(12-10-2014 02:08 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(12-10-2014 01:52 PM)ARSTATEFAN1986 Wrote:  

(12-10-2014 01:28 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  The Big 12 Conference Should Add USF And UCF Before Anyone Else

http://www.voodoofive.com/2014/12/10/735...by-playoff

Sorry...but they are looking at Cincinnati and Memphis which makes much more sense.

I wouldn't necessarily say "much" more sense. Taking off my homer glasses, there's a lot to like about a UCF/USF combo in a true power conference.

That's true. But I have to think that the best combo for the Big 12 if it should choose to expand would be to look west, and get BYU and Boise.

Boise brings very little except an extremely long flight. BYU doesn't really bring you all that much more. Stretch the conference from West Virginia to Utah and Idaho? Terrible idea, sorry.

By taking West Virginia, they pretty much sealed the decision of which direction they would go if they expanded further.

(12-11-2014 08:27 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Boise brings very little except an extremely long flight. BYU doesn't really bring you all that much more. Stretch the conference from West Virginia to Utah and Idaho? Terrible idea, sorry.

By taking West Virginia, they pretty much sealed the decision of which direction they would go if they expanded further.

I hope you are correct but I don't see further eastward expansion as viable. Whatever else could be said about WVU, they are flagship that "owned" their territory. Any new Big 12 teams added in the east would be 3rd-level teams in all of their markets. Nothing big-time or valuable about that.

I think the Big 12 would be stupid to expand just as a knee-jerk reaction to this single year's events. As has been noted elsewhere (and derided by those who are either not fond of the Big 12 or who are entrenched on the idea that the CCG model is superior) this year was a "perfect storm" of events where all of the P5 CCG favorites won, and there were more good candidates than slots available. I do still think it's possible that OSU gets in over TCU or Baylor even if the Big 12 did have a CCG.

Having said that, I think it would be stupid of the Big 12 to not consider what has happened, and to seriously review this topic again. But it's quite possible that things will shake out differently next year, so having more than one data point from which to work would be prudent.

(12-11-2014 11:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 08:27 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Boise brings very little except an extremely long flight. BYU doesn't really bring you all that much more. Stretch the conference from West Virginia to Utah and Idaho? Terrible idea, sorry.

By taking West Virginia, they pretty much sealed the decision of which direction they would go if they expanded further.

I hope you are correct but I don't see further eastward expansion as viable. Whatever else could be said about WVU, they are flagship that "owned" their territory. Any new Big 12 teams added would be 3rd-level teams in all of their markets. Nothing big-time or valuable about that.

That is the Big XII problem...They've no slam dunk options right now that would increase that league value...if they are "Forced to expand" it would be IMHO Eastward with a Cincinnati and with a group of schools like-(Tulane-(AAU Member), Memphis, UCF, USF).

But make no mistake about i just don't think they will expand anytime in the near future.

(12-10-2014 04:40 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  Plenty of conference championship games have been rematches. It is not a new concept.

The difference is here a rematch will be guaranteed. While rematches have happened, more often then not CCG's are not rematches. Here is a summary


Conf____ Rematches___ Pct
SEC____ 6 out of 23___ 26.1%
ACC____ 4 out of 10___ 40.0%
Pac12___ 3 out of 4____ 75.0%
Big12___ 5 out of 15___ 33.0%
BigTen__ 3 out of 4____ 75.0%
Total____21 out of 56__ 37.5%

I did not keep track of all of them, but in the Big 12 the regular season winner was 5-0 and in the SEC the regular season winner was 6-1 FWIW. The issue here is in a ten team league, not only is the rematch guaranteed, but many more times than not, the team that finished first and won the regular season, will be forced to defend their championship against a team it already beat, who as stated played the same schedule. While that scenario is possible in other leagues, it is not mandatory.

Also to note, small sample size, but so far, no rematches from 14 team conferences yet. And with only two cross division games as of now, that is not likely to change soon.

(12-11-2014 11:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I hope you are correct but I don't see further eastward expansion as viable. Whatever else could be said about WVU, they are flagship that "owned" their territory. Any new Big 12 teams added would be 3rd-level teams in all of their markets. Nothing big-time or valuable about that.

Connecticut? I know it's a stretch, but they are a flagship and not third level in their area. The other attributes are still up for debate though.

(12-11-2014 11:17 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-10-2014 04:40 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  Plenty of conference championship games have been rematches. It is not a new concept.

