(03-10-2016 05:35 AM)EvilLore Wrote:  

(03-09-2016 08:11 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  Amazing in how just under a year cincy fans have gone from Memphis not sniffing their jockstraps to let's stay together forever.

We like to harass each other, but Memphis and Cincinnati have generally stuck together through the years like dysfunctional brothers.

I'm still convinced that when all the alignment garbage finally comes to an end (probably 20 years from now), Cincinnati, Memphis and Louisville will be back under one roof.

Huh? Did we all miss this great long tradition of Memphis vs Cinn?

(03-10-2016 07:50 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  It will be interesting to see if the B12 adds a couple from the AAC (UC, UCONN, etc.) or if they go hard after the ACC (gets into GOR situation) and puts a dent into ACC football. Factor in the B1G going after a team or two and even the SEC picking up a team or two and the ACC may be in trouble.

This thing could break several ways. If the secondary situation happens and the ACC gets hammered then there will be several AAC teams combine with leftover ACC teams.

This may also be why the B12 is dragging their feet on expanding...going after some ACC teams would take some homework and lot of planning.

Who knows.

I don't know much about how the GOR's work and conf. realignment in general, but from what I have read the Big 12 GOR will expire in 2025 and the ACC GOR will expire in 2027. Because of this the B12 will most likely get poached first making it unlikely that the B12 (assuming that KU/OU/UT have already left the conf.) is strong enough to convince an ACC team to join the B12.

(03-10-2016 08:42 AM)isidnirb Wrote:  Huh? Did we all miss this great long tradition of Memphis vs Cinn?

Uh...yeah?

Missouri Valley
Metro
Great Midwest
Conference USA
American Athletic

The B12 does not need to expand to have a CCG. If they expand, it will be to set up a B12 Network. Texas does not need to buy into a B12 network, they already get paid for the LHN, which BTW is losing tons of money for ESPN. The PAC network is struggling; the ACC network is nowhere; the B10 network will probably get a modest boost, but nothing like what was expected just a couple of years ago. In other words, the conference networks are not the massive cash machines that the powers-that-be thought they would be. Add in that cable in general is declining, the B12 expansion does not make much financial sense. That doesn't mean it won't happen! The powers-that-be in college football were not satisfied with golden eggs, they wanted the whole goose.

(03-10-2016 08:42 AM)isidnirb Wrote:  

(03-10-2016 05:35 AM)EvilLore Wrote:  

(03-09-2016 08:11 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  Amazing in how just under a year cincy fans have gone from Memphis not sniffing their jockstraps to let's stay together forever.

We like to harass each other, but Memphis and Cincinnati have generally stuck together through the years like dysfunctional brothers.

I'm still convinced that when all the alignment garbage finally comes to an end (probably 20 years from now), Cincinnati, Memphis and Louisville will be back under one roof.

Huh? Did we all miss this great long tradition of Memphis vs Cinn?

Apparently so. Through 5 conferences and many decades.

Football: Memphis vs. Cincinnati - 33 meetings, starting in 1966 (5th all time for Memphis, behind Ole Miss, Louisville, Miss. State and USM).

http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/scho...-head.html

Basketball: Memphis vs. Cincinnati - 73 meetings (third all time for Memphis, behind Louisville and USM)

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/scho...-head.html

(03-10-2016 02:15 AM)PA-GAMECOCK Wrote:  

(03-10-2016 01:38 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-10-2016 01:06 AM)PA-GAMECOCK Wrote:  

(03-09-2016 11:24 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  Army to the Big 12. We bring the New York market if this were the 1940's.

Seriously, I wouldn't be shocked if the AAC extends an invite and we should take it. I love independence but maybe a conference would force the administration to push football.

Besides, teams like Temple, SMU etc are better names than North Texas and other directional schools from G4 conferences.

Army would be a great if the AAC only loses one team. Put them in the west with Navy, SMU, Houston, Tulane, and Tulsa for football. Adding the Army / Navy game to the AAC TV package would be a boost at negotiation time, or at least off set the lose of UConn and / or Cinn in the next TV negotiation round. The east would consist of UCF, USF, Memphis, Temple, ECU, and either Cinn or UConn depending on which school got the brass ring to the B-12.

If the B-12 took UConn and Cinn the AAC could sit at 10 with divisions and a Championship Game, or grab Army and UMASS. If Army still wanted to remain independent then grab another school regionally close to UCF and USF or compliment the SWC schools with an add in their region. NMST will be available if there isn't a better choice at that time.

