(08-19-2016 11:00 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 10:56 PM)sherekhan Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 10:34 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 08:49 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I'm certainly not an attorney, and I don't play one on TV. However, from where I sit, ESPN doesn't appear to have a leg to stand on here even if it does sue the B12.

The Big 12 is a 10-team conference that has decided it needs to expand to help improve its chances of landing a team in the poorly conceived four-team playoff.

Unfortunately for the Big 12, all of the current Power 5 programs are committed elsewhere and unavailable.

So what else are they supposed to do? Just accept their fate?

Eff that noise!

They signed a contract with ESPN where the WWL agreed to pay the B12 $20 million per team were they to expand. The Big 12 is merely exercising that option in their contract. And if they were to add say, Brigham Young and Cincinnati, those are perfectly legitimate choices and very much in line with the vast majority of current P5 programs.

Also, it's not like the Big 12 is expanding by eight or 10 teams. They are talking about adding two teams – four at the absolute maximum.

Personally, I believe that ESPN is bluffing here. If they lose this lawsuit, they risk opening the floodgates. In fact, if I were the Big 12 and ESPN sued me, and my side prevailed, I would immediately expand by two or four more teams. They're going to shove it right up your ass in 2025 anyway, so why not get every nickel you can from them in the interim?

ESPN will destroy the Big 12 before they pay million of dollars to teams they don't feel deserve it. And if you need an example just look at what they did to Big East Football.

Let me get this straight... if Texas and Oklahoma decide they want to expand the Big 12 conference ESPN will destroy the conference? How?

You can play dumb as chit all you want but ESPN will get their way contract be damn because the Big 12 needs them. Texas and OU wants more money and they don't care how they get it as long as they get it. A middle ground will be found between the three parties.

ESPN alone can't destroy the Big 12... Texas and Oklahoma will decide the fate of the Big 12...there's other networks that would bid on that content if they wanted to keep the conference together.

(08-19-2016 04:16 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  Id love for discovery to happen.

Sent from my VS980 4G using CSNbbs mobile app

Damn right. The last thing ESPN wants, since their role in all the expansions to date would be part of that process. If they say they'll sue, they're lying.

(08-19-2016 10:25 PM)PGEMF Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 06:18 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Maryland and some others are not worth it. Many G5 schools are a much better draw on tv than many P5 schools.

You still have NO clue how this works, do you? Maryland and Rutgers are more than worth it for the Big 10

For the Big 10 network footprint only. Nobody is using the DVR for Rutgers vs Indiana football.

(08-19-2016 10:43 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 09:18 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Sorry but you are saying that a team replacing a mid level conference game- and replacing that with an OOC game equal to their WEAKEST OOC game- would IMPROVE their SOS??? Sorry, but you are absolutely clueless if you really believe that. So instead of playing say a #30 West Virginia you play a #120 team. And that's going to improve the SOS? NO chance in hell.

you are the one that is clueless

http://www.californiagoldenblogs.com/201...en-big-acc

there is the article

the reason it works is because when your conference plays 8 conference games which is 66% of your schedule when you can get a number of those teams to bump up in strength of schedule based on getting an additional win that matters a great deal more than one team dropping down on your schedule

you are building up 66% or so of your schedule just slightly while you are dropping down only 8.3% of your schedule

plus not every team that you might avoid is #30 SoS WVU you could just as easily avoid horrible KU

plus you are not even looking at it properly your strength of schedule is barely based on the overall strength of schedule of the team you play it is much more based on the actual strength of the team you play.....if KU has the #1 SoS and they lose 100% of those 12 games they are not a #1 SoS team on YOUR schedule they are a horrid 0-12 team on your schedule that happened to lose to a lot of good teams

for a team to matter on YOUR strength of schedule that team actually has to WIN GAMES no matter what their SoS is.....so you are not even clued in to how it works......a team that is #120 on the SoS and that is 11-1 looks a hell of a lot better on YOUR strength of schedule than a team that has the #1 SoS and that is 0-12

there is NO STRENGTH of SCHEDULE ON "GOOD LOSSES" by the teams on your schedule there is only WEAKNESS in losses and while there are "better wins" there will NEVER be a loss that will be better than even the worst win.....the team that plays you has not helped you by the fact that they lost to Alabama as much as they would have helped you if they beat Portland State and that just builds and builds as the losses or wins pile up

the only teams it does not work for are the very weakest teams in the conference that are not as likely to get an additional win against their weaker OOC opponent Vs a stronger conference opponent....they still LOST

for the SoS of a team that YOU PLAY to matter on YOUR SoS those teams have to actually WIN a lot of those games....otherwise they are just a LOSER on YOUR SoS

lol. So instead of playing say a 7-5 conference team you're playing a 1-11 OOC game, and your SOS is going to be better. Sorry but that's a bunch of GARBAGE. Because not all of your conference games would have lost that extra conference game.

