Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Big Ten targeting Texas and Oklahoma?
Author Message
Fighting Muskie Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,691
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 55
I Root For: Ohio St, MAC
Location:
Post: #61
RE: Big Ten targeting Texas and Oklahoma?
Academics and the need to keep Oklahoma St with them make a Sooners move to the PAC 12 or Big Ten problematic. ADs and the tv partners would love to see Oklahoma move but convincing the presidents is much harder.

The SEC would certainly like to have Oklahoma but they really want Texas not Oklahoma St. Unless the SEC wants to add 4 teams the Big 12 will likely stay in a holding position.
12-07-2018 11:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 4,699
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 145
I Root For: The Heels
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #62
RE: Big Ten targeting Texas and Oklahoma?
(12-07-2018 10:28 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(12-06-2018 08:38 PM)esayem Wrote:  Now that Notre Dame proved all a blueblood needs to do is go undefeated I think Texas becoming independent is more likely than them joining a conference they don’t run.

Oklahoma has been doing just fine, but being reunited with Nebraska would be pretty cool for rivalry week.

Except OU is extremely unlikely to be reunited with Nebraska unless they are going in with Texas or MAYBE if B1G concludes that its next big play for BTN is hoops and needs a dance partner for Kansas.

Except what? I've said Oklahoma would go in tandem with KU many times over. Thanks for the update. A new point: if divisions are scraped the number of teams doesn't matter.
12-07-2018 11:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
33laszlo99 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 159
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 17
I Root For: Bama
Location:
Post: #63
RE: Big Ten targeting Texas and Oklahoma?
(12-07-2018 01:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-07-2018 11:57 AM)johnintx Wrote:  
(12-07-2018 10:58 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(12-06-2018 02:21 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(12-06-2018 02:13 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Tell me that the B1G is considering divisionless football to accommodate USC, UCLA, Stanford, and a pick 3 and I'd buy that more than UT/OU to Big Ten.

UT has ZERO incentive to leave as long as OU is in place and can't see the Big Ten taking OU on spec.

I'm not at all sure Texas would follow Oklahoma to the B1G even if they were invited to do so.

Texas cannot afford to lose the Red River shootout. The donation value of being in line to get one of the seats at the Cotton Bowl is extremely valuable to UT.

With TAMU off the schedule, losing OU would be untenable. The impact on the value of the TV contract would be significant. The Sugar Bowl pays $17 million+ to take the Big XII champion if the champion is not in the CFP or to take the highest rated available team from the Big XII if the champion is in the playoff.

With OU out of the lineup that looks like a much shakier investment.

Texas doesn't have to follow OU, in fact it wouldn't be surprising if Texas opted to NOT follow, but the Big XII without OU is much less viable.

Lifelong OU fan here, but not an insider at all.

Today's status quo works for OU football: we generate enough revenue to be nationally competitive while playing regional rivals. The B12 gets a bad rap nationally (partially deserved), but OU has now qualified for three CFP's as part of it (or in spite of it).

When the B12 GOR and TV contracts expire, all bets are off. I seriously doubt the ability of the B12 to score similar media deals in the next round of negotiations. OU will listen to both the B1G and SEC. I will not be surprised to see OU in either conference.

Texas is the 800 pound gorilla. It's the largest school in the second largest state, with a massive alumni and fan base. In addition, it has the academic reputation that college presidents like. If a conference sees the need to expand, they need to make a play for Texas, whether they think they will succeed or not.

The B1G needs OU's football program. But, OU's academic reputation is inferior to the members of the B1G. If the B1G makes a play for OU, it has to make a play for Texas first. For the presidents and academic leaders, it has to be an academic move. UT checks those boxes. OU would be a tagalong, academically. The B1G cannot pursue OU alone. They have to pursue OU in a package with UT and/or Kansas. Even as part of a package deal, the consideration of OU is a stretch for the academically minded leadership of the B1G.

