs only model for a controlled 4 conferences so that the process yields the playoff participants annually and conducts the process in an easily understood and accepted way for the fans to follow then college football will continue to lose fans who just get tired of politics and network profit angles being so obviously in the forefront.

But as you alluded to the thinning is beginning. Remember it is not just U.A.B. that is on the chopping block. Wake Forest has made noises, Hawaii seems to be on the way out, and I am sure there are many right now with fan base support below 30,000 who are considering the high percentage of crowd support they could keep without the high overhead if they only dropped down a division. I mean really if you live where you can draw 20,000 local fans to a Division II game why spend all of that money to compete in the FBS to only draw 27,000 or 30,000 to the games?

Those however that can draw 50,000 plus will do what it takes to stay in the FBS.

I think what we are going to see is a culling of the G5 as schools who in recent years joined drop back down. Then we will see some of the strongest G5 replace some a very few P5 privates that call it quits at the FBS level. In the end I do believe that we wind up with a P4 of about the same number of schools (between 64 -72) which is geographically grouped by division. And it is possible that the G5 actually gets stronger by growing leaner and a bit more competitive.

Well the culling is here. And while there is much gnashing of teeth over UAB, as you have stated several times JR, the era Baby Boomer expansion is past and opening and with the advent of online education, all of these learning centers across most states are redundant. I've pointed several people to the consolidations that have taken place within the Univ. System of Georgia. And what is happening in Alabama has the appearance of something nefarious, I actually don't think the situations are that dissimilar. Colleges are battening down the hatches.

There are two angles you can take:

1. This is a political affair that used thinly veiled excuses ("making the numbers work") as a way to justify their means.

2. UAB are the canary in the coal mine. Things are about to get worse, and other school systems will this decision and use it as precedent to make even nastier choices.

People talk about FBS realignment and expansion - but in truth we could actually end up talking about adjustment and consolidation. Programs at the P5 and G5 level that want to hang around (read: a lot of these programs are the ones that were around in the olden days) will likely have to band into new and uncommon groups as a means of survival. This new "normal" will be a cultural shock for a while, but I don't doubt that over a long period of time you'll see new rivalries emerge and new traditions being formed.

It's going to get really bad before it gets even decent.

The new G5 model will be based on financial and institutional similarities. I don't think geography is as important at this level as there are a few other base concerns that need to be addressed. The American is a jacked up zombie conference - but the truth of the matter is that the AAC IS the new "normal" for most of the programs in that league.

P5 super-conferences will likely consolidate into quadrants (or five sectionals) - and will be designed around mixing the old territorial wars with high-stakes glamour matchups. The SEC is pretty close to completion in this regard.

JR and vandiver are in Camp #2. I'm in Camp #1 - for now. I think an underrated survival factor for G5 programs will be their political influence and strength within a region. Are they chained to another school? Are they a permanent underling that is restricted in growth? Are they mostly independent from state influences? Are they a land grant or flagship?

Private schools fund themselves in house and will make decisions without much state support OR state oversight. The freedom is a bit of a poisoned chalice in that regard - but it beats out being an underling. The only schools that are likely in a better political spot than the private schools are the "golden children" of their state. They have access to a wider fan base and have access to some state funds.

I hate to say this boys, but the end of UAB football raises more questions than it answers.

The next program to drop football (if it is to happen) will be what tips the REAL poker hand at play.

Imagine that we're in a game of Texas Hold'em....

I think that at this point everyone's been given their pair of cards. Each player sees everyone's face-up card (inherent school traits) - but has no knowledge of everyone's hole card (hidden realities and dirty secrets). The initial round of bets have been made, and only rare instances of folding have taken place...

...but now the flop is coming and we're starting to see the tall stacks rubbing chips for a raise. Anyone that doesn't have a chance as something is likely to fold next, and then from there we'll hit the turn card...

...and the turn card will be when a new D4 criteria set is revealed. This may not be outwardly said - but rather implied to remove the last few stragglers.

But the thing is Oliveandblue is that there isn't much difference between angle #1 and angle #2. Here is the link to what has happened in Georgia to date. Now, every state is a little different so there aren't exact parallels, but I've always felt the idea that Paul Bryant Jr. wanting to kill UAB was a little far fetched. Then I read in the UAB Forum that the UA campus in Tuscaloosa was looking to increase undergrad enrollment to 30K. Eliminating undergrad programs at UAB would certainly help accomplish that goal and IMO is a better narrative for this decision.

The two states I'm looking at in particular for possible consolidation efforts are Florida and Louisiana.

(12-03-2014 09:01 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  But the thing is Oliveandblue is that there isn't much difference between angle #1 and angle #2. Here is the link to what has happened in Georgia to date. Now, every state is a little different so there aren't exact parallels, but I've always felt the idea that Paul Bryant Jr. wanting to kill UAB was a little far fetched. Then I read in the UAB Forum that the UA campus in Tuscaloosa was looking to increase undergrad enrollment to 30K. Eliminating undergrad programs at UAB would certainly help accomplish that goal and IMO is a better narrative for this decision.

The two states I'm looking at in particular for possible consolidation efforts are Florida and Louisiana.

Another way of looking at this Vandiver is that when confronted with budgetary shortfalls the U. of Alabama decided to essentially double undergraduate enrollment. Auburn chose to increase the class size of its top post graduate schools with a modest increase in undergraduate. Alabama therefore chose to increase the obvious to meet its needs and Auburn utilized other states' money to provide for example extra spots in the Large Animal Vet Med program to Kentucky, or too allow more aerospace engineering post graduate positions. The entered a joint venture with Virginia Tech.

Nothing is threatening the excellent medical programs at U.A.B. In fact the elimination of duplicated undergraduate positions within the state is actually a sound approach. The State of Alabama is very progressively increasing the numbers in programs where a difference can still be made in obtaining grants and in meeting actual job place needs. Well, at least many of our schools are doing that. Alabama chose the undergrad way which is a bit puzzling. But you are very correct in understanding that UA Tuscaloosa and UA Birmingham actually share the demographic for undergrads. Tuscaloosa is 50 minutes from Birmingham by interstate. I know from first hand sources that bureaucratic downsizing and the retooling of emphasis is coming to other of Alabama's many public colleges.