(09-20-2013 10:32 AM)S11 Wrote:  

(09-20-2013 10:16 AM)john01992 Wrote:  do you guys realize how hard it is to find 12 games in the same week?

It doesn't have to be the same week buddy

the b10 was 100% adamant about it being all 12 teams in the same week. they had that all or nothing mentality. just goes to show that the 5 conferences have different agenda's when going about these "alliances".

Quote:or the budget issues involved with cutting a home game?

or the logistical issues of finding an open ooc slot?

Yes we get that, we just think it's a heck of a lot easier than getting multiple leagues to coordinate a raid

well how do you fit in utah? they have 2 year ooc's already, why would they want to have their final ooc be against a p5 team, thats brutal for them

Quote:or getting 2 conferences on the exact same page?

or last but not least getting 24-26 schools to agree to that?

its a LOT harder than you guys think

This last part can be applied even heavier on our argument that a coordinated raid is tougher.

Neither is easy however your scheduling agreement scenario is Sword Beach on D-Day and the coordinated raid is Omaha Beach in terms of difficulty. One is not THAT bad and the other is as tough as it gets.

when you have conferences raiding each other they are doing so in the best interest of the conference and are acting on behalf of the conference. all 12 schools are united by one solid tendency. the individual schools are not looking on behalf of themselves. otherwise nebraska wisky iowa etc. would never have agreed to md/ru whereas psu & osu would never have agreed to nebraska. its all about expanding the conferences blueprint not a school.

but scheduling ooc slots is a whole different ballpark because each school is working independently. its very hard to find an example where all the schools of one conference have the same scheduling tendency. rather than look out for whats best for the conference as a whole, this is where each school is trying to do whats best for themselves because they only get a limited amount of ooc games to work with.

scheduling ooc is very hard, and usually has deals made 7, 8, 9 years in advance. the NYT just did an article on ESPN and how schools go to them for scheduling help cuz they cant figure out who to play

(09-20-2013 10:39 AM)bluesox Wrote:  I can get to 6 pretty easy for school's in the big 12 who could find homes and break the GOR, 4 to the pac, 1 to the big 10, 1 to the sec. Yet, getting to 8 is much more difficult. I would guess if its 6, a lawsuit could happen that 6 is enough to break the GOR considering it is enough to disband the league. More likely if your going the disband route, its a pac 20 with 8 big 12 invites so its a clean disband. In that case, its just one conference making a move.

The PAC 12 would make more $$$ as the PAC 16 or maybe 18, but 20 is too many mouths to feed. KU bball is worth more in the B10 than the PAC 12 or SEC. Iowa St’s rivalry with Iowa is worth more in the B10 and is worthless to any other conference. OU football is worth more $$$ in the SEC with aTm than in the PAC 12 with USC. My point, if those three conferences really wanted to, they could break apart the B12 easily. Most of us thought that the ACC was the most vulnerable conference when it’s the B12. The B12 has schools that would benefit the B10, SEC, and PAC 12 if they are parceled out properly. The B10 taking Nebraska without Misso and KU was a serious mistake. The PAC 12 turning down OU and OSU was the worst mistake ever—period (because its expansion options that include marquee schools are nonexistent). The SEC also passing on OU and OSU was another mistake. However, when you’re the SECond to none football conference, you can afford to make a pass like that, but not the PAC 12. Consequently, these conferences won’t make the same foolish mistakes next time. However, there will not be a next time unless they work together….

(09-20-2013 11:17 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(09-20-2013 10:39 AM)bluesox Wrote:  I can get to 6 pretty easy for school's in the big 12 who could find homes and break the GOR, 4 to the pac, 1 to the big 10, 1 to the sec. Yet, getting to 8 is much more difficult. I would guess if its 6, a lawsuit could happen that 6 is enough to break the GOR considering it is enough to disband the league. More likely if your going the disband route, its a pac 20 with 8 big 12 invites so its a clean disband. In that case, its just one conference making a move.

