(04-12-2015 10:47 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  still there are at least a dozen or more schools that wish to be in the AAU that could present at least some package of AAU like metrics

the issue is the AAU has on average expanded once every decade or so or even a little longer and they have added about 2 programs each time and the last go around they gave the boot to two programs before they added two

they have already stated their intention is to not grow much larger if any larger than current membership numbers and they have also stated that booting the two members was not how they like things to go

and both of the newest members Ga Tech and BU had pretty much a full package of metrics that far exceeded the lowest level of any single or group of AAU metrics....so they are not adding universities that just get into the lower metrics or even that have some higher metrics and some lower metrics.....again much less that no current aspirant would have even a full package of metrics that would be above all the lowest metrics of current members

so it may well be a dozen or more years before the AAU adds members IF they add members

and yes Clemson is in the ACC I was thinking SC as the state and so SC the university came to mind

There is nothing in this post with which I disagree. There has even been some talk of the contraction of the ranks. Still in realignment future promise of the hope of membership may be a good selling point even if it isn't as likely to happen. It is not as if the Big 10 wasn't aware of Nebraska's precarious position at their time of entry. So similar bait has been used before, even if it was utilized in reverse.

(04-12-2015 09:52 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 09:35 AM)gosports1 Wrote:  so who would be 16? I know its been said it isnt a rule, but all of the B10 members are contiguous. Which means if UConn was 15, #16 would have to come from New York. There are only 3 options in New York State: Army,Buffalo and Syracuse

Now you are getting into part of why I don't believe any of this. Here are my other reasons heretofore unexpressed in this thread:

1. The disparity of income between the Big 10 / SEC and everyone else is real and the gap will only increase.

2. Part of the penalty of a GOR is diminished value due to the loss incurred by the breach of contract by the departing member. In the case of the ACC ESPN is the sole determiner of that value. If they honor all monetary compensations to remaining schools for the duration of the contract where is the diminished value?

3. Will the ACC really get a network and if so when?

4. Should the PAC decide to sell equal shares of its network to both FOX and ESPN would that not clear potential movement of the Big 12 members to the PAC? FOX and ESPN have a relatively equal share of those properties now. If both could enhance the content value of their properties by encouraging a merger or large move to the PAC and do so without losing % of share then why not encourage it?

5. If the SECN proves to be as profitable to ESPN as it is believed by many to be potentially then why wouldn't ESPN want to enhance its spread?

Now only one or two of these suppositions needs to prove true to make all of this take quite a different tack. So far the truth about realignment continues to be broadly denied on this board. That truth is that it has been and will continue to be driven by the networks. The B.C. president came out and said it and it was ignored. I know that the main reason the SEC hasn't pursued certain schools is because ESPN refused to pay for their addition. We took who they paid us to take. The same thing happened as they sheltered Big East schools from the Big 10 by placing said property in the ACC, which is exactly that to which the B.C. president alluded.

The GOR's were rushed into in the Big 12 and the LHN was formed to keep Texas and Oklahoma from making a move to a conference that the networks had no stake in (PAC). The GOR's were rushed into in the ACC to keep the Big 10 from moving against more properties. There was no fear of the SEC doing that since ESPN controlled their contract and CBS was satisfied.

Delany, Swofford, and Slive have simply done the bidding of their payroll masters. They aren't geniuses.

That has been my theme for years.

The Big 10 is dealing from a position of strength and their vision is long-term. GOR's are meaningless to them. If they want a school, they'll just wait out the GOR.

There are dozens of other factors involved in Big 10 expansion. GOR's are meaningless.

(04-12-2015 11:03 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  The Big 10 is dealing from a position of strength and their vision is long-term. GOR's are meaningless to them. If they want a school, they'll just wait out the GOR.

There are dozens of other factors involved in Big 10 expansion. GOR's are meaningless.