If Army was added, they would need to stay in the east. That way each division would be able to play a round robin without Army and Navy playing one another. Both Army and Navy would play 5 division games and 3 crossover games. They would never play one another in the cross over games. In fact, they would never play each other in conference play at all. Both Army and Navy will have played their entire conference schedule by Championship Saturday rolls around.

Instead, Army and Navy would play each other as an OOC game ever year, in their traditional spot, one week after championship Saturday. The game would never count in the conference standings---but it would be part of the conference TV package.

If Air Force joined, they would be in the West. The Air Force-Navy game would be an annual division game and would count in the standings. Army-Air Force game would be a permanent crossover game and would also count in the standings. The Army-Navy game would be the only game that was treated differently in order to preserve its traditional position as the last college regular season game of the year. To play the game on any other date would erode its value.

Under your scenarios the Army /Navy game becomes very complex. It would be better for Army to remain independent as they have no problem putting a schedule together and are even considered a P-5 opponent by the ACC and SEC for OOC scheduling purposes. Army also has no problem scheduling a post season bowl (though getting there with their recent won /loss record has been a problem) and they have their own TV contract too. So in the best interest of Army they might as well remain independent scheduling two 1AA schools a year, lower end P-5 schools with no problem for home and home games, and cash in with Navy at 5 million a year for the last traditional game of the year. They make more with one game with Navy than the AAC teams make from their TV contract every year under the current contract. In addition Army is currently booked out pretty solid through 2020 and now has two more independent scheduling opponents to add to ND, BYU, and UMASS when NMST and Idaho are forced out of the Sunbelt after 2017. It remains to be seen if those schools drop to 1AA or not at his time though but NMST has indicated that they will go the independent route for a couple of years to see how things shake out for their program at the 1A level.

Yes, Army in the AAC would require a unique solution, but it's not like it's terribly complicated. It's just what would be required to comply with the rules governing a CCG while still preserving the value and tradition of the Army-Navy game.

Frankly, I don't think Army would say yes to an AAC invite. Without major improvement in thier program, AAC membership would have them in a situation where they would almost never get bowl eligible (of course, it doesn't happen much anyway these days, so maybe that's not much of a factor). Perhaps joining the AAC would finally spur Army to make changes that would improve thier on the field performance. Anyway, I'd love to have Army and Air Force as part of the AAC (both supposedly have standing invites), but I doubt either ever joins.

(03-10-2016 08:58 AM)EvilLore Wrote:  

(03-10-2016 08:42 AM)isidnirb Wrote:  Huh? Did we all miss this great long tradition of Memphis vs Cinn?

Uh...yeah?

Missouri Valley
Metro
Great Midwest
Conference USA
American Athletic

In the last 45 years, you have been in the same conference for 13 years.

That's like Tulane talking it should stick with Bama with all their history.

(03-10-2016 09:10 AM)vick mike Wrote:  The B12 does not need to expand to have a CCG. If they expand, it will be to set up a B12 Network. Texas does not need to buy into a B12 network, they already get paid for the LHN, which BTW is losing tons of money for ESPN. The PAC network is struggling; the ACC network is nowhere; the B10 network will probably get a modest boost, but nothing like what was expected just a couple of years ago. In other words, the conference networks are not the massive cash machines that the powers-that-be thought they would be. Add in that cable in general is declining, the B12 expansion does not make much financial sense. That doesn't mean it won't happen! The powers-that-be in college football were not satisfied with golden eggs, they wanted the whole goose.

^^^This^^^

ESPN is regretting the LHN every day.

(03-10-2016 10:25 AM)isidnirb Wrote:  

(03-10-2016 09:10 AM)vick mike Wrote:  The B12 does not need to expand to have a CCG. If they expand, it will be to set up a B12 Network. Texas does not need to buy into a B12 network, they already get paid for the LHN, which BTW is losing tons of money for ESPN. The PAC network is struggling; the ACC network is nowhere; the B10 network will probably get a modest boost, but nothing like what was expected just a couple of years ago. In other words, the conference networks are not the massive cash machines that the powers-that-be thought they would be. Add in that cable in general is declining, the B12 expansion does not make much financial sense. That doesn't mean it won't happen! The powers-that-be in college football were not satisfied with golden eggs, they wanted the whole goose.

^^^This^^^

ESPN is regretting the LHN every day.

ESPN might push for expansion though to revamp the LHN. It has a better chance at making $$$ as a conference wide network.

