(10-05-2015 04:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 12:58 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(10-04-2015 10:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-04-2015 09:55 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I think WVU is a good add.

If we're moving to 16 though then we need pods:

Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Missouri, Arkansas
LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama
Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, West Virginia
Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Auburn

A sample schedule for Bama might look like this...

LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State as annual pod rivals
Oklahoma, Tennessee, Auburn as annual cross-division rivals

Then you play the other 3 games against the remaining 3 opponents from one of the other pods. You've got 9 games and an easy way to determine participants in a championship game. You could even expand the conference championship event to a 4 team playoff if necessary.

Interestingly enough the prevailing thought for 16 school conferences now is to stick with 2 divisions organized to keep rivals together. So try playing around with two 8 school divisions if you want to get a feel for what the commissioners might be wrestling with. Don't get me wrong, I like the 4 half divisional set up, but conferences aren't willing to move to semis yet (supposedly) so we may be stuck with the present format for at least awhile.

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

or

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M

or create whichever seems more likely to you.

I certainly hope they change their mind. I just don't want a situation where we're playing teams from the other division once every 7 or 8 years. Even if we go to 9 games that will end up being the case if we're not more creative.

The pods are such a simply solution and keep the schedule fresh while preserving a lot of rivalries. I would also think that the networks would prefer more frequent matchups between powers from other divisions. Rotating the pods would allow a simple setup for a championship game without going to semis.

I don't think the SEC should be afraid of doing something out of the box. The league has often been first to try new ideas. If it doesn't work then we could always change to a more traditional format.

I think they will do what they do reserving certain goals and concessions to milk the contract negotiations 1 item at the time. We move to two divisions and sell a 9th game to allow the rotation to play through the entire conference every 4 years.

You play 7 from your own division and rotate two from the other every year. Home games swap with away games when you've rotated through.

Then you move for conference semi's and more money.

Then you opt for 1 more out of conference game and now play 11 P5 games.

Then you go to P5 only with a preseason game against a relatively local FCS program. This gives the networks no body bag games and games to televise earlier at the end of August which while they are considered preseason nevertheless add to inventory.

At that point having 6 home and 6 away P5 won't matter because all P5 schools will have a 7th home ticket to sell counting the preseason game. At the end of August everyone is so hungry for football they won't care if State U is playing NE Directional School for the Visually impaired. They'll still buy the ticket or at least watch. TV gets an extra great week of ad money, the home town merchants don't lose that 7th game and neither does the athletic department, and the rest of the year it's mostly conference with 3 OOC games only now you have semis and are in pods (1/2 division) to augment the rotation.

In the end All Tide Up you get everything you want but they sell it one precious change at a time to milk that money.

Hopefully that will work out.

If we're going to create 2 divisions of 8 then I would prefer 2 Western additions. That way, both Bama and Auburn can move to the East and we don't have to sacrifice any rivals except LSU on an annual basis.

(10-06-2015 01:42 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 04:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 12:58 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(10-04-2015 10:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-04-2015 09:55 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I think WVU is a good add.

If we're moving to 16 though then we need pods:

Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Missouri, Arkansas
LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama
Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, West Virginia
Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Auburn

A sample schedule for Bama might look like this...

LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State as annual pod rivals
Oklahoma, Tennessee, Auburn as annual cross-division rivals

Then you play the other 3 games against the remaining 3 opponents from one of the other pods. You've got 9 games and an easy way to determine participants in a championship game. You could even expand the conference championship event to a 4 team playoff if necessary.

Interestingly enough the prevailing thought for 16 school conferences now is to stick with 2 divisions organized to keep rivals together. So try playing around with two 8 school divisions if you want to get a feel for what the commissioners might be wrestling with. Don't get me wrong, I like the 4 half divisional set up, but conferences aren't willing to move to semis yet (supposedly) so we may be stuck with the present format for at least awhile.

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

or

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M

or create whichever seems more likely to you.

I certainly hope they change their mind. I just don't want a situation where we're playing teams from the other division once every 7 or 8 years. Even if we go to 9 games that will end up being the case if we're not more creative.

The pods are such a simply solution and keep the schedule fresh while preserving a lot of rivalries. I would also think that the networks would prefer more frequent matchups between powers from other divisions. Rotating the pods would allow a simple setup for a championship game without going to semis.

I don't think the SEC should be afraid of doing something out of the box. The league has often been first to try new ideas. If it doesn't work then we could always change to a more traditional format.

I think they will do what they do reserving certain goals and concessions to milk the contract negotiations 1 item at the time. We move to two divisions and sell a 9th game to allow the rotation to play through the entire conference every 4 years.