I agree. And it applies to the SEC as well. But, another area of reasoning in which I depart from the norm is that when this is over with we will have gone in 1 or 2 unexpected directions. Either we have consolidated the P5 into roughly 60 schools, or we have expanded it into approximately 72. From the beginning of realignment I have repeatedly stated that there were two breaks in relative athletic income. One is around 61st position and the other is around the 71st position. Connecticut falls more closely than many realize to the 61st position and easily within the 71st. For niche markets, content sports additions, and lawsuit avoidance I believe conferences will eventually settle around 18 members each, unless there are only 3 power conferences remaining. There are some tremendous advantages in having 3 divisions of 6 (that are geographically close), a wild card for an expanded conference championship playoff (which keeps all of the money for the conference as opposed to an extra round of national playoffs where the revenue is further divided) which keeps more conference team's fan bases energized later into the season, and for the meeting of athletic needs, and marketing. In such a world UConn will have a home. I think the only way you miss out is if we wind up with 3 twenty school conferences and we have several privates opt out permitting the consolidation to transpire. But I like your odds on ultimate inclusion.

(04-12-2015 09:35 AM)gosports1 Wrote:  so who would be 16? I know its been said it isnt a rule, but all of the B10 members are contiguous. Which means if UConn was 15, #16 would have to come from New York. There are only 3 options in New York State: Army,Buffalo and Syracuse

You don't need 16 with the new CCG rules coming. 16 is good if you go to divisions.

(04-12-2015 11:34 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 09:35 AM)gosports1 Wrote:  so who would be 16? I know its been said it isnt a rule, but all of the B10 members are contiguous. Which means if UConn was 15, #16 would have to come from New York. There are only 3 options in New York State: Army,Buffalo and Syracuse

You don't need 16 with the new CCG rules coming. 16 is good if you go to divisions.

The Networks like divisions. Divisions are good for luring in general football fans. Divisions leading to division winners going to a conference tournament is even better as general sports fans appreciate the post season more.

(04-12-2015 11:34 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  You don't need 16 with the new CCG rules coming. 16 is good if you go to divisions.

Who said the Big Ten really wants CCG autonomy? They said they like their models beyond 14. They also said they're considering additional affiliate memberships in certain sports.

I don't think UConn's in this conference for anything more than ice hockey. Some schools are going to make for darned sure that if UConn ever wants to be in the Big Ten in everything, that football stadium is on its campus. They held Rutgers to it, and it was one of the things held against Pitt. Mountains aren't moved for UConn. Sorry, folks.

while the Big 10 might go larger or much larger and the SEC might (probably will) go to 16 the reality is many are not happy with the current setup even at 14

go read a Husker fan forum (several of them) and there are threads that were on the front page talking about how they were in the weak half of the conference, they have no real voice in the Big 10, they only play UM, tOSU, MSU and Penn State every not so often and now Rutgers and Maryland are in the mix to make that less often

concerns with the sellout streak ending, the time it takes for them to get a full share, how much it cost them to move, Rutgers and Maryland getting better deals, no rivalries and all the potential rivalries have established rivalries with others and on and on.....hell even a few asking what it would take to make a move

and sure there are ALWAYS complainers and those that were not happy, but the one thing those threads lacked in the multiple responses was strong dissenters and people that were calling out those complaining or trying to totally trash their arguments or them

the strongest defenses of their situation were "well if Bo gets fired and we improve" or "well the Big 12 still has issues"....hell not even the former "got away from Texas" argument was mentioned that I recall....and again more than one forum and more than one thread.....and that was winning 9 games a season and I am not sure that pace keeps up with the new guy

and there are PLENTY of SEC SEC SEC fans that are missing some rivalries and again on multiple forums and multiple threads about how the conference split is wrong.....kids will be in and out of college before they get to see some teams again.....you start getting to 18 teams or more and you are going to start getting "airport meetings"

also when you get to even 16 IMO you get a lot of teams that just are not going to agree on things and it just wears on you over time

also when you break down the budgets you need to look at the school contribution as well because I am not sure that will hold up and there is a chance some of those contributions might not hold up before major expansion gets started and then conferences are not going to want to add more (especially programs that might have major university support) when they already have some teams that have university support issues.....square away what you have before you add

now I do not think there will be contraction of the P5 numbers PERIOD.....I think that 80 teams is probably that would get in a "grouping" if anything, but for that to happen either some conferences are going to have to take teams they do not want or the current P5 is going to have to let some teams in a conference "join the gang"

