Win5002
Special Teams
Posts: 618
Joined: Oct 2015
Reputation: 31
I Root For: Big 12 & B1G
Location:
|
RE: Could the Big 12 expand anyway?
(06-07-2016 11:31 AM)JRsec Wrote: (06-07-2016 10:37 AM)megadrone Wrote: (06-07-2016 09:29 AM)JRsec Wrote: They aren't going to expand. If they were going to do it they would have done it in 2011. There is nobody out there that would pack their stadiums, nobody out there that would bring more than the contractually guaranteed revenue, and nobody out there that meets their profile.
The addition of anyone will keep their top brands from having options. Texas might not care but Oklahoma and Kansas do.
I agree B.Y.U. would have been a better addition than WVU but BYU supposedly rejected initial overtures because of their private network. If so that issue was bit hypocritical for no other reason than the existence of the LHN.
There are dozens of threads on the CS&CR board discussing G5 realignment. We don't need them here. It's not happening. It's a fantasy. If anything, if we wait until the expiration of the GOR's before the next moves, the P5 will become a P4 and likely with fewer than 64 school.
There is a better chance that we move to a P alignment of 54 to 60 schools than there is that we stay at 64 or increase to 72.
I tend to agree. If schools 11 and 12 were out there, they would be in by now. Cincinnati would have left the Big East/American in a heartbeat when all their conference mates were bailing. The numbers just don't work.
Additionally the only AQ conference that was willing to take on projects was the Big East (Cincinnati, Temple, Rutgers, VT, BC, et. al.). The Big 12 doesn't have to do that.
True. What I'm about to say is idealistic, not realistic, but the best thing for college football is to end this garbage as soon as possible. At first it was fascinating but now it has taken so long to play out that many people are being turned off by the continued stress over it.
Ideally I'd say let's all move to 18 and have 72 schools included or move to 18 and have 54 schools included. Either way we would have more balance and some balance makes for a better product.
The PAC really needs the exposure and the brands. Let Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State all head West to form a PAC 18.
The SEC can pick up Clemson, Florida State, Virginia/Virginia Tech, and North Carolina/N.C. State to get to 18.
The Big 10 can pick up Virginia/Virginia Tech, North Carolina/N.C.State, Georgia Tech, and Notre Dame (cause they'll have to go somewhere!) and we have a very nice and profitable 18 each divided into much more reasonable geographically concentric divisions.
The balance of that would be undeniably better than what we have now. FOX would have the majority rights in the Big 10, ESPN would have them in the ACC, and they could split them in the PAC.
The real problems comes in trying to place the lesser brands from the ACC / Big 12 and if you look at the revenue invested by their respective athletic departments versus those included above it becomes abundantly clear that they have invested less, but expect equal shares.
If we move forward with conferences at all we are going to need more cohesiveness grown by equal investments and equal returns. We can't have those who profit by association or the conferences themselves will come under enough strain that we could wind up every school for itself.
If we must go to 72 the best way to do it, and it is tough, would be to start with the parsing of the Big 12. Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State move to the PAC. The SEC takes T.C.U. to get into DFW and then takes Kansas State (neither of which are even on our top 10 prospects list). The Big 10 takes Kansas and Iowa State (but only because they are both AAU as they are certainly not the high value targets for the Big 10). The ACC takes West Virginia and Baylor. Notre Dame goes all in and Connecticut makes it 18 for the ACC. The SEC and Big 10 now have to get creative. East Carolina gets a look in this scenario as they can average 60,000 plus in attendance, are steadily improving their academics, are adding a medical school, and are decent in all sports. We take Central Florida for exposure South in the Sunshine State. The Big 10 grows Buffalo and looks to take Colorado from the PAC. The PAC adds either Colorado State to keep the Denver market or they add either a Nevada or New Mexico school.
Now we all less profitably and efficiently stand at 18.
I like plan A a helluva lot more! How about you?
If the leagues would work together and wanted equitable 4 18 team leagues I think I have found the answer. Why would they? maybe the tv deals are negotiated as one? Everyone gives up something and hopefully gets some positive as well. There is a little transferring around of teams and some hard feelings need to be smoothed over but it will bring back a lot of great rivalries and like I said equalize the 4 leagues.
Besides the current 64 we add ND, BYU, UCONN, Cincy, Memphis, CSU, BSU & Houston
PAC
add: OU, Ok. St., Neb., KS, BYU, Boise St.
B1G:
subtract: Neb.
add: ND, VA or Pitt, Syr., UCONN, BC
SEC:
subtract: Arkansas, A&M & Vanderbilt
add: WVU, NC St. Va. Tech, Louisville, Memphis, ISU & KSU
Big 12/ACC:
Texas, Arkansas, A&M, TT, TCU, Baylor, Houston, Colorado St., NC, Duke, WF, Vandy, FSU, Miami, Ga. Tech, Clemson, Cincy, Va or Pitt(whoever B1G doesn't choose)
|
|