There's a reason why Pac 12's SOS on the computer ratings is always so good. And even Big 12. I mean last year Baylor finished the year with the #52 SOS in the regular season- even with their crap OOC schedule. That had everything to do with 9 conference games. Florida St had a stronger OOC schedule with Florida on it- but their SOS was #69. Why? The 9th conference game. And the committee looks at things a whole hell of a lot more deep than just the moronic NCAA SOS ratings.

(08-19-2016 09:57 PM)Bull Wrote:  ESPN has the AAC contract. It pays the teams about 2mil per... Why would ESPN want to pay 20mil per, for two teams it's currently paying 2 mil?

They wouldn't. But whether they want to or not has no effect on thier contractual obligations.

Thank god for ESPN. Inviting uh isn't appealing.

(08-19-2016 11:41 PM)Groo Wrote:  Thank god for ESPN. Inviting uh isn't appealing.

Opinions vary.

(08-19-2016 03:43 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Possibly. I always get a kick out of the idea ESPN is mad they will have to pay an AAC team more money but they had no problem giving TCU, Utah, Rutgers, Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville and WVU similar raises (TCU and Utah were making ~$1m a year. The Big East schools were making $3-4M/year). Why the outrage all of a sudden?

FWIW, TCU, Louisville, and WVU replaced teams in existing contracts. No new money was used. The SEC also did not alter their contract when they added Texas A&M and Missouri. The Big Ten did not up their contract when they added Maryland and Rutgers. So the additiona/movements of Maryland and Rutgers to the Big Ten, aTm and Mizzou to the SEC, WVU and TCU to the Big 12, and Louisville to the ACC did not add one dime to the debt load to ESPN or Fox. Utah and Colorado was added to a completely new and negotiated contract with the PAC 12 that included those teams, so they paid market value for them. Only Syracuse and Pitt's addition to the ACC (and ND to an extent) created more debt for ESPN, and it was fairly voluntary since they not only gave the ACC the money to pay for them, they gave the league as a whole a raise (and extension).

(08-19-2016 06:42 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 04:22 PM)NYCTUFan Wrote:  Does anyone know for sure, did the BIG contract with ESPN have a clause in it to automatically increase when they added Rutgers and Maryland? Same question with the Pac 12 contract when Utah and Colorado were added and Louisville to the ACC, did those include automatic increases or is this unique to the Big12?

the Big 10 was headed into contract negotiations in a year or two after adding Rutgers and Maryland so there was no concern about increasing value of the current media deals

plus Rutgers will be paid peanuts the first couple of years and Maryland is actually getting a ton of cash up front, but they are paying a ton back later

and the PAC 12 was right in the middle of signing a new deal when Utah and CU were added

so there was nothing that mattered about any "pro rata" in those deals

100% correct.

(08-19-2016 06:53 PM)Tigersmoke3 Wrote:  Once again fox really really want to expand eastward, it's not about the money for them because they want some of that market share. Espn is the problem because they know that they're getting back doored by a major competitor for good inventory they took for granted. Fox and the big12 are not leaking anything. They are probably keeping espn on the outside of their negotiations to make things easier to work out

If they really wanted to expand eastward so bad, then why are they reportedly ALSO suing?

(08-19-2016 11:44 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 03:43 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Possibly. I always get a kick out of the idea ESPN is mad they will have to pay an AAC team more money but they had no problem giving TCU, Utah, Rutgers, Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville and WVU similar raises (TCU and Utah were making ~$1m a year. The Big East schools were making $3-4M/year). Why the outrage all of a sudden?

FWIW, TCU, Louisville, and WVU replaced teams in existing contracts. No new money was used. The SEC also did not alter their contract when they added Texas A&M and Missouri. The Big Ten did not up their contract when they added Maryland and Rutgers. So the additiona/movements of Maryland and Rutgers to the Big Ten, aTm and Mizzou to the SEC, WVU and TCU to the Big 12, and Louisville to the ACC did not add one dime to the debt load to ESPN or Fox. Utah and Colorado was added to a completely new and negotiated contract with the PAC 12 that included those teams, so they paid market value for them. Only Syracuse and Pitt's addition to the ACC (and ND to an extent) created more debt for ESPN, and it was fairly voluntary since they not only gave the ACC the money to pay for them, they gave the league as a whole a raise (and extension).