I see little of any chance that the Big 12 is FORCED to take 6-8-10 teams to get to 16-20 if everyone goes to 16 or 18 or 20.....once you start forcing things you might find yourself in a position you do not want to be in and the major conferences are not going to do that.....it is easier to have the "major underdog" and let a conference or a group of teams in a new conference come along for the ride sitting in the trunk or the rumble seat VS trying to force something....and again I see little chance that any current P5 member gets left out in the cold......64 is just too few teams and there are 65 now.....so 72 ot 80 would be a number to shoot for

When you get to sixteen, you get to sixteen AFTER new divisional rules are passed. People are getting stuck on the surface of the talking points by the big 12 when it comes to what is currently under way. What, you don't think the silence from Delany means something? They are quietly going about their business.

People think rules giving divisional freedom means that a conference would find it in their best interests to go without divisions. That is only the case if the Networks feel no divisions is more valuable than More divisions. It is pretty well proven that the divisional model works well with general fans a la the NFL.

In regard to the Big Ten team fans that don't like the current situation, when The Big Ten went to 14, it was a loud statement that The Big Ten wasn't finished.

With two divisions and 7 teams in each, you get six divisional games a year. If you want an 8 game schedule then you only get two against the other division. If you have a cross division rival then that takes five years to play every team once, ten years to visit every stadium. A nine game schedule means it's still three years before you play every single team in the conference. It's ugly.

With four divisions, 16 teams and four teams per division it plays out like this. You have your three games in division, preferably at the end of the season in order to boost the value of the divisional rivalries. Then you have your Two games against the other three divisions for your 9 game conference schedule. With a cross division rivalry that means it takes you three years to play every team. So you see? No difference at all than the 14 team, 2 division conference.

If you go with no protected rivalries then it is just a two year situation and you play in every stadium within a four year period, which means your four year players get to experience every atmosphere of the conference.

When you top that with the fact that four divisions easily lead to a divisional champion conference tournament for football and suddenly you have yourself a Final Solution.

(04-12-2015 09:40 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 09:21 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 09:13 AM)TerryD Wrote:  I believe your numbers 1-5.

I don't think 6, 7, 8 are true or will likely happen.

#6 could be an eventual consequence of 1-5, but "could be" would be the operative words.

#7 has been expressed by some ACC posters so that is why I threw it in.

#8 is the only fill in for a departed WVU that would make the Big 12 more money while also making them somewhat more contiguous. And Terry D., if the P5 were to become a permanent situation then the island issue for WVU could well become a bigger issue than it is today.

We would have to ask Bit, but I think that WVU fans are ok with being on an island in the Big 12.

It hasn't really been that big of a deal other than some basketball issues in our first season. Certainly not the major issue this board makes it out to be. The consensus on our boards is we would rather stay on an island and play everyone in the conference rather than add someone like Cincinnati

(04-12-2015 12:25 PM)OldGoldnBlue Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 09:40 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 09:21 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 09:13 AM)TerryD Wrote:  I believe your numbers 1-5.

I don't think 6, 7, 8 are true or will likely happen.

#6 could be an eventual consequence of 1-5, but "could be" would be the operative words.

#7 has been expressed by some ACC posters so that is why I threw it in.

#8 is the only fill in for a departed WVU that would make the Big 12 more money while also making them somewhat more contiguous. And Terry D., if the P5 were to become a permanent situation then the island issue for WVU could well become a bigger issue than it is today.

We would have to ask Bit, but I think that WVU fans are ok with being on an island in the Big 12.

It hasn't really been that big of a deal other than some basketball issues in our first season. Certainly not the major issue this board makes it out to be. The consensus on our boards is we would rather stay on an island and play everyone in the conference rather than add someone like Cincinnati

yea the money on that island ain't too bad either

one other thing to those that pretend the other 4 conferences are out to "screw the Big 12" or "prevent the Big 12 from doing things"

lets look at this factor

after the last round of realignment was done the Big 12, SEC SEC SEC and ESPN made The Sugar Bowl agreement......a 10 team Big 12 gets the same exact money for that as a 14 team SEC SEC SEC

a 10 team Big 12 gets $40 million per yer while a 14 team ACc Acc acc gets $27.5 million per year