OU's academic leaders would looovvvve to be associated with the B1G. It would be a harder sell to the fan base, even if the B1G were able to do away with divisions and arrange more games with tOSU, UM, and PSU. The SEC would be a much easier sell to the fan base. The SEC is a better cultural and institutional fit, as well.

It will be a bidding war between the B1G and SEC. If these tweets are true, the B1G is taking steps to get ready.

I agree with your assessment. The hard sell for the Big 10 will be Texas. The Texas business model which is the strongest in college football would be alien to the Big 10 and Big 10 revenue sharing even from just a % of ticket sales would be anathema to Texas. And that doesn't even take into consideration the desire of Texas to play as many games at home or away at other Texas venues as possible. Since the Big 10 would be unlikely to take any other Big 12 Texas school with Texas that creates a major hurdle where the Horns are concerned.

Kansas would be a likely fit for the Big 10 culturally, academically, and athletically with regard to hoops prestige. However, Kansas may not be able to pay its way into the Big 10 with lousy football, and not much to offer outside of basketball which isn't a Big 10 need. The Big 10 already carries the major markets in Kansas and that too doesn't work in the Jayhawks favor. The old farm adage is apropos here, "Why buy the cow when you are already stealing the milk?"

That said I absolutely expect the Big 10 to make a run at Texas and Oklahoma. But I'm not sure they are headed anywhere. They tried to outlast the ACC to see who folded first thinking that if it was the ACC they could pick up the markets and brands they needed to survive. Why would that kind of thinking change now that the PAC seems vulnerable? They would make even better additions than schools from the ACC would have.

I think Texas continues to slow play realignment to see what might shake loose from the PAC. Oklahoma could move on their own, but they've made the CFP for the last two years and probably feel little athletic pressure to do so.

In the end I expect the SEC will get a fairly significant bump for an undervalued T1 contract. I expect the Big 10 to get a much smaller bump on the renewal of their 6 year deal with FOX. And both conferences will continue to increase the revenue gaps they have with respect to the ACC and PAC and that eventually they'll expand again because of it, but possibly not in 2024-5.

But, if the networks come in with a stagnant offer to the Big 12 that might be enough to knock OU and Kansas off of a static position and if so then Texas may have to be proactive.

So movement in 2022-3 (which is when I think it will happen if it is going to happen) is possible. I just don't see it as probable without a catalyst besides the desires of the SEC or Big 10.

You have sound arguments, JR. I don't disagree with anything there. But I think that mystery catalyst you mention could be among these:

The SEC T1 contract might well get a big bump, especially if Fox tries to add the SEC to their advertising footprint. But ESPN needs the B1G footprint even more, which was borne out in the last B1G media deal. ESPN has been trying to mitigate that problem, but the TV ratings of the B1G cannot be overlooked. So where will they each spend? If ESPN needs to overspend on the SEC, even by remaking the entire media deal, would they do it in order to attract Texas? Will Disney allow such extravagance? If the FAANG gang shows up, the ESPN contract handcuffs the SEC.

No, Texas is not good at sharing, but if changing conferences still gives them enough income to remain the revenue king, they just might go co-op. As for those in-state games they love so much, and they really do, that sentiment likely lives among the fans much more than with the administration. From a fan point of view, trips to SEC destinations would be appealing. But I think the University Administration, and Austin in general has become more akin to Berkley than the Austin of 25 years ago. These guys might be more enthusiastic about weekends in DC, NYC and Chicago.

Some say future of the Big 12 will be rosy and prosperous. But I think they walk on thin ice. If the B1G shows signs of scoring a fat contract, the ones who have an opportunity to join the gravy train will probably not let it pass them by.
12-08-2018 12:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 18,470
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 1298
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #64
RE: Big Ten targeting Texas and Oklahoma?
(12-08-2018 12:02 AM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  
(12-07-2018 01:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-07-2018 11:57 AM)johnintx Wrote:  
(12-07-2018 10:58 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(12-06-2018 02:21 PM)ken d Wrote:  I'm not at all sure Texas would follow Oklahoma to the B1G even if they were invited to do so.

