(06-03-2020 12:55 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 11:50 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  ESPN dumped the Big East back in the day and they will dump anyone else they find does not meet their expectations...

Yes, but they only did that because only 5 of the 8 Big East FB teams (WVa, Louisville, Syracuse, Pitt, and Rutgers) were jumping ship. The Big East was extremely vulnerable because they were a pitifully small conference, with only 8 teams at the time, and none of the original Big East members would have remained.

What we're talking about here is different - - The Big 12, with 10 members would be able to rebuild much more easily with a core of 6 teams, including four original (1997) members.

Moreover, the situation today is entirely different. There was no Power 5 when the Big East was dissolved, so ESPN didn't dump an official power conference - - they simply elected not to take the steps necessary to elevate the fragmented Big East/AAC to the status of a power conference.

In the case of the Big 12, since it is a power conference, there is no precedent for disempowering a power conference.

Sure, ESPN could let CBS/Fox pick up the rights to broadcast Big 12 games, but ESPN would not have the wherewithal or the right or the authority to take away the power conference status of the Big 12.

Obviously, if the Big 12 were to completely fragment, with no original teams remaining, it's possible that they could go out of existence, but if they reload with current or former power level schools, they will go on as the Big 12 conference and will continue to be an autonomous/power conference - - even if their broadcasting revenue is cut in half.

So the two situations are like apples and oranges. The dissolution of the Big East FB conference has no bearing on what would happen if the Big 12 were to lose 4 schools by 2026.

I think this is wrong on a couple of critical counts.

First, regarding the size of the Big East as of the time of the CFP deal in November 2012, the Big East was actually a larger football conference as of that time than it was before the raids. It had lost six football-playing schools to the 2011-2012 raids, but had added 8. So as of the time the CFP deal was being negotiated, it was a larger football conference than it had been.

Second, and far more critically, you are mistaken in this:

"Moreover, the situation today is entirely different. There was no Power 5 when the Big East was dissolved, so ESPN didn't dump an official power conference - - they simply elected not to take the steps necessary to elevate the fragmented Big East/AAC to the status of a power conference.

In the case of the Big 12, since it is a power conference, there is no precedent for disempowering a power conference."

While there was no Power 5 during the CFP negotiations, there were six "AQ" conferences, which meant essentially the same thing under the BCS regime that "Power" conference means today under the CFP - the AQ conference champs were automatically included in a Major bowl, and they received the lion's share of the BCS bowl revenue. And, just as in the eyes of fans and the media P5/G5 is the distinction that separates the top conferences from the lesser conferences in the CFP regime, AQ/non-AQ was the dividing line that did the same during the BCS era.

And in the BCS, the Big East was an AQ conference. They had the same contractual status in the BCS as did the PAC, SEC, etc. So when the CFP deal was negotiated, had the Big East been included as a Power conference, this would not have been an "elevation" of their status compared to the BCS, rather it would have been just a continuation of their status as one of the ruling elite conferences, just as it was for the SEC and B1G. So their relegation to the ranks of the G5 was indeed a case of ESPN (and the other AQ conferences) "dumping" the Big East to a non-power level**.

I think it pretty obvious that the same would happen to any version of the Big 12 that didn't have Texas and Oklahoma: They would lose their "Power" status within whatever playoff configuration that is enacted in 2025, whether a renewal of the CFP or some other system. They would no longer have a guaranteed spot in a Contract Bowl, would not get the Power conference cut of playoff revenue. They would be relegated to "G" status within this contract. They very well could remain an "autonomy" conference, as NCAA bylaws are a totally separate thing, but that would make no difference in terms of the perception of their status in the eyes of media and the public, which is determined by media contract size and contractual position in the CFP. We know this because the P5/G5 distinction was well-established in everyone's mind before the NCAA granted the Power conferences the autonomy in August 2014, a year and a half after the CFP deal was reached.

Maybe it bears mentioning, but I think the next round of realignment, which I think will happen with significance to the Big XII, AAC, and the MWC is going to force schools to really consider who it does business with as conference mates. A spot at the majors table is one thing. After other shifts, who do you most want to be around?

