(04-30-2015 07:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-30-2015 05:59 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(04-30-2015 10:14 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 09:45 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  The percentages are my guesses only. I make no claims otherwise. That's just how I see things based on the evidence presented.

He1nousOne, if your scenarios emerge, it will make this board very interesting and more than fun than it's been. I just don't see the evidence for them though. The only conferences pushing CCG de-regulation so far have been the Big 12 and ACC and the set-ups they want have been mostly shown (Big 12 wanting a championship game with 10; ACC wanting to end round robin in division play or other tweaks). Meanwhile, every move so far has suggested this is done in bits and pieces with no grand plan and every move has shown conferences have amazing resilience (the Big East lost almost every member, but legally continues on as the American to this day). We've also seen most the big players happy with the current set-up including Texas and we've seen the networks essentially up Big 12 pay when they weren't required to just to keep the Big 12 around when the PAC-10 was threatening.

If we see news reports from the media suggesting your scenarios are coming about I'll switch sides, but I've seen nothing to suggest that to me at this point. If you're right in the end, I'll gladly concede and congratulate you.

And the ACC is the only conference with silly divisional splits. Maybe if they set it up geographically, they wouldn't have the issue.

Missouri sez hi.

SEC is split northeast/southwest. Its not intertwined like the ACC where even heavy fans can't remember who is in which division.

Are you sure about that?

Not to take away from your overall point of ACC divisions being the worse since the B1G ended the Leaders and Legends nonsense, which I agree with you on.

Cheers,
Neil

(04-29-2015 09:27 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Thoughts:

1. This pretty much confirms what I figured in that the Big 12 will add a championship game as soon as/if championship game deregulation passes. I hoped they wouldn't (love the old school set-up), but figured it was a foregone conclusion regardless of any lip service to keeping the current set-up.

2. I don't know why anyone is guessing this makes it any less likely at all that de-regulation will happen. Maybe the votes aren't there, but I'd bet they are and this doesn't really change anything. Everyone knows the Big 12 can get a CCG with expansion if necessary, but forcing the Big 12 to go that route isn't something the other conferences are going to be apt to do. The powers conferences are for the most part cordial with each other unless they have a very direct interest in conflict and this isn't one. Even if this is right and not having a championship game costs the Big 12 more than it helps them, what's really the cost to the other conferences? The Big 12 will get some in the playoff regardless of set-up. Even if this hurts the conference's playoff hopes, what does adding a CCG do? It might get them a team they wouldn't have gotten maybe every 4-5 years? That's about one playoff spot from each of the other 4 conferences every 20 years and that's assuming the reverse doesn't also hold true several years (where they benefit from not having a CCG).

3. How did we so quickly forget all those years the CCGs had top teams lose? Let's just look at this year. The Big Ten had a championship game that probably pushed Ohio State in, but the SEC, ACC, and PAC-12 all had championship games that could have thrown teams out and were unlikely to push a different team in. Replay that same set-up 10 times and my guess is that at least 8, the Big 12 will have one team in and sometimes two. What we had going into the final weekend of the year is exactly what the Big 12 should hope for every year even if it didn't work out this year.

4. Dissolving the conference is not in the cards at this point and I'd be stunned if it's even considered for a moment. If someone wanted most the other members of the Big 12 not named Texas they could have had them before the grant of rights, but they didn't take them. Heck, the PAC-12 actually voted down Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. The most profitable set-up for the Big 12 teams for the time being is in the Big 12.

5. If conference championship game de-regulation does fail, it will be interesting. I'd say about 85-90% chance it passes, but if it fails, expansion is possible. I don't think they'll jump at it though and will give a few more years to see how things pan out.

Big 12 can be regulated back to G6 status if they do not expand and have a CCG. Big 12 is being stupid, stubborn and very greedy on their part. Texas football is down, and so is their basketball. They are not the Top Dog anymore in the P5. They need to adjust to the realities that you can not think for yourself anymore. You would be just bringing the rest of your conference mates down. The deregulation on CCG will not pass since there is no votes for it. Why would SEC, Big 10 and PAC 12 allow the Big 12 have a CCG with only 10 teams? It is not fair to the other conferences, and there should be a big stand against the Big 12 on these issues. They do not have the voice or power with only 10 members.

It was always a stupid rule to begin with and they have denied requests before.
But after it was such a factor especially in the early raids and expansion, I can see why some think repealing it is a joke.
I just don't think that many people in play care about it anymore.