Texas cannot afford to lose the Red River shootout. The donation value of being in line to get one of the seats at the Cotton Bowl is extremely valuable to UT.

With TAMU off the schedule, losing OU would be untenable. The impact on the value of the TV contract would be significant. The Sugar Bowl pays $17 million+ to take the Big XII champion if the champion is not in the CFP or to take the highest rated available team from the Big XII if the champion is in the playoff.

With OU out of the lineup that looks like a much shakier investment.

Texas doesn't have to follow OU, in fact it wouldn't be surprising if Texas opted to NOT follow, but the Big XII without OU is much less viable.

Lifelong OU fan here, but not an insider at all.

Today's status quo works for OU football: we generate enough revenue to be nationally competitive while playing regional rivals. The B12 gets a bad rap nationally (partially deserved), but OU has now qualified for three CFP's as part of it (or in spite of it).

When the B12 GOR and TV contracts expire, all bets are off. I seriously doubt the ability of the B12 to score similar media deals in the next round of negotiations. OU will listen to both the B1G and SEC. I will not be surprised to see OU in either conference.

Texas is the 800 pound gorilla. It's the largest school in the second largest state, with a massive alumni and fan base. In addition, it has the academic reputation that college presidents like. If a conference sees the need to expand, they need to make a play for Texas, whether they think they will succeed or not.

The B1G needs OU's football program. But, OU's academic reputation is inferior to the members of the B1G. If the B1G makes a play for OU, it has to make a play for Texas first. For the presidents and academic leaders, it has to be an academic move. UT checks those boxes. OU would be a tagalong, academically. The B1G cannot pursue OU alone. They have to pursue OU in a package with UT and/or Kansas. Even as part of a package deal, the consideration of OU is a stretch for the academically minded leadership of the B1G.

OU's academic leaders would looovvvve to be associated with the B1G. It would be a harder sell to the fan base, even if the B1G were able to do away with divisions and arrange more games with tOSU, UM, and PSU. The SEC would be a much easier sell to the fan base. The SEC is a better cultural and institutional fit, as well.

It will be a bidding war between the B1G and SEC. If these tweets are true, the B1G is taking steps to get ready.

I agree with your assessment. The hard sell for the Big 10 will be Texas. The Texas business model which is the strongest in college football would be alien to the Big 10 and Big 10 revenue sharing even from just a % of ticket sales would be anathema to Texas. And that doesn't even take into consideration the desire of Texas to play as many games at home or away at other Texas venues as possible. Since the Big 10 would be unlikely to take any other Big 12 Texas school with Texas that creates a major hurdle where the Horns are concerned.

Kansas would be a likely fit for the Big 10 culturally, academically, and athletically with regard to hoops prestige. However, Kansas may not be able to pay its way into the Big 10 with lousy football, and not much to offer outside of basketball which isn't a Big 10 need. The Big 10 already carries the major markets in Kansas and that too doesn't work in the Jayhawks favor. The old farm adage is apropos here, "Why buy the cow when you are already stealing the milk?"

That said I absolutely expect the Big 10 to make a run at Texas and Oklahoma. But I'm not sure they are headed anywhere. They tried to outlast the ACC to see who folded first thinking that if it was the ACC they could pick up the markets and brands they needed to survive. Why would that kind of thinking change now that the PAC seems vulnerable? They would make even better additions than schools from the ACC would have.

I think Texas continues to slow play realignment to see what might shake loose from the PAC. Oklahoma could move on their own, but they've made the CFP for the last two years and probably feel little athletic pressure to do so.

In the end I expect the SEC will get a fairly significant bump for an undervalued T1 contract. I expect the Big 10 to get a much smaller bump on the renewal of their 6 year deal with FOX. And both conferences will continue to increase the revenue gaps they have with respect to the ACC and PAC and that eventually they'll expand again because of it, but possibly not in 2024-5.

