(04-19-2013 02:19 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 02:11 PM)WinOrLoseEAGLE Wrote:  

(04-18-2013 02:14 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

I'm curious - if there is ability in the specific conference to eject a school, ala Temple, then why not eject what you do not want? If that ability does not exist then why the hell would washington state agree to a 10 year 100 million dollar buy-out when just standing pat they will get over 200 million during the same time period?

Take the sec "buyout" of the worthless moo-u bull pups (btw - I agree with their virtual worthlessness to the sec) ... assuming an approximate $30 million payout per year that translates to $300,000,000 over the coming ten years. Not only would they be giving up the $30 million for years 11 through oh, armageddon, they'd lose revenues from 10-12k visiting sec fans every home game, probably lose another 10-12k pup fans per home game and puppy pound donations would drop in half. It would take considerably MORE than the $300,000,000 they are going to get ANYWAY for the next 10 years to convince them to leave the conference.

Using the $30 million annual payout amount, if I were the President of msu the LOWEST number I'd look at that wouldn't immediately cause me to burst into uncontrolled laughter would be a cool up front RIGHT NOW $1 billion dollars. That's 33 years worth of payout.

Of course, after mulling it over for about 15 seconds thinking what I could do with a billion dollars, I'd realize that even that amount of money doesn't translate into a good deal for msu.

Nope - paying me 1/2, or in the case of the sec, 1/3 of what I'm going to get over a 10 year period - paid over a 10 year period - is not going to persuade me to leave my conference......even if they don't want me anymore.

Yeah, I phrased the OP for this scenario to be a "golden parachute" that a long-time coach receives from a school when he "resigns". He can agree to the parachute and do it the easy way, or we can keep the parachute and do it the hard way. I figure $100 mil is about the amount a major conference would be willing to pay out to avoid the huge PR disaster it would endure for getting rid of a team. Much more than that, it would probably be better for the conference to take their lumps and move on with it.

Hey, PR is only as current as memory and that's not too long in our society. 100 million earns interest almost forever. I say do it the hard way and to hell with worrying about PR!

(04-19-2013 02:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 02:15 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 02:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Shoot boys, let's just pick four captains call them Slive, Scott, Delany and Swofford and let them pick until each has 16 and call it quits. They could flip a coin to see who starts and then reverse the order after the first four picks and after the eighth pick flip again and repeat the process. If Bowlsby wants in he and Swofford have to find a way to settle it between just the two of them. ESPN might like to air a Thunderdome like grudge match. In the end it might make about as much sense anyway. Those that didn't want to play inside a group of 16 could just sit in the corner and play all by themselves. And it wouldn't matter if the number was 72 or 80 just use the same process. We could redo it every 10 years and put that on live television as well. It would be better than the NCAA tourney brackets and the sportswriters would have a field day.

I'm the newest here, so I'll suck it up and be Swofford and take the last pick of the 1st round. JRSec, your idea, so you can be Slive. Do we have a Delany and Scott out there? Could this exercise not also double as a game of Risk? If so, you may find Alaska in the PAC!

I'm not sure I would make a good Slive. If I had first pick I would take Southern Cal just so I could fire Lane Kiffen. Seriously the first pick would be tough. Texas for the revenue, Ohio State or Michigan for revenue, Alabama for championships although the revenue is not bad there either, or Notre Dame for national audience. You would have to have a motive. Are you going for titles, revenue, prestige, or spite? I guess we need some more ground rules here.

Hmmm... first of all, I agree with any decision that pokes Lane Kiffin. Is there any doubt there will be a reality show soon that features Kiffin's wife and Enfield's (new BBall coach) wife? I'm watching.

I think the ground rules should basically be the same as any draft. You have to draft based on a combination of skills and fit. In university terms, that would be revenue and culture. Here's the fun part... there is no reason that trades cannot be made during and after the draft. Say you draft Texas #1 but don't get another pick until #8. You could probably get Oklahoma there, but are you wanting to go for gold and get Texas and Alabama? You know Bama does not make it to #8, but do you make a deal with the #5 picker if they are still on the board to give him your #8 and your 4th round pick for his #5 and 16th round pick? If that guy drafted USC with his #4 pick and feels confident that he can get another good fit with his 3rd round pick plus gets two more great schools with his other pick and your traded pick, maybe. I'm liking the prospects of this!