I suspect the AAC is most likely the conference who will be victimized in a Big XII restructure. Since it seems that nobody is dying to replace UConn, what does that say for the future? Were the MWC to lose just one school, is an AAC school now an option, like Tulsa? SMU if Houston leaves?

(06-03-2020 07:14 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Maybe it bears mentioning, but I think the next round of realignment, which I think will happen with significance to the Big XII, AAC, and the MWC is going to force schools to really consider who it does business with as conference mates. A spot at the majors table is one thing. After other shifts, who do you most want to be around?

I suspect the AAC is most likely the conference who will be victimized in a Big XII restructure. Since it seems that nobody is dying to replace UConn, what does that say for the future? Were the MWC to lose just one school, is an AAC school now an option, like Tulsa? SMU if Houston leaves?

Over on the AAC board, there is a clear consensus that quite a few schools are "dying" (sort of) to replace UConn.

The problem isn't a lack of schools wanting to join. For example, there has been a strong lobbying campaign by App State fans on the AAC message boards. There are probably at least 10 or 15 schools that would like to join the AAC. After all, they could boost their conference revenues by $4, $5, or $6 million per year by doing so.

The problem, it seems, is that the AAC Presidents have a very short list of schools they would accept (BYU, Army, maybe Air Force), but that none of them are interested in joining the AAC. Stalemate.

(06-03-2020 07:20 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 07:14 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Maybe it bears mentioning, but I think the next round of realignment, which I think will happen with significance to the Big XII, AAC, and the MWC is going to force schools to really consider who it does business with as conference mates. A spot at the majors table is one thing. After other shifts, who do you most want to be around?

I suspect the AAC is most likely the conference who will be victimized in a Big XII restructure. Since it seems that nobody is dying to replace UConn, what does that say for the future? Were the MWC to lose just one school, is an AAC school now an option, like Tulsa? SMU if Houston leaves?

Over on the AAC board, there is a clear consensus that quite a few schools are "dying" (sort of) to replace UConn.

The problem isn't a lack of schools wanting to join. For example, there has been a strong lobbying campaign by App State fans on the AAC message boards. There are probably at least 10 or 15 schools that would like to join the AAC. After all, they could boost their conference revenues by $4, $5, or $6 million per year by doing so.

The problem, it seems, is that the AAC Presidents have a very short list of schools they would accept (BYU, Army, maybe Air Force), but that none of them are interested in joining the AAC. Stalemate.

Yes, basically any school in CUSA, the MAC, or Sun Belt would be glad to join the AAC. But the AAC doesn't want them.

That's the "stalemate" as you call it: Apparently, every school the AAC would want to join isn't interested in joining, while every school that is interested in joining the AAC the AAC has no interest in.

Personally, as a USF fan, I am fine with the AAC standing pat right now.

(06-03-2020 06:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I think it pretty obvious that the same would happen to any version of the Big 12 that didn't have Texas and Oklahoma: They would lose their "Power" status within whatever playoff configuration that is enacted in 2025...

I'm not so certain, really. The AQ Big East didn't have a program at the level of Texas or Oklahoma. If you compare the top of the leagues:

WVU--------WVU
Louisville----TCU
Syracuse----Baylor
Pitt----------Oklahoma St.
Cincinnati---Texas Tech (or the BXII could very well invite Cincinnati)

If the Big XII refills with BYU (already considered a power opponent on P6 schedules) and Houston, I think they have a good chance at retaining AQ, or at least some sort of AQ tie-in if they finish above a certain ranking. I do think they lose the Sugar Bowl—which would become a marquee at-large vs. SEC spot—but secure a tie-in with the Fiesta, or possibly the Peach.

What would be interesting is referring to Big XII as a power conference for basketball, but not football.

In any event, I see no reason for Texas to leave the Big XII.

(06-03-2020 07:30 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 06:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I think it pretty obvious that the same would happen to any version of the Big 12 that didn't have Texas and Oklahoma: They would lose their "Power" status within whatever playoff configuration that is enacted in 2025...

In any event, I see no reason for Texas to leave the Big XII.

