(08-10-2021 04:08 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  

(08-10-2021 02:12 PM)ken d Wrote:  No option for adding just one to get an 8 game league schedule?

Also, 11 would work fine, too. ...

11 would most definitely not work fine, until and unless the CCG is deregulated. The AAC is playing at 11 under a waiver now, because to have a CCG under the rules they would have to have some teams either playing more or fewer conference games than the others.

While 9 is functional, it has many of the same problems with weekly inventory as 8.

(08-10-2021 08:02 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-10-2021 04:08 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  

(08-10-2021 02:12 PM)ken d Wrote:  No option for adding just one to get an 8 game league schedule?

Also, 11 would work fine, too. ...

11 would most definitely not work fine, until and unless the CCG is deregulated. The AAC is playing at 11 under a waiver now, because to have a CCG under the rules they would have to have some teams either playing more or fewer conference games than the others.

While 9 is functional, it has many of the same problems with weekly inventory as 8.

Seems to me 10 to 12 is the sweet spot.

(08-10-2021 08:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Seems to me 10 to 12 is the sweet spot.

Everything else equal, 12 is the sweet spot for a two division structure for a conference that wants to have eight conference games ... two divisional races for the two CCG spots, play all of the schools in the conference twice every four years, reasonable weekly inventory even in conference schedule weeks with a bye or an OOC away game. And growing from 12 with two schools of roughly the same value doesn't improve the value of the top end of the weekly inventory as rapidly as it adds new mouths to feed.

I reckon ten depends on how much everything else is NOT equal, how much the incumbent members are worth compared to the incremental value of potential adds.

Given that I reckon BYU is an add that is at par or better, if the Big12 can see their way clear to inviting BYU and BYU can see their way clear to accepting an invite, it makes 12 more likely.

And then there are divisional issues. Part of the appeal of Memphis as an add is that it is 8-9 hours away from the Kansas schools, and for the Olympic sports, UC and WVU would be just close enough to work as travel partners. So the Kansas schools might accept Iowa State, Memphis and UC as division mates along with WVU, and then if Houston is in the "West" division, with four Texas schools in the West division they are guaranteed one game in Texas every year.

I'm kind of on the fence on the poll ... I can see an advantage to 12, especially if BYU joins, and I can see an advantage to 10, especially if BYU declines.

Ask these questions:

1) Does having X number of schools get you more money per school in media rights than X-1 schools (and perhaps X-2)
-- ask this question about the highest value school in your estimation; always work from highest value down
2) Does having X number of schools improve the ranking of your football programs, improve your chances of making the CFP
-- this needs to be measurable. It takes a top 10 ranking to definitely make the playoff, it gets dicey beyond that
3) Does having X number of schools increase the number of at-large bids to the NCAA tournament than you get from X-1 schools (or X-2)
-- ask this individually about each school; rule of thumb, a top 45 NET is required to get an at-large

The key points about each school to ask is, does adding school A add money to my school. If the answer is no, or maybe break even, then you do not add them. Forget the number that sounds good to you, think of the money, and then the money, and thirdly the money.

(08-10-2021 08:02 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  to have a CCG under the rules they would have to have some teams either playing more or fewer conference games than the others

Incorrect.

(08-10-2021 03:19 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(08-10-2021 02:42 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  I would say go for 2 immediately and then look to expand again in a couple of years. Perhaps Cincinnati and Houston now and then the Florida schools or someone else later. I think adding 4-6 schools at once would look slightly desperate.

I don't think they should add now. 2025 is the earliest they should add new members since they would have to split up payments from the remaining Oklahoma Texas years if they add before then. But I definitely think they should expand to 10 as opposed to staying at 8.

Well, I meant in terms of getting the process started now. I'd have the replacements start the year OU and UT leave.

Until they settle with TX and OK they need to stand pat. Collect the $$. By the time TX and OK leave they need to have 10 or more in place. I would recommend 12, or 14. They will not lose A status, and 14 puts them on a even level for voting purposes. If they can keep TV deals >12 mil per school, the AAC will go <4 mil. They will remain the weakest of the P5.

(08-10-2021 02:22 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  I went for 12.

The conference would be unstable at 8. A few legacy B12 schools are always going to be looking for an upgrade. If they maintain their athletic investment level, it’s just a matter of time before KU or OSU get an offer (TCU and WVU may also get interest).

Without tent-pole programs, 12 members may be needed to ensure interest from multiple media companies. The AAC had to settle for a low ball first offer partly because of their smaller size.

Actually the AAC was offered around 10 million per if the schools (specifically Memphis, Cincy, Houston, UCF)were willing to sign a GOR.