(04-19-2013 02:48 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 02:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 02:15 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 02:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Shoot boys, let's just pick four captains call them Slive, Scott, Delany and Swofford and let them pick until each has 16 and call it quits. They could flip a coin to see who starts and then reverse the order after the first four picks and after the eighth pick flip again and repeat the process. If Bowlsby wants in he and Swofford have to find a way to settle it between just the two of them. ESPN might like to air a Thunderdome like grudge match. In the end it might make about as much sense anyway. Those that didn't want to play inside a group of 16 could just sit in the corner and play all by themselves. And it wouldn't matter if the number was 72 or 80 just use the same process. We could redo it every 10 years and put that on live television as well. It would be better than the NCAA tourney brackets and the sportswriters would have a field day.

I'm the newest here, so I'll suck it up and be Swofford and take the last pick of the 1st round. JRSec, your idea, so you can be Slive. Do we have a Delany and Scott out there? Could this exercise not also double as a game of Risk? If so, you may find Alaska in the PAC!

I'm not sure I would make a good Slive. If I had first pick I would take Southern Cal just so I could fire Lane Kiffen. Seriously the first pick would be tough. Texas for the revenue, Ohio State or Michigan for revenue, Alabama for championships although the revenue is not bad there either, or Notre Dame for national audience. You would have to have a motive. Are you going for titles, revenue, prestige, or spite? I guess we need some more ground rules here.

Hmmm... first of all, I agree with any decision that pokes Lane Kiffin. Is there any doubt there will be a reality show soon that features Kiffin's wife and Enfield's (new BBall coach) wife? I'm watching.

I think the ground rules should basically be the same as any draft. You have to draft based on a combination of skills and fit. In university terms, that would be revenue and culture. Here's the fun part... there is no reason that trades cannot be made during and after the draft. Say you draft Texas #1 but don't get another pick until #8. You could probably get Oklahoma there, but are you wanting to go for gold and get Texas and Alabama? You know Bama does not make it to #8, but do you make a deal with the #5 picker if they are still on the board to give him your #8 and your 4th round pick for his #5 and 16th round pick? If that guy drafted USC with his #4 pick and feels confident that he can get another good fit with his 3rd round pick plus gets two more great schools with his other pick and your traded pick, maybe. I'm liking the prospects of this!

Of course just like NASCAR, the SEC should receive a Champions Provisional" and either pick first or get a free pick...

The board here actually did a mock conference draft back in June of '11 for 12 team conferences

There were 6 drafters:

Fresno St. Alum
PistolChad
BornCoog74
Theodoresdaddy
ChrisLords
UofLCard94

these were their picks (schools are in order of the round they were picked in)

Conference 1 - Florida, Penn State, Oklahoma, North Carolina, South Carolina, Connecticut, Georgia Tech, Illinois, Minnesota, Virginia, Kansas State, Purdue

Conference 2 - Texas, Ohio State, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Maryland, Arizona State, Stanford, South Florida, Nevada, New Mexico

Conference 3 - Alabama, Michigan, Miami, UCLA, West Virginia, Brigham Young, Houston, Utah, Duke, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Memphis

Conference 4 - Texas Christian, Auburn, LSU, Oregon, Washington, Iowa, Boise State, Syracuse, Colorado, Central Florida, East Carolina, Massachusetts

Conference 5 - Notre Dame, Southern California, Nebraska, Virginia Tech, Clemson, Pitt, Kentucy, Kansas, Texas Tech, Boston College, Cincinnati, Temple

Conference 6 - Florida State, Texas A&M, Georgia, Arkansas, Michigan State, California, Louisville, Arizona, Indiana, North Carolina State, Oregon State, Air Force

Here is the link if you want to read the whole thread:

2011 Realignment Draft

(04-19-2013 04:06 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  The board here actually did a mock conference draft back in June of '11 for 12 team conferences

