(05-17-2017 11:32 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I have a tangibly better idea than mega conferences:

8 conferences of 8 schools

BIG EAST - MSG - Pinstripe Bowl
1. Boston College
2. Syracuse
3. Penn State
4. Notre Dame
5. Pittsburgh
6. Maryland
7. West Virginia
8. Miami
*Villanova
*UConn
*St. John's
*Rutgers (w/ football scheduling alliance)

ACC - Greensboro - Orange Bowl
1. North Carolina
2. Duke
3. North Carolina State
4. Wake
5. Virginia
6. Virginia Tech
7. Clemson
8. Georgia Tech
*Georgetown

B1G TEN - Chicago - Cotton Bowl
1. Michigan State
2. Michigan
3. Ohio State
4. Purdue
5. Indiana
6. Illinois
7. Northwestern
8. Missouri
*St. Xavier

BIG 8 - Rotates - Fiesta Bowl
1. Minnesota
2. Wisconsin
3. Iowa
4. Iowa State
5. Nebraska
6. Kansas
7. Kansas State
8. Oklahoma
*Marquette
*Creighton

PAC 8 - LA - Rose Bowl
1. Washington
2. Washington State
3. Oregon
4. Oregon State
5. UCLA
6. Southern California
7. Cal Berkeley
8. Stanford
*Gonzaga
*UNLV

BORDER CONFERENCE - Rotates - Sun Bowl
1. Arizona
2. Arizona State
3. Texas Tech
4. Texas Christian
5. Houston
6. Oklahoma State
7. Utah
8. Colorado
*BYU
*Baylor

SEC WEST - New Orleans - Sugar Bowl
1. Louisiana State
2. Alabama
3. Auburn
4. Arkansas
5. Texas A&M
6. Texas
7. Mississippi
8. Mississippi State
*Memphis

SEC EAST - Atlanta - Peach Bowl
1. Florida
2. Florida State
3. Georgia
4. Tennessee
5. Vanderbilt
6. Kentucky
7. Louisville
8. South Carolina
*Cincinnati

*Denotes non-football member

TV Rights:
SEC East and SEC West negotiate TV together. B1G TEN and BIG 8 negotiate TV together. BIG EAST and ACC negotiate together. PAC 8 and Border Conference negotiate together.

Bowls:
These might need a little tweaking, but I'm thinking Orange (ACC), Sugar (SEC West), Fiesta (Big 8), Sun (Border), Rose (PAC), Peach (SEC East), Cotton (B1G TEN), and Pinstripe (BIG EAST)

The BIG EAST doesn't have a natural tie-in, and neither do the Big 8/B1G TEN (because the Rose makes more sense going to the Pac).

The small conference schedules allow for more flexibility. For instance, OU could schedule Texas and Oklahoma State, an FCS game, a buy game, and a major H&H game. Clemson could play Georgia, South Carolina, and Auburn OOC, plus an in-state buy game and a big neutral site OOC game. Georgia Tech could play Georgia and Auburn. Alabama could play Tennessee. Texas could play Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas Tech/Houston, a buy game, and a big neutral OOC game. Notre Dame could play USC and Stanford and a neutral game against Navy, a buy game, and a big OOC game. PSU could play Ohio State and Michigan State. Ohio State could play PSU and MI, WI, and Iowa. Michigan could play 2 of MI, WI, and Iowa, a buy game, an FCS game, and a big OOC game.

Not better economically. As you can see by the healthy mega merger market .... regulatory/administrative footprints are real and are costly. You basically have 10 fold the operational administrative overhead as compared to my setup. I was only interested in maximizing revenue in my setup. Thankfully for the fans, this means playing teams we want to see so that we put our butts in the seats while still paying fairly exorbitant TV prices. Bad for our wallets. Good for what we want to actually see though.