(03-10-2016 10:25 AM)isidnirb Wrote:  

(03-10-2016 09:10 AM)vick mike Wrote:  The B12 does not need to expand to have a CCG. If they expand, it will be to set up a B12 Network. Texas does not need to buy into a B12 network, they already get paid for the LHN, which BTW is losing tons of money for ESPN. The PAC network is struggling; the ACC network is nowhere; the B10 network will probably get a modest boost, but nothing like what was expected just a couple of years ago. In other words, the conference networks are not the massive cash machines that the powers-that-be thought they would be. Add in that cable in general is declining, the B12 expansion does not make much financial sense. That doesn't mean it won't happen! The powers-that-be in college football were not satisfied with golden eggs, they wanted the whole goose.

^^^This^^^

ESPN is regretting the LHN every day.

While LHN has lost millions of dollars previously, that is a drop in the bucket for a business the size of ESPN. Also, estimates are that it will make a couple million dollars in profit for the first time this year. But most importantly, ESPN has now guaranteed that they will have a large say in any future realignment scenarious by partnering with one of the most valuable assets in college sports.

If we lose 2. Add VCU, Wichita State, Dayton, Army FB only and AFA FB only.

(03-10-2016 10:23 AM)isidnirb Wrote:  

(03-10-2016 08:58 AM)EvilLore Wrote:  

(03-10-2016 08:42 AM)isidnirb Wrote:  Huh? Did we all miss this great long tradition of Memphis vs Cinn?

Uh...yeah?

Missouri Valley
Metro
Great Midwest
Conference USA
American Athletic

In the last 45 years, you have been in the same conference for 13 years.

That's like Tulane talking it should stick with Bama with all their history.

38 years actually .


Common Years-

MVC - '68-'69
Metro - '75-'91
GMW - '91-'95
CUSA - '95-'05
AAC - '14-'16

(03-10-2016 10:23 AM)isidnirb Wrote:  

(03-10-2016 08:58 AM)EvilLore Wrote:  

(03-10-2016 08:42 AM)isidnirb Wrote:  Huh? Did we all miss this great long tradition of Memphis vs Cinn?

Uh...yeah?

Missouri Valley
Metro
Great Midwest
Conference USA
American Athletic

In the last 45 years, you have been in the same conference for 13 years.

Not sure if 13 years is correct, but besides being conference mates in 5 different conferences, UM and UC were fellow football independents during about 20 years of that span who played each other regularly in football and basketball. If 33 football games and 73 basketball games between the Tigers and Bearcats isn't enough "tradition" for you, so be it.

(03-10-2016 10:23 AM)isidnirb Wrote:  

(03-10-2016 08:58 AM)EvilLore Wrote:  

(03-10-2016 08:42 AM)isidnirb Wrote:  Huh? Did we all miss this great long tradition of Memphis vs Cinn?

Uh...yeah?

Missouri Valley
Metro
Great Midwest
Conference USA
American Athletic

In the last 45 years, you have been in the same conference for 13 years.

That's like Tulane talking it should stick with Bama with all their history.

What are you using as your source? Marvel Comics? I will repeat my post from #185 above, which you obviously missed:

Football: Memphis vs. Cincinnati - 33 games, starting in 1966 (5th all time for Memphis, behind Ole Miss, Louisville, Miss. State and USM).

Basketball: Memphis vs. Cincinnati - 73 games (third all time for Memphis, behind Louisville and USM)

(03-10-2016 10:45 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(03-10-2016 10:23 AM)isidnirb Wrote:  

(03-10-2016 08:58 AM)EvilLore Wrote:  

(03-10-2016 08:42 AM)isidnirb Wrote:  Huh? Did we all miss this great long tradition of Memphis vs Cinn?

Uh...yeah?

Missouri Valley
Metro
Great Midwest
Conference USA
American Athletic

In the last 45 years, you have been in the same conference for 13 years.

Not sure if 13 years is correct, but besides being conference mates in 5 different conferences, UM and UC were fellow football independents during about 20 years of that span who played each other regularly in football and basketball. If 33 football games and 73 basketball games between the Tigers and Bearcats isn't enough "tradition" for you, so be it.

We were in some basketball only conferences with UC, but still played them in football, too. As you said, if 33 FB games and 73 BB games aren't enough tradition, then it's useless to debate him.

That's 5th and 3rd all time, respectively, for Memphis opponents.

(03-10-2016 10:33 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-10-2016 10:25 AM)isidnirb Wrote:  

(03-10-2016 09:10 AM)vick mike Wrote:  The B12 does not need to expand to have a CCG. If they expand, it will be to set up a B12 Network. Texas does not need to buy into a B12 network, they already get paid for the LHN, which BTW is losing tons of money for ESPN. The PAC network is struggling; the ACC network is nowhere; the B10 network will probably get a modest boost, but nothing like what was expected just a couple of years ago. In other words, the conference networks are not the massive cash machines that the powers-that-be thought they would be. Add in that cable in general is declining, the B12 expansion does not make much financial sense. That doesn't mean it won't happen! The powers-that-be in college football were not satisfied with golden eggs, they wanted the whole goose.

