(06-22-2017 01:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-22-2017 12:03 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-22-2017 11:37 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Thats the premise of a Saturdays Down South article predicting a breakaway by the 32 most attractive FBS schools organized into 4 divisions.


https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-fo...-like-nfl/

Load of crap. PART I
Radio was going to kill newspapers, movies would kill novels, TV was going to kill movies AND radio AND newspapers.

Mediums reinvent themselves to adjust to the marketplace. Right now it is not super profitable for cable to take on online bundlers in price but the day will come and when it arrives sit back and watch.

No matter what happens any cord cutter doing anything other than using an antenna is paying for internet access plus the programming. The guys who own the wire into the house (or the radio spectrum license) are going to have the advantage in a bare fisted battle on price.

Today the cable companies lack a bit of flexibility because they have long term contracts but those deals will eventually expire and new ones will be negotiated and life is going to be brutal for the people selling programming only because people like Comcast are going to slam their fist on the table and demand equal or better pricing on programming (and they already own a lot of it) because they have the most eyeballs.

Other than saying buzzwords no one can craft a compelling argument why Comcast cannot offer a package priced at or below any online bundler like Sling or Hulu. Plus they can send it down the pipe with less compression and less lag (which is noticeable in sports).

Load of crap part II

Since at least the mid 50's the doomsayers have said over and over that the breakaway of the biggest schools is IMMINENT. It's the weird wet dream of columnists.

There is nothing to gain and a helluva lot to lose. It's to Nebraska's advantage to play the most possible home games and for those games to branded as major college games. Breakaway destroys that model.

Only 20 of the 65 P5 schools finished with fewer than 6 wins last year. But in G5 29 of 64 finished with less than 6 wins.

32 team breakaway? That's 33 former P5 plaintiffs and 64 now 65 G5 plaintiffs who are going to apply feet to fire on anti-trust. It's one thing to form a 32 team mega-conference, it's an entirely different matter to exclude 98 schools from a competition level.

To be clear, I dont buy the article's premise. I just thought it was an interesting piece.

Totally agree with "load of crap #1". Cable hasn't really begun to fight back. A business this large is not just going to curl up in a ball and allow itself to die---especially a business that owns the last mile of wire into the home.

Also agree with "load of crap #2" but you actually understate one of the reasons why. The difference in the percentage of teams with 6 wins between the P5 and G5 is only about 15% with the numbers you used. But the reality is---if you looked at the top 32 teams in the P5 that would be part of any super conference break away---my guess is the percentage of teams with 6 or more wins would be darn near 100%. In a super conference, its going to be closer to 50% with 6 wins and 50% below 6 wins. A LOT of teams that annually participate in a bowls wont be annual participants in a super conference. In fact, its almost a certainly that some teams that are currently perennial winners will become perennial losers.

I knew you had tossed it for discussion.

And excellent point on the W-L
Last year 13 of 32 NFL teams had a sub .500 record and in 2015 it was 15.

Lord help the AD at the college version of the 49ers or Browns when so much of revenue depends on happy donors opening checkbooks, they will be opening it... to pay buyouts of loser coaches, loser AD's, and probably loser presidents who can't seem to find an AD or coach who wins.

Never going to happen but IF it did these would be the teams included for CFB/NFL minor league.

BC
Rutgers
PSU
Maryland

UVA
UNC
USC east
Duke (For BBall league)

UGA
UF
FSU
GT

Auburn
Bama
LSU
Tennessee

Texas
A&M
Arkansas
OU

Washington
Oregon
Cal
Colorado

USC
UCLA
Arizona/ASU
Utah

OSU
UM
Illinois
Indiana

Wisconsin
Minnesota
Nebraska
Iowa

That would be at least some sort of basic lineup to cover the country.

(06-22-2017 12:16 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  SEC Homer piece.

No way Ole Miss or Miss State should be included

Ole Miss absolutely should. 34th largest budget, recent national football success and tradition.