(08-19-2016 06:42 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 04:22 PM)NYCTUFan Wrote:  Does anyone know for sure, did the BIG contract with ESPN have a clause in it to automatically increase when they added Rutgers and Maryland? Same question with the Pac 12 contract when Utah and Colorado were added and Louisville to the ACC, did those include automatic increases or is this unique to the Big12?

the Big 10 was headed into contract negotiations in a year or two after adding Rutgers and Maryland so there was no concern about increasing value of the current media deals

plus Rutgers will be paid peanuts the first couple of years and Maryland is actually getting a ton of cash up front, but they are paying a ton back later

and the PAC 12 was right in the middle of signing a new deal when Utah and CU were added

so there was nothing that mattered about any "pro rata" in those deals

100% correct.

(08-19-2016 06:53 PM)Tigersmoke3 Wrote:  Once again fox really really want to expand eastward, it's not about the money for them because they want some of that market share. Espn is the problem because they know that they're getting back doored by a major competitor for good inventory they took for granted. Fox and the big12 are not leaking anything. They are probably keeping espn on the outside of their negotiations to make things easier to work out

If they really wanted to expand eastward so bad, then why are they reportedly ALSO suing?

Fox isn't threatening to sue. They are fine with expansion. Three other reporters refuted the initial report that it was both companies, including the Big 12 beat writer for the Dallas Morning News, and the beat writer for the Austin American.

Which also kills the idea that ESPN can destroy the Big 12. Fox will just take over and get the eastern inventory it wants. Or the bIg 12 can find orther suitors. But ESPN isn't bailing. They're just trying to save money. Unfortunately for them, they signed the contract 4 years ago.

(08-19-2016 11:29 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 10:43 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 09:18 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Sorry but you are saying that a team replacing a mid level conference game- and replacing that with an OOC game equal to their WEAKEST OOC game- would IMPROVE their SOS??? Sorry, but you are absolutely clueless if you really believe that. So instead of playing say a #30 West Virginia you play a #120 team. And that's going to improve the SOS? NO chance in hell.

you are the one that is clueless

http://www.californiagoldenblogs.com/201...en-big-acc

there is the article

the reason it works is because when your conference plays 8 conference games which is 66% of your schedule when you can get a number of those teams to bump up in strength of schedule based on getting an additional win that matters a great deal more than one team dropping down on your schedule

you are building up 66% or so of your schedule just slightly while you are dropping down only 8.3% of your schedule

plus not every team that you might avoid is #30 SoS WVU you could just as easily avoid horrible KU

plus you are not even looking at it properly your strength of schedule is barely based on the overall strength of schedule of the team you play it is much more based on the actual strength of the team you play.....if KU has the #1 SoS and they lose 100% of those 12 games they are not a #1 SoS team on YOUR schedule they are a horrid 0-12 team on your schedule that happened to lose to a lot of good teams

for a team to matter on YOUR strength of schedule that team actually has to WIN GAMES no matter what their SoS is.....so you are not even clued in to how it works......a team that is #120 on the SoS and that is 11-1 looks a hell of a lot better on YOUR strength of schedule than a team that has the #1 SoS and that is 0-12

there is NO STRENGTH of SCHEDULE ON "GOOD LOSSES" by the teams on your schedule there is only WEAKNESS in losses and while there are "better wins" there will NEVER be a loss that will be better than even the worst win.....the team that plays you has not helped you by the fact that they lost to Alabama as much as they would have helped you if they beat Portland State and that just builds and builds as the losses or wins pile up

the only teams it does not work for are the very weakest teams in the conference that are not as likely to get an additional win against their weaker OOC opponent Vs a stronger conference opponent....they still LOST

for the SoS of a team that YOU PLAY to matter on YOUR SoS those teams have to actually WIN a lot of those games....otherwise they are just a LOSER on YOUR SoS

lol. So instead of playing say a 7-5 conference team you're playing a 1-11 OOC game, and your SOS is going to be better. Sorry but that's a bunch of GARBAGE. Because not all of your conference games would have lost that extra conference game.
.

Stever, it might be wise to stop ending so many posts with "you must be clueless," or "only an idiot would think, " or things along those lines. Often times, you are the ones who ends up with that moniker. Todge is absolutely on the money here. The issue is, the reason it works is the removal of the 9th game, removes an automatic 0.5 loss per team from the league, 5 losses in a ten team league, 6 losses in an 12 team league. Those losses are guaranteed. By replacing those games with weak OOC games, you have a chance to turn some of those automatic losses on the league's resume, which filters into EVERYONE's SOS, into wins.

