Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,561
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 827
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #61
RE: Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
(01-09-2018 02:08 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 01:55 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 08:02 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 11:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Now that Georgia is playing Alabama for all of the marbles, I think the answer to the OP is "Yes!".

The secret meetings are already being planned in Chicago.
Being left out, after sneaking Ohio State in previously, must not be sitting well with the PTB of the B1G.
I think those guys will chomp down hard on their cigars and condescend to include Oklahoma as a top priority for expansion. The B1G must have better football in the western portion of their conference...Wisconsin can't prop up the west all by themselves.

Or the B1G follows in the SEC’s footsteps when Sankey met with the SEC AD’s and they worked out plan to improve their abysmal basketball conference to what it’s improved to today.

The B1G already added Nebraska to “fix” the West. If they add just Oklahoma to the west, how can the B1G hope OU won’t dip considerably like NU did?

I'm not quite sure the reasoning behind the addition of Nebraska was to balance the East and West. Nebraska, at the time, had come off several decades of consistent dominance. The B1G also went to the Leaders/Legends format which kind of negates any idea that the idea was always for an East/West format. Also, at the time, a conference needed 12 schools for a CCG.

If I were the B1G during that time period, I would've sent a mass offer to Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas. There was a report that the B1G received a package offer from a combination of Iowa St, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M.

Had the B1G gone my way with N/K/M/O/T, they'd look like:

West: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
East: Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St

Fairly balanced with a bunch of state flagships.

Texas A&M still heads to the SEC. Colorado still heads to the PAC with Utah. Perhaps Oklahoma St goes with Texas A&M instead of Missouri? Who knows. The SEC said a lot by taking Missouri and made the Tigers feel welcomed in a way the B1G was idiotic not to do. It also gave the SEC stronger borders with Oklahoma football and Kansas basketball.

I doubt the SEC would've taken Missouri for the sole sake of spiting the B1G, but sometimes realignment moves are more like chess - you might not make the best move in the world but you're setting yourself up for the win.

Any way you cut this, and let's limit this discussion to the future, it comes down to who takes Oklahoma to kill off the Big 12? While I would love to see the SEC land OU for obvious reasons the simple truth is that Texas really can't remain in a conference where it is the only brand. The face fan revolt and irrelevancy if they do. The SEC's clear objective here is simply to take the majority of the Texas market.

The only way the PAC does it is if they sell a % of the PACN and get ESPN's help in landing a package of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and whoever else it is they want.

The quickest way for the SEC to do it is to offer Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

The Big 10 will make a play for OU with either UT or KU.

But no matter how you cut it this year's playoffs simply reinforced the need to move to a P4 and adjust the CFP to champs only.

Another wild card here is that there is no hard and fast rules that moves have to be to 16. The PAC could offer 8, the Big 10 4, and the SEC 4. The ACC and SEC could work together and take up to 7 with or without having a couple of changes among themselves.
01-09-2018 02:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,462
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 76
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #62
RE: Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
(01-09-2018 02:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 02:08 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 01:55 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 08:02 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 11:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Now that Georgia is playing Alabama for all of the marbles, I think the answer to the OP is "Yes!".

The secret meetings are already being planned in Chicago.
Being left out, after sneaking Ohio State in previously, must not be sitting well with the PTB of the B1G.
I think those guys will chomp down hard on their cigars and condescend to include Oklahoma as a top priority for expansion. The B1G must have better football in the western portion of their conference...Wisconsin can't prop up the west all by themselves.

Or the B1G follows in the SEC’s footsteps when Sankey met with the SEC AD’s and they worked out plan to improve their abysmal basketball conference to what it’s improved to today.

The B1G already added Nebraska to “fix” the West. If they add just Oklahoma to the west, how can the B1G hope OU won’t dip considerably like NU did?

I'm not quite sure the reasoning behind the addition of Nebraska was to balance the East and West. Nebraska, at the time, had come off several decades of consistent dominance. The B1G also went to the Leaders/Legends format which kind of negates any idea that the idea was always for an East/West format. Also, at the time, a conference needed 12 schools for a CCG.

If I were the B1G during that time period, I would've sent a mass offer to Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas. There was a report that the B1G received a package offer from a combination of Iowa St, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M.

Had the B1G gone my way with N/K/M/O/T, they'd look like:

West: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
East: Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St

Fairly balanced with a bunch of state flagships.

Texas A&M still heads to the SEC. Colorado still heads to the PAC with Utah. Perhaps Oklahoma St goes with Texas A&M instead of Missouri? Who knows. The SEC said a lot by taking Missouri and made the Tigers feel welcomed in a way the B1G was idiotic not to do. It also gave the SEC stronger borders with Oklahoma football and Kansas basketball.

