(06-30-2014 01:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-30-2014 12:55 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(06-30-2014 11:19 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  JMO, but I think we're in for at least a decade of stability

I was in the same frame of mind not long ago... Unpredictable movements over scatter years however have adjusted in how I go about stability for college football.

I think today's views $$$ and squabbles between conferences will bring additional unwanted and unexpected moves.

Stability isn't comfortable yet... Right B12!?!

The only way I see UH getting into a P5 is if the Pac 12 feels some need to get into Texas and gives up on UT. The only way UH gets into the Big 12 is if there aren't already 4 Texas teams. If UT and OU leave, then it will be like UH's one year sojourn in a BCS conference. The remaining Big 12 will be downgraded like the Big East was. UH just isn't in a good place. They don't add anything to the 2 local conferences, the Big 12 and SEC.

I tend to agree. However, I tend to think either one or the other of those things is actually likely to happen. Either Texas will move to the Pac-12 or they wont. If they don't, then getting into Texas still will eventually be necessary for the Pac-12 to keep up with the other more heavily populated conferences. If Texas does go to the Pac-12, a battered Big-12 would still be a significant improvement over our current situation---especially when geography is considered.

I don't think there stability right now
P5 has yet set up ground rules
65 schools in P5 is not enough
you got 4 conf networks starting or in their infancies
there are a lot of BB programs that could help
you also have WBB, Hockey, Lax & baseball still growing as revenue sport
there is untapped markets [not included in P5 now] out there

(06-30-2014 01:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  UH just isn't in a good place. They don't add anything to the 2 local conferences, the Big 12 and SEC.

Neither does TCU. But TCU boosters pumped mind-boggling amounts of money into football, and they had a great football run that included two BCS bowl games, and then they were in the right place at the right time. So it's not completely impossible.

the key for the B-12 to stabilize, LHN has to become very successful
for that to happen, LHN has to become Quasi B-12 network & expand east
Then Hous opportunity could open up for Pac-12 [population base]
or SEC [carriage rates for SECNetwork]

(06-30-2014 01:32 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-30-2014 01:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-30-2014 12:55 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(06-30-2014 11:19 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  JMO, but I think we're in for at least a decade of stability

I was in the same frame of mind not long ago... Unpredictable movements over scatter years however have adjusted in how I go about stability for college football.

I think today's views $$$ and squabbles between conferences will bring additional unwanted and unexpected moves.

Stability isn't comfortable yet... Right B12!?!

The only way I see UH getting into a P5 is if the Pac 12 feels some need to get into Texas and gives up on UT. The only way UH gets into the Big 12 is if there aren't already 4 Texas teams. If UT and OU leave, then it will be like UH's one year sojourn in a BCS conference. The remaining Big 12 will be downgraded like the Big East was. UH just isn't in a good place. They don't add anything to the 2 local conferences, the Big 12 and SEC.

I tend to agree. However, I tend to think either one or the other of those things is actually likely to happen. Either Texas will move to the Pac-12 or they wont. If they don't, then getting into Texas still will eventually be necessary for the Pac-12 to keep up with the other more heavily populated conferences. If Texas does go to the Pac-12, a battered Big-12 would still be a significant improvement over our current situation---especially when geography is considered.

If UT and OU do leapfrog for the PAC and the tv $$$ agreement remains with the B12 then yes, I agree, the B12 will be a significant improvement.

I seriously doubt however the $$$ would stay if both UT and OU are gone.

(06-30-2014 02:16 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-30-2014 01:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  UH just isn't in a good place. They don't add anything to the 2 local conferences, the Big 12 and SEC.

Neither does TCU. But TCU boosters pumped mind-boggling amounts of money into football, and they had a great football run that included two BCS bowl games, and then they were in the right place at the right time. So it's not completely impossible.

Also TCU gave the non-Texas teams a 2nd game in Texas every year and in the DFW market. A 5th Texas team isn't as important.

(06-30-2014 12:41 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  The ACC's split from the SoCon in 1953 was as much a name change and a chance to push out certain schools as it was the creation of a new conference. The schools that formed the ACC, had been together essentially since 1907 in the SAIIA, then the SoCon with the SEC schools.

There's really not that much "movement" between conference groups in the top 64 or so as there was as mentioned an ending of independence. If you quit a conference but wait 15-20 years to join another conference have you really "moved". If the conference you join is filled with former conference mates did you really move or just go home?

I would suggest that GT and SC didn't really move since both ended up with former conference mates and being independent for 15-20 years.

The Big 8, SWC was not really a "move" for those 12 but a consolidation.

To me the only "movers" are Arkansas (SW to SEC) Maryland (ACC to B10), Nebraska (Big 8/12 to B10), Mizzou (Big 8/12 to SEC), Colorado (Big 8/12 to P12), TAMU (SW/B12 to SEC).

ND, West Va, Penn State, Syracuse, BC, Pitt, Miami, and Florida State were all independents.

Louisville, Utah and TCU are "move ups", and VT finally came back home and WVa had no choice but to go to the B12.

I really think only 6 schools qualify as legitimate "movers" where they directly left one ESTABLISHED conference/group for ESTABLSIHED conference/group going where they wanted to go - Arkansas, Maryland, Nebraska, Colorado, and Texas A&M.

Some of those schools (including Rutgers) weren't always majors, just like Houston, Rice, Temple, Tulane and SMU weren't always mid-majors.

(06-30-2014 12:48 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-30-2014 11:15 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I kinda hope your wrong for my own personal reasons. Stability is bad for any school hoping for an opportunity to move up. Being locked into the G5 for another 20-30 years might be a killer.

There hasn't been much "moving up" in any event; there has mostly just been some "moving around" within the leagues. There are only 3 schools (Louisville, TCU, and Utah) in the "P5" conferences as of fall 2014 that were not in one of the original "BCS" conferences in fall 1998. That "trend" seems likely to continue -- there will be very few move-ups, and any school that moves up will have to be far ahead of the G5 pack in football in addition to having other important factors in its favor and being in the right place at the right time.

This is a good point, its more moving around going on than moving up.

TCU was among the big players at one time and they worked their way back into the club. Louisville and Utah earned their way in after decades of existing as tweener major college schools. UCF and Boise State while not making it all the way to P5 have come a long way to the point where they are the dominant programs in top tier G5 conferences.

Northern Illinois has developed from the MAC into a consistent football school after being a bottom feeder 15 years ago. They've won the MAC West 4 straight years, 2 MAC Championships and an Orange Bowl. That is serious progress for their program.

CUSA and SBC are enjoying configurations so new that its too hard to say who is going to emerge from those conferences and become elite G5 programs. Louisiana is showing some promise but how are they going to look in 5 years time when the Georgia schools of the SBC get on track? There is a lot to play out yet in those conferences.