I agree, I think UT/ou stays put in the Big12 and the conference expands eventually

(06-03-2020 07:20 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 07:14 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Maybe it bears mentioning, but I think the next round of realignment, which I think will happen with significance to the Big XII, AAC, and the MWC is going to force schools to really consider who it does business with as conference mates. A spot at the majors table is one thing. After other shifts, who do you most want to be around?

I suspect the AAC is most likely the conference who will be victimized in a Big XII restructure. Since it seems that nobody is dying to replace UConn, what does that say for the future? Were the MWC to lose just one school, is an AAC school now an option, like Tulsa? SMU if Houston leaves?

Over on the AAC board, there is a clear consensus that quite a few schools are "dying" (sort of) to replace UConn.

The problem isn't a lack of schools wanting to join. For example, there has been a strong lobbying campaign by App State fans on the AAC message boards. There are probably at least 10 or 15 schools that would like to join the AAC. After all, they could boost their conference revenues by $4, $5, or $6 million per year by doing so.

The problem, it seems, is that the AAC Presidents have a very short list of schools they would accept (BYU, Army, maybe Air Force), but that none of them are interested in joining the AAC. Stalemate.

I think there’s a clear consensus that YOU’RE the only one “dying” to replace UConn. You keep talking about us adding C-USA and Sun Belt schools that none of us want but you. Most of us would rather stay put if we can’t add a MWC school or BYU/Army.

(06-03-2020 10:26 AM)BraveKnight Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 07:20 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 07:14 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Maybe it bears mentioning, but I think the next round of realignment, which I think will happen with significance to the Big XII, AAC, and the MWC is going to force schools to really consider who it does business with as conference mates. A spot at the majors table is one thing. After other shifts, who do you most want to be around?

I suspect the AAC is most likely the conference who will be victimized in a Big XII restructure. Since it seems that nobody is dying to replace UConn, what does that say for the future? Were the MWC to lose just one school, is an AAC school now an option, like Tulsa? SMU if Houston leaves?

Over on the AAC board, there is a clear consensus that quite a few schools are "dying" (sort of) to replace UConn.

The problem isn't a lack of schools wanting to join. For example, there has been a strong lobbying campaign by App State fans on the AAC message boards. There are probably at least 10 or 15 schools that would like to join the AAC. After all, they could boost their conference revenues by $4, $5, or $6 million per year by doing so.

The problem, it seems, is that the AAC Presidents have a very short list of schools they would accept (BYU, Army, maybe Air Force), but that none of them are interested in joining the AAC. Stalemate.

I think there’s a clear consensus that YOU’RE the only one “dying” to replace UConn. You keep talking about us adding C-USA and Sun Belt schools that none of us want but you. Most of us would rather stay put if we can’t add a MWC school or BYU/Army.

Bingo. And when he got called out on it he acted offended.

(06-03-2020 07:30 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 06:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I think it pretty obvious that the same would happen to any version of the Big 12 that didn't have Texas and Oklahoma: They would lose their "Power" status within whatever playoff configuration that is enacted in 2025...

I'm not so certain, really. The AQ Big East didn't have a program at the level of Texas or Oklahoma. If you compare the top of the leagues:

WVU--------WVU
Louisville----TCU
Syracuse----Baylor
Pitt----------Oklahoma St.
Cincinnati---Texas Tech (or the BXII could very well invite Cincinnati)

If the Big XII refills with BYU (already considered a power opponent on P6 schedules) and Houston, I think they have a good chance at retaining AQ, or at least some sort of AQ tie-in if they finish above a certain ranking. I do think they lose the Sugar Bowl—which would become a marquee at-large vs. SEC spot—but secure a tie-in with the Fiesta, or possibly the Peach.

Difference was, the Big East gained AQ status when they had programs like VT, Boston College, and most importantly, Miami. When those schools were stolen away by the first ACC raid wave in 2003-2004, the remaining Big East that backfilled with USF, Louisville, and Cincy retained AQ status in the BCS because it would have been legally messy to strip them. The Big East was a party to the BCS contract. From 2005 on, the other AQ conferences were itching to dump the Big East from AQ, but they couldn't do it.

