(02-29-2020 04:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I did a little math on this subject and the SEC could add 2.8 billion by adding Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Kansas. That I would think would effectively eliminate the Big 12 as a power conference.

The current SEC is worth just under 7.5 billion. This add would put us over 10 billion and close to doubling the total value of the Big 10, at least according to the WSJ valuations.

By attendance and gross total revenue the additions work as well with the exception of Kansas's football attendance.

As far as a grouping that might please Texas in a conference of 3 divisions of 6 it would look like this:

Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech

Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Miss State, Tennessee

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Vanderbilt.

It doesn't upset the current SEC, and it essentially gives Texas a division of familiar faces.

If I'm the Pac-12 that scenario should scare me. They have to do something that would keep them in the game. Pride and ego can only go so far. If they don't care about being well left behind by the SEC and Big Ten and become a West Coast Ivy League, that's one thing. But the statements from the USC AD and other programs tell us they're getting concerned.

They may have to reorganize by leaving behind two programs in smaller states that are superfluous to make space for key CTZ programs if they're to give themselves a chance. Perhaps splitting the CA programs so that both divisions would play an LA-based program and a Bay Area program every season may be necessary.

Will a conference of 18 with three divisions be acceptable to the NCAA. If not, and a rule has to be changed, it will never pass. The B1G will not allow the SEC to walk away with all of the prizes of the Big 12 and with no clear path to expand to 18 itself.

The simplest way to incorporate the cream of the Big 12 into the SEC west would be to shift the two most expendable SEC east schools (Vanderbilt and South Carolina) into the ACC to create two 16 team leagues for ESPN.
Don't want to give up a private? Kentucky and South Carolina would work, or Kentucky and Vanderbilt if the SEC were truly interested in the State of South Carolina.

This works for ESPN on multiple levels, here are a few:
West Virginia added to the AAC adds good football in the east and basketball gravitas to a league that needs it.
The ESPN leagues are able to absorb the majority of the Big 12 value in a slick move that is politically acceptable to the NCAA while at the same time handcuffing the PAC and B1G's future moves.
It strengthens all three of ESPN's current conference holdings without any new expenditures.

American
Temple, West Virginia, Cincinnati, Navy, East Carolina, UCF
USF, Memphis, Tulane, Houston, SMU, Tulsa

ACC
Boston College, Syracuse, Vanderbilt, Duke, Carolina, Georgia Tech, Miami, UVa
Louisville, Pitt, Florida State, Clemson, South Carolina, Wake Forest, NC State, Va Tech

SEC
Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Auburn, Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi State, LSU
Ole Miss, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Texas Tech

(03-01-2020 08:37 AM)XLance Wrote:  Will a conference of 18 with three divisions be acceptable to the NCAA. If not, and a rule has to be changed, it will never pass. The B1G will not allow the SEC to walk away with all of the prizes of the Big 12 and with no clear path to expand to 18 itself.

The simplest way to incorporate the cream of the Big 12 into the SEC west would be to shift the two most expendable SEC east schools (Vanderbilt and South Carolina) into the ACC to create two 16 team leagues for ESPN.
Don't want to give up a private? Kentucky and South Carolina would work, or Kentucky and Vanderbilt if the SEC were truly interested in the State of South Carolina.

This works for ESPN on multiple levels, here are a few:
West Virginia added to the AAC adds good football in the east and basketball gravitas to a league that needs it.
The ESPN leagues are able to absorb the majority of the Big 12 value in a slick move that is politically acceptable to the NCAA while at the same time handcuffing the PAC and B1G's future moves.
It strengthens all three of ESPN's current conference holdings without any new expenditures.

American
Temple, West Virginia, Cincinnati, Navy, East Carolina, UCF
USF, Memphis, Tulane, Houston, SMU, Tulsa

ACC
Boston College, Syracuse, Vanderbilt, Duke, Carolina, Georgia Tech, Miami, UVa
Louisville, Pitt, Florida State, Clemson, South Carolina, Wake Forest, NC State, Va Tech

SEC
Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Auburn, Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi State, LSU
Ole Miss, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Texas Tech

I don't think the three divisions is the issue, the conference semifinals probably would be. There's nothing wrong with 3 divisions of 6 and having the best two teams make the championship game. Having semifinals and playing potentially a 14 game season, either extending an extra week or removing the bye week/starting a week earlier is a whole different beast and if the Big Ten, Pac 12, and ACC could stop it they will.

As for ESPN shifting SEC teams to the ACC, it works great for them and I'd love if Kentucky joins the ACC for men's basketball but what's in it for UK and the other team that gets moved? Wouldn't they lose a ton of money then? The SEC would essentially have to expel the members. If ESPN doesn't want 18 teams in the SEC, they should just get the SEC to not add Texas Tech and Kansas and if Texas won't move without Texas Tech they can enjoy a lesser payout in the Big 12 (or the Pac-12 could be desperate enough to take them).

