(04-16-2018 05:58 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 04:22 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 03:59 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 02:59 PM)XLance Wrote:  The reason the ACC is still standing as a conference is because of Swofford.

For that reason alone he should be hated. Backwards ass, stuck in the 1950's conference.

Clemson could easily have gone down with that ship though.

We had a lifeline. It wouldn't have been optimal but we would have been with like-minded institutions.

You mean the Big 12? Not much of a lifeline if the Pac-16 had also happened. And I doubt the SEC would have taken Clemson in when the "marketz" mindset was in vogue.

(04-16-2018 06:28 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 05:58 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 04:22 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 03:59 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 02:59 PM)XLance Wrote:  The reason the ACC is still standing as a conference is because of Swofford.

For that reason alone he should be hated. Backwards ass, stuck in the 1950's conference.

Clemson could easily have gone down with that ship though.

We had a lifeline. It wouldn't have been optimal but we would have been with like-minded institutions.

You mean the Big 12? Not much of a lifeline if the Pac-16 had also happened. And I doubt the SEC would have taken Clemson in when the "marketz" mindset was in vogue.

The Pac16 was never going to happen. There's a reason why the Texas & Oklahoma schools all bailed from the WAC and MWC...because the needed eyeballs are in the east. Western based conferences are at a disadvantage because of the time zone differences and they always will be.

With a solidified eastern flank the Big XII schools wouldn't have wanderings eyes.

In regards to the idea that Swofford bungled expansion I'd say he did pretty well with what he had to work with. It's not like his core was Florida, Georgia, and Alabama.

The adds that the ACC has made have been quality. Miami hasn't been its old self in awhile but last season they seemed to be returning to form. Expansion schools Florida St, Miami, VT, and Louisville are better football brands than the original ACC, aside from Clemson. Even BC had some good years since joining and Pitt and Cuse were a means to an ends that helped keep the league afloat.

(04-16-2018 03:59 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  [quote='XLance' pid='15251914' dateline='1523908788']
The reason the ACC is still standing as a conference is because of Swofford.

For that reason alone he should be hated. Backwards ass, stuck in the 1950's conference.

(04-16-2018 03:07 PM)XLance Wrote:  UNC Chancellor Holden Thorp wanted UConn.
I have never heard or seen written anywhere that said that Swofford preferred UConn to Louisville.
Do you have a link that would confirm or at least lend credence to your accusation?

The word of a Clemson BOT member.



I didn't think so.

(04-16-2018 06:40 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 06:28 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 05:58 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 04:22 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 03:59 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  For that reason alone he should be hated. Backwards ass, stuck in the 1950's conference.

Clemson could easily have gone down with that ship though.

We had a lifeline. It wouldn't have been optimal but we would have been with like-minded institutions.

You mean the Big 12? Not much of a lifeline if the Pac-16 had also happened. And I doubt the SEC would have taken Clemson in when the "marketz" mindset was in vogue.

The Pac16 was never going to happen. There's a reason why the Texas & Oklahoma schools all bailed from the WAC and MWC...because the needed eyeballs are in the east. Western based conferences are at a disadvantage because of the time zone differences and they always will be.

With a solidified eastern flank the Big XII schools wouldn't have wanderings eyes.

There was a time when the lead schools in the Big 12 wanted to merge their whole conference with the SEC. We weren't interested.

Then they were interested in merging with the PAC but I believe realized the limitations they would face with regard to financial growth. And I don't think the PAC was interested either.

Then Deloss Dodds wanted to look east again. Only this time the key components would be divided between the SEC and ACC and that fell through in 2010.

I'd say that some version of that might still be viable if ESPN/FOX wanted to pursue it. But if they do we won't be hearing about it ahead of time. There's too much at stake.

(04-24-2018 11:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 06:40 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 06:28 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 05:58 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 04:22 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Clemson could easily have gone down with that ship though.

We had a lifeline. It wouldn't have been optimal but we would have been with like-minded institutions.

You mean the Big 12? Not much of a lifeline if the Pac-16 had also happened. And I doubt the SEC would have taken Clemson in when the "marketz" mindset was in vogue.

