(01-22-2019 11:01 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 03:36 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 02:15 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(01-20-2019 10:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Interesting things here:

1. Presidents don't meet to work out playing. A.D.'s do.

2. Texas's intransigence broke 1 week after FOX drops the Big 12 championship game.

3. Kansas has been hard at work to upgrade football.

4. ESPN wants Texas in full somewhere as badly as they want Notre Dame.

5. A move to a P4 with emphasis on champs only in the 4 team playoff forces N.D. all in. And Delany wants an emphasis on champions being selected.

6. FOX wants to boost the content value for the sake of their investment in the Big 10.

7. If FOX's dropping of the Big 12 CCG was a shot across the bow of the Big 12 then it is highly likely that they and ESPN are working for an early resolution to the Big 12 question and they need each other's cooperation to get it. Why?

A. They don't want FAANG interference.
B. If the Big 10, SEC, or ACC add properties before the expiration of the current contracts they can revalue the contracts to a current rate, extend the contracts for at least a decade, and by doing so can lock the FAANG's out of this current cycle which buys the networks more time to get their streaming endeavors up to snuff.
C. Extending by a decade or until 2035 puts the Big 10 and SEC expiration of contracts coming up 2 years prior to the next ACC expiration. That sets up similar opportunities to renegotiate ahead of time in a decade.
D. They need each other to payout the contracts of the Big 12 in order to mitigate damages. By doing so they blunt the penalties of the G.O.R. and let those leaving do so for essentially the exit fees.

I would like to think that the SEC has a shot at Texas and Kansas as a pair because of the value that combination would bring. I subsequently think that FOX may have insisted on Oklahoma. But if Texas wants to protect Tech it is possible that we might wind up with Texas and Tech while Oklahoma and Kansas head to the Big 10, and West Virginia and Notre Dame go in with the ACC.

8. President's meet to discuss larger business matters. To avoid improper contact about membership in the past A&M spoke through Gene Stallings to Alabama contacts. Missouri used Bernie Machen at Florida to do the same. It would be very easy for the presidents of two state schools to do the same. If this had just been a presser with the A.D.'s I wouldn't have thought a thing about it.

Yes, I do think it would benefit the SEC tremendously to have all the power teams in the state of Texas that it's worth passing on KU/OU.

The two quibbles I have are the idea that the remaining Big 12 would be out of the power group and the future of the RRR.

I think the Big 12 may end up with continuing to have a seat on the table, just not an automatic bid. What we might see is that the remaining Big 12 would be put into a pool that has the other G programs, Army, UMass, Liberty and that small Catholic school in Indiana. You might see the PAC and ACC float up or down, depending on how strong the programs are at any time. Those factors may leave enough breathing room for the small Indiana Catholic school to maintain their current status or maybe a tweak like, say, adding a sixth game with the ACC. That would make sense if scheduling opponents becomes even tougher in the future but not so tough to force a conference decision. If the playoff won't expand then the other programs I mentioned would fight to have a shot at taking a spot in the top four, even if seemingly unlikely today. West Virginia to the ACC does make some sense in terms of content. That would take them to fifteen (sixteen in basketball).

A new divisional format would allow the ACC to break into three groups of five, if they wish so.

Quote:Also the remaining 5 that receive the exit fees, while not happy will want to keep these games on their schedules: KState / Kansas, OSU / Oklahoma, Any Texas School / A&M, Tech, & Texas. Iowa State wouldn't raise a ruckus because they need Iowa to be compliant. So protecting enough OOC games that these schools may continue to have money making dates on their schedule would go a long way to keeping the political wrangling down. The three Texas state schools could rotate games with T.C.U. and Baylor who could also continue to play each other.

The last point is the RRR. As the Big Ten plays a 9-game schedule and the SEC an 8-game schedule, when you add the in-state rivalry games, a national game for exposure purposes and a scheduled body bag game, there's a chance that the RRR wouldn't be played annually from then on. UT would essentially be sacrificing one game to play annually with TAMU and OU sacrificing one game to renew the UNL rivalry annually. It may still be worth it in the long run but that would be another marked change after a series of marked changes in the last realignment craze.

First quibble: Yes, it would be very reminiscent of the Big East's situation and I agree that the Big 12 might be reformed and given at least a NY6 slot if not a far flung shot at the CFP. So that's quite possible.