I doubt the SEC would've taken Missouri for the sole sake of spiting the B1G, but sometimes realignment moves are more like chess - you might not make the best move in the world but you're setting yourself up for the win.

Any way you cut this, and let's limit this discussion to the future, it comes down to who takes Oklahoma to kill off the Big 12? While I would love to see the SEC land OU for obvious reasons the simple truth is that Texas really can't remain in a conference where it is the only brand. The face fan revolt and irrelevancy if they do. The SEC's clear objective here is simply to take the majority of the Texas market.

The only way the PAC does it is if they sell a % of the PACN and get ESPN's help in landing a package of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and whoever else it is they want.

The quickest way for the SEC to do it is to offer Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

The Big 10 will make a play for OU with either UT or KU.

But no matter how you cut it this year's playoffs simply reinforced the need to move to a P4 and adjust the CFP to champs only.

Another wild card here is that there is no hard and fast rules that moves have to be to 16. The PAC could offer 8, the Big 10 4, and the SEC 4. The ACC and SEC could work together and take up to 7 with or without having a couple of changes among themselves.

OU and Texas are the two big pieces that can be moved this next window.

Texas is the hardest one to land for the SEC, so to maximize the next round of TV payouts—which will value content over # of new subscription fees—the SEC will need to focus on landing OU. When the SEC sent offers to both Texas A&M and Oklahoma, OU President David Boren didn’t seriously consider it since it left out OU’s rivals Oklahoma State and Texas. So if what Paul Finebaum said at the beginning of this football season that the SEC will add OU and OSU in the near future, the future of the Big 12 will be solely in Texas’ hands; for better or worse.
01-09-2018 03:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,561
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 827
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #63
RE: Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
(01-09-2018 03:03 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 02:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 02:08 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 01:55 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 08:02 AM)XLance Wrote:  The secret meetings are already being planned in Chicago.
Being left out, after sneaking Ohio State in previously, must not be sitting well with the PTB of the B1G.
I think those guys will chomp down hard on their cigars and condescend to include Oklahoma as a top priority for expansion. The B1G must have better football in the western portion of their conference...Wisconsin can't prop up the west all by themselves.

Or the B1G follows in the SEC’s footsteps when Sankey met with the SEC AD’s and they worked out plan to improve their abysmal basketball conference to what it’s improved to today.

The B1G already added Nebraska to “fix” the West. If they add just Oklahoma to the west, how can the B1G hope OU won’t dip considerably like NU did?

I'm not quite sure the reasoning behind the addition of Nebraska was to balance the East and West. Nebraska, at the time, had come off several decades of consistent dominance. The B1G also went to the Leaders/Legends format which kind of negates any idea that the idea was always for an East/West format. Also, at the time, a conference needed 12 schools for a CCG.

If I were the B1G during that time period, I would've sent a mass offer to Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas. There was a report that the B1G received a package offer from a combination of Iowa St, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M.

Had the B1G gone my way with N/K/M/O/T, they'd look like:

West: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
East: Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St

Fairly balanced with a bunch of state flagships.

Texas A&M still heads to the SEC. Colorado still heads to the PAC with Utah. Perhaps Oklahoma St goes with Texas A&M instead of Missouri? Who knows. The SEC said a lot by taking Missouri and made the Tigers feel welcomed in a way the B1G was idiotic not to do. It also gave the SEC stronger borders with Oklahoma football and Kansas basketball.

I doubt the SEC would've taken Missouri for the sole sake of spiting the B1G, but sometimes realignment moves are more like chess - you might not make the best move in the world but you're setting yourself up for the win.

Any way you cut this, and let's limit this discussion to the future, it comes down to who takes Oklahoma to kill off the Big 12? While I would love to see the SEC land OU for obvious reasons the simple truth is that Texas really can't remain in a conference where it is the only brand. The face fan revolt and irrelevancy if they do. The SEC's clear objective here is simply to take the majority of the Texas market.

The only way the PAC does it is if they sell a % of the PACN and get ESPN's help in landing a package of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and whoever else it is they want.

The quickest way for the SEC to do it is to offer Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

The Big 10 will make a play for OU with either UT or KU.

But no matter how you cut it this year's playoffs simply reinforced the need to move to a P4 and adjust the CFP to champs only.

Another wild card here is that there is no hard and fast rules that moves have to be to 16. The PAC could offer 8, the Big 10 4, and the SEC 4. The ACC and SEC could work together and take up to 7 with or without having a couple of changes among themselves.

OU and Texas are the two big pieces that can be moved this next window.