No matter what, as currently configured, the league's conference record is going to be 45-45. It can vary yearly how those wins and losses are spread out, but when you play everyone, in the end your SOS will pretty much read this. Even worse, if you are a good team, let's say you go 8-1 in the league, that means your opponents will combine to go 37-44 (0.46) on your SOS (save for the very few SOS matricies which eliminate your own results to avoid just this paradox). This leaves 27 games OOC for your conference foes to pick up wins. If each team goes on average 2-1, that is 18-9, which means your conference opponents will have a combined record of 55-53 (0.51) in your 9 league games, plus whatever your OOC foes do.

Now let's say you take the same set up and remove one game. Now the league will still have a 0.500 overall record, but some changes come into play. The league now has a 40-40 record. If you are a 7-1 team, that means the remaining teams in the league went 33-39 (also 0.46%), although you will skip one team, so our conference opponents final win percentage can vary, depending on if you skip the best opponent, the worst, or in the middle (law of averages states that as the good team, the team you skip is likely closer to the middle, since the lower teams got a break by not playing you). Now the remaining teams will then play 36 OOC game. Because the idea was to replace the conference game, with a weak team, if teams previously went an average of 2-1 with 3 OOC games, they now would go 3-1 OOC (27-9)- whatever they previously went, add one win or close to it, if the idea is to replace with an easy game. If this happens, your conference foes now have a combined record of 60-48 (0.56), which is a nine percent increase in winning percentage (again your result will vary based on which team you skip). That variance in the conference SOS is so big, that even if you replaced a .500 team on your schedule with a team that went 0-12, your SOS is still higher, because the difference between 1/12 of 0.500 and 1/12 of 0 is only 4%. Even if the numbers are not quite a clean sweep, and say the extra OOC games result in an 7-2 record (again these are supposed to be easier games), then the result is 58-50 (0.54), which means as long as the replacement team on your own schedule is not a winless team, or you are not replacing an undefeated team, worst case you STILL come out tied or ahead SOS wise.

So the clueless one here... well it's not Todge (and that pains me to say). Further, the notion you put about how... how did you put it?, "Because not all of your conference games would have lost that extra conference game? " Now that is some horseshit, because in fact yes EVERY conference game results in the conference having an extra loss to offset that win. That is the entire point. One less conference games, lowers the total number of losses, and gives the league the chance to replace some of the losses with wins. Now if they go out and **** the bed, and they all get beat OOC with the extra game, sure it could hurt. But that was not the situation here, where Todge specifically outlines replacing the conference foe with a bad team. If everyone does that, that is how it helps the overall SOS. It's simple complicated math really.

(08-19-2016 10:25 PM)PGEMF Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 06:18 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Maryland and some others are not worth it. Many G5 schools are a much better draw on tv than many P5 schools.

You still have NO clue how this works, do you? Maryland and Rutgers are more than worth it for the Big 10

Calling me clueless? You are the one who is clueless on how tv ratings work. Most of the G5 schools have a much better tv viewership, and are not losing money like the money drainers that Maryland, Wake Forest, Rutgers and Duke are in? They brought nothing to the Big 10. They are no Kansas, Oklahoma or Texas.

So much DUMB in this thread. Go get some air. You know who you are.

(08-19-2016 11:29 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 10:43 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 09:18 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Sorry but you are saying that a team replacing a mid level conference game- and replacing that with an OOC game equal to their WEAKEST OOC game- would IMPROVE their SOS??? Sorry, but you are absolutely clueless if you really believe that. So instead of playing say a #30 West Virginia you play a #120 team. And that's going to improve the SOS? NO chance in hell.

you are the one that is clueless

http://www.californiagoldenblogs.com/201...en-big-acc

there is the article

the reason it works is because when your conference plays 8 conference games which is 66% of your schedule when you can get a number of those teams to bump up in strength of schedule based on getting an additional win that matters a great deal more than one team dropping down on your schedule

you are building up 66% or so of your schedule just slightly while you are dropping down only 8.3% of your schedule

plus not every team that you might avoid is #30 SoS WVU you could just as easily avoid horrible KU

plus you are not even looking at it properly your strength of schedule is barely based on the overall strength of schedule of the team you play it is much more based on the actual strength of the team you play.....if KU has the #1 SoS and they lose 100% of those 12 games they are not a #1 SoS team on YOUR schedule they are a horrid 0-12 team on your schedule that happened to lose to a lot of good teams

for a team to matter on YOUR strength of schedule that team actually has to WIN GAMES no matter what their SoS is.....so you are not even clued in to how it works......a team that is #120 on the SoS and that is 11-1 looks a hell of a lot better on YOUR strength of schedule than a team that has the #1 SoS and that is 0-12