The PAC 12 would make more $$$ as the PAC 16 or maybe 18, but 20 is too many mouths to feed. KU bball is worth more in the B10 than the PAC 12 or SEC. Iowa St’s rivalry with Iowa is worth more in the B10 and is worthless to any other conference. OU football is worth more $$$ in the SEC with aTm than in the PAC 12 with USC. My point, if those three conferences really wanted to, they could break apart the B12 easily. Most of us thought that the ACC was the most vulnerable conference when it’s the B12. The B12 has schools that would benefit the B10, SEC, and PAC 12 if they are parceled out properly. The B10 taking Nebraska without Misso and KU was a serious mistake. The PAC 12 turning down OU and OSU was the worst mistake ever—period (because its expansion options that include marquee schools are nonexistent). The SEC also passing on OU and OSU was another mistake. However, when you’re the SECond to none football conference, you can afford to make a pass like that, but not the PAC 12. Consequently, these conferences won’t make the same foolish mistakes next time. However, there will not be a next time unless they work together….

I don't believe what I am about to say is going to happen. I merely say it to point out how nothing is certain. To dissolve the Big 12 it takes 8 votes which means 8 teams that could find more value in another conference. To dissolve the ACC it takes 12 teams to do the same. Hypothetically if the PAC took 8 Big 12 teams, the Big 10 took 6 ACC teams, and the SEC took 6 ACC teams then both conferences could be dissolved. Eliminating two conferences would ensure that the 60 remaining P3 teams would all make 2 plus million more a year just from the reduced shares of playoff money (in terms of 2 conferences and 4 team's shares). And that doesn't include added market or content value for their respective networks. In my opinion there is still more value to be found in the ACC than the Big 12. But, only the Big 12 can supply the PAC with more P5 teams.

As far as scheduling if the newly formed 20 team conferences each had 4 divisions of 5 teams each and only played conference games the scheduling issues could be decided by a computer in one afternoon. Each conference would then hold its mystique into the post season which would actually generate even more interest in their products.

So, while I don't think this is going to happen it is theoretically possible, and the coordination required not nearly as difficult for either the acquisitions or scheduling as some of you indicate. If the present scheduling practices were kept instead of moving to only conference games then I would agree about the difficulty of scheduling. But in the event some kind of move like this ever happens the new division or association would likely keep all of its play in house.

To back up what JRsec is saying, there is a difference between discussing the logistical issue of if something will happen versus predicting it will happen. Just like there is a difference between discussing why it would make sense for someone to make a certain move, versus either predicting that it will happen, or even should happen. sometimes you are just discussing if it makes any sense for it to happen, which is different from a prediction.

(09-20-2013 09:32 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  I simply cant see the SEC going to 16 to bring in two tiny markets like OK and WV when all the bigger and better markets we want are back east so at most, one of them would happen.

You clearly know little about markets in the east. WVU's broadcast footprint includes Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and DC, and with SEC membership that footprint would most likely expand to include Columbus, OH and Philadelphia as well...

West Virginia may be a small market, but it's ideally situated for the SEC to encroach on both the B1G and ACC...

(09-20-2013 11:40 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-20-2013 11:17 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(09-20-2013 10:39 AM)bluesox Wrote:  I can get to 6 pretty easy for school's in the big 12 who could find homes and break the GOR, 4 to the pac, 1 to the big 10, 1 to the sec. Yet, getting to 8 is much more difficult. I would guess if its 6, a lawsuit could happen that 6 is enough to break the GOR considering it is enough to disband the league. More likely if your going the disband route, its a pac 20 with 8 big 12 invites so its a clean disband. In that case, its just one conference making a move.

The PAC 12 would make more $$$ as the PAC 16 or maybe 18, but 20 is too many mouths to feed. KU bball is worth more in the B10 than the PAC 12 or SEC. Iowa St’s rivalry with Iowa is worth more in the B10 and is worthless to any other conference. OU football is worth more $$$ in the SEC with aTm than in the PAC 12 with USC. My point, if those three conferences really wanted to, they could break apart the B12 easily. Most of us thought that the ACC was the most vulnerable conference when it’s the B12. The B12 has schools that would benefit the B10, SEC, and PAC 12 if they are parceled out properly. The B10 taking Nebraska without Misso and KU was a serious mistake. The PAC 12 turning down OU and OSU was the worst mistake ever—period (because its expansion options that include marquee schools are nonexistent). The SEC also passing on OU and OSU was another mistake. However, when you’re the SECond to none football conference, you can afford to make a pass like that, but not the PAC 12. Consequently, these conferences won’t make the same foolish mistakes next time. However, there will not be a next time unless they work together….

