First the table set up:

PAC 12: Experiencing turmoil over poor carriage and lousy earnings.

Big 12: Holding their own in 3rd position overall in the P5. T3 rights and footprint size remain key issues, especially with a lack of qualified expansion targets.

ACC: Doing well but still in need of the ACCN to be a success if they are to close the revenue gap and move ahead of the Big 12.

SEC: Doing fine. Would do even more wonderfully with a couple of home run additions. Strong on performance, strong on recruiting, strong in content as we move into even more of a content driven market.

B1G: Earning the most TV revenue currently but a new deal will be worked for 2023. Competitive on performance. Only a few traditional powers recruit at SEC levels, content is becoming an issue with Michigan State, Nebraska, Michigan, and Wisconsin all down at once.
******************************************************************

Where are their prospects:

PAC 12 has no prospects outside of a few top Big 12 schools which currently own more than PAC schools.

Big 12 only has the PAC for any potential P5 prospects. Their problem is that the security of the PAC has been greater than the perceived security of the Big 12.

ACC has hopes of acquiring all of Notre Dame and then adding either a Cincinnati or West Virginia with them to boost their overall content value.

SEC realistically looks to the west to the top 3 programs Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas.

Big 10 can eye future potential in a disturbed PAC but only has one place to go to bolster their glaring content weakness, Texas and Oklahoma. ACC additions can't add where they need it most in football and PAC additions might have to come in numbers that would diminish the return. And both are long shots right now.

*******************************************************************

Strategies for the future:

PAC: Make another strong play for perhaps as many as 6 Big 12 schools: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa State, K State, Texas Tech. I don't see them taking OSU. Try to sell a piece of the PACN to either or both of FOX and/or ESPN to get carriage and generate a cash boost by adding content and markets in the CTZ.

Big 12: Hold on and hope that either the ACCN flops and schools might become available that could add markets and content, or hope that the PAC muddles lead to implosion and try to build a viable conference out of the remnants and key schools of the PAC.

SEC: Sit tight and hope that two of either Texas, Oklahoma, or Kansas want a new conference home when the GOR is up. The SEC is almost certainly to gain and hold onto the top spot for TV revenue if they get either of Texas or Oklahoma and a second school like Kansas that shores up an SEC weakness, hoops content. If Texas and Oklahoma fell into the SEC lap that would set things in stone for the SEC moving forward.

ACC: Sit tight and hope for a Big 12 implosion that leads to a champs only format that would drive Notre Dame all in and allow them to pick up football and hoops content with West Virginia.

Big 10: It's a complicated world for the Big 10. They not only have things that need to happen, but they also have things they have to hope never happen.

What they need to happen are these things:
1. Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas desire to leave a landlocked Big 12 with no real prospects for expansion and are looking for larger revenue.
2. The PAC needs to right its ship without feeling the need to expand.
3. The SEC has to stay passive in the next round of realignment.

What they can't have happen:
1. Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas move to either the SEC or PAC. In the SEC they lock the Big 10 into an inferior position in revenue and deny them Southern recruiting states. And that locks their content value solidly into a distant 2nd place.
2. The absolutely can't afford to have the Big 12 dissolve following the GOR and have the PAC whose GOR is up the next year do the same and reform a new conference consisting of these two divisions:
Arizona, Arizona State, California, Cal Los Angeles, Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, Utah, Washington

Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech to which it is highly likely that either Notre Dame, or Nebraska might desire a slot.

What that kind of move means is that the Texas and Oklahoma are not only unavailable to bolster the content revenue of the Big 10, but that by allying with the best PAC schools they deny the Big 10 any access of the second most valuable product they might one day potentially have a shot at getting.

That move by the key Big 12 and PAC schools creates a conference with sizable markets, solid content, and likely a competitive payout, especially if for their 9th school in the East they land a Notre Dame or Nebraska instead of holding onto T.C.U..

This kind of move also forces the Big 10 to only look East for product which puts the ACC dead in their sights. And should Notre Dame faced with having to go all in make a move to the newly formed conference where they have Stanford, U.S.C., Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas to contend with for a better payout than a vulnerable ACC could offer, and without having to entertain the anathema of the Big 10, it leaves Virginia, North Carolina, Duke and Georgia Tech as the menu for the Big 10 and all of those combined address nothing of their needs. Especially if the SEC uses the opportunity to snag F.S.U., Clemson, N.C. State and Virginia Tech which not only adds markets but three of them add content value too.

*******************************************************************

Now to Fluguar's Big 10 man tweet and what it really represents:

It represents an intense desire to sell a scenario, ever how unlikely, as a fete accompli in order to yield the perception that a weakened Big 10 has everything before them.

They can't afford for people to believe in the possibility of a PAC/Big 12 merger or the formation of a new and daunting conference comprised of their strongest members.

They can't afford to have the SEC pick off Oklahoma or Texas, or God forbid get aggressive and take the Texa-homa four.

They must have the PAC remain without options and keep Texas and Oklahoma in play or their days as claiming to be to top conference are over for good as they are locked out of content, locked out of recruiting grounds they desperately need, and as a new more threatening conference emerges to challenge the SEC.

And they can't be forced to only grow with basketball schools from the AAU ACC schools.

So their strategy is to talk up Texas and Oklahoma. Play down UT and OU's ability to form anything new with the PAC, discourage them from the SEC, and pray like hell that things break their way. Fluguar's tweet is designed to put the talk out there about the Big 10. Keep talk off of other options while their alleged message board plants on the Oklahoma and now Texas sites start to play up and sell the idea of Texas and Oklahoma to the Big 10.

They also know if they landed Texas and Oklahoma they might be able to entice N.D. on money alone to join those two with Kansas for their big play for dominance of revenue.

*******************************************************************

My hopes here:

For the betterment of the game I would like to see the Big 12 and PAC dissolve and form that new entity.

I would love to see N.D. join that group and for the SEC to expand more naturally out of the ACC after the Big 10 and the revenue deficit forces some of the ACC bell cows out.

I would love to see 3 conferences of 18 emerge and if a 4th conference forms because of it consisting of the 18 best remaining schools then fine. If not, then fine.

But I do think the Big 10 is pressing because they fear the loss of Texas and Oklahoma and especially fear any possible arrangement they might make with the PAC schools. I believe this is why on those other boards the Big 10 posters go hardest after the posters seeking a PAC/Big12 cooperative move.

We'll see.

But if I were the Big 12 right now I would be talking with the PAC's top schools and with N.D. and I would be dragging my feet on committing to anything until the word was in on the ACCN and all of those can still happen before 2024.

If the Big 12 does break apart I'd love to see the SEC go hard after two of Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas and if all three are interested to pick up WVU or the most required little brother to go along with them.

I assume the point of sending out people into social media and various forums is to drum up support among the respective fan bases? And in so doing, to potentially affect how those fans might interact with their respective administrations?

(12-09-2018 10:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  First the table set up:

PAC 12: Experiencing turmoil over poor carriage and lousy earnings.

Big 12: Holding their own in 3rd position overall in the P5. T3 rights and footprint size remain key issues, especially with a lack of qualified expansion targets.

ACC: Doing well but still in need of the ACCN to be a success if they are to close the revenue gap and move ahead of the Big 12.

SEC: Doing fine. Would do even more wonderfully with a couple of home run additions. Strong on performance, strong on recruiting, strong in content as we move into even more of a content driven market.

B1G: Earning the most TV revenue currently but a new deal will be worked for 2023. Competitive on performance. Only a few traditional powers recruit at SEC levels, content is becoming an issue with Michigan State, Nebraska, Michigan, and Wisconsin all down at once.
******************************************************************

Where are their prospects:

PAC 12 has no prospects outside of a few top Big 12 schools which currently own more than PAC schools.