You play 7 from your own division and rotate two from the other every year. Home games swap with away games when you've rotated through.

Then you move for conference semi's and more money.

Then you opt for 1 more out of conference game and now play 11 P5 games.

Then you go to P5 only with a preseason game against a relatively local FCS program. This gives the networks no body bag games and games to televise earlier at the end of August which while they are considered preseason nevertheless add to inventory.

At that point having 6 home and 6 away P5 won't matter because all P5 schools will have a 7th home ticket to sell counting the preseason game. At the end of August everyone is so hungry for football they won't care if State U is playing NE Directional School for the Visually impaired. They'll still buy the ticket or at least watch. TV gets an extra great week of ad money, the home town merchants don't lose that 7th game and neither does the athletic department, and the rest of the year it's mostly conference with 3 OOC games only now you have semis and are in pods (1/2 division) to augment the rotation.

In the end All Tide Up you get everything you want but they sell it one precious change at a time to milk that money.

Hopefully that will work out.

If we're going to create 2 divisions of 8 then I would prefer 2 Western additions. That way, both Bama and Auburn can move to the East and we don't have to sacrifice any rivals except LSU on an annual basis.

Bingo! L.S.U. is really everyone's nemesis and nobody's real rival. A&M was historically one of their rivals way way back when and Arkansas has certainly become one.

The Western Division should become a reunion of Southwest rivals and the Eastern Division should become essentially the Old SEC. Those would be two tremendous divisions.

(10-06-2015 02:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Bingo! L.S.U. is really everyone's nemesis and nobody's real rival. A&M was historically one of their rivals way way back when and Arkansas has certainly become one.

The Western Division should become a reunion of Southwest rivals and the Eastern Division should become essentially the Old SEC. Those would be two tremendous divisions.

So all in all, you think 16 is more likely than 18? Which I would prefer that as 18 is a hard number to work with.

Texas, OSU, Kansas would be ideal for #16.

(10-06-2015 08:37 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 02:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Bingo! L.S.U. is really everyone's nemesis and nobody's real rival. A&M was historically one of their rivals way way back when and Arkansas has certainly become one.

The Western Division should become a reunion of Southwest rivals and the Eastern Division should become essentially the Old SEC. Those would be two tremendous divisions.

So all in all, you think 16 is more likely than 18? Which I would prefer that as 18 is a hard number to work with.

Texas, OSU, Kansas would be ideal for #16.

I would rather see a 16 team conference with 4 pods. The pods can align with another once a season to form a division. With seven scheduled games everyone can have a permanent rival. Two we move up to 9 conference games.

(10-07-2015 11:07 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 08:37 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 02:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Bingo! L.S.U. is really everyone's nemesis and nobody's real rival. A&M was historically one of their rivals way way back when and Arkansas has certainly become one.

The Western Division should become a reunion of Southwest rivals and the Eastern Division should become essentially the Old SEC. Those would be two tremendous divisions.

So all in all, you think 16 is more likely than 18? Which I would prefer that as 18 is a hard number to work with.

Texas, OSU, Kansas would be ideal for #16.

I would rather see a 16 team conference with 4 pods. The pods can align with another once a season to form a division. With seven scheduled games everyone can have a permanent rival. Two we move up to 9 conference games.

We are going to get there. But we are going to sell everything from here on out one piece at a time to maximize content values at contract time. I don't expect to see the half division set up (pods) until after the next contract renegotiation.

(10-06-2015 01:42 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 04:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 12:58 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(10-04-2015 10:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-04-2015 09:55 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I think WVU is a good add.

If we're moving to 16 though then we need pods:

Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Missouri, Arkansas
LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama
Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, West Virginia
Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Auburn

A sample schedule for Bama might look like this...

LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State as annual pod rivals
Oklahoma, Tennessee, Auburn as annual cross-division rivals

Then you play the other 3 games against the remaining 3 opponents from one of the other pods. You've got 9 games and an easy way to determine participants in a championship game. You could even expand the conference championship event to a 4 team playoff if necessary.

Interestingly enough the prevailing thought for 16 school conferences now is to stick with 2 divisions organized to keep rivals together. So try playing around with two 8 school divisions if you want to get a feel for what the commissioners might be wrestling with. Don't get me wrong, I like the 4 half divisional set up, but conferences aren't willing to move to semis yet (supposedly) so we may be stuck with the present format for at least awhile.

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

or

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M

or create whichever seems more likely to you.