Likewise, if Texas and Oklahoma leave the Big 12 next year, 2021, I have no doubt that the remnant Big 12 would remain a P5 league within the CFP until the CFP expires in 2025. It would be breach of contract to try and boot them. But I don't see any way that rump Big 12, no matter who it adds - Cincy, Houston, UCF, USF, Memphis, BYU, whoever - could possibly remain a "P" league in the next iteration of the CFP once the contract expires.

Like you though, I don't think we will ever know for sure, because I don't expect Texas or Oklahoma to leave the Big 12.

(06-03-2020 11:12 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 10:26 AM)BraveKnight Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 07:20 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 07:14 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Maybe it bears mentioning, but I think the next round of realignment, which I think will happen with significance to the Big XII, AAC, and the MWC is going to force schools to really consider who it does business with as conference mates. A spot at the majors table is one thing. After other shifts, who do you most want to be around?

I suspect the AAC is most likely the conference who will be victimized in a Big XII restructure. Since it seems that nobody is dying to replace UConn, what does that say for the future? Were the MWC to lose just one school, is an AAC school now an option, like Tulsa? SMU if Houston leaves?

Over on the AAC board, there is a clear consensus that quite a few schools are "dying" (sort of) to replace UConn.

The problem isn't a lack of schools wanting to join. For example, there has been a strong lobbying campaign by App State fans on the AAC message boards. There are probably at least 10 or 15 schools that would like to join the AAC. After all, they could boost their conference revenues by $4, $5, or $6 million per year by doing so.

The problem, it seems, is that the AAC Presidents have a very short list of schools they would accept (BYU, Army, maybe Air Force), but that none of them are interested in joining the AAC. Stalemate.

I think there’s a clear consensus that YOU’RE the only one “dying” to replace UConn. You keep talking about us adding C-USA and Sun Belt schools that none of us want but you. Most of us would rather stay put if we can’t add a MWC school or BYU/Army.

Bingo. And when he got called out on it he acted offended.

Yeah, it’s not even fair to say it’s a stalemate when the list is that small. I have a tough time believing that even if UConn wasn’t going anywhere, if BYU came to you and said “we want in,” you’d make the space for them. Same for Army, AFA, and some MWC schools.

You either want to expand or not. And this isn’t even expansion, it’s a replacement. And it seems the AAC may push the NCAA on the waive for status quo. So, no urgency given who is really available.

(06-03-2020 01:25 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 11:50 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  ...it is precedent that if you lose enough the power schools will kick you out...

That's not correct. There is no precedent of a power conference or a group of power schools ever kicking multiple schools out of a power conference.

The only examples that can be referred to are very different from what would happen if the Big 12 remnants were to reload with 4 or 6 power quality and former power conference schools (e.g., Cincy, Houston, SMU, USF).

Example #1: The implosion of the Big East in 2012 and 2013

When the Big East fell apart, no schools were kicked out. Instead, five of the eight Big East schools in 2011 departed (to the ACC, Big Ten, and Big 12 conferences) before the 2014 FB season began.

Example #2: The implosion of the SWC in 1996-1997.

When the old Southwest Conference (SWC) fell apart, no schools were kicked out. Instead, four (Texas, Baylor, Texas A&M, and Texas Tech) of the eight SWC schools switched to the Big 12 conference before the 1997 FB season began.

The one thing that these two cases have in common is that they were both very vulnerable to implosion, because each conference only had eight member schools. They both might have been able to reload and carry on as power quality conferences if they had a remaining core of 6, rather than only 3 or 4 schools. With a remaining core of 6 schools, the Big 12 remnants would be much more likely to reload and carry on as a power conference.

3. Example #3: The Southern Conference & the formation of the SEC in 1933:

In 1933, twelve of the original members of the original Southern Conference split off to form the SEC. No Southern Conference members were kicked out. Eight of them (Clemson, UNC, NC State, Maryland, South Carolina, Duke, Wake Forest, and UVa) left the Southern Conference to form the ACC in 1953.

