Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,750
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 832
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #61
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
(09-11-2017 11:30 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  
(09-11-2017 11:52 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-11-2017 01:34 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  
(09-10-2017 11:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  It won't happen that way. They will use divisions to geographically group schools and rivals where possible. The remaining very large conferences will represent regions of the country. Overhead will be reduced by eliminating duplicated conference governmental layers.

It could happen if the PAC was absorbed along with the Big 12, or if the ACC was absorbed along with the Big 12. Either way a regional P3 of between 20-24 schools would work quite nicely.

The 72 would be the 65 we currently have plus: Connecticut, Brigham Young, Central Florida, Cincinnati, Houston, San Diego State, and South Florida. That's the three most deserving: Connecticut, Cincinnati, and Brigham Young plus the best earners from Texas, California, and Florida.

PAC:
North: Brigham Young, Oregon, Oregon State, Utah, Washington, Washington State
West: Arizona, Arizona State, California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal, Stanford
South: Baylor, Colorado, Houston, San Diego State, Texas, Texas Tech
East: Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Christian

B1G:
East: Boston College, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Notre Dame, Penn State, Rutgers
South: Duke, Maryland, Pittsburgh, North Carolina, Virginia, Wake Forest
North: Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, Syracuse
West: Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

SEC:
North: Kentucky, Louisville, N.C. State, Tennessee, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
East: Central Florida, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech, South Carolina
South: Alabama, Auburn, Florida State, Mississippi State, South Florida, Vanderbilt
West: Arkansas, Louisiana State, Miami, Mississippi, Missouri, Texas A&M

Just for the heck of it, I've made maps out of the groupings you made. I didn't differentiate based on division but just a general layout of markings:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid...000002&z=5

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid...000003&z=6

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid...999997&z=6


I get that you intended to have concentrations in the states of Florida, California and Texas. What I like about the "B1G" group is that you add up the teams East of the Pennsylvania-Ohio border plus Cincinnati you come up with 12 programs. A lot of games in relative close distance compared with the current Big Ten. Having Wake Forest is a small price to pay for having this set up and I'd like playing Wake Forest in other sports as well. Winston-Salem would be a nice trip during the late fall months. Some of the Carolina folks would be very uncomfortable with being in a Yankee association but their focus on basketball forces them to make a presence in the New York City area since at least the 1940s and the ACC already is playing games in Brooklyn and Yankee Stadium in the two main sports, anyway.

I think grouping for distance of travel for minor sports is a undervalued means of cutting overhead. Besides, most of our rivals are within relative close proximity. Allowances can certainly be made if you are playing 5 divisional games your could easily have 3 permanent rivals and rotate 2 more cross divisional games and still play 1 OOC against each of the other conferences.

There's oodles of flexibility there for keeping familiar schedules, maintaining rivalries, and still giving the networks cross conference content.

And since each conference generally keeps what amounts to 1 full share for conference expenses then these 72 schools essentially save 2 full members shares to split by just paying 3 conference sets of overhead as opposed to 5. And the sales of the old conference properties can add to the bottom line as well.

In a weird kind of way it is a return to the halcyon past when you didn't need to travel 10,000 miles to play a full schedule in football except the use of modern video and internet would make it possible for fans of all programs to follow their teams without the use of a transistor radio. And the competition would be "purer" in that there wouldn't be this elitist garbage about whether a program has to belong to a state flagship or a private school in order to play games against.

Which is why this has little chance of happening but I've been wrong before.

In the days of race baiting, icon tumbling, daily challenges to constitutionality, and the shadow of the cold war that is North Korea clouding our thoughts, I for one would find great comfort basking in the afterglow of those halcyon days of yore. If we played most of our games within a reasonable driving distance then maybe we might also discover a form of community which once did tie us together in much more fundamental ways than the screaming harpies of the left and the right could rent asunder.

When the local evening news actually focuses on what is going on locally, and a day can pass without the attention whores in Washington stirring the average citizen's emotional pot, then we might just discover again what once made us great, the concept that I don't have to agree with you, but that I am willing to put my life on the line for your right to speak your mind even if I don't agree with what you say.
That was the essence of tolerance, and the glue that held our multicultural society together.

