(05-23-2020 06:08 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  In all honesty, realignment is a food chain. The only conferences that are going to be getting better are the ones at the top: the SEC and Big Ten. Everyone is is going to be trying to replace schools they lost with ones from lower status conferences.

So you're predicting that the SEC and Big Ten will be expanding.

(05-23-2020 06:37 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 06:08 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  In all honesty, realignment is a food chain. The only conferences that are going to be getting better are the ones at the top: the SEC and Big Ten. Everyone is is going to be trying to replace schools they lost with ones from lower status conferences.

So you're predicting that the SEC and Big Ten will be expanding.

Yes, if they can get the right schools. ND, Texas, Oklahoma, Florida St, and Clemson are out there and would be attractive.

(05-23-2020 07:17 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 06:37 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 06:08 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  In all honesty, realignment is a food chain. The only conferences that are going to be getting better are the ones at the top: the SEC and Big Ten. Everyone is is going to be trying to replace schools they lost with ones from lower status conferences.

So you're predicting that the SEC and Big Ten will be expanding.

Yes, if they can get the right schools. ND, Texas, Oklahoma, Florida St, and Clemson are out there and would be attractive.

I'd put the odds of P5 expansion at ~ 50/50 at present.

SEC seems content with 14. ACC already bursting at the seams. Big Ten let go of their pro-expansion Commissioner and regrets have been expressed for adding Rutgers/Maryland. PAC-12 has no obvious target schools. Big 12 had the option to expand, but chose to stay with 10 schools.

(05-23-2020 04:19 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  [quote='SoCalBobcat78' pid='16830693' dateline='1590265505']

USC came off a PAC 12-championship 11-win season in 2017.
USC’s season ticket holders the following season? 15,000.
https://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/la-sp...story.html

Quote:Starting Friday, USC will move beyond its 6,000 or so Trojan Athletic Fund members and begin a five-months-long outreach process to contact general season-ticket holders — those 9,000 or so fans who have previously not paid the minimum $200 annual fee required to join the fund.

Iowa St came off an 8-5 season in 2018.
Iowa St’s season ticket holders the following season? 45,000
https://cyclones.com/news/2019/8/16/foot...-sold.aspx

Quote:Director of Athletics Jamie Pollard challenged the fans to reach 45,000 sales.

And, they answered.

One-third the STH’ers of Iowa State after winning a PAC-12 championship.

USC fans shouldn’t blame Larry Scott — they should blame themselves. USC football succeeds in spite of - not because of - its fan base.

You misunderstood the article. This was about reaching out to season ticket holders who had not committed to paying the $200 minimum per seat to join the Trojan West athletic fund. Because of the renovations in the Coliseum, seating capacity was being reduced form 93,000 to 77,000. For those 9,000 season ticket holders, their price per seat got an additional fee of $200 added to it. If they didn't pay it, they were kicked up to general seating for season tickets. So they are being asked to pay more, they don't know for sure where they will be sitting, they were unhappy about a 5-7 season, about losing to UCLA, with Lynn Swann as AD and Clay Helton as head coach.

There are at least 50,000 season ticket holders. I have not been to the Coliseum since the renovation, but I hear it looks good. There is a lot of money in Southern California but there is a point where both USC and UCLA supporters are not going to pay anymore. These schools need to get their act together. But that does not mean moving to the Big 12. That is a pipe dream.

(05-23-2020 09:57 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  There are at least 50,000 season ticket holders. I have not been to the Coliseum since the renovation, but I hear it looks good. There is a lot of money in Southern California but there is a point where both USC and UCLA supporters are not going to pay anymore. These schools need to get their act together. But that does not mean moving to the Big 12. That is a pipe dream.

How does that relate to the topic of this thread - - which conference is likely to make the greatest leap forward?

(05-23-2020 09:57 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  You misunderstood the article. This was about reaching out to season ticket holders who had not committed to paying the $200 minimum per seat to join the Trojan West athletic fund. Because of the renovations in the Coliseum, seating capacity was being reduced form 93,000 to 77,000. For those 9,000 season ticket holders, their price per seat got an additional fee of $200 added to it. If they didn't pay it, they were kicked up to general seating for season tickets. So they are being asked to pay more, they don't know for sure where they will be sitting, they were unhappy about a 5-7 season, about losing to UCLA, with Lynn Swann as AD and Clay Helton as head coach.

There are at least 50,000 season ticket holders. I have not been to the Coliseum since the renovation, but I hear it looks good. There is a lot of money in Southern California but there is a point where both USC and UCLA supporters are not going to pay anymore. These schools need to get their act together. But that does not mean moving to the Big 12. That is a pipe dream.

