(07-19-2018 09:52 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  no way B-10 west schools vote for more schools & get cut-off from UM.OSU,PSU,MSU

Adding 2 schools and adopting a pod system would in fact increase the number of games the West schools play against them (twice every 4 years instead of roughly twice every 6).

Even if the Big 10 goes to 20, playing in 4 pods of 5 teams and 10 conference games would still be an improvement at twice every five years.

(07-21-2018 08:10 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  Even if the Big 10 goes to 20, playing in 4 pods of 5 teams and 10 conference games would still be an improvement at twice every five years.

These conferences are going to divide the pot by 20, yeah right. The next big thing will be smaller leagues not larger.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Knowing Texas/ND/UVa/UNC won’t move to the B1G...

IMO, the B1G will make a play for Cal 4 + Colorado + Oklahoma. Kansas or West Virginia (to placate Penn St) if Oklahoma declines.

Cal 4 + Colorado would be their own pod.

If B1G can’t sway Cal 4, it’ll be a simple +2 to 16.

(07-21-2018 08:36 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Knowing Texas/ND/UVa/UNC won’t move to the B1G...

IMO, the B1G will make a play for Cal 4 + Colorado + Oklahoma. Kansas or West Virginia (to placate Penn St) if Oklahoma declines.

Cal 4 + Colorado would be their own pod.

If B1G can’t sway Cal 4, it’ll be a simple +2 to 16.

I don't see anyway that would happen, but if the Big 10 could take top PAC schools then Texas and Oklahoma would sit tight and rebuild out of the leftovers of the PAC.

I think the Big 10 knows this. If they really have any interest in the PAC schools at all they'll keep.

If their plan is to go after Big 12 schools they will make that move first without involving the PAC. Why? Nobody else can bridge to the PAC if the Big 12 is out of the way first. And if the Big 10 took PAC schools first then ESPN, the SEC and the ACC would be working overtime on absorbing the Big 12 which would be more appealing to those schools than abandoning their time honored rivals and force their fans to travel North.

So if the Big 10 wants Oklahoma, or Texas, or even Kansas they will have to go after those first. Then they could absorb the AAU schools of the PAC and form two conferences within a league.

(07-21-2018 08:36 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Knowing Texas/ND/UVa/UNC won’t move to the B1G...

IMO, the B1G will make a play for Cal 4 + Colorado + Oklahoma. Kansas or West Virginia (to placate Penn St) if Oklahoma declines.

Cal 4 + Colorado would be their own pod.

If B1G can’t sway Cal 4, it’ll be a simple +2 to 16.

Well if it happened, it would be the Cal 4, UW and Colorado as the bridge. Colorado would be with Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin.

(07-13-2018 10:30 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  What if Texas and Oklahoma decide to go after two A5 schools, say Nebraska and Arkansas

I think the Big 12 messed up when they picked up WVU and TCU (WVU is too far away and there are already too many Texas teams in the Big 12).

I think they should have picked up Louisville, Memphis, and Cincinnati.

And then try to pry one school away from a better conference maybe, Arkansas, Missouri, or Nebraska. Those schools aren't really having very much success in their current conference and the tighter footprint of the Big 12 and easier football might be appealing.

Plus adding those 3 would have made a really good basketball conference.

(07-22-2018 09:40 PM)jarmzet Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 10:30 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  What if Texas and Oklahoma decide to go after two A5 schools, say Nebraska and Arkansas

I think the Big 12 messed up when they picked up WVU and TCU (WVU is too far away and there are already too many Texas teams in the Big 12).

I think they should have picked up Louisville, Memphis, and Cincinnati.

And then try to pry one school away from a better conference maybe, Arkansas, Missouri, or Nebraska. Those schools aren't really having very much success in their current conference and the tighter footprint of the Big 12 and easier football might be appealing.

Plus adding those 3 would have made a really good basketball conference.

... So you're suggesting that to replace Colorado, Texas A&M, Missouri, and Nebraska, the Big 12 should have added, among other schools, Missouri or Nebraska.

(07-22-2018 09:40 PM)jarmzet Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 10:30 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  What if Texas and Oklahoma decide to go after two A5 schools, say Nebraska and Arkansas

I think the Big 12 messed up when they picked up WVU and TCU (WVU is too far away and there are already too many Texas teams in the Big 12).

I think they should have picked up Louisville, Memphis, and Cincinnati.

And then try to pry one school away from a better conference maybe, Arkansas, Missouri, or Nebraska. Those schools aren't really having very much success in their current conference and the tighter footprint of the Big 12 and easier football might be appealing.

Plus adding those 3 would have made a really good basketball conference.

TCU made itself the class of Texas finishing top 10 6 times the last decade. Add they’re located in DFW and it’s a home run addition.

The mistake was getting cold feet on the natural WVU/Cincy/Louisville trio. Could’ve shoved the Ohio Valley 3 with the Tornado Alley 3 (ISU/KU/KSU) in the BXII North.