^^^This^^^

ESPN is regretting the LHN every day.

ESPN might push for expansion though to revamp the LHN. It has a better chance at making $$$ as a conference wide network.

Exactly. Converting the LHN to the B12N turns a money loser into a money maker for ESPN. That makes all the difference in the world for ESPN.

(03-10-2016 10:36 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  If we lose 2. Add VCU, Wichita State, Dayton, Army FB only and AFA FB only.

That would be ideal. Otherwise, add the non-football schools and soldier on with just 10 football schools. No more CUSA schools. We don't need to get the old band together (hell, we already have the old band).

(03-10-2016 11:46 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-10-2016 10:36 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  If we lose 2. Add VCU, Wichita State, Dayton, Army FB only and AFA FB only.

That would be ideal. Otherwise, add the non-football schools and soldier on with just 10 football schools. No more CUSA schools. We don't need to get the old band together (hell, we already have the old band).

I don't see 10 fb programs being a bad thing, especially if the major players from last year (UH, Temple, NAVY, Memphis) are still here. If we lost UC and/or UConn, I feel good about the commitment at USF, SMU, UCF, ECU, Tulsa, and Tulane.

This is a very capable roster of coaches. No need to add on and spread out the resources. We'd be in good shape.

Herman
Rhule
Ken N.
Norvell
Taggert
Morris
Frost
Fritz
Montgomery
Montgomery

(03-10-2016 11:37 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-10-2016 10:33 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-10-2016 10:25 AM)isidnirb Wrote:  

(03-10-2016 09:10 AM)vick mike Wrote:  The B12 does not need to expand to have a CCG. If they expand, it will be to set up a B12 Network. Texas does not need to buy into a B12 network, they already get paid for the LHN, which BTW is losing tons of money for ESPN. The PAC network is struggling; the ACC network is nowhere; the B10 network will probably get a modest boost, but nothing like what was expected just a couple of years ago. In other words, the conference networks are not the massive cash machines that the powers-that-be thought they would be. Add in that cable in general is declining, the B12 expansion does not make much financial sense. That doesn't mean it won't happen! The powers-that-be in college football were not satisfied with golden eggs, they wanted the whole goose.

^^^This^^^

ESPN is regretting the LHN every day.

ESPN might push for expansion though to revamp the LHN. It has a better chance at making $$$ as a conference wide network.

Exactly. Converting the LHN to the B12N turns a money loser into a money maker for ESPN. That makes all the difference in the world for ESPN.

Except it already is projected to be a money maker for ESPN beginning in 2016.

Also why would Texas agree to that? They're not even going to break even if they have to give up their $15M/yr for whatever a big12 network makes.

(03-10-2016 01:13 PM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(03-10-2016 11:37 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-10-2016 10:33 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-10-2016 10:25 AM)isidnirb Wrote:  

(03-10-2016 09:10 AM)vick mike Wrote:  The B12 does not need to expand to have a CCG. If they expand, it will be to set up a B12 Network. Texas does not need to buy into a B12 network, they already get paid for the LHN, which BTW is losing tons of money for ESPN. The PAC network is struggling; the ACC network is nowhere; the B10 network will probably get a modest boost, but nothing like what was expected just a couple of years ago. In other words, the conference networks are not the massive cash machines that the powers-that-be thought they would be. Add in that cable in general is declining, the B12 expansion does not make much financial sense. That doesn't mean it won't happen! The powers-that-be in college football were not satisfied with golden eggs, they wanted the whole goose.

^^^This^^^

ESPN is regretting the LHN every day.

ESPN might push for expansion though to revamp the LHN. It has a better chance at making $$$ as a conference wide network.

Exactly. Converting the LHN to the B12N turns a money loser into a money maker for ESPN. That makes all the difference in the world for ESPN.

Except it already is projected to be a money maker for ESPN beginning in 2016.

Also why would Texas agree to that? They're not even going to break even if they have to give up their $15M/yr for whatever a big12 network makes.

It has 9 million subscribers at 28 cents a piece (in-state), 2 cents a piece out of state. Converting it to the B12N would allow it to charge more (more content), expand the footprint (more subscribers), and would make MUCH more for ESPN. If ESPN is as worried about costs and revenue as you say, then they will be all over this. They would be making FAR more money with the exact same infrastructure.