That sense of cooperation and dedication to our diverse neighbors begins locally and is reinforced with those in our neighboring counties, and then the state and then among the collection of our neighboring states, and then we will remember who it is that we are supposed to be. And a pass time like college football is a good diversion around which to learn neighborliness. If we can tolerate the zeal of our rivals, then maybe we can remember how to cooperate for the common good. It can't hurt to try!
09-11-2017 11:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,562
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #62
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
(09-11-2017 08:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-11-2017 08:02 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(09-11-2017 07:26 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(09-11-2017 05:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  When ESPN gets through running a cost / benefit analysis of the ACC then you will need to add the Texas markets of Houston and Dallas, shore up your beltway bridge to New England with WVU, and add either Cincy or UConn.

Otherwise your pieces are worth more elsewhere.

We could live with Texas and TCU for 16 + 1, and either Cincinnati or West Virginia for 18 if Notre Dame comes soon.

Going back to an earlier conversation, if I'm ESPN and I offered you UT, OU, KU, and ND and it was turned down then I'm in no mood to cater to particular sensibilities.

I wouldn't be surprised if ESPN played a more than advertised role in making sure Louisville went to the ACC despite the fact that the school didn't really fit the profile.

I'm sure that will factor in. However, we don't need to think any deeper than just business. ESPN makes more money from the SEC. We'll get our shot at the top product. Texas will have a say in where they go, as long as it is an ESPN held product. Geography will come into play as well.

It's business school 101: You borrow assets from your most profitable division and invest them in your other divisions to help them grow, so that the entire corporation can prosper.
09-12-2017 11:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,750
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 832
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #63
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
(09-12-2017 11:50 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(09-11-2017 08:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-11-2017 08:02 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(09-11-2017 07:26 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(09-11-2017 05:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  When ESPN gets through running a cost / benefit analysis of the ACC then you will need to add the Texas markets of Houston and Dallas, shore up your beltway bridge to New England with WVU, and add either Cincy or UConn.

Otherwise your pieces are worth more elsewhere.

We could live with Texas and TCU for 16 + 1, and either Cincinnati or West Virginia for 18 if Notre Dame comes soon.

Going back to an earlier conversation, if I'm ESPN and I offered you UT, OU, KU, and ND and it was turned down then I'm in no mood to cater to particular sensibilities.

I wouldn't be surprised if ESPN played a more than advertised role in making sure Louisville went to the ACC despite the fact that the school didn't really fit the profile.

I'm sure that will factor in. However, we don't need to think any deeper than just business. ESPN makes more money from the SEC. We'll get our shot at the top product. Texas will have a say in where they go, as long as it is an ESPN held product. Geography will come into play as well.

It's business school 101: You borrow assets from your most profitable division and invest them in your other divisions to help them grow, so that the entire corporation can prosper.

That's Socialism 101 Lance. You have your coursework fouled up. Or maybe that was one of those UNC classes that didn't actually meet. You enhance your most profitable division and sell off your best assets in what's not working as well. And you invest in product lines that enhance the profitable lines that you have. Or, you diversify by buying other product lines outright.
09-12-2017 12:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,562
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #64
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
(09-12-2017 12:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-12-2017 11:50 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(09-11-2017 08:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-11-2017 08:02 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(09-11-2017 07:26 PM)XLance Wrote:  We could live with Texas and TCU for 16 + 1, and either Cincinnati or West Virginia for 18 if Notre Dame comes soon.

Going back to an earlier conversation, if I'm ESPN and I offered you UT, OU, KU, and ND and it was turned down then I'm in no mood to cater to particular sensibilities.

I wouldn't be surprised if ESPN played a more than advertised role in making sure Louisville went to the ACC despite the fact that the school didn't really fit the profile.

I'm sure that will factor in. However, we don't need to think any deeper than just business. ESPN makes more money from the SEC. We'll get our shot at the top product. Texas will have a say in where they go, as long as it is an ESPN held product. Geography will come into play as well.

It's business school 101: You borrow assets from your most profitable division and invest them in your other divisions to help them grow, so that the entire corporation can prosper.

That's Socialism 101 Lance. You have your coursework fouled up. Or maybe that was one of those UNC classes that didn't actually meet. You enhance your most profitable division and sell off your best assets in what's not working as well. And you invest in product lines that enhance the profitable lines that you have. Or, you diversify by buying other product lines outright.