Also if the goal is to attract an Arkansas/Missouri/Nebraska, they’d be more appealed to join a league with TCU that nets them a game in DFW.

(07-22-2018 10:20 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 09:40 PM)jarmzet Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 10:30 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  What if Texas and Oklahoma decide to go after two A5 schools, say Nebraska and Arkansas

I think the Big 12 messed up when they picked up WVU and TCU (WVU is too far away and there are already too many Texas teams in the Big 12).

I think they should have picked up Louisville, Memphis, and Cincinnati.

And then try to pry one school away from a better conference maybe, Arkansas, Missouri, or Nebraska. Those schools aren't really having very much success in their current conference and the tighter footprint of the Big 12 and easier football might be appealing.

Plus adding those 3 would have made a really good basketball conference.

TCU made itself the class of Texas finishing top 10 6 times the last decade. Add they’re located in DFW and it’s a home run addition.

The mistake was getting cold feet on the natural WVU/Cincy/Louisville trio. Could’ve shoved the Ohio Valley 3 with the Tornado Alley 3 (ISU/KU/KSU) in the BXII North.

Also if the goal is to attract an Arkansas/Missouri/Nebraska, they’d be more appealed to join a league with TCU that nets them a game in DFW.

Honestly, the Big XII made the right decision not to take Louisville. Let the ACC deal with that albatross. They Big XII can do better. I’m sure Texas was up to something when it rejected Louisville and wanted West Virginia instead. But all we hear about on these boards is what Oklahoma wanted.

WVU was the safe decision; the Mountaineers had been playing at the P5 level - successfully, I might add - for many years. OTOH, the Cardinals were new to the table, with some success but not nearly as sustained.

(07-18-2018 06:26 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  Agreed with all your points
1) Nebraska will be cashing in a full share of money this year in big10, so after reading some Nebraska stuff there it looks like they want to stay and collect for awhile
And regarding Nebraska recruiting dropping off after leaving the b12, well it really hasn’t at least not Texas players, they recruit Texas same as always
2) Arkansas, this is a little different, I found that there are more than a handful of fans and influential people that would like to see Arkansas in the b12 but this group is the minority for sure, Arkansas ain’t moving either
As the OP I still think that Texas and Oklahoma are just as likely to stay in the b12 and TRY to lure two A5 schools
End of line...

Arkansas not being good makes moving even harder.
Little glory for Big XII if a limping Arkansas comes back. Little media leverage if Arkansas is stinking.

Here's how I'd look at it.

1) If the Big XII implodes, Baylor is the least attractive option to other P5 conferences. Its private, it has had multiple athletic scandals, it is covered by other schools in its market (which is DFW), and it has other issues too. Of all the P5 teams, BU is probably the most vulnerable P5 school in the country. Even Vandy or Rutgers come out ahead of BU.

2) If the Big XII just loses one or two teams, they probably get to stay, albeit in a much reduced conference.

3) BU is poorly positioned even versus some G5 teams for any potential open slot in another P5 conference. UH, SDSU, Boise, UCF, Uconn, and USF all come out ahead of BU when you look at market, athletic profile, institutional fit, etc.

----

I can't see ANY other P5 taking BU.

(07-23-2018 05:31 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Here's how I'd look at it.

1) If the Big XII implodes, Baylor is the least attractive option to other P5 conferences. Its private, it has had multiple athletic scandals, it is covered by other schools in its market (which is DFW), and it has other issues too. Of all the P5 teams, BU is probably the most vulnerable P5 school in the country. Even Vandy or Rutgers come out ahead of BU.

2) If the Big XII just loses one or two teams, they probably get to stay, albeit in a much reduced conference.

3) BU is poorly positioned even versus some G5 teams for any potential open slot in another P5 conference. UH, SDSU, Boise, UCF, Uconn, and USF all come out ahead of BU when you look at market, athletic profile, institutional fit, etc.

----

I can't see ANY other P5 taking BU.

While I agree that due to their particularly precarious alignment with a Big 12 which may see further defections that Baylor is the worst positioned school among the P5, it is far from the worst value wise. Wake Forest is in the 65th position of all schools in the P5 and Washington State is 66th. Uconn is the only school positioned within the financial rankings of the P5 which is a G5 school, but they are subsidized by close to 50% for athletics.

The way the revenue divide is growing an eventual 60 school P4 is looking more likely than a 64-5 member P5 over the next decade or so.

60 not enough, 45-48 play in bowls now

(07-24-2018 07:54 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  60 not enough, 45-48 play in bowls now

That's irrelevant to the structure of the P conferences since the bowls have tie ins to G5 conferences as well. There are currently 65 P schools and that's still not enough to supply the bowls we have already. The bowls will have nothing to do with whether the P5 expand or contract.