(03-01-2020 08:57 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-01-2020 08:37 AM)XLance Wrote:  Will a conference of 18 with three divisions be acceptable to the NCAA. If not, and a rule has to be changed, it will never pass. The B1G will not allow the SEC to walk away with all of the prizes of the Big 12 and with no clear path to expand to 18 itself.

The simplest way to incorporate the cream of the Big 12 into the SEC west would be to shift the two most expendable SEC east schools (Vanderbilt and South Carolina) into the ACC to create two 16 team leagues for ESPN.
Don't want to give up a private? Kentucky and South Carolina would work, or Kentucky and Vanderbilt if the SEC were truly interested in the State of South Carolina.

This works for ESPN on multiple levels, here are a few:
West Virginia added to the AAC adds good football in the east and basketball gravitas to a league that needs it.
The ESPN leagues are able to absorb the majority of the Big 12 value in a slick move that is politically acceptable to the NCAA while at the same time handcuffing the PAC and B1G's future moves.
It strengthens all three of ESPN's current conference holdings without any new expenditures.

American
Temple, West Virginia, Cincinnati, Navy, East Carolina, UCF
USF, Memphis, Tulane, Houston, SMU, Tulsa

ACC
Boston College, Syracuse, Vanderbilt, Duke, Carolina, Georgia Tech, Miami, UVa
Louisville, Pitt, Florida State, Clemson, South Carolina, Wake Forest, NC State, Va Tech

SEC
Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Auburn, Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi State, LSU
Ole Miss, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Texas Tech

I don't think the three divisions is the issue, the conference semifinals probably would be. There's nothing wrong with 3 divisions of 6 and having the best two teams make the championship game. Having semifinals and playing potentially a 14 game season, either extending an extra week or removing the bye week/starting a week earlier is a whole different beast and if the Big Ten, Pac 12, and ACC could stop it they will.

As for ESPN shifting SEC teams to the ACC, it works great for them and I'd love if Kentucky joins the ACC for men's basketball but what's in it for UK and the other team that gets moved? Wouldn't they lose a ton of money then? The SEC would essentially have to expel the members. If ESPN doesn't want 18 teams in the SEC, they should just get the SEC to not add Texas Tech and Kansas and if Texas won't move without Texas Tech they can enjoy a lesser payout in the Big 12 (or the Pac-12 could be desperate enough to take them).

https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/artic...-able-hold

Football Bowl Subdivision conferences with fewer than 12 members will be able to hold a conference championship football game in addition to the allowed 12 regular-season games, the Division I Council decided Wednesday, and such conferences will have two ways to meet scheduling requirements.

Under current rules, FBS conferences must have at least 12 members, and championship games must be between the winners of two divisions within the conference. Each division must play a round-robin schedule during the regular season in order to hold a championship game.

(03-01-2020 09:22 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-01-2020 08:57 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-01-2020 08:37 AM)XLance Wrote:  Will a conference of 18 with three divisions be acceptable to the NCAA. If not, and a rule has to be changed, it will never pass. The B1G will not allow the SEC to walk away with all of the prizes of the Big 12 and with no clear path to expand to 18 itself.

The simplest way to incorporate the cream of the Big 12 into the SEC west would be to shift the two most expendable SEC east schools (Vanderbilt and South Carolina) into the ACC to create two 16 team leagues for ESPN.
Don't want to give up a private? Kentucky and South Carolina would work, or Kentucky and Vanderbilt if the SEC were truly interested in the State of South Carolina.

This works for ESPN on multiple levels, here are a few:
West Virginia added to the AAC adds good football in the east and basketball gravitas to a league that needs it.
The ESPN leagues are able to absorb the majority of the Big 12 value in a slick move that is politically acceptable to the NCAA while at the same time handcuffing the PAC and B1G's future moves.
It strengthens all three of ESPN's current conference holdings without any new expenditures.

American
Temple, West Virginia, Cincinnati, Navy, East Carolina, UCF
USF, Memphis, Tulane, Houston, SMU, Tulsa

ACC
Boston College, Syracuse, Vanderbilt, Duke, Carolina, Georgia Tech, Miami, UVa
Louisville, Pitt, Florida State, Clemson, South Carolina, Wake Forest, NC State, Va Tech

SEC
Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Auburn, Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi State, LSU
Ole Miss, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Texas Tech

I don't think the three divisions is the issue, the conference semifinals probably would be. There's nothing wrong with 3 divisions of 6 and having the best two teams make the championship game. Having semifinals and playing potentially a 14 game season, either extending an extra week or removing the bye week/starting a week earlier is a whole different beast and if the Big Ten, Pac 12, and ACC could stop it they will.

As for ESPN shifting SEC teams to the ACC, it works great for them and I'd love if Kentucky joins the ACC for men's basketball but what's in it for UK and the other team that gets moved? Wouldn't they lose a ton of money then? The SEC would essentially have to expel the members. If ESPN doesn't want 18 teams in the SEC, they should just get the SEC to not add Texas Tech and Kansas and if Texas won't move without Texas Tech they can enjoy a lesser payout in the Big 12 (or the Pac-12 could be desperate enough to take them).

https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/artic...-able-hold

Football Bowl Subdivision conferences with fewer than 12 members will be able to hold a conference championship football game in addition to the allowed 12 regular-season games, the Division I Council decided Wednesday, and such conferences will have two ways to meet scheduling requirements.