There were 6 drafters:

Fresno St. Alum
PistolChad
BornCoog74
Theodoresdaddy
ChrisLords
UofLCard94

these were their picks (schools are in order of the round they were picked in)

Conference 1 - Florida, Penn State, Oklahoma, North Carolina, South Carolina, Connecticut, Georgia Tech, Illinois, Minnesota, Virginia, Kansas State, Purdue

Conference 2 - Texas, Ohio State, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Maryland, Arizona State, Stanford, South Florida, Nevada, New Mexico

Conference 3 - Alabama, Michigan, Miami, UCLA, West Virginia, Brigham Young, Houston, Utah, Duke, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Memphis

Conference 4 - Texas Christian, Auburn, LSU, Oregon, Washington, Iowa, Boise State, Syracuse, Colorado, Central Florida, East Carolina, Massachusetts

Conference 5 - Notre Dame, Southern California, Nebraska, Virginia Tech, Clemson, Pitt, Kentucy, Kansas, Texas Tech, Boston College, Cincinnati, Temple

Conference 6 - Florida State, Texas A&M, Georgia, Arkansas, Michigan State, California, Louisville, Arizona, Indiana, North Carolina State, Oregon State, Air Force

Here is the link if you want to read the whole thread:

2011 Realignment Draft

I love it! I am totally on board if a few other guys want to run a draft again. I think trades should be allowed at the end, though. I'd even be for trades during the draft, but I know that could get cumbersome. As an extra challenge, each person should explain why they made a certain pick, but they can only use as many words as the round they picked that team in. For example, the 1st round pick must be explained in one word, the 7th round pick in seven words, etc. I bet we can get some funny stuff out of that!

(04-19-2013 04:23 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 04:06 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  The board here actually did a mock conference draft back in June of '11 for 12 team conferences

There were 6 drafters:

Fresno St. Alum
PistolChad
BornCoog74
Theodoresdaddy
ChrisLords
UofLCard94

these were their picks (schools are in order of the round they were picked in)

Conference 1 - Florida, Penn State, Oklahoma, North Carolina, South Carolina, Connecticut, Georgia Tech, Illinois, Minnesota, Virginia, Kansas State, Purdue

Conference 2 - Texas, Ohio State, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Maryland, Arizona State, Stanford, South Florida, Nevada, New Mexico

Conference 3 - Alabama, Michigan, Miami, UCLA, West Virginia, Brigham Young, Houston, Utah, Duke, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Memphis

Conference 4 - Texas Christian, Auburn, LSU, Oregon, Washington, Iowa, Boise State, Syracuse, Colorado, Central Florida, East Carolina, Massachusetts

Conference 5 - Notre Dame, Southern California, Nebraska, Virginia Tech, Clemson, Pitt, Kentucy, Kansas, Texas Tech, Boston College, Cincinnati, Temple

Conference 6 - Florida State, Texas A&M, Georgia, Arkansas, Michigan State, California, Louisville, Arizona, Indiana, North Carolina State, Oregon State, Air Force

Here is the link if you want to read the whole thread:

2011 Realignment Draft

I love it! I am totally on board if a few other guys want to run a draft again. I think trades should be allowed at the end, though. I'd even be for trades during the draft, but I know that could get cumbersome. As an extra challenge, each person should explain why they made a certain pick, but they can only use as many words as the round they picked that team in. For example, the 1st round pick must be explained in one word, the 7th round pick in seven words, etc. I bet we can get some funny stuff out of that!

Let's not get anal retentive here. If we do it then we could schedule draft days for slow post days. Hold two rounds a week until we get to 64 total teams that would roughly take 2 months, and then draft 8 more (2 per conference) to see what 72 could look like. We break for trades after the first 8 teams per conference, and then again at 16. We can have a scoring system for geographical and cultural fit, academic fit, competitive fit, and profitability. A maximum score of 10 for each category with a total maximum of 40. Scores must be derived by consensus of those participating. Think about it, work it out, and send me private message when you think you're ready. Then think about inviting a PAC guy (Wedge comes to mind) and a Big 10 guy to get in on it. It could be fun. Especially if the news remains this slow. You make the call on ACC or Big 12 for the fourth. That will piss some folks off with you right away. Take care.

