(03-18-2013 11:27 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(03-17-2013 09:17 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  If we are talking about the Big 12's mistakes. After Colorado and Nebraska left the conference. The Big12 should have got together and worked at getting Arkansas and New Mexico to join.

I think the Big XII did send feelers out to Arky...

You are correct.

(03-18-2013 11:54 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 11:39 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 11:27 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 11:22 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 07:57 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  We're happy, the Big 12 is happy. Let it go, water under the bridge.

We in the ACC (with the exception of some heads still stuck in the sand) are really happy about Louisville too.

I agree with that, but having witnessed a season with a 14 team rotation in the SEC, what I can promise you is that you will not be happy with 14, even with N.D. as a partial. Both the SEC and ACC need to get to 16 for scheduling and balance. I don't expect you to believe me now, but we can talk about his topic after your next season.

A 14-team conference schedule would be fine if you didn't have "permanent crossover" games between teams in opposite divisions. You'd have six games in the division, and every year you'd play 2 or 3 of the teams in the other division (depending on whether there are 8 or 9 conference games), and if the games vs. the other division are evenly rotated, the schedules will be reasonably equitable and every team will play every other team in the conference regularly, though not every year.

A lot of people want to maintain permanent cross-division games in order to continue longstanding rivalries, but it makes the scheduling more difficult and less equitable.

In the ACC, there is no reason why they would need permanent cross-division games if they aligned the divisions better. The ACC's use of a zipper alignment is pointless and creates more problems than it solves.

As usual Wedge I agree with much of what you say, but not all. In the SEC rivalries are everything. If you don't protect them nobody will agree to expansion. So 16 allows enough flexibility for everyone to stay reasonably happy. 14 does not.

Your observations about the ACC are valid. The issue there are the two most SEC like teams, F.S.U. and Clemson. They need to be able to play the more football oriented schools to keep their stands full. Their fans, like ours, are tired of paying $70 a ticket plus contributions to watch the Citadel, Wofford, Florida A&M, and then have conference games with B.C., Wake Forest, Duke, and Maryland (R.I.P.).

I think 16 makes the scheduling problems worse in the SEC. What pods would you have? Its really difficult to split the schools in the SEC. Rivalries don't always follow nice geographic boundaries. And there's this blind assumption that pods will work when they failed miserably the only time they were tried. They were abandoned after 3 years because it confused the fans. The ACC's zipper format is another complicated scheme that is hardly a resounding success. The B1G is abandoning their semi-geographic "balanced" divisions for one that is more geographic. KISS is the right approach to division alignment. And except in limited cases where there is an easy split (like in a Pac 16), more teams makes it harder.

(03-19-2013 09:05 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 11:54 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 11:39 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 11:27 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 11:22 AM)XLance Wrote:  We in the ACC (with the exception of some heads still stuck in the sand) are really happy about Louisville too.

I agree with that, but having witnessed a season with a 14 team rotation in the SEC, what I can promise you is that you will not be happy with 14, even with N.D. as a partial. Both the SEC and ACC need to get to 16 for scheduling and balance. I don't expect you to believe me now, but we can talk about his topic after your next season.

A 14-team conference schedule would be fine if you didn't have "permanent crossover" games between teams in opposite divisions. You'd have six games in the division, and every year you'd play 2 or 3 of the teams in the other division (depending on whether there are 8 or 9 conference games), and if the games vs. the other division are evenly rotated, the schedules will be reasonably equitable and every team will play every other team in the conference regularly, though not every year.

A lot of people want to maintain permanent cross-division games in order to continue longstanding rivalries, but it makes the scheduling more difficult and less equitable.

In the ACC, there is no reason why they would need permanent cross-division games if they aligned the divisions better. The ACC's use of a zipper alignment is pointless and creates more problems than it solves.

As usual Wedge I agree with much of what you say, but not all. In the SEC rivalries are everything. If you don't protect them nobody will agree to expansion. So 16 allows enough flexibility for everyone to stay reasonably happy. 14 does not.

Your observations about the ACC are valid. The issue there are the two most SEC like teams, F.S.U. and Clemson. They need to be able to play the more football oriented schools to keep their stands full. Their fans, like ours, are tired of paying $70 a ticket plus contributions to watch the Citadel, Wofford, Florida A&M, and then have conference games with B.C., Wake Forest, Duke, and Maryland (R.I.P.).