Big businesses are socialistic: production, distribution and means of exchange are all controlled by management which in turn is controlled by the stockholders all for the good of the "entity".
Some businesses run quite successfully under a dictatorship, but succession is messy and often growth is limited by the energy of the dictator.
09-12-2017 01:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,750
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 832
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #65
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
(09-12-2017 01:04 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(09-12-2017 12:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-12-2017 11:50 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(09-11-2017 08:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-11-2017 08:02 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Going back to an earlier conversation, if I'm ESPN and I offered you UT, OU, KU, and ND and it was turned down then I'm in no mood to cater to particular sensibilities.

I wouldn't be surprised if ESPN played a more than advertised role in making sure Louisville went to the ACC despite the fact that the school didn't really fit the profile.

I'm sure that will factor in. However, we don't need to think any deeper than just business. ESPN makes more money from the SEC. We'll get our shot at the top product. Texas will have a say in where they go, as long as it is an ESPN held product. Geography will come into play as well.

It's business school 101: You borrow assets from your most profitable division and invest them in your other divisions to help them grow, so that the entire corporation can prosper.

That's Socialism 101 Lance. You have your coursework fouled up. Or maybe that was one of those UNC classes that didn't actually meet. You enhance your most profitable division and sell off your best assets in what's not working as well. And you invest in product lines that enhance the profitable lines that you have. Or, you diversify by buying other product lines outright.

Big businesses are socialistic: production, distribution and means of exchange are all controlled by management which in turn is controlled by the stockholders all for the good of the "entity".
Some businesses run quite successfully under a dictatorship, but succession is messy and often growth is limited by the energy of the dictator.

That's fascism, not socialism, but nobody in the Big 10 or SEC owes the ACC anything. Nor are we going to alter our dealings to acquiesce or pander to your perceived wants. Sorry but that's not how the real world works. Darwinism and profit go hand in hand. All intentionally handicapped systems ultimately fail. The proof of fascism is that government rescued banks that deserved to fail. But even that is temporary.
09-12-2017 02:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,364
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 93
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #66
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
(09-12-2017 11:50 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(09-11-2017 08:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I'm sure that will factor in. However, we don't need to think any deeper than just business. ESPN makes more money from the SEC. We'll get our shot at the top product. Texas will have a say in where they go, as long as it is an ESPN held product. Geography will come into play as well.

It's business school 101: You borrow assets from your most profitable division and invest them in your other divisions to help them grow, so that the entire corporation can prosper.

What happens when your other division is a money pit that constantly requires maintenance to stay afloat?
09-12-2017 02:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,562
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #67
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
(09-12-2017 02:47 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(09-12-2017 11:50 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(09-11-2017 08:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I'm sure that will factor in. However, we don't need to think any deeper than just business. ESPN makes more money from the SEC. We'll get our shot at the top product. Texas will have a say in where they go, as long as it is an ESPN held product. Geography will come into play as well.

It's business school 101: You borrow assets from your most profitable division and invest them in your other divisions to help them grow, so that the entire corporation can prosper.

What happens when your other division is a money pit that constantly requires maintenance to stay afloat?

Depends on whether the division has potential and can be run profitably with the right management.
Fortunately for ESPN they don't have any "money pits" in the college football world.
09-13-2017 05:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,364
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 93
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #68
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
(09-13-2017 05:03 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(09-12-2017 02:47 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(09-12-2017 11:50 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(09-11-2017 08:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I'm sure that will factor in. However, we don't need to think any deeper than just business. ESPN makes more money from the SEC. We'll get our shot at the top product. Texas will have a say in where they go, as long as it is an ESPN held product. Geography will come into play as well.

It's business school 101: You borrow assets from your most profitable division and invest them in your other divisions to help them grow, so that the entire corporation can prosper.

What happens when your other division is a money pit that constantly requires maintenance to stay afloat?

Depends on whether the division has potential and can be run profitably with the right management.
Fortunately for ESPN they don't have any "money pits" in the college football world.

Except that the new management is the same as the old management...

In this context, a money pit would constitute an entity that requires a regular flow of new capital just to tread water. Eventually, the smart thing to do is cut bait or downsize depending on the circumstances.

And when it comes to business, potential isn't something that's quantifiable. Merit is what matters.
09-13-2017 05:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,562
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #69
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
(09-13-2017 05:38 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(09-13-2017 05:03 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(09-12-2017 02:47 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(09-12-2017 11:50 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(09-11-2017 08:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I'm sure that will factor in. However, we don't need to think any deeper than just business. ESPN makes more money from the SEC. We'll get our shot at the top product. Texas will have a say in where they go, as long as it is an ESPN held product. Geography will come into play as well.