But, if the networks come in with a stagnant offer to the Big 12 that might be enough to knock OU and Kansas off of a static position and if so then Texas may have to be proactive.

So movement in 2022-3 (which is when I think it will happen if it is going to happen) is possible. I just don't see it as probable without a catalyst besides the desires of the SEC or Big 10.

You have sound arguments, JR. I don't disagree with anything there. But I think that mystery catalyst you mention could be among these:

The SEC T1 contract might well get a big bump, especially if Fox tries to add the SEC to their advertising footprint. But ESPN needs the B1G footprint even more, which was borne out in the last B1G media deal. ESPN has been trying to mitigate that problem, but the TV ratings of the B1G cannot be overlooked. So where will they each spend? If ESPN needs to overspend on the SEC, even by remaking the entire media deal, would they do it in order to attract Texas? Will Disney allow such extravagance? If the FAANG gang shows up, the ESPN contract handcuffs the SEC.

No, Texas is not good at sharing, but if changing conferences still gives them enough income to remain the revenue king, they just might go co-op. As for those in-state games they love so much, and they really do, that sentiment likely lives among the fans much more than with the administration. From a fan point of view, trips to SEC destinations would be appealing. But I think the University Administration, and Austin in general has become more akin to Berkley than the Austin of 25 years ago. These guys might be more enthusiastic about weekends in DC, NYC and Chicago.

Some say future of the Big 12 will be rosy and prosperous. But I think they walk on thin ice. If the B1G shows signs of scoring a fat contract, the ones who have an opportunity to join the gravy train will probably not let it pass them by.

From 2016-17 the Big 10 Network lost 448 million in total value according to SNL Kagan. However the annual report due out this year in April was never released. The Big 10 has good ratings, but the SEC has strong ratings with greater depth into the conference. The Big 10's model was more heavily predicated on the subscription fee footprint payout model. The content driven model is the new winner and the SEC has more brands with which to multiply content value than most conferences.

I don't think FOX or ESPN are particularly well positioned should the FAANG companies want a bidding war, but at what cost to national exposure would going with them one of them come? It's an uncharted territory. Most college administrators are risk adverse and I just don't think we'll see the advent of the FAANG companies in college sports in nearly as big a way as some seem to think, especially at this time.

I also think that this time around that FOX has incentive to work with ESPN behind the scenes. They do hold a lot of Disney stock now and it would benefit both companies should the Big 10 and SEC expand out of the Big 12. How? If they were able to make the moves in advance of 2024-5 they could renegotiate the value of the Big 10 and SEC's total contracts, extend the current contracts before they come open for bid (with the exception of the SEC's T1) and keep the top product out of the FAANG companies hands for another decade. They currently share the T1 and T2 rights for the Big 12 (a purchase) and the PAC (a lease). They could conceivably work an early deal with the PAC as well and accomplish all of it out of the Big 12. It's that kind of catalyst I was thinking about.

Texas would have reason to work with with both in this matter and to resolve the LHN which could be accomplished in a number of ways without costing the Horns the balance of the contract.

So, I'm not so sure that this comes down to a FOX vs ESPN action as much as it is likely to come down to a FOX / ESPN preemptive strike. Brokering out the Big 12 would likely be the tack taken. But it's a big wait and see.

Kansas isn't required by the Big 12 to make a major renovation of their facilities for football and their stadium, but they have. I can't see that happening at that level of debt without some tacit promises already in place. When the desire to discuss additions to the Big 12 died I believe it is because everyone finally accepted the inevitability of either staying at 10 to preserve revenue, or moving. Baylor and T.C.U. have made renovations as well with Kansas and TCU making them inclusive of amenity seating for donors.

Could this money be poorly spent? Perhaps. But more likely assurances were made by someone at some level before these renovations proceeded. Schools wouldn't spend that kind of money in preparation for a move to the G5 where their existing venues would probably be fine.