Under current rules, FBS conferences must have at least 12 members, and championship games must be between the winners of two divisions within the conference. Each division must play a round-robin schedule during the regular season in order to hold a championship game.

The rule was put in place to accommodate the Big 12 Championship Game because it obviously works for them. I'm surprised the Big Ten proposed it, the rule clearly only works for a conference of 10 or fewer and not only doesn't help the Big Ten but helps one of their biggest competitors. They could have easily not said anything or denied the Big 12's request for a conference championship and could you imagine where the Big 12 would be in the revenue pecking order without it? But the AAC is playing eight game schedules in 2020 and the top two teams are playing in the conference championship game so they aren't following the rules.

Delany has proposed eliminating divisions before in the Big Ten, it wouldn't surprise me if soon the NCAA eliminated the division requirement for conference championship games. Once conferences get to 16, if the SEC stays at an 8 game conference schedule teams can only play one team in the opposite division. That means they'd have to get rid of permanent rivals and teams can only play each other twice every 14 years! I guess they can do rotating quads but that's still not much better. The idea of no divisions works better for almost everyone.

(03-01-2020 10:13 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-01-2020 09:22 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-01-2020 08:57 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-01-2020 08:37 AM)XLance Wrote:  Will a conference of 18 with three divisions be acceptable to the NCAA. If not, and a rule has to be changed, it will never pass. The B1G will not allow the SEC to walk away with all of the prizes of the Big 12 and with no clear path to expand to 18 itself.

The simplest way to incorporate the cream of the Big 12 into the SEC west would be to shift the two most expendable SEC east schools (Vanderbilt and South Carolina) into the ACC to create two 16 team leagues for ESPN.
Don't want to give up a private? Kentucky and South Carolina would work, or Kentucky and Vanderbilt if the SEC were truly interested in the State of South Carolina.

This works for ESPN on multiple levels, here are a few:
West Virginia added to the AAC adds good football in the east and basketball gravitas to a league that needs it.
The ESPN leagues are able to absorb the majority of the Big 12 value in a slick move that is politically acceptable to the NCAA while at the same time handcuffing the PAC and B1G's future moves.
It strengthens all three of ESPN's current conference holdings without any new expenditures.

American
Temple, West Virginia, Cincinnati, Navy, East Carolina, UCF
USF, Memphis, Tulane, Houston, SMU, Tulsa

ACC
Boston College, Syracuse, Vanderbilt, Duke, Carolina, Georgia Tech, Miami, UVa
Louisville, Pitt, Florida State, Clemson, South Carolina, Wake Forest, NC State, Va Tech

SEC
Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Auburn, Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi State, LSU
Ole Miss, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Texas Tech

I don't think the three divisions is the issue, the conference semifinals probably would be. There's nothing wrong with 3 divisions of 6 and having the best two teams make the championship game. Having semifinals and playing potentially a 14 game season, either extending an extra week or removing the bye week/starting a week earlier is a whole different beast and if the Big Ten, Pac 12, and ACC could stop it they will.

As for ESPN shifting SEC teams to the ACC, it works great for them and I'd love if Kentucky joins the ACC for men's basketball but what's in it for UK and the other team that gets moved? Wouldn't they lose a ton of money then? The SEC would essentially have to expel the members. If ESPN doesn't want 18 teams in the SEC, they should just get the SEC to not add Texas Tech and Kansas and if Texas won't move without Texas Tech they can enjoy a lesser payout in the Big 12 (or the Pac-12 could be desperate enough to take them).

https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/artic...-able-hold

Football Bowl Subdivision conferences with fewer than 12 members will be able to hold a conference championship football game in addition to the allowed 12 regular-season games, the Division I Council decided Wednesday, and such conferences will have two ways to meet scheduling requirements.

Under current rules, FBS conferences must have at least 12 members, and championship games must be between the winners of two divisions within the conference. Each division must play a round-robin schedule during the regular season in order to hold a championship game.

The rule was put in place to accommodate the Big 12 Championship Game because it obviously works for them. I'm surprised the Big Ten proposed it, the rule clearly only works for a conference of 10 or fewer and not only doesn't help the Big Ten but helps one of their biggest competitors. They could have easily not said anything or denied the Big 12's request for a conference championship and could you imagine where the Big 12 would be in the revenue pecking order without it? But the AAC is playing eight game schedules in 2020 and the top two teams are playing in the conference championship game so they aren't following the rules.

Delany has proposed eliminating divisions before in the Big Ten, it wouldn't surprise me if soon the NCAA eliminated the division requirement for conference championship games. Once conferences get to 16, if the SEC stays at an 8 game conference schedule teams can only play one team in the opposite division. That means they'd have to get rid of permanent rivals and teams can only play each other twice every 14 years! I guess they can do rotating quads but that's still not much better. The idea of no divisions works better for almost everyone.

