(05-27-2012 10:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-27-2012 06:48 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  That's the biggest advantage for the Big East...as most other conf has much more local/regional teams.. which can hurt them in national ratings.

Big East has an opportunity where its SIZE (i.e. teams located in 4 time zones) can be used to its advantage.

Not sure. Which game is more likely to draw viewers in Florida, Oklahoma-Texas or SDSU-Rutgers?

If one or both teams in FLA need SDSU or RU to win or lose to help them get to the top of their division...I'd say the later...especially if it was against say Iowa State vs Texas Tech...or Kansas State vs Kansas (interesting that you chose the biggest Big 12 game out there for your example...I wonder why?).

That's the great thing about divisional set ups...in virtually every other conf game...you need a certain team to win or lose to help your team's individual standing in their divisional races.

(05-27-2012 08:18 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  This is still just a rumor being spread on Rivals Premium. I approve of it but still think it will be hard to generate chemistry within the division. But I guess that's a see as we go.

Birth of the Airplane conference!

A rumor on Rivals Premium about non-geographic divisions? Did you not read any of the several mainstream media articles out of the BE meetings last week about non-geographic divisions being on the table, and being perhaps the most intriguing option?

(05-27-2012 08:19 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(05-27-2012 08:12 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I still have concerns that the casual fan won't be able to make sense of the divisions and will give up trying to remember which school is in which division.

Suggest you don't worry about that...as the "casual fan" won't be the ones paying the conf BILLIONS of $$$$ for their TV deal.

With schools spread out all over the nation...there won't be a "clean" dividing line.

Plus, most "casual fans" can't name the Divisions of the Big Ten or the ACC or which team is in which...but that didn't stop both of them from landing some nice TV contracts.

You are correct, and I was hoping to avoid that. We need all of the fan interest that we can get, and you don't achieve that by making your product difficult to understand.

If they can pull off this non-geographic alignment, great. There are some really good benefits from this plan. I just hope it doesn't get ridiculed. We don't need bad publicity.

(05-27-2012 10:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-27-2012 06:48 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  That's the biggest advantage for the Big East...as most other conf has much more local/regional teams.. which can hurt them in national ratings.

Big East has an opportunity where its SIZE (i.e. teams located in 4 time zones) can be used to its advantage.

Not sure. Which game is more likely to draw viewers in Florida, Oklahoma-Texas or SDSU-Rutgers?

Quality of teams matters, not geographical dispersions. Two bad teams playing is two bad teams playing, whether it's an Idaho team vs a Florida team or North Carolina team vs South Carolina team.

At least the regional matchup is likely to draw more intense local interest, fill up the stadiums more due to rivalry factor.

The positive correlation between geographic tightness and conference power/prestige still seems quite high.

Maybe you're right. In that case, I'll start work immediately on this conference:

BC
UConn
Army
Syracuse
Rutgers
Temple
Penn State
Pitt
Maryland
Navy
WVU
UVA

That's a nice, compact, 12 school conference. But wait, it has one drawback ... it's not possible.

It looks like the next best option we have is the New Big East. And it has the benefit of being real.

(05-27-2012 10:32 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(05-27-2012 10:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-27-2012 06:48 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  That's the biggest advantage for the Big East...as most other conf has much more local/regional teams.. which can hurt them in national ratings.

Big East has an opportunity where its SIZE (i.e. teams located in 4 time zones) can be used to its advantage.

Not sure. Which game is more likely to draw viewers in Florida, Oklahoma-Texas or SDSU-Rutgers?

If one or both teams in FLA need SDSU or RU to win or lose to help them get to the top of their division...I'd say the later...especially if it was against say Iowa State vs Texas Tech...or Kansas State vs Kansas (interesting that you chose the biggest Big 12 game out there for your example...I wonder why?).

... to make the point that it's the quality of the teams in a game that matters, not geographical dispersion.

I think what fools people into making this regional/national distinction is that when Rutgers plays SDSU, that somehow that is more a "national" game than say USF-UCF. And that's because we think that for some reason, there will be some kind of residual interest among fans in the fly-over country between them.

Of course this is not so: Someone in Iowa has no more natural interest in Rutgers/SDSU than they do in USF-UCF. Both are naturally "regional" games - the Tampa/Orlando corridor in the one case, North Jersey and San Diego in the other.

And as i noted, at least with the "regional" game there's far more chance of actual interest in the game because of rivalry factor.