I think 16 makes the scheduling problems worse in the SEC. What pods would you have? Its really difficult to split the schools in the SEC. Rivalries don't always follow nice geographic boundaries. And there's this blind assumption that pods will work when they failed miserably the only time they were tried. They were abandoned after 3 years because it confused the fans. The ACC's zipper format is another complicated scheme that is hardly a resounding success. The B1G is abandoning their semi-geographic "balanced" divisions for one that is more geographic. KISS is the right approach to division alignment. And except in limited cases where there is an easy split (like in a Pac 16), more teams makes it harder.

I don't see how it presents the SEC any more difficultly than they had in setting up divisions when the SEC first expanded to 12. The top rivalry in the SEC at that time was Tennessee-Alabama, and it was eliminated in relevance by the split to divisions. It was only after a decade of using divisions that it was reinstated as a permanent cross division rivalry, and that didn't bring it back to the relevance it used to have. By then other rivalries had become more important to both schools, and the SEC is the better for it. IMO it would be the same with pods. Some rivalries importance would diminish, and others would rise or be created. Either way, the SEC would benefit in the long run. I think the SEC leadership is smart enough to realize this too...

(03-17-2013 08:55 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The SEC doesn't NEED VA and NC to connect up to WV. Kentucky is a border state to WV. WVU would connect up just as nicely without 'em...

(03-17-2013 08:54 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(03-17-2013 08:50 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Tallgrass, we've rehashed this argument over and over. There's no need to keep hammering on it...

The hashing was a WVA versus Louisville argument....all caused by B12's mistake of not realizing both programs are huge positives and both should be in B12. All the attention was focused on these two schools....but the larger issue was lost, B12 needed both WVA and Louisville.

I haven't been bashful on this board....but I can and will compliment others on doing a fine job. That doesn't make me an anti B12 or anti WVA fan.

I never said otherwise. But the issue the B12 had to address was having 10 schools to meet their TV contract demands. Adding another school would have decreased the per school payout. So adding both would have been counterproductive at that time...

And the reason why I believe the Big-12 will go down in history as being "penny wise and pound foolish".

(03-19-2013 09:05 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 11:54 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 11:39 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 11:27 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 11:22 AM)XLance Wrote:  We in the ACC (with the exception of some heads still stuck in the sand) are really happy about Louisville too.

I agree with that, but having witnessed a season with a 14 team rotation in the SEC, what I can promise you is that you will not be happy with 14, even with N.D. as a partial. Both the SEC and ACC need to get to 16 for scheduling and balance. I don't expect you to believe me now, but we can talk about his topic after your next season.

A 14-team conference schedule would be fine if you didn't have "permanent crossover" games between teams in opposite divisions. You'd have six games in the division, and every year you'd play 2 or 3 of the teams in the other division (depending on whether there are 8 or 9 conference games), and if the games vs. the other division are evenly rotated, the schedules will be reasonably equitable and every team will play every other team in the conference regularly, though not every year.

A lot of people want to maintain permanent cross-division games in order to continue longstanding rivalries, but it makes the scheduling more difficult and less equitable.

In the ACC, there is no reason why they would need permanent cross-division games if they aligned the divisions better. The ACC's use of a zipper alignment is pointless and creates more problems than it solves.

As usual Wedge I agree with much of what you say, but not all. In the SEC rivalries are everything. If you don't protect them nobody will agree to expansion. So 16 allows enough flexibility for everyone to stay reasonably happy. 14 does not.

Your observations about the ACC are valid. The issue there are the two most SEC like teams, F.S.U. and Clemson. They need to be able to play the more football oriented schools to keep their stands full. Their fans, like ours, are tired of paying $70 a ticket plus contributions to watch the Citadel, Wofford, Florida A&M, and then have conference games with B.C., Wake Forest, Duke, and Maryland (R.I.P.).

I think 16 makes the scheduling problems worse in the SEC. What pods would you have? Its really difficult to split the schools in the SEC. Rivalries don't always follow nice geographic boundaries. And there's this blind assumption that pods will work when they failed miserably the only time they were tried. They were abandoned after 3 years because it confused the fans. The ACC's zipper format is another complicated scheme that is hardly a resounding success. The B1G is abandoning their semi-geographic "balanced" divisions for one that is more geographic. KISS is the right approach to division alignment. And except in limited cases where there is an easy split (like in a Pac 16), more teams makes it harder.

Pods (1/2 divisions) are simple Bullet. You group by rivals in the SEC and since that system only requires 7 conference games you add two more permanent rivals cover everyone's bases, play 9 conference games (which is where we are headed anyway) and you have a much easier time of keeping everyone happy.