With the Southern Conference in 1933 (SEC) and 1953 (ACC) the schools leaving effectively kicked out the remainder. Same for the Pac in 1960. 5 left the other 4 behind. Eventually all but Idaho were invited "back." Same for the Big 8 (who claimed the MVC history) leaving the MVC in 1928 with 6 schools leaving 4 behind.
While the WAC wasn't a power conference, that is what happened with the MWC in 1998. Same for the formation of the CUSA in 1996-they "kicked out" the basketball schools from the Metro Conference, VCU, ODU and UNCC.

(06-03-2020 12:19 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 07:30 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 06:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I think it pretty obvious that the same would happen to any version of the Big 12 that didn't have Texas and Oklahoma: They would lose their "Power" status within whatever playoff configuration that is enacted in 2025...

I'm not so certain, really. The AQ Big East didn't have a program at the level of Texas or Oklahoma. If you compare the top of the leagues:

WVU--------WVU
Louisville----TCU
Syracuse----Baylor
Pitt----------Oklahoma St.
Cincinnati---Texas Tech (or the BXII could very well invite Cincinnati)

If the Big XII refills with BYU (already considered a power opponent on P6 schedules) and Houston, I think they have a good chance at retaining AQ, or at least some sort of AQ tie-in if they finish above a certain ranking. I do think they lose the Sugar Bowl—which would become a marquee at-large vs. SEC spot—but secure a tie-in with the Fiesta, or possibly the Peach.

Difference was, the Big East gained AQ status when they had programs like VT, Boston College, and most importantly, Miami. When those schools were stolen away by the first ACC raid wave in 2003-2004, the remaining Big East that backfilled with USF, Louisville, and Cincy retained AQ status in the BCS because it would have been legally messy to strip them. The Big East was a party to the BCS contract. From 2005 on, the other AQ conferences were itching to dump the Big East from AQ, but they couldn't do it.

Likewise, if Texas and Oklahoma leave the Big 12 next year, 2021, I have no doubt that the remnant Big 12 would remain a P5 league within the CFP until the CFP expires in 2025. It would be breach of contract to try and boot them. But I don't see any way that rump Big 12, no matter who it adds - Cincy, Houston, UCF, USF, Memphis, BYU, whoever - could possibly remain a "P" league in the next iteration of the CFP once the contract expires.

Like you though, I don't think we will ever know for sure, because I don't expect Texas or Oklahoma to leave the Big 12.

Sorry, stopped at “stolen away”.

(06-03-2020 10:26 AM)BraveKnight Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 07:20 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 07:14 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Maybe it bears mentioning, but I think the next round of realignment, which I think will happen with significance to the Big XII, AAC, and the MWC is going to force schools to really consider who it does business with as conference mates. A spot at the majors table is one thing. After other shifts, who do you most want to be around?

I suspect the AAC is most likely the conference who will be victimized in a Big XII restructure. Since it seems that nobody is dying to replace UConn, what does that say for the future? Were the MWC to lose just one school, is an AAC school now an option, like Tulsa? SMU if Houston leaves?

Over on the AAC board, there is a clear consensus that quite a few schools are "dying" (sort of) to replace UConn.

The problem isn't a lack of schools wanting to join. For example, there has been a strong lobbying campaign by App State fans on the AAC message boards. There are probably at least 10 or 15 schools that would like to join the AAC. After all, they could boost their conference revenues by $4, $5, or $6 million per year by doing so.

The problem, it seems, is that the AAC Presidents have a very short list of schools they would accept (BYU, Army, maybe Air Force), but that none of them are interested in joining the AAC. Stalemate.

You keep talking about us adding C-USA and Sun Belt schools that none of us want but you. Most of us would rather stay put if we can’t add a MWC school or BYU/Army.

That's an outright lie, and, unless you have a severe dissociative or psychotic disorder or have some kind of head injury or neurological disease, I think that you know it's a lie.

There have been many participants in the AAC message board discussions who have expressed their opinions in support of adding teams, ranging from Air Force (FB) to Boise State (FB) to App State (FB) to UAB to VCU (BB) to Dayton (BB) to St. Louis (BB) to Georgia State (FB) to SUNY-Buffalo to FAU or FIU to North Texas to Southern Mississippi to UMass to Liberty, and several others, as well.

Anyone who wants to visit the AAC message board and read through the various threads on the topic will see a wide range of opinions being expressed over there.