SoCal, USC can’t have 50k STH’ers. They drew 47k against ASU.
https://usctrojans.com/sports/football/s...core/18116

Here’s a different article stating USC has 10k STH’ers (aside from the 6k Trojan Fund donors), and it does not have any stipulations that could be interpreted differently. In this piece, it is worded clearly.

https://www.ocregister.com/2017/05/28/us...ations-10/

Quote:As part of the planned renovations to the Coliseum, the historic stadium that has housed USC’s football team since 1923, a majority of season-ticket holders will be relocated as soon as 2018. The school recently began mailing pamphlets, detailing the upcoming changes, to donors and its 10,000 season-ticket holders.

(05-23-2020 07:17 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 06:37 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 06:08 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  In all honesty, realignment is a food chain. The only conferences that are going to be getting better are the ones at the top: the SEC and Big Ten. Everyone is is going to be trying to replace schools they lost with ones from lower status conferences.

So you're predicting that the SEC and Big Ten will be expanding.

Yes, if they can get the right schools. ND, Texas, Oklahoma, Florida St, and Clemson are out there and would be attractive.

My theory has been those have the top are the most content and the least likely to expand/invite, especially if the media rights gap between the SEC and Big Ten widen larger than it already is. If the SEC already is making tons of money more than anyone else without Texas, Oklahoma, Clemson, or Florida State, does it really need to add anyone? The conferences that will add are the ones that aren't happy with their (potential) media deals. If FOX gives the Big Ten what they want post 2023, Texas who? If they don't, Austin will be on line 1. That's why in my poll for Texas/Oklahoma I picked the Pac-12 as their most likely destination. They're the most desperate. They need them the most. If the SEC, Big Ten, and Pac-12 all want Texas/Oklahoma, the Pac-12 will be the least desirable and the only way the Pac-12 gets the pair is if they are willing to take Texas Tech, TCU, Oklahoma State, and/or other schools to keep them happy. Of the three conferences, the Pac-12 is the one most likely to take extra teams to make Texas/Oklahoma happy (it also helps that they only have 12 teams). I can also see a case where the SEC and Big Ten just feel content enough they don't even call Texas/Oklahoma at all. If the Pac-12 doesn't call Texas/Oklahoma, they're idiots (and we know Larry Scott has tried before).

CBS Sports has put out a theory with both the NBA and MLB recently, both leagues are hurting for cash so why not expand to 32 teams so you can collect expansion fees? If we see expansion soon, we can point to COVID-19 and the economic desperation as a possible kick to jumpstart it.

https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/nba-e...ronavirus/

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/why-t...ar-future/

These two articles were written by two different writers BTW. My first instinct was they were the same author.

On the other hand, I can see if other conferences make moves it might force the top conferences (SEC/Big Ten) to as well. But the problem is barring the ACC schools (Notre Dame included) getting out of their GOR, the only game changing schools are Texas and Oklahoma so if the Pac-12 gets them the SEC and Big Ten will have no choice but to either add Little 8 members or sit this expansion cycle out and if the Pac-12 adds Little 8 members that probably won't push the SEC/Big Ten to want Texas/Oklahoma any more (although it might push Texas/Oklahoma to want to go to the SEC/Big Ten). But if the SEC and Big Ten are on the top and aren't threatened, they won't have the incentive to make the "greatest leap".

On the other hand, the race between the SEC and Big Ten could be interesting. The Big Ten will want to be #1 and the SEC will want to stay #1. How does the Big Ten get to #1? Add Texas/Oklahoma. How does the SEC prevent the Big Ten from getting to #1? Make sure the Big Ten doesn't get Texas/Oklahoma. How do you do that? Get them yourself. If Texas gets caught in a bidding war between the SEC and Big Ten maybe Texas Tech is able to string along to the SEC or Big Ten (or someone mentioned Texas AD Chris Del Conte was TCU's AD, maybe it's TCU that comes along instead).

(05-24-2020 05:57 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 07:17 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 06:37 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 06:08 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  In all honesty, realignment is a food chain. The only conferences that are going to be getting better are the ones at the top: the SEC and Big Ten. Everyone is is going to be trying to replace schools they lost with ones from lower status conferences.

So you're predicting that the SEC and Big Ten will be expanding.

Yes, if they can get the right schools. ND, Texas, Oklahoma, Florida St, and Clemson are out there and would be attractive.