How would they divvy these up? That's anyone's guess. But if it does play out this way I don't see Texas and Oklahoma moving together. I could easily see Texas and Tech moving together, the Oklahoma schools moving together, and some other combinations being possible. It might be why the divisionless talk is coming up as well. If you opened up the composition of determining the conference finalists then absorbing more Big 12 schools could be more easily accomplished if needed, and if the PAC doesn't play ball in this matter then it opens up other possibilities.

But all of this is under the assumption that there is movement at all. And things could easily remain stagnant until the mid 2030's should Texas think that acquisitions from the PAC are possible, or if they should feel that after a few years of the ACCN that economic pressures might continue to mount in that area. They've been playing an active game of chicken with the ACC since 2010. Having the PAC go through a rough patch may actually the the catalyst for stasis.
12-08-2018 01:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
templefootballfan Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,047
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation: 71
I Root For: TU & BGSU & TEX
Location: CLAYMONT DE
Post: #65
RE: Big Ten targeting Texas and Oklahoma?
wouldn't be easier for B-10 change network to content driven & SEC to get fair value for there T1
taken ACC & B-12 out of picture, devalue playoffs with rematches & regional games
Okla ought to be worried about being taken out of their element & stuggling like Nebraska.
where is Okla gonna get 11 OTA
ESPN/Fox working together is collusion, that never pays more money
Kansas is leaving alot money on the table with FB, they gotta do something
12-08-2018 03:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 30,850
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 775
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #66
RE: Big Ten targeting Texas and Oklahoma?
Texas isn't going anywhere if they don't have to.

1. Pac 12 has lower per school revenues than the Big 12. It has the weakest ratings of the P5. And while the west fits better culturally than the midwest or Atlantic coast, its actually significantly further from Austin to the Pac 12 schools than to the Big 10 schools.

2. Big 10 is not especially strong in the spring sports. Those are a Texas strength. Texas doesn't do wrestling or hockey which are both big in the B1G. As President Powers said, "I'm not going to fly the women's softball team all over the midwest.

3. Atlantic Coast makes zero sense from a rivalry standpoint. And its revenues are less than the Big 12. The ratings are only comparable. Its also filled with private schools and smaller publics, unlike the enormous state universities of the Big 10, Pac 12 and Big 12. And its a basketball first conference.

4. SEC is perceived, rightly or wrongly, as too filled with cheating and willingness to take too many chances on academically questionable athletes. Its also generally less prestigious academically than the Pac 12, Big 10 and ACC.
12-08-2018 08:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
owl at the moon Offline
Eastern Screech Owl
*

Posts: 4,181
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation: 140
I Root For: Rice:NatlChamps
Location: 20mi from THE STAR
Post: #67
Big Ten targeting Texas and Oklahoma?
Fun Fact: Rice gets mentioned in nearly every expansion thread, and 9 or 10 times out of 10 is by fans of other schools.

Speculation:
OK, KS, UT, Rice to B1G.
3/4 AAUs. 3/4 solid MBB, two CFP contenders, and a built-in instate game for UT and an extra trip to the state for those who like to recruit here.
12-08-2018 10:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bogg Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,242
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 74
I Root For: UConn
Location:
Post: #68
RE: Big Ten targeting Texas and Oklahoma?
(12-08-2018 08:48 AM)bullet Wrote:  3. Atlantic Coast makes zero sense from a rivalry standpoint. And its revenues are less than the Big 12. The ratings are only comparable. Its also filled with private schools and smaller publics, unlike the enormous state universities of the Big 10, Pac 12 and Big 12. And its a basketball first conference.

Pulling this item out specifically, pretty much every discussion of Texas and the ACC has been in the context of Texas getting the Notre Dame treatment, where they go independent in football and become an Olympic sports full member of the ACC. In the event of a Big 12 breakup (and I'm still convinced that Texas will be one of the last dominos to fall in that scenario, not the first) football independence would give Texas the most flexibility to continue to play large numbers of in-state football games, and the ACC being a basketball-first conference isn't really a problem if it's primarily a home for your basketball team. I don't think anyone expects Texas to become a football-playing member of the ACC.
12-08-2018 03:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Statefan Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 485
Joined: May 2018
Reputation: 25
I Root For: Old ACC
Location:
Post: #69
RE: Big Ten targeting Texas and Oklahoma?
(12-08-2018 10:29 AM)owl at the moon Wrote:  Fun Fact: Rice gets mentioned in nearly every expansion thread, and 9 or 10 times out of 10 is by fans of other schools.