I don't believe what I am about to say is going to happen. I merely say it to point out how nothing is certain. To dissolve the Big 12 it takes 8 votes which means 8 teams that could find more value in another conference. To dissolve the ACC it takes 12 teams to do the same. Hypothetically if the PAC took 8 Big 12 teams, the Big 10 took 6 ACC teams, and the SEC took 6 ACC teams then both conferences could be dissolved. Eliminating two conferences would ensure that the 60 remaining P3 teams would all make 2 plus million more a year just from the reduced shares of playoff money (in terms of 2 conferences and 4 team's shares). And that doesn't include added market or content value for their respective networks. In my opinion there is still more value to be found in the ACC than the Big 12. But, only the Big 12 can supply the PAC with more P5 teams.

I believe what you’ve posted is very possible.... We know the B10 and PAC 12 have considered such expansion—the B10 was focused on feasting upon the ACC while the PAC 12 was looking at devouring much of the B12. If the two conferences could get the SEC's cooperation, it could happen because the conferences are slowly reaching their potential for generating more $$$. Cannibalizing other power conferences may be the only viable option in the future. Neither the ACC nor the B12 have the power to raid the other power conferences. However, if the B10, SEC, and PAC 12 unite, the ACC and B12 (for sure) could be dissolved and absorbed into the Big Three....

No doubt the pac 12 would make more at 16 with texas, texas tech, OU, and KU but that probably isn't possible. Thus, the pac 12 might go with a pac 20 otherwise they get shutout of expansion prime picks. IT would be a pretty powerful union of the original pac 10 in a division with a 10 team texas based league in another division. OF course, texas need to get rid of the LHN and that isn't what they want to do. As for the acc, i don't believe the school's running the acc want to leave the acc. For the acc to get picked apart, the big 10 would probably need to expand to about 40 so they could create an acc division.

(09-20-2013 12:42 PM)bluesox Wrote:  No doubt the pac 12 would make more at 16 with texas, texas tech, OU, and KU but that probably isn't possible. Thus, the pac 12 might go with a pac 20 otherwise they get shutout of expansion prime picks. IT would be a pretty powerful union of the original pac 10 in a division with a 10 team texas based league in another division. OF course, texas need to get rid of the LHN and that isn't what they want to do. As for the acc, i don't believe the school's running the acc want to leave the acc. For the acc to get picked apart, the big 10 would probably need to expand to about 40 so they could create an acc division.

I think you overlooked the following simplistic, yet excellent explanation by JRsec on how the ACC and B12 could feasibly be dissolved and absorbed into the B10, SEC, and PAC 12. Also remember that the B10 wanted to do it and the PAC 12 actually tried it:

(09-20-2013 11:40 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I don't believe what I am about to say is going to happen. I merely say it to point out how nothing is certain. To dissolve the Big 12 it takes 8 votes which means 8 teams that could find more value in another conference. To dissolve the ACC it takes 12 teams to do the same. Hypothetically if the PAC took 8 Big 12 teams, the Big 10 took 6 ACC teams, and the SEC took 6 ACC teams then both conferences could be dissolved. Eliminating two conferences would ensure that the 60 remaining P3 teams would all make 2 plus million more a year just from the reduced shares of playoff money (in terms of 2 conferences and 4 team's shares). And that doesn't include added market or content value for their respective networks. In my opinion there is still more value to be found in the ACC than the Big 12. But, only the Big 12 can supply the PAC with more P5 teams.

(09-20-2013 12:42 PM)bluesox Wrote:  No doubt the pac 12 would make more at 16 with texas, texas tech, OU, and KU but that probably isn't possible. Thus, the pac 12 might go with a pac 20 otherwise they get shutout of expansion prime picks. IT would be a pretty powerful union of the original pac 10 in a division with a 10 team texas based league in another division. OF course, texas need to get rid of the LHN and that isn't what they want to do. As for the acc, i don't believe the school's running the acc want to leave the acc. For the acc to get picked apart, the big 10 would probably need to expand to about 40 so they could create an acc division.

The Texas AD has already stated publicly that UT would never go west if it joined another conference, because that's too hard on the student athletes returning to campus after an away game. They'll do all in their power to keep the Big 12 together (which imho pretty much ensures its survival) and have proven it. The only other possibility they've considered, apparently, is joining the ACC, but that is only in the event of an OU departure. And I don't believe OU would ever leave without Texas.