Big 12 only has the PAC for any potential P5 prospects. Their problem is that the security of the PAC has been greater than the perceived security of the Big 12.

ACC has hopes of acquiring all of Notre Dame and then adding either a Cincinnati or West Virginia with them to boost their overall content value.

SEC realistically looks to the west to the top 3 programs Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas.

Big 10 can eye future potential in a disturbed PAC but only has one place to go to bolster their glaring content weakness, Texas and Oklahoma. ACC additions can't add where they need it most in football and PAC additions might have to come in numbers that would diminish the return. And both are long shots right now.

*******************************************************************

Strategies for the future:

PAC: Make another strong play for perhaps as many as 6 Big 12 schools: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa State, K State, Texas Tech. I don't see them taking OSU. Try to sell a piece of the PACN to either or both of FOX and/or ESPN to get carriage and generate a cash boost by adding content and markets in the CTZ.

Big 12: Hold on and hope that either the ACCN flops and schools might become available that could add markets and content, or hope that the PAC muddles lead to implosion and try to build a viable conference out of the remnants and key schools of the PAC.

SEC: Sit tight and hope that two of either Texas, Oklahoma, or Kansas want a new conference home when the GOR is up. The SEC is almost certainly to gain and hold onto the top spot for TV revenue if they get either of Texas or Oklahoma and a second school like Kansas that shores up an SEC weakness, hoops content. If Texas and Oklahoma fell into the SEC lap that would set things in stone for the SEC moving forward.

ACC: Sit tight and hope for a Big 12 implosion that leads to a champs only format that would drive Notre Dame all in and allow them to pick up football and hoops content with West Virginia.

Big 10: It's a complicated world for the Big 10. They not only have things that need to happen, but they also have things they have to hope never happen.

What they need to happen are these things:
1. Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas desire to leave a landlocked Big 12 with no real prospects for expansion and are looking for larger revenue.
2. The PAC needs to right its ship without feeling the need to expand.
3. The SEC has to stay passive in the next round of realignment.

What they can't have happen:
1. Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas move to either the SEC or PAC. In the SEC they lock the Big 10 into an inferior position in revenue and deny them Southern recruiting states. And that locks their content value solidly into a distant 2nd place.
2. The absolutely can't afford to have the Big 12 dissolve following the GOR and have the PAC whose GOR is up the next year do the same and reform a new conference consisting of these two divisions:
Arizona, Arizona State, California, Cal Los Angeles, Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, Utah, Washington

Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech to which it is highly likely that either Notre Dame, or Nebraska might desire a slot.

What that kind of move means is that the Texas and Oklahoma are not only unavailable to bolster the content revenue of the Big 10, but that by allying with the best PAC schools they deny the Big 10 any access of the second most valuable product they might one day potentially have a shot at getting.

That move by the key Big 12 and PAC schools creates a conference with sizable markets, solid content, and likely a competitive payout, especially if for their 9th school in the East they land a Notre Dame or Nebraska instead of holding onto T.C.U..

This kind of move also forces the Big 10 to only look East for product which puts the ACC dead in their sights. And should Notre Dame faced with having to go all in make a move to the newly formed conference where they have Stanford, U.S.C., Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas to contend with for a better payout than a vulnerable ACC could offer, and without having to entertain the anathema of the Big 10, it leaves Virginia, North Carolina, Duke and Georgia Tech as the menu for the Big 10 and all of those combined address nothing of their needs. Especially if the SEC uses the opportunity to snag F.S.U., Clemson, N.C. State and Virginia Tech which not only adds markets but three of them add content value too.

*******************************************************************

Now to Fluguar's Big 10 man tweet and what it really represents:

It represents an intense desire to sell a scenario, ever how unlikely, as a fete accompli in order to yield the perception that a weakened Big 10 has everything before them.

They can't afford for people to believe in the possibility of a PAC/Big 12 merger or the formation of a new and daunting conference comprised of their strongest members.

They can't afford to have the SEC pick off Oklahoma or Texas, or God forbid get aggressive and take the Texa-homa four.

They must have the PAC remain without options and keep Texas and Oklahoma in play or their days as claiming to be to top conference are over for good as they are locked out of content, locked out of recruiting grounds they desperately need, and as a new more threatening conference emerges to challenge the SEC.

And they can't be forced to only grow with basketball schools from the AAU ACC schools.

So their strategy is to talk up Texas and Oklahoma. Play down UT and OU's ability to form anything new with the PAC, discourage them from the SEC, and pray like hell that things break their way. Fluguar's tweet is designed to put the talk out there about the Big 10. Keep talk off of other options while their alleged message board plants on the Oklahoma and now Texas sites start to play up and sell the idea of Texas and Oklahoma to the Big 10.

They also know if they landed Texas and Oklahoma they might be able to entice N.D. on money alone to join those two with Kansas for their big play for dominance of revenue.

*******************************************************************

My hopes here:

For the betterment of the game I would like to see the Big 12 and PAC dissolve and form that new entity.

I would love to see N.D. join that group and for the SEC to expand more naturally out of the ACC after the Big 10 and the revenue deficit forces some of the ACC bell cows out.

I would love to see 3 conferences of 18 emerge and if a 4th conference forms because of it consisting of the 18 best remaining schools then fine. If not, then fine.

But I do think the Big 10 is pressing because they fear the loss of Texas and Oklahoma and especially fear any possible arrangement they might make with the PAC schools. I believe this is why on those other boards the Big 10 posters go hardest after the posters seeking a PAC/Big12 cooperative move.

We'll see.

But if I were the Big 12 right now I would be talking with the PAC's top schools and with N.D. and I would be dragging my feet on committing to anything until the word was in on the ACCN and all of those can still happen before 2024.

If the Big 12 does break apart I'd love to see the SEC go hard after two of Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas and if all three are interested to pick up WVU or the most required little brother to go along with them.

Any chance of an ACC/PAC-12 "Coastal conference" merger? In the "you be the commissioner" thread, the ACC's best prospects were taking UCLA/USC, Washington, etc and having a conference that is even more of a basketball stud: UNC, Duke, Virginia, UCLA, Kansas all under one roof. Again, I know basketball doesn't move the meter, but a conference like that would be solid in football too.

That would leave the Big 12 to decide if schools like Washington S and Oregon S were worth it or have to expand from the G5.

The next decade should be pretty fun. It's been quiet around here.

(12-10-2018 08:44 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I assume the point of sending out people into social media and various forums is to drum up support among the respective fan bases? And in so doing, to potentially affect how those fans might interact with their respective administrations?

The Big 10 was alleged to have first implemented this process on the Maryland boards in 2010. There they allegedly posed as disgruntled Maryland fans that talked about the virtues of the Big 10. On the Oklahoma sites, and now beginning on some of the Texas boards they are beginning to do the same kinds of things. Only now the tactics seem to be to silence viewpoints that they don't like, all while posing as Oklahoma fans for instance. In some cases they may have locals who are OU alums but may have gotten a post graduate degree in the Big 10, or have worked for the Big 10.

Anyway it's cut it's a disgusting practice, but in the last election politics were conducted the same way. The concept is to create an impression that an unsuspecting public may believe and build upon. In the election, and since, it comes in the form of attacks upon personality of the target.

While doing non profit work I was schooled in these tactics which are right out of Rules for Radicals. I was schooled because those I worked for mistook my actions on behalf of some farmers I knew who were being unjustly treated by a group who wanted their land for a political deal. They assumed that I was making the effort because of political leanings so they shipped me off for the training. Frankly I was appalled by the up front dishonesty of the organizers conducting the training.

But, I think I was there for a purpose. Once trained it's pretty easy to spot what's going on and the last election was the most dishonest one I've ever witnessed.

When I see what appears to me to be the same tactics being used, only in cyber space it is quite concerning since our younger folks live in this space.