You did read the part about two divisions didn't you?

All realignmentologists should be watching what happens with the AAC very closely. If the NCAA decides to permit them to permanently host a CCG without divisions then that opens it up for everyone else too.

This means 14 or 16 no longer become caps for what’s a reasonable conference. The Big Ten and SEC will be able to add at will.

I could see the SEC getting the Texlahoma 4 and the Big Ten in turn trying to take advantage of discontent in the PAC 12 to lure some CA schools, and maybe ND, into the fold.

(03-01-2020 08:37 AM)XLance Wrote:  Will a conference of 18 with three divisions be acceptable to the NCAA. If not, and a rule has to be changed, it will never pass. The B1G will not allow the SEC to walk away with all of the prizes of the Big 12 and with no clear path to expand to 18 itself.

The simplest way to incorporate the cream of the Big 12 into the SEC west would be to shift the two most expendable SEC east schools (Vanderbilt and South Carolina) into the ACC to create two 16 team leagues for ESPN.
Don't want to give up a private? Kentucky and South Carolina would work, or Kentucky and Vanderbilt if the SEC were truly interested in the State of South Carolina.

This works for ESPN on multiple levels, here are a few:
West Virginia added to the AAC adds good football in the east and basketball gravitas to a league that needs it.
The ESPN leagues are able to absorb the majority of the Big 12 value in a slick move that is politically acceptable to the NCAA while at the same time handcuffing the PAC and B1G's future moves.
It strengthens all three of ESPN's current conference holdings without any new expenditures.

American
Temple, West Virginia, Cincinnati, Navy, East Carolina, UCF
USF, Memphis, Tulane, Houston, SMU, Tulsa

ACC
Boston College, Syracuse, Vanderbilt, Duke, Carolina, Georgia Tech, Miami, UVa
Louisville, Pitt, Florida State, Clemson, South Carolina, Wake Forest, NC State, Va Tech

SEC
Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Auburn, Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi State, LSU
Ole Miss, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Texas Tech

LOL.

If ESPN really controls everything themselves, as you suggest, then they could just move Clemson into the SEC, cancel their contract with the ACC due to Clemson’s departure, and save a whole lot of money!

(03-01-2020 10:13 AM)schmolik Wrote:  But the AAC is playing eight game schedules in 2020 and the top two teams are playing in the conference championship game so they aren't following the rules.

That's what "waiver" means ... if what a conference is proposing to do complies with all of the rule, then it wouldn't be necessary for that conference to apply for a waiver, now would it?

The AAC applied for a waiver to allow them to do that, after UConn changed conferences, and the waiver was granted, which in itself is interesting since the waiver committee might have elected to stay within the scope of existing precedent and turned down the waiver that the AAC requested while pointing them in the direction of asking for a waiver to allow incomplete divisional round robins and division champions in an CCG.

So some might see that as a signal of a further softening of opposition to the kind of CCG deregulation that the ACC would like to see (and which the Big Ten's proposal in favor of the needs of the Big12 was designed to forestall).

IIRC, the AAC waiver was granted for two years ... someone following it more closely can confirm or deny whether that is correct.

(03-01-2020 12:19 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  All realignmentologists should be watching what happens with the AAC very closely. If the NCAA decides to permit them to permanently host a CCG without divisions then that opens it up for everyone else too.

This means 14 or 16 no longer become caps for what’s a reasonable conference. The Big Ten and SEC will be able to add at will.

I could see the SEC getting the Texlahoma 4 and the Big Ten in turn trying to take advantage of discontent in the PAC 12 to lure some CA schools, and maybe ND, into the fold.

I think this outcome would be likely should the SEC move to 18 out of the Big 12, but only if the ACC schools in the light of an expanding Big 10 and SEC opted to stay together rather than pursue their own best options. When you get to revenue gaps of 30 million or more per year (which is 300 million over a 10 year period) you will find many schools which could opt to make a jump.

(03-01-2020 11:47 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-01-2020 10:13 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-01-2020 09:22 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-01-2020 08:57 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-01-2020 08:37 AM)XLance Wrote:  Will a conference of 18 with three divisions be acceptable to the NCAA. If not, and a rule has to be changed, it will never pass. The B1G will not allow the SEC to walk away with all of the prizes of the Big 12 and with no clear path to expand to 18 itself.

The simplest way to incorporate the cream of the Big 12 into the SEC west would be to shift the two most expendable SEC east schools (Vanderbilt and South Carolina) into the ACC to create two 16 team leagues for ESPN.
Don't want to give up a private? Kentucky and South Carolina would work, or Kentucky and Vanderbilt if the SEC were truly interested in the State of South Carolina.

This works for ESPN on multiple levels, here are a few:
West Virginia added to the AAC adds good football in the east and basketball gravitas to a league that needs it.
The ESPN leagues are able to absorb the majority of the Big 12 value in a slick move that is politically acceptable to the NCAA while at the same time handcuffing the PAC and B1G's future moves.
It strengthens all three of ESPN's current conference holdings without any new expenditures.