I don't think the L8 are going to expand with anyone. If you all keep thinking that ESPN is going to let any of their wholly contracted programs go to a conference that they 1/2 own and has targeted for termination to save about 1/2 billion dollars then you're totally missing what the Texas Oklahoma to the SEC deal signaled. Their only hope would've been if Fox swooped in and decided to be the savior and protector of the L8 and any additions that they needed to stay viable. They did it for the Catholic 7 so where are they now? I'll tell where,,,they are sitting back in silent agreement with ESPN. They both want out of their big12 overvalued deals that they were coerced into overpaying in the first place to keep them from ironically ADDING THE SAME TEAMS NOW THAT THE L8 THINK ARE GOING TO SAVE THEIR CONTRACT.

Big XII

Add: Houston, UC, UCF and USF.

Then think twice and add: SMU and Memphis as well.

Save two spots to 16 for when the ACC gets raided and pick up two teams from there.

Is grabbing Western schools and competing against the Pac-12 rather than SEC/B1G a viable strategy?

BYU, Boise, SDSU, CSU

ESPN and/or FOX may enjoying picking off CBS’s top properties.

(08-11-2021 12:44 PM)Crayton Wrote:  Is grabbing Western schools and competing against the Pac-12 rather than SEC/B1G a viable strategy?

BYU, Boise, SDSU, CSU

I certainly think so. Builds a bridge to BYU.

(08-11-2021 12:44 PM)Crayton Wrote:  Is grabbing Western schools and competing against the Pac-12 rather than SEC/B1G a viable strategy?

BYU, Boise, SDSU, CSU

ESPN and/or FOX may enjoying picking off CBS’s top properties.

Right now the strategy isn't competing vs one or the other.

It's "who helps us make money enough to fund programs that can compete for the playoff in football and march madness in hoops?"

So from that standpoint it really doesn't matter east or west. You need programs that either have brand respect or can continue to earn it in non-con play. Adding weak programs to make the geography look neater probably isnt the play.

So a BYU & UCF combo is more likely than say a CSU and BYU combo for example.

(08-11-2021 12:44 PM)Crayton Wrote:  Is grabbing Western schools and competing against the Pac-12 rather than SEC/B1G a viable strategy?

BYU, Boise, SDSU, CSU

I think it is. There would be HUGE value in legitimizing the Big 12. That's not going to work vis-a-vis the SEC or the B1G; but it could work against the PAC.

BYU, SDSU, and Boise aren't in the PAC because of reasons outside of brand value and athletics. BYU and CSU have legitimate PAC rivalry games. Each have solid OOC games that they could add to the TV inventory. Upcoming OOC home games (starting 2023 and later):

Boise - Oregon, Oregon State, Washington State, UCF, Houston, USF, Cincinnati
SDSU - UCLA, Arizona State, Cal, Washington State, Oregon State, Missouri(x2)
CSU - Colorado(x4), Arizona, Washington Sate, Vanderbilt
BYU - Utah(x4), Stanford(x2), Arizona, Tennessee, Ole Miss, NC State, Virginia Tech, Michigan State, UCF

BYU has the third best attendance in the West, behind only USC and Washington. CSU is a good academic school with a similar culture and feel as Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech - a new stadium and connects the footprint.

If possible, also include Gonzaga Olympic sports.

And, the Big 12 has the upper hand, being centered in the Central time zone.

(08-11-2021 12:51 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(08-11-2021 12:44 PM)Crayton Wrote:  Is grabbing Western schools and competing against the Pac-12 rather than SEC/B1G a viable strategy?

BYU, Boise, SDSU, CSU

ESPN and/or FOX may enjoying picking off CBS’s top properties.

Right now the strategy isn't competing vs one or the other.

It's "who helps us make money enough to fund programs that can compete for the playoff in football and march madness in hoops?"

So from that standpoint it really doesn't matter east or west. You need programs that either have brand respect or can continue to earn it in non-con play. Adding weak programs to make the geography look neater probably isnt the play.

So a BYU & UCF combo is more likely than say a CSU and BYU combo for example.

It's both, really. Ideally you get $$$ -and- the geography is more sensible. For the presidents to choose "east and west" instead of "east or west" probably requires a huge amount of extra money.

For example, selecting BYU and one AAC team instead of just two AAC teams probably requires BYU to have about 5x as much TV value as the "second" AAC team the Big 12 would otherwise add. If BYU's TV value is the same as that second AAC team or only a few dollars more, then the presidents would probably decide it's not worth it to "go both directions".

(08-11-2021 04:24 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(08-10-2021 08:02 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  to have a CCG under the rules they would have to have some teams either playing more or fewer conference games than the others

Incorrect.

I mean, mostly correct. From that AAC discussion I think the only scenario that fit the rules was 2 teams from the 5-team division playing twice (like UCF and USF playing home and home). Bruce’s statement that this solution is “not fine” seems accurate.