a 10 team Big 12 gets a known opponent that is the highest ranked non-playoff eligible SEC SEC SEC team

a 14 team ACc Acc acc gets the SECOND highest team from either the SEC SEC SEC or Big 10 after the playoff eligible teams OR a ND team that they might have already played

while the 10 team Big 12 is not a part of the orange opponent rotation a 12 team PAC 12 is also not a part of that rotation so it was not JUST the Big 12 that was left out of that rotation

so the ACc gets less money to split with 14 teams, they face the lesser team and the PAC 12 was also not in the rotation so it was not just the Big 12 left out

now sure the Big 10 and PAC 12 were going to be the two Rose Bowl teams and those teams were going to be the two highest ranked non-playoff teams.....but the SEC SEC SEC could have tried to push for an ACc Acc acc match up instead of a Big 12 match up for The Sugar Bowl.....they could have tried to push for a larger share of the 80 million......and everyone could have tried to push for The Big 12 to get $27.5 million instead of $40 million to take on a potential 3rd or even 4th choice SEC SEC SEC or Big 10 team......but it was the ACc Acc acc that took less money to split with fewer teams and that took a lesser match up

and the Big 12 with 10 teams also gets the same $50 million right up front....if the other conferences were concerned with 10 teams instead of 12.....if they were concerned with CCGs and how to stage one and who could do so....the time to put the squeeze on the Big 12 would have been when they were putting the playoff money package and distribution together and when they were putting together the bowl agreements.....but that did not happen the Big 12 got the same playoff money with 20% to 40% fewer teams and the Big 12 got arguably one of if not the top bowl opponent match up and top money for it....and they are not in the Orange Bowl rotation, but neither is the PAC 12

so the time to really put the squeeze on The Big 12 has passed and the other conferences did not come close to doing so and I see no evidence they even tried to do so and it is clear what conference did get a lesser deal overall

(04-12-2015 12:01 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  while the Big 10 might go larger or much larger and the SEC might (probably will) go to 16 the reality is many are not happy with the current setup even at 14

go read a Husker fan forum (several of them) and there are threads that were on the front page talking about how they were in the weak half of the conference, they have no real voice in the Big 10, they only play UM, tOSU, MSU and Penn State every not so often and now Rutgers and Maryland are in the mix to make that less often

concerns with the sellout streak ending, the time it takes for them to get a full share, how much it cost them to move, Rutgers and Maryland getting better deals, no rivalries and all the potential rivalries have established rivalries with others and on and on.....hell even a few asking what it would take to make a move

and sure there are ALWAYS complainers and those that were not happy, but the one thing those threads lacked in the multiple responses was strong dissenters and people that were calling out those complaining or trying to totally trash their arguments or them

the strongest defenses of their situation were "well if Bo gets fired and we improve" or "well the Big 12 still has issues"....hell not even the former "got away from Texas" argument was mentioned that I recall....and again more than one forum and more than one thread.....and that was winning 9 games a season and I am not sure that pace keeps up with the new guy

and there are PLENTY of SEC SEC SEC fans that are missing some rivalries and again on multiple forums and multiple threads about how the conference split is wrong.....kids will be in and out of college before they get to see some teams again.....you start getting to 18 teams or more and you are going to start getting "airport meetings"

also when you get to even 16 IMO you get a lot of teams that just are not going to agree on things and it just wears on you over time

also when you break down the budgets you need to look at the school contribution as well because I am not sure that will hold up and there is a chance some of those contributions might not hold up before major expansion gets started and then conferences are not going to want to add more (especially programs that might have major university support) when they already have some teams that have university support issues.....square away what you have before you add

now I do not think there will be contraction of the P5 numbers PERIOD.....I think that 80 teams is probably that would get in a "grouping" if anything, but for that to happen either some conferences are going to have to take teams they do not want or the current P5 is going to have to let some teams in a conference "join the gang"

I see little of any chance that the Big 12 is FORCED to take 6-8-10 teams to get to 16-20 if everyone goes to 16 or 18 or 20.....once you start forcing things you might find yourself in a position you do not want to be in and the major conferences are not going to do that.....it is easier to have the "major underdog" and let a conference or a group of teams in a new conference come along for the ride sitting in the trunk or the rumble seat VS trying to force something....and again I see little chance that any current P5 member gets left out in the cold......64 is just too few teams and there are 65 now.....so 72 ot 80 would be a number to shoot for

Todd this is an open forum and not a Big 12 board so you can drop the SEC, SEC, SEC crap and save it for Shaggy or Landthieves. I understand your position and reasoning I just disagree with it.