Speculation:
OK, KS, UT, Rice to B1G.
3/4 AAUs. 3/4 solid MBB, two CFP contenders, and a built-in instate game for UT and an extra trip to the state for those who like to recruit here.

What you mention takes the B10 to 18.

At 18 the dynamics of the conferences would change. For example at 18 would the B10 split 9 and 9? What would Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, and Northwestern think of being in a division with Texas, OU, Kansas, and Rice?


If the B10 added those 4 three divisions of 6 work much better and only Nebraska and either Iowa or Illinois join Texas, OU, Kansas, and Rice.


The problem though is if you allow three divisions, conferences could rest at 15 instead of 18. You could end up with a 15-18 school ACC and SEC. At 18 schools that would have been on the fence for a certain conference, might come off the fence.
12-08-2018 04:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,691
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 55
I Root For: Ohio St, MAC
Location:
Post: #70
RE: Big Ten targeting Texas and Oklahoma?
Multiple conferences would have to be in favor of conference semi-final games and 3 Divison set ups. If the SEC, Big Ten, and ACC could determine an equitable way to divide the Big 12 they could go forward as 15 or 18 member leagues.

ACC takes WVU for 15 full members

The Big Ten and SEC then get to make strategic decisions about whether 15 or 18 better suit their needs.
12-08-2018 04:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ColKurtz Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 160
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 31
I Root For: Virginia Tech
Location: Raleigh
Post: #71
RE: Big Ten targeting Texas and Oklahoma?
(12-08-2018 04:44 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Multiple conferences would have to be in favor of conference semi-final games and 3 Divison set ups. If the SEC, Big Ten, and ACC could determine an equitable way to divide the Big 12 they could go forward as 15 or 18 member leagues.

ACC takes WVU for 15 full members

The Big Ten and SEC then get to make strategic decisions about whether 15 or 18 better suit their needs.

3 divisions is dumb. The whole point of divisions is to have 2 champions who square off against each other. Having 3 divisions would lead to constant bickering of which division got left out of a CCG because of inequitable tiebreaker rules given every team cant play each other. Might as well not have any divisions at all.

The ACC is not expanding as long as the myth of ND full membership hangs out there.
12-08-2018 04:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,354
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 136
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #72
RE: Big Ten targeting Texas and Oklahoma?
If you go 4 pods of 6? You could actually have 11 season games, 12th would be semi-finals, and the championship game would be the winners of the semis of the pod champs.

West:
Nebraska
Oklahoma
Kansas
Texas
Rice
Iowa

Midwest:
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Illinois
Northwestern
Indiana
Purdue

North:
Michigan
Michigan State
Ohio State
Penn. State
Rutgers
Buffalo

South:
UNC
Virginia
Clemson
Georgia Tech
Florida State
Maryland
12-08-2018 05:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OrangeDude Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 534
Joined: Jun 2017
Reputation: 80
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:
Post: #73
RE: Big Ten targeting Texas and Oklahoma?
(12-08-2018 04:54 PM)ColKurtz Wrote:  
(12-08-2018 04:44 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Multiple conferences would have to be in favor of conference semi-final games and 3 Divison set ups. If the SEC, Big Ten, and ACC could determine an equitable way to divide the Big 12 they could go forward as 15 or 18 member leagues.

ACC takes WVU for 15 full members

The Big Ten and SEC then get to make strategic decisions about whether 15 or 18 better suit their needs.

3 divisions is dumb. The whole point of divisions is to have 2 champions who square off against each other. Having 3 divisions would lead to constant bickering of which division got left out of a CCG because of inequitable tiebreaker rules given every team cant play each other. Might as well not have any divisions at all.