The difference is here a rematch will be guaranteed. While rematches have happened, more often then not CCG's are not rematches. Here is a summary


Conf____ Rematches___ Pct
SEC____ 6 out of 23___ 26.1%
ACC____ 4 out of 10___ 40.0%
Pac12___ 3 out of 4____ 75.0%
Big12___ 5 out of 15___ 33.0%
BigTen__ 3 out of 4____ 75.0%
Total____21 out of 56__ 37.5%

The SEC will continue to have the lowest "rematch rate" as long as they play 8 conference games in a 14-team league. The odds of a rematch in any given year for them are 2 in 7, about 28%.

The Big Ten has the same odds as the SEC, as long as they continue to play 8 conference games, and the ACC is also in the same boat unless/until "deregulation" happens.

The Pac-12 odds of a rematch in any given year are 4 in 6, about 67%.

If the ACC gets permission to hold a title game without divisions, their odds of a rematch will be 8 in 13, about 62%. If they stick with divisions and with 8 conference games, then the odds of a rematch are the same as in the SEC.

Permanent crossover games skew the odds away from random chance somewhat.

(12-11-2014 11:47 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 11:17 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-10-2014 04:40 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  Plenty of conference championship games have been rematches. It is not a new concept.

The difference is here a rematch will be guaranteed. While rematches have happened, more often then not CCG's are not rematches. Here is a summary


Conf____ Rematches___ Pct
SEC____ 6 out of 23___ 26.1%
ACC____ 4 out of 10___ 40.0%
Pac12___ 3 out of 4____ 75.0%
Big12___ 5 out of 15___ 33.0%
BigTen__ 3 out of 4____ 75.0%
Total____21 out of 56__ 37.5%

The SEC will continue to have the lowest "rematch rate" as long as they play 8 conference games in a 14-team league. The odds of a rematch in any given year for them are 2 in 7, about 28%.

The Big Ten has the same odds as the SEC, as long as they continue to play 8 conference games, and the ACC is also in the same boat unless/until "deregulation" happens.

The Pac-12 odds of a rematch in any given year are 4 in 6, about 67%.

If the ACC gets permission to hold a title game without divisions, their odds of a rematch will be 8 in 13, about 62%. If they stick with divisions and with 8 conference games, then the odds of a rematch are the same as in the SEC.

Permanent crossover games skew the odds away from random chance somewhat.

The Big 10 will be going to 9 conference games in a few years so the odds will rise to about 43%. Also, the actual odds of a rematch would be a bit lower than the straight up calculations since playing head-to-head during the season would automatically give one of the teams a conference loss and thereby making it more difficult for the loser to reach the title game.

(12-11-2014 11:59 AM)prp Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 11:47 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 11:17 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-10-2014 04:40 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  Plenty of conference championship games have been rematches. It is not a new concept.

The difference is here a rematch will be guaranteed. While rematches have happened, more often then not CCG's are not rematches. Here is a summary


Conf____ Rematches___ Pct
SEC____ 6 out of 23___ 26.1%
ACC____ 4 out of 10___ 40.0%
Pac12___ 3 out of 4____ 75.0%
Big12___ 5 out of 15___ 33.0%
BigTen__ 3 out of 4____ 75.0%
Total____21 out of 56__ 37.5%

The SEC will continue to have the lowest "rematch rate" as long as they play 8 conference games in a 14-team league. The odds of a rematch in any given year for them are 2 in 7, about 28%.

The Big Ten has the same odds as the SEC, as long as they continue to play 8 conference games, and the ACC is also in the same boat unless/until "deregulation" happens.

The Pac-12 odds of a rematch in any given year are 4 in 6, about 67%.

If the ACC gets permission to hold a title game without divisions, their odds of a rematch will be 8 in 13, about 62%. If they stick with divisions and with 8 conference games, then the odds of a rematch are the same as in the SEC.

Permanent crossover games skew the odds away from random chance somewhat.

The Big 10 will be going to 9 conference games in a few years so the odds will rise to about 43%. Also, the actual odds of a rematch would be a bit lower than the straight up calculations since playing head-to-head during the season would automatically give one of the teams a conference loss and thereby making it more difficult for the loser to reach the title game.

And the SEC and ACC have an even lower chance of a rematch because of fixed rivalries. The Big 10 won't have that except for Indiana/Purdue. And the last time those two both challenged for a conference title was 1967.

(12-11-2014 11:59 AM)prp Wrote:  the actual odds of a rematch would be a bit lower than the straight up calculations since playing head-to-head during the season would automatically give one of the teams a conference loss and thereby making it more difficult for the loser to reach the title game.