The Pac16 was never going to happen. There's a reason why the Texas & Oklahoma schools all bailed from the WAC and MWC...because the needed eyeballs are in the east. Western based conferences are at a disadvantage because of the time zone differences and they always will be.

With a solidified eastern flank the Big XII schools wouldn't have wanderings eyes.

There was a time when the lead schools in the Big 12 wanted to merge their whole conference with the SEC. We weren't interested.

Then they were interested in merging with the PAC but I believe realized the limitations they would face with regard to financial growth. And I don't think the PAC was interested either.

Then Deloss Dodds wanted to look east again. Only this time the key components would be divided between the SEC and ACC and that fell through in 2010.

I'd say that some version of that might still be viable if ESPN/FOX wanted to pursue it. But if they do we won't be hearing about it ahead of time. There's too much at stake.

The reality of realignment is that it is complex for a school or a University President. When Boren's demands weren't met he was ready to march Oklahoma out of the Big 12 hand in hand with Kansas. Then reality started to sink in. Even if he could secure an invitation to the B1G and be reunited in a conference with Nebraska it wouldn't be long before the fans would have him hanging from a tree when they realized that the Sooners conference division would consist of Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern and Illinois. Plus the likelihood that Texas would give them the A&M treatment and cancel the RRS. The thought of that happening even hurts me, and I don't care anything about Oklahoma.

(04-25-2018 04:45 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-24-2018 11:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 06:40 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 06:28 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 05:58 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  We had a lifeline. It wouldn't have been optimal but we would have been with like-minded institutions.

You mean the Big 12? Not much of a lifeline if the Pac-16 had also happened. And I doubt the SEC would have taken Clemson in when the "marketz" mindset was in vogue.

The Pac16 was never going to happen. There's a reason why the Texas & Oklahoma schools all bailed from the WAC and MWC...because the needed eyeballs are in the east. Western based conferences are at a disadvantage because of the time zone differences and they always will be.

With a solidified eastern flank the Big XII schools wouldn't have wanderings eyes.

There was a time when the lead schools in the Big 12 wanted to merge their whole conference with the SEC. We weren't interested.

Then they were interested in merging with the PAC but I believe realized the limitations they would face with regard to financial growth. And I don't think the PAC was interested either.

Then Deloss Dodds wanted to look east again. Only this time the key components would be divided between the SEC and ACC and that fell through in 2010.

I'd say that some version of that might still be viable if ESPN/FOX wanted to pursue it. But if they do we won't be hearing about it ahead of time. There's too much at stake.

The reality of realignment is that it is complex for a school or a University President. When Boren's demands weren't met he was ready to march Oklahoma out of the Big 12 hand in hand with Kansas. Then reality started to sink in. Even if he could secure an invitation to the B1G and be reunited in a conference with Nebraska it wouldn't be long before the fans would have him hanging from a tree when they realized that the Sooners conference division would consist of Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern and Illinois. Plus the likelihood that Texas would give them the A&M treatment and cancel the RRS. The thought of that happening even hurts me, and I don't care anything about Oklahoma.

You're probably right, it wouldn't be the ideal set-up for OU and I'm sure some fans will gripe........

Until that B1G money starts coming in. Money has a way of making the sting from perceived wounds hurt less.....

(04-25-2018 07:24 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(04-25-2018 04:45 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-24-2018 11:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 06:40 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 06:28 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  You mean the Big 12? Not much of a lifeline if the Pac-16 had also happened. And I doubt the SEC would have taken Clemson in when the "marketz" mindset was in vogue.

The Pac16 was never going to happen. There's a reason why the Texas & Oklahoma schools all bailed from the WAC and MWC...because the needed eyeballs are in the east. Western based conferences are at a disadvantage because of the time zone differences and they always will be.

With a solidified eastern flank the Big XII schools wouldn't have wanderings eyes.

There was a time when the lead schools in the Big 12 wanted to merge their whole conference with the SEC. We weren't interested.

Then they were interested in merging with the PAC but I believe realized the limitations they would face with regard to financial growth. And I don't think the PAC was interested either.

Then Deloss Dodds wanted to look east again. Only this time the key components would be divided between the SEC and ACC and that fell through in 2010.