Three divisions of six makes everything for non revenue sports more affordable and addresses the vast majority of real scheduling issues. For instance in an SEC with three divisions of 6 you would have 5 divisional games, and two with each of the other two divisions and one protected rivalry. With three divisions only two protected rivalry games are even essential (Auburn / Georgia and Alabama / Tennessee). All other games are easily covered within the divisional alignment, or weren't wanted to begin with (L.S.U. / Florida).

As for not believing in consolidation as a possibility all I will say is that if there are fiscal, philosophical, political, or legal issues that make it necessary for privates to ultimately withdraw or restructure then shrinking to 3 conferences of 20 makes good business sense for the remaining schools. There is more contract leverage, greater content and larger markets for which to be paid, and the elimination of 2 sets of duplicated conference overhead expenses would be a boon for all, but especially for the absorbed schools. First they divide their new overhead with more schools and secondly they will benefit from receiving their portion of the dispersed conference commercial properties.

Now if nothing prompts the privates to leave then I could see the Big 12 becoming a lynchpin for a new and improved Big 12. At that juncture being able to have a Northeastern division of 6 would be better for the whole conference and many of the issues you raise about playing rivals and scheduling becomes essentially moot.

But hey think what you wish and viva la difference!

It's boring but i really believe we are in at least a medium run period of stability. 14 team conferences have their drawbacks and advantages but they work. The big ten might expand before their contract if it means enough extra money but it would legitimately require a big uptick for it to be feasible and i dont think uconn by itself brings that (and all the other prospective canidates are locked up). Excuse any typos please. Writing on phone.

(04-12-2015 11:44 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 11:34 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  You don't need 16 with the new CCG rules coming. 16 is good if you go to divisions.

Who said the Big Ten really wants CCG autonomy? They said they like their models beyond 14. They also said they're considering additional affiliate memberships in certain sports.

I don't think UConn's in this conference for anything more than ice hockey. Some schools are going to make for darned sure that if UConn ever wants to be in the Big Ten in everything, that football stadium is on its campus. They held Rutgers to it, and it was one of the things held against Pitt. Mountains aren't moved for UConn. Sorry, folks.

UConn is in a unique situation. I won't go into a five page explanation, but Hartford is the best location for a stadium for many reasons. An on-campus stadium would be problematic.

Ironically, available land is not one of the problems. At 4,200 acres, UConn has a top five campus in terms of size.

private schools are not going to separate there will be plenty of public schools willing to go with them including all of the PAC 12 and probably ALL of the Big 10

the idea that ADs and university presidents love the out of control spending is far from the truth....the idea that they love the "cost of attendance" nonsense is far from the truth....they are just regretting that they did not take more athletics money for the academic side when they had the chance and that they did not limit academic side contributions when they had the chance.....now they are just not smart enough to figure out how to solve the issue just yet (really not all that hard to do so)

they are on the right path with freshman participation rules ect and pressuring the NBA and if that works look for them to go farther....they are on the WRONG path with cost of attendance

travel is a VERY VERY small part of any conference configuration or alignment equation and will NEVER be a factor in that for anything other than a conference that wished to hasten their own demise

the cost of getting from one place to another is as much a factor of travel service infrastructure and frequency as it is actual distance and there is little if any savings to squeezed from that which could not already be squeezed with the stupid luxury travel arrangements many programs make for themselves as a starting point before even looking at "miles across a conference"

it does make a difference for fans to a degree especially those that would DRIVE to a game, but what makes as much of a difference for them is what they will do while they are in the area of the out of town game....the more familiar with an area the more likely they go and the more likely they get good deals and have an enjoyable trip....and these are generally weekend trips or very short trips so there is no room for "having a bad day out of the days in the trip".....they want to go to a place....have a KNOWN experience for a known cost and leave....it is not an extended vacation for the vast majority where you can learn from one days mistakes and have a better experience the next

the less often fans get to an area the less likely it is that what they enjoyed the last time will still be the same...and the more that happens the more they will stay home and watch on TV and save for a real vacation not tied to sports or tied to on sports location they really enjoy to the detriment of many other games and areas