That is the key. When compiling those numbers, I did not pay enough attention to who won or lost, but I would bet a lot of the rematches were due to the lopsided divisions, where the team that lost, played in a weaker division and got back in the race. That is just a guess though. But that point, in the SEC for example, permanent cross division rivals have not met in the CCG. It has happened three times in the ACC's ten CCG's though.

(12-11-2014 11:19 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 11:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I hope you are correct but I don't see further eastward expansion as viable. Whatever else could be said about WVU, they are flagship that "owned" their territory. Any new Big 12 teams added would be 3rd-level teams in all of their markets. Nothing big-time or valuable about that.

Connecticut? I know it's a stretch, but they are a flagship and not third level in their area. The other attributes are still up for debate though.

To me, UConn is (a) too far afield - we think of them and WVU as being lumped together, but UConn is actually more than 500 miles away from WVU, (b) has lousy football, and © doesn't really 'own' a market per se, they are just kind of part of the massive NYC-Boston corridor metroplex or whatever. I know, Rutgers doesn't own NYC either and yet they are still valuable to the B1G. NYC is so huge you only need a slice of it to make money, but I really doubt there's much interest in the NYC area in seeing UConn play Oklahoma State and Texas Tech in anything.

(12-11-2014 11:59 AM)prp Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 11:47 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 11:17 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-10-2014 04:40 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  Plenty of conference championship games have been rematches. It is not a new concept.

The difference is here a rematch will be guaranteed. While rematches have happened, more often then not CCG's are not rematches. Here is a summary


Conf____ Rematches___ Pct
SEC____ 6 out of 23___ 26.1%
ACC____ 4 out of 10___ 40.0%
Pac12___ 3 out of 4____ 75.0%
Big12___ 5 out of 15___ 33.0%
BigTen__ 3 out of 4____ 75.0%
Total____21 out of 56__ 37.5%

The SEC will continue to have the lowest "rematch rate" as long as they play 8 conference games in a 14-team league. The odds of a rematch in any given year for them are 2 in 7, about 28%.

The Big Ten has the same odds as the SEC, as long as they continue to play 8 conference games, and the ACC is also in the same boat unless/until "deregulation" happens.

The Pac-12 odds of a rematch in any given year are 4 in 6, about 67%.

If the ACC gets permission to hold a title game without divisions, their odds of a rematch will be 8 in 13, about 62%. If they stick with divisions and with 8 conference games, then the odds of a rematch are the same as in the SEC.

Permanent crossover games skew the odds away from random chance somewhat.

The Big 10 will be going to 9 conference games in a few years so the odds will rise to about 43%. Also, the actual odds of a rematch would be a bit lower than the straight up calculations since playing head-to-head during the season would automatically give one of the teams a conference loss and thereby making it more difficult for the loser to reach the title game.

Another way of looking at it: You have a better chance of winning the division (and playing in the conference title game) if your cross-division opponents are weaker.

(12-11-2014 01:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 11:19 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 11:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I hope you are correct but I don't see further eastward expansion as viable. Whatever else could be said about WVU, they are flagship that "owned" their territory. Any new Big 12 teams added would be 3rd-level teams in all of their markets. Nothing big-time or valuable about that.

Connecticut? I know it's a stretch, but they are a flagship and not third level in their area. The other attributes are still up for debate though.

To me, UConn is (a) too far afield - we think of them and WVU as being lumped together, but UConn is actually more than 500 miles away from WVU, (b) has lousy football, and © doesn't really 'own' a market per se, they are just kind of part of the massive NYC-Boston corridor metroplex or whatever. I know, Rutgers doesn't own NYC either and yet they are still valuable to the B1G. NYC is so huge you only need a slice of it to make money, but I really doubt there's much interest in the NYC area in seeing UConn play Oklahoma State and Texas Tech in anything.

UCONN's market is the state of Connecticut, which is 3.6 million people, 1 million of those people being in the NYC DMA. Even if you don't buy that UCONN has viewership in NYC, Hartford-New Haven is still the #30 market in the country, which is better than most other Big 12 expansion candidates.

(12-11-2014 11:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 08:27 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Boise brings very little except an extremely long flight. BYU doesn't really bring you all that much more. Stretch the conference from West Virginia to Utah and Idaho? Terrible idea, sorry.

By taking West Virginia, they pretty much sealed the decision of which direction they would go if they expanded further.