there is NO STRENGTH of SCHEDULE ON "GOOD LOSSES" by the teams on your schedule there is only WEAKNESS in losses and while there are "better wins" there will NEVER be a loss that will be better than even the worst win.....the team that plays you has not helped you by the fact that they lost to Alabama as much as they would have helped you if they beat Portland State and that just builds and builds as the losses or wins pile up

the only teams it does not work for are the very weakest teams in the conference that are not as likely to get an additional win against their weaker OOC opponent Vs a stronger conference opponent....they still LOST

for the SoS of a team that YOU PLAY to matter on YOUR SoS those teams have to actually WIN a lot of those games....otherwise they are just a LOSER on YOUR SoS

lol. So instead of playing say a 7-5 conference team you're playing a 1-11 OOC game, and your SOS is going to be better. Sorry but that's a bunch of GARBAGE. Because not all of your conference games would have lost that extra conference game.

There's a reason why Pac 12's SOS on the computer ratings is always so good. And even Big 12. I mean last year Baylor finished the year with the #52 SOS in the regular season- even with their crap OOC schedule. That had everything to do with 9 conference games. Florida St had a stronger OOC schedule with Florida on it- but their SOS was #69. Why? The 9th conference game. And the committee looks at things a whole hell of a lot more deep than just the moronic NCAA SOS ratings.

again you are wrong

your comparison is not a valid one because it ignores the fact that it is not a comparison between individual teams in different conferences it is a comparison to what happens to individual teams in a conference when the entire conference makes a chance in the number of conference games

it does not matter how one team picked from that compares to anther single team from a DIFFERENT conference it only matters how that change compares to what that team would have for a SoS with 9 conference games or with 8 conference games

and here is proof of what you are saying about the PAC 12 being false as well

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football...ll-playoff

this was in response to another article from the day before where a number of PAC 12 coaches were discussing that the PAC 12 should consider an 8 game conference schedule instead of a nine game conference schedule

as this article clearly shows the Big 12 and the PAC 12 which are the two conferences that played 9 conference games that season had the WEAKEST SoS of all the P5 conferences

again this article like you concludes incorrectly that moving away from 9 conference games to 8 would be a mistake because the PAC 12 already has a weak SoS as a conference (Vs you incorrectly claiming that the PAC 12 SoS is "always so good")

but of course the author of this article just like you fails to understand that actual real STRENGTH only comes from WINNING it does not come from LOSING no matter the "quality" of the team that you LOSE to

so ad AdQbert correctly pointed out when a conference is able to move from 12 conference games where the conference is GUARANTEED to be 6-6 over to a situation where it is more likely that the conference will be 9-3 that benefits the conference overall

and in a situation where a top team is already playing a quality OOC schedule they might replace a conference game against a team that is 7-5 for an OOC game against a team that is 5-7, but when several other members of their conference and their conference schedule (in this case it would be 3 (6-6 Vs 9-3)) then overall their SoS benefits

you gain STRENGTH for a conference by beating the hell out of OTHER CONFERENCES not from beating up your own conference

and because of the insular nature of a conference schedule and because the teams you play WINNING matters to SoS not the teams you play losing to good teams those 3 additional wins benefit EVERYONE in the conference not just the teams that actually get those 3 wins

because every team that plays those teams that gets those 3 wins Vs 3 losses now has a better SoS......and now all those teams with a better SoS based on the fact that they beat a team with 1 additional win Vs 1 additional loss all play each other and if one team was already going to win that game they have a better SoS and the team that lost that game....well they STILL have a better SoS because they have a win over a team or teams with 3 additional wins and the loss they were already going to take does not change that

if you are 12-0 and you beat a team that is 9-3 and that team that is 9-3 beats a team that is 8-4 instead of 7-5 and another that is 6-6 instead of 5-7 and they beat another team that is 4-8 instead of 3-9.....that 9-3 team has a better SoS for your win against them.....they are still 9-3 for their own RECORD, but they have a better SoS

and then you as a team that is 12-0 avoids another team that is 9-3 and instead beats a team that is 4-8 that hurts your SoS.....but when you beat that team that is 8-4 instead of 7- that helps and when you beat the team that is 4-8 instead of 3-9 that helps as well

and then you beat other teams in your conference that are like the first example.....a team that you were going to beat to go 12-0, but the three teams they beat to be 9-3 that have better SoS based on being one of the teams that shared one of those 3 more available wins.....well again YOUR SoS benefits

so every team that you beat in your conference that has played the teams that shared those 3 additional wins now has a better SoS for your win over them

so you are looking at 7 or 8 teams that have a better SoS Vs the one that is an OOC game that had a weaker SoS (or POSSIBLE a weaker SoS because you could always avoid a conference game against a team that is 1-11 and replace therm with a 6-6 OOC team)

so it is transitive beyond 3 more wins....it is the added strength of every team that was going to beat a bad conference team now beating a bad conference team with a better SoS overall and those teams then having a better SoS for the other conference teams they might lose to