Texas is the hardest one to land for the SEC, so to maximize the next round of TV payouts—which will value content over # of new subscription fees—the SEC will need to focus on landing OU. When the SEC sent offers to both Texas A&M and Oklahoma, OU President David Boren didn’t seriously consider it since it left out OU’s rivals Oklahoma State and Texas. So if what Paul Finebaum said at the beginning of this football season that the SEC will add OU and OSU in the near future, the future of the Big 12 will be solely in Texas’ hands; for better or worse.

I think the important part is that the SEC could thrive for a very long time if the we only added two more schools and one was Oklahoma. It really doesn't matter if the second school is O.S.U., T.C.U., W.V.U., T.T.U., I.S.U., or K.U.. In fact the best on field product of those is probably O.S.U..

I am equally sure that the Big 10 is probably reconsidering it's opposition to "champs only" and that the PAC would be among the first to embrace it. The pattern over the last 20 years for the strongest contenders for the BCS & CFP to be Southern in origin is fairly overwhelming. And needless to say if the Big 10 and PAC are willing to push for a "champs only" format it goes without saying that the Big 12 question has to be resolved. I even believe the climate is right for the ACC to be willing to head that route as well.

If that happens the SEC could acquiesce, especially if we got stronger consideration regarding the first move of assimilation of the Big 12 and I would think that ESPN would be just as interested in seeing that happen. It would probably be even easier if the PAC decided to let ESPN handle their network.

How do they work that out?
(This post was last modified: 01-09-2018 04:43 PM by JRsec.)
01-09-2018 03:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,462
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 76
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #64
RE: Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
(01-09-2018 03:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 03:03 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 02:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 02:08 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 01:55 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  Or the B1G follows in the SEC’s footsteps when Sankey met with the SEC AD’s and they worked out plan to improve their abysmal basketball conference to what it’s improved to today.

The B1G already added Nebraska to “fix” the West. If they add just Oklahoma to the west, how can the B1G hope OU won’t dip considerably like NU did?

I'm not quite sure the reasoning behind the addition of Nebraska was to balance the East and West. Nebraska, at the time, had come off several decades of consistent dominance. The B1G also went to the Leaders/Legends format which kind of negates any idea that the idea was always for an East/West format. Also, at the time, a conference needed 12 schools for a CCG.

If I were the B1G during that time period, I would've sent a mass offer to Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas. There was a report that the B1G received a package offer from a combination of Iowa St, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M.

Had the B1G gone my way with N/K/M/O/T, they'd look like:

West: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
East: Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St

Fairly balanced with a bunch of state flagships.

Texas A&M still heads to the SEC. Colorado still heads to the PAC with Utah. Perhaps Oklahoma St goes with Texas A&M instead of Missouri? Who knows. The SEC said a lot by taking Missouri and made the Tigers feel welcomed in a way the B1G was idiotic not to do. It also gave the SEC stronger borders with Oklahoma football and Kansas basketball.

I doubt the SEC would've taken Missouri for the sole sake of spiting the B1G, but sometimes realignment moves are more like chess - you might not make the best move in the world but you're setting yourself up for the win.

Any way you cut this, and let's limit this discussion to the future, it comes down to who takes Oklahoma to kill off the Big 12? While I would love to see the SEC land OU for obvious reasons the simple truth is that Texas really can't remain in a conference where it is the only brand. The face fan revolt and irrelevancy if they do. The SEC's clear objective here is simply to take the majority of the Texas market.

The only way the PAC does it is if they sell a % of the PACN and get ESPN's help in landing a package of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and whoever else it is they want.

The quickest way for the SEC to do it is to offer Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

The Big 10 will make a play for OU with either UT or KU.

But no matter how you cut it this year's playoffs simply reinforced the need to move to a P4 and adjust the CFP to champs only.

Another wild card here is that there is no hard and fast rules that moves have to be to 16. The PAC could offer 8, the Big 10 4, and the SEC 4. The ACC and SEC could work together and take up to 7 with or without having a couple of changes among themselves.

OU and Texas are the two big pieces that can be moved this next window.

Texas is the hardest one to land for the SEC, so to maximize the next round of TV payouts—which will value content over # of new subscription fees—the SEC will need to focus on landing OU. When the SEC sent offers to both Texas A&M and Oklahoma, OU President David Boren didn’t seriously consider it since it left out OU’s rivals Oklahoma State and Texas. So if what Paul Finebaum said at the beginning of this football season that the SEC will add OU and OSU in the near future, the future of the Big 12 will be solely in Texas’ hands; for better or worse.

I think the important part is that the SEC could thrive for a very long time if the we only added two more schools and one was Oklahoma. It really doesn't matter if the second school is O.S.U., T.C.U., W.V.U., T.T.U., I.S.U., or K.U.. In fact the best on field product of those is probably O.S.U..