In the Maryland case the Big 10 had a president at Maryland sympathetic to the move so the alleged posting cadre had no formal criticism except by legitimate board members.

In the case of Oklahoma there is what seems to be more direct attempts to sell a concept rather than to merely provide political cover and conduct a PR blitz. I'll be interested to observe what happens now on Texas sites.

We've had attempts here IMO, but nothing could be well targeted because this board is a melting pot.

But after the adds of Maryland and Rutgers quickly proved to be unhelpful for a market changing from cable footprint to content, the Big 10 had to start looking for brands that would approximate their academic preferences, have established top athletic credentials, and hopefully put them into a recruit rich area. Texas does all of that. Oklahoma does not. But Oklahoma does enough of it that with Texas they lock the Big 10 into a top earning spot. Just one of them in SEC hands locks us into that spot. So I'm pretty sure that since there aren't schools with the same impact in the PAC or ACC which isn't even as strong as some PAC schools in branding, that they quickly realized that this duo was the whole ballgame for them.

The Kansas / Oklahoma talk was part of the same as it was believed that to get Texas, or even have a shot at them they needed those two for a lure.

I don't find any of that thinking to be disturbing. It's just business and straight forward. But the use of plants to create false perceptions, and false narratives, in order to manipulate the beliefs of fans would be very disturbing if indeed that is what is going on, but it sure looks like it and is believed to be happening by more a number of posters on that board besides me.

(12-10-2018 10:38 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(12-09-2018 10:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  First the table set up:

PAC 12: Experiencing turmoil over poor carriage and lousy earnings.

Big 12: Holding their own in 3rd position overall in the P5. T3 rights and footprint size remain key issues, especially with a lack of qualified expansion targets.

ACC: Doing well but still in need of the ACCN to be a success if they are to close the revenue gap and move ahead of the Big 12.

SEC: Doing fine. Would do even more wonderfully with a couple of home run additions. Strong on performance, strong on recruiting, strong in content as we move into even more of a content driven market.

B1G: Earning the most TV revenue currently but a new deal will be worked for 2023. Competitive on performance. Only a few traditional powers recruit at SEC levels, content is becoming an issue with Michigan State, Nebraska, Michigan, and Wisconsin all down at once.
******************************************************************

Where are their prospects:

PAC 12 has no prospects outside of a few top Big 12 schools which currently own more than PAC schools.

Big 12 only has the PAC for any potential P5 prospects. Their problem is that the security of the PAC has been greater than the perceived security of the Big 12.

ACC has hopes of acquiring all of Notre Dame and then adding either a Cincinnati or West Virginia with them to boost their overall content value.

SEC realistically looks to the west to the top 3 programs Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas.

Big 10 can eye future potential in a disturbed PAC but only has one place to go to bolster their glaring content weakness, Texas and Oklahoma. ACC additions can't add where they need it most in football and PAC additions might have to come in numbers that would diminish the return. And both are long shots right now.

*******************************************************************

Strategies for the future:

PAC: Make another strong play for perhaps as many as 6 Big 12 schools: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa State, K State, Texas Tech. I don't see them taking OSU. Try to sell a piece of the PACN to either or both of FOX and/or ESPN to get carriage and generate a cash boost by adding content and markets in the CTZ.

Big 12: Hold on and hope that either the ACCN flops and schools might become available that could add markets and content, or hope that the PAC muddles lead to implosion and try to build a viable conference out of the remnants and key schools of the PAC.

SEC: Sit tight and hope that two of either Texas, Oklahoma, or Kansas want a new conference home when the GOR is up. The SEC is almost certainly to gain and hold onto the top spot for TV revenue if they get either of Texas or Oklahoma and a second school like Kansas that shores up an SEC weakness, hoops content. If Texas and Oklahoma fell into the SEC lap that would set things in stone for the SEC moving forward.

ACC: Sit tight and hope for a Big 12 implosion that leads to a champs only format that would drive Notre Dame all in and allow them to pick up football and hoops content with West Virginia.

Big 10: It's a complicated world for the Big 10. They not only have things that need to happen, but they also have things they have to hope never happen.

What they need to happen are these things:
1. Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas desire to leave a landlocked Big 12 with no real prospects for expansion and are looking for larger revenue.
2. The PAC needs to right its ship without feeling the need to expand.
3. The SEC has to stay passive in the next round of realignment.

What they can't have happen:
1. Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas move to either the SEC or PAC. In the SEC they lock the Big 10 into an inferior position in revenue and deny them Southern recruiting states. And that locks their content value solidly into a distant 2nd place.
2. The absolutely can't afford to have the Big 12 dissolve following the GOR and have the PAC whose GOR is up the next year do the same and reform a new conference consisting of these two divisions:
Arizona, Arizona State, California, Cal Los Angeles, Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, Utah, Washington

Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech to which it is highly likely that either Notre Dame, or Nebraska might desire a slot.

What that kind of move means is that the Texas and Oklahoma are not only unavailable to bolster the content revenue of the Big 10, but that by allying with the best PAC schools they deny the Big 10 any access of the second most valuable product they might one day potentially have a shot at getting.

That move by the key Big 12 and PAC schools creates a conference with sizable markets, solid content, and likely a competitive payout, especially if for their 9th school in the East they land a Notre Dame or Nebraska instead of holding onto T.C.U..

This kind of move also forces the Big 10 to only look East for product which puts the ACC dead in their sights. And should Notre Dame faced with having to go all in make a move to the newly formed conference where they have Stanford, U.S.C., Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas to contend with for a better payout than a vulnerable ACC could offer, and without having to entertain the anathema of the Big 10, it leaves Virginia, North Carolina, Duke and Georgia Tech as the menu for the Big 10 and all of those combined address nothing of their needs. Especially if the SEC uses the opportunity to snag F.S.U., Clemson, N.C. State and Virginia Tech which not only adds markets but three of them add content value too.

*******************************************************************

Now to Fluguar's Big 10 man tweet and what it really represents:

It represents an intense desire to sell a scenario, ever how unlikely, as a fete accompli in order to yield the perception that a weakened Big 10 has everything before them.

They can't afford for people to believe in the possibility of a PAC/Big 12 merger or the formation of a new and daunting conference comprised of their strongest members.

They can't afford to have the SEC pick off Oklahoma or Texas, or God forbid get aggressive and take the Texa-homa four.

They must have the PAC remain without options and keep Texas and Oklahoma in play or their days as claiming to be to top conference are over for good as they are locked out of content, locked out of recruiting grounds they desperately need, and as a new more threatening conference emerges to challenge the SEC.

And they can't be forced to only grow with basketball schools from the AAU ACC schools.

So their strategy is to talk up Texas and Oklahoma. Play down UT and OU's ability to form anything new with the PAC, discourage them from the SEC, and pray like hell that things break their way. Fluguar's tweet is designed to put the talk out there about the Big 10. Keep talk off of other options while their alleged message board plants on the Oklahoma and now Texas sites start to play up and sell the idea of Texas and Oklahoma to the Big 10.

They also know if they landed Texas and Oklahoma they might be able to entice N.D. on money alone to join those two with Kansas for their big play for dominance of revenue.

*******************************************************************

My hopes here:

For the betterment of the game I would like to see the Big 12 and PAC dissolve and form that new entity.

I would love to see N.D. join that group and for the SEC to expand more naturally out of the ACC after the Big 10 and the revenue deficit forces some of the ACC bell cows out.

I would love to see 3 conferences of 18 emerge and if a 4th conference forms because of it consisting of the 18 best remaining schools then fine. If not, then fine.

But I do think the Big 10 is pressing because they fear the loss of Texas and Oklahoma and especially fear any possible arrangement they might make with the PAC schools. I believe this is why on those other boards the Big 10 posters go hardest after the posters seeking a PAC/Big12 cooperative move.

We'll see.