(06-03-2020 01:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  With the Southern Conference in 1933 (SEC) and 1953 (ACC) the schools leaving effectively kicked out the remainder.

That's an inaccurate statement, or perhaps an exaggeration. All that really happened is that 12 schools decided to form a new conference, the SEC.

They didn't "effectively kick" any schools out of the Southern Conference. Twelve schools simply up and started their own conference, that's all.

.

(06-03-2020 01:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  Same for the Pac in 1960. 5 left the other 4 behind. Eventually all but Idaho were invited "back."

That, too, seems to be inaccurate. For one thing, there was no "Pac" in 1960. There was a different organization called the "PCC." The PAC didn't come into existence until 1964.

Check this out:

"Following "pay-for-play" scandals at California, USC, UCLA, and Washington, the PCC disbanded in June 1959. Ten months earlier in August 1958, these four schools agreed to form a new conference that would take effect the following summer...

On July 1, 1959, the new Athletic Association of Western Universities was launched, with California, UCLA, USC, and Washington as the four charter members. Stanford joined during the first month. When Washington State joined in 1962, the conference became informally known as the Big Six.

Oregon and Oregon State joined in the summer of 1964. With their addition, the conference was known unofficially as the Pacific Athletic Conference, and then the Pacific-8.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pac-12_Con...#Pacific-8

.

(06-03-2020 01:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  Same for the Big 8 (who claimed the MVC history) leaving the MVC in 1928 with 6 schools leaving 4 behind.

Again, there was simply a split. Some schools split off from the Missouri Valley Conference and started up their own conference, which eventually became known as the Big 8 and then the Big 12:

"Formation (of the Missouri Valley Conference)

The conference was founded as the Missouri Valley Intercollegiate Athletic Association (MVIAA) at a meeting on January 12, 1907 of five charter member institutions: the University of Kansas, the University of Missouri, the University of Nebraska, Washington University in St. Louis, and the University of Iowa, which also maintained its concurrent membership in the Western Conference (now the Big Ten Conference). However, Iowa only participated in football and outdoor men's track and field for a brief period before leaving the conference in 1911.[5]
Early membership changes

In 1908, Drake University and Iowa Agricultural College (now Iowa State University) joined the MVIAA, increasing the conferences membership to seven. Iowa, which was a joint member departed the conference in 1911 to return to sole competition in the Western Conference, but Kansas State University joined the conference in 1913. Nebraska left in 1918 to play as an independent for two seasons before returning in 1920. In 1919, the University of Oklahoma and Saint Louis University applied for membership, but were not approved due to deficient management of their athletic programs.[6] The conference then added Grinnell College in 1919, with the University of Oklahoma applying again and being approved in 1920. Oklahoma A&M University (now Oklahoma State University) joined in 1925, bringing conference membership to ten, an all-time high.[7]
Conference split

At a meeting in Lincoln, Nebraska, on May 19, 1928, the conference split up. Six of the seven state schools (all except Oklahoma A&M) formed a conference that was initially known as the Big Six Conference.[2] Just before the start of fall practice, the six schools announced they would retain the MVIAA name for formal purposes. However, fans and media continued to call it the Big Six. The three private schools – Drake, Grinnell, and Washington University – joined with Oklahoma A&M to form the Missouri Valley Conference (MVC).[8] The old MVIAA's administrative staff transferred to the MVC.

The similarity of the two conferences' official names, as well as the competing claims of the two conferences, led to considerable debate over which conference was the original and which was the spin-off, though the MVIAA went on to become the more prestigious of the two. For the remainder of the Big Eight's run, both conferences claimed 1907 as their founding date, as well as the same history through 1927. To this day, it has never been definitively established which conference was the original. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Eight_...ip_changes


============================================

I'm trying to keep this discussion focused on the power conferences.

There may be some examples of conferences "kicking out" multiple schools in non-power conferences, but I haven't been able to find any examples of power conferences that have done so.