I am equally sure that the Big 10 is probably reconsidering it's opposition to "champs only" and that the PAC would be among the first to embrace it. The pattern over the last 20 years for the strongest contenders for the BCS & CFP to be Southern in origin is fairly overwhelming. And needless to say if the Big 10 and PAC are willing to push for a "champs only" format it goes without saying that the Big 12 question has to be resolved. I even believe the climate is right for the ACC to be willing to head that route as well.

If that happens the SEC could acquiesce, especially if we got stronger consideration regarding the first move of assimilation of the Big 12 and I would think that ESPN would be just as interested in seeing that happen. It would probably be even easier if the PAC decided to let ESPN handle their network.

How do they work that out?

The PAC has to make their networks profitable compared to the SEC and B1G soon or the PAC Presidents will find ways to close that money gap themselves.

As far as expansion from the B12, the SEC will add the most profitabie combo of schools the TV partners are willing to pay for.
01-09-2018 06:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,561
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 827
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #65
RE: Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
(01-09-2018 06:55 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 03:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 03:03 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 02:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 02:08 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  I'm not quite sure the reasoning behind the addition of Nebraska was to balance the East and West. Nebraska, at the time, had come off several decades of consistent dominance. The B1G also went to the Leaders/Legends format which kind of negates any idea that the idea was always for an East/West format. Also, at the time, a conference needed 12 schools for a CCG.

If I were the B1G during that time period, I would've sent a mass offer to Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas. There was a report that the B1G received a package offer from a combination of Iowa St, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M.

Had the B1G gone my way with N/K/M/O/T, they'd look like:

West: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
East: Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St

Fairly balanced with a bunch of state flagships.

Texas A&M still heads to the SEC. Colorado still heads to the PAC with Utah. Perhaps Oklahoma St goes with Texas A&M instead of Missouri? Who knows. The SEC said a lot by taking Missouri and made the Tigers feel welcomed in a way the B1G was idiotic not to do. It also gave the SEC stronger borders with Oklahoma football and Kansas basketball.

I doubt the SEC would've taken Missouri for the sole sake of spiting the B1G, but sometimes realignment moves are more like chess - you might not make the best move in the world but you're setting yourself up for the win.

Any way you cut this, and let's limit this discussion to the future, it comes down to who takes Oklahoma to kill off the Big 12? While I would love to see the SEC land OU for obvious reasons the simple truth is that Texas really can't remain in a conference where it is the only brand. The face fan revolt and irrelevancy if they do. The SEC's clear objective here is simply to take the majority of the Texas market.

The only way the PAC does it is if they sell a % of the PACN and get ESPN's help in landing a package of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and whoever else it is they want.

The quickest way for the SEC to do it is to offer Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

The Big 10 will make a play for OU with either UT or KU.

But no matter how you cut it this year's playoffs simply reinforced the need to move to a P4 and adjust the CFP to champs only.

Another wild card here is that there is no hard and fast rules that moves have to be to 16. The PAC could offer 8, the Big 10 4, and the SEC 4. The ACC and SEC could work together and take up to 7 with or without having a couple of changes among themselves.

OU and Texas are the two big pieces that can be moved this next window.

Texas is the hardest one to land for the SEC, so to maximize the next round of TV payouts—which will value content over # of new subscription fees—the SEC will need to focus on landing OU. When the SEC sent offers to both Texas A&M and Oklahoma, OU President David Boren didn’t seriously consider it since it left out OU’s rivals Oklahoma State and Texas. So if what Paul Finebaum said at the beginning of this football season that the SEC will add OU and OSU in the near future, the future of the Big 12 will be solely in Texas’ hands; for better or worse.

I think the important part is that the SEC could thrive for a very long time if the we only added two more schools and one was Oklahoma. It really doesn't matter if the second school is O.S.U., T.C.U., W.V.U., T.T.U., I.S.U., or K.U.. In fact the best on field product of those is probably O.S.U..

I am equally sure that the Big 10 is probably reconsidering it's opposition to "champs only" and that the PAC would be among the first to embrace it. The pattern over the last 20 years for the strongest contenders for the BCS & CFP to be Southern in origin is fairly overwhelming. And needless to say if the Big 10 and PAC are willing to push for a "champs only" format it goes without saying that the Big 12 question has to be resolved. I even believe the climate is right for the ACC to be willing to head that route as well.

If that happens the SEC could acquiesce, especially if we got stronger consideration regarding the first move of assimilation of the Big 12 and I would think that ESPN would be just as interested in seeing that happen. It would probably be even easier if the PAC decided to let ESPN handle their network.

How do they work that out?

