(07-12-2018 11:59 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 10:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 09:48 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 09:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 09:19 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Well, it depends.

Technically, a champs only format could be done with more than 4 conferences. The requirement would be a conference championship to make the cut, but if you create a stipulation that Power conference champions become automatic qualifiers then that takes on a new meaning.

I think we'll have a very hard time creating an automatic qualifier system for a 4 team CFP until the Power leagues separate and form their own division.

They benefit of a champs only format is that we could force Notre Dame into the ACC and create greater stability. However, I'm not sure all the autonomy leagues would vote for that.

Only the SEC would have a reason to be against it. We are the only one's to have had a legitimate reason to believe we could get two in. Why? Because we did.

What do you think about this?

Let's say Texas and Oklahoma decide to give the Big 12 another go around. They do it with the stipulation that the autonomy conferences vote for a champs only format. We could view this as a sort of detente...

We still have 5 leagues, but it's guaranteed that 4 of the champions will make it in. Notre Dame joins in full and stability is increased that much more.

Does anyone actually bother expanding in that environment?

You've got a handful of G5 schools that could theoretically benefit certain leagues. Perhaps there are a couple pieces of the Big 12 that would fit better elsewhere and UT/OU could just replace them with the next best G5 part.

The 5 league system seems to be fairly balanced overall. It's just that there aren't quite enough superpowers to go around. If UT or OU move, however, then the imbalance only gets worse.

The biggest reason for Oklahoma (and OSU) to leave the Big 12 is to maximize the value of their T3 rights, find a more equal playing field in another conference, and to maximize their exposure in an effort to attract more students from outside of their home state and to do so with a conference that provides constant security instead of constant uncertainty.

So it is generally understood, even by Kansas, that this movement will happen.

Only Texas who is gleaning 15 million a year from the LHN doesn't want the change.

At this point it's probably better for the majority of the Big 12 if we move to 4 P conferences and it would be good for the ACC if it became a P4 with champs only entry into the CFP.

Okay, some very rough math.
The PAC 12s FB+BB valuation is about 304 million.
304/28.7 million payout is about 10.6.

So they are making 1 million for every 10.6 million in total valuation average.

In other words, to increase their payout by one million, they need to increase their average valuation by 10.6 million.

Texas on its own could raise the average PAC-12 valuation to 331.2, or enough for about 1.8 million increase on their payout. This does not factor in tag along like Tech if need be.

Which would still be less than Big 12 money, especially with Tier 3 rights.

For Texas, keeping the Big 12 intact is worth it.

Well, I've been saying all along the PAC doesn't offer enough money to start with to make it worth Texas or Oklahoma's while to head there. I think they are a non factor.

The help the PAC, but the PAC doesn't help them. Part of the SEC's value in them, even with tag-alongs is that we have so many brands to play that the content value is multiplied significantly for all of us if they head here.