I certainly hope they change their mind. I just don't want a situation where we're playing teams from the other division once every 7 or 8 years. Even if we go to 9 games that will end up being the case if we're not more creative.

The pods are such a simply solution and keep the schedule fresh while preserving a lot of rivalries. I would also think that the networks would prefer more frequent matchups between powers from other divisions. Rotating the pods would allow a simple setup for a championship game without going to semis.

I don't think the SEC should be afraid of doing something out of the box. The league has often been first to try new ideas. If it doesn't work then we could always change to a more traditional format.

I think they will do what they do reserving certain goals and concessions to milk the contract negotiations 1 item at the time. We move to two divisions and sell a 9th game to allow the rotation to play through the entire conference every 4 years.

You play 7 from your own division and rotate two from the other every year. Home games swap with away games when you've rotated through.

Then you move for conference semi's and more money.

Then you opt for 1 more out of conference game and now play 11 P5 games.

Then you go to P5 only with a preseason game against a relatively local FCS program. This gives the networks no body bag games and games to televise earlier at the end of August which while they are considered preseason nevertheless add to inventory.

At that point having 6 home and 6 away P5 won't matter because all P5 schools will have a 7th home ticket to sell counting the preseason game. At the end of August everyone is so hungry for football they won't care if State U is playing NE Directional School for the Visually impaired. They'll still buy the ticket or at least watch. TV gets an extra great week of ad money, the home town merchants don't lose that 7th game and neither does the athletic department, and the rest of the year it's mostly conference with 3 OOC games only now you have semis and are in pods (1/2 division) to augment the rotation.

In the end All Tide Up you get everything you want but they sell it one precious change at a time to milk that money.

Hopefully that will work out.

If we're going to create 2 divisions of 8 then I would prefer 2 Western additions. That way, both Bama and Auburn can move to the East and we don't have to sacrifice any rivals except LSU on an annual basis.

Mizzou should definitely be in the West

(10-06-2015 02:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 01:42 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 04:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 12:58 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(10-04-2015 10:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Interestingly enough the prevailing thought for 16 school conferences now is to stick with 2 divisions organized to keep rivals together. So try playing around with two 8 school divisions if you want to get a feel for what the commissioners might be wrestling with. Don't get me wrong, I like the 4 half divisional set up, but conferences aren't willing to move to semis yet (supposedly) so we may be stuck with the present format for at least awhile.

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

or

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M

or create whichever seems more likely to you.

I certainly hope they change their mind. I just don't want a situation where we're playing teams from the other division once every 7 or 8 years. Even if we go to 9 games that will end up being the case if we're not more creative.

The pods are such a simply solution and keep the schedule fresh while preserving a lot of rivalries. I would also think that the networks would prefer more frequent matchups between powers from other divisions. Rotating the pods would allow a simple setup for a championship game without going to semis.

I don't think the SEC should be afraid of doing something out of the box. The league has often been first to try new ideas. If it doesn't work then we could always change to a more traditional format.

I think they will do what they do reserving certain goals and concessions to milk the contract negotiations 1 item at the time. We move to two divisions and sell a 9th game to allow the rotation to play through the entire conference every 4 years.

You play 7 from your own division and rotate two from the other every year. Home games swap with away games when you've rotated through.

Then you move for conference semi's and more money.

Then you opt for 1 more out of conference game and now play 11 P5 games.

Then you go to P5 only with a preseason game against a relatively local FCS program. This gives the networks no body bag games and games to televise earlier at the end of August which while they are considered preseason nevertheless add to inventory.

At that point having 6 home and 6 away P5 won't matter because all P5 schools will have a 7th home ticket to sell counting the preseason game. At the end of August everyone is so hungry for football they won't care if State U is playing NE Directional School for the Visually impaired. They'll still buy the ticket or at least watch. TV gets an extra great week of ad money, the home town merchants don't lose that 7th game and neither does the athletic department, and the rest of the year it's mostly conference with 3 OOC games only now you have semis and are in pods (1/2 division) to augment the rotation.

In the end All Tide Up you get everything you want but they sell it one precious change at a time to milk that money.

Hopefully that will work out.

If we're going to create 2 divisions of 8 then I would prefer 2 Western additions. That way, both Bama and Auburn can move to the East and we don't have to sacrifice any rivals except LSU on an annual basis.

Bingo! L.S.U. is really everyone's nemesis and nobody's real rival. A&M was historically one of their rivals way way back when and Arkansas has certainly become one.

The Western Division should become a reunion of Southwest rivals and the Eastern Division should become essentially the Old SEC. Those would be two tremendous divisions.