The PAC has to make their networks profitable compared to the SEC and B1G soon or the PAC Presidents will find ways to close that money gap themselves.

As far as expansion from the B12, the SEC will add the most profitabie combo of schools the TV partners are willing to pay for.

Scott has bamboozled the PAC and the people that run their network all need to be canned. Maybe they clean house and get a fresher start or maybe they don't. I don't think they are that interested in college sports.

But remember this, ESPN will do what it takes to please the SEC with regards to prospects as long as it doesn't harm the ACC and vice versa. There recent RSN acquisitions still don't give them anymore of the Big 10 so I don't think they will offend the Big 10 but I also don't think they'll bend over backwards to help what will remain a FOX product.
01-09-2018 07:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
vandiver49 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,652
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 160
I Root For: USNA/UTK
Location: West GA
Post: #66
RE: Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
(01-09-2018 02:08 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 01:55 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 08:02 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 11:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Now that Georgia is playing Alabama for all of the marbles, I think the answer to the OP is "Yes!".

The secret meetings are already being planned in Chicago.
Being left out, after sneaking Ohio State in previously, must not be sitting well with the PTB of the B1G.
I think those guys will chomp down hard on their cigars and condescend to include Oklahoma as a top priority for expansion. The B1G must have better football in the western portion of their conference...Wisconsin can't prop up the west all by themselves.

Or the B1G follows in the SEC’s footsteps when Sankey met with the SEC AD’s and they worked out plan to improve their abysmal basketball conference to what it’s improved to today.

The B1G already added Nebraska to “fix” the West. If they add just Oklahoma to the west, how can the B1G hope OU won’t dip considerably like NU did?

I'm not quite sure the reasoning behind the addition of Nebraska was to balance the East and West. Nebraska, at the time, had come off several decades of consistent dominance. The B1G also went to the Leaders/Legends format which kind of negates any idea that the idea was always for an East/West format. Also, at the time, a conference needed 12 schools for a CCG.

If I were the B1G during that time period, I would've sent a mass offer to Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas. There was a report that the B1G received a package offer from a combination of Iowa St, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M.

Had the B1G gone my way with N/K/M/O/T, they'd look like:

West: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
East: Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St

Fairly balanced with a bunch of state flagships.

Texas A&M still heads to the SEC. Colorado still heads to the PAC with Utah. Perhaps Oklahoma St goes with Texas A&M instead of Missouri? Who knows. The SEC said a lot by taking Missouri and made the Tigers feel welcomed in a way the B1G was idiotic not to do. It also gave the SEC stronger borders with Oklahoma football and Kansas basketball.

I doubt the SEC would've taken Missouri for the sole sake of spiting the B1G, but sometimes realignment moves are more like chess - you might not make the best move in the world but you're setting yourself up for the win.

I always felt the B1G picked NU over Mizzou because They felt they would still be there. If Maryland hasn’t made their financial woes public, then I think the picks are KU and the Tigers.
01-10-2018 06:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Online
1st String
*

Posts: 2,277
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 93
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #67
RE: Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
(01-10-2018 06:24 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I always felt the B1G picked NU over Mizzou because They felt they would still be there. If Maryland hasn’t made their financial woes public, then I think the picks are KU and the Tigers.

Remember though that Missouri got snapped up a couple of years before Maryland left.

Theoretically, the B1G could have taken KU and Mizzou to move to 14 quicker, but Mizzou was off the board only one year after they acquired NU.
01-10-2018 06:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,524
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 180
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #68
RE: Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
(01-10-2018 06:24 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 02:08 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 01:55 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 08:02 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 11:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Now that Georgia is playing Alabama for all of the marbles, I think the answer to the OP is "Yes!".

The secret meetings are already being planned in Chicago.
Being left out, after sneaking Ohio State in previously, must not be sitting well with the PTB of the B1G.
I think those guys will chomp down hard on their cigars and condescend to include Oklahoma as a top priority for expansion. The B1G must have better football in the western portion of their conference...Wisconsin can't prop up the west all by themselves.

Or the B1G follows in the SEC’s footsteps when Sankey met with the SEC AD’s and they worked out plan to improve their abysmal basketball conference to what it’s improved to today.

The B1G already added Nebraska to “fix” the West. If they add just Oklahoma to the west, how can the B1G hope OU won’t dip considerably like NU did?

I'm not quite sure the reasoning behind the addition of Nebraska was to balance the East and West. Nebraska, at the time, had come off several decades of consistent dominance. The B1G also went to the Leaders/Legends format which kind of negates any idea that the idea was always for an East/West format. Also, at the time, a conference needed 12 schools for a CCG.

If I were the B1G during that time period, I would've sent a mass offer to Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas. There was a report that the B1G received a package offer from a combination of Iowa St, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M.