(08-20-2016 12:11 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 11:29 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 10:43 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 09:18 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Sorry but you are saying that a team replacing a mid level conference game- and replacing that with an OOC game equal to their WEAKEST OOC game- would IMPROVE their SOS??? Sorry, but you are absolutely clueless if you really believe that. So instead of playing say a #30 West Virginia you play a #120 team. And that's going to improve the SOS? NO chance in hell.

you are the one that is clueless

http://www.californiagoldenblogs.com/201...en-big-acc

there is the article

the reason it works is because when your conference plays 8 conference games which is 66% of your schedule when you can get a number of those teams to bump up in strength of schedule based on getting an additional win that matters a great deal more than one team dropping down on your schedule

you are building up 66% or so of your schedule just slightly while you are dropping down only 8.3% of your schedule

plus not every team that you might avoid is #30 SoS WVU you could just as easily avoid horrible KU

plus you are not even looking at it properly your strength of schedule is barely based on the overall strength of schedule of the team you play it is much more based on the actual strength of the team you play.....if KU has the #1 SoS and they lose 100% of those 12 games they are not a #1 SoS team on YOUR schedule they are a horrid 0-12 team on your schedule that happened to lose to a lot of good teams

for a team to matter on YOUR strength of schedule that team actually has to WIN GAMES no matter what their SoS is.....so you are not even clued in to how it works......a team that is #120 on the SoS and that is 11-1 looks a hell of a lot better on YOUR strength of schedule than a team that has the #1 SoS and that is 0-12

there is NO STRENGTH of SCHEDULE ON "GOOD LOSSES" by the teams on your schedule there is only WEAKNESS in losses and while there are "better wins" there will NEVER be a loss that will be better than even the worst win.....the team that plays you has not helped you by the fact that they lost to Alabama as much as they would have helped you if they beat Portland State and that just builds and builds as the losses or wins pile up

the only teams it does not work for are the very weakest teams in the conference that are not as likely to get an additional win against their weaker OOC opponent Vs a stronger conference opponent....they still LOST

for the SoS of a team that YOU PLAY to matter on YOUR SoS those teams have to actually WIN a lot of those games....otherwise they are just a LOSER on YOUR SoS

lol. So instead of playing say a 7-5 conference team you're playing a 1-11 OOC game, and your SOS is going to be better. Sorry but that's a bunch of GARBAGE. Because not all of your conference games would have lost that extra conference game.
.

Stever, it might be wise to stop ending so many posts with "you must be clueless," or "only an idiot would think, " or things along those lines. Often times, you are the ones who ends up with that moniker. Todge is absolutely on the money here. The issue is, the reason it works is the removal of the 9th game, removes an automatic 0.5 loss per team from the league, 5 losses in a ten team league, 6 losses in an 12 team league. Those losses are guaranteed. By replacing those games with weak OOC games, you have a chance to turn some of those automatic losses on the league's resume, which filters into EVERYONE's SOS, into wins.

No matter what, as currently configured, the league's conference record is going to be 45-45. It can vary yearly how those wins and losses are spread out, but when you play everyone, in the end your SOS will pretty much read this. Even worse, if you are a good team, let's say you go 8-1 in the league, that means your opponents will combine to go 37-44 (0.46) on your SOS (save for the very few SOS matricies which eliminate your own results to avoid just this paradox). This leaves 27 games OOC for your conference foes to pick up wins. If each team goes on average 2-1, that is 18-9, which means your conference opponents will have a combined record of 55-53 (0.51) in your 9 league games, plus whatever your OOC foes do.

Now let's say you take the same set up and remove one game. Now the league will still have a 0.500 overall record, but some changes come into play. The league now has a 40-40 record. If you are a 7-1 team, that means the remaining teams in the league went 33-39 (also 0.46%), although you will skip one team, so our conference opponents final win percentage can vary, depending on if you skip the best opponent, the worst, or in the middle (law of averages states that as the good team, the team you skip is likely closer to the middle, since the lower teams got a break by not playing you). Now the remaining teams will then play 36 OOC game. Because the idea was to replace the conference game, with a weak team, if teams previously went an average of 2-1 with 3 OOC games, they now would go 3-1 OOC (27-9)- whatever they previously went, add one win or close to it, if the idea is to replace with an easy game. If this happens, your conference foes now have a combined record of 60-48 (0.56), which is a nine percent increase in winning percentage (again your result will vary based on which team you skip). That variance in the conference SOS is so big, that even if you replaced a .500 team on your schedule with a team that went 0-12, your SOS is still higher, because the difference between 1/12 of 0.500 and 1/12 of 0 is only 4%. Even if the numbers are not quite a clean sweep, and say the extra OOC games result in an 7-2 record (again these are supposed to be easier games), then the result is 58-50 (0.54), which means as long as the replacement team on your own schedule is not a winless team, or you are not replacing an undefeated team, worst case you STILL come out tied or ahead SOS wise.