Whoever picked for conference #4 lost...by a lot.

I really, really hope that TCU wasn't their first pick.

(04-19-2013 04:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 04:23 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 04:06 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  The board here actually did a mock conference draft back in June of '11 for 12 team conferences

There were 6 drafters:

Fresno St. Alum
PistolChad
BornCoog74
Theodoresdaddy
ChrisLords
UofLCard94

these were their picks (schools are in order of the round they were picked in)

Conference 1 - Florida, Penn State, Oklahoma, North Carolina, South Carolina, Connecticut, Georgia Tech, Illinois, Minnesota, Virginia, Kansas State, Purdue

Conference 2 - Texas, Ohio State, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Maryland, Arizona State, Stanford, South Florida, Nevada, New Mexico

Conference 3 - Alabama, Michigan, Miami, UCLA, West Virginia, Brigham Young, Houston, Utah, Duke, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Memphis

Conference 4 - Texas Christian, Auburn, LSU, Oregon, Washington, Iowa, Boise State, Syracuse, Colorado, Central Florida, East Carolina, Massachusetts

Conference 5 - Notre Dame, Southern California, Nebraska, Virginia Tech, Clemson, Pitt, Kentucy, Kansas, Texas Tech, Boston College, Cincinnati, Temple

Conference 6 - Florida State, Texas A&M, Georgia, Arkansas, Michigan State, California, Louisville, Arizona, Indiana, North Carolina State, Oregon State, Air Force

Here is the link if you want to read the whole thread:

2011 Realignment Draft

I love it! I am totally on board if a few other guys want to run a draft again. I think trades should be allowed at the end, though. I'd even be for trades during the draft, but I know that could get cumbersome. As an extra challenge, each person should explain why they made a certain pick, but they can only use as many words as the round they picked that team in. For example, the 1st round pick must be explained in one word, the 7th round pick in seven words, etc. I bet we can get some funny stuff out of that!

Let's not get anal retentive here. If we do it then we could schedule draft days for slow post days. Hold two rounds a week until we get to 64 total teams that would roughly take 2 months, and then draft 8 more (2 per conference) to see what 72 could look like. We break for trades after the first 8 teams per conference, and then again at 16. We can have a scoring system for geographical and cultural fit, academic fit, competitive fit, and profitability. A maximum score of 10 for each category with a total maximum of 40. Scores must be derived by consensus of those participating. Think about it, work it out, and send me private message when you think you're ready. Then think about inviting a PAC guy (Wedge comes to mind) and a Big 10 guy to get in on it. It could be fun. Especially if the news remains this slow. You make the call on ACC or Big 12 for the fourth. That will piss some folks off with you right away. Take care.

Profitability and academics should be easy (The most recent NCAA equity revenue report and the U.S. News and World Report College Rankings.) I'll be in touch. Everybody have a good weekend.

(04-19-2013 04:48 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Whoever picked for conference #4 lost...by a lot.

I really, really hope that TCU wasn't their first pick.

I know, I laughed at the TCU pick, too.

I would sign up to do this. I would limit trades to 2-3 teams per conference so that the draft > wheeling and dealing (but maybe the dealing is the whole point, idk). Furthermore, I would expand this to do 10 x 12 = 120 teams total. I would love to see how people rate mid-majors against each other.

Yeah, that was a head scratcher because (as I pointed out at the time) you were picking a tiny private school with a tiny fan base and limited appeal outside Fort Worth when some of the biggest fish like Notre Dame, Michigan, Ohio State and Southern Cal were all still available

(04-19-2013 06:10 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Yeah, that was a head scratcher because (as I pointed out at the time) you were picking a tiny private school with a tiny fan base and limited appeal outside Fort Worth when some of the biggest fish like Notre Dame, Michigan, Ohio State and Southern Cal were all still available

Auburn as a #2 was another terrible pick. He must have been joking or something.