Cutting it down to 32 is tough. I've always thought 48 would be decent.

3 conferences of 16

PAC: Washington, Oregon, California, Stanford, USC, UCLA, Arizona, Arizona St, Utah, Colorado, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Kansas
B1G: Nebraska, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Notre Dame, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St, Pittsburgh, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina
SEC: Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Florida, Florida St, Miami, South Carolina, Clemson, Tennessee, Kentucky, North Carolina St, Virginia Tech

4 conferences of 12

PAC: Washington, Oregon, California, Stanford, USC, UCLA, Arizona, Arizona St, Utah, Colorado, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St
B1G: Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St
SEC: Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Kentucky, Georgia, Florida
ACC: Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Maryland, Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina, North Carolina St, South Carolina, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida St, Miami

Left of my 48 -
PAC: Washington St, Oregon St
XII: TCU, Baylor, Kansas St, Iowa St, West Virginia
B1G: Northwestern, Purdue, Rutgers
SEC: Mississippi St, Vanderbilt
ACC: Duke, Wake Forest, Louisville, Syracuse, Boston College

EDIT: I have no problem substituting a couple here. This is just a rough go at it.

(06-22-2017 11:37 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Thats the premise of a Saturdays Down South article predicting a breakaway by the 32 most attractive FBS schools organized into 4 divisions.


https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-fo...-like-nfl/

No, for many reasons.
1. ESPN and FOX are already positioning themselves to be the arbiters of streaming to whomever.
2. It can't happen while other sports still matter (they need more regional play because of overhead) and if the athletic departments have collectively taken enough of a hit to eliminate other non revenue sports then this will be a moot issue.
3. Not all of the winners can remain winners in this model. And if the level of competition is jacked way up the level of career ending injuries will be as well which means compensation will have to be part of the package for the players and if so what do you really have?
4. The sport once existed for the fans and not the networks. If the networks perpetrate something like this upon the fans, you lose your base.

It's the slow time and Saturdays Down South needed filler.

(06-22-2017 11:44 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(06-22-2017 11:37 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Thats the premise of a Saturdays Down South article predicting a breakaway by the 32 most attractive FBS schools organized into 4 divisions.


https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-fo...-like-nfl/

That's fine as long as they only play each other in all sports.

As long as those 32 aren't considered "college teams" and they aren't allowed to play us colleges...I'm for it. The truth, the hard truth cuts both ways.

Well not happen. Several of these teams that are including are losing out on viewers and money to G5 schools. (cough, Miami, cough)
There will be anti-trust lawsuits throwing around from states not including in this. Schools will be forced to accept certain schools not on that list and so forth. Oklahoma can't be without Oklahoma State. Texas can't be without certain schools and so forth. The break away would be the P5 plus the ones making money like Boise State and strong FCS schools like North Dakota State. People would like a Cinderella teams to be part of this.

Just form this new professional minor league out of the ACC+SEC+half the Big XII

The rest of college football can carry on with a championship at the Rose Bowl every year.

(06-22-2017 04:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  No, for many reasons.
1. ESPN and FOX are already positioning themselves to be the arbiters of streaming to whomever.
2. It can't happen while other sports still matter (they need more regional play because of overhead) and if the athletic departments have collectively taken enough of a hit to eliminate other non revenue sports then this will be a moot issue.
3. Not all of the winners can remain winners in this model. And if the level of competition is jacked way up the level of career ending injuries will be as well which means compensation will have to be part of the package for the players and if so what do you really have?
4. The sport once existed for the fans and not the networks. If the networks perpetrate something like this upon the fans, you lose your base.

It's the slow time and Saturdays Down South needed filler.

^^^This ^^^

ESPN and Fox have already started positioning their properties for the future. ESPN is heavily invested in The SEC and ACC. Fox has The Big 10 and PAC.

You don't pay The Big 12 not to expand if you expect the conference to be a valuable future commodity. Expansion would have given the conference an opportunity to strengthen itself before the end zone of its GOR.