I enjoy the games with Alabama, Auburn, and Florida though....who do we take those games off the schedule for?

(10-04-2015 02:33 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-04-2015 09:35 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-04-2015 09:17 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  OU can do all those things by themselves.

Bringing in OSU too is a waste of an expansion slot (IE THE most valuable thing in all of CFB) and the decision makers know that and so its just never going to happen. Doubling down in a tiny market state is simply not happening in this day and age.

I'm not trying to rag on the cowboys, but the fact is the ONLY thing they bring to the table (if you already have OU) are potential losses for other SEC teams and NOTHING else.

If you cant get OU without wasting a slot on OSU then the Sooners aren't worth it.

But all that is immaterial because going after small market western states is a waste of the SEC's time.

We all know the last remaining golden goose is the VA/NC combo. That's adding another Florida to the SEC footprint. That's where the action is and if we need to be patient and wait for opportunities to come along there in the next 20 years then patient we should be.

You can call me crazy but I think that even if the ACC proves intractable, the SEC could decide to take on 2 VERY long term projects like Charlotte and Old Dominion and use the SEC brand to eventually turn them into the 2 most popular and profitable football franchises in those states.

It's not in our best interest to disintegrate the ACC. They provide a very nice buffer to our East.

ESPN is not going to permit the conference that they foolishly hope will ultimately land them Notre Dame to go away.

We will need a negotiating tool besides a 9th conference game in our next round of contracts.

If the Big 12 is the only available property then OU would be a very nice add and fit. The question then becomes who for #16? I don't think Kansas is a fit in their minds or ours. If the ACC wants to go to 16 then either Connecticut or West Virginia seems to be the only way. I suppose Texas could go as an independent, but I really don't see that as being likely for many reasons. If you have Oklahoma then T.C.U. is really redundant. So who would you pick under those conditions as #16? Texas Tech? Too remote. Baylor? It fits geographically but how much can they add? Not much really.

I would hope that the ACC would add UConn. I don't love W.V.U. but getting them along with OU would be decent for branding, would leave your Aggies as the only Texas school, and would add at least a competitive program to the Kentucky- Tennessee area.

There are problems with W.V.U. but most can be overcome if necessary, however breaking down the two divisions of the conference would not be as clean as if we added two from the West. I'd say you would need to move Vanderbilt to the West and Auburn and Alabama to the East. Thoughts?

You might be looking at West Virginia AND Baylor to go along with Oklahoma.
Landing Notre Dame for ESPN/ACC is so important and valuable to ESPN that it is conceivable they would encourage a SEC east team to join the ACC just to make the ACC more palatable to the Irish.

Fixed it for you, JR.

That won't do it, Lance. Sorry.

IF the ACC could land Texas and Southern Cal then maybe...nah, not that either.

The ACC can leave you guys alone, add West Virginia and Cincinnati or Connecticut and call it a day.

The SEC can add Oklahoma and whoever is required by Oklahoma.

The Big 10 can have Kansas and whoever.

Let Texas and Friends of Tejas move to the PAC and wrap this thing up and concentrate on healing a damaged sport.

(10-12-2015 11:55 AM)JRsec Wrote:  The ACC can leave you guys alone, add West Virginia and Cincinnati or Connecticut and call it a day.

The SEC can add Oklahoma and whoever is required by Oklahoma.

The Big 10 can have Kansas and whoever.

Let Texas and Friends of Tejas move to the PAC and wrap this thing up and concentrate on healing a damaged sport.

Sounds like a plan JR.
The average fan is tired if they are still paying attention. People are not happy that some traditional rivalries have "gone away". Some real classics like Oklahoma/Nebraska and Texas/Texas A&M may never be played on a regular basis again. Things are just wrong and the fans are finding alternatives to going to the stadium.
We need to get this thing wrapped up so that the average fan will know what their identity is and will be for the foreseeable future.

(10-12-2015 11:51 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-04-2015 02:33 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-04-2015 09:35 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-04-2015 09:17 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  OU can do all those things by themselves.

Bringing in OSU too is a waste of an expansion slot (IE THE most valuable thing in all of CFB) and the decision makers know that and so its just never going to happen. Doubling down in a tiny market state is simply not happening in this day and age.

I'm not trying to rag on the cowboys, but the fact is the ONLY thing they bring to the table (if you already have OU) are potential losses for other SEC teams and NOTHING else.

If you cant get OU without wasting a slot on OSU then the Sooners aren't worth it.

But all that is immaterial because going after small market western states is a waste of the SEC's time.