Had the B1G gone my way with N/K/M/O/T, they'd look like:

West: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
East: Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St

Fairly balanced with a bunch of state flagships.

Texas A&M still heads to the SEC. Colorado still heads to the PAC with Utah. Perhaps Oklahoma St goes with Texas A&M instead of Missouri? Who knows. The SEC said a lot by taking Missouri and made the Tigers feel welcomed in a way the B1G was idiotic not to do. It also gave the SEC stronger borders with Oklahoma football and Kansas basketball.

I doubt the SEC would've taken Missouri for the sole sake of spiting the B1G, but sometimes realignment moves are more like chess - you might not make the best move in the world but you're setting yourself up for the win.

I always felt the B1G picked NU over Mizzou because They felt they would still be there. If Maryland hasn’t made their financial woes public, then I think the picks are KU and the Tigers.


Simple strategy that was also used by the ACC.
Take your farthest target first and work back into the center.
The most logical targets for the B1G were like a push out along their outer perimeter.
(Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia/Virginia Tech, Pitt/Rutgers/Maryland/Syracuse)
01-10-2018 08:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,561
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 827
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #69
RE: Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
(01-10-2018 08:41 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(01-10-2018 06:24 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 02:08 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 01:55 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 08:02 AM)XLance Wrote:  The secret meetings are already being planned in Chicago.
Being left out, after sneaking Ohio State in previously, must not be sitting well with the PTB of the B1G.
I think those guys will chomp down hard on their cigars and condescend to include Oklahoma as a top priority for expansion. The B1G must have better football in the western portion of their conference...Wisconsin can't prop up the west all by themselves.

Or the B1G follows in the SEC’s footsteps when Sankey met with the SEC AD’s and they worked out plan to improve their abysmal basketball conference to what it’s improved to today.

The B1G already added Nebraska to “fix” the West. If they add just Oklahoma to the west, how can the B1G hope OU won’t dip considerably like NU did?

I'm not quite sure the reasoning behind the addition of Nebraska was to balance the East and West. Nebraska, at the time, had come off several decades of consistent dominance. The B1G also went to the Leaders/Legends format which kind of negates any idea that the idea was always for an East/West format. Also, at the time, a conference needed 12 schools for a CCG.

If I were the B1G during that time period, I would've sent a mass offer to Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas. There was a report that the B1G received a package offer from a combination of Iowa St, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M.

Had the B1G gone my way with N/K/M/O/T, they'd look like:

West: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
East: Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St

Fairly balanced with a bunch of state flagships.

Texas A&M still heads to the SEC. Colorado still heads to the PAC with Utah. Perhaps Oklahoma St goes with Texas A&M instead of Missouri? Who knows. The SEC said a lot by taking Missouri and made the Tigers feel welcomed in a way the B1G was idiotic not to do. It also gave the SEC stronger borders with Oklahoma football and Kansas basketball.

I doubt the SEC would've taken Missouri for the sole sake of spiting the B1G, but sometimes realignment moves are more like chess - you might not make the best move in the world but you're setting yourself up for the win.

I always felt the B1G picked NU over Mizzou because They felt they would still be there. If Maryland hasn’t made their financial woes public, then I think the picks are KU and the Tigers.


Simple strategy that was also used by the ACC.
Take your farthest target first and work back into the center.
The most logical targets for the B1G were like a push out along their outer perimeter.
(Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia/Virginia Tech, Pitt/Rutgers/Maryland/Syracuse)

The strategies worked out for both of you about the same. Maryland and Rutgers two footprint adds when the pay model was changing. About the same as Syracuse and Pitt, or Boston College and Miami.
01-10-2018 09:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,524
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 180
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #70
RE: Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
(01-10-2018 09:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-10-2018 08:41 PM)XLance Wrote:  Simple strategy that was also used by the ACC.
Take your farthest target first and work back into the center.
The most logical targets for the B1G were like a push out along their outer perimeter.
(Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia/Virginia Tech, Pitt/Rutgers/Maryland/Syracuse)

The strategies worked out for both of you about the same. Maryland and Rutgers two footprint adds when the pay model was changing. About the same as Syracuse and Pitt, or Boston College and Miami.


The pay model has not changed. The ACC and the SEC still have relatively even revenue distribution.
What is changing is the distribution system.
In order to communicate you must have 4 things.
Sender-Receiver-Medium-Message.
The medium may be changing, but until the schools start selling their content directly instead of going through the conference as a middle man, the pay model will not change. And cutting out the middle man, means that there are no guaranteed opponents and no intrinsic rivalries which will devalue the content of any school. Even Notre Dame hasn't been able to go it alone as evidenced by their first agreement with the Big East.
01-11-2018 05:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Win5002 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 210
Joined: Oct 2015
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Big 12 & B1G
Location:
Post: #71
RE: Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
(01-10-2018 09:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-10-2018 08:41 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(01-10-2018 06:24 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 02:08 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 01:55 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  Or the B1G follows in the SEC’s footsteps when Sankey met with the SEC AD’s and they worked out plan to improve their abysmal basketball conference to what it’s improved to today.