I'd say that some version of that might still be viable if ESPN/FOX wanted to pursue it. But if they do we won't be hearing about it ahead of time. There's too much at stake.

The reality of realignment is that it is complex for a school or a University President. When Boren's demands weren't met he was ready to march Oklahoma out of the Big 12 hand in hand with Kansas. Then reality started to sink in. Even if he could secure an invitation to the B1G and be reunited in a conference with Nebraska it wouldn't be long before the fans would have him hanging from a tree when they realized that the Sooners conference division would consist of Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern and Illinois. Plus the likelihood that Texas would give them the A&M treatment and cancel the RRS. The thought of that happening even hurts me, and I don't care anything about Oklahoma.

You're probably right, it wouldn't be the ideal set-up for OU and I'm sure some fans will gripe........

Until that B1G money starts coming in. Money has a way of making the sting from perceived wounds hurt less.....

Let's look at that money. 51.1 million distributed by the Big 10 to each member school consists of the media rights money, the BTN share, bowl money, tourney credits, and any other money which might be earned by Women's hoops, hockey, or any other sport that can generate TV revenue.

Where Oklahoma is concerned they made about 34.7 million last year on their T1 and T2 rights. But in the Big 12 where there is no conference network they, independent of the Conference payout, pocket their own T3 revenue. So Oklahoma last year made 41.7 million or roughly the same as the SEC. So assuming that even for 1 year their deficit as compared to the new Big 10 payout is 9.4 million out of the 150 million plus earned by the OU athletic department, where the bulk of their revenue comes from ticket sales and donations, do you really think that is enough to compel them to move?

Do you risk your donations and ticket revenue to get 9.4 million more when you have roughly 100 million in revenue that might be affected by the move should your fan base not buy in? A move bringing about a substantially different annual schedule is a huge unknown which if not liked could result in the loss of 3 times as much or more if it proves to be wrong?

I'm not so sure that the Maryland and Missouri moves are going to pan out to be beneficial for the schools involved and they are hardly iconic brands that were built with decades of nationally recognized rivalries.

If you put Alabama in the Big 10 or Ohio State in the SEC the end result could be devastating to each. Their conference affiliation is at the heart of their iconic brands.

If the Big 12 ever implodes Oklahoma, like Nebraska, could lose its national cache in a move. Now does that mean they have no value to the new conference? No. But the bang that the Big 10 was looking for from Nebraska simply hasn't been there and the reasons are many, but chiefly it might be said that the loss of the Oklahoma game, which made Nebraska's iconic image that much more memorable, was lost. Pulling Oklahoma away from Texas might reunite them with Nebraska, but it probably would reunite them with Nebraska in a diminished way.

You'll note that I'm not talking about Kansas. The Big 10 move would be a home run for the Jayhawks because the basketball profile in the Big 10 would build their historic brand even more. Kansas has not achieved its pinnacle in hoops because of the Big 8 schedule. They have achieved it in the NCAA tourney against other brand schools.

Whoever it is that gains Texas and Oklahoma will also have to make sure that rivals key to those brands are taken as well. Those are the games their fans donate to see. The Big 10 money would represent a 6.3% raise for the Sooners. Do you risk your brand power for 6.3%? Probably not. And that is simply on core identity issues meaning familiarity and desire for the same core schedule. And for the Sooners that means Texas and Oklahoma State which trump Kansas and Nebraska. Furthermore it doesn't take a genius to see that OU's recruiting base is in Texas. Any move that cuts them off from games in Texas (and right now in the Big 12 they are guaranteed 2 games a year in Texas and sometimes 3) is probably a non starter.

TV revenue alone, even for 9.4 million more, is not the panacea that message boards believe it to be. If it was that important then North Carolina, Duke, Southern Cal, Stanford, Virginia, and Florida State would never have signed a GOR, and neither would have Texas or Oklahoma. But, they all did sign. Why? Their brands are inextricably tied to their conference identity, maybe less so with F.S.U., but you get my point.

If Birmingham was found to have a major gold deposit underneath the SEC headquarters and the dividend for being an SEC member suddenly saw a 20 million dollar a year boost do you really think money would solve all problems for Michigan and Ohio State to join the SEC? I don't, not ever.