I hope you are correct but I don't see further eastward expansion as viable. Whatever else could be said about WVU, they are flagship that "owned" their territory. Any new Big 12 teams added in the east would be 3rd-level teams in all of their markets. Nothing big-time or valuable about that.

Boise State dominates the Idaho market? BYU dominates the...Utah market? Neither is of that much value to be honest. Utah makes for a good supplementary school for the PAC. Either Utah or BYU all on their own out there isn't of much value.

I am not saying that UCF/USF is happening but I have been adamant that IF the Big 12 is going to go the expansion route that the best option is a UCF or USF paired up with ECU combination.

(12-11-2014 07:15 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 11:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 08:27 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Boise brings very little except an extremely long flight. BYU doesn't really bring you all that much more. Stretch the conference from West Virginia to Utah and Idaho? Terrible idea, sorry.

By taking West Virginia, they pretty much sealed the decision of which direction they would go if they expanded further.

I hope you are correct but I don't see further eastward expansion as viable. Whatever else could be said about WVU, they are flagship that "owned" their territory. Any new Big 12 teams added in the east would be 3rd-level teams in all of their markets. Nothing big-time or valuable about that.

Boise State dominates the Idaho market? BYU dominates the...Utah market? Neither is of that much value to be honest. Utah makes for a good supplementary school for the PAC. Either Utah or BYU all on their own out there isn't of much value.

I am not saying that UCF/USF is happening but I have been adamant that IF the Big 12 is going to go the expansion route that the best option is a UCF or USF paired up with ECU combination.

Boise and BYU have something in football even more valuable than a good market - a modicum of brand name recognition. They are second-tier names in football that draw viewers nationally. That gives them some value, whereas a school like Temple, sitting in the middle of Philly, has virtually none because they have no brand name.

They have a lot more brand value than ECU, UCF, or USF (sadly).

(12-11-2014 07:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 07:15 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 11:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 08:27 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Boise brings very little except an extremely long flight. BYU doesn't really bring you all that much more. Stretch the conference from West Virginia to Utah and Idaho? Terrible idea, sorry.

By taking West Virginia, they pretty much sealed the decision of which direction they would go if they expanded further.

I hope you are correct but I don't see further eastward expansion as viable. Whatever else could be said about WVU, they are flagship that "owned" their territory. Any new Big 12 teams added in the east would be 3rd-level teams in all of their markets. Nothing big-time or valuable about that.

Boise State dominates the Idaho market? BYU dominates the...Utah market? Neither is of that much value to be honest. Utah makes for a good supplementary school for the PAC. Either Utah or BYU all on their own out there isn't of much value.

I am not saying that UCF/USF is happening but I have been adamant that IF the Big 12 is going to go the expansion route that the best option is a UCF or USF paired up with ECU combination.

Boise and BYU have something in football even more valuable than a good market - a modicum of brand name recognition. They are second-tier names in football that draw viewers nationally. That gives them some value, whereas a school like Temple, sitting in the middle of Philly, has virtually none because they have no brand name.

They have a lot more brand value than ECU, UCF, or USF (sadly).

Their brand recognition isn't That good in regards to outweighing the geographical issue. Remember, letting them in conference means ALL sports have to travel out there. Not all college sports play their games during the weekend.

In terms of brand recognition, I actually think the gap has decreased between the likes of BSU/BYU and those eastern schools.

Look at what UCF did. ECU has been playing P5 teams hard. I agree with USF though. ECU and UCF are the more recognizable brands in the present day. I actually think they are just as recognizable overall. There was a poll done by ESPN about which G5 program deserves to be brought up the most. ECU was right up there, maybe even at the top. I would have to look it up again to know for sure. I am pretty sure UCF was up there too.

I don't think the gap between BSU/BYU and ECU/UCF is that big anymore.

(12-11-2014 07:34 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 07:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 07:15 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 11:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 08:27 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Boise brings very little except an extremely long flight. BYU doesn't really bring you all that much more. Stretch the conference from West Virginia to Utah and Idaho? Terrible idea, sorry.

By taking West Virginia, they pretty much sealed the decision of which direction they would go if they expanded further.

I hope you are correct but I don't see further eastward expansion as viable. Whatever else could be said about WVU, they are flagship that "owned" their territory. Any new Big 12 teams added in the east would be 3rd-level teams in all of their markets. Nothing big-time or valuable about that.

Boise State dominates the Idaho market? BYU dominates the...Utah market? Neither is of that much value to be honest. Utah makes for a good supplementary school for the PAC. Either Utah or BYU all on their own out there isn't of much value.