We all know the last remaining golden goose is the VA/NC combo. That's adding another Florida to the SEC footprint. That's where the action is and if we need to be patient and wait for opportunities to come along there in the next 20 years then patient we should be.

You can call me crazy but I think that even if the ACC proves intractable, the SEC could decide to take on 2 VERY long term projects like Charlotte and Old Dominion and use the SEC brand to eventually turn them into the 2 most popular and profitable football franchises in those states.

It's not in our best interest to disintegrate the ACC. They provide a very nice buffer to our East.

ESPN is not going to permit the conference that they foolishly hope will ultimately land them Notre Dame to go away.

We will need a negotiating tool besides a 9th conference game in our next round of contracts.

If the Big 12 is the only available property then OU would be a very nice add and fit. The question then becomes who for #16? I don't think Kansas is a fit in their minds or ours. If the ACC wants to go to 16 then either Connecticut or West Virginia seems to be the only way. I suppose Texas could go as an independent, but I really don't see that as being likely for many reasons. If you have Oklahoma then T.C.U. is really redundant. So who would you pick under those conditions as #16? Texas Tech? Too remote. Baylor? It fits geographically but how much can they add? Not much really.

I would hope that the ACC would add UConn. I don't love W.V.U. but getting them along with OU would be decent for branding, would leave your Aggies as the only Texas school, and would add at least a competitive program to the Kentucky- Tennessee area.

There are problems with W.V.U. but most can be overcome if necessary, however breaking down the two divisions of the conference would not be as clean as if we added two from the West. I'd say you would need to move Vanderbilt to the West and Auburn and Alabama to the East. Thoughts?

You might be looking at West Virginia AND Baylor to go along with Oklahoma.
Landing Notre Dame for ESPN/ACC is so important and valuable to ESPN that it is conceivable they would encourage a SEC east team to join the ACC just to make the ACC more palatable to the Irish.

Fixed it for you, JR.

That won't do it, Lance. Sorry.

IF the ACC could land Texas and Southern Cal then maybe...nah, not that either.

Terry, I have said many times, I don't want Notre Dame in my conference. The problem is that ESPN does. I sometimes think that the Mouse is stringing this whole process along just to be able to catch the Irish in a vulnerable situation so that they can exploit an opportunity (at the expense of all of the rest of the teams in the P5).

(10-12-2015 08:27 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 11:51 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-04-2015 02:33 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-04-2015 09:35 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-04-2015 09:17 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  OU can do all those things by themselves.

Bringing in OSU too is a waste of an expansion slot (IE THE most valuable thing in all of CFB) and the decision makers know that and so its just never going to happen. Doubling down in a tiny market state is simply not happening in this day and age.

I'm not trying to rag on the cowboys, but the fact is the ONLY thing they bring to the table (if you already have OU) are potential losses for other SEC teams and NOTHING else.

If you cant get OU without wasting a slot on OSU then the Sooners aren't worth it.

But all that is immaterial because going after small market western states is a waste of the SEC's time.

We all know the last remaining golden goose is the VA/NC combo. That's adding another Florida to the SEC footprint. That's where the action is and if we need to be patient and wait for opportunities to come along there in the next 20 years then patient we should be.

You can call me crazy but I think that even if the ACC proves intractable, the SEC could decide to take on 2 VERY long term projects like Charlotte and Old Dominion and use the SEC brand to eventually turn them into the 2 most popular and profitable football franchises in those states.

It's not in our best interest to disintegrate the ACC. They provide a very nice buffer to our East.

ESPN is not going to permit the conference that they foolishly hope will ultimately land them Notre Dame to go away.

We will need a negotiating tool besides a 9th conference game in our next round of contracts.

If the Big 12 is the only available property then OU would be a very nice add and fit. The question then becomes who for #16? I don't think Kansas is a fit in their minds or ours. If the ACC wants to go to 16 then either Connecticut or West Virginia seems to be the only way. I suppose Texas could go as an independent, but I really don't see that as being likely for many reasons. If you have Oklahoma then T.C.U. is really redundant. So who would you pick under those conditions as #16? Texas Tech? Too remote. Baylor? It fits geographically but how much can they add? Not much really.

I would hope that the ACC would add UConn. I don't love W.V.U. but getting them along with OU would be decent for branding, would leave your Aggies as the only Texas school, and would add at least a competitive program to the Kentucky- Tennessee area.

There are problems with W.V.U. but most can be overcome if necessary, however breaking down the two divisions of the conference would not be as clean as if we added two from the West. I'd say you would need to move Vanderbilt to the West and Auburn and Alabama to the East. Thoughts?