The B1G already added Nebraska to “fix” the West. If they add just Oklahoma to the west, how can the B1G hope OU won’t dip considerably like NU did?

I'm not quite sure the reasoning behind the addition of Nebraska was to balance the East and West. Nebraska, at the time, had come off several decades of consistent dominance. The B1G also went to the Leaders/Legends format which kind of negates any idea that the idea was always for an East/West format. Also, at the time, a conference needed 12 schools for a CCG.

If I were the B1G during that time period, I would've sent a mass offer to Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas. There was a report that the B1G received a package offer from a combination of Iowa St, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M.

Had the B1G gone my way with N/K/M/O/T, they'd look like:

West: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
East: Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St

Fairly balanced with a bunch of state flagships.

Texas A&M still heads to the SEC. Colorado still heads to the PAC with Utah. Perhaps Oklahoma St goes with Texas A&M instead of Missouri? Who knows. The SEC said a lot by taking Missouri and made the Tigers feel welcomed in a way the B1G was idiotic not to do. It also gave the SEC stronger borders with Oklahoma football and Kansas basketball.

I doubt the SEC would've taken Missouri for the sole sake of spiting the B1G, but sometimes realignment moves are more like chess - you might not make the best move in the world but you're setting yourself up for the win.

I always felt the B1G picked NU over Mizzou because They felt they would still be there. If Maryland hasn’t made their financial woes public, then I think the picks are KU and the Tigers.


Simple strategy that was also used by the ACC.
Take your farthest target first and work back into the center.
The most logical targets for the B1G were like a push out along their outer perimeter.
(Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia/Virginia Tech, Pitt/Rutgers/Maryland/Syracuse)

The strategies worked out for both of you about the same. Maryland and Rutgers two footprint adds when the pay model was changing. About the same as Syracuse and Pitt, or Boston College and Miami.

I really think there was more to the B1G taking Maryland and Rutgers than just the traditional market additions. I'm not saying that as market additions was not a factor at the time but not the only thing.

1. The B1G needed more recruiting grounds. Marlyand/DC area and New Jersey are as good or better than any existing states in their footpring.
2. They were also taken to solidify the PSU brand. Delaney and Alvarez were on record as saying this. PSU has also improved dramatically the last 2 years and the B1G has reaped some monster tv ratings games from it.

I'm sure the B1G still held out hope ND would finally come and help intensify the NY and NE market penetrations also.
01-11-2018 03:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,561
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 827
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #72
RE: Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
(01-11-2018 03:36 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  
(01-10-2018 09:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-10-2018 08:41 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(01-10-2018 06:24 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 02:08 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  I'm not quite sure the reasoning behind the addition of Nebraska was to balance the East and West. Nebraska, at the time, had come off several decades of consistent dominance. The B1G also went to the Leaders/Legends format which kind of negates any idea that the idea was always for an East/West format. Also, at the time, a conference needed 12 schools for a CCG.

If I were the B1G during that time period, I would've sent a mass offer to Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas. There was a report that the B1G received a package offer from a combination of Iowa St, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M.

Had the B1G gone my way with N/K/M/O/T, they'd look like:

West: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
East: Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St

Fairly balanced with a bunch of state flagships.

Texas A&M still heads to the SEC. Colorado still heads to the PAC with Utah. Perhaps Oklahoma St goes with Texas A&M instead of Missouri? Who knows. The SEC said a lot by taking Missouri and made the Tigers feel welcomed in a way the B1G was idiotic not to do. It also gave the SEC stronger borders with Oklahoma football and Kansas basketball.

I doubt the SEC would've taken Missouri for the sole sake of spiting the B1G, but sometimes realignment moves are more like chess - you might not make the best move in the world but you're setting yourself up for the win.

I always felt the B1G picked NU over Mizzou because They felt they would still be there. If Maryland hasn’t made their financial woes public, then I think the picks are KU and the Tigers.


Simple strategy that was also used by the ACC.
Take your farthest target first and work back into the center.
The most logical targets for the B1G were like a push out along their outer perimeter.
(Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia/Virginia Tech, Pitt/Rutgers/Maryland/Syracuse)

The strategies worked out for both of you about the same. Maryland and Rutgers two footprint adds when the pay model was changing. About the same as Syracuse and Pitt, or Boston College and Miami.