(09-20-2013 12:59 PM)Cardinals Wrote:  

(09-20-2013 12:42 PM)bluesox Wrote:  No doubt the pac 12 would make more at 16 with texas, texas tech, OU, and KU but that probably isn't possible. Thus, the pac 12 might go with a pac 20 otherwise they get shutout of expansion prime picks. IT would be a pretty powerful union of the original pac 10 in a division with a 10 team texas based league in another division. OF course, texas need to get rid of the LHN and that isn't what they want to do. As for the acc, i don't believe the school's running the acc want to leave the acc. For the acc to get picked apart, the big 10 would probably need to expand to about 40 so they could create an acc division.

The Texas AD has already stated publicly that UT would never go west if it joined another conference, because that's too hard on the student athletes returning to campus after an away game. They'll do all in their power to keep the Big 12 together (which imho pretty much ensures its survival) and have proven it. The only other possibility they've considered, apparently, is joining the ACC, but that is only in the event of an OU departure. And I don't believe OU would ever leave without Texas.

You left out the part when he states that the B12 would have died without OU. The lame excuse he gave about time zone issues was absurd. He should have said TX wanted more eastern exposure, but he had to insult our intelligence with that TX tale…. Moreover, the PAC 12 was the only conference willing to take TT with TX, and he didn't even mention what would have happened to TT (or the other schools) if the B12 had died because he was too busy bragging about how TX would make more $$$ than any other school in the nation….

(09-20-2013 12:59 PM)Cardinals Wrote:  

(09-20-2013 12:42 PM)bluesox Wrote:  No doubt the pac 12 would make more at 16 with texas, texas tech, OU, and KU but that probably isn't possible. Thus, the pac 12 might go with a pac 20 otherwise they get shutout of expansion prime picks. IT would be a pretty powerful union of the original pac 10 in a division with a 10 team texas based league in another division. OF course, texas need to get rid of the LHN and that isn't what they want to do. As for the acc, i don't believe the school's running the acc want to leave the acc. For the acc to get picked apart, the big 10 would probably need to expand to about 40 so they could create an acc division.

The Texas AD has already stated publicly that UT would never go west if it joined another conference, because that's too hard on the student athletes returning to campus after an away game. They'll do all in their power to keep the Big 12 together (which imho pretty much ensures its survival) and have proven it. The only other possibility they've considered, apparently, is joining the ACC, but that is only in the event of an OU departure. And I don't believe OU would ever leave without Texas.

Once again, hypothetically if the PAC took 8 Big 12 schools (Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Texas Christian, and Texas) it would probably have to break down into 4 divisions of 5 for scheduling. That means that the three Texas Schools Colorado and Utah would be in one division and the two Oklahoma and Kansas schools with Iowa State in the other. A conference season would be 10 games. 4 games in your division and an annual rotation of the 5 games from another rotating division. If there are 10 conference games that means you have 1 additional protected annual rival to permit the RR shootout. On any given year Texas would have 5 home games the RRS in Dallas, and only a maximum of 3 potentially long road games. That's not much different from what they have now.

(09-20-2013 12:42 PM)bluesox Wrote:  No doubt the pac 12 would make more at 16 with texas, texas tech, OU, and KU but that probably isn't possible. Thus, the pac 12 might go with a pac 20 otherwise they get shutout of expansion prime picks. IT would be a pretty powerful union of the original pac 10 in a division with a 10 team texas based league in another division.

The only reason for having a league that large is to have more leverage with the TV folks.

You could get the same leverage by keeping the leagues separate and having an agreement between them to sell their combined TV rights in one package. Given that the Pac has PTN and the Big 12 gives non-ESPN/Fox rights back to the schools, it could be done relatively easily, e.g. a package of 45 Pac-12 football games (the number they currently sell to ESPN/Fox), 60 Pac-12 men's BB games, 45 Big 12 FB games, and 60 Big 12 men's BB games. Maybe throw in a few extras for the TV networks such as some baseball games and the women's BB tournament final. All Pac-12 rights not part of the package belong to PTN, all Big 12 rights not part of the package belong to the Big 12 home teams.

can we cut these pac 20, pac 18 rumors????

the pac is not gonna add 8 teams.

they will add no more than 4 (with a pod system)

theres no way cu, & utah (or any other p12 school) ever agree to get stuck in a 10 team pac 12 eastern division

those are two westward looking schools who dont want to lose their newly gained california access.

and then theres the whole religion thing so lets just drop any mention of tcu, baylor & byu

(09-20-2013 12:33 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(09-20-2013 09:32 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  I simply cant see the SEC going to 16 to bring in two tiny markets like OK and WV when all the bigger and better markets we want are back east so at most, one of them would happen.