JR is right. This is just a off season hit list.
CJ

(06-22-2017 04:48 PM)GiveEmTheAxe Wrote:  Just form this new professional minor league out of the ACC+SEC+half the Big XII

The rest of college football can carry on with a championship at the Rose Bowl every year.

I've always wondered why they didn't just form a spring/summer alumni league for football and basketball. Only so many can play professionally for a long enough time. Seems like it'd be mutually beneficial and add 10-15 extra years of eligibility so to speak to those who don't pan out professionally. And they could be PAID.

The B1G, PAC and SEC all move to 16 and you pretty much have a 3 power conference set up.

B1G (Kansas, Virginia)
PAC (Oklahoma, TCU, Texas Tech, Texas)
SEC (Florida State, Clemson)
B12 (BYU, Colorado St, Houston, SMU, Tulane, Memphis, Cincinnati)
ACC (UConn, UCF, USF)
MWC (UTEP, UTSA, Rice)
CUSA (Ark State)
SBC (NMSU)
Indy: ECU, Temple, Tulsa, Navy, Army, UMass, Liberty

A P5 with 74 schools in it.
B1G 16
PAC 16
SEC 16
ACC 14
B12 12

Then a G4 with 48 schools..
MWC 14
CUSA 12
MAC 12
SBC 10

Serious expansion happens with Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas all out of the B12 the AAC probably won't be able to survive, IMO.

Thought I would put this here, since this is the latest "TV/Cable/Streaming" type thread.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sprin...SKBN19I1JW

Quote:Sprint Corp's (S.N) talks with Charter Communications Inc (CHTR.O) and Comcast Corp (CMCSA.O) about a wireless partnership added another layer of uncertainty to the outlook for potential deals in the cable and telecommunications sector.

Sprint, controlled by Japan's SoftBank Group Corp (9984.T), has entered into a two-month period of exclusive negotiations with Charter and Comcast, while putting merger talks with T-Mobile US Inc (TMUS.O) on hold until the end of July, sources told Reuters late on Monday.

It's like I said in another thread, all the major pay TV companies and wireless companies are going to come together into three or four mega brands.

- AT&T is already solidified, with its acquisition of DirecTV
- Verizon is still out there without having acquired a major payTV company yet (I think Dish & Sling make a lot of sense ... perhaps renaming Sling to "DISH Now")

That leaves Charter and Comcast, on the payTV side, and Sprint and TMobile on the wireless side.



Perhaps the "staying alive" strategy of payTV could actually be to link it to wireless. IE, just like wireless carriers now essentially force you to have a data plan ... maybe they'll just start forcing people to have a TV plan on top of that, with no data usage for streaming TV on mobile devices in the plan?

(06-27-2017 12:36 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Thought I would put this here, since this is the latest "TV/Cable/Streaming" type thread.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sprin...SKBN19I1JW

Quote:Sprint Corp's (S.N) talks with Charter Communications Inc (CHTR.O) and Comcast Corp (CMCSA.O) about a wireless partnership added another layer of uncertainty to the outlook for potential deals in the cable and telecommunications sector.

Sprint, controlled by Japan's SoftBank Group Corp (9984.T), has entered into a two-month period of exclusive negotiations with Charter and Comcast, while putting merger talks with T-Mobile US Inc (TMUS.O) on hold until the end of July, sources told Reuters late on Monday.

It's like I said in another thread, all the major pay TV companies and wireless companies are going to come together into three or four mega brands.

- AT&T is already solidified, with its acquisition of DirecTV
- Verizon is still out there without having acquired a major payTV company yet (I think Dish & Sling make a lot of sense ... perhaps renaming Sling to "DISH Now")

That leaves Charter and Comcast, on the payTV side, and Sprint and TMobile on the wireless side.