(06-03-2020 12:19 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Likewise, if Texas and Oklahoma leave the Big 12 next year, 2021, I have no doubt that the remnant Big 12 would remain a P5 league within the CFP until the CFP expires in 2025. It would be breach of contract to try and boot them. But I don't see any way that rump Big 12, no matter who it adds - Cincy, Houston, UCF, USF, Memphis, BYU, whoever - could possibly remain a "P" league in the next iteration of the CFP once the contract expires.

So long as the P5 remain in the NCAA, there is no system within the A5 structure to strip Autonomy status from a conference that is made up of schools that all want to continue operating under the autonomy rules.

If the P5 stay in the NCAA, the first question is whether the Big12 would retain their contract bowl status. If not, they drop down into the chase for the Access Bowl spot, while the Go6 share bumps up marginally from a 1/6th share to a 1/5th share.

If they retain their Contract Bowl status, the rest of the A4 would still be loathe to give that conference a full share. Suppose they only retain their contract bowl status by agreeing to unbalanced payments from their contract bowl? A compromise might be to establish them as an official "tweener" conference by granting them a half share.

If the P5 break away to grab pot of money drained out of the basketball tournament media, the Big12 would be well positioned to grab six schools from the AAC that make it too compelling as a basketball conference to leave behind participating in the rival NCAA tournament. If the P5+BigEast breakaway made up the numbers to support a larger tournament (for more media value which they would retain the lion's share of) by including the MWC and A10, then a half share and single Access Bowl slot for the Big12 and MWC would be a natural CFP solution. That's a 20% increase in the size of the CFP share for the remaining P4.

.

Quick note:

It is remarkable how consistent the percentages in this poll have been from very early on, when the total number of votes was only 50. The addition of 183 more votes has not altered the poll findings, substantively.

(06-03-2020 10:07 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 12:19 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Likewise, if Texas and Oklahoma leave the Big 12 next year, 2021, I have no doubt that the remnant Big 12 would remain a P5 league within the CFP until the CFP expires in 2025. It would be breach of contract to try and boot them. But I don't see any way that rump Big 12, no matter who it adds - Cincy, Houston, UCF, USF, Memphis, BYU, whoever - could possibly remain a "P" league in the next iteration of the CFP once the contract expires.

So long as the P5 remain in the NCAA, there is no system within the A5 structure to strip Autonomy status from a conference that is made up of schools that all want to continue operating under the autonomy rules.

If the P5 stay in the NCAA, the first question is whether the Big12 would retain their contract bowl status. If not, they drop down into the chase for the Access Bowl spot, while the Go6 share bumps up marginally from a 1/6th share to a 1/5th share.

If they retain their Contract Bowl status, the rest of the A4 would still be loathe to give that conference a full share. Suppose they only retain their contract bowl status by agreeing to unbalanced payments from their contract bowl? A compromise might be to establish them as an official "tweener" conference by granting them a half share.

Some Ohio State fans, such as yourself, might be "loathe to give the Big 12 a full share if they lose a couple of schools," but I doubt that most ACC or Big Ten or PAC-12 fans would agree with that statement. SEC fans, maybe...

(06-03-2020 09:36 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 10:26 AM)BraveKnight Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 07:20 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 07:14 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Maybe it bears mentioning, but I think the next round of realignment, which I think will happen with significance to the Big XII, AAC, and the MWC is going to force schools to really consider who it does business with as conference mates. A spot at the majors table is one thing. After other shifts, who do you most want to be around?

I suspect the AAC is most likely the conference who will be victimized in a Big XII restructure. Since it seems that nobody is dying to replace UConn, what does that say for the future? Were the MWC to lose just one school, is an AAC school now an option, like Tulsa? SMU if Houston leaves?

Over on the AAC board, there is a clear consensus that quite a few schools are "dying" (sort of) to replace UConn.

The problem isn't a lack of schools wanting to join. For example, there has been a strong lobbying campaign by App State fans on the AAC message boards. There are probably at least 10 or 15 schools that would like to join the AAC. After all, they could boost their conference revenues by $4, $5, or $6 million per year by doing so.

The problem, it seems, is that the AAC Presidents have a very short list of schools they would accept (BYU, Army, maybe Air Force), but that none of them are interested in joining the AAC. Stalemate.