But if I were the Big 12 right now I would be talking with the PAC's top schools and with N.D. and I would be dragging my feet on committing to anything until the word was in on the ACCN and all of those can still happen before 2024.

If the Big 12 does break apart I'd love to see the SEC go hard after two of Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas and if all three are interested to pick up WVU or the most required little brother to go along with them.

Any chance of an ACC/PAC-12 "Coastal conference" merger? In the "you be the commissioner" thread, the ACC's best prospects were taking UCLA/USC, Washington, etc and having a conference that is even more of a basketball stud: UNC, Duke, Virginia, UCLA, Kansas all under one roof. Again, I know basketball doesn't move the meter, but a conference like that would be solid in football too.

That would leave the Big 12 to decide if schools like Washington S and Oregon S were worth it or have to expand from the G5.

I don't think so. The cost of minor sports travel alone would render it moot. And if it is for football alone, then a scheduling alliance would make more sense and be much less costly. But even for football anything more than that would be too costly for even football purposes, and too costly for fans. Conferences will likely grow, but by taking in just more states on their boundary. Almost all of their scheduling models seek regional appeal.

(12-10-2018 10:38 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  The next decade should be pretty fun. It's been quiet around here.

The next decade may be quite intriguing. But the one after that has even greater potential for upheaval. The PAC and Big 12 situations are either going to change this decade or become more critical, unless they work together and so far there's nothing more to that concept than potential.

What happens with the ACCN in the 2020's will be key as to the potential major shift they could undergo by the mid 2030's.

And the Alston case could change it all.

(12-09-2018 10:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  First the table set up:

PAC 12: Experiencing turmoil over poor carriage and lousy earnings.

Big 12: Holding their own in 3rd position overall in the P5. T3 rights and footprint size remain key issues, especially with a lack of qualified expansion targets.

ACC: Doing well but still in need of the ACCN to be a success if they are to close the revenue gap and move ahead of the Big 12.

SEC: Doing fine. Would do even more wonderfully with a couple of home run additions. Strong on performance, strong on recruiting, strong in content as we move into even more of a content driven market.

B1G: Earning the most TV revenue currently but a new deal will be worked for 2023. Competitive on performance. Only a few traditional powers recruit at SEC levels, content is becoming an issue with Michigan State, Nebraska, Michigan, and Wisconsin all down at once.
******************************************************************

Where are their prospects:

PAC 12 has no prospects outside of a few top Big 12 schools which currently own more than PAC schools.

Big 12 only has the PAC for any potential P5 prospects. Their problem is that the security of the PAC has been greater than the perceived security of the Big 12.

ACC has hopes of acquiring all of Notre Dame and then adding either a Cincinnati or West Virginia with them to boost their overall content value.

SEC realistically looks to the west to the top 3 programs Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas.

Big 10 can eye future potential in a disturbed PAC but only has one place to go to bolster their glaring content weakness, Texas and Oklahoma. ACC additions can't add where they need it most in football and PAC additions might have to come in numbers that would diminish the return. And both are long shots right now.

*******************************************************************

Strategies for the future:

PAC: Make another strong play for perhaps as many as 6 Big 12 schools: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa State, K State, Texas Tech. I don't see them taking OSU. Try to sell a piece of the PACN to either or both of FOX and/or ESPN to get carriage and generate a cash boost by adding content and markets in the CTZ.

Big 12: Hold on and hope that either the ACCN flops and schools might become available that could add markets and content, or hope that the PAC muddles lead to implosion and try to build a viable conference out of the remnants and key schools of the PAC.

SEC: Sit tight and hope that two of either Texas, Oklahoma, or Kansas want a new conference home when the GOR is up. The SEC is almost certainly to gain and hold onto the top spot for TV revenue if they get either of Texas or Oklahoma and a second school like Kansas that shores up an SEC weakness, hoops content. If Texas and Oklahoma fell into the SEC lap that would set things in stone for the SEC moving forward.

ACC: Sit tight and hope for a Big 12 implosion that leads to a champs only format that would drive Notre Dame all in and allow them to pick up football and hoops content with West Virginia.

Big 10: It's a complicated world for the Big 10. They not only have things that need to happen, but they also have things they have to hope never happen.

What they need to happen are these things:
1. Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas desire to leave a landlocked Big 12 with no real prospects for expansion and are looking for larger revenue.
2. The PAC needs to right its ship without feeling the need to expand.
3. The SEC has to stay passive in the next round of realignment.

What they can't have happen:
1. Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas move to either the SEC or PAC. In the SEC they lock the Big 10 into an inferior position in revenue and deny them Southern recruiting states. And that locks their content value solidly into a distant 2nd place.
2. The absolutely can't afford to have the Big 12 dissolve following the GOR and have the PAC whose GOR is up the next year do the same and reform a new conference consisting of these two divisions:
Arizona, Arizona State, California, Cal Los Angeles, Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, Utah, Washington

Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech to which it is highly likely that either Notre Dame, or Nebraska might desire a slot.

What that kind of move means is that the Texas and Oklahoma are not only unavailable to bolster the content revenue of the Big 10, but that by allying with the best PAC schools they deny the Big 10 any access of the second most valuable product they might one day potentially have a shot at getting.

That move by the key Big 12 and PAC schools creates a conference with sizable markets, solid content, and likely a competitive payout, especially if for their 9th school in the East they land a Notre Dame or Nebraska instead of holding onto T.C.U..

This kind of move also forces the Big 10 to only look East for product which puts the ACC dead in their sights. And should Notre Dame faced with having to go all in make a move to the newly formed conference where they have Stanford, U.S.C., Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas to contend with for a better payout than a vulnerable ACC could offer, and without having to entertain the anathema of the Big 10, it leaves Virginia, North Carolina, Duke and Georgia Tech as the menu for the Big 10 and all of those combined address nothing of their needs. Especially if the SEC uses the opportunity to snag F.S.U., Clemson, N.C. State and Virginia Tech which not only adds markets but three of them add content value too.

*******************************************************************

Now to Fluguar's Big 10 man tweet and what it really represents:

It represents an intense desire to sell a scenario, ever how unlikely, as a fete accompli in order to yield the perception that a weakened Big 10 has everything before them.

They can't afford for people to believe in the possibility of a PAC/Big 12 merger or the formation of a new and daunting conference comprised of their strongest members.

They can't afford to have the SEC pick off Oklahoma or Texas, or God forbid get aggressive and take the Texa-homa four.

They must have the PAC remain without options and keep Texas and Oklahoma in play or their days as claiming to be to top conference are over for good as they are locked out of content, locked out of recruiting grounds they desperately need, and as a new more threatening conference emerges to challenge the SEC.

And they can't be forced to only grow with basketball schools from the AAU ACC schools.

So their strategy is to talk up Texas and Oklahoma. Play down UT and OU's ability to form anything new with the PAC, discourage them from the SEC, and pray like hell that things break their way. Fluguar's tweet is designed to put the talk out there about the Big 10. Keep talk off of other options while their alleged message board plants on the Oklahoma and now Texas sites start to play up and sell the idea of Texas and Oklahoma to the Big 10.

They also know if they landed Texas and Oklahoma they might be able to entice N.D. on money alone to join those two with Kansas for their big play for dominance of revenue.

*******************************************************************

My hopes here:

For the betterment of the game I would like to see the Big 12 and PAC dissolve and form that new entity.

I would love to see N.D. join that group and for the SEC to expand more naturally out of the ACC after the Big 10 and the revenue deficit forces some of the ACC bell cows out.

I would love to see 3 conferences of 18 emerge and if a 4th conference forms because of it consisting of the 18 best remaining schools then fine. If not, then fine.

But I do think the Big 10 is pressing because they fear the loss of Texas and Oklahoma and especially fear any possible arrangement they might make with the PAC schools. I believe this is why on those other boards the Big 10 posters go hardest after the posters seeking a PAC/Big12 cooperative move.