You might be looking at West Virginia AND Baylor to go along with Oklahoma.
Landing Notre Dame for ESPN/ACC is so important and valuable to ESPN that it is conceivable they would encourage a SEC east team to join the ACC just to make the ACC more palatable to the Irish.

Fixed it for you, JR.

That won't do it, Lance. Sorry.

IF the ACC could land Texas and Southern Cal then maybe...nah, not that either.

Terry, I have said many times, I don't want Notre Dame in my conference. The problem is that ESPN does. I sometimes think that the Mouse is stringing this whole process along just to be able to catch the Irish in a vulnerable situation so that they can exploit an opportunity (at the expense of all of the rest of the teams in the P5).

I agree. I said two years ago, and have maintained, that realignment is really the hostile takeover of a disorganized and undervalued product, college football. I'm glad to see that many are beginning to see the heavy hand of corporate America at work in this. Recognition has to take place before resistance can be successful. If enough of us recognize what it is that ESPN, FOX, etc. are up to then the more likely it is that N.D.'s resistance will be successful and eventually we can organize our schools to gain leverage over them. We are still far cheaper to produce than original programming, far better for commercial revenue than non live content, and still have a faithful following which is hurting and needs time to heal. Too much in their and our lives has been under constant stress. Football should be a pass time not another source of anxiety.

I do think that 4 conferences (not necessarily equally sized ones) will be a good thing for structure. But it needs to be garnered through what conferences really desire and not what CEO's tell us we must do to get a payout. The most recent of contracts expires in 2034, very likely beyond the scope of my years. It's the young people we must educate on how to resist, alter, and then manage corporate America before corporate America totally warps what it means to be free.

(10-12-2015 08:27 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 11:51 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-04-2015 02:33 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-04-2015 09:35 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-04-2015 09:17 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  OU can do all those things by themselves.

Bringing in OSU too is a waste of an expansion slot (IE THE most valuable thing in all of CFB) and the decision makers know that and so its just never going to happen. Doubling down in a tiny market state is simply not happening in this day and age.

I'm not trying to rag on the cowboys, but the fact is the ONLY thing they bring to the table (if you already have OU) are potential losses for other SEC teams and NOTHING else.

If you cant get OU without wasting a slot on OSU then the Sooners aren't worth it.

But all that is immaterial because going after small market western states is a waste of the SEC's time.

We all know the last remaining golden goose is the VA/NC combo. That's adding another Florida to the SEC footprint. That's where the action is and if we need to be patient and wait for opportunities to come along there in the next 20 years then patient we should be.

You can call me crazy but I think that even if the ACC proves intractable, the SEC could decide to take on 2 VERY long term projects like Charlotte and Old Dominion and use the SEC brand to eventually turn them into the 2 most popular and profitable football franchises in those states.

It's not in our best interest to disintegrate the ACC. They provide a very nice buffer to our East.

ESPN is not going to permit the conference that they foolishly hope will ultimately land them Notre Dame to go away.

We will need a negotiating tool besides a 9th conference game in our next round of contracts.

If the Big 12 is the only available property then OU would be a very nice add and fit. The question then becomes who for #16? I don't think Kansas is a fit in their minds or ours. If the ACC wants to go to 16 then either Connecticut or West Virginia seems to be the only way. I suppose Texas could go as an independent, but I really don't see that as being likely for many reasons. If you have Oklahoma then T.C.U. is really redundant. So who would you pick under those conditions as #16? Texas Tech? Too remote. Baylor? It fits geographically but how much can they add? Not much really.

I would hope that the ACC would add UConn. I don't love W.V.U. but getting them along with OU would be decent for branding, would leave your Aggies as the only Texas school, and would add at least a competitive program to the Kentucky- Tennessee area.

There are problems with W.V.U. but most can be overcome if necessary, however breaking down the two divisions of the conference would not be as clean as if we added two from the West. I'd say you would need to move Vanderbilt to the West and Auburn and Alabama to the East. Thoughts?

You might be looking at West Virginia AND Baylor to go along with Oklahoma.
Landing Notre Dame for ESPN/ACC is so important and valuable to ESPN that it is conceivable they would encourage a SEC east team to join the ACC just to make the ACC more palatable to the Irish.

Fixed it for you, JR.

That won't do it, Lance. Sorry.

IF the ACC could land Texas and Southern Cal then maybe...nah, not that either.

Terry, I have said many times, I don't want Notre Dame in my conference. The problem is that ESPN does. I sometimes think that the Mouse is stringing this whole process along just to be able to catch the Irish in a vulnerable situation so that they can exploit an opportunity (at the expense of all of the rest of the teams in the P5).