The ACC is not expanding as long as the myth of ND full membership hangs out there.

Agreed. No divisions is much better than three divisions.

ACC waiting for ND full is "fool's gold" but if no divisions happens then the ACC could add a #15 and still wait on ND if they desire.

In a "content" driven environment the ACC needs to realize they are not getting as full members the three biggest content drivers talked most about on these boards (outside of any ACC team) - ND, Texas, and OU.

Their strategy between now and 2023-24 or so is to maximize the content it does have to the best of its ability. Having the following match-ups only occurring twice every 14 years will not do:

Clemson-Miami
FSU - VT
Clemson - VT
FSU-GT
Miami - Louisville
VT - Louisville

I use the six schools above since for the past 5 years, these six programs (FSU, Clemson, Miami, VT, Louisville, and GT) have garnered the highest ratings for the ACC. This doesn't preclude other ACC programs from performing well and potentially exceeding the lower two (Louisville, GT) from time to time. That is what a conference needs anyway. But the top 4 will remain the Top 4 year in and year out unless the bottom totally drops out for 4-6 years in a row.

Anyway, no divisions and a 3-5-5 scheduling model could get those six match-ups played twice very four years to help get more content driven games on national TV for the conference.

Cheers,
Neil
12-08-2018 08:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TerryD Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,612
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 519
I Root For: Notre Dame
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #74
RE: Big Ten targeting Texas and Oklahoma?
(12-08-2018 08:44 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  
(12-08-2018 04:54 PM)ColKurtz Wrote:  
(12-08-2018 04:44 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Multiple conferences would have to be in favor of conference semi-final games and 3 Divison set ups. If the SEC, Big Ten, and ACC could determine an equitable way to divide the Big 12 they could go forward as 15 or 18 member leagues.

ACC takes WVU for 15 full members

The Big Ten and SEC then get to make strategic decisions about whether 15 or 18 better suit their needs.

3 divisions is dumb. The whole point of divisions is to have 2 champions who square off against each other. Having 3 divisions would lead to constant bickering of which division got left out of a CCG because of inequitable tiebreaker rules given every team cant play each other. Might as well not have any divisions at all.

The ACC is not expanding as long as the myth of ND full membership hangs out there.

Agreed. No divisions is much better than three divisions.

ACC waiting for ND full is "fool's gold" but if no divisions happens then the ACC could add a #15 and still wait on ND if they desire.

In a "content" driven environment the ACC needs to realize they are not getting as full members the three biggest content drivers talked most about on these boards (outside of any ACC team) - ND, Texas, and OU.

Their strategy between now and 2023-24 or so is to maximize the content it does have to the best of its ability. Having the following match-ups only occurring twice every 14 years will not do:

Clemson-Miami
FSU - VT
Clemson - VT
FSU-GT
Miami - Louisville
VT - Louisville

I use the six schools above since for the past 5 years, these six programs (FSU, Clemson, Miami, VT, Louisville, and GT) have garnered the highest ratings for the ACC. This doesn't preclude other ACC programs from performing well and potentially exceeding the lower two (Louisville, GT) from time to time. That is what a conference needs anyway. But the top 4 will remain the Top 4 year in and year out unless the bottom totally drops out for 4-6 years in a row.

Anyway, no divisions and a 3-5-5 scheduling model could get those six match-ups played twice very four years to help get more content driven games on national TV for the conference.