(04-30-2015 08:16 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 09:27 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Thoughts:

1. This pretty much confirms what I figured in that the Big 12 will add a championship game as soon as/if championship game deregulation passes. I hoped they wouldn't (love the old school set-up), but figured it was a foregone conclusion regardless of any lip service to keeping the current set-up.

2. I don't know why anyone is guessing this makes it any less likely at all that de-regulation will happen. Maybe the votes aren't there, but I'd bet they are and this doesn't really change anything. Everyone knows the Big 12 can get a CCG with expansion if necessary, but forcing the Big 12 to go that route isn't something the other conferences are going to be apt to do. The powers conferences are for the most part cordial with each other unless they have a very direct interest in conflict and this isn't one. Even if this is right and not having a championship game costs the Big 12 more than it helps them, what's really the cost to the other conferences? The Big 12 will get some in the playoff regardless of set-up. Even if this hurts the conference's playoff hopes, what does adding a CCG do? It might get them a team they wouldn't have gotten maybe every 4-5 years? That's about one playoff spot from each of the other 4 conferences every 20 years and that's assuming the reverse doesn't also hold true several years (where they benefit from not having a CCG).

3. How did we so quickly forget all those years the CCGs had top teams lose? Let's just look at this year. The Big Ten had a championship game that probably pushed Ohio State in, but the SEC, ACC, and PAC-12 all had championship games that could have thrown teams out and were unlikely to push a different team in. Replay that same set-up 10 times and my guess is that at least 8, the Big 12 will have one team in and sometimes two. What we had going into the final weekend of the year is exactly what the Big 12 should hope for every year even if it didn't work out this year.

4. Dissolving the conference is not in the cards at this point and I'd be stunned if it's even considered for a moment. If someone wanted most the other members of the Big 12 not named Texas they could have had them before the grant of rights, but they didn't take them. Heck, the PAC-12 actually voted down Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. The most profitable set-up for the Big 12 teams for the time being is in the Big 12.

5. If conference championship game de-regulation does fail, it will be interesting. I'd say about 85-90% chance it passes, but if it fails, expansion is possible. I don't think they'll jump at it though and will give a few more years to see how things pan out.

Big 12 can be regulated back to G6 status if they do not expand and have a CCG. Big 12 is being stupid, stubborn and very greedy on their part. Texas football is down, and so is their basketball. They are not the Top Dog anymore in the P5. They need to adjust to the realities that you can not think for yourself anymore. You would be just bringing the rest of your conference mates down. The deregulation on CCG will not pass since there is no votes for it. Why would SEC, Big 10 and PAC 12 allow the Big 12 have a CCG with only 10 teams? It is not fair to the other conferences, and there should be a big stand against the Big 12 on these issues. They do not have the voice or power with only 10 members.

Because the alternative is the Big 12 expanding to 12, which means taking 2 AAC. The AAC responding with 2 CUSA, and CUSA responding with 2 SBC or an FCS, and the SBC Responding with FCS...meaning more FCS teams moving up, which they do not want.

It's far easier to scratch their back and deregulate the 12 team rule in exchange for getting rid of the 2 division rule as well.

The B12 is not going to be regulated to Gang of world. and they do not need to go to 12. They will get their champ game with 10. The B10 will sign their new Tv deal soon and it is all done for quite a while. Everyone will have a fairly long term TV deal in place, expansion will be frozen.

(04-30-2015 07:54 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(04-30-2015 07:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-30-2015 05:59 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(04-30-2015 10:14 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 09:45 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  The percentages are my guesses only. I make no claims otherwise. That's just how I see things based on the evidence presented.

He1nousOne, if your scenarios emerge, it will make this board very interesting and more than fun than it's been. I just don't see the evidence for them though. The only conferences pushing CCG de-regulation so far have been the Big 12 and ACC and the set-ups they want have been mostly shown (Big 12 wanting a championship game with 10; ACC wanting to end round robin in division play or other tweaks). Meanwhile, every move so far has suggested this is done in bits and pieces with no grand plan and every move has shown conferences have amazing resilience (the Big East lost almost every member, but legally continues on as the American to this day). We've also seen most the big players happy with the current set-up including Texas and we've seen the networks essentially up Big 12 pay when they weren't required to just to keep the Big 12 around when the PAC-10 was threatening.

If we see news reports from the media suggesting your scenarios are coming about I'll switch sides, but I've seen nothing to suggest that to me at this point. If you're right in the end, I'll gladly concede and congratulate you.

And the ACC is the only conference with silly divisional splits. Maybe if they set it up geographically, they wouldn't have the issue.

Missouri sez hi.

SEC is split northeast/southwest. Its not intertwined like the ACC where even heavy fans can't remember who is in which division.

Are you sure about that?