(04-12-2015 01:08 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  private schools are not going to separate there will be plenty of public schools willing to go with them including all of the PAC 12 and probably ALL of the Big 10

the idea that ADs and university presidents love the out of control spending is far from the truth....the idea that they love the "cost of attendance" nonsense is far from the truth....they are just regretting that they did not take more athletics money for the academic side when they had the chance and that they did not limit academic side contributions when they had the chance.....now they are just not smart enough to figure out how to solve the issue just yet (really not all that hard to do so)

they are on the right path with freshman participation rules ect and pressuring the NBA and if that works look for them to go farther....they are on the WRONG path with cost of attendance

travel is a VERY VERY small part of any conference configuration or alignment equation and will NEVER be a factor in that for anything other than a conference that wished to hasten their own demise

the cost of getting from one place to another is as much a factor of travel service infrastructure and frequency as it is actual distance and there is little if any savings to squeezed from that which could not already be squeezed with the stupid luxury travel arrangements many programs make for themselves as a starting point before even looking at "miles across a conference"

it does make a difference for fans to a degree especially those that would DRIVE to a game, but what makes as much of a difference for them is what they will do while they are in the area of the out of town game....the more familiar with an area the more likely they go and the more likely they get good deals and have an enjoyable trip....and these are generally weekend trips or very short trips so there is no room for "having a bad day out of the days in the trip".....they want to go to a place....have a KNOWN experience for a known cost and leave....it is not an extended vacation for the vast majority where you can learn from one days mistakes and have a better experience the next

the less often fans get to an area the less likely it is that what they enjoyed the last time will still be the same...and the more that happens the more they will stay home and watch on TV and save for a real vacation not tied to sports or tied to on sports location they really enjoy to the detriment of many other games and areas

Well if publics pull out with privates then they will have separated themselves into two new divisions and that will be a kind of consolidation. I do think there are some publics that might pull that trigger, but not as many as you might think. Besides there are some real political issues brewing for the privates.

As for as luxury travel that is true for now but I highly doubt it will remain that way for any except Basketball and Football team travel.

As to your predictions about average fan travel I agree. I also agree that the cost of attendance is a bad path, but it is the one we are on presently. Caps will eventually be set.

We seem to be at a crossroad.

4 X 16 would mean that somebody will have to be playing in an area of the country that they didn't grow up in, but the math works (or at least some think the math works for the networks).

The "formula" has already been set for 5 conferences. Bowl contracts have been let. Contracts for access bowls have been worked out. Championship sites have been bid and awarded. Sponsors have been lined up for lesser bowls that have contracted or been sold based on conference "A" playing a team from conference "B". We would be more likely to see movement within the 5 existing conferences in the next 10 years than we would reduce the number of major conferences to 4.

Which schools are willing to pay players (and how much will be allowed, also how will a limit be set?), and which schools for one reason or another, won't.

The networks have the money, or at least control it's flow, and have the most complete demographic information on which to make decisions. so you know that they have influence in that process.

With more product being broadcast, how will the schools put more fans in their respective stadiums?

Whew!

(04-12-2015 01:31 PM)XLance Wrote:  We seem to be at a crossroad.

4 X 16 would mean that somebody will have to be playing in an area of the country that they didn't grow up in, but the math works (or at least some think the math works for the networks).

The "formula" has already been set for 5 conferences. Bowl contracts have been let. Contracts for access bowls have been worked out. Championship sites have been bid and awarded. Sponsors have been lined up for lesser bowls that have contracted or been sold based on conference "A" playing a team from conference "B". We would be more likely to see movement within the 5 existing conferences in the next 10 years than we would reduce the number of major conferences to 4.

Which schools are willing to pay players (and how much will be allowed, also how will a limit be set?), and which schools for one reason or another, won't.