American
Temple, West Virginia, Cincinnati, Navy, East Carolina, UCF
USF, Memphis, Tulane, Houston, SMU, Tulsa

ACC
Boston College, Syracuse, Vanderbilt, Duke, Carolina, Georgia Tech, Miami, UVa
Louisville, Pitt, Florida State, Clemson, South Carolina, Wake Forest, NC State, Va Tech

SEC
Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Auburn, Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi State, LSU
Ole Miss, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Texas Tech

I don't think the three divisions is the issue, the conference semifinals probably would be. There's nothing wrong with 3 divisions of 6 and having the best two teams make the championship game. Having semifinals and playing potentially a 14 game season, either extending an extra week or removing the bye week/starting a week earlier is a whole different beast and if the Big Ten, Pac 12, and ACC could stop it they will.

As for ESPN shifting SEC teams to the ACC, it works great for them and I'd love if Kentucky joins the ACC for men's basketball but what's in it for UK and the other team that gets moved? Wouldn't they lose a ton of money then? The SEC would essentially have to expel the members. If ESPN doesn't want 18 teams in the SEC, they should just get the SEC to not add Texas Tech and Kansas and if Texas won't move without Texas Tech they can enjoy a lesser payout in the Big 12 (or the Pac-12 could be desperate enough to take them).

https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/artic...-able-hold

Football Bowl Subdivision conferences with fewer than 12 members will be able to hold a conference championship football game in addition to the allowed 12 regular-season games, the Division I Council decided Wednesday, and such conferences will have two ways to meet scheduling requirements.

Under current rules, FBS conferences must have at least 12 members, and championship games must be between the winners of two divisions within the conference. Each division must play a round-robin schedule during the regular season in order to hold a championship game.

The rule was put in place to accommodate the Big 12 Championship Game because it obviously works for them. I'm surprised the Big Ten proposed it, the rule clearly only works for a conference of 10 or fewer and not only doesn't help the Big Ten but helps one of their biggest competitors. They could have easily not said anything or denied the Big 12's request for a conference championship and could you imagine where the Big 12 would be in the revenue pecking order without it? But the AAC is playing eight game schedules in 2020 and the top two teams are playing in the conference championship game so they aren't following the rules.

Delany has proposed eliminating divisions before in the Big Ten, it wouldn't surprise me if soon the NCAA eliminated the division requirement for conference championship games. Once conferences get to 16, if the SEC stays at an 8 game conference schedule teams can only play one team in the opposite division. That means they'd have to get rid of permanent rivals and teams can only play each other twice every 14 years! I guess they can do rotating quads but that's still not much better. The idea of no divisions works better for almost everyone.

You did read the part about two divisions didn't you?

Does the rule say the two divisions must be the only two divisions or does it say just two divisions from the conference? The top two division champions out of three divisions would still work.

(03-01-2020 12:22 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-01-2020 08:37 AM)XLance Wrote:  Will a conference of 18 with three divisions be acceptable to the NCAA. If not, and a rule has to be changed, it will never pass. The B1G will not allow the SEC to walk away with all of the prizes of the Big 12 and with no clear path to expand to 18 itself.

The simplest way to incorporate the cream of the Big 12 into the SEC west would be to shift the two most expendable SEC east schools (Vanderbilt and South Carolina) into the ACC to create two 16 team leagues for ESPN.
Don't want to give up a private? Kentucky and South Carolina would work, or Kentucky and Vanderbilt if the SEC were truly interested in the State of South Carolina.

This works for ESPN on multiple levels, here are a few:
West Virginia added to the AAC adds good football in the east and basketball gravitas to a league that needs it.
The ESPN leagues are able to absorb the majority of the Big 12 value in a slick move that is politically acceptable to the NCAA while at the same time handcuffing the PAC and B1G's future moves.
It strengthens all three of ESPN's current conference holdings without any new expenditures.

American
Temple, West Virginia, Cincinnati, Navy, East Carolina, UCF
USF, Memphis, Tulane, Houston, SMU, Tulsa

ACC
Boston College, Syracuse, Vanderbilt, Duke, Carolina, Georgia Tech, Miami, UVa
Louisville, Pitt, Florida State, Clemson, South Carolina, Wake Forest, NC State, Va Tech

SEC
Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Auburn, Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi State, LSU
Ole Miss, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Texas Tech

LOL.

If ESPN really controls everything themselves, as you suggest, then they could just move Clemson into the SEC, cancel their contract with the ACC due to Clemson’s departure, and save a whole lot of money!

Back at you.
ESPN is contractually obligated to pay the ACC ever increasing amounts of money until the end of the 2036-37 season.
Why do you believe ESPN would devalue the ACC while they were obligated to continue to pay them?
That's one of the stupidest things ever posted.

(02-28-2020 07:54 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Traditionally Texas has enjoyed using their conference games against in state opponents to get exposure throughout the state and connect with their fanbase where they lived, as opposed to their fans always going to them in Austin.