(04-25-2018 11:08 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-25-2018 07:24 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(04-25-2018 04:45 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-24-2018 11:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-16-2018 06:40 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  The Pac16 was never going to happen. There's a reason why the Texas & Oklahoma schools all bailed from the WAC and MWC...because the needed eyeballs are in the east. Western based conferences are at a disadvantage because of the time zone differences and they always will be.

With a solidified eastern flank the Big XII schools wouldn't have wanderings eyes.

There was a time when the lead schools in the Big 12 wanted to merge their whole conference with the SEC. We weren't interested.

Then they were interested in merging with the PAC but I believe realized the limitations they would face with regard to financial growth. And I don't think the PAC was interested either.

Then Deloss Dodds wanted to look east again. Only this time the key components would be divided between the SEC and ACC and that fell through in 2010.

I'd say that some version of that might still be viable if ESPN/FOX wanted to pursue it. But if they do we won't be hearing about it ahead of time. There's too much at stake.

The reality of realignment is that it is complex for a school or a University President. When Boren's demands weren't met he was ready to march Oklahoma out of the Big 12 hand in hand with Kansas. Then reality started to sink in. Even if he could secure an invitation to the B1G and be reunited in a conference with Nebraska it wouldn't be long before the fans would have him hanging from a tree when they realized that the Sooners conference division would consist of Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern and Illinois. Plus the likelihood that Texas would give them the A&M treatment and cancel the RRS. The thought of that happening even hurts me, and I don't care anything about Oklahoma.

You're probably right, it wouldn't be the ideal set-up for OU and I'm sure some fans will gripe........

Until that B1G money starts coming in. Money has a way of making the sting from perceived wounds hurt less.....

Let's look at that money. 51.1 million distributed by the Big 10 to each member school consists of the media rights money, the BTN share, bowl money, tourney credits, and any other money which might be earned by Women's hoops, hockey, or any other sport that can generate TV revenue.

Where Oklahoma is concerned they made about 34.7 million last year on their T1 and T2 rights. But in the Big 12 where there is no conference network they, independent of the Conference payout, pocket their own T3 revenue. So Oklahoma last year made 41.7 million or roughly the same as the SEC. So assuming that even for 1 year their deficit as compared to the new Big 10 payout is 9.4 million out of the 150 million plus earned by the OU athletic department, where the bulk of their revenue comes from ticket sales and donations, do you really think that is enough to compel them to move?

Do you risk your donations and ticket revenue to get 9.4 million more when you have roughly 100 million in revenue that might be affected by the move should your fan base not buy in? A move bringing about a substantially different annual schedule is a huge unknown which if not liked could result in the loss of 3 times as much or more if it proves to be wrong?

I'm not so sure that the Maryland and Missouri moves are going to pan out to be beneficial for the schools involved and they are hardly iconic brands that were built with decades of nationally recognized rivalries.

If you put Alabama in the Big 10 or Ohio State in the SEC the end result could be devastating to each. Their conference affiliation is at the heart of their iconic brands.

If the Big 12 ever implodes Oklahoma, like Nebraska, could lose its national cache in a move. Now does that mean they have no value to the new conference? No. But the bang that the Big 10 was looking for from Nebraska simply hasn't been there and the reasons are many, but chiefly it might be said that the loss of the Oklahoma game, which made Nebraska's iconic image that much more memorable, was lost. Pulling Oklahoma away from Texas might reunite them with Nebraska, but it probably would reunite them with Nebraska in a diminished way.

You'll note that I'm not talking about Kansas. The Big 10 move would be a home run for the Jayhawks because the basketball profile in the Big 10 would build their historic brand even more. Kansas has not achieved its pinnacle in hoops because of the Big 8 schedule. They have achieved it in the NCAA tourney against other brand schools.

Whoever it is that gains Texas and Oklahoma will also have to make sure that rivals key to those brands are taken as well. Those are the games their fans donate to see. The Big 10 money would represent a 6.3% raise for the Sooners. Do you risk your brand power for 6.3%? Probably not. And that is simply on core identity issues meaning familiarity and desire for the same core schedule. And for the Sooners that means Texas and Oklahoma State which trump Kansas and Nebraska. Furthermore it doesn't take a genius to see that OU's recruiting base is in Texas. Any move that cuts them off from games in Texas (and right now in the Big 12 they are guaranteed 2 games a year in Texas and sometimes 3) is probably a non starter.