We'll see.

But if I were the Big 12 right now I would be talking with the PAC's top schools and with N.D. and I would be dragging my feet on committing to anything until the word was in on the ACCN and all of those can still happen before 2024.

If the Big 12 does break apart I'd love to see the SEC go hard after two of Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas and if all three are interested to pick up WVU or the most required little brother to go along with them.

I don't think either the SEC or B1G tv ratings are hurting or are in danger of hurting in the future. I think last year the SEC drew better than the B1G but the B1G seemed to out perform the SEC tv ratings wise this year during the season(The SEC championship meant a lot more so I don't think that's comparable this year). I also think to get a true comparison, you would have to in the top ranked B1G game of the week not have other B1G games to compete against, like the SEC has carved out in the 2:30 slot on CBS.

I was curious also why do you think the PAC would want KSU over OSU are the academics that much better? I think they may rethink that though with Snyder gone it wouldn't surprise me if KSU slides down to the bottom of the league. OSU produces in a lot of games that KSU can't.

(12-10-2018 02:21 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(12-09-2018 10:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  First the table set up:

PAC 12: Experiencing turmoil over poor carriage and lousy earnings.

Big 12: Holding their own in 3rd position overall in the P5. T3 rights and footprint size remain key issues, especially with a lack of qualified expansion targets.

ACC: Doing well but still in need of the ACCN to be a success if they are to close the revenue gap and move ahead of the Big 12.

SEC: Doing fine. Would do even more wonderfully with a couple of home run additions. Strong on performance, strong on recruiting, strong in content as we move into even more of a content driven market.

B1G: Earning the most TV revenue currently but a new deal will be worked for 2023. Competitive on performance. Only a few traditional powers recruit at SEC levels, content is becoming an issue with Michigan State, Nebraska, Michigan, and Wisconsin all down at once.
******************************************************************

Where are their prospects:

PAC 12 has no prospects outside of a few top Big 12 schools which currently own more than PAC schools.

Big 12 only has the PAC for any potential P5 prospects. Their problem is that the security of the PAC has been greater than the perceived security of the Big 12.

ACC has hopes of acquiring all of Notre Dame and then adding either a Cincinnati or West Virginia with them to boost their overall content value.

SEC realistically looks to the west to the top 3 programs Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas.

Big 10 can eye future potential in a disturbed PAC but only has one place to go to bolster their glaring content weakness, Texas and Oklahoma. ACC additions can't add where they need it most in football and PAC additions might have to come in numbers that would diminish the return. And both are long shots right now.

*******************************************************************

Strategies for the future:

PAC: Make another strong play for perhaps as many as 6 Big 12 schools: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa State, K State, Texas Tech. I don't see them taking OSU. Try to sell a piece of the PACN to either or both of FOX and/or ESPN to get carriage and generate a cash boost by adding content and markets in the CTZ.

Big 12: Hold on and hope that either the ACCN flops and schools might become available that could add markets and content, or hope that the PAC muddles lead to implosion and try to build a viable conference out of the remnants and key schools of the PAC.

SEC: Sit tight and hope that two of either Texas, Oklahoma, or Kansas want a new conference home when the GOR is up. The SEC is almost certainly to gain and hold onto the top spot for TV revenue if they get either of Texas or Oklahoma and a second school like Kansas that shores up an SEC weakness, hoops content. If Texas and Oklahoma fell into the SEC lap that would set things in stone for the SEC moving forward.

ACC: Sit tight and hope for a Big 12 implosion that leads to a champs only format that would drive Notre Dame all in and allow them to pick up football and hoops content with West Virginia.

Big 10: It's a complicated world for the Big 10. They not only have things that need to happen, but they also have things they have to hope never happen.

What they need to happen are these things:
1. Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas desire to leave a landlocked Big 12 with no real prospects for expansion and are looking for larger revenue.
2. The PAC needs to right its ship without feeling the need to expand.
3. The SEC has to stay passive in the next round of realignment.

What they can't have happen:
1. Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas move to either the SEC or PAC. In the SEC they lock the Big 10 into an inferior position in revenue and deny them Southern recruiting states. And that locks their content value solidly into a distant 2nd place.
2. The absolutely can't afford to have the Big 12 dissolve following the GOR and have the PAC whose GOR is up the next year do the same and reform a new conference consisting of these two divisions:
Arizona, Arizona State, California, Cal Los Angeles, Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, Utah, Washington

Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech to which it is highly likely that either Notre Dame, or Nebraska might desire a slot.

What that kind of move means is that the Texas and Oklahoma are not only unavailable to bolster the content revenue of the Big 10, but that by allying with the best PAC schools they deny the Big 10 any access of the second most valuable product they might one day potentially have a shot at getting.

That move by the key Big 12 and PAC schools creates a conference with sizable markets, solid content, and likely a competitive payout, especially if for their 9th school in the East they land a Notre Dame or Nebraska instead of holding onto T.C.U..

This kind of move also forces the Big 10 to only look East for product which puts the ACC dead in their sights. And should Notre Dame faced with having to go all in make a move to the newly formed conference where they have Stanford, U.S.C., Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas to contend with for a better payout than a vulnerable ACC could offer, and without having to entertain the anathema of the Big 10, it leaves Virginia, North Carolina, Duke and Georgia Tech as the menu for the Big 10 and all of those combined address nothing of their needs. Especially if the SEC uses the opportunity to snag F.S.U., Clemson, N.C. State and Virginia Tech which not only adds markets but three of them add content value too.

*******************************************************************

Now to Fluguar's Big 10 man tweet and what it really represents:

It represents an intense desire to sell a scenario, ever how unlikely, as a fete accompli in order to yield the perception that a weakened Big 10 has everything before them.

They can't afford for people to believe in the possibility of a PAC/Big 12 merger or the formation of a new and daunting conference comprised of their strongest members.

They can't afford to have the SEC pick off Oklahoma or Texas, or God forbid get aggressive and take the Texa-homa four.

They must have the PAC remain without options and keep Texas and Oklahoma in play or their days as claiming to be to top conference are over for good as they are locked out of content, locked out of recruiting grounds they desperately need, and as a new more threatening conference emerges to challenge the SEC.

And they can't be forced to only grow with basketball schools from the AAU ACC schools.

So their strategy is to talk up Texas and Oklahoma. Play down UT and OU's ability to form anything new with the PAC, discourage them from the SEC, and pray like hell that things break their way. Fluguar's tweet is designed to put the talk out there about the Big 10. Keep talk off of other options while their alleged message board plants on the Oklahoma and now Texas sites start to play up and sell the idea of Texas and Oklahoma to the Big 10.

They also know if they landed Texas and Oklahoma they might be able to entice N.D. on money alone to join those two with Kansas for their big play for dominance of revenue.

*******************************************************************

My hopes here:

For the betterment of the game I would like to see the Big 12 and PAC dissolve and form that new entity.

I would love to see N.D. join that group and for the SEC to expand more naturally out of the ACC after the Big 10 and the revenue deficit forces some of the ACC bell cows out.

I would love to see 3 conferences of 18 emerge and if a 4th conference forms because of it consisting of the 18 best remaining schools then fine. If not, then fine.

But I do think the Big 10 is pressing because they fear the loss of Texas and Oklahoma and especially fear any possible arrangement they might make with the PAC schools. I believe this is why on those other boards the Big 10 posters go hardest after the posters seeking a PAC/Big12 cooperative move.

We'll see.

But if I were the Big 12 right now I would be talking with the PAC's top schools and with N.D. and I would be dragging my feet on committing to anything until the word was in on the ACCN and all of those can still happen before 2024.

If the Big 12 does break apart I'd love to see the SEC go hard after two of Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas and if all three are interested to pick up WVU or the most required little brother to go along with them.