I really think there was more to the B1G taking Maryland and Rutgers than just the traditional market additions. I'm not saying that as market additions was not a factor at the time but not the only thing.

1. The B1G needed more recruiting grounds. Marlyand/DC area and New Jersey are as good or better than any existing states in their footpring.
2. They were also taken to solidify the PSU brand. Delaney and Alvarez were on record as saying this. PSU has also improved dramatically the last 2 years and the B1G has reaped some monster tv ratings games from it.

I'm sure the B1G still held out hope ND would finally come and help intensify the NY and NE market penetrations also.

You have to understand that when I'm replying to X sometimes I'm dead serious and sometimes I do a little needling. But yes there was more to the Maryland move than just markets. I'm not so sure about Rutgers. Maryland was about recruiting but it was also about Beltway presence and chipping at the foundation of the ACC.
01-11-2018 05:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,462
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 76
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #73
RE: Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
(01-11-2018 05:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-11-2018 03:36 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  
(01-10-2018 09:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-10-2018 08:41 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(01-10-2018 06:24 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I always felt the B1G picked NU over Mizzou because They felt they would still be there. If Maryland hasn’t made their financial woes public, then I think the picks are KU and the Tigers.


Simple strategy that was also used by the ACC.
Take your farthest target first and work back into the center.
The most logical targets for the B1G were like a push out along their outer perimeter.
(Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia/Virginia Tech, Pitt/Rutgers/Maryland/Syracuse)

The strategies worked out for both of you about the same. Maryland and Rutgers two footprint adds when the pay model was changing. About the same as Syracuse and Pitt, or Boston College and Miami.

I really think there was more to the B1G taking Maryland and Rutgers than just the traditional market additions. I'm not saying that as market additions was not a factor at the time but not the only thing.

1. The B1G needed more recruiting grounds. Marlyand/DC area and New Jersey are as good or better than any existing states in their footpring.
2. They were also taken to solidify the PSU brand. Delaney and Alvarez were on record as saying this. PSU has also improved dramatically the last 2 years and the B1G has reaped some monster tv ratings games from it.

I'm sure the B1G still held out hope ND would finally come and help intensify the NY and NE market penetrations also.

You have to understand that when I'm replying to X sometimes I'm dead serious and sometimes I do a little needling. But yes there was more to the Maryland move than just markets. I'm not so sure about Rutgers. Maryland was about recruiting but it was also about Beltway presence and chipping at the foundation of the ACC.

Also think Penn State was telling Delaney to get them some regional neighbors or they were out of there. Maryland is definitely a Penn State election and a bridge to other ACC additions. Maryland was losing money in athletics and had to cut sports prior to their Big Ten move. The ACC Network announcement came after this probably as a means to keep the ACC from falling apart due to TV money disparities.

The Big Ten should have added Nebraska and Missouri at the same time, then look for a 16th; probably Rutgers as Maryland wasn’t that far down that road yet. Then add Maryland when they left and round out to 16 with Kansas as the Big 12 losses A&M.

Big Ten pods:
1. Kansas, Nebraska, Missouri, Illinois
2. Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern,
3. Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan State
3. Rutgers, Maryland, Penn State, Ohio State,
01-12-2018 02:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
vandiver49 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,652
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 160
I Root For: USNA/UTK
Location: West GA
Post: #74
RE: Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
(01-10-2018 06:59 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(01-10-2018 06:24 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I always felt the B1G picked NU over Mizzou because They felt they would still be there. If Maryland hasn’t made their financial woes public, then I think the picks are KU and the Tigers.

Remember though that Missouri got snapped up a couple of years before Maryland left.

Theoretically, the B1G could have taken KU and Mizzou to move to 14 quicker, but Mizzou was off the board only one year after they acquired NU.

Your timeline is correct ATU. I’m saying simply that the B1G didn’t feel the SEC would actually accept Mizzou.
01-12-2018 12:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Online
1st String
*

Posts: 2,277
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 93
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #75
RE: Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
(01-12-2018 12:41 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  
(01-10-2018 06:59 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(01-10-2018 06:24 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I always felt the B1G picked NU over Mizzou because They felt they would still be there. If Maryland hasn’t made their financial woes public, then I think the picks are KU and the Tigers.

Remember though that Missouri got snapped up a couple of years before Maryland left.

Theoretically, the B1G could have taken KU and Mizzou to move to 14 quicker, but Mizzou was off the board only one year after they acquired NU.

Your timeline is correct ATU. I’m saying simply that the B1G didn’t feel the SEC would actually accept Mizzou.

I see what you're saying now. You're probably right about that.
01-12-2018 01:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 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.