My theory has been those have the top are the most content and the least likely to expand/invite, especially if the media rights gap between the SEC and Big Ten widen larger than it already is. If the SEC already is making tons of money more than anyone else without Texas, Oklahoma, Clemson, or Florida State, does it really need to add anyone? The conferences that will add are the ones that aren't happy with their (potential) media deals. If FOX gives the Big Ten what they want post 2023, Texas who? If they don't, Austin will be on line 1. That's why in my poll for Texas/Oklahoma I picked the Pac-12 as their most likely destination. They're the most desperate. They need them the most. If the SEC, Big Ten, and Pac-12 all want Texas/Oklahoma, the Pac-12 will be the least desirable and the only way the Pac-12 gets the pair is if they are willing to take Texas Tech, TCU, Oklahoma State, and/or other schools to keep them happy. Of the three conferences, the Pac-12 is the one most likely to take extra teams to make Texas/Oklahoma happy (it also helps that they only have 12 teams). I can also see a case where the SEC and Big Ten just feel content enough they don't even call Texas/Oklahoma at all. If the Pac-12 doesn't call Texas/Oklahoma, they're idiots (and we know Larry Scott has tried before).

CBS Sports has put out a theory with both the NBA and MLB recently, both leagues are hurting for cash so why not expand to 32 teams so you can collect expansion fees? If we see expansion soon, we can point to COVID-19 and the economic desperation as a possible kick to jumpstart it.

https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/nba-e...ronavirus/

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/why-t...ar-future/

These two articles were written by two different writers BTW. My first instinct was they were the same author.

On the other hand, I can see if other conferences make moves it might force the top conferences (SEC/Big Ten) to as well. But the problem is barring the ACC schools (Notre Dame included) getting out of their GOR, the only game changing schools are Texas and Oklahoma so if the Pac-12 gets them the SEC and Big Ten will have no choice but to either add Little 8 members or sit this expansion cycle out and if the Pac-12 adds Little 8 members that probably won't push the SEC/Big Ten to want Texas/Oklahoma any more (although it might push Texas/Oklahoma to want to go to the SEC/Big Ten). But if the SEC and Big Ten are on the top and aren't threatened, they won't have the incentive to make the "greatest leap".

On the other hand, the race between the SEC and Big Ten could be interesting. The Big Ten will want to be #1 and the SEC will want to stay #1. How does the Big Ten get to #1? Add Texas/Oklahoma. How does the SEC prevent the Big Ten from getting to #1? Make sure the Big Ten doesn't get Texas/Oklahoma. How do you do that? Get them yourself. If Texas gets caught in a bidding war between the SEC and Big Ten maybe Texas Tech is able to string along to the SEC or Big Ten (or someone mentioned Texas AD Chris Del Conte was TCU's AD, maybe it's TCU that comes along instead).

That's a very interesting viewpoint.

When it comes to Texas, a lot of folks see them as "destroyers of conferences" or "bulls in china shops" when it comes to their reputation for either blowing up a conference (the original SWC) or driving out multiple schools that got tired of the way UT threw its weight around in conference decisions (Arkansas, Texas A&M, Nebraska, Missouri, and Colorado).

In realignment, past often predicts the future. Based on that, I picked the Sun Belt. They are probably the only FBS conference to come out stronger after suffering multiple losses. The SB lost FIVE schools to C-USA from 2012 to 2014, yet it is inarguably better than it has ever been and quite arguably better off than the conference that raised it.

Three of the schools who were already in the league (Ark. State, Louisiana, and Troy) reached heights that hadn't before realignment. Ark. State won six out of seven league titles in one stretch. Troy achieved the league's first ever Top 25 ranking. Louisiana had never before won 10 games, and they just won 11 last year. Probably most significantly, the most successful member of the league has been new member App State, winner of five straight bowl games and first SB Top 25 finisher.

As for future realignment, the SB may have the "next App State" from FCS with JMU, who is ready for a transition yesterday.

Now, I think that realignment will end up with an all new look between schools in C-USA and the SB, but short of that, I think the SB will come out a winner once again.

(05-24-2020 08:12 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  In realignment, past often predicts the future. Based on that, I picked the Sun Belt. They are probably the only FBS conference to come out stronger after suffering multiple losses. The SB lost FIVE schools to C-USA from 2012 to 2014, yet it is inarguably better than it has ever been and quite arguably better off than the conference that raised it.

Three of the schools who were already in the league (Ark. State, Louisiana, and Troy) reached heights that hadn't before realignment. Ark. State won six out of seven league titles in one stretch. Troy achieved the league's first ever Top 25 ranking. Louisiana had never before won 10 games, and they just won 11 last year. Probably most significantly, the most successful member of the league has been new member App State, winner of five straight bowl games and first SB Top 25 finisher.