TV revenue alone, even for 9.4 million more, is not the panacea that message boards believe it to be. If it was that important then North Carolina, Duke, Southern Cal, Stanford, Virginia, and Florida State would never have signed a GOR, and neither would have Texas or Oklahoma. But, they all did sign. Why? Their brands are inextricably tied to their conference identity, maybe less so with F.S.U., but you get my point.

If Birmingham was found to have a major gold deposit underneath the SEC headquarters and the dividend for being an SEC member suddenly saw a 20 million dollar a year boost do you really think money would solve all problems for Michigan and Ohio State to join the SEC? I don't, not ever.

This lays out a good portion of why I think that thinking incrementally in realignment makes little sense.

We are in a spot now that it would be very hard for the SEC to go to 16 or for Big 10 to go to 16.

We are currently tied the concept of divisions. As long as the system is wedded to the divisional concept it becomes increasingly more difficult to structure schedules in a way that preserves the game that Joe Fan is writing a check to the booster club to insure he has a ticket to that game.

That difficulty can be because Joe Fan sees that preferred game switched over to the other division or because that game is no longer a conference game.

God help you if you are chief athletic fund-raiser for OU and you are giving up Bedlam and Kansas is no longer coming in for basketball or worse, you are keeping Bedlam but losing the Red River Shootout.

With divisional play 16 means seven divisional games, even with a 9 game schedule you aren't seeing cross-divisional teams very often.

Makes much more sense to just blow past 16 and scrap the divisions.

I think the SEC can find a way to work things out if the league were to take say Kansas, OU, OKST, and Texas. That takes you to 18 and the divisional format forces you into 8 divisional games. That's a mess.

Easier to back the truck up and lock everyone into 3-5 every year games determined by whatever means the presidents agree to after consulting the AD's and coaches and then let the conference and TV work together to fill out the rest of the conference schedule and then on the Sunday following the final Saturday in November when the CFP selection committee picks its poll, take the two highest teams and send them to Atlanta or whoever has the bid then to determine the conference championship.

Gives you much greater freedom to resolve the problems expansion creates and allows you to cull some schools out of the pie. The league taking the new teams may not see a huge value increase but the average school value will rise.

(04-25-2018 02:14 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-25-2018 11:08 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-25-2018 07:24 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(04-25-2018 04:45 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-24-2018 11:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  There was a time when the lead schools in the Big 12 wanted to merge their whole conference with the SEC. We weren't interested.

Then they were interested in merging with the PAC but I believe realized the limitations they would face with regard to financial growth. And I don't think the PAC was interested either.

Then Deloss Dodds wanted to look east again. Only this time the key components would be divided between the SEC and ACC and that fell through in 2010.

I'd say that some version of that might still be viable if ESPN/FOX wanted to pursue it. But if they do we won't be hearing about it ahead of time. There's too much at stake.

The reality of realignment is that it is complex for a school or a University President. When Boren's demands weren't met he was ready to march Oklahoma out of the Big 12 hand in hand with Kansas. Then reality started to sink in. Even if he could secure an invitation to the B1G and be reunited in a conference with Nebraska it wouldn't be long before the fans would have him hanging from a tree when they realized that the Sooners conference division would consist of Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern and Illinois. Plus the likelihood that Texas would give them the A&M treatment and cancel the RRS. The thought of that happening even hurts me, and I don't care anything about Oklahoma.

You're probably right, it wouldn't be the ideal set-up for OU and I'm sure some fans will gripe........

Until that B1G money starts coming in. Money has a way of making the sting from perceived wounds hurt less.....

Let's look at that money. 51.1 million distributed by the Big 10 to each member school consists of the media rights money, the BTN share, bowl money, tourney credits, and any other money which might be earned by Women's hoops, hockey, or any other sport that can generate TV revenue.