Good, just have them string it along for about twenty more years, Lance.

By then, the cable network model will fail and all will be well.

(10-13-2015 06:26 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 08:27 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 11:51 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-04-2015 02:33 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-04-2015 09:35 AM)JRsec Wrote:  It's not in our best interest to disintegrate the ACC. They provide a very nice buffer to our East.

ESPN is not going to permit the conference that they foolishly hope will ultimately land them Notre Dame to go away.

We will need a negotiating tool besides a 9th conference game in our next round of contracts.

If the Big 12 is the only available property then OU would be a very nice add and fit. The question then becomes who for #16? I don't think Kansas is a fit in their minds or ours. If the ACC wants to go to 16 then either Connecticut or West Virginia seems to be the only way. I suppose Texas could go as an independent, but I really don't see that as being likely for many reasons. If you have Oklahoma then T.C.U. is really redundant. So who would you pick under those conditions as #16? Texas Tech? Too remote. Baylor? It fits geographically but how much can they add? Not much really.

I would hope that the ACC would add UConn. I don't love W.V.U. but getting them along with OU would be decent for branding, would leave your Aggies as the only Texas school, and would add at least a competitive program to the Kentucky- Tennessee area.

There are problems with W.V.U. but most can be overcome if necessary, however breaking down the two divisions of the conference would not be as clean as if we added two from the West. I'd say you would need to move Vanderbilt to the West and Auburn and Alabama to the East. Thoughts?

You might be looking at West Virginia AND Baylor to go along with Oklahoma.
Landing Notre Dame for ESPN/ACC is so important and valuable to ESPN that it is conceivable they would encourage a SEC east team to join the ACC just to make the ACC more palatable to the Irish.

Fixed it for you, JR.

That won't do it, Lance. Sorry.

IF the ACC could land Texas and Southern Cal then maybe...nah, not that either.

Terry, I have said many times, I don't want Notre Dame in my conference. The problem is that ESPN does. I sometimes think that the Mouse is stringing this whole process along just to be able to catch the Irish in a vulnerable situation so that they can exploit an opportunity (at the expense of all of the rest of the teams in the P5).

Good, just have them string it along for about twenty more years, Lance.

By then, the cable network model will fail and all will be well.

I think that the ACC/ESPN will wrangle 1-2 more games a year out of the Irish and that will be it unless the younger ND alumni get greedy and want to start trying to win conference football championships. But that might not be until after your 20 year window, but eventually it will happen.

(10-13-2015 07:55 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 06:26 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 08:27 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 11:51 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-04-2015 02:33 PM)XLance Wrote:  You might be looking at West Virginia AND Baylor to go along with Oklahoma.
Landing Notre Dame for ESPN/ACC is so important and valuable to ESPN that it is conceivable they would encourage a SEC east team to join the ACC just to make the ACC more palatable to the Irish.

Fixed it for you, JR.

That won't do it, Lance. Sorry.

IF the ACC could land Texas and Southern Cal then maybe...nah, not that either.

Terry, I have said many times, I don't want Notre Dame in my conference. The problem is that ESPN does. I sometimes think that the Mouse is stringing this whole process along just to be able to catch the Irish in a vulnerable situation so that they can exploit an opportunity (at the expense of all of the rest of the teams in the P5).

Good, just have them string it along for about twenty more years, Lance.

By then, the cable network model will fail and all will be well.

I think that the ACC/ESPN will wrangle 1-2 more games a year out of the Irish and that will be it unless the younger ND alumni get greedy and want to start trying to win conference football championships. But that might not be until after your 20 year window, but eventually it will happen.

Before the networks lose their power & control there will wind up being either 2 or 4 conferences but by arrangement of the schools under 1 umbrella (a league if you will). N.D. will have a decision to make long before the cable model dies.

Besides when have those with the most money and clout ever willingly given up that power? TV networks will string out the change until they can successfully monetize it and at that point they will have used their lobby power with the FCC via congress to attain any structural advantages or hedges that they need to get even wealthier off of a new model. So their control isn't going away and there really isn't much precedent for overthrowing that hegemony other than it being conquered by an even wealthier and larger enterprise which would of course have even more political influence and monetary power. And that won't bode well for the kinds of changes that you desire.

Unless there is a second coming of T.R. we are all pretty hosed on this deal.

Just an outside perspective, but why are we assuming the SEC can't raid the ACC? As time moves along, the GOR buyouts become that much more manageable.

