(04-11-2019 05:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: (04-11-2019 05:13 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote: (04-11-2019 04:27 PM)dbackjon Wrote: (04-11-2019 04:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: (04-11-2019 02:46 PM)arkstfan Wrote: Tallest midget or whatever.
AAC is still BCS era CUSA not BCS era Big East.
There's not a full seat at the table, there is only the ability to follow autonomy legislation not vote to enact it and no guaranteed NY6 slot nor compensation that is closer to P5 than G5.
I get that some of the folks like to rub their weenies and say P6/G4 but neither exists and won't exist because if AAC produces programs with P5 value, they will be invited to depart AAC and join a P5 (Utah and TCU say Howdy)
I have my doubts about that these days. The CFP changed that because so much money is now pouring into P5 conferences that doesnt have anything to do with the conference TV deal. The Big 12 TV payout is only about 20 million a team while the total league distrbution per team is around 36 million. This huge bucket of non-TV revenue largely doesnt expand with increasing membership. Becasue of that, a new teams must bring enough in MEDIA ONLY tv value, to darn near equal the full $36 million value of a conference distribution share (not just the 20 million per team TV share) AND ADD to the per team payout of current members (otherwise---why add a G5 if it doesnt increase payout?). G5 members could easily be worth 20-25 million each and still not be worth anywhere near enough to warrant poaching in this environment.
Where am Im going with this? Basically, Im starting to think we have reached a point at which a conference could conceivable develop into a power conference simply because its no longer profitable to poach emerging schools in a developing conference. It would take decade or more---but I think its possible in the current landscape---where as it was not just a few years ago.
I have a feeling you are right.
And if the 10 game CCG rule had been in effect during last round, would Utah and TCU gotten the call (assuming Colorado didn't move from Big 12) BYU would have stayed in the MWC. Just need to add Boise to get to 10.
TCU, Utah, BYU, Boise, Fresno, SDSU, UNM, CSU, Wyo, AFA would be a really good conference
the rule for the CCG does not specify any number of teams for a conference to have a CCG
what the rule states is that for a conference to have a CCG they either have two divisions that are as equal in number as possible and they play a DIVISIONAL round robin and the CCG must have the winner of each division
or a conference plays a FULL CONFERENCE round robin and then the two highest ranked teams must play in the CCG
so a conference could have 9 or 8 members and have a CCG (I do not believe you can have a conference at all with fewer than 8 members in your primary sports under a totally separate NCAA rule, but it has been a while since I have read that)
in the case of the Big 12 the tier 2 contract they signed with Fox in 2011 when aggy and MU were still members required 10 teams to remain in place so when agggy and MU left for the SEC SEC SEC the Big 12 needed two teams to keep that contract in place
Yup. You need a minimum of 8. Here is a quirk that might be exploited by a group of high end independents currently anchoring major conferences. What if Texas, Oklahoma, Notre Dame--maybe USC and Stanford thought indy was the way to go---but wanted to have some of the security of a conference. They add 3 more teams to that core to create a 8 team conference of super teams. Lets say for grins---Clemson, Florida St, and maybe Penn St. Im not sure any long time key SEC/Big10 team would be willing to give up their traditional SEC schedule.
The downside of that conference is that half the teams will finish below .500 in conference play--limiting their season. But what if, using that new divisions rule---the conference split into 2 divisions of 4-teams. They play a round robin in the division (3-games) and one cross division game for a 4 game conference schedule. That leaves them 8 OOC games (a quasi indy way of life) to schedule any way they wish---and they are secure knowing they have enough (4) heavyweights on the schedule to make the playoff if they do well. The league would have all big names and would only divide its deal 8 ways. Thats a lot of potential money and a lot of potential flexibility--and they still have the potential 13th CCG data point if they are in the running for the playoff.
I could see something like that evolving out of the current system---especially if paying players becomes the norm.
in addition to the contractual issues with teams leaving a conference and the cost there is the issue with the NCAA not giving an AQ to the NCAAs for new conferences (in the past some teams could have taken over the WAC and done that though because the NCAA even had a window for them to rebuild)
then there is the issue of those teams getting football playoff money.....no conference that loses members is going to vote to give the new conference a cut of that money they will tell them to split the G5 pot more ways
then you have to line up NY6 bowl games and get paid for them
with what you are saying only the SEC SEC SEC would not be losing a team and would they want to play in that NY6 bowl game
no way the PAC 12 and Big 10 would move from the Rose Bowl especially after losing teams to play that new conference in the Fiester Bowl or something like that
and the ACC would be the most pissed off of all losing ND (much less Clemson and FSU)
and Stanford is at their all time greatest period in football ever in the history of their program and nothing at all says that is set to be sustainable and if they were in that new conference they could look forward to an 0-4 conference record every year and as they fall off the map getting drilled in most OOC games too
then you have the issue of OOC games......are members of the Big 12, PAC 12 and ACC especially going to schedule teams in that conference to OOC games or are they going to let them hang in the wind
that would be twice as bad for USC and Stanford that are already limited on OOC games and it would only take a couple of seasons of PAC 12 teams holding out playing them in the OOC before it hurt them
plus if the PAC 12 teams are holding out on playing USC and Stanford in their new conference even if Big 12 schools caved in and still scheduled Texas because they want the fan draw they could show unity and not schedule USC and Stanford in the OOC.....that leaves USC and Stanford looking at the MWC in their time zones (as they have to now), or BYU or they have to cross over the big 12 territory (yet another time zone) and play Big 10, SEC SEC SEC and ACC schools or they have to play other G5 schools
again that could hurt USC and Stanford in particular (Stanford it would be a death blow as far as football competitiveness)
then you still need TV contracts and sure it is assumed they would get a great one, but is it assured that ESPN really wants to start the super division plan where as you pointed out teams will be going .500 in conference or worse for several of them while getting big money (presumably) to do so and having to play OOC games that might not be appealing
that is the issue with 64 teams breaking away....who is willing to sick most years?
that is also the issue with larger conferences in general you either play your "conference mates" once every 8 years or you end up playing so many conference games that your conference moves towards and overall .500 conference record because every confernece win comes with a conference loss
that is why the SEC SEC SEC plays 8 games and same with the ACC.....and that is why the Big 12 is stupid for playing 9 conference games and instead should play 7 conference games.....because then UT and OU have very close to what you are saying the ability to play more big names yet guaranteed conference games to fill the schedule....and with 10 teams the Big 12 would still play all conference members more frequently than every other conference.....you would have a home game with all members once every 4 years