(05-18-2017 01:13 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 11:32 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I have a tangibly better idea than mega conferences:

8 conferences of 8 schools

BIG EAST - MSG - Pinstripe Bowl
1. Boston College
2. Syracuse
3. Penn State
4. Notre Dame
5. Pittsburgh
6. Maryland
7. West Virginia
8. Miami
*Villanova
*UConn
*St. John's
*Rutgers (w/ football scheduling alliance)

ACC - Greensboro - Orange Bowl
1. North Carolina
2. Duke
3. North Carolina State
4. Wake
5. Virginia
6. Virginia Tech
7. Clemson
8. Georgia Tech
*Georgetown

B1G TEN - Chicago - Cotton Bowl
1. Michigan State
2. Michigan
3. Ohio State
4. Purdue
5. Indiana
6. Illinois
7. Northwestern
8. Missouri
*St. Xavier

BIG 8 - Rotates - Fiesta Bowl
1. Minnesota
2. Wisconsin
3. Iowa
4. Iowa State
5. Nebraska
6. Kansas
7. Kansas State
8. Oklahoma
*Marquette
*Creighton

PAC 8 - LA - Rose Bowl
1. Washington
2. Washington State
3. Oregon
4. Oregon State
5. UCLA
6. Southern California
7. Cal Berkeley
8. Stanford
*Gonzaga
*UNLV

BORDER CONFERENCE - Rotates - Sun Bowl
1. Arizona
2. Arizona State
3. Texas Tech
4. Texas Christian
5. Houston
6. Oklahoma State
7. Utah
8. Colorado
*BYU
*Baylor

SEC WEST - New Orleans - Sugar Bowl
1. Louisiana State
2. Alabama
3. Auburn
4. Arkansas
5. Texas A&M
6. Texas
7. Mississippi
8. Mississippi State
*Memphis

SEC EAST - Atlanta - Peach Bowl
1. Florida
2. Florida State
3. Georgia
4. Tennessee
5. Vanderbilt
6. Kentucky
7. Louisville
8. South Carolina
*Cincinnati

*Denotes non-football member

TV Rights:
SEC East and SEC West negotiate TV together. B1G TEN and BIG 8 negotiate TV together. BIG EAST and ACC negotiate together. PAC 8 and Border Conference negotiate together.

Bowls:
These might need a little tweaking, but I'm thinking Orange (ACC), Sugar (SEC West), Fiesta (Big 8), Sun (Border), Rose (PAC), Peach (SEC East), Cotton (B1G TEN), and Pinstripe (BIG EAST)

The BIG EAST doesn't have a natural tie-in, and neither do the Big 8/B1G TEN (because the Rose makes more sense going to the Pac).

The small conference schedules allow for more flexibility. For instance, OU could schedule Texas and Oklahoma State, an FCS game, a buy game, and a major H&H game. Clemson could play Georgia, South Carolina, and Auburn OOC, plus an in-state buy game and a big neutral site OOC game. Georgia Tech could play Georgia and Auburn. Alabama could play Tennessee. Texas could play Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas Tech/Houston, a buy game, and a big neutral OOC game. Notre Dame could play USC and Stanford and a neutral game against Navy, a buy game, and a big OOC game. PSU could play Ohio State and Michigan State. Ohio State could play PSU and MI, WI, and Iowa. Michigan could play 2 of MI, WI, and Iowa, a buy game, an FCS game, and a big OOC game.

Not better economically. As you can see by the healthy mega merger market .... regulatory/administrative footprints are real and are costly. You basically have 10 fold the operational administrative overhead as compared to my setup. I was only interested in maximizing revenue in my setup. Thankfully for the fans, this means playing teams we want to see so that we put our butts in the seats while still paying fairly exorbitant TV prices. Bad for our wallets. Good for what we want to actually see though.

I really don't agree. My setup is substantially better economically. I'm trading some minor admin staff for far more meaningful games and flexibility.

Barring B1G-style drunken sailor $20 million (of taxpayer money) bonuses to exact who did close to nothing, we're trading about $20 million in extra overhead (combined) for who knows how many more meaningful/premium games worth millions a piece. Why force rivalries? THAT is expensive.

Yes, there is a trend towards mega conferences right now, but all mega conferences of the past have collapsed (see SoCon to SEC/ACC for a great example). This trend of getting bigger mirrors the corporate conglomerate trend in the 1960's that gave way to their eventual raid and restructuring in the '80's. Big dies. Adaptive wins.

