The unofficial online home for fans of the University of Cincinnati Bearcats. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

https://twitter.com/PeteThamel/status/11...6563954690

Thamel has on official on the record saying expansion isn't likely going to happen in the future; more likely to see contraction.

ouch....we may be G5 forever

I mean, this is kind of what we expected, isn't it?

I think everyone here figured Texas/Oklahoma and their extra carry-ons would end up somewhere else and we'd find a way to match up with the misfits Great Plains.

Contraction? Like that's ever going to happen.

Now, there may be something to the extent of "whoever is in favor of dissolving the B12 please step forward" and Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas all take a step backwards... that may be possible.

But kicking out people? Aint gonna happen.

(07-18-2019 01:12 PM)Def Berkkat Wrote:  Contraction? Like that's ever going to happen.

Now, there may be something to the extent of "whoever is in favor of dissolving the B12 please step forward" and Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas all take a step backwards... that may be possible.

But kicking out people? Aint gonna happen.

Conferences will not be able to kick schools out.

That doesn't mean that 10 SEC schools couldn't leave and form a new conference, leaving the other schools behind, for example.

(07-18-2019 01:08 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  I mean, this is kind of what we expected, isn't it?

Yes. With all due respect to Pete Thamel, major realignment on hold for the foreseeable future is not news. I feel like once the UConn announcement was made it fired up the coals again on this topic. As you can see just from the various boards on CSNbbs, realignment/conference expansion is always a HOT topic. That said, 2025 is a ways away and while it would not be a surprise that nothing happens on this front until then, there might still be a surprise or two. If you look at our own conference situation, we still can add a team especially if BYU or Bosie wants to join. Interesting to see what happens after the new MWC media deal is completed.

(07-18-2019 12:51 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  https://twitter.com/PeteThamel/status/11...6563954690

Thamel has on official on the record saying expansion isn't likely going to happen in the future; more likely to see contraction.

It's a rational point of view to say the least.

My feeling is realignment resumes in the next several years and a small number of dominant G5 programs will have opportunities to migrate up to a P5. Perhaps that will be triggered by movement of a TX, OK and/or KS.

At the other end of of the spectrum, I believe the G5 will slim down considerably as the costs will simply outweigh the perceived benefits for many universities. Pressure will continue to mount nationwide to bring the ever rising cost of higher education under control.

I do agree realignment only happens when the financial interests of TV, streaming services or whatever medium controls advertising revenue aligns with a need for more universities (markets). Competitively, it can be argued today that Houston, UCF and Cincinnati are all functioning at a power conference level--at or above the midpoint of P5 member schools.

Playoff expansion is more certain; simply following the dollars again. If that includes a spot for the "P6" AAC, UC would be back closer to the old Big East days with the BCS 6 autobid providing a pathway to compete for a genuine national championship. I believe there will be widespread support for more access to the championship. Not out of the goodness of their hearts in the P5 but simply to make sure each of the five get a slot each year. The AAC will have to hope for a token slot at the table. But it's still a pathway that's practically non-existent in today's alignment.

I see the overall NCAA bubble popping either before contraction or even as a direct cause to contraction due to legal action for player compensation. Some schools won't be able to afford this if it comes to pass. You have to hope that UC is true to its word that it's willing to put the resources in to play at the highest levels.

(07-18-2019 03:23 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 12:51 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  https://twitter.com/PeteThamel/status/11...6563954690

Thamel has on official on the record saying expansion isn't likely going to happen in the future; more likely to see contraction.

It's a rational point of view to say the least.

My feeling is realignment resumes in the next several years and a small number of dominant G5 programs will have opportunities to migrate up to a P5. Perhaps that will be triggered by movement of a TX, OK and/or KS.

At the other end of of the spectrum, I believe the G5 will slim down considerably as the costs will simply outweigh the perceived benefits for many universities. Pressure will continue to mount nationwide to bring the ever rising cost of higher education under control.

I do agree realignment only happens when the financial interests of TV, streaming services or whatever medium controls advertising revenue aligns with a need for more universities (markets). Competitively, it can be argued today that Houston, UCF and Cincinnati are all functioning at a power conference level--at or above the midpoint of P5 member schools.

Playoff expansion is more certain; simply following the dollars again. If that includes a spot for the "P6" AAC, UC would be back closer to the old Big East days with the BCS 6 autobid providing a pathway to compete for a genuine national championship. I believe there will be widespread support for more access to the championship. Not out of the goodness of their hearts in the P5 but simply to make sure each of the five get a slot each year. The AAC will have to hope for a token slot at the table. But it's still a pathway that's practically non-existent in today's alignment.

It won't. No way will the powers-that-be take a chance that the AAC champion will displace a second-place team from a P5.