Second quibble: No I don't think OU would give up the RRR. Recruiting Texas is too vital to them to consider it. I feel strongly that if the SEC moved to 16 we would have 9 conference games as well. I also don't think the 3 rent a kill games continue. I feel reasonably confident in saying that in the not too distant future the push for content will take us to 10 P games with two buy slots to guarantee every P4 member 7 home games, or at least 6 home and 1 neutral site game.

What I think will eventually happen is that the bowls will be moved to the first games of the season in what amounts to a last weekend of Summer event. They won't be called bowls per se but the same venues might be employed. That way the old bowl system keeps the largess of being a host but with the benefit of being the season opener and not the season ender. That way both participants fan bases are energized and the NET effect for the host city will be better crowds and more interest. This will essentially become the 13th game of the regular season.

From the end of conference CCG's until January 1st we have the CFP. The top bowls are utilized here.

So 1 kickoff P game for each P school in a neutral site, followed by 10 P games 9 of which are conference games, and 2 G5 home only games will be the regular season an the CFP will have the season's end all to itself.

So for Oklahoma, the schedule going forward becomes
9 Big Ten games (including Nebraska) - alternating 5 home/4 away with 4/5
Bedlam - alternating home/away to give 5 home annually
RRR - 1 neutral site game
G5 - 1 buy home game to give them a 6th home annually

So basically OU never gets a 7th home game UNLESS the schedule expands to 13 - in which case they may end up playing a home game while everyone else plays a kickoff game.

I have to think that some in power at OU would consider dropping Bedlam. The Texas game is more important anyway for several reasons, but if Oklahoma State gets left behind in a lesser conference then it just won't make much sense to play that game.

Historically, it's not that competitive anyway although obviously OSU has made a lot of strides the last 10-15 years.

(01-22-2019 03:36 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 02:15 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(01-20-2019 10:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Interesting things here:

1. Presidents don't meet to work out playing. A.D.'s do.

2. Texas's intransigence broke 1 week after FOX drops the Big 12 championship game.

3. Kansas has been hard at work to upgrade football.

4. ESPN wants Texas in full somewhere as badly as they want Notre Dame.

5. A move to a P4 with emphasis on champs only in the 4 team playoff forces N.D. all in. And Delany wants an emphasis on champions being selected.

6. FOX wants to boost the content value for the sake of their investment in the Big 10.

7. If FOX's dropping of the Big 12 CCG was a shot across the bow of the Big 12 then it is highly likely that they and ESPN are working for an early resolution to the Big 12 question and they need each other's cooperation to get it. Why?

A. They don't want FAANG interference.
B. If the Big 10, SEC, or ACC add properties before the expiration of the current contracts they can revalue the contracts to a current rate, extend the contracts for at least a decade, and by doing so can lock the FAANG's out of this current cycle which buys the networks more time to get their streaming endeavors up to snuff.
C. Extending by a decade or until 2035 puts the Big 10 and SEC expiration of contracts coming up 2 years prior to the next ACC expiration. That sets up similar opportunities to renegotiate ahead of time in a decade.
D. They need each other to payout the contracts of the Big 12 in order to mitigate damages. By doing so they blunt the penalties of the G.O.R. and let those leaving do so for essentially the exit fees.

I would like to think that the SEC has a shot at Texas and Kansas as a pair because of the value that combination would bring. I subsequently think that FOX may have insisted on Oklahoma. But if Texas wants to protect Tech it is possible that we might wind up with Texas and Tech while Oklahoma and Kansas head to the Big 10, and West Virginia and Notre Dame go in with the ACC.

8. President's meet to discuss larger business matters. To avoid improper contact about membership in the past A&M spoke through Gene Stallings to Alabama contacts. Missouri used Bernie Machen at Florida to do the same. It would be very easy for the presidents of two state schools to do the same. If this had just been a presser with the A.D.'s I wouldn't have thought a thing about it.

Yes, I do think it would benefit the SEC tremendously to have all the power teams in the state of Texas that it's worth passing on KU/OU.

The two quibbles I have are the idea that the remaining Big 12 would be out of the power group and the future of the RRR.