As for future realignment, the SB may have the "next App State" from FCS with JMU, who is ready for a transition yesterday.

Now, I think that realignment will end up with an all new look between schools in C-USA and the SB, but short of that, I think the SB will come out a winner once again.

I'm not sure I would say the Sun Belt could end up being stronger in the next realignment shake-out. But, I have been very impressed with how Sun Belt football has unfolded the past few years.

As an MTSU fan, I've been a bit disappointed in C-USA football. The Belt is a good as C-USA in football (maybe better).

Full props to Sun Belt football.

IMHO the end game will be 4 sixteen team conferences that make up the P5 (Plus Notre Dame).

(05-24-2020 12:04 PM)THUNDERStruck73 Wrote:  IMHO the end game will be 4 sixteen team conferences that make up the P5 (Plus Notre Dame).

Q: Which 4 conferences will remain? These four (?):

Big Ten

SEC

ACC

PAC

Q: If this happens, where will the 10 Big-12 teams end up?

TX

OK

WVU

TCU

OK St.

KU

K St.

Iowa St.

TX Tech

Baylor

(05-24-2020 05:24 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(05-24-2020 12:04 PM)THUNDERStruck73 Wrote:  IMHO the end game will be 4 sixteen team conferences that make up the P5 (Plus Notre Dame).

Q: Which 4 conferences will remain? These four (?):

Big Ten

SEC

ACC

PAC

Q: If this happens, where will the 10 Big-12 teams end up?

TX

OK

WVU

TCU

OK St.

KU

K St.

Iowa St.

TX Tech

Baylor

Realignmentologists want to see a nice neat 4 by 16. There's no practical way for it to happen. Let's assume the Big 12 is disbanded and each of these schools has to be accommodated. All of the other four conferences want Texas and Oklahoma and only one conference can get each of them. If one conference gets both of them, the other three are adding two dead weight schools which are extra mouths to feed and have no incentive to do so (and in the case of the ACC extra miles for at least one of the two schools if you assume West Virginia is one of the two schools they would wind up with). Even if you are able to split Texas and Oklahoma into two separate conferences and Texas is able to bring along Texas Tech and Oklahoma can bring Oklahoma State, what about the other six? Would the two "losing" conferences want them? I doubt it. The Big 12 schools that the other conferences want are Texas, Oklahoma, and anyone they need to add to get Texas/Oklahoma and depending on which conference we're talking they probably don't want a "Tech problem" either.

(05-24-2020 05:51 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(05-24-2020 05:24 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(05-24-2020 12:04 PM)THUNDERStruck73 Wrote:  IMHO the end game will be 4 sixteen team conferences that make up the P5 (Plus Notre Dame).

Realignmentologists want to see a nice neat 4 by 16. There's no practical way for it to happen. Let's assume the Big 12 is disbanded and each of these schools has to be accommodated. All of the other four conferences want Texas and Oklahoma and only one conference can get each of them. If one conference gets both of them, the other three are adding two dead weight schools which are extra mouths to feed and have no incentive to do so (and in the case of the ACC extra miles for at least one of the two schools if you assume West Virginia is one of the two schools they would wind up with). Even if you are able to split Texas and Oklahoma into two separate conferences and Texas is able to bring along Texas Tech and Oklahoma can bring Oklahoma State, what about the other six? Would the two "losing" conferences want them? I doubt it. The Big 12 schools that the other conferences want are Texas, Oklahoma, and anyone they need to add to get Texas/Oklahoma and depending on which conference we're talking they probably don't want a "Tech problem" either.

I agree that it would be very unlikely, especially given the increasing concerns about travel costs, but just for argument's sake, here's one way that the teams might be divvied up:


TX: PAC-12 (part of a 4 team package: TX, OK, TT, and OK State)

OK: PAC-12 (part of a 4 team package: TX, OK, TT, and OK State)

WVU: SEC or ACC

TCU: SEC

OK St.: PAC-12 (part of a 4 team package: TX, OK, TT, and OK St.)

KU: Big Ten (AAU school, adjacent to Nebraska)

K St.: SEC, by default

Iowa St.: Big Ten (rivalry with Iowa, regional proximity)

TX Tech: PAC-12 (part of a 4 team package: TX, OK, TT, and OK St.)