Auburn isn't bad. They just aren't better than Michigan, Ohio State, and a bunch of other teams on the board. They are a low #3, not a mid #2.

What an idiotic thread! No, Washington State would never willingly leave the Pac-12, nor should they, every one of the NW schools would fight it.

First, they are less of a small market school than say, Auburn. Washington State's fan base is Seattle, and it's easily 1/3 of a state with 6 million plus residents. Sadly, the fan base is 300 miles away over a mountain pass, which understandably hurts season ticket sales.

Second, Idaho left the PAC (willingly or unwillingly, I'm not sure); they have yet to recover. No "golden parachute" would make it worthwhile to leave the PAC-12 money train.

Third, Wazzu has had decent hoops and was a pretty strong football program until about 2005, when one bad hire decimated the program. It's on it's way back with Mike Leach.

Fourth, they are an original PAC-8 school. If you plan to kick someone out, boot a newbie like Arizona or Colorado. Oh wait, that's equally idiotic.

Once you're in, you're in. You'd have to be a really pathetic athletic department and unconcerned about to get booted. AD Bill Moos is doing everything right at Wazzu.

I skipped over most of this. But does the OP realize that UK is in as much of a leech on the sec as is msu?

Seems EMU would be the poster school for this in the MAC.

The main reason that Temple got kicked out of the Big East was lack of stadium control. The Eagles and Phillies had first rights to the Vet and when they were home Temple had to play at Penn's Franklin Field if it was available. Temple had to play a home conference game against Pitt at Pitt and a rare home game against Penn State at the Meadowlands.

(04-20-2013 10:47 PM)RutgersMike Wrote:  The main reason that Temple got kicked out of the Big East was lack of stadium control. The Eagles and Phillies had first rights to the Vet and when they were home Temple had to play at Penn's Franklin Field if it was available. Temple had to play a home conference game against Pitt at Pitt and a rare home game against Penn State at the Meadowlands.

According to a former assistant AD at Temple, they were given a list of criteria to meet regarding ticket sales, budget, competiveness, and stadium availability. Each year they were to meet with the commissioner and provide an update on their progress as well as plans to move closer to compliance.

The president at the time had made a name by trying to drop football at a Division II school he had been at and was rumored to believe dropping football was the cure for what ailed Temple.

He went into the meeting and told the commissioner Temple had again failed to meet criteria, would never be able to meet the criteria, and would make no effort to meet the criteria. Commissioner said fine, you are out. The head of the board of trustees found out called the commissioner and begged for Temple to be retained and was only able to get the kickout date moved back.

Here's the situation with the PAC.

Originally, the Pacific Coast Conference (PCC) was formed by Cal, Oregon, Oregon St., and Washington in 1915. Washington St. was added in 1917, Stanford in 1918, Idaho and USC in 1922, Montana in 1924, and UCLA in 1928. Montana left the conference in 1950 for the Skyline Conference.

In 1959, there was a big cheating scandal, which caused the disbandment of the league.

Later that year, Cal, Washington, UCLA, USC and Stanford got together and formed the Athletic Association of Western Universities (AAWU), also known as the Big-5. In 1962, Washington St. joined, and the league informally became the Big-6. Then Oregon and Oregon St. joined in 1964, and the league became informally the Pacific-8 (as there was already a Big 8). In 1968, the League formally renamed itself the Pacific-8 conference. Arizona and Arizona St. joined in 1978, and the league renamed itself the Pacific-10. Then in 2012, Utah and Colorado entered, and it renamed itself the Pacific-12.

The old PAC-8 schools literally have ties going back to 1928 (When UCLA joined the PCC), and except for a period of about 5 years, have been together since then. Washington, Washington St., Oregon, and Oregon St. hold the top 6 slots for the most games in College Basketball. There is no way that you're going to kick any of those schools out of the conference.

And as far as Idaho being kicked out of the PAC, that's not exactly how it happened. The conference dissolved after a cheating scandle, and Idaho was never asked to join back with them. By the time that Oregon and Oregon St. joined, Idaho had taken part in forming the Big Sky conference.