Kentucky, New Team, New Team, South Carolina

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Vanderbilt

Alabama, Ole Miss, Miss State, Tennessee

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Texas A&M

Add two rivals to each of those and you got her done.
Ala/Aub, S.Car./UGA, Tenn/Vandy, Tenn/KY, Fla/LSU, LSU/Ole Miss Ole Miss/Vandy and etc. Everybody plays everyone else every three years.

(03-19-2013 10:11 AM)LSUtah Wrote:  

(03-17-2013 08:55 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The SEC doesn't NEED VA and NC to connect up to WV. Kentucky is a border state to WV. WVU would connect up just as nicely without 'em...

(03-17-2013 08:54 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(03-17-2013 08:50 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Tallgrass, we've rehashed this argument over and over. There's no need to keep hammering on it...

The hashing was a WVA versus Louisville argument....all caused by B12's mistake of not realizing both programs are huge positives and both should be in B12. All the attention was focused on these two schools....but the larger issue was lost, B12 needed both WVA and Louisville.

I haven't been bashful on this board....but I can and will compliment others on doing a fine job. That doesn't make me an anti B12 or anti WVA fan.

I never said otherwise. But the issue the B12 had to address was having 10 schools to meet their TV contract demands. Adding another school would have decreased the per school payout. So adding both would have been counterproductive at that time...

And the reason why I believe the Big-12 will go down in history as being "penny wise and pound foolish".

That fairly well describes the mindset of Dodds.

(03-19-2013 10:26 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 10:11 AM)LSUtah Wrote:  

(03-17-2013 08:55 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The SEC doesn't NEED VA and NC to connect up to WV. Kentucky is a border state to WV. WVU would connect up just as nicely without 'em...

(03-17-2013 08:54 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(03-17-2013 08:50 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Tallgrass, we've rehashed this argument over and over. There's no need to keep hammering on it...

The hashing was a WVA versus Louisville argument....all caused by B12's mistake of not realizing both programs are huge positives and both should be in B12. All the attention was focused on these two schools....but the larger issue was lost, B12 needed both WVA and Louisville.

I haven't been bashful on this board....but I can and will compliment others on doing a fine job. That doesn't make me an anti B12 or anti WVA fan.

I never said otherwise. But the issue the B12 had to address was having 10 schools to meet their TV contract demands. Adding another school would have decreased the per school payout. So adding both would have been counterproductive at that time...

And the reason why I believe the Big-12 will go down in history as being "penny wise and pound foolish".

That fairly well describes the mindset of Dodds.

Having 10 schools is the perfect size for a conference. You get to play every school in every sport every year...

Of course, in the rush for the almighty dollar, which is worth less and less as the years go by, the perfect size for a conference isn't considered economical. IMO college sports suffers somewhat because of that. It's destroyed many more rivalries than its created, and the fans are being ignored in the rush for cash...

(03-19-2013 10:23 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 09:05 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 11:54 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 11:39 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 11:27 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I agree with that, but having witnessed a season with a 14 team rotation in the SEC, what I can promise you is that you will not be happy with 14, even with N.D. as a partial. Both the SEC and ACC need to get to 16 for scheduling and balance. I don't expect you to believe me now, but we can talk about his topic after your next season.

A 14-team conference schedule would be fine if you didn't have "permanent crossover" games between teams in opposite divisions. You'd have six games in the division, and every year you'd play 2 or 3 of the teams in the other division (depending on whether there are 8 or 9 conference games), and if the games vs. the other division are evenly rotated, the schedules will be reasonably equitable and every team will play every other team in the conference regularly, though not every year.

A lot of people want to maintain permanent cross-division games in order to continue longstanding rivalries, but it makes the scheduling more difficult and less equitable.

In the ACC, there is no reason why they would need permanent cross-division games if they aligned the divisions better. The ACC's use of a zipper alignment is pointless and creates more problems than it solves.

As usual Wedge I agree with much of what you say, but not all. In the SEC rivalries are everything. If you don't protect them nobody will agree to expansion. So 16 allows enough flexibility for everyone to stay reasonably happy. 14 does not.

Your observations about the ACC are valid. The issue there are the two most SEC like teams, F.S.U. and Clemson. They need to be able to play the more football oriented schools to keep their stands full. Their fans, like ours, are tired of paying $70 a ticket plus contributions to watch the Citadel, Wofford, Florida A&M, and then have conference games with B.C., Wake Forest, Duke, and Maryland (R.I.P.).

I think 16 makes the scheduling problems worse in the SEC. What pods would you have? Its really difficult to split the schools in the SEC. Rivalries don't always follow nice geographic boundaries. And there's this blind assumption that pods will work when they failed miserably the only time they were tried. They were abandoned after 3 years because it confused the fans. The ACC's zipper format is another complicated scheme that is hardly a resounding success. The B1G is abandoning their semi-geographic "balanced" divisions for one that is more geographic. KISS is the right approach to division alignment. And except in limited cases where there is an easy split (like in a Pac 16), more teams makes it harder.