Baylor: ACC (bc Houston is near the Atlantic Coast, technically speaking)

Texas Tech Academically is the LOWEST ranked team in the Power Five ...That means that their only Conference destination could be the SEC ...PAC or Big 10 not buying that ..But Texas A&M would block them in a heartbeat ...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(05-24-2020 07:10 PM)michael.stevens.3110 Wrote:  Texas Tech Academically is the LOWEST ranked team in the Power Five ...That means that their only Conference destination could be the SEC ...PAC or Big 10 not buying that ..But Texas A&M would block them in a heartbeat ...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Seeing as how Texas Tech was part of the PAC-16 plan several years ago...

Somehow doesn't seem like most of the Big-12 fans would like to lose their rivalry games, or that the schools would like the idea of no longer having a major conference in either the old SWC or Big 8's footprint.

(05-24-2020 05:51 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(05-24-2020 05:24 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(05-24-2020 12:04 PM)THUNDERStruck73 Wrote:  IMHO the end game will be 4 sixteen team conferences that make up the P5 (Plus Notre Dame).

Q: Which 4 conferences will remain? These four (?):

Big Ten

SEC

ACC

PAC

Q: If this happens, where will the 10 Big-12 teams end up?

TX

OK

WVU

TCU

OK St.

KU

K St.

Iowa St.

TX Tech

Baylor

Realignmentologists want to see a nice neat 4 by 16. There's no practical way for it to happen. Let's assume the Big 12 is disbanded and each of these schools has to be accommodated. All of the other four conferences want Texas and Oklahoma and only one conference can get each of them. If one conference gets both of them, the other three are adding two dead weight schools which are extra mouths to feed and have no incentive to do so (and in the case of the ACC extra miles for at least one of the two schools if you assume West Virginia is one of the two schools they would wind up with). Even if you are able to split Texas and Oklahoma into two separate conferences and Texas is able to bring along Texas Tech and Oklahoma can bring Oklahoma State, what about the other six? Would the two "losing" conferences want them? I doubt it. The Big 12 schools that the other conferences want are Texas, Oklahoma, and anyone they need to add to get Texas/Oklahoma and depending on which conference we're talking they probably don't want a "Tech problem" either.

Periodic relegation offers a solution. Perennial bottom feeders lose their place at the table and are replaced by up-and-comers which are eager and able to excel. Trying to accommodate the athletically lazy and unworthy just because is a waste of time, money and consumer interest.

(05-24-2020 11:09 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(05-24-2020 05:51 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(05-24-2020 05:24 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(05-24-2020 12:04 PM)THUNDERStruck73 Wrote:  IMHO the end game will be 4 sixteen team conferences that make up the P5 (Plus Notre Dame).

Q: Which 4 conferences will remain? These four (?):

Big Ten

SEC

ACC

PAC

Q: If this happens, where will the 10 Big-12 teams end up?

TX

OK

WVU

TCU

OK St.

KU

K St.

Iowa St.

TX Tech

Baylor

Realignmentologists want to see a nice neat 4 by 16. There's no practical way for it to happen. Let's assume the Big 12 is disbanded and each of these schools has to be accommodated. All of the other four conferences want Texas and Oklahoma and only one conference can get each of them. If one conference gets both of them, the other three are adding two dead weight schools which are extra mouths to feed and have no incentive to do so (and in the case of the ACC extra miles for at least one of the two schools if you assume West Virginia is one of the two schools they would wind up with). Even if you are able to split Texas and Oklahoma into two separate conferences and Texas is able to bring along Texas Tech and Oklahoma can bring Oklahoma State, what about the other six? Would the two "losing" conferences want them? I doubt it. The Big 12 schools that the other conferences want are Texas, Oklahoma, and anyone they need to add to get Texas/Oklahoma and depending on which conference we're talking they probably don't want a "Tech problem" either.

Periodic relegation offers a solution. Perennial bottom feeders lose their place at the table and are replaced by up-and-comers which are eager and able to excel. Trying to accommodate the athletically lazy and unworthy just because is a waste of time, money and consumer interest.

Yep - - but just try to shove some of the pigs away from that trough, and they'll grow tusks and turn into wild boars on ya!

The correct answer is "none will leap forward ... great leaps forward work better in theory than they turn out in practice".

The Big Ten and SEC might or might not make incremental improvements, but given their earning power per school, they can not make MORE than incremental improvements, because no school exists which can make a "great leap forward" in terms of the added value compared to the average when spread across 14 existing schools ... and likely to some extent watered down by the 16th school added to even out the divisions.

And everyone else loses or, at best, holds their ground.

Though "holding your ground" might end up LOOKING like a great leap forward if your current "peers" suffer too much from realignment.