I don't think either the SEC or B1G tv ratings are hurting or are in danger of hurting in the future. I think last year the SEC drew better than the B1G but the B1G seemed to out perform the SEC tv ratings wise this year during the season(The SEC championship meant a lot more so I don't think that's comparable this year). I also think to get a true comparison, you would have to in the top ranked B1G game of the week not have other B1G games to compete against, like the SEC has carved out in the 2:30 slot on CBS.

I was curious also why do you think the PAC would want KSU over OSU are the academics that much better? I think they may rethink that though with Snyder gone it wouldn't surprise me if KSU slides down to the bottom of the league. OSU produces in a lot of games that KSU can't.

OSU has been the deal breaker in the past and their academic standing is the issue. KState might not be a shoe in but they would likely be more acceptable to the PAC if a contingent was taken. I suppose the perfect Eastern Eight for a new conference might be Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech. And Notre Dame only if the ACC remains economically challenged.

(12-10-2018 02:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  [quote='Win5002' pid='15749745' dateline='1544469662']
[quote='JRsec' pid='15748440' dateline='1544413715']

My hopes here:

For the betterment of the game I would like to see the Big 12 and PAC dissolve and form that new entity.


OSU has been the deal breaker in the past and their academic standing is the issue. KState might not be a shoe in but they would likely be more acceptable to the PAC if a contingent was taken. I suppose the perfect Eastern Eight for a new conference might be Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech. And Notre Dame only if the ACC remains economically challenged.

I think you might be right we may be better off in the game if the B12 & PAC form a new league. To get equal conferences. That's an interesting idea about ND and I can see where that would be tempting football wise, but when you factor in basketball and all other sports I still think the is a better landing spot for them. If that does happen we go back to 3 power leagues probably because the ACC can't stand without ND.

I do think if the networks looked at economic value of teams they might encourage Nebraska and even Arkansas in the B12/PAC merger. Both of those schools help the B12/PAC more than it hurts the B1G/SEC losing those teams. Their games content would probably be of more value in the B12 than their current leagues. Maybe it would end up Missouri, but Arkansas vs UT, OU, Neb, OSU would probably bring in better ratings even though 3 of those schools Missouri had history with.

P3 with 60 teams
B1G: (subtract) Neb.
add: ND, NC, Duke, Va & Ga. Tech, Syr., Pitt
SEC: (subtract) Ark & Missouri
add: FSU, Clemson, NC St., Va. Tech, WVU, Miami, Louisville
B12/PAC:
UT, TT, OU, OSU, Ark., Neb, KS, ISU, Missouri, TCU/UH
USC, UCLA, CAL, Stanford, UW, OR, AZ, ASU, Utah, Col.

That's 3 pretty equal leagues. Just don't try and do a lame 4 team CFP where you have league championships and then pick one of the losers or non-participants, teams need to play their way in not be chosen. Go to either a 12 team(each league gets 3 teams) or a 16 team playoff where each league gets 5 and then the 16th spot could rotate between the 3 leagues every year on a set basis).


The last thing I will say about playoffs that could work is if we had a 4th league that is a lesser league. Go to a 24 team playoff and let them have 3 spots and each of the P3 get 7 teams in. That would still be a good playoff.

(12-10-2018 03:20 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 02:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  [quote='Win5002' pid='15749745' dateline='1544469662']
[quote='JRsec' pid='15748440' dateline='1544413715']

My hopes here:

For the betterment of the game I would like to see the Big 12 and PAC dissolve and form that new entity.


OSU has been the deal breaker in the past and their academic standing is the issue. KState might not be a shoe in but they would likely be more acceptable to the PAC if a contingent was taken. I suppose the perfect Eastern Eight for a new conference might be Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech. And Notre Dame only if the ACC remains economically challenged.

I think you might be right we may be better off in the game if the B12 & PAC form a new league. To get equal conferences. That's an interesting idea about ND and I can see where that would be tempting football wise, but when you factor in basketball and all other sports I still think the is a better landing spot for them. If that does happen we go back to 3 power leagues probably because the ACC can't stand without ND.

I do think if the networks looked at economic value of teams they might encourage Nebraska and even Arkansas in the B12/PAC merger. Both of those schools help the B12/PAC more than it hurts the B1G/SEC losing those teams. Their games content would probably be of more value in the B12 than their current leagues. Maybe it would end up Missouri, but Arkansas vs UT, OU, Neb, OSU would probably bring in better ratings even though 3 of those schools Missouri had history with.

P3 with 60 teams
B1G: (subtract) Neb.
add: ND, NC, Duke, Va & Ga. Tech, Syr., Pitt
SEC: (subtract) Ark & Missouri
add: FSU, Clemson, NC St., Va. Tech, WVU, Miami, Louisville
B12/PAC:
UT, TT, OU, OSU, Ark., Neb, KS, ISU, Missouri, TCU/UH
USC, UCLA, CAL, Stanford, UW, OR, AZ, ASU, Utah, Col.

That's 3 pretty equal leagues. Just don't try and do a lame 4 team CFP where you have league championships and then pick one of the losers or non-participants, teams need to play their way in not be chosen. Go to either a 12 team(each league gets 3 teams) or a 16 team playoff where each league gets 5 and then the 16th spot could rotate between the 3 leagues every year on a set basis).


The last thing I will say about playoffs that could work is if we had a 4th league that is a lesser league. Go to a 24 team playoff and let them have 3 spots and each of the P3 get 7 teams in. That would still be a good playoff.

I think we part ways on expanded playoffs. I prefer 18 member conferences here because it leaves enough to make a viable 4th conference.

Let's say that no major conference loses a member.

If the Big 10 added Duke, North Carolina, Virginia and Notre Dame and the SEC added Clemson, Florida State, N.C. State and Virginia Tech we would have two solid conferences of 18.

Let's also say that the PAC lost nobody but Texas, Texas Tech, Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Kansas State did join the PAC.

The 4th power conference would take shape nicely:
Boston College, Cincinnati, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
Baylor, Brigham Young, Houston, Memphis, Oklahoma State, T.C.U.
Central Florida, East Carolina, Georgia Tech, Miami, South Florida, Wake Forest

That leaves enough good programs for the best of the G5 to grow around. The champion is your 4th CFP participant in a champs only model. The extra game is the conference semi-final and all of the revenue stays with the conference.

This year the SEC made 17 million off of the CCG. The semis would be profitable too.

(12-10-2018 03:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  [quote='Win5002' pid='15749953' dateline='1544473205']
[quote='JRsec' pid='15749790' dateline='1544470553']
[quote='Win5002' pid='15749745' dateline='1544469662']
[quote='JRsec' pid='15748440' dateline='1544413715']

I think we part ways on expanded playoffs. I prefer 18 member conferences here because it leaves enough to make a viable 4th conference.

Let's say that no major conference loses a member.

If the Big 10 added Duke, North Carolina, Virginia and Notre Dame and the SEC added Clemson, Florida State, N.C. State and Virginia Tech we would have two solid conferences of 18.

Let's also say that the PAC lost nobody but Texas, Texas Tech, Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Kansas State did join the PAC.

The 4th power conference would take shape nicely:
Boston College, Cincinnati, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
Baylor, Brigham Young, Houston, Memphis, Oklahoma State, T.C.U.
Central Florida, East Carolina, Georgia Tech, Miami, South Florida, Wake Forest

That leaves enough good programs for the best of the G5 to grow around. The champion is your 4th CFP participant in a champs only model. The extra game is the conference semi-final and all of the revenue stays with the conference.

This year the SEC made 17 million off of the CCG. The semis would be profitable too.

I don't mind the playoffs being expanded among conference playoffs when it is 4 equal leagues because it is actually a playoff. I don't know how well it works making up a 4th league that is not near as good as the other 3 being the solution as all. The 4th team from your last conference is always going to a big underdog so it devalues the playoff in terms of an actual event and revenue as long as you do that.