Not to take away from your overall point of ACC divisions being the worse since the B1G ended the Leaders and Legends nonsense, which I agree with you on.

Cheers,
Neil

Look at a map. Its called East/West, but there is a geographic line.

(05-01-2015 08:07 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  The B12 is not going to be regulated to Gang of world. and they do not need to go to 12. They will get their champ game with 10. The B10 will sign their new Tv deal soon and it is all done for quite a while. Everyone will have a fairly long term TV deal in place, expansion will be frozen.

The problem is that Iowa State and Kansas are nothing but a joke in the Big 12 in football. Iowa State and Kansas losing to North Dakota State did not help the Big 12's image. Adding some strong football can help get their strength of schedule up. Iowa State and Kansas plays like FCS schools.

(05-02-2015 03:21 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 08:07 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  The B12 is not going to be regulated to Gang of world. and they do not need to go to 12. They will get their champ game with 10. The B10 will sign their new Tv deal soon and it is all done for quite a while. Everyone will have a fairly long term TV deal in place, expansion will be frozen.

The problem is that Iowa State and Kansas are nothing but a joke in the Big 12 in football. Iowa State and Kansas losing to North Dakota State did not help the Big 12's image. Adding some strong football can help get their strength of schedule up. Iowa State and Kansas plays like FCS schools.

I tend to agree with you, to a degree. But you act like being in a power conference is something that every school is entitled to, simply because they want it. That isn't the case, despite your wish to the contrary.

Every power conference has it's weak links, even the SEC. However, those schools have been grandfathered in, and have decades of history with the other conference members. It's not like they're some upstart school with no history. They've been playing at the highest level since they started playing football. It's not a new thing for them.

But now we have schools with no history of playing big time football, or even a winning tradition, and their fans act like they're being persecuted because they can't be as big as they want to be. The power conferences are exclusive clubs, and the thing about exclusive clubs is that they exclude. Only the chosen few get in, after a long period of examination, to ensure those chosen are worthy of inclusion.

One season does not a history make. Neither do 2 seasons. A decade or more of consistent success at a high level is the ticket, and the clock is ticking.

(05-01-2015 08:50 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-30-2015 07:54 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(04-30-2015 07:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-30-2015 05:59 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(04-30-2015 10:14 AM)bullet Wrote:  And the ACC is the only conference with silly divisional splits. Maybe if they set it up geographically, they wouldn't have the issue.

Missouri sez hi.

SEC is split northeast/southwest. Its not intertwined like the ACC where even heavy fans can't remember who is in which division.

Are you sure about that?

Not to take away from your overall point of ACC divisions being the worse since the B1G ended the Leaders and Legends nonsense, which I agree with you on.

Cheers,
Neil

Look at a map. Its called East/West, but there is a geographic line.

Perhaps you might want to consider re-checking a map, as well as what you wrote?

You wrote that the divisions are northeast/southwest. But even though you likely meant north or east versus southwest (which no person who thinks geographically thinks this way naturally it would be northeast/southwest or north and east/ south and west) it still isn't what you think.

Arkansas is as "north" as Tennessee. And Auburn is as "east" as Vandy.

Anyway, we all know the reason why this current configuration is there even if it doesn't make clear geographical sense. It's there because the SEC didn't want WVU and couldn't get VT.

If they had taken either of those two institutions it would be a truer East/West set-up with only Vandy/Auburn being slightly misplaced geographically. Or considering the weakness of the East this decade, perhaps Auburn would have wound up in the East and Vandy in the West? Doubt it, but it's possible.

Cheers,
Neil

(05-02-2015 12:37 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

Exactly.

No one thinks in terms of geography using swirling lines.

Cheers,
Neil

(05-02-2015 12:41 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-02-2015 12:37 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

Exactly.

No one thinks in terms of geography using swirling lines.

Cheers,
Neil

You mean no one thinks, don't you?

(05-02-2015 12:57 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(05-02-2015 12:41 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-02-2015 12:37 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

Exactly.

No one thinks in terms of geography using swirling lines.

Cheers,
Neil

You mean no one thinks, don't you?

No, not really. Everyone thinks and we all have brain farts.

Miss posting with you bit. Still hoping WVU makes it into the ACC someday as #15, though I know many Eers fans don't want that.


Neil

(05-02-2015 12:41 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-02-2015 12:37 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

Exactly.

No one thinks in terms of geography using swirling lines.

Cheers,
Neil

I like using maps to illustrate points. I thought this one illustrated yours nicely.

(05-02-2015 01:15 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-02-2015 12:41 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-02-2015 12:37 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

Exactly.