The honest question facing the top tier of College Football is "How Many Teams Do You Need?" I think the current number of "FBS" teams (what is it...120+ and growing?) is ridiculous. But the number of "Power" teams (64 including ND) is too low to sustain a full schedule. I have heard people banter about the number 100 +- 10 (so between 90 and 110) as the "sweet spot" for the top level of college football.

What needs to happen, IMO, is that the current "Power" conferences ought to think strategically about this with their media partners. If the current 64 teams is not sufficient to schedule out the 12 game season, then the "Power" conferences ought to secure the future of the AAC and maybe the MW to be there to play in the future. Then, as the economic realities begin to winnow out the SBC, CUSA, and maybe the MAC, from FBS competition, then the "Power" conferences have a supply of playmates.

Of course, Thamel is probably right..."contraction"...from 5 "Power" conferences to 4 is more likely.

I think you hit the nail on the head. The networks have to have enough competitive teams to provide both variety but also coverage throughout the country by drawing in as many markets as possible. It's in their interest to make it sustainable. However, they are fighting their own battles right now with loss of revenues. It will be interesting.

(07-18-2019 08:47 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  The honest question facing the top tier of College Football is "How Many Teams Do You Need?" I think the current number of "FBS" teams (what is it...120+ and growing?) is ridiculous. But the number of "Power" teams (64 including ND) is too low to sustain a full schedule. I have heard people banter about the number 100 +- 10 (so between 90 and 110) as the "sweet spot" for the top level of college football.

What needs to happen, IMO, is that the current "Power" conferences ought to think strategically about this with their media partners. If the current 64 teams is not sufficient to schedule out the 12 game season, then the "Power" conferences ought to secure the future of the AAC and maybe the MW to be there to play in the future. Then, as the economic realities begin to winnow out the SBC, CUSA, and maybe the MAC, from FBS competition, then the "Power" conferences have a supply of playmates.

Of course, Thamel is probably right..."contraction"...from 5 "Power" conferences to 4 is more likely.

Bolded, I agree. There has actually been some speculation in this regard too. I believe there are 90-100 universities that have the will and the resources to compete nationally. Along this line of thinking, some have even suggested that today's gerrymandered conferences should go away and geographic regions established to reduce travel costs and invigorate rivalry games for all sports. In my mind, that's a bridge too far. There is too much power and pride residing in the old lions of the SEC or B10.

But in a 90+ high major group, UC is right there.

What about the idea of 4-5 "major" regional conferences and 4-5 "minor" regional conferences, with the major conference teams getting their buy games from the corresponding local minor conference?

I personally like the idea of potential relegation and promotion between the two, but I can't see that being agreed to by the current "have" schools.

(07-18-2019 03:23 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 12:51 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  https://twitter.com/PeteThamel/status/11...6563954690

Thamel has on official on the record saying expansion isn't likely going to happen in the future; more likely to see contraction.

It's a rational point of view to say the least.

My feeling is realignment resumes in the next several years and a small number of dominant G5 programs will have opportunities to migrate up to a P5. Perhaps that will be triggered by movement of a TX, OK and/or KS.

At the other end of of the spectrum, I believe the G5 will slim down considerably as the costs will simply outweigh the perceived benefits for many universities. Pressure will continue to mount nationwide to bring the ever rising cost of higher education under control.

I do agree realignment only happens when the financial interests of TV, streaming services or whatever medium controls advertising revenue aligns with a need for more universities (markets). Competitively, it can be argued today that Houston, UCF and Cincinnati are all functioning at a power conference level--at or above the midpoint of P5 member schools.

Playoff expansion is more certain; simply following the dollars again. If that includes a spot for the "P6" AAC, UC would be back closer to the old Big East days with the BCS 6 autobid providing a pathway to compete for a genuine national championship. I believe there will be widespread support for more access to the championship. Not out of the goodness of their hearts in the P5 but simply to make sure each of the five get a slot each year. The AAC will have to hope for a token slot at the table. But it's still a pathway that's practically non-existent in today's alignment.

I agree that Houston, UCF, and Cincinnati are all functioning at a power-conference level. Memphis is close.

One possibility I see: if 2 of those 4 dominate the AAC for the next 5 years, then it would benefit the Big 12 to add those two.

The Big 12 is at a disadvantage because it only has 10 teams. The entire Big 12 footprint is smaller than California. It's 2/3 the size of the 1990 Big Ten or SEC. It's not just cable markets; it's exposure to potential recruits, students, and AP voters.

The reason why the Big 12 didn't add 2 in 2016 is because there was only 1 team (UC) that would bring enough long-term value to keep the per-school payout the same. At the time UCF, Memphis, and Houston all had the risk of being 1-hit wonders (UCF had just come off an 0-12 season). So the votes split.

But if there's two obvious choices...