I am not saying that UCF/USF is happening but I have been adamant that IF the Big 12 is going to go the expansion route that the best option is a UCF or USF paired up with ECU combination.

Boise and BYU have something in football even more valuable than a good market - a modicum of brand name recognition. They are second-tier names in football that draw viewers nationally. That gives them some value, whereas a school like Temple, sitting in the middle of Philly, has virtually none because they have no brand name.

They have a lot more brand value than ECU, UCF, or USF (sadly).

Their brand recognition isn't That good in regards to outweighing the geographical issue. Remember, letting them in conference means ALL sports have to travel out there. Not all college sports play their games during the weekend.

In terms of brand recognition, I actually think the gap has decreased between the likes of BSU/BYU and those eastern schools.

Look at what UCF did. ECU has been playing P5 teams hard. I agree with USF though. ECU and UCF are the more recognizable brands in the present day. I actually think they are just as recognizable overall. There was a poll done by ESPN about which G5 program deserves to be brought up the most. ECU was right up there, maybe even at the top. I would have to look it up again to know for sure. I am pretty sure UCF was up there too.

I don't think the gap between BSU/BYU and ECU/UCF is that big anymore.

I would disagree. USF is pretty well known, we were in the Big East for a long time, and yet we have no football brand, like ECU and UCF. ECU? Nobody ever heard of them before the 8-9 games they were in the quasi-spotlight this year. People are already forgetting. UCF? Ditto before last year and that shine is gone too. AAC fans claimed UCF getting the Fiesta bid would mean that the G5 bid would belong to the AAC, that Boise had fallen off, and the AAC schools would build big brands and move towards the P5. Didn't quite turn out like that.

Boise and BYU are clearly bigger national names, it's just not close. BYU has been a pretty big name since the 1970s, Boise for more than a decade.

As far as geography, while the Big 12 schools are in the middle of the country, they culturally identify much more with the west than the east. People think of states like Missouri, Kansas, and Texas, you think of cowboys and native Americans, herds of cattle and great plains, the west, not the east. North Carolina and Florida are much more culturally distant to places like Oklahoma and Texas, whereas Utah and Idaho are part of the west.

In the end, it is all moot points. The Big 12 is extremely unlikely to ever agree upon how to divide up the conference into divisions. The northern schools have become too used to playing every Texas team every year. You try to tell Kansas State or Iowa State that they are going to give up those games to instead play the likes of Boise State and BYU or the likes of East Carolina and Central Florida.

I actually think, despite your brand argument, that the Big 12 is much more likely to sell the likes of Iowa State on Florida teams. Look at how many ISU guys are from Florida.

http://www.cyclones.com/SportSelect.dbml...PSID=48388

Boise State and BYU simply aren't going to help the likes of ISU, Kansas and Kansas State. Since they are the ones that will be tasked with being in division with these new expansion teams, they are going to be very insistant on who they are. You could even use that argument to say that USF is more likely than ECU.

I just think that WVU, ECU and UCF gets as good of a footprint down the viable portion of the East Coast when it comes to football.

ISU, KSU and Kansas...I just cant see them approving Boise State and BYU. If they are going to give up games in Texas then they need games in an equivalent market.

(12-11-2014 08:02 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  In the end, it is all moot points. The Big 12 is extremely unlikely to ever agree upon how to divide up the conference into divisions. The northern schools have become too used to playing every Texas team every year. You try to tell Kansas State or Iowa State that they are going to give up those games to instead play the likes of Boise State and BYU or the likes of East Carolina and Central Florida.

I actually think, despite your brand argument, that the Big 12 is much more likely to sell the likes of Iowa State on Florida teams. Look at how many ISU guys are from Florida.

http://www.cyclones.com/SportSelect.dbml...PSID=48388

Boise State and BYU simply aren't going to help the likes of ISU, Kansas and Kansas State. Since they are the ones that will be tasked with being in division with these new expansion teams, they are going to be very insistant on who they are. You could even use that argument to say that USF is more likely than ECU.

I just think that WVU, ECU and UCF gets as good of a footprint down the viable portion of the East Coast when it comes to football.

ISU, KSU and Kansas...I just cant see them approving Boise State and BYU. If they are going to give up games in Texas then they need games in an equivalent market.

Agree it is probably a moot point, because the Big 12 isn't likely to add any of the teams were are talking about, east or west.

Beyond that, though, I wonder how much the opinions of Iowa State and Kansas State matter in the halls of the Big 12. I'm not sure they are the heavyweights calling the shots.