Maybe that stance and strategy has changed some over the years but that’s always been part of their brand, home field advantage no matter where in the state they play as the burnt orange faithful pour into opposing venues.

Muskie how many football games in Texas have you attended in person? You gotta love it when posters far removed from the State of Texas try to explain the situation to those that have lived in Texas for many years.

When Texas was in the SWC they had no choice, but to play most of their games in Texas....that is one reason they wanted out of the SWC. Texas did not want to continue playing the private schools in the SWC.

The plan was for ONLY Texas and A&M to join the Big8. So how many games would that leave UT playing in Texas? The answer is....TWO. No where near 8 games. However, Texas would have likely continued to schedule Texas Tech out of conference.

That is the model they desired. However, Governor Richards (a Baylor grad) and the LT. Governor Bob Bullock (a Tech grad) wanted Baylor and Tech included. The LT. Governor controlled the educational funding purse strings. So both schools were added to the plan.

So this idea that Texas wants a business model that includes playing 8 games in the State is nonsense.

(03-01-2020 02:43 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(03-01-2020 11:47 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-01-2020 10:13 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-01-2020 09:22 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-01-2020 08:57 AM)schmolik Wrote:  I don't think the three divisions is the issue, the conference semifinals probably would be. There's nothing wrong with 3 divisions of 6 and having the best two teams make the championship game. Having semifinals and playing potentially a 14 game season, either extending an extra week or removing the bye week/starting a week earlier is a whole different beast and if the Big Ten, Pac 12, and ACC could stop it they will.

As for ESPN shifting SEC teams to the ACC, it works great for them and I'd love if Kentucky joins the ACC for men's basketball but what's in it for UK and the other team that gets moved? Wouldn't they lose a ton of money then? The SEC would essentially have to expel the members. If ESPN doesn't want 18 teams in the SEC, they should just get the SEC to not add Texas Tech and Kansas and if Texas won't move without Texas Tech they can enjoy a lesser payout in the Big 12 (or the Pac-12 could be desperate enough to take them).

https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/artic...-able-hold

Football Bowl Subdivision conferences with fewer than 12 members will be able to hold a conference championship football game in addition to the allowed 12 regular-season games, the Division I Council decided Wednesday, and such conferences will have two ways to meet scheduling requirements.

Under current rules, FBS conferences must have at least 12 members, and championship games must be between the winners of two divisions within the conference. Each division must play a round-robin schedule during the regular season in order to hold a championship game.

The rule was put in place to accommodate the Big 12 Championship Game because it obviously works for them. I'm surprised the Big Ten proposed it, the rule clearly only works for a conference of 10 or fewer and not only doesn't help the Big Ten but helps one of their biggest competitors. They could have easily not said anything or denied the Big 12's request for a conference championship and could you imagine where the Big 12 would be in the revenue pecking order without it? But the AAC is playing eight game schedules in 2020 and the top two teams are playing in the conference championship game so they aren't following the rules.

Delany has proposed eliminating divisions before in the Big Ten, it wouldn't surprise me if soon the NCAA eliminated the division requirement for conference championship games. Once conferences get to 16, if the SEC stays at an 8 game conference schedule teams can only play one team in the opposite division. That means they'd have to get rid of permanent rivals and teams can only play each other twice every 14 years! I guess they can do rotating quads but that's still not much better. The idea of no divisions works better for almost everyone.

You did read the part about two divisions didn't you?

Does the rule say the two divisions must be the only two divisions or does it say just two divisions from the conference? The top two division champions out of three divisions would still work.

I doubt the rules in place mean much, the rules can be changed or waivers can be granted. I would say the conferences will allow anything that is in their best interests and the only thing not in their best interests is "conference semifinals".

(03-01-2020 02:55 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-01-2020 02:43 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(03-01-2020 11:47 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-01-2020 10:13 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-01-2020 09:22 AM)XLance Wrote:  https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/artic...-able-hold

Football Bowl Subdivision conferences with fewer than 12 members will be able to hold a conference championship football game in addition to the allowed 12 regular-season games, the Division I Council decided Wednesday, and such conferences will have two ways to meet scheduling requirements.

Under current rules, FBS conferences must have at least 12 members, and championship games must be between the winners of two divisions within the conference. Each division must play a round-robin schedule during the regular season in order to hold a championship game.

The rule was put in place to accommodate the Big 12 Championship Game because it obviously works for them. I'm surprised the Big Ten proposed it, the rule clearly only works for a conference of 10 or fewer and not only doesn't help the Big Ten but helps one of their biggest competitors. They could have easily not said anything or denied the Big 12's request for a conference championship and could you imagine where the Big 12 would be in the revenue pecking order without it? But the AAC is playing eight game schedules in 2020 and the top two teams are playing in the conference championship game so they aren't following the rules.

Delany has proposed eliminating divisions before in the Big Ten, it wouldn't surprise me if soon the NCAA eliminated the division requirement for conference championship games. Once conferences get to 16, if the SEC stays at an 8 game conference schedule teams can only play one team in the opposite division. That means they'd have to get rid of permanent rivals and teams can only play each other twice every 14 years! I guess they can do rotating quads but that's still not much better. The idea of no divisions works better for almost everyone.