No one thinks in terms of geography using swirling lines.

Cheers,
Neil

I like using maps to illustrate points. I thought this one illustrated yours nicely.

Yes, visual is best. Thanks for the assist.

Cheers,
Neil

Move Auburn to the east and swap with Mizzou...much cleaner. The issue is Bama does not want to give up annual game against AU or TN, which is why that did not happen.

(05-02-2015 03:13 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  Move Auburn to the east and swap with Mizzou...much cleaner. The issue is Bama does not want to give up annual game against AU or TN, which is why that did not happen.

The rivalry with Tennessee is such a farce.

(05-02-2015 11:17 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(05-02-2015 03:21 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 08:07 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  The B12 is not going to be regulated to Gang of world. and they do not need to go to 12. They will get their champ game with 10. The B10 will sign their new Tv deal soon and it is all done for quite a while. Everyone will have a fairly long term TV deal in place, expansion will be frozen.

The problem is that Iowa State and Kansas are nothing but a joke in the Big 12 in football. Iowa State and Kansas losing to North Dakota State did not help the Big 12's image. Adding some strong football can help get their strength of schedule up. Iowa State and Kansas plays like FCS schools.

I tend to agree with you, to a degree. But you act like being in a power conference is something that every school is entitled to, simply because they want it. That isn't the case, despite your wish to the contrary.

Every power conference has it's weak links, even the SEC. However, those schools have been grandfathered in, and have decades of history with the other conference members. It's not like they're some upstart school with no history. They've been playing at the highest level since they started playing football. It's not a new thing for them.

But now we have schools with no history of playing big time football, or even a winning tradition, and their fans act like they're being persecuted because they can't be as big as they want to be. The power conferences are exclusive clubs, and the thing about exclusive clubs is that they exclude. Only the chosen few get in, after a long period of examination, to ensure those chosen are worthy of inclusion.

One season does not a history make. Neither do 2 seasons. A decade or more of consistent success at a high level is the ticket, and the clock is ticking.

And that is exactly what it shouldn't be. Quite frankly it's illegal

(05-02-2015 11:17 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(05-02-2015 03:21 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 08:07 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  The B12 is not going to be regulated to Gang of world. and they do not need to go to 12. They will get their champ game with 10. The B10 will sign their new Tv deal soon and it is all done for quite a while. Everyone will have a fairly long term TV deal in place, expansion will be frozen.

The problem is that Iowa State and Kansas are nothing but a joke in the Big 12 in football. Iowa State and Kansas losing to North Dakota State did not help the Big 12's image. Adding some strong football can help get their strength of schedule up. Iowa State and Kansas plays like FCS schools.

I tend to agree with you, to a degree. But you act like being in a power conference is something that every school is entitled to, simply because they want it. That isn't the case, despite your wish to the contrary.

Every power conference has it's weak links, even the SEC. However, those schools have been grandfathered in, and have decades of history with the other conference members. It's not like they're some upstart school with no history. They've been playing at the highest level since they started playing football. It's not a new thing for them.

But now we have schools with no history of playing big time football, or even a winning tradition, and their fans act like they're being persecuted because they can't be as big as they want to be. The power conferences are exclusive clubs, and the thing about exclusive clubs is that they exclude. Only the chosen few get in, after a long period of examination, to ensure those chosen are worthy of inclusion.

One season does not a history make. Neither do 2 seasons. A decade or more of consistent success at a high level is the ticket, and the clock is ticking.

I am much older than people think. I remember the Big 8. I remember the Metro. I remember the history of schools in the power conferences like Cincinnati, Memphis, Houston, SMU, Rice, Army, Navy, BYU, Air Force and so forth. In the 1980's, BYU and Air Force where treated the same as Oklahoma and them. Cincinnati, Memphis played Miami, Florida, Louisville, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, West Virginia and others. My point is that there is room for the best of the rest to be part of the power conferences that could help make them money. Would people tune in to see a rematch between Oklahoma and Boise State? I say yes. People would spend money to see teams like Boise State, BYU, North Dakota State and others who are winning then the very sorry teams like Kansas or Iowa State. Even Northern Iowa was conferences mates with some of the Big 12, Missouri, Nebraska and Iowa at one time under the old Missouri type like conference that spawn both Big 8 and MVC. Both conferences still claim that Missouri conference.

(05-02-2015 03:43 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-02-2015 03:13 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  Move Auburn to the east and swap with Mizzou...much cleaner. The issue is Bama does not want to give up annual game against AU or TN, which is why that did not happen.

The rivalry with Tennessee is such a farce.

Yes it is.