Where Oklahoma is concerned they made about 34.7 million last year on their T1 and T2 rights. But in the Big 12 where there is no conference network they, independent of the Conference payout, pocket their own T3 revenue. So Oklahoma last year made 41.7 million or roughly the same as the SEC. So assuming that even for 1 year their deficit as compared to the new Big 10 payout is 9.4 million out of the 150 million plus earned by the OU athletic department, where the bulk of their revenue comes from ticket sales and donations, do you really think that is enough to compel them to move?

Do you risk your donations and ticket revenue to get 9.4 million more when you have roughly 100 million in revenue that might be affected by the move should your fan base not buy in? A move bringing about a substantially different annual schedule is a huge unknown which if not liked could result in the loss of 3 times as much or more if it proves to be wrong?

I'm not so sure that the Maryland and Missouri moves are going to pan out to be beneficial for the schools involved and they are hardly iconic brands that were built with decades of nationally recognized rivalries.

If you put Alabama in the Big 10 or Ohio State in the SEC the end result could be devastating to each. Their conference affiliation is at the heart of their iconic brands.

If the Big 12 ever implodes Oklahoma, like Nebraska, could lose its national cache in a move. Now does that mean they have no value to the new conference? No. But the bang that the Big 10 was looking for from Nebraska simply hasn't been there and the reasons are many, but chiefly it might be said that the loss of the Oklahoma game, which made Nebraska's iconic image that much more memorable, was lost. Pulling Oklahoma away from Texas might reunite them with Nebraska, but it probably would reunite them with Nebraska in a diminished way.

You'll note that I'm not talking about Kansas. The Big 10 move would be a home run for the Jayhawks because the basketball profile in the Big 10 would build their historic brand even more. Kansas has not achieved its pinnacle in hoops because of the Big 8 schedule. They have achieved it in the NCAA tourney against other brand schools.

Whoever it is that gains Texas and Oklahoma will also have to make sure that rivals key to those brands are taken as well. Those are the games their fans donate to see. The Big 10 money would represent a 6.3% raise for the Sooners. Do you risk your brand power for 6.3%? Probably not. And that is simply on core identity issues meaning familiarity and desire for the same core schedule. And for the Sooners that means Texas and Oklahoma State which trump Kansas and Nebraska. Furthermore it doesn't take a genius to see that OU's recruiting base is in Texas. Any move that cuts them off from games in Texas (and right now in the Big 12 they are guaranteed 2 games a year in Texas and sometimes 3) is probably a non starter.

TV revenue alone, even for 9.4 million more, is not the panacea that message boards believe it to be. If it was that important then North Carolina, Duke, Southern Cal, Stanford, Virginia, and Florida State would never have signed a GOR, and neither would have Texas or Oklahoma. But, they all did sign. Why? Their brands are inextricably tied to their conference identity, maybe less so with F.S.U., but you get my point.

If Birmingham was found to have a major gold deposit underneath the SEC headquarters and the dividend for being an SEC member suddenly saw a 20 million dollar a year boost do you really think money would solve all problems for Michigan and Ohio State to join the SEC? I don't, not ever.

This lays out a good portion of why I think that thinking incrementally in realignment makes little sense.

We are in a spot now that it would be very hard for the SEC to go to 16 or for Big 10 to go to 16.

We are currently tied the concept of divisions. As long as the system is wedded to the divisional concept it becomes increasingly more difficult to structure schedules in a way that preserves the game that Joe Fan is writing a check to the booster club to insure he has a ticket to that game.

That difficulty can be because Joe Fan sees that preferred game switched over to the other division or because that game is no longer a conference game.

God help you if you are chief athletic fund-raiser for OU and you are giving up Bedlam and Kansas is no longer coming in for basketball or worse, you are keeping Bedlam but losing the Red River Shootout.

With divisional play 16 means seven divisional games, even with a 9 game schedule you aren't seeing cross-divisional teams very often.

Makes much more sense to just blow past 16 and scrap the divisions.

I think the SEC can find a way to work things out if the league were to take say Kansas, OU, OKST, and Texas. That takes you to 18 and the divisional format forces you into 8 divisional games. That's a mess.