I think the Big 12 may end up with continuing to have a seat on the table, just not an automatic bid. What we might see is that the remaining Big 12 would be put into a pool that has the other G programs, Army, UMass, Liberty and that small Catholic school in Indiana. You might see the PAC and ACC float up or down, depending on how strong the programs are at any time. Those factors may leave enough breathing room for the small Indiana Catholic school to maintain their current status or maybe a tweak like, say, adding a sixth game with the ACC. That would make sense if scheduling opponents becomes even tougher in the future but not so tough to force a conference decision. If the playoff won't expand then the other programs I mentioned would fight to have a shot at taking a spot in the top four, even if seemingly unlikely today. West Virginia to the ACC does make some sense in terms of content. That would take them to fifteen (sixteen in basketball).

A new divisional format would allow the ACC to break into three groups of five, if they wish so.

Quote:Also the remaining 5 that receive the exit fees, while not happy will want to keep these games on their schedules: KState / Kansas, OSU / Oklahoma, Any Texas School / A&M, Tech, & Texas. Iowa State wouldn't raise a ruckus because they need Iowa to be compliant. So protecting enough OOC games that these schools may continue to have money making dates on their schedule would go a long way to keeping the political wrangling down. The three Texas state schools could rotate games with T.C.U. and Baylor who could also continue to play each other.

The last point is the RRR. As the Big Ten plays a 9-game schedule and the SEC an 8-game schedule, when you add the in-state rivalry games, a national game for exposure purposes and a scheduled body bag game, there's a chance that the RRR wouldn't be played annually from then on. UT would essentially be sacrificing one game to play annually with TAMU and OU sacrificing one game to renew the UNL rivalry annually. It may still be worth it in the long run but that would be another marked change after a series of marked changes in the last realignment craze.

First quibble: Yes, it would be very reminiscent of the Big East's situation and I agree that the Big 12 might be reformed and given at least a NY6 slot if not a far flung shot at the CFP. So that's quite possible.

Second quibble: No I don't think OU would give up the RRR. Recruiting Texas is too vital to them to consider it. I feel strongly that if the SEC moved to 16 we would have 9 conference games as well. I also don't think the 3 rent a kill games continue. I feel reasonably confident in saying that in the not too distant future the push for content will take us to 10 P games with two buy slots to guarantee every P4 member 7 home games, or at least 6 home and 1 neutral site game.

What I think will eventually happen is that the bowls will be moved to the first games of the season in what amounts to a last weekend of Summer event. They won't be called bowls per se but the same venues might be employed. That way the old bowl system keeps the largess of being a host but with the benefit of being the season opener and not the season ender. That way both participants fan bases are energized and the NET effect for the host city will be better crowds and more interest. This will essentially become the 13th game of the regular season.

From the end of conference CCG's until January 1st we have the CFP. The top bowls are utilized here.

So 1 kickoff P game for each P school in a neutral site, followed by 10 P games 9 of which are conference games, and 2 G5 home only games will be the regular season an the CFP will have the season's end all to itself.

The 13th game is an interesting wrinkle.

For one, most teams are already playing it...it's just an end of season exhibition.

Second, if you restructure the schedule and play that game early in the season then it not only means more in the standings and has greater monetary value, but everyone gets an extra game rather than simply the majority getting the extra game. That means some of these games can be played home/home rather than at a neutral site and that creates flexibility with the schedule.

Third, it opens up neutral site opportunities in cold climate regions which means more competition to host the games and less travel for fans.

Fourth, the networks will actually gain some inventory that way so as long as we add an extra week to the season then everyone benefits.

-9 conference games
-2 cupcakes
-1 Power opponents at a neutral site
-1 Power opponents on a home and home rotation

Everyone should be able to squeeze 7 home games out of that.

(01-22-2019 11:01 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 03:36 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 02:15 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(01-20-2019 10:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Interesting things here:

1. Presidents don't meet to work out playing. A.D.'s do.

2. Texas's intransigence broke 1 week after FOX drops the Big 12 championship game.

3. Kansas has been hard at work to upgrade football.

4. ESPN wants Texas in full somewhere as badly as they want Notre Dame.

5. A move to a P4 with emphasis on champs only in the 4 team playoff forces N.D. all in. And Delany wants an emphasis on champions being selected.

6. FOX wants to boost the content value for the sake of their investment in the Big 10.

7. If FOX's dropping of the Big 12 CCG was a shot across the bow of the Big 12 then it is highly likely that they and ESPN are working for an early resolution to the Big 12 question and they need each other's cooperation to get it. Why?

