Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Fast forward to 2025...
Author Message
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 15,017
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 569
I Root For: California
Location: Bear Territory
Post: #81
RE: Fast forward to 2025...
(07-18-2019 08:33 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  I have removed the "not allocated by gender/sport" as that is overhead.

No, it's not overhead. It's often the place where an AD hides expenditures that really just benefit one sport (you know which sport) but are claimed to benefit the athletic department as a whole.
Yesterday 03:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
goodknightfl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,200
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 253
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #82
RE: Fast forward to 2025...
(07-11-2019 10:05 AM)Big Frog II Wrote:  2025-no conference changes. Every one is finally happy where they are

CFP expands to 8. 5 auto bids, 2 at large, 1 for the highest ranked G5 school as long as they are in the Top 12.

Which will never ever happen again..after 2025
Yesterday 03:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
zoocrew Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 595
Joined: Mar 2019
Reputation: 17
I Root For: PITT, NAVY, MBB
Location:
Post: #83
RE: Fast forward to 2025...
Still think the PAC early offers the Texahoma 4 again plus KU but not all at the same time.

But I could also see OU taking OkSU to the SEC because they don’t lose the state of Texas with A&M’s presence and I doubt the B1G would let them bring OkSU. The SEC might.

At that point the B1G is probably out and the PAC definitely isn’t above making whatever invite gets Texas. Could see anything from an all 4 Texas teams invite to KU/TT to the PAC with UT going independent and joining the ACC for olympics.

So many options including everyone standing pat. I think OU is the trigger.

A sleeper could be one of the “Little 8” abandoning ship early to the PAC like Colorado did. Texas Tech would be my pick for that. If I ran the PAC I’d take Tech without UT if I couldn’t get a package deal.
(This post was last modified: Yesterday 03:21 PM by zoocrew.)
Yesterday 03:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Stugray2 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,316
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 159
I Root For: tOSU SJSU Stan'
Location: South Bay Area CA
Post: #84
RE: Fast forward to 2025...
On TCU, it's not just Patterson, as it was Petersen at Boise State, because the budget is so large, whereas Boise State you see is very far down the list - their slow fade from relevance not that surprising.

$92.8M on sports teams, $39.2M on football, is top 20. Even removing the coaching staff from the equation they have more money in the program than over half the SEC, double that of many P5 schools. They also have no other power school in the DFW market, except obviously Texas who are actually a different market. So I think TCU would be very attractive for a high profile coach when Patterson retires. But it's a program like Michigan State (both Football and Basketball) where the resources are higher and more elite than is perceived, so the success is likely to continue even with inevitable coaching changes.

When you look by comparison at the resources actually available for football, you can begin to understand the struggles USC is having getting their program back on solid footing -- it's less moneyed than you might expect. TCU has a much more solid and better funded athletic department and football program.

The shocking ones to me were the high overhead costs of BYU, which placed much less moneyed Colorado State and Central Florida as the clear G5 schools best positioned to have successful programs moving up to the B12. Houston is still down the list, but they have been investing, so they may well climb. I honestly think those four schools are the most likely B12 replacement choices, Cincinnati a bit distant 5th.

Back to TCU. I do not place TCU on the same plane as OU and Texas, which are both perennial top 20 programs with long history, flagship schools, and large alumni bases. If on a 10 scale Texas is a 10 in expansion value (in the elite group with Florida, Ohio State, Notre Dame and Penn State in value) and Oklahoma a solid 8.5 or even 9 (We are in high value name brand territory like Wisconsin, Georgia and Washington), then TCU comes in only at a 7, despite being on equal footing in budgetary terms (you are looking at Miami, Michigan State, Stanford value picks).

The only other one that registers is Kansas, but they have been so poor in football, and budgeted so small that they're peers in athletics are Maryland and Wake Forest, or even high G5 schools. As an institution they are top 40 or top 50 among FBS. But that is pretty borderline.

The ranking of the public schools in the "little-8" tells you none have a shot at realignment, as they are all outside the top 50, and excepting KU, none has high AI.
51. Iowa State
53. Oklahoma State
61. West Virginia
62. Kansas State
64. Texas Tech
67. Kansas
Baylor comes in at 31 (the first in "tier-5"), but actually 31-51 ($23-28M) is really a pile of similar budget lower middle of P5, making them more like 51 Iowa State (the last in "tier-5") than TCU, OU and UT (top 20). Baylor also has issues that make them less attractive than their athletic stature, plus they are also not a research school.