This is exactly where the B1G has its sights - and we could see it blow up within the next 18-24 months. UVA, UNC, Duke, Georgia Tech....

The SEC should swing for the fences and go Oklahoma, Texas, Florida St., Clemson, Virginia Tech, NC State...

EAST: Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
WEST: Missouri, Arkansas, Texas A&M, Texas, Oklahoma
SOUTH: Mississippi St., Ole Miss, Alabama, Auburn, LSU
NORTH: Florida St., Clemson, Virginia Tech, NC State, Kentucky

The SEC would own Texas and Florida and the entire South.

4 divisional games and rotate 4-5 games among the other 14-15. Play everyone in conference every 3-4 years. Just a few protected cross-over games: UF-FSU, SC-Clemson, Georgia-Auburn, Alabama-TN. Others?

(10-13-2015 06:59 PM)YNot Wrote:  Just an outside perspective, but why are we assuming the SEC can't raid the ACC? As time moves along, the GOR buyouts become that much more manageable.

This is exactly where the B1G has its sights - and we could see it blow up within the next 18-24 months. UVA, UNC, Duke, Georgia Tech....

The SEC should swing for the fences and go Oklahoma, Texas, Florida St., Clemson, Virginia Tech, NC State...

EAST: Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
WEST: Missouri, Arkansas, Texas A&M, Texas, Oklahoma
SOUTH: Mississippi St., Ole Miss, Alabama, Auburn, LSU
NORTH: Florida St., Clemson, Virginia Tech, NC State, Kentucky

The SEC would own Texas and Florida and the entire South.

4 divisional games and rotate 4-5 games among the other 14-15. Play everyone in conference every 3-4 years. Just a few protected cross-over games: UF-FSU, SC-Clemson, Georgia-Auburn, Alabama-TN. Others?

You're basically talking about the dream scenario here. I don't think it will happen because if the ACC gets their network then I think most of the teams in that conference would prefer to stay put. Their problems now are revenue based, not so much being unhappy in general.

FSU and Clemson would probably leave if ESPN was willing to pay the SEC to take them, but I think ESPN is interested in keeping the ACC intact. Otherwise, they will lose quite a bit of content and that is the name of the game. ESPN fully owns the ACC so I don't see them giving it up.

(10-13-2015 10:12 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 06:59 PM)YNot Wrote:  Just an outside perspective, but why are we assuming the SEC can't raid the ACC? As time moves along, the GOR buyouts become that much more manageable.

This is exactly where the B1G has its sights - and we could see it blow up within the next 18-24 months. UVA, UNC, Duke, Georgia Tech....

The SEC should swing for the fences and go Oklahoma, Texas, Florida St., Clemson, Virginia Tech, NC State...

EAST: Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
WEST: Missouri, Arkansas, Texas A&M, Texas, Oklahoma
SOUTH: Mississippi St., Ole Miss, Alabama, Auburn, LSU
NORTH: Florida St., Clemson, Virginia Tech, NC State, Kentucky

The SEC would own Texas and Florida and the entire South.

4 divisional games and rotate 4-5 games among the other 14-15. Play everyone in conference every 3-4 years. Just a few protected cross-over games: UF-FSU, SC-Clemson, Georgia-Auburn, Alabama-TN. Others?

You're basically talking about the dream scenario here. I don't think it will happen because if the ACC gets their network then I think most of the teams in that conference would prefer to stay put. Their problems now are revenue based, not so much being unhappy in general.

FSU and Clemson would probably leave if ESPN was willing to pay the SEC to take them, but I think ESPN is interested in keeping the ACC intact. Otherwise, they will lose quite a bit of content and that is the name of the game. ESPN fully owns the ACC so I don't see them giving it up.

Bingo. With the SEC and ACC, ESPN has the best football and basketball content, which translates to ratings year round. Why would they mess with that by subtracting from it? Adding to enhance is another story. OU and OSU to the SEC and Texas and ND to the ACC enhances both. Kansas probably wants the B1G, but they could reignite the Missouri rivalry if they end up in the SEC.

(10-13-2015 06:59 PM)YNot Wrote:  Just an outside perspective, but why are we assuming the SEC can't raid the ACC? As time moves along, the GOR buyouts become that much more manageable.

Four Letters.....E.....S....P....N.

(10-14-2015 09:09 AM)5thTiger Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 06:59 PM)YNot Wrote:  Just an outside perspective, but why are we assuming the SEC can't raid the ACC? As time moves along, the GOR buyouts become that much more manageable.

Four Letters.....E.....S....P....N.