A. They don't want FAANG interference.
B. If the Big 10, SEC, or ACC add properties before the expiration of the current contracts they can revalue the contracts to a current rate, extend the contracts for at least a decade, and by doing so can lock the FAANG's out of this current cycle which buys the networks more time to get their streaming endeavors up to snuff.
C. Extending by a decade or until 2035 puts the Big 10 and SEC expiration of contracts coming up 2 years prior to the next ACC expiration. That sets up similar opportunities to renegotiate ahead of time in a decade.
D. They need each other to payout the contracts of the Big 12 in order to mitigate damages. By doing so they blunt the penalties of the G.O.R. and let those leaving do so for essentially the exit fees.

I would like to think that the SEC has a shot at Texas and Kansas as a pair because of the value that combination would bring. I subsequently think that FOX may have insisted on Oklahoma. But if Texas wants to protect Tech it is possible that we might wind up with Texas and Tech while Oklahoma and Kansas head to the Big 10, and West Virginia and Notre Dame go in with the ACC.

8. President's meet to discuss larger business matters. To avoid improper contact about membership in the past A&M spoke through Gene Stallings to Alabama contacts. Missouri used Bernie Machen at Florida to do the same. It would be very easy for the presidents of two state schools to do the same. If this had just been a presser with the A.D.'s I wouldn't have thought a thing about it.

Yes, I do think it would benefit the SEC tremendously to have all the power teams in the state of Texas that it's worth passing on KU/OU.

The two quibbles I have are the idea that the remaining Big 12 would be out of the power group and the future of the RRR.

I think the Big 12 may end up with continuing to have a seat on the table, just not an automatic bid. What we might see is that the remaining Big 12 would be put into a pool that has the other G programs, Army, UMass, Liberty and that small Catholic school in Indiana. You might see the PAC and ACC float up or down, depending on how strong the programs are at any time. Those factors may leave enough breathing room for the small Indiana Catholic school to maintain their current status or maybe a tweak like, say, adding a sixth game with the ACC. That would make sense if scheduling opponents becomes even tougher in the future but not so tough to force a conference decision. If the playoff won't expand then the other programs I mentioned would fight to have a shot at taking a spot in the top four, even if seemingly unlikely today. West Virginia to the ACC does make some sense in terms of content. That would take them to fifteen (sixteen in basketball).

A new divisional format would allow the ACC to break into three groups of five, if they wish so.

Quote:Also the remaining 5 that receive the exit fees, while not happy will want to keep these games on their schedules: KState / Kansas, OSU / Oklahoma, Any Texas School / A&M, Tech, & Texas. Iowa State wouldn't raise a ruckus because they need Iowa to be compliant. So protecting enough OOC games that these schools may continue to have money making dates on their schedule would go a long way to keeping the political wrangling down. The three Texas state schools could rotate games with T.C.U. and Baylor who could also continue to play each other.

The last point is the RRR. As the Big Ten plays a 9-game schedule and the SEC an 8-game schedule, when you add the in-state rivalry games, a national game for exposure purposes and a scheduled body bag game, there's a chance that the RRR wouldn't be played annually from then on. UT would essentially be sacrificing one game to play annually with TAMU and OU sacrificing one game to renew the UNL rivalry annually. It may still be worth it in the long run but that would be another marked change after a series of marked changes in the last realignment craze.

First quibble: Yes, it would be very reminiscent of the Big East's situation and I agree that the Big 12 might be reformed and given at least a NY6 slot if not a far flung shot at the CFP. So that's quite possible.

Second quibble: No I don't think OU would give up the RRR. Recruiting Texas is too vital to them to consider it. I feel strongly that if the SEC moved to 16 we would have 9 conference games as well. I also don't think the 3 rent a kill games continue. I feel reasonably confident in saying that in the not too distant future the push for content will take us to 10 P games with two buy slots to guarantee every P4 member 7 home games, or at least 6 home and 1 neutral site game.

What I think will eventually happen is that the bowls will be moved to the first games of the season in what amounts to a last weekend of Summer event. They won't be called bowls per se but the same venues might be employed. That way the old bowl system keeps the largess of being a host but with the benefit of being the season opener and not the season ender. That way both participants fan bases are energized and the NET effect for the host city will be better crowds and more interest. This will essentially become the 13th game of the regular season.