(05-27-2012 10:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-27-2012 06:48 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  That's the biggest advantage for the Big East...as most other conf has much more local/regional teams.. which can hurt them in national ratings.

Big East has an opportunity where its SIZE (i.e. teams located in 4 time zones) can be used to its advantage.

Not sure. Which game is more likely to draw viewers in Florida, Oklahoma-Texas or SDSU-Rutgers?

Quality of teams matters, not geographical dispersions. Two bad teams playing is two bad teams playing, whether it's an Idaho team vs a Florida team or North Carolina team vs South Carolina team.

At least the regional matchup is likely to draw more intense local interest, fill up the stadiums more due to rivalry factor.

The positive correlation between geographic tightness and conference power/prestige still seems quite high.

Agree with regional matchups which is why i like the north-south split. Rutgers-UConn will be do better in the northeast than any run of the mill major conference game from the B1G, SEC, PAC-12, ACC, and Big 12.

At the very least if the go to non-geographic divisions they have to protect these games:

UCF-USF
UC-Louisville
Memphis-Louisville
Rutgers-UConn
Rugers-Temple
Temple-UConn
SDSU-Boise State
Houston-SMU

Other games that I think they could protect

USF-Louisville
Cincinnati-Memphis
Cincinnati-USF

I want to keep the schools with the most history together playing each other every season.

Cincinnati has very little history with SDSU, Boise State, SMU, and UCF.

Keep UConn, Rutgers and Temple together in one division and Cincinnati, Louisville, and Memphis is another. Then split the Florida, Texas and western and academies.
Divison 1 ---- Division 2
UConn ---- Cincinnati
Rutgers ---- Louisville
Temple ---- Memphis
Houston ---- SMU
UCF ---- USF
SDSU ---- Boise State
Navy ---- Air Force

that looks good enough for me

EDIT: I see bearcatlawjd proposed basically the same thing.

(05-27-2012 11:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-27-2012 10:32 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(05-27-2012 10:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-27-2012 06:48 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  That's the biggest advantage for the Big East...as most other conf has much more local/regional teams.. which can hurt them in national ratings.

Big East has an opportunity where its SIZE (i.e. teams located in 4 time zones) can be used to its advantage.

Not sure. Which game is more likely to draw viewers in Florida, Oklahoma-Texas or SDSU-Rutgers?

If one or both teams in FLA need SDSU or RU to win or lose to help them get to the top of their division...I'd say the later...especially if it was against say Iowa State vs Texas Tech...or Kansas State vs Kansas (interesting that you chose the biggest Big 12 game out there for your example...I wonder why?).

... to make the point that it's the quality of the teams in a game that matters, not geographical dispersion.

I think what fools people into making this regional/national distinction is that when Rutgers plays SDSU, that somehow that is more a "national" game than say USF-UCF. And that's because we think that for some reason, there will be some kind of residual interest among fans in the fly-over country between them.

Of course this is not so: Someone in Iowa has no more natural interest in Rutgers/SDSU than they do in USF-UCF. Both are naturally "regional" games - the Tampa/Orlando corridor in the one case, North Jersey and San Diego in the other.

And as i noted, at least with the "regional" game there's far more chance of actual interest in the game because of rivalry factor.

Apparently, TV network executives disagree with you, b/c they suggested that the BE consider non-geographic divisions to create cross-regional games.

Nobody said, or seriously believes, that there would be any "residual fans" in the fly-over country in between. And of course, more viewers in Florida will watch OU-UT than SDSU-RU. That is a great game vs. an average game, both from distant locations. But that isn't even the point.

Network execs apparently have done research that shows that if you pit a team in one region against a team in a completely different region, you have a chance to draw a better audience, than if you pitted two SIMILAR teams in the SAME region, b/c now you have two regions to pull viewers from, not just one.

(05-27-2012 09:56 AM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  I can't stand the Legends and Leaders partly because the Big Ten was a conference that should have geographic divisions.

The best non geographic split for the Big in 2013 would be

You start here
1: UConn, Rutgers, Temple
2 Cincinnati, Louisville, Memphis

Split up UCF-USF, Houston-SMU, and SDSU-Boise State and make them crossover games. The other six schools do not need crossover rivals.

If I had to fill out the conference it would be.

1:UConn, Rutgers, Temple, Boise State, Houston, UCF
2: Cincinnati, Louisville, Memphis, SMU, SDSU, and USF

I still prefer this

North: Rutgers, UConn, Temple, Cincinnati, Louisville, Memphis
South: USF, UCF, Houston, SMU, SDSU, Boise State

The north schools will still play one Florida school, one Texas school, and one western school in 2013 and 2014.