My idea of a P3 and a 4th conference that only got 3 teams(because it is essentially the new G5 with better pay) makes for a better playoff because the 4th league only put 3 teams in and they would be in the #9-24 seeds which would make the matchups better games and still give them a place.

(12-10-2018 06:02 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 03:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  [quote='Win5002' pid='15749953' dateline='1544473205']
[quote='JRsec' pid='15749790' dateline='1544470553']
[quote='Win5002' pid='15749745' dateline='1544469662']
[quote='JRsec' pid='15748440' dateline='1544413715']

I think we part ways on expanded playoffs. I prefer 18 member conferences here because it leaves enough to make a viable 4th conference.

Let's say that no major conference loses a member.

If the Big 10 added Duke, North Carolina, Virginia and Notre Dame and the SEC added Clemson, Florida State, N.C. State and Virginia Tech we would have two solid conferences of 18.

Let's also say that the PAC lost nobody but Texas, Texas Tech, Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Kansas State did join the PAC.

The 4th power conference would take shape nicely:
Boston College, Cincinnati, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
Baylor, Brigham Young, Houston, Memphis, Oklahoma State, T.C.U.
Central Florida, East Carolina, Georgia Tech, Miami, South Florida, Wake Forest

That leaves enough good programs for the best of the G5 to grow around. The champion is your 4th CFP participant in a champs only model. The extra game is the conference semi-final and all of the revenue stays with the conference.

This year the SEC made 17 million off of the CCG. The semis would be profitable too.

I don't mind the playoffs being expanded among conference playoffs when it is 4 equal leagues because it is actually a playoff. I don't know how well it works making up a 4th league that is not near as good as the other 3 being the solution as all. The 4th team from your last conference is always going to a big underdog so it devalues the playoff in terms of an actual event and revenue as long as you do that.

My idea of a P3 and a 4th conference that only got 3 teams(because it is essentially the new G5 with better pay) makes for a better playoff because the 4th league only put 3 teams in and they would be in the #9-24 seeds which would make the matchups better games and still give them a place.

Giving the 4th conference's champion a slot, by association, would eventually strengthen that conference. There are G5's with promise and most of them are included in that 4th conference. It would make them more relevant, which gives them more gravitas when recruiting which would enhance their programs. As they enhanced the money would get better.

(12-10-2018 06:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 06:02 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 03:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  [quote='Win5002' pid='15749953' dateline='1544473205']
[quote='JRsec' pid='15749790' dateline='1544470553']
[quote='Win5002' pid='15749745' dateline='1544469662']
[quote='JRsec' pid='15748440' dateline='1544413715']

I think we part ways on expanded playoffs. I prefer 18 member conferences here because it leaves enough to make a viable 4th conference.

Let's say that no major conference loses a member.

If the Big 10 added Duke, North Carolina, Virginia and Notre Dame and the SEC added Clemson, Florida State, N.C. State and Virginia Tech we would have two solid conferences of 18.

Let's also say that the PAC lost nobody but Texas, Texas Tech, Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Kansas State did join the PAC.

The 4th power conference would take shape nicely:
Boston College, Cincinnati, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
Baylor, Brigham Young, Houston, Memphis, Oklahoma State, T.C.U.
Central Florida, East Carolina, Georgia Tech, Miami, South Florida, Wake Forest

That leaves enough good programs for the best of the G5 to grow around. The champion is your 4th CFP participant in a champs only model. The extra game is the conference semi-final and all of the revenue stays with the conference.

This year the SEC made 17 million off of the CCG. The semis would be profitable too.

I don't mind the playoffs being expanded among conference playoffs when it is 4 equal leagues because it is actually a playoff. I don't know how well it works making up a 4th league that is not near as good as the other 3 being the solution as all. The 4th team from your last conference is always going to a big underdog so it devalues the playoff in terms of an actual event and revenue as long as you do that.

My idea of a P3 and a 4th conference that only got 3 teams(because it is essentially the new G5 with better pay) makes for a better playoff because the 4th league only put 3 teams in and they would be in the #9-24 seeds which would make the matchups better games and still give them a place.

Giving the 4th conference's champion a slot, by association, would eventually strengthen that conference. There are G5's with promise and most of them are included in that 4th conference. It would make them more relevant, which gives them more gravitas when recruiting which would enhance their programs. As they enhanced the money would get better.

At first at least it would make getting the 1 seed all the more valuable too.

(12-10-2018 12:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The Big 10 was alleged to have first implemented this process on the Maryland boards in 2010. There they allegedly posed as disgruntled Maryland fans that talked about the virtues of the Big 10. On the Oklahoma sites, and now beginning on some of the Texas boards they are beginning to do the same kinds of things. Only now the tactics seem to be to silence viewpoints that they don't like, all while posing as Oklahoma fans for instance. In some cases they may have locals who are OU alums but may have gotten a post graduate degree in the Big 10, or have worked for the Big 10.

I always thought the digital soft sell of UMD to the B1G was on the Terps side as they had the greater incentive IMO. It solved the schools financial mismanagement, would be easily approved by academics and the school had B1G friendly leadership in College Park. All they needed to know if the fans/alumni would burn the school down. Their presence in the forums confirmed what they had suspected; that the backlash would be tepid at worst.

The OU/UTX situation I think is also being initiated by the respective schools as a means to test the waters. The difference is that the fanbase/alumni are fractured on what they want. Unlike UMD, the wrong choice could lead to reduced donations and empty seats. Which is why I have always found a move for those two schools to the B1G as suspect. The only people that would make happy are the professors and think the Sooner and Longhorn AD's know that I think.

(12-11-2018 07:49 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 12:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The Big 10 was alleged to have first implemented this process on the Maryland boards in 2010. There they allegedly posed as disgruntled Maryland fans that talked about the virtues of the Big 10. On the Oklahoma sites, and now beginning on some of the Texas boards they are beginning to do the same kinds of things. Only now the tactics seem to be to silence viewpoints that they don't like, all while posing as Oklahoma fans for instance. In some cases they may have locals who are OU alums but may have gotten a post graduate degree in the Big 10, or have worked for the Big 10.

I always thought the digital soft sell of UMD to the B1G was on the Terps side as they had the greater incentive IMO. It solved the schools financial mismanagement, would be easily approved by academics and the school had B1G friendly leadership in College Park. All they needed to know if the fans/alumni would burn the school down. Their presence in the forums confirmed what they had suspected; that the backlash would be tepid at worst.

The OU/UTX situation I think is also being initiated by the respective schools as a means to test the waters. The difference is that the fanbase/alumni are fractured on what they want. Unlike UMD, the wrong choice could lead to reduced donations and empty seats. Which is why I have always found a move for those two schools to the B1G as suspect. The only people that would make happy are the professors and think the Sooner and Longhorn AD's know that I think.

The Maryland board infiltration has been something that has been widely attested. One of the infiltrators on the OU site was banned after the IP was traced to its source. So noting this activity is more than mere suspicion. We are talking now about product that could add 3 to 5 million to the annual revenue of each Big 10 member or SEC member. Anytime the stakes are that high you can count on a serious agenda to make it happen.

Loh at Maryland was very amenable to the overtures. The fan base at the time not really. It was a hearts and minds kind of operation. But yeah the academic types at the schools would love that on their resume

As to due diligence to establish your value that goes on all of the time without consideration of a move. But selling your audience and gauging their resolve doesn't.

(12-11-2018 09:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 07:49 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 12:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The Big 10 was alleged to have first implemented this process on the Maryland boards in 2010. There they allegedly posed as disgruntled Maryland fans that talked about the virtues of the Big 10. On the Oklahoma sites, and now beginning on some of the Texas boards they are beginning to do the same kinds of things. Only now the tactics seem to be to silence viewpoints that they don't like, all while posing as Oklahoma fans for instance. In some cases they may have locals who are OU alums but may have gotten a post graduate degree in the Big 10, or have worked for the Big 10.