You did read the part about two divisions didn't you?

Does the rule say the two divisions must be the only two divisions or does it say just two divisions from the conference? The top two division champions out of three divisions would still work.

I doubt the rules in place mean much, the rules can be changed or waivers can be granted. I would say the conferences will allow anything that is in their best interests and the only thing not in their best interests is "conference semifinals".

Right. My point was that the rule as he described doesn't limit the conferences as he said it did. As he described the rule, 3 divisions would still be fine.

(03-01-2020 02:43 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(03-01-2020 11:47 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-01-2020 10:13 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-01-2020 09:22 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-01-2020 08:57 AM)schmolik Wrote:  I don't think the three divisions is the issue, the conference semifinals probably would be. There's nothing wrong with 3 divisions of 6 and having the best two teams make the championship game. Having semifinals and playing potentially a 14 game season, either extending an extra week or removing the bye week/starting a week earlier is a whole different beast and if the Big Ten, Pac 12, and ACC could stop it they will.

As for ESPN shifting SEC teams to the ACC, it works great for them and I'd love if Kentucky joins the ACC for men's basketball but what's in it for UK and the other team that gets moved? Wouldn't they lose a ton of money then? The SEC would essentially have to expel the members. If ESPN doesn't want 18 teams in the SEC, they should just get the SEC to not add Texas Tech and Kansas and if Texas won't move without Texas Tech they can enjoy a lesser payout in the Big 12 (or the Pac-12 could be desperate enough to take them).

https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/artic...-able-hold

Football Bowl Subdivision conferences with fewer than 12 members will be able to hold a conference championship football game in addition to the allowed 12 regular-season games, the Division I Council decided Wednesday, and such conferences will have two ways to meet scheduling requirements.

Under current rules, FBS conferences must have at least 12 members, and championship games must be between the winners of two divisions within the conference. Each division must play a round-robin schedule during the regular season in order to hold a championship game.

The rule was put in place to accommodate the Big 12 Championship Game because it obviously works for them. I'm surprised the Big Ten proposed it, the rule clearly only works for a conference of 10 or fewer and not only doesn't help the Big Ten but helps one of their biggest competitors. They could have easily not said anything or denied the Big 12's request for a conference championship and could you imagine where the Big 12 would be in the revenue pecking order without it? But the AAC is playing eight game schedules in 2020 and the top two teams are playing in the conference championship game so they aren't following the rules.

Delany has proposed eliminating divisions before in the Big Ten, it wouldn't surprise me if soon the NCAA eliminated the division requirement for conference championship games. Once conferences get to 16, if the SEC stays at an 8 game conference schedule teams can only play one team in the opposite division. That means they'd have to get rid of permanent rivals and teams can only play each other twice every 14 years! I guess they can do rotating quads but that's still not much better. The idea of no divisions works better for almost everyone.

You did read the part about two divisions didn't you?

Does the rule say the two divisions must be the only two divisions or does it say just two divisions from the conference? The top two division champions out of three divisions would still work.

If we have further consolidation into 4 or fewer conferences the 2 division requirement will go away by virtue of the desires of those expanding. To date nothing has been denied to the SEC and Big 10 when together they have wanted it. I don't see that changing now.

And here's the thing. Whether the Big 10 or SEC expands out of the Big 12 and either takes all of the main prizes, what that means is limited slots for expansion to the East. If the SEC for instance did take Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas and another from the Big 12, there is no reason to assume that for 30 million more a year early movement from the ACC couldn't be accomplished by the Big 10 offering Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, and Notre Dame.

Were that to happen there would literally be nobody left that they could possibly profit by taking.

What would then result is a new conference arising out of the remnant. The pursuit of schools from the PAC would not be profitable for the Big 10 in terms of membership, but a scheduling alliance would further enhance their value.

The markets of North Carolina and Virginia would be relatively close to approximating the value of Texas, Notre Dame slightly better than the value of Oklahoma, and I would think that brand wise for hoops Kansas and Duke would be a wash. Whoever the SEC picked up as the 4th whether it was Iowa State which would give them 3 AAU adds as well, or Tech which has Tier 2 value, wouldn't add enough value to create instability.

If Clemson, Virginia Tech, Louisville, Florida State, N.C. State, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Miami, were added to Baylor, T.C.U., Oklahoma State, Kansas State, West Virginia, and one of ISU or TTU they could also add Brigham Young and Cincinnati/Houston and have not only a nice footprint, but a very competitive conference as well.

And it seems to me this would be the much more natural direction for both the SEC and Big 10 anyway. And like the Big 10 having a scheduling alliance with the PAC the SEC could have a scheduling alliance with this new conference creation and the TV value would be enough to profit both.

SEC:
Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech
Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Big 10:
Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Penn State, Virginia
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, Rutgers
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

New B12/ACC:
Cincinnati, Iowa State, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, N.C. State, Virginia Tech
Baylor, Brigham Young, Houston, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, T.C.U.