I don't think the Big East should try load up one division with too many good programs as well.

I agree with all this.

The Legends-Leaders setup is based completely on attempting to maintain traditional rivalries. I'm not at all just a casual college football fan but I don't have a clue which schools are in what division. Maybe I'll learn it over time but I also don't have a clue about which schools are in which division of the ACC. And let's get real here. Just how many traditional rivalries are there in the 2013 BE? I admit SDSU is a bit of an aberration, but we will have absolute zero.

So if the BE is interested in putting together what would be a sensible divisional framework not just to casual fans but to everybody, the north-south split is the way to go.

(05-27-2012 12:59 PM)SleepingGiantsFan Wrote:  

(05-27-2012 09:56 AM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  I can't stand the Legends and Leaders partly because the Big Ten was a conference that should have geographic divisions.

The best non geographic split for the Big in 2013 would be

You start here
1: UConn, Rutgers, Temple
2 Cincinnati, Louisville, Memphis

Split up UCF-USF, Houston-SMU, and SDSU-Boise State and make them crossover games. The other six schools do not need crossover rivals.

If I had to fill out the conference it would be.

1:UConn, Rutgers, Temple, Boise State, Houston, UCF
2: Cincinnati, Louisville, Memphis, SMU, SDSU, and USF

I still prefer this

North: Rutgers, UConn, Temple, Cincinnati, Louisville, Memphis
South: USF, UCF, Houston, SMU, SDSU, Boise State

The north schools will still play one Florida school, one Texas school, and one western school in 2013 and 2014.

I don't think the Big East should try load up one division with too many good programs as well.

I agree with all this.

The Legends-Leaders setup is based completely on attempting to maintain traditional rivalries. I'm not at all just a casual college football fan but I don't have a clue which schools are in what division. Maybe I'll learn it over time but I also don't have a clue about which schools are in which division of the ACC. And let's get real here. Just how many traditional rivalries are there in the 2013 BE? I admit SDSU is a bit of an aberration, but we will have absolute zero.

So if the BE is interested in putting together what would be a sensible divisional framework not just to casual fans but to everybody, the north-south split is the way to go.

North/south is a nonstarter from the start. No way the NE teams and Louisville agree to be in a division without Floida or Texas teams. In UL and Rutgers case there must be a Florida team with them.

(05-27-2012 01:04 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(05-27-2012 12:59 PM)SleepingGiantsFan Wrote:  

(05-27-2012 09:56 AM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  I can't stand the Legends and Leaders partly because the Big Ten was a conference that should have geographic divisions.

The best non geographic split for the Big in 2013 would be

You start here
1: UConn, Rutgers, Temple
2 Cincinnati, Louisville, Memphis

Split up UCF-USF, Houston-SMU, and SDSU-Boise State and make them crossover games. The other six schools do not need crossover rivals.

If I had to fill out the conference it would be.

1:UConn, Rutgers, Temple, Boise State, Houston, UCF
2: Cincinnati, Louisville, Memphis, SMU, SDSU, and USF

I still prefer this

North: Rutgers, UConn, Temple, Cincinnati, Louisville, Memphis
South: USF, UCF, Houston, SMU, SDSU, Boise State

The north schools will still play one Florida school, one Texas school, and one western school in 2013 and 2014.

I don't think the Big East should try load up one division with too many good programs as well.

I agree with all this.

The Legends-Leaders setup is based completely on attempting to maintain traditional rivalries. I'm not at all just a casual college football fan but I don't have a clue which schools are in what division. Maybe I'll learn it over time but I also don't have a clue about which schools are in which division of the ACC. And let's get real here. Just how many traditional rivalries are there in the 2013 BE? I admit SDSU is a bit of an aberration, but we will have absolute zero.

So if the BE is interested in putting together what would be a sensible divisional framework not just to casual fans but to everybody, the north-south split is the way to go.

North/south is a nonstarter from the start. No way the NE teams and Louisville agree to be in a division without Floida or Texas teams. In UL and Rutgers case there must be a Florida team with them.

Same with Memphis. We would love to be in a division with Louisville and Cincy, but not at the expense of being shut out of FL, TX and the west coast on a regular basis. Ain't happening, IMO.

(05-27-2012 01:04 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(05-27-2012 12:59 PM)SleepingGiantsFan Wrote:  

(05-27-2012 09:56 AM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  I can't stand the Legends and Leaders partly because the Big Ten was a conference that should have geographic divisions.