So the clueless one here... well it's not Todge (and that pains me to say). Further, the notion you put about how... how did you put it?, "Because not all of your conference games would have lost that extra conference game? " Now that is some horseshit, because in fact yes EVERY conference game results in the conference having an extra loss to offset that win. That is the entire point. One less conference games, lowers the total number of losses, and gives the league the chance to replace some of the losses with wins. Now if they go out and **** the bed, and they all get beat OOC with the extra game, sure it could hurt. But that was not the situation here, where Todge specifically outlines replacing the conference foe with a bad team. If everyone does that, that is how it helps the overall SOS. It's simple complicated math really.

1 major problem with the analysis is that their TV partners would REQUIRE the lost conference game be replaced by a P5 game(similar to what the ACC is looking at). Either 8+2 or 9+1. So the 2nd P5 game OOC would NOT see all 12 teams going 12-0 odds are pretty good. TV isn't going to allow the Pac 12 to just drop the 9th conference game, and have it replaced by garbage OOC games.

A lot of people taking shots at RU and MD in this thread and stating definitively that ESPN should want to pay for new B12 adds because they paid for RU and MD.

As an RU fan everything I have ever seen has said that the B1G did NOT get any additional money from ESPN upon expansion because there was no language in the contract like the B12 has, the B1G did not try to get more money from ESPN on the existing contract for RU and MD because ESPN would have wanted an extension the B1G did not want to give and that (along with the BTN buyin), is the reason new B1G additions make less for a certain number of years.

I would be interested in seeing any evidence people posting in this thread have that ESPN paid more money on the existing contract when RU and MD were added.

(08-20-2016 06:58 AM)krup Wrote:  A lot of people taking shots at RU and MD in this thread and stating definitively that ESPN should want to pay for new B12 adds because they paid for RU and MD.

As an RU fan everything I have ever seen has said that the B1G did NOT get any additional money from ESPN upon expansion because there was no language in the contract like the B12 has, the B1G did not try to get more money from ESPN on the existing contract for RU and MD because ESPN would have wanted an extension the B1G did not want to give and that (along with the BTN buyin), is the reason new B1G additions make less for a certain number of years.

I would be interested in seeing any evidence people posting in this thread have that ESPN paid more money on the existing contract when RU and MD were added.

The issue is not about the tv markets where schools are at. It is schools that are on a hot streak that are winning. Boise State trumps Maryland and Rutgers on that front because they are winning for a long time. It is like Boise State trumps UConn in viewership in football. ESPN and other networks could sell more ads if the schools like Boise State is in a P5 conference. That is why the ACC Network will fail because they have less viewers than the Big 12 even when they are in heavy populated states. The only issues is that most of their teams are located in Pro football towns.

(08-20-2016 07:41 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(08-20-2016 06:58 AM)krup Wrote:  A lot of people taking shots at RU and MD in this thread and stating definitively that ESPN should want to pay for new B12 adds because they paid for RU and MD.

As an RU fan everything I have ever seen has said that the B1G did NOT get any additional money from ESPN upon expansion because there was no language in the contract like the B12 has, the B1G did not try to get more money from ESPN on the existing contract for RU and MD because ESPN would have wanted an extension the B1G did not want to give and that (along with the BTN buyin), is the reason new B1G additions make less for a certain number of years.

I would be interested in seeing any evidence people posting in this thread have that ESPN paid more money on the existing contract when RU and MD were added.

The issue is not about the tv markets where schools are at. It is schools that are on a hot streak that are winning. Boise State trumps Maryland and Rutgers on that front because they are winning for a long time. It is like Boise State trumps UConn in viewership in football. ESPN and other networks could sell more ads if the schools like Boise State is in a P5 conference. That is why the ACC Network will fail because they have less viewers than the Big 12 even when they are in heavy populated states. The only issues is that most of their teams are located in Pro football towns.

I have read your response 3 times and have been unable to find where (with the exception of the words Maryland and Rutgers) it has any relevance to the post of mine you quoted.