It's business school 101: You borrow assets from your most profitable division and invest them in your other divisions to help them grow, so that the entire corporation can prosper.

What happens when your other division is a money pit that constantly requires maintenance to stay afloat?

Depends on whether the division has potential and can be run profitably with the right management.
Fortunately for ESPN they don't have any "money pits" in the college football world.

Except that the new management is the same as the old management...

In this context, a money pit would constitute an entity that requires a regular flow of new capital just to tread water. Eventually, the smart thing to do is cut bait or downsize depending on the circumstances.

And when it comes to business, potential isn't something that's quantifiable. Merit is what matters.
You keep looking from things through a conference perspective.
From ESPN's point of view, they require inventory, from Labor day through the end of June.
09-13-2017 07:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
vandiver49 Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,672
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 160
I Root For: USNA/UTK
Location: West GA
Post: #70
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
(09-13-2017 07:47 PM)XLance Wrote:  You keep looking from things through a conference perspective.
From ESPN's point of view, they require inventory, from Labor day through the end of June.

From the WWL's perspective, they need to cut the cost of their current portfolio while simultaneously forcing said inventory to generate more revenue.
09-13-2017 07:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,562
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #71
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
(09-13-2017 07:58 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  
(09-13-2017 07:47 PM)XLance Wrote:  You keep looking from things through a conference perspective.
From ESPN's point of view, they require inventory, from Labor day through the end of June.

From the WWL's perspective, they need to cut the cost of their current portfolio while simultaneously forcing said inventory to generate more revenue.

That's why ESPN has invested in conference networks, so that each network can pay their own way. The SEC is doing a great job and make ESPN a tidy profit. While the ACCN has yet to launch, the advertisers are already line up and we are just waiting for distribution contracts.
09-13-2017 08:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,750
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 832
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #72
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
(09-13-2017 07:58 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  
(09-13-2017 07:47 PM)XLance Wrote:  You keep looking from things through a conference perspective.
From ESPN's point of view, they require inventory, from Labor day through the end of June.

From the WWL's perspective, they need to cut the cost of their current portfolio while simultaneously forcing said inventory to generate more revenue.

There are many ways for ESPN to accomplish this. The key for them is to land Texas, Texas Tech, T.C.U., Oklahoma and Oklahoma State in either the SEC or ACC, and Baylor in the AAC (possibly T.C.U.). That way they are paying no more for the schools headed to the ACC than they currently pay in the B12, and around 11 million more each for those headed to the SEC (and this is all payouts remaining equivalent to what they are projected to be for the 2018 season (35 million for the Big 12, 46 million for the SEC, 51 million for the Big 10, and hopefully the ACC is on par with the B12 by then.)

ESPN foots the equivalent of 5 full shares of the Big 12 right now. With West Virginia they are adding only 35 million should the Eers head to the ACC over and above what they presently pay for the B12 and of course the extra 15 million for Texas's LHN.

By landing the Texas and Oklahoma schools (with A&M and Arkansas in the SEC) ESPN essentially captures (11 opportunities each week to max out the ad rates for Texas and immediate neighbors. That's the bonanza they want to attain.

Moving to 18 for the ACC and SEC and eliminating the Big 12 may cost them a bit more. But should they let FOX retain the Big 10 I would think they would be able to cut their overhead and by scheduling agreements capture the Big 10 market with a handful of cross conference games per season.

If the SEC took 4 Big 12 schools and the ACC took 3, and Baylor got parting gifts for the AAC that would be just enough to make it work. ESPN could keep half of the lease for the PAC product and they will have plenty of inventory to sell.
09-13-2017 09:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BePcr07 Online
Special Teams
*

Posts: 803
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 43
I Root For: Boise St & Zags
Location:
Post: #73
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
(09-13-2017 09:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If the SEC took 4 Big 12 schools and the ACC took 3, and Baylor got parting gifts for the AAC that would be just enough to make it work. ESPN could keep half of the lease for the PAC product and they will have plenty of inventory to sell.