The best non geographic split for the Big in 2013 would be

You start here
1: UConn, Rutgers, Temple
2 Cincinnati, Louisville, Memphis

Split up UCF-USF, Houston-SMU, and SDSU-Boise State and make them crossover games. The other six schools do not need crossover rivals.

If I had to fill out the conference it would be.

1:UConn, Rutgers, Temple, Boise State, Houston, UCF
2: Cincinnati, Louisville, Memphis, SMU, SDSU, and USF

I still prefer this

North: Rutgers, UConn, Temple, Cincinnati, Louisville, Memphis
South: USF, UCF, Houston, SMU, SDSU, Boise State

The north schools will still play one Florida school, one Texas school, and one western school in 2013 and 2014.

I don't think the Big East should try load up one division with too many good programs as well.

I agree with all this.

The Legends-Leaders setup is based completely on attempting to maintain traditional rivalries. I'm not at all just a casual college football fan but I don't have a clue which schools are in what division. Maybe I'll learn it over time but I also don't have a clue about which schools are in which division of the ACC. And let's get real here. Just how many traditional rivalries are there in the 2013 BE? I admit SDSU is a bit of an aberration, but we will have absolute zero.

So if the BE is interested in putting together what would be a sensible divisional framework not just to casual fans but to everybody, the north-south split is the way to go.

North/south is a nonstarter from the start. No way the NE teams and Louisville agree to be in a division without Floida or Texas teams. In UL and Rutgers case there must be a Florida team with them.

For 2013 and 2014 it really doesn't matter where the Florida or Texas schools are in a division with Louisville.

Check this schedule

Division

North: Cincy, Louisville, Memphis, Temple, Rutgers, UConn
South: USF, UCF, Houston, SMU, SDSU, Boise

2013

Home: Memphis, Temple, UConn, Houston
Road: Cincinnati, Rutgers, UCF, Boise

2014

Home: Cincinnati, Rutgers, USF, SDSU
Road: Memphis, Temple, UConn, SMU

Play everone at least once for the first two years. One game in Texas and another in Florida.

(05-27-2012 11:56 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Network execs apparently have done research that shows that if you pit a team in one region against a team in a completely different region, you have a chance to draw a better audience, than if you pitted two SIMILAR teams in the SAME region, b/c now you have two regions to pull viewers from, not just one.

Well, i guess the network executives know best!

(05-27-2012 01:41 PM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  For 2013 and 2014 it really doesn't matter where the Florida or Texas schools are in a division with Louisville.

Check this schedule

Division

North: Cincy, Louisville, Memphis, Temple, Rutgers, UConn
South: USF, UCF, Houston, SMU, SDSU, Boise

2013

Home: Memphis, Temple, UConn, Houston
Road: Cincinnati, Rutgers, UCF, Boise

2014

Home: Cincinnati, Rutgers, USF, SDSU
Road: Memphis, Temple, UConn, SMU

Play everone at least once for the first two years. One game in Texas and another in Florida.

Thank you. And that's the point. This conference alignment stuff is simply too fluid to decide on a divisional framework beyond 2014 and what you advocate would work fine for those two years. If it somehow doesn't, we'll all know it and then north-south can be thrown out for east-west or a non-geographical format going forward from 2015.

(05-27-2012 02:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-27-2012 11:56 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Network execs apparently have done research that shows that if you pit a team in one region against a team in a completely different region, you have a chance to draw a better audience, than if you pitted two SIMILAR teams in the SAME region, b/c now you have two regions to pull viewers from, not just one.

Well, i guess the network executives know best!

Let's see, should I go with them, or with you?

You make a lot of thoughtful, though often gloomy, arguments, but I just disagree with you about this one. Not that I really think it is earth-shattering, but it is informative that the TV execs brought up the idea of the non-geographic model, which apparently had not been on the radar before.

(05-26-2012 11:07 PM)Bleedin Blue Wrote:  Seems to me some sort of non-geographical set-up makes the most sense now. The one thing we're always bragging about that sets us apart from all the other conferences is that we have teams in four different time zones. We're a truly national conference, so why not have divisions that reflect it? Also, rumor is that Navy wants to play in the west to help recruit soldiers. I imagine a Navy-SDSU matchup with San Diego being such a huge Navy town would be quite a spectacle as well.

And BYU, above almost anything, wants maximum exposure to the LDS faith. A national division alignment helps them best accomplish this as they'll play in the east as much as they will in the west. i think that such an alignment would help woo them into joining the conference.