(03-01-2020 02:50 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(02-28-2020 07:54 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Traditionally Texas has enjoyed using their conference games against in state opponents to get exposure throughout the state and connect with their fanbase where they lived, as opposed to their fans always going to them in Austin.

Maybe that stance and strategy has changed some over the years but that’s always been part of their brand, home field advantage no matter where in the state they play as the burnt orange faithful pour into opposing venues.

Muskie how many football games in Texas have you attended in person? You gotta love it when posters far removed from the State of Texas try to explain the situation to those that have lived in Texas for many years.

When Texas was in the SWC they had no choice, but to play most of their games in Texas....that is one reason they wanted out of the SWC. Texas did not want to continue playing the private schools in the SWC.

The plan was for ONLY Texas and A&M to join the Big8. So how many games would that leave UT playing in Texas? The answer is....TWO. No where near 8 games. However, Texas would have likely continued to schedule Texas Tech out of conference.

That is the model they desired. However, Governor Richards (a Baylor grad) and the LT. Governor Bob Bullock (a Tech grad) wanted Baylor and Tech included. The LT. Governor controlled the educational funding purse strings. So both schools were added to the plan.

So this idea that Texas wants a business model that includes playing 8 games in the State is nonsense.

I’m going off what they’ve done historically—you don’t need to go to a football game to use Wikipedia.

Texas has played away games against Rice at NRG. So you’re telling me that game wasn’t scheduled to get exposure in the Houston area?

History and the facts say Texas enjoys playing football games in Texas.

(03-01-2020 03:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  SEC:
Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech
Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Big 10:
Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Penn State, Virginia
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, Rutgers
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

New B12/ACC:
Cincinnati, Iowa State, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, N.C. State, Virginia Tech
Baylor, Brigham Young, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, T.C.U.

You have Texas Tech in both the SEC and B12/ACC.

I'm sure Ohio State and Michigan won't want Rutgers in their division unless they want a free win every year and Indiana and Purdue accomplish those goals. Notre Dame would make the most geographical sense or Penn State would keep the old goals of keeping old Big Ten teams together and ACC teams together.

(03-01-2020 05:08 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-01-2020 03:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  SEC:
Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech
Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Big 10:
Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Penn State, Virginia
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, Rutgers
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

New B12/ACC:
Cincinnati, Iowa State, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, N.C. State, Virginia Tech
Baylor, Brigham Young, Houston, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, T.C.U.

You have Texas Tech in both the SEC and B12/ACC.

I'm sure Ohio State and Michigan won't want Rutgers in their division unless they want a free win every year and Indiana and Purdue accomplish those goals. Notre Dame would make the most geographical sense or Penn State would keep the old goals of keeping old Big Ten teams together and ACC teams together.

Thanks for the catch on Tech. I replaced them with Houston for now. It is a representative model designed to make the point. I certainly don't care how any of it but the SEC would be arranged. But I think you get my point. If either conference expanded with the best of the Big 12 the counter will be the best of the ACC. So no long term advantage will be gained either way, and I don't see a manageable way for expansion out of the PAC due to distance alone, let alone the fact that the lawsuits would be crazy from those left behind because there is no place else for them to go to keep P status. That's not the case with expansion involving the Big 12 and ACC.

(03-01-2020 04:46 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(03-01-2020 02:50 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(02-28-2020 07:54 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Traditionally Texas has enjoyed using their conference games against in state opponents to get exposure throughout the state and connect with their fanbase where they lived, as opposed to their fans always going to them in Austin.

Maybe that stance and strategy has changed some over the years but that’s always been part of their brand, home field advantage no matter where in the state they play as the burnt orange faithful pour into opposing venues.

Muskie how many football games in Texas have you attended in person? You gotta love it when posters far removed from the State of Texas try to explain the situation to those that have lived in Texas for many years.

When Texas was in the SWC they had no choice, but to play most of their games in Texas....that is one reason they wanted out of the SWC. Texas did not want to continue playing the private schools in the SWC.

The plan was for ONLY Texas and A&M to join the Big8. So how many games would that leave UT playing in Texas? The answer is....TWO. No where near 8 games. However, Texas would have likely continued to schedule Texas Tech out of conference.

That is the model they desired. However, Governor Richards (a Baylor grad) and the LT. Governor Bob Bullock (a Tech grad) wanted Baylor and Tech included. The LT. Governor controlled the educational funding purse strings. So both schools were added to the plan.

So this idea that Texas wants a business model that includes playing 8 games in the State is nonsense.

I’m going off what they’ve done historically—you don’t need to go to a football game to use Wikipedia.

Texas has played away games against Rice at NRG. So you’re telling me that game wasn’t scheduled to get exposure in the Houston area?

History and the facts say Texas enjoys playing football games in Texas.

Yeah, they played a game at NRG several years ago and does Wikipedia tell you how that game turned out for Texas fans?

It is no wonder Texas has not scheduled another game there. How many times have they played there since Texas left the SWC? That should tell you something.