You clearly know little about markets in the east. WVU's broadcast footprint includes Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and DC, and with SEC membership that footprint would most likely expand to include Columbus, OH and Philadelphia as well...

West Virginia may be a small market, but it's ideally situated for the SEC to encroach on both the B1G and ACC...

Bit, you know as well as I do that 10th hates the Big 12 and wants it to fail. I want the Big 12 to fail as well. That being said, West Virginia will find a power conference and they would be a perfect addition to the SEC. West Virginia has a solid fan base, good facilities and access to big TV markets.

(09-20-2013 11:40 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(09-20-2013 12:33 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(09-20-2013 09:32 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  I simply cant see the SEC going to 16 to bring in two tiny markets like OK and WV when all the bigger and better markets we want are back east so at most, one of them would happen.

You clearly know little about markets in the east. WVU's broadcast footprint includes Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and DC, and with SEC membership that footprint would most likely expand to include Columbus, OH and Philadelphia as well...

West Virginia may be a small market, but it's ideally situated for the SEC to encroach on both the B1G and ACC...

Bit, you know as well as I do that 10th hates the Big 12 and wants it to fail. I want the Big 12 to fail as well. That being said, West Virginia will find a power conference and they would be a perfect addition to the SEC. West Virginia has a solid fan base, good facilities and access to big TV markets.

If I were you, I'd support the B12. If the B12 fails, and you guys aren't as closely tied politically to Texas as you think, TT could be left out in the cold in the next round of realignment. Counting on political maneuvering is a risky proposition at best...

(09-21-2013 09:46 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(09-20-2013 11:40 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(09-20-2013 12:33 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(09-20-2013 09:32 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  I simply cant see the SEC going to 16 to bring in two tiny markets like OK and WV when all the bigger and better markets we want are back east so at most, one of them would happen.

You clearly know little about markets in the east. WVU's broadcast footprint includes Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and DC, and with SEC membership that footprint would most likely expand to include Columbus, OH and Philadelphia as well...

West Virginia may be a small market, but it's ideally situated for the SEC to encroach on both the B1G and ACC...

Bit, you know as well as I do that 10th hates the Big 12 and wants it to fail. I want the Big 12 to fail as well. That being said, West Virginia will find a power conference and they would be a perfect addition to the SEC. West Virginia has a solid fan base, good facilities and access to big TV markets.

If I were you, I'd support the B12. If the B12 fails, and you guys aren't as closely tied politically to Texas as you think, TT could be left out in the cold in the next round of realignment. Counting on political maneuvering is a risky proposition at best...

Tech isn't uh. We are the 3rd largest fan supported University in a state with 26 million people. Tech will be fine in the next round of realignment. I honestly believe WVU will be fine as well but if the Big 12 dies and the SEC/ACC doesn't come calling, WVU could be in big time trouble.

As for the Big 12, I hope it dies because I'm tired of certain fans begging for a power conference when they have no shot at joining.

I could care less about the begging. The B12 is the only conference that still has round robin play in every sport every year, which IMO is how a conference is supposed to work. Play all your conference mates every year in every sport. What others do isn't germane to the issue, since we aren't followers, and go our own way...

A pac 20 could basically be 2 separate leagues under one banner. The only tie would be 1 regular season football game, 9-1 schedule format, and football champ game between the two divisions. You could run everything else separately, 2 hoop tourney, 2 baseball tourney, etc. Of course, you would need some rule changes so leagues could hold 2 tourneys and get a bid, i'm assuming the d4 setup brings in new rules. As for colorado and utah going to the east, they get outvoted. I would guess the 10 original pac 10 school's would be fine telling colorado and utah they are going east. Granted, its a little complicated but so is the d4 setup.

If the B12 and P12 were under one banner, it would be 22 teams, not 20...

Although if the P12 jettisoned CU and UU, that would work out just fine. I doubt the B12 would pick either up...

(09-21-2013 11:33 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  If the B12 and P12 were under one banner, it would be 22 teams, not 20...

Although if the P12 jettisoned CU and UU, that would work out just fine. I doubt the B12 would pick either up...

this is what i mean by how stupid b12 homers are