Easier to back the truck up and lock everyone into 3-5 every year games determined by whatever means the presidents agree to after consulting the AD's and coaches and then let the conference and TV work together to fill out the rest of the conference schedule and then on the Sunday following the final Saturday in November when the CFP selection committee picks its poll, take the two highest teams and send them to Atlanta or whoever has the bid then to determine the conference championship.

Gives you much greater freedom to resolve the problems expansion creates and allows you to cull some schools out of the pie. The league taking the new teams may not see a huge value increase but the average school value will rise.

I think if the Big 10 or SEC grew to 18 we would just vote for a change in structure to permit 3 divisions of 6 and then group the divisions by rival and locale. I think the mindset is locked into the CCG format because of the cash value of the game/games. With 3 divisions the argument then exists for conferences semis which is revenue the conference doesn't divide with others. So the argument would then become 3 divisions champs and the best at larger for the conference semis. That's pretty solid TV revenue and increases the inventory for sale. Plus then the conferences could bid out the semis separately from the regular season and final.

That's why I don't see us moving to a divisionless format. You lose the advantage of arguing for semis.

At 16 however the WAC rule of rotating half divisions would be utilized.

I'm a a huge fan of legislation to allow conference semi finals. Conferences can go to 18 like JR described and with 3 divisions you can admit a wild card into the playoff. The alleviates the trouble of having unbalanced divisions because both Michigan and Ohio St could potentially be in the conference playoffs while still being division mates with an annual rivalry game. The Big 12 and ACC can be sliced and diced however you like and the remnants and the Pac 12 can readjust after the first round.

(04-25-2018 11:08 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Kansas has not achieved its pinnacle in hoops because of the Big 8 schedule.

I'll disagree -- there were passonate, nationally televised conference games back then. KU/MU and KU/OU games were epic, for example. ISU always plays us well.

(04-25-2018 03:46 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I'm a a huge fan of legislation to allow conference semi finals. Conferences can go to 18 like JR described and with 3 divisions you can admit a wild card into the playoff.

I doubt that coaches of top teams would want that, because it's one more chance to lose a game against a good opponent, one more chance to fail and miss out on the playoff. Everyone is well aware that no team with 2 losses or more has ever been chosen for the 4-team playoff. A conference champ would have to survive 14 games, not 13, with fewer than 2 losses.

Coaches would greatly prefer an 8-team playoff to a 4-team playoff that includes conference semifinal games.

Coaches are not going to like the possibility of having to play 14 games just to get in the field of four and then two more to play for the title.

Presidents aren't going to be fans of it either. They begrudgingly accepted the potential 15 game season because it only involved two teams. Having maybe 8-10 schools playing 15 games (12 regular two conference playoff and then a bowl or first round of the playoff) and two going 16 games, that's going to be a hard sell especially with all the other pressures regarding concussion and the continuing pay to play lawsuits, the probability of yet other collision sport injury litigation. Not going to be easy to sell at all.

And unless you expand perfectly a trio divisional format still runs the risk of leaving teams that want to play not playing which you can fix with regulated cross-over games but then you end up with some terribly forced crossover games like the SEC had with Arkansas-South Carolina and now have with TAMU-South Carolina and the ACC has Louisville-UVA and the Virginia Tech - BC game which preserves an old Big East series but it wasn't a series anyone cared much about at least outside the two schools.

(04-25-2018 03:54 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-25-2018 03:46 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I'm a a huge fan of legislation to allow conference semi finals. Conferences can go to 18 like JR described and with 3 divisions you can admit a wild card into the playoff.

I doubt that coaches of top teams would want that, because it's one more chance to lose a game against a good opponent, one more chance to fail and miss out on the playoff. Everyone is well aware that no team with 2 losses or more has ever been chosen for the 4-team playoff. A conference champ would have to survive 14 games, not 13, with fewer than 2 losses.

Coaches would greatly prefer an 8-team playoff to a 4-team playoff that includes conference semifinal games.

I think its one of the worst ideas out there. Just means you have more random conference champs instead of teams that earned it over the 8 or 9 game conference schedule. All it does is add another game for the conferences to make money and break up old rivalries by over-expansion.

I think the 14 team conferences should figure out a way to get smaller, not larger.