SEC + Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St
ACC + TCU, West Virginia, Kansas?
09-14-2017 09:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,474
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 79
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #74
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
(09-14-2017 09:38 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(09-13-2017 09:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If the SEC took 4 Big 12 schools and the ACC took 3, and Baylor got parting gifts for the AAC that would be just enough to make it work. ESPN could keep half of the lease for the PAC product and they will have plenty of inventory to sell.

SEC + Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St
ACC + TCU, West Virginia, Kansas?

I'll go a little different:

SEC + OU, OSU, KU, WVU

B12 retools as 8 team conference
Texas, Tech, TCU, Baylor, KSU, ISU
+ BYU, Boise State
09-14-2017 05:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
vandiver49 Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,672
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 160
I Root For: USNA/UTK
Location: West GA
Post: #75
Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
(09-14-2017 05:38 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(09-14-2017 09:38 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(09-13-2017 09:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If the SEC took 4 Big 12 schools and the ACC took 3, and Baylor got parting gifts for the AAC that would be just enough to make it work. ESPN could keep half of the lease for the PAC product and they will have plenty of inventory to sell.

SEC + Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St
ACC + TCU, West Virginia, Kansas?

I'll go a little different:

SEC + OU, OSU, KU, WVU

B12 retools as 8 team conference
Texas, Tech, TCU, Baylor, KSU, ISU
+ BYU, Boise State

No one is paying money for that rebuilt B12 and the Longhorns are on the first smoking out of there
(This post was last modified: 09-14-2017 05:43 PM by vandiver49.)
09-14-2017 05:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,750
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 832
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #76
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
(09-14-2017 05:42 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  
(09-14-2017 05:38 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(09-14-2017 09:38 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(09-13-2017 09:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If the SEC took 4 Big 12 schools and the ACC took 3, and Baylor got parting gifts for the AAC that would be just enough to make it work. ESPN could keep half of the lease for the PAC product and they will have plenty of inventory to sell.

SEC + Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St
ACC + TCU, West Virginia, Kansas?

I'll go a little different:

SEC + OU, OSU, KU, WVU

B12 retools as 8 team conference
Texas, Tech, TCU, Baylor, KSU, ISU
+ BYU, Boise State

No one is paying money for that rebuilt B12 and the Longhorns are on the first smoking out of there

Pretty much. But as to the distribution I would say this if we are going to 18:
SEC: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Texas Tech/Iowa State.
ACC: Texas, T.C.U., West Virginia,
AAC: Kansas State, Baylor, Texas Tech/Iowa State

That gets her done. Arkansas State Fan posted a pertinent detail on the main board today, the need to look at the number of sports offered by these schools and the kinds of sports offered by these schools.

The Big 12 programs really only match the SEC in that regard. The ACC is more country club sport oriented outside of the top 3. The Big 10 and PAC offer more ancillary sports. So from a profitability standpoint the Big 12 philosophy matches that of the SEC. The others not so much.
(This post was last modified: 09-14-2017 06:17 PM by JRsec.)
09-14-2017 06:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,474
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 79
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #77
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
(09-14-2017 06:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-14-2017 05:42 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  
(09-14-2017 05:38 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(09-14-2017 09:38 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(09-13-2017 09:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If the SEC took 4 Big 12 schools and the ACC took 3, and Baylor got parting gifts for the AAC that would be just enough to make it work. ESPN could keep half of the lease for the PAC product and they will have plenty of inventory to sell.

SEC + Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St
ACC + TCU, West Virginia, Kansas?

I'll go a little different:

SEC + OU, OSU, KU, WVU

B12 retools as 8 team conference
Texas, Tech, TCU, Baylor, KSU, ISU
+ BYU, Boise State

No one is paying money for that rebuilt B12 and the Longhorns are on the first smoking out of there

Pretty much. But as to the distribution I would say this if we are going to 18:
SEC: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Texas Tech/Iowa State.
ACC: Texas, T.C.U., West Virginia,
AAC: Kansas State, Baylor, Texas Tech/Iowa State

That gets her done. Arkansas State Fan posted a pertinent detail on the main board today, the need to look at the number of sports offered by these schools and the kinds of sports offered by these schools.

The Big 12 programs really only match the SEC in that regard. The ACC is more country club sport oriented outside of the top 3. The Big 10 and PAC offer more ancillary sports. So from a profitability standpoint the Big 12 philosophy matches that of the SEC. The others not so much.