(08-20-2016 07:50 AM)krup Wrote:  

(08-20-2016 07:41 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(08-20-2016 06:58 AM)krup Wrote:  A lot of people taking shots at RU and MD in this thread and stating definitively that ESPN should want to pay for new B12 adds because they paid for RU and MD.

As an RU fan everything I have ever seen has said that the B1G did NOT get any additional money from ESPN upon expansion because there was no language in the contract like the B12 has, the B1G did not try to get more money from ESPN on the existing contract for RU and MD because ESPN would have wanted an extension the B1G did not want to give and that (along with the BTN buyin), is the reason new B1G additions make less for a certain number of years.

I would be interested in seeing any evidence people posting in this thread have that ESPN paid more money on the existing contract when RU and MD were added.

The issue is not about the tv markets where schools are at. It is schools that are on a hot streak that are winning. Boise State trumps Maryland and Rutgers on that front because they are winning for a long time. It is like Boise State trumps UConn in viewership in football. ESPN and other networks could sell more ads if the schools like Boise State is in a P5 conference. That is why the ACC Network will fail because they have less viewers than the Big 12 even when they are in heavy populated states. The only issues is that most of their teams are located in Pro football towns.

I have read your response 3 times and have been unable to find where (with the exception of the words Maryland and Rutgers) it has any relevance to the post of mine you quoted.

That is the point that I am making. Boise State's football program is much better than Maryland and Rutgers. They do draw a lot more viewers, and could sell ads for ESPN, Fox and others better. It is like NASCAR. A small Independent team who gets a really hot driver that runs at the front of the pack and get wins could attract a major sponsor. Same thing for college football. Major sponsors would want the best product on tv to spend money for their products for a lot of viewers. The issue is this, many of the G5 listed as candidates could get viewers, and could get sponsors to buy advertisement for the football games. As it is, a lot of people are actually tuning out on the bottom feeders of the P5 conferences.

(08-20-2016 12:17 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 10:25 PM)PGEMF Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 06:18 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Maryland and some others are not worth it. Many G5 schools are a much better draw on tv than many P5 schools.

You still have NO clue how this works, do you? Maryland and Rutgers are more than worth it for the Big 10

Calling me clueless? You are the one who is clueless on how tv ratings work. Most of the G5 schools have a much better tv viewership, and are not losing money like the money drainers that Maryland, Wake Forest, Rutgers and Duke are in? They brought nothing to the Big 10. They are no Kansas, Oklahoma or Texas.

Sigh....

Given the Big Ten will make $440 million per year starting next year. I think the additions of Maryland and Rutgers worked out fine. That figure doesn't even include the increased money from the cable boxes in those 2 states, which will greatly increase the Big Ten Network take.

(08-20-2016 08:02 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(08-20-2016 07:50 AM)krup Wrote:  

(08-20-2016 07:41 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(08-20-2016 06:58 AM)krup Wrote:  A lot of people taking shots at RU and MD in this thread and stating definitively that ESPN should want to pay for new B12 adds because they paid for RU and MD.

As an RU fan everything I have ever seen has said that the B1G did NOT get any additional money from ESPN upon expansion because there was no language in the contract like the B12 has, the B1G did not try to get more money from ESPN on the existing contract for RU and MD because ESPN would have wanted an extension the B1G did not want to give and that (along with the BTN buyin), is the reason new B1G additions make less for a certain number of years.

I would be interested in seeing any evidence people posting in this thread have that ESPN paid more money on the existing contract when RU and MD were added.

The issue is not about the tv markets where schools are at. It is schools that are on a hot streak that are winning. Boise State trumps Maryland and Rutgers on that front because they are winning for a long time. It is like Boise State trumps UConn in viewership in football. ESPN and other networks could sell more ads if the schools like Boise State is in a P5 conference. That is why the ACC Network will fail because they have less viewers than the Big 12 even when they are in heavy populated states. The only issues is that most of their teams are located in Pro football towns.

I have read your response 3 times and have been unable to find where (with the exception of the words Maryland and Rutgers) it has any relevance to the post of mine you quoted.

That is the point that I am making. Boise State's football program is much better than Maryland and Rutgers. They do draw a lot more viewers, and could sell ads for ESPN, Fox and others better. It is like NASCAR. A small Independent team who gets a really hot driver that runs at the front of the pack and get wins could attract a major sponsor. Same thing for college football. Major sponsors would want the best product on tv to spend money for their products for a lot of viewers. The issue is this, many of the G5 listed as candidates could get viewers, and could get sponsors to buy advertisement for the football games. As it is, a lot of people are actually tuning out on the bottom feeders of the P5 conferences.

Did you eat paint chips as a kid?