Big 10, ACC, and SEC (43 teams) create four 10-12 team conferences.
Or Big 10 and Big 12 merge to form two 12 team conferences (Nebraska and Maryland to Big 12).
Or SEC and Big 12 merge to form two 12 team conferences (Arkansas and Missouri to Big 12).

(04-25-2018 07:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-25-2018 03:54 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-25-2018 03:46 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I'm a a huge fan of legislation to allow conference semi finals. Conferences can go to 18 like JR described and with 3 divisions you can admit a wild card into the playoff.

I doubt that coaches of top teams would want that, because it's one more chance to lose a game against a good opponent, one more chance to fail and miss out on the playoff. Everyone is well aware that no team with 2 losses or more has ever been chosen for the 4-team playoff. A conference champ would have to survive 14 games, not 13, with fewer than 2 losses.

Coaches would greatly prefer an 8-team playoff to a 4-team playoff that includes conference semifinal games.

I think its one of the worst ideas out there. Just means you have more random conference champs instead of teams that earned it over the 8 or 9 game conference schedule. All it does is add another game for the conferences to make money and break up old rivalries by over-expansion.

Think about if there were just 4 major conferences though:

Effectively you would have a 16-team national tournament to crown a winner. The round of 16 is the conference semi-finals. The round of 8 is the conference title games. The Final 4 occurs on New Years at two traditional big bowl sites and includes the champs of the 4 major conferences. The National title game remains as. It's an added game sure, but it also represents a massive revenue source for the conferences and if all the big conferences are playing one then there is no competitive advantage/disadvantage.

(04-25-2018 03:54 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-25-2018 03:46 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I'm a a huge fan of legislation to allow conference semi finals. Conferences can go to 18 like JR described and with 3 divisions you can admit a wild card into the playoff.

I doubt that coaches of top teams would want that, because it's one more chance to lose a game against a good opponent, one more chance to fail and miss out on the playoff. Everyone is well aware that no team with 2 losses or more has ever been chosen for the 4-team playoff. A conference champ would have to survive 14 games, not 13, with fewer than 2 losses.

Coaches would greatly prefer an 8-team playoff to a 4-team playoff that includes conference semifinal games.

If we ever move to 4 or fewer P conferences we will move to a champs only format so size won't matter.

(04-25-2018 08:15 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(04-25-2018 07:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-25-2018 03:54 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-25-2018 03:46 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I'm a a huge fan of legislation to allow conference semi finals. Conferences can go to 18 like JR described and with 3 divisions you can admit a wild card into the playoff.

I doubt that coaches of top teams would want that, because it's one more chance to lose a game against a good opponent, one more chance to fail and miss out on the playoff. Everyone is well aware that no team with 2 losses or more has ever been chosen for the 4-team playoff. A conference champ would have to survive 14 games, not 13, with fewer than 2 losses.

Coaches would greatly prefer an 8-team playoff to a 4-team playoff that includes conference semifinal games.

I think its one of the worst ideas out there. Just means you have more random conference champs instead of teams that earned it over the 8 or 9 game conference schedule. All it does is add another game for the conferences to make money and break up old rivalries by over-expansion.

Think about if there were just 4 major conferences though:

Effectively you would have a 16-team national tournament to crown a winner. The round of 16 is the conference semi-finals. The round of 8 is the conference title games. The Final 4 occurs on New Years at two traditional big bowl sites and includes the champs of the 4 major conferences. The National title game remains as. It's an added game sure, but it also represents a massive revenue source for the conferences and if all the big conferences are playing one then there is no competitive advantage/disadvantage.

Correct. I didn't see your post when I posted.

(04-25-2018 07:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  I think the 14 team conferences should figure out a way to get smaller, not larger.

Big 10, ACC, and SEC (43 teams) create four 10-12 team conferences.
Or Big 10 and Big 12 merge to form two 12 team conferences (Nebraska and Maryland to Big 12).
Or SEC and Big 12 merge to form two 12 team conferences (Arkansas and Missouri to Big 12).

If the SEC and Big 12 were to merge, I would think that ESPN would have to obtain total rights to the conference if the SEC (ESPN/SECN) were going to allow two teams from their inventory to move to the Big 12.

Dividing back to six is an interesting idea but complicated.