Perhaps the "staying alive" strategy of payTV could actually be to link it to wireless. IE, just like wireless carriers now essentially force you to have a data plan ... maybe they'll just start forcing people to have a TV plan on top of that, with no data usage for streaming TV on mobile devices in the plan?

I think you are exactly right. The serious players have to be in wired and wireless infrastructure and content.

When I switched to Direct (pre-ATT) I kept the barebones Uverse service for a year because ATT made such a great deal on wired internet that it was cheaper to keep it than get rid of it.

(06-27-2017 12:36 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Thought I would put this here, since this is the latest "TV/Cable/Streaming" type thread.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sprin...SKBN19I1JW

Quote:Sprint Corp's (S.N) talks with Charter Communications Inc (CHTR.O) and Comcast Corp (CMCSA.O) about a wireless partnership added another layer of uncertainty to the outlook for potential deals in the cable and telecommunications sector.

Sprint, controlled by Japan's SoftBank Group Corp (9984.T), has entered into a two-month period of exclusive negotiations with Charter and Comcast, while putting merger talks with T-Mobile US Inc (TMUS.O) on hold until the end of July, sources told Reuters late on Monday.

It's like I said in another thread, all the major pay TV companies and wireless companies are going to come together into three or four mega brands.

- AT&T is already solidified, with its acquisition of DirecTV
- Verizon is still out there without having acquired a major payTV company yet (I think Dish & Sling make a lot of sense ... perhaps renaming Sling to "DISH Now")

That leaves Charter and Comcast, on the payTV side, and Sprint and TMobile on the wireless side.



Perhaps the "staying alive" strategy of payTV could actually be to link it to wireless. IE, just like wireless carriers now essentially force you to have a data plan ... maybe they'll just start forcing people to have a TV plan on top of that, with no data usage for streaming TV on mobile devices in the plan?

I think you are exactly right. The serious players have to be in wired and wireless infrastructure and content.

When I switched to Direct (pre-ATT) I kept the barebones Uverse service for a year because ATT made such a great deal on wired internet that it was cheaper to keep it than get rid of it.

Well it's just modern American capitalism -- you have to show your investors that you're always growing your profits.

There's not a ton of growth to be had in traditional cable/sat payTV or cable modem ISP services, and most people who are going to have a cell phone have one by now, even have a smart phone too. They need to cross over into each other's space to keep growing.

Sprint and Charter together. Kansas City and St. Louis companies merging forces.

schools left behind keep BB credits ?

(06-22-2017 12:01 PM)goofus Wrote:  I would have a hard time imagining large states like Illinois and Arizona being left out entirely in this scenerio. The final number does not necessarily need to be all 65 P5 schools, but the number would be closer to 65 than 32. 60 is a good number. Really only NW, Vandy, Wake, Baylor and Wash St should be excluded.

I think a lot more could be added there. esp if football is the driver.
NC state, Duke, Pitt, BC, Cuse out of ACC, Iowa St, Purdue, Indiana, Rutgers, .

That being said, there will be new carriers of FB and they will pay for the product on the field.

With all the doom/gloom over the future of TV sports rights you should not preclude the idea that Apple, Alphabet (Google), Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Sony (Playstation and Crackle), Netflix, HBO may conclude they need a prestigious and EXCLUSIVE sports deal to drive more users to their platform, bidding up the rights.

(06-22-2017 12:01 PM)goofus Wrote:  I would have a hard time imagining large states like Illinois and Arizona being left out entirely in this scenerio. The final number does not necessarily need to be all 65 P5 schools, but the number would be closer to 65 than 32. 60 is a good number. Really only NW, Vandy, Wake, Baylor and Wash St should be excluded.

I know you're talking about their athletic prowess but you and others have got to stop mentioning excluding schools like Duke, Vandy, and NW amongst others. Every D1 school in the country wants to be these schools. I would their inclusion is almost guaranteed as long as they feel they should forward with the proposed plan.
Athletics meansittle the scheme of things. I just wish people could understand that here. Let's include Boise State but not Duke. Yeah, not happening.