So my TCU comments were more in comparison with the other B12 schools. They have separated from the other little-8. They may be like Louisville in the last realignment, the surprise school to have standing (metrics made Louisville a runaway choice over UConn and Cincy, despite bad AI). All I am saying is do not be shocked if they wind up being the 3rd B12 school to move (as to where, I haven't a clue, as they are a non-starter for the B1G and make no sense for the SEC ... they only make some sense going with Texas to the ACC or P12--I don't see Texas going P12 period).
Yesterday 03:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
zoocrew Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 595
Joined: Mar 2019
Reputation: 17
I Root For: PITT, NAVY, MBB
Location:
Post: #85
RE: Fast forward to 2025...
(Yesterday 03:30 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  On TCU, it's not just Patterson, as it was Petersen at Boise State, because the budget is so large, whereas Boise State you see is very far down the list - their slow fade from relevance not that surprising.

$92.8M on sports teams, $39.2M on football, is top 20. Even removing the coaching staff from the equation they have more money in the program than over half the SEC, double that of many P5 schools. They also have no other power school in the DFW market, except obviously Texas who are actually a different market. So I think TCU would be very attractive for a high profile coach when Patterson retires. But it's a program like Michigan State (both Football and Basketball) where the resources are higher and more elite than is perceived, so the success is likely to continue even with inevitable coaching changes.

When you look by comparison at the resources actually available for football, you can begin to understand the struggles USC is having getting their program back on solid footing -- it's less moneyed than you might expect. TCU has a much more solid and better funded athletic department and football program.

The shocking ones to me were the high overhead costs of BYU, which placed much less moneyed Colorado State and Central Florida as the clear G5 schools best positioned to have successful programs moving up to the B12. Houston is still down the list, but they have been investing, so they may well climb. I honestly think those four schools are the most likely B12 replacement choices, Cincinnati a bit distant 5th.

Back to TCU. I do not place TCU on the same plane as OU and Texas, which are both perennial top 20 programs with long history, flagship schools, and large alumni bases. If on a 10 scale Texas is a 10 in expansion value (in the elite group with Florida, Ohio State, Notre Dame and Penn State in value) and Oklahoma a solid 8.5 or even 9 (We are in high value name brand territory like Wisconsin, Georgia and Washington), then TCU comes in only at a 7, despite being on equal footing in budgetary terms (you are looking at Miami, Michigan State, Stanford value picks).

The only other one that registers is Kansas, but they have been so poor in football, and budgeted so small that they're peers in athletics are Maryland and Wake Forest, or even high G5 schools. As an institution they are top 40 or top 50 among FBS. But that is pretty borderline.

The ranking of the public schools in the "little-8" tells you none have a shot at realignment, as they are all outside the top 50, and excepting KU, none has high AI.
51. Iowa State
53. Oklahoma State
61. West Virginia
62. Kansas State
64. Texas Tech
67. Kansas
Baylor comes in at 31 (the first in "tier-5"), but actually 31-51 ($23-28M) is really a pile of similar budget lower middle of P5, making them more like 51 Iowa State (the last in "tier-5") than TCU, OU and UT (top 20). Baylor also has issues that make them less attractive than their athletic stature, plus they are also not a research school.

So my TCU comments were more in comparison with the other B12 schools. They have separated from the other little-8. They may be like Louisville in the last realignment, the surprise school to have standing (metrics made Louisville a runaway choice over UConn and Cincy, despite bad AI). All I am saying is do not be shocked if they wind up being the 3rd B12 school to move (as to where, I haven't a clue, as they are a non-starter for the B1G and make no sense for the SEC ... they only make some sense going with Texas to the ACC or P12--I don't see Texas going P12 period).

Good info here. TCU would kill it in the ACC but I don’t see it happening. Big 12 lifer imo. They’ll keep winning games they shouldn’t regardless.
(This post was last modified: Yesterday 03:41 PM by zoocrew.)
Yesterday 03:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Jjoey52 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,244
Joined: Feb 2017
Reputation: 187
I Root For: ISU
Location:
Post: #86
Fast forward to 2025...
No one really knows BYU situation, mormon church keeps things very quiet. CSU is no successful athletic program, look up their records.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Yesterday 05:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Ohio Poly Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,158
Joined: Nov 2015
Reputation: 0
I Root For: Ohio Poly
Location:
Post: #87
RE: Fast forward to 2025...
Welcome to the G6, New-B12 !
Yesterday 09:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2019 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2019 MyBB Group.