You keep talking about us adding C-USA and Sun Belt schools that none of us want but you. Most of us would rather stay put if we can’t add a MWC school or BYU/Army.

That's an outright lie, and, unless you have a severe dissociative or psychotic disorder or have some kind of head injury or neurological disease, I think that you know it's a lie.

There have been many participants in the AAC message board discussions who have expressed their opinions in support of adding teams, ranging from Air Force (FB) to Boise State (FB) to App State (FB) to UAB to VCU (BB) to Dayton (BB) to St. Louis (BB) to Georgia State (FB) to SUNY-Buffalo to FAU or FIU to North Texas to Southern Mississippi to UMass to Liberty, and several others, as well.

Anyone who wants to visit the AAC message board and read through the various threads on the topic will see a wide range of opinions being expressed over there.

Obviously we want Air Force/Army/Boise State, I just said that, and I was talking about all sports schools. No one is seriously considering Ga State, UAB, North Texas, F_U, or any of the other G5 schools you mentioned except for you. Some people have expressed interest in Colorado State and SDSU, and a small bit wants Buffalo, but interest in any of those CUSA/Sun Belt schools is minimal.

(06-03-2020 11:08 PM)BraveKnight Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 09:36 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 10:26 AM)BraveKnight Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 07:20 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  Over on the AAC board, there is a clear consensus that quite a few schools are "dying" (sort of) to replace UConn.

The problem isn't a lack of schools wanting to join. For example, there has been a strong lobbying campaign by App State fans on the AAC message boards. There are probably at least 10 or 15 schools that would like to join the AAC. After all, they could boost their conference revenues by $4, $5, or $6 million per year by doing so.

The problem, it seems, is that the AAC Presidents have a very short list of schools they would accept (BYU, Army, maybe Air Force), but that none of them are interested in joining the AAC. Stalemate.

You keep talking about us adding C-USA and Sun Belt schools that none of us want but you. Most of us would rather stay put if we can’t add a MWC school or BYU/Army.

There have been many participants in the AAC message board discussions who have expressed their opinions in support of adding teams, ranging from Air Force (FB) to Boise State (FB) to App State (FB) to UAB to VCU (BB) to Dayton (BB) to St. Louis (BB) to Georgia State (FB) to SUNY-Buffalo to FAU or FIU to North Texas to Southern Mississippi to UMass to Liberty, and several others, as well.

Anyone who wants to visit the AAC message board and read through the various threads on the topic will see a wide range of opinions being expressed over there.

Obviously we want Air Force/Army/Boise State, I just said that.

I have now reread what you wrote, and see that you also included some "MWC schools." My mistake.

It's clear now that we don't disagree about the MWC schools.

(06-03-2020 11:08 PM)BraveKnight Wrote:  I was talking about all sports schools.

I'm not sure what you mean - - you're not saying that you would be in favor of inviting let's say a Boise State or Air Force for all sports, are you? It's my impression that most AAC fans on the message board would invite Boise State or Air Force for FB only, and I would agree.

(06-03-2020 11:08 PM)BraveKnight Wrote:  No one is seriously considering Ga State, UAB, North Texas, F_U, or any of the other G5 schools you mentioned except for you. Some people have expressed interest in Colorado State and SDSU, and a small bit wants Buffalo, but interest in any of those CUSA/Sun Belt schools is minimal.

We agree that some have expressed interested in Buffalo, Colorado State and SDSU. But you have omitted ODU and Georgia State, and I'm quite sure that you would have to admit that you yourself have written some negative responses to those on the AAC board who have ardently proposed admitting ODU or Georgia State to the AAC.

If necessary, I could go back through the threads and actually find your negative responses to those who proposed adding ODU and Georgia State.

When it comes to "Ga State, UAB, North Texas, FAU/FIU" I am not in favor of adding any of those schools. I did mention in a very recent hypothetical thread that I might consider adding UAB or perhaps ODU or WKU, but only if the AAC were to lose Cincy, UCF, Houston, and Memphis.

So let me clarify that I am not in favor of inviting UAB or any of those other schools that you mentioned as replacements for UConn.

I am leaning more and more toward adding App State FB, however, and wouldn't be opposed to adding Marshall FB.