I always thought the digital soft sell of UMD to the B1G was on the Terps side as they had the greater incentive IMO. It solved the schools financial mismanagement, would be easily approved by academics and the school had B1G friendly leadership in College Park. All they needed to know if the fans/alumni would burn the school down. Their presence in the forums confirmed what they had suspected; that the backlash would be tepid at worst.

The OU/UTX situation I think is also being initiated by the respective schools as a means to test the waters. The difference is that the fanbase/alumni are fractured on what they want. Unlike UMD, the wrong choice could lead to reduced donations and empty seats. Which is why I have always found a move for those two schools to the B1G as suspect. The only people that would make happy are the professors and think the Sooner and Longhorn AD's know that I think.

The Maryland board infiltration has been something that has been widely attested. One of the infiltrators on the OU site was banned after the IP was traced to its source. So noting this activity is more than mere suspicion. We are talking now about product that could add 3 to 5 million to the annual revenue of each Big 10 member or SEC member. Anytime the stakes are that high you can count on a serious agenda to make it happen.

Loh at Maryland was very amenable to the overtures. The fan base at the time not really. It was a hearts and minds kind of operation. But yeah the academic types at the schools would love that on their resume

As to due diligence to establish your value that goes on all of the time without consideration of a move. But selling your audience and gauging their resolve doesn't.

I'm understand how it would be prudent for the B1G to engage in such activities. In fact, if they can't land the two whales that will be available in 2023 then next best thing is to ensure that the SEC don't get them either. I think is the source of all of the renew talk of how SEC schools are a low level cheating troglodytes while 'OU and UTX are programs that are far too pristine to sully themselves with such degeneracy.' /sarcasm

(12-11-2018 10:04 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 09:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 07:49 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 12:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The Big 10 was alleged to have first implemented this process on the Maryland boards in 2010. There they allegedly posed as disgruntled Maryland fans that talked about the virtues of the Big 10. On the Oklahoma sites, and now beginning on some of the Texas boards they are beginning to do the same kinds of things. Only now the tactics seem to be to silence viewpoints that they don't like, all while posing as Oklahoma fans for instance. In some cases they may have locals who are OU alums but may have gotten a post graduate degree in the Big 10, or have worked for the Big 10.

I always thought the digital soft sell of UMD to the B1G was on the Terps side as they had the greater incentive IMO. It solved the schools financial mismanagement, would be easily approved by academics and the school had B1G friendly leadership in College Park. All they needed to know if the fans/alumni would burn the school down. Their presence in the forums confirmed what they had suspected; that the backlash would be tepid at worst.

The OU/UTX situation I think is also being initiated by the respective schools as a means to test the waters. The difference is that the fanbase/alumni are fractured on what they want. Unlike UMD, the wrong choice could lead to reduced donations and empty seats. Which is why I have always found a move for those two schools to the B1G as suspect. The only people that would make happy are the professors and think the Sooner and Longhorn AD's know that I think.

The Maryland board infiltration has been something that has been widely attested. One of the infiltrators on the OU site was banned after the IP was traced to its source. So noting this activity is more than mere suspicion. We are talking now about product that could add 3 to 5 million to the annual revenue of each Big 10 member or SEC member. Anytime the stakes are that high you can count on a serious agenda to make it happen.

Loh at Maryland was very amenable to the overtures. The fan base at the time not really. It was a hearts and minds kind of operation. But yeah the academic types at the schools would love that on their resume

As to due diligence to establish your value that goes on all of the time without consideration of a move. But selling your audience and gauging their resolve doesn't.

I'm understand how it would be prudent for the B1G to engage in such activities. In fact, if they can't land the two whales that will be available in 2023 then next best thing is to ensure that the SEC don't get them either. I think is the source of all of the renew talk of how SEC schools are a low level cheating troglodytes while 'OU and UTX are programs that are far too pristine to sully themselves with such degeneracy.' /sarcasm

It seems to me that the same would be true for the sEC. If we don't get OK/Texas then we would rather the Big 12/PAC 12 stick around with those schools. I wonder if there could be some collabaoration at that point, with a not so subtle agreement that the Big 10/SEC will divide up the ACC later.

The PAC12 is the conference that could realistically make the offers to B12 prime members and include the rival sisters. Not saying others can't/won't, it is that the PAC12 has the most room, and the need for that matter, to absorb a larger cluster. The financial incentives and guarantees would be an overarching factor.

(12-12-2018 11:26 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 10:04 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 09:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 07:49 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 12:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The Big 10 was alleged to have first implemented this process on the Maryland boards in 2010. There they allegedly posed as disgruntled Maryland fans that talked about the virtues of the Big 10. On the Oklahoma sites, and now beginning on some of the Texas boards they are beginning to do the same kinds of things. Only now the tactics seem to be to silence viewpoints that they don't like, all while posing as Oklahoma fans for instance. In some cases they may have locals who are OU alums but may have gotten a post graduate degree in the Big 10, or have worked for the Big 10.

I always thought the digital soft sell of UMD to the B1G was on the Terps side as they had the greater incentive IMO. It solved the schools financial mismanagement, would be easily approved by academics and the school had B1G friendly leadership in College Park. All they needed to know if the fans/alumni would burn the school down. Their presence in the forums confirmed what they had suspected; that the backlash would be tepid at worst.

The OU/UTX situation I think is also being initiated by the respective schools as a means to test the waters. The difference is that the fanbase/alumni are fractured on what they want. Unlike UMD, the wrong choice could lead to reduced donations and empty seats. Which is why I have always found a move for those two schools to the B1G as suspect. The only people that would make happy are the professors and think the Sooner and Longhorn AD's know that I think.

The Maryland board infiltration has been something that has been widely attested. One of the infiltrators on the OU site was banned after the IP was traced to its source. So noting this activity is more than mere suspicion. We are talking now about product that could add 3 to 5 million to the annual revenue of each Big 10 member or SEC member. Anytime the stakes are that high you can count on a serious agenda to make it happen.

Loh at Maryland was very amenable to the overtures. The fan base at the time not really. It was a hearts and minds kind of operation. But yeah the academic types at the schools would love that on their resume

As to due diligence to establish your value that goes on all of the time without consideration of a move. But selling your audience and gauging their resolve doesn't.

I'm understand how it would be prudent for the B1G to engage in such activities. In fact, if they can't land the two whales that will be available in 2023 then next best thing is to ensure that the SEC don't get them either. I think is the source of all of the renew talk of how SEC schools are a low level cheating troglodytes while 'OU and UTX are programs that are far too pristine to sully themselves with such degeneracy.' /sarcasm

It seems to me that the same would be true for the sEC. If we don't get OK/Texas then we would rather the Big 12/PAC 12 stick around with those schools. I wonder if there could be some collabaoration at that point, with a not so subtle agreement that the Big 10/SEC will divide up the ACC later.

I would say that this might be possible, but if it is it wouldn't be done for sports value. The Big 10's first targets would be the AAU schools and Notre Dame. Virginia, Duke, and North Carolina would add considerably to the basketball portion of the Big 10. Their need is football credentials. Notre Dame would help there as the 4th, but they might choose another option.

If this move were to be made it would be for political and academic reasons only. Why?

Because such a move would leave the SEC the sports value. It would be more likely that our expansion would include Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech and N.C. State giving us the same markets as the Big 10, but the more valuable football product and giving us exclusion for all practical purposes over the Deep South where the recruiting hot bed is so strong.

Therefore should this play out the Big 10's trade would be to have the markets of North Carolina and Virginia and the split allegiances of their House and Senate members for appropriations.