Cheers,
Neil


That is well put.
(This post was last modified: 12-08-2018 09:26 PM by TerryD.)
12-08-2018 09:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
templefootballfan Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,047
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation: 71
I Root For: TU & BGSU & TEX
Location: CLAYMONT DE
Post: #75
RE: Big Ten targeting Texas and Oklahoma?
ACC needs NC, Va & Syc to step up
12-08-2018 09:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,315
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 128
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #76
RE: Big Ten targeting Texas and Oklahoma?
(12-08-2018 04:54 PM)ColKurtz Wrote:  3 divisions is dumb. The whole point of divisions is to have 2 champions who square off against each other. Having 3 divisions would lead to constant bickering of which division got left out of a CCG because of inequitable tiebreaker rules given every team cant play each other. Might as well not have any divisions at all.
Note that the endless bickering over tie breaker rules will never end, but 3 divisions create 3 blocks, each with a view of how the rules help or hurt them, each trying to recruit one of the other blocks to it's side to win a vote. That gets toxic fer quickly.

3 divisions only works with semis filled in with best 2nd place team. The bickering continues, but with guaranteed spots, it's less toxic.

And 3 of 6 each with 9 conference games isn't bad in that context ... play two of each crossover division each year, every cross division match up happens once every three years.
(This post was last modified: 12-08-2018 09:38 PM by BruceMcF.)
12-08-2018 09:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Cutter of Bish Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,693
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 96
I Root For: the little guy
Location:
Post: #77
RE: Big Ten targeting Texas and Oklahoma?
Even if the LHN folds before the B12 deal is up, the perception of their superiority over other members will live on for years.

I can see Texas trying for a Notre Dame-type arrangement somewhere, parking everything but football, but it won’t be met well by anyone.

I can see a watered down Big 12 without OU, Kansas, and maybe others, but still have Texas because of LHN, and the remnants looking even more like the SWC with others placed there from the AAC allowing some new faces with the majors, albeit the lowest if the P5.
12-09-2018 12:12 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 18,470
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 1298
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #78
RE: Big Ten targeting Texas and Oklahoma?
(12-09-2018 12:12 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Even if the LHN folds before the B12 deal is up, the perception of their superiority over other members will live on for years.

I can see Texas trying for a Notre Dame-type arrangement somewhere, parking everything but football, but it won’t be met well by anyone.

I can see a watered down Big 12 without OU, Kansas, and maybe others, but still have Texas because of LHN, and the remnants looking even more like the SWC with others placed there from the AAC allowing some new faces with the majors, albeit the lowest if the P5.

That's when the alums who are already bellyaching over the home schedule blow their tops. I agree that their tendency might be to try that, but eventually they have to listen to the folks who actually buy their tickets.
12-09-2018 01:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
owl at the moon Offline
Eastern Screech Owl
*

Posts: 4,181
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation: 140
I Root For: Rice:NatlChamps
Location: 20mi from THE STAR
Post: #79
Big Ten targeting Texas and Oklahoma?
3 divisions: why not just borrow a page from the CFP playbook and just put the two highest rated division champs in the title game and tell the third one to pound sand?
Problem: solved
12-09-2018 01:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Cutter of Bish Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,693
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 96
I Root For: the little guy
Location:
Post: #80
RE: Big Ten targeting Texas and Oklahoma?
(12-09-2018 01:05 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-09-2018 12:12 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Even if the LHN folds before the B12 deal is up, the perception of their superiority over other members will live on for years.

I can see Texas trying for a Notre Dame-type arrangement somewhere, parking everything but football, but it won’t be met well by anyone.

I can see a watered down Big 12 without OU, Kansas, and maybe others, but still have Texas because of LHN, and the remnants looking even more like the SWC with others placed there from the AAC allowing some new faces with the majors, albeit the lowest if the P5.

That's when the alums who are already bellyaching over the home schedule blow their tops. I agree that their tendency might be to try that, but eventually they have to listen to the folks who actually buy their tickets.

I suspect Texas-OU will be preserved no matter what, easing the issue enough. I think putting one of the schools from Houston on the yearly schedule as a conference mate helps that, too, catering to alumni and fans on that side of the state.

At this point, with aTm off the slate, I doubt fans will be that content. If keeping both TAMU and OU is what it takes, maybe with Arkansas back on there too, I don’t see certain blocs of fans happy ever again.
12-09-2018 08:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2019 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, © 2002-2019 MyBB Group.