True but if the school cares about a particular sport, they can find a home for it.
09-14-2017 06:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,750
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 832
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #78
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
(09-14-2017 06:46 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(09-14-2017 06:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-14-2017 05:42 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  
(09-14-2017 05:38 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(09-14-2017 09:38 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  SEC + Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St
ACC + TCU, West Virginia, Kansas?

I'll go a little different:

SEC + OU, OSU, KU, WVU

B12 retools as 8 team conference
Texas, Tech, TCU, Baylor, KSU, ISU
+ BYU, Boise State

No one is paying money for that rebuilt B12 and the Longhorns are on the first smoking out of there

Pretty much. But as to the distribution I would say this if we are going to 18:
SEC: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Texas Tech/Iowa State.
ACC: Texas, T.C.U., West Virginia,
AAC: Kansas State, Baylor, Texas Tech/Iowa State

That gets her done. Arkansas State Fan posted a pertinent detail on the main board today, the need to look at the number of sports offered by these schools and the kinds of sports offered by these schools.

The Big 12 programs really only match the SEC in that regard. The ACC is more country club sport oriented outside of the top 3. The Big 10 and PAC offer more ancillary sports. So from a profitability standpoint the Big 12 philosophy matches that of the SEC. The others not so much.

True but if the school cares about a particular sport, they can find a home for it.
That works for wrestling and crew, but not so well for larger team sports played above the club level.
09-14-2017 07:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,562
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #79
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
(09-14-2017 06:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-14-2017 05:42 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  
(09-14-2017 05:38 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(09-14-2017 09:38 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(09-13-2017 09:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If the SEC took 4 Big 12 schools and the ACC took 3, and Baylor got parting gifts for the AAC that would be just enough to make it work. ESPN could keep half of the lease for the PAC product and they will have plenty of inventory to sell.

SEC + Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St
ACC + TCU, West Virginia, Kansas?

I'll go a little different:

SEC + OU, OSU, KU, WVU

B12 retools as 8 team conference
Texas, Tech, TCU, Baylor, KSU, ISU
+ BYU, Boise State

No one is paying money for that rebuilt B12 and the Longhorns are on the first smoking out of there

Pretty much. But as to the distribution I would say this if we are going to 18:
SEC: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Texas Tech/Iowa State.
ACC: Texas, T.C.U., West Virginia,
AAC: Kansas State, Baylor, Texas Tech/Iowa State

That gets her done. Arkansas State Fan posted a pertinent detail on the main board today, the need to look at the number of sports offered by these schools and the kinds of sports offered by these schools.

The Big 12 programs really only match the SEC in that regard. The ACC is more country club sport oriented outside of the top 3. The Big 10 and PAC offer more ancillary sports. So from a profitability standpoint the Big 12 philosophy matches that of the SEC. The others not so much.

This is probably the only scenario where the ACC moves out of the ETZ and takes any Big 12 teams other than West Virginia.
I think the SEC would end up with Texas Tech instead of Iowa State, JR. Politics #1. It also gives Oklahoma State a semblance of a rivalry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_S...ll_rivalry with a team NOT out of the old Big 8.
09-15-2017 04:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
vandiver49 Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,672
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 160
I Root For: USNA/UTK
Location: West GA
Post: #80
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
(09-15-2017 04:46 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(09-14-2017 06:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Pretty much. But as to the distribution I would say this if we are going to 18:
SEC: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Texas Tech/Iowa State.
ACC: Texas, T.C.U., West Virginia,
AAC: Kansas State, Baylor, Texas Tech/Iowa State

That gets her done. Arkansas State Fan posted a pertinent detail on the main board today, the need to look at the number of sports offered by these schools and the kinds of sports offered by these schools.

The Big 12 programs really only match the SEC in that regard. The ACC is more country club sport oriented outside of the top 3. The Big 10 and PAC offer more ancillary sports. So from a profitability standpoint the Big 12 philosophy matches that of the SEC. The others not so much.

This is probably the only scenario where the ACC moves out of the ETZ and takes any Big 12 teams other than West Virginia.
I think the SEC would end up with Texas Tech instead of Iowa State, JR. Politics #1. It also gives Oklahoma State a semblance of a rivalry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_S...ll_rivalry with a team NOT out of the old Big 8.

I agree. Unless its to land the Longhorns, the ACC has little use for anything west of the Mississippi.
09-15-2017 08:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.