(08-11-2021 01:05 PM)Crayton Wrote:  

(08-11-2021 04:24 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(08-10-2021 08:02 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  to have a CCG under the rules they would have to have some teams either playing more or fewer conference games than the others

Incorrect.

I mean, mostly correct. From that AAC discussion I think the only scenario that fit the rules was 2 teams from the 5-team division playing twice (like UCF and USF playing home and home). Bruce’s statement that this solution is “not fine” seems accurate.

It's either correct or it's not. And Bruce's statement is incorrect, as you just noted.

(08-11-2021 01:01 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-11-2021 12:51 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(08-11-2021 12:44 PM)Crayton Wrote:  Is grabbing Western schools and competing against the Pac-12 rather than SEC/B1G a viable strategy?

BYU, Boise, SDSU, CSU

ESPN and/or FOX may enjoying picking off CBS’s top properties.

Right now the strategy isn't competing vs one or the other.

It's "who helps us make money enough to fund programs that can compete for the playoff in football and march madness in hoops?"

So from that standpoint it really doesn't matter east or west. You need programs that either have brand respect or can continue to earn it in non-con play. Adding weak programs to make the geography look neater probably isnt the play.

So a BYU & UCF combo is more likely than say a CSU and BYU combo for example.

It's both, really. Ideally you get $$$ -and- the geography is more sensible. For the presidents to choose "east and west" instead of "east or west" probably requires a huge amount of extra money.

For example, selecting BYU and one AAC team instead of just two AAC teams probably requires BYU to have about 5x as much TV value as the "second" AAC team the Big 12 would otherwise add. If BYU's TV value is the same as that second AAC team or only a few dollars more, then the presidents would probably decide it's not worth it to "go both directions".

Overstated. 5 times the TV value to justify what? There are loads of examples of eastern schools travelling to play western schools, and vice-versa, in most sports, including women's volleyball and tennis. San Diego State and Sacramento State are *current* AAC members in women's rowing.

Big 12 wrestling already includes Utah Valley, Northern Colorado, Air Force and Wyoming...and soon will include Cal-Baptist. Big 12 women's gymnastics includes Denver.

(08-11-2021 01:12 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-11-2021 01:01 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-11-2021 12:51 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(08-11-2021 12:44 PM)Crayton Wrote:  Is grabbing Western schools and competing against the Pac-12 rather than SEC/B1G a viable strategy?

BYU, Boise, SDSU, CSU

ESPN and/or FOX may enjoying picking off CBS’s top properties.

Right now the strategy isn't competing vs one or the other.

It's "who helps us make money enough to fund programs that can compete for the playoff in football and march madness in hoops?"

So from that standpoint it really doesn't matter east or west. You need programs that either have brand respect or can continue to earn it in non-con play. Adding weak programs to make the geography look neater probably isnt the play.

So a BYU & UCF combo is more likely than say a CSU and BYU combo for example.

It's both, really. Ideally you get $$$ -and- the geography is more sensible. For the presidents to choose "east and west" instead of "east or west" probably requires a huge amount of extra money.

For example, selecting BYU and one AAC team instead of just two AAC teams probably requires BYU to have about 5x as much TV value as the "second" AAC team the Big 12 would otherwise add. If BYU's TV value is the same as that second AAC team or only a few dollars more, then the presidents would probably decide it's not worth it to "go both directions".

Overstated. 5 times the TV value to justify what? There are loads of examples of eastern schools travelling to play western schools, and vice-versa, in most sports, including women's volleyball and tennis. San Diego State and Sacramento State are *current* AAC members in women's rowing.

Big 12 wrestling already includes Utah Valley, Northern Colorado, Air Force and Wyoming...and soon will include Cal-Baptist. Big 12 women's gymnastics includes Denver.

Not to mention BYU potentially as a FB Only would mitigate the biggest travel & sunday issues.

FWIW, Google Flights shows:

Routine Non-stop commercial flights from SLC to:
- Kansas City-2:20
- DFW-2:35
- OKC - 2:24
- Des Moines-2:32

Flights from Denver to
- KC-1:36
- DFW-1:52
- OKC - 1:35
- Des Moines - 1:41

Flights from Houston to
- KC-1:56
- DFW-1:14
- OKC - 1:25
- Des Moines - 2:16

Flights from Cincinnati to
- DFW: 2:30
- Couldn't find non-stop commercial flights from Cincinnati to KC, OKC, or Des Moines.

Flights from Orlando to
- KC- 2:45
- DFW - 2:54
- OKC - 2:45
- Couldn't find non-stop commercial flights from Orlando to Des Moines

Flights from San Diego to
- KC - 3:00
- DFW - 3:00
- Couldn't find non-stop commercial flights from San Diego to OKC or Des Moines

Could only find non-stop flights to Lubbock from Houston-1:36 and Denver-1:25