From the end of conference CCG's until January 1st we have the CFP. The top bowls are utilized here.

So 1 kickoff P game for each P school in a neutral site, followed by 10 P games 9 of which are conference games, and 2 G5 home only games will be the regular season an the CFP will have the season's end all to itself.

So for Oklahoma, the schedule going forward becomes
9 Big Ten games (including Nebraska) - alternating 5 home/4 away with 4/5
Bedlam - alternating home/away to give 5 home annually
RRR - 1 neutral site game
G5 - 1 buy home game to give them a 6th home annually

So basically OU never gets a 7th home game UNLESS the schedule expands to 13 - in which case they may end up playing a home game while everyone else plays a kickoff game.

Unless Bedlam was dropped or played in Norman every year that would be correct. Tough isn't it? Drop Texas and they lose their ties to Texas recruiting. There will be many who say no because they've been in a conference separate from Texas before. But, they've never not played Texas or not played in Dallas before. That's very similar to Nebraska being cut off from its recruiting roots so the comparison is apt.

But if the cookie crumbles a certain way then that might well be OU's future.

The only way to get close to 8 schools for dissolution would be for Texas to take Tech, KState and T.C.U. and head to the PAC (4), Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to head to the SEC (2), and for WVU to join with ND (1), and hope that the Big 10 would take Kansas with Iowa State (2).

I just don't see any of that happening. Simply taking enough to kill the conference unless 5 or added is the best way to go. Pay the remainder their current rate for the duration of the present contract and give them assurances.

Doubtful there will be a grand plan to dissolve the B12. Even when the ACC gutted the old BE fb years back, it was done in phases with gaps of years, and probably was not the original intent when the messy process of Miami and VA Tech were added. However, Miami, BC, and Syracuse were the initial three sought. Pitt and partial Notre Dame finished out the additions. UConn got basically blackballed by BC, and losing Maryland wasn't their intent. Louisville was a Maryland replacement.

The point is, the B12 undergoing more extraction will likely not be comprehensive. And a P4 cooperating in doing so will be unprecedented, particulaly if nine of ten schools go to four different power destinations at once.. Maybe two will will work together; but four? Nawh.

(01-22-2019 04:53 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Doubtful there will be a grand plan to dissolve the B12. Even when the ACC gutted the old BE fb years back, it was done in phases with gaps of years, and probably was not the original intent when the messy process of Miami and VA Tech were added. However, Miami, BC, and Syracuse were the initial three sought. Pitt and partial Notre Dame finished out the additions. UConn got basically blackballed by BC, and losing Maryland wasn't their intent. Louisville was a Maryland replacement.

The point is, the B12 undergoing more extraction will likely not be comprehensive. And a P4 cooperating in doing so will be unprecedented, particulaly if nine of ten schools go to four different power destinations at once.. Maybe two will will work together; but four? Nawh.

I just don't see a real need to have one. If the cooperation is behind the scenes between FOX and ESPN then it can be handled easily enough. Of course such a move would indicate that nobody is getting all of the plumbs. They'll be divided. I can easily envision 5 leaving.

Regarding this newly found love and harmony between former conference mates, how about it Kansas. Ready to kiss and make up with Mizzou?

(01-23-2019 02:52 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Regarding this newly found love and harmony between former conference mates, how about it Kansas. Ready to kiss and make up with Mizzou?

Kansas State seems fine with playing Mizzou again in whatever sport that may get scheduled whenever.

Kansas is certainly not there yet. It is their basketball coach being openly negative and opposing it. Frankly, their football program needs this rivalry game to boost fan attendance and tv interest. Les Miles may support renewing the game if the AD and KU President are OK in doing so. Basketball could take longer.

(01-23-2019 02:52 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Regarding this newly found love and harmony between former conference mates, how about it Kansas. Ready to kiss and make up with Mizzou?

Part of that, I think, is that Kansas needs all the football wins they can get to try and get to a .500 record.

No reason you guys shouldn't play annually in hoops, baseball, etc though.

Administrators and staff turnover happen at all these schools. Even certain influential boosters eventually depart the scene, and politicians do change as well. Avoiding tough, rivalry games in exchange for a bottom cupcake is not advancement. FSU built their profile decades back by scheduling an abundance of quality, tough opponents, many on the road. Losing to weak opponents won't make Kansas look better.