Pods (1/2 divisions) are simple Bullet. You group by rivals in the SEC and since that system only requires 7 conference games you add two more permanent rivals cover everyone's bases, play 9 conference games (which is where we are headed anyway) and you have a much easier time of keeping everyone happy.

Kentucky, New Team, New Team, South Carolina

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Vanderbilt

Alabama, Ole Miss, Miss State, Tennessee

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Texas A&M

Add two rivals to each of those and you got her done.
Ala/Aub, S.Car./UGA, Tenn/Vandy, Tenn/KY, Fla/LSU, LSU/Ole Miss Ole Miss/Vandy and etc. Everybody plays everyone else every three years.

The UK/SC division is weak. The Auburn/FL/GA division is too strong. Tennessee doesn't get matchups vs. UGA or UF but twice every 6 years. A lot of old minor rivals don't get played in order to play new team 1 and new team 2. LSU gives up the Alabama schools. And of course, you first have to get them to 9 games. What if the fans don't like rotating divisions? Its a good effort, but there are still a lot of problems.

(03-19-2013 10:41 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 10:26 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 10:11 AM)LSUtah Wrote:  

(03-17-2013 08:55 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The SEC doesn't NEED VA and NC to connect up to WV. Kentucky is a border state to WV. WVU would connect up just as nicely without 'em...

(03-17-2013 08:54 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  The hashing was a WVA versus Louisville argument....all caused by B12's mistake of not realizing both programs are huge positives and both should be in B12. All the attention was focused on these two schools....but the larger issue was lost, B12 needed both WVA and Louisville.

I haven't been bashful on this board....but I can and will compliment others on doing a fine job. That doesn't make me an anti B12 or anti WVA fan.

I never said otherwise. But the issue the B12 had to address was having 10 schools to meet their TV contract demands. Adding another school would have decreased the per school payout. So adding both would have been counterproductive at that time...

And the reason why I believe the Big-12 will go down in history as being "penny wise and pound foolish".

That fairly well describes the mindset of Dodds.

Having 10 schools is the perfect size for a conference. You get to play every school in every sport every year...

Of course, in the rush for the almighty dollar, which is worth less and less as the years go by, the perfect size for a conference isn't considered economical. IMO college sports suffers somewhat because of that. It's destroyed many more rivalries than its created, and the fans are being ignored in the rush for cash...

Actually Bit, it is more like what happens when Mom & Pop are run out of business by corporate backroom deals with politicians where all the incentives are then given to the corporations and none to Mom & Pop. The networks have found a way to have a hostile takeover of quaint little family businesses (conferences in our case) that were happy and sustaining for years. They were happy because of their associations and sustaining because they knew, served, and loved their customers (the alumni and fans).

The networks just saw an undervalued product that could be mined for a higher yield % and moved in during a time of low liquidity (an easy and proven tactic). Now they look to cull the less profitable, although amicable associations, and limit the product to that with the fastest turnover (meaning in this case matriculation of the highest number of future viewers). They also think that re-merchandising the business will spur interest (hence realignment or in their terms product placement).

The end result will be destructive. Similar outlets will be set up in every location and the unique flavor and community fit of Mom and Pop will be lost. Friendships will fade with time as will loyalty. But as long as there is a buck involved the Networks won't care and what college football fans don't get is that when it fails to be profitable the corporations will just drop the show and fill that slot with some other cheaply produced trendy crap that no one wants to see, well at least they won't watch it after 1 or 2 seasons of hoping it will get better. Viewers have way too much patience with crap.

(03-19-2013 10:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 10:23 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 09:05 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 11:54 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 11:39 AM)Wedge Wrote:  A 14-team conference schedule would be fine if you didn't have "permanent crossover" games between teams in opposite divisions. You'd have six games in the division, and every year you'd play 2 or 3 of the teams in the other division (depending on whether there are 8 or 9 conference games), and if the games vs. the other division are evenly rotated, the schedules will be reasonably equitable and every team will play every other team in the conference regularly, though not every year.

A lot of people want to maintain permanent cross-division games in order to continue longstanding rivalries, but it makes the scheduling more difficult and less equitable.

In the ACC, there is no reason why they would need permanent cross-division games if they aligned the divisions better. The ACC's use of a zipper alignment is pointless and creates more problems than it solves.