If BYU does become a member I would want SDSU to play them every year as well to re-establish our rivalry with them. They will want to play in San Diego as well for recruiting and because their are plenty of Mormons in Southern California.

(05-27-2012 02:48 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(05-27-2012 02:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-27-2012 11:56 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Network execs apparently have done research that shows that if you pit a team in one region against a team in a completely different region, you have a chance to draw a better audience, than if you pitted two SIMILAR teams in the SAME region, b/c now you have two regions to pull viewers from, not just one.

Well, i guess the network executives know best!

Let's see, should I go with them, or with you?

You make a lot of thoughtful, though often gloomy, arguments, but I just disagree with you about this one. Not that I really think it is earth-shattering, but it is informative that the TV execs brought up the idea of the non-geographic model, which apparently had not been on the radar before.

I'll point this out FWIW.

Two years ago this fall, Utah State fans were all over the MWC board guaranteeing that their school and one other, apparently UTEP, would be added to the MWC at the January 2011 board of directors meeting. The rationale was that some USU alumni in high corporate positions had secured commitments from their employers that if the Aggies were added, there would be no problem with getting advertising on CBS-Versus conference broadcasts. The theory also went that The Mtn. was in trouble with Utah and BYU leaving but CBS-Versus had surveyed cable systems within the state, which were supposedly willing to keep offering The Mtn. if USU joined. (I won't bother with the explanation for UTEP.)

My opinion was that adding two clunkers like that was a very bad thing and that the conference should just continue with eight members as it had during its first five years and then wait and see. Although there was too much smoke over too long a time for the idea not to have had some validity, some other detractors said it was complete BS. My suspicions were confirmed when then board of directors president Steve Weber of SDSU came out of the meeting and made a now famous curt response to a question from the media: "There's no point in continuing to have The Mtn. on Utah cable systems if nobody will watch it."

A bigger refutation of the value of USU is hard to imagine but it's apparent CBS-Versus really pushed for their addition and now that Weber is no longer around and SDSU doesn't have a vote in MWC affairs, USU will indeed be added. That despite the fact The Mtn. will be off the air in just a few days.

My point is that I think conferences need to be very careful about kowtowing down to the interests of their TV partner when it comes to expansion. Conference membership will hopefully be for decades whereas TV deals are generally for just 10-15 years.

North/ South is a) a non-starter and makes no sense. Boise State in the south division? They aren't south of anyone in the Big East.

(05-27-2012 03:32 PM)SleepingGiantsFan Wrote:  My point is that I think conferences need to be very careful about kowtowing down to the interests of their TV partner when it comes to expansion. Conference membership will hopefully be for decades whereas TV deals are generally for just 10-15 years.

But we are not talking about expansion. We are talking about setting up the divisions to get the most attractive pairings, from a TV standpoint, to potentially improve our contract numbers.

AND, to make the majority of the coaches happy, who want access to FL,TX and the west cost, for recruiting.

AND, if it doesn't work, we can just change the divisions around, if we really wanted to. The network cannot tell us how to set up our divisions. They only make suggestions.

I agree with your comments. It's just that this is nothing like the situation you described.

List the teams in each ACC division. List and name the divisions in the Big Ten.

I live in ACC country, I have to fight with my brain to pull it off and can usually only do so in football season after seeing the standings for a few weeks. I can probably get 4 or 5 per division then guess from there presently.

The only reason I know the Big Ten is because they're basically geographic with one pair of teams flipped (Wisconsin and Northwestern). From there, Legends is Northwest and Leaders is Southeast...and I have to periodically make sure my memory isn't screwing up the name correlation when out of season.


The Big East already has enough trouble getting the public at large to believe it should exist and subsequently respect it; throwing divisions with no natural correlation together is going to exacerbate the hell out of that. It's far easier to build interesting rivalries along geographic lines.

Keep it East-West with the one team moved out West. Temple for two years then Navy for recruiting purposes and because the average American probably doesn't know where the Naval Academy is located (possibly Temple either, for that matter). The only thing lost is Memphis vs Louisville and Cincinnati which can be worked out to where they're playing every other year and/or reworked to where they're in the same division should we go to 16 teams...by which time Memphis might be good enough to move the needle nationally or otherwise not get blown out.

Any network that wants the conference is only going to need one of Boise or SDSU home on a given weekend for the late time slot; splitting them up doesn't help that...one could argue having them host teams from CT would be better for ratings than teams from ET and that's more common in an East-West set up.