The dinosaurs died and the small rodents lived

(05-18-2017 01:29 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  I really don't agree. My setup is substantially better economically. I'm trading some minor admin staff for far more meaningful games and flexibility.

Barring B1G-style drunken sailor $20 million (of taxpayer money) bonuses to exact who did close to nothing, we're trading about $20 million in extra overhead (combined) for who knows how many more meaningful/premium games worth millions a piece. Why force rivalries? THAT is expensive.

Yes, there is a trend towards mega conferences right now, but all mega conferences of the past have collapsed (see SoCon to SEC/ACC for a great example). This trend of getting bigger mirrors the corporate conglomerate trend in the 1960's that gave way to their eventual raid and restructuring in the '80's. Big dies. Adaptive wins.

The dinosaurs died and the small rodents lived

I don't think you're able to deliver "far more meaningful" games for most of the country. The only people who would have beef about who they play in my alignment would be Pitt. And maybe WVU if Pitt went to the Pac-B1G. Teams in your alignment who will be pretty peeved: Maryland, Notre Dame, Missouri, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Colorado, Utah, Florida State.

And your scheduling flexibility comes at a real cost. It's no picnic to manage OOC scheduling if you need more than one to two games. Even if you're only playing other P5 teams. You get to do the whole "their HC is on the hot seat so he bought out the game to avoid another loss now you're stuck playing a HBCU at the last second for blood money" song and dance. Even at just one game that's a problem if the game isn't some ESPN contract neutral site thing.

My setup has two simple goals: Don't screw anybody over. Make as much money as possible. I think it achieves both.

(05-19-2017 05:33 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(05-18-2017 01:29 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  I really don't agree. My setup is substantially better economically. I'm trading some minor admin staff for far more meaningful games and flexibility.

Barring B1G-style drunken sailor $20 million (of taxpayer money) bonuses to exact who did close to nothing, we're trading about $20 million in extra overhead (combined) for who knows how many more meaningful/premium games worth millions a piece. Why force rivalries? THAT is expensive.

Yes, there is a trend towards mega conferences right now, but all mega conferences of the past have collapsed (see SoCon to SEC/ACC for a great example). This trend of getting bigger mirrors the corporate conglomerate trend in the 1960's that gave way to their eventual raid and restructuring in the '80's. Big dies. Adaptive wins.

The dinosaurs died and the small rodents lived

I don't think you're able to deliver "far more meaningful" games for most of the country. The only people who would have beef about who they play in my alignment would be Pitt. And maybe WVU if Pitt went to the Pac-B1G. Teams in your alignment who will be pretty peeved: Maryland, Notre Dame, Missouri, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Colorado, Utah, Florida State.

And your scheduling flexibility comes at a real cost. It's no picnic to manage OOC scheduling if you need more than one to two games. Even if you're only playing other P5 teams. You get to do the whole "their HC is on the hot seat so he bought out the game to avoid another loss now you're stuck playing a HBCU at the last second for blood money" song and dance. Even at just one game that's a problem if the game isn't some ESPN contract neutral site thing.

My setup has two simple goals: Don't screw anybody over. Make as much money as possible. I think it achieves both.

'Ole Miss vs. Kansas needs to be a yearly game? Pitt vs KSU?

Why not take the free market approach and have small, highly aligned conferences w/ the smallest conference schedules allowed by the NCAA, and let individual schools fill their schedules w/ what makes sense for them at that particular point in time? How does that not deliver more meaningful games?

To your point, why screw schools over by forcing games w/ no value that nobody wants?

(05-19-2017 11:16 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  To your point, why screw schools over by forcing games w/ no value that nobody wants?

That only happens rarely. Only like 1 in 8 teams doesn't have an outstanding permanent crossover rival. And they can comfort themselves with the knowledge that their division is LOADED with the teams they want to play. And they're making record money. And they no longer have to deal with scheduling pain. And they're playing the most attractive schedule to the fans they probably have in decades.

I guess they have legalized Marijuana where ever you guys are living..