As usual Wedge I agree with much of what you say, but not all. In the SEC rivalries are everything. If you don't protect them nobody will agree to expansion. So 16 allows enough flexibility for everyone to stay reasonably happy. 14 does not.

Your observations about the ACC are valid. The issue there are the two most SEC like teams, F.S.U. and Clemson. They need to be able to play the more football oriented schools to keep their stands full. Their fans, like ours, are tired of paying $70 a ticket plus contributions to watch the Citadel, Wofford, Florida A&M, and then have conference games with B.C., Wake Forest, Duke, and Maryland (R.I.P.).

I think 16 makes the scheduling problems worse in the SEC. What pods would you have? Its really difficult to split the schools in the SEC. Rivalries don't always follow nice geographic boundaries. And there's this blind assumption that pods will work when they failed miserably the only time they were tried. They were abandoned after 3 years because it confused the fans. The ACC's zipper format is another complicated scheme that is hardly a resounding success. The B1G is abandoning their semi-geographic "balanced" divisions for one that is more geographic. KISS is the right approach to division alignment. And except in limited cases where there is an easy split (like in a Pac 16), more teams makes it harder.

Pods (1/2 divisions) are simple Bullet. You group by rivals in the SEC and since that system only requires 7 conference games you add two more permanent rivals cover everyone's bases, play 9 conference games (which is where we are headed anyway) and you have a much easier time of keeping everyone happy.

Kentucky, New Team, New Team, South Carolina

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Vanderbilt

Alabama, Ole Miss, Miss State, Tennessee

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Texas A&M

Add two rivals to each of those and you got her done.
Ala/Aub, S.Car./UGA, Tenn/Vandy, Tenn/KY, Fla/LSU, LSU/Ole Miss Ole Miss/Vandy and etc. Everybody plays everyone else every three years.

The UK/SC division is weak. The Auburn/FL/GA division is too strong. Tennessee doesn't get matchups vs. UGA or UF but twice every 6 years. A lot of old minor rivals don't get played in order to play new team 1 and new team 2. LSU gives up the Alabama schools. And of course, you first have to get them to 9 games. What if the fans don't like rotating divisions? Its a good effort, but there are still a lot of problems.

UK/SC is weak only if the two new teams are weak and they won't be. Tennessee would benefit by not having to play UGA and Florida annually and those rivalries were really only enhanced in 1992. And there will always be some problems. They started the on the very first kickoff and will continue until the final whistle is blown on imperfect humanity.

(03-19-2013 10:55 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 10:41 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 10:26 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 10:11 AM)LSUtah Wrote:  

(03-17-2013 08:55 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The SEC doesn't NEED VA and NC to connect up to WV. Kentucky is a border state to WV. WVU would connect up just as nicely without 'em...I never said otherwise. But the issue the B12 had to address was having 10 schools to meet their TV contract demands. Adding another school would have decreased the per school payout. So adding both would have been counterproductive at that time...

And the reason why I believe the Big-12 will go down in history as being "penny wise and pound foolish".

That fairly well describes the mindset of Dodds.

Having 10 schools is the perfect size for a conference. You get to play every school in every sport every year...

Of course, in the rush for the almighty dollar, which is worth less and less as the years go by, the perfect size for a conference isn't considered economical. IMO college sports suffers somewhat because of that. It's destroyed many more rivalries than its created, and the fans are being ignored in the rush for cash...

Actually Bit, it is more like what happens when Mom & Pop are run out of business by corporate backroom deals with politicians where all the incentives are then given to the corporations and none to Mom & Pop. The networks have found a way to have a hostile takeover of quaint little family businesses (conferences in our case) that were happy and sustaining for years. They were happy because of their associations and sustaining because they knew, served, and loved their customers (the alumni and fans).

The networks just saw an undervalued product that could be mined for a higher yield % and moved in during a time of low liquidity (an easy and proven tactic). Now they look to cull the less profitable, although amicable associations, and limit the product to that with the fastest turnover (meaning in this case matriculation of the highest number of future viewers). They also think that re-merchandising the business will spur interest (hence realignment or in their terms product placement).

The end result will be destructive. Similar outlets will be set up in every location and the unique flavor and community fit of Mom and Pop will be lost. Friendships will fade with time as will loyalty. But as long as there is a buck involved the Networks won't care and what college football fans don't get is that when it fails to be profitable the corporations will just drop the show and fill that slot with some other cheaply produced trendy crap that no one wants to see, well at least they won't watch it after 1 or 2 seasons of hoping it will get better. Viewers have way too much patience with crap.

Sad but true. Unfortunately, people put up with all kinds of crap they shouldn't have to...