The networks have the money, or at least control it's flow, and have the most complete demographic information on which to make decisions. so you know that they have influence in that process.

With more product being broadcast, how will the schools put more fans in their respective stadiums?

Whew!

I think that is a fairly good summary of many of the issues still ahead of us. The only thing I would quibble with is the existing contract thing. All of that is fairly easy to work around with regards to the bowls and I'm not sure it makes a difference for the playoff sites as long as there are 4 selected schools playing in them. But absolutely the issues over cost of attendance have to be capped and resolved or we will head down a very destructive path. IMO deciding that issue and perhaps a few ancillary ones would go a long way to defining the new parameters and therefore determining if there are any (and if so how many) that refuse to be a part of those parameters. Such a determination would then free us for either consolidation or expansion depending on if any, or how many, choose to opt out.

(04-12-2015 01:31 PM)XLance Wrote:  We seem to be at a crossroad.

4 X 16 would mean that somebody will have to be playing in an area of the country that they didn't grow up in, but the math works (or at least some think the math works for the networks).

The "formula" has already been set for 5 conferences. Bowl contracts have been let. Contracts for access bowls have been worked out. Championship sites have been bid and awarded. Sponsors have been lined up for lesser bowls that have contracted or been sold based on conference "A" playing a team from conference "B". We would be more likely to see movement within the 5 existing conferences in the next 10 years than we would reduce the number of major conferences to 4.

Which schools are willing to pay players (and how much will be allowed, also how will a limit be set?), and which schools for one reason or another, won't.

The networks have the money, or at least control it's flow, and have the most complete demographic information on which to make decisions. so you know that they have influence in that process.

With more product being broadcast, how will the schools put more fans in their respective stadiums?

Whew!

some are probably going to have to start offering aggressive travel packages with thinks like rooms and tickets included....two game packages and 3 game packages with at least one good game in the mix and one or two way lesser games in the mix

probably going to have to get some breaks on local hotel and motel taxes as well even though that is only a small factor it is still something on the sales flyer.....$15 dollars off in hotel/motel taxes is a decent amount of fuel

some might have to start offering "tour packages" with group travel included especially as some more affluent demographics get older....and of course they still need to coordinate transportation even while in town for the game especially in smaller "major" college towns that do not have a large cab company if ANY cab company....I personally think uber is stupid, but this is where something like uber could work

I think there are plenty of people that would take a NICE charter bus 3-4 hours each way to a game IF it came with "front gate drop off on the day of the game" and IF it came with the ability to basically get around town while at the game

if you can save them money on gas cost to get there and you can "save" them money on parking and take away the LONG hike to the front gate that many experience and if you can save them some money on hotel rooms I think the university could get their "parking" back in the overall cost of the package and cover the rest of the expenses of running it with fuel savings VS taking a private car

if people could drink, pay attention to kids and grand kids, get dropped off right at the front gate on game day and spend the same money overall VS taking a car I think they would do it....if they spent even a bit less I think they would eat it up

add in a tailgate package to the mix for an extra cost and you may well end up with an entire bus load or two from some areas that make it a 2X or 3X annual trip

parents/grand parents can start getting hammered from the moment they step on the bus and not stop all weekend until the bus ride home to sober up....bus and uber cars move them around for the rest of the time between pick up and drop off in their major or even mid sized city

(04-12-2015 01:31 PM)XLance Wrote:  The networks have the money, or at least control it's flow, and have the most complete demographic information on which to make decisions. so you know that they have influence in that process.

We already have seen, between the Big 12, LHN, and ACC TV deals, that the networks are willing to pay to keep the number of top football conferences at 5. They don't want it to consolidate to 3 or 4 top conferences, because they don't want the conferences to have the kind of leverage to force higher prices that the NFL and NBA have. So the tension is between power conferences possibly wanting further consolidation to make more TV money, and the TV networks not wanting to pay for consolidation.

The easiest path for the top programs to get more TV money is to insist on unequal revenue sharing within their own league and/or to find a way to kick 2 to 4 teams out of their already-large conference. I did some rough calculations in a message on this board a few weeks back, showing that the SEC could increase its per-school payout more by kicking out two schools than by any possible addition they could make, even Texas.