(08-15-2021 04:20 PM)esayem Wrote:  People still pushing this narrative. Georgia Tech won a national title and Virginia was in play for one. The ACC would have been included.

Of course. Adding FSU is what damaged the ACC's football reputation as they were added at their national peak of power at a time they would have done the same thing to the SEC or the B10 for almost a decade until Ohio State, Florida, or Bama made a speed adjustment.

(08-15-2021 12:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-15-2021 08:57 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-15-2021 08:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-15-2021 08:23 AM)esayem Wrote:  The Big XII w/out Texas and OU still has P5-level attendance and on-field performance. Their attendance isn’t propped up by one visit a season by Texas or OU.

People talking about the Big XII becoming a “group” conference? G6 in media deal only perhaps, because their attendance dwarfs the other G conferences.

No question. In terms of fan interest and performance, the L8 is a P-level grouping.

But they are IMO clearly not a P-level grouping in brand value, which is likely what matters.

And, once they are not recognized as a "P" conference, will that fan interest still abide?

I believe the fan interest will continue because the schools aren’t going to drastically decrease enrollment and the football culture will still be strong at places like Texas Tech, Baylor, OK State etc.

The 8-team Big East football conference didn’t have much for brands and was still considered “P-level”. I would argue the Big 8 has more, heck they currently have one of the strongest brands from the Big East. IMO, this is why adding BYU would be their best bet. It’s really the only realistic brand out there available. I suppose one could argue for Boise State too, but I just don’t see that being a realistic hurdle to jump for the school presidents. That said, BYU comes with their own set of concerns for school presidents to navigate.

The 8-team Big East was an AQ conference from 2005 - 2012 because all the contracts had been signed. On the same basis, the L8 will remain a P-conference on all the dimensions that matter - CFP money, media money, bowl lineup - until 2025 as well, because all the contracts have been signed.

But just as I do not believe the Big East would have remained a "P" conference in the 2012 CFP deal even if it had not been raided, similarly I do not think the L8 will come 2025 either. Those things are based on brand value, and the brand value just isn't there, as it wasn't in the 8-team Big East.

Nor do I think the L8 will be regarded as a Power conference in the court of public opinion. How can you compare a conference with Iowa State, Texas Tech, West Virginia and Kansas with the lineup of brands in any of the other four? Like with the 8-team Big East, which was commonly referred to as the Big Least, despite its good performance on the field, it just doesn't add up to public acceptatnce.

Yes, that’s a good point about the contracts. Regardless, I think BYU gives them their best chance at maintaining the “power” label in the court of public opinion.

(08-15-2021 04:31 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-15-2021 12:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-15-2021 08:57 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-15-2021 08:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-15-2021 08:23 AM)esayem Wrote:  The Big XII w/out Texas and OU still has P5-level attendance and on-field performance. Their attendance isn’t propped up by one visit a season by Texas or OU.

People talking about the Big XII becoming a “group” conference? G6 in media deal only perhaps, because their attendance dwarfs the other G conferences.

No question. In terms of fan interest and performance, the L8 is a P-level grouping.

But they are IMO clearly not a P-level grouping in brand value, which is likely what matters.

And, once they are not recognized as a "P" conference, will that fan interest still abide?

I believe the fan interest will continue because the schools aren’t going to drastically decrease enrollment and the football culture will still be strong at places like Texas Tech, Baylor, OK State etc.

The 8-team Big East football conference didn’t have much for brands and was still considered “P-level”. I would argue the Big 8 has more, heck they currently have one of the strongest brands from the Big East. IMO, this is why adding BYU would be their best bet. It’s really the only realistic brand out there available. I suppose one could argue for Boise State too, but I just don’t see that being a realistic hurdle to jump for the school presidents. That said, BYU comes with their own set of concerns for school presidents to navigate.

The 8-team Big East was an AQ conference from 2005 - 2012 because all the contracts had been signed. On the same basis, the L8 will remain a P-conference on all the dimensions that matter - CFP money, media money, bowl lineup - until 2025 as well, because all the contracts have been signed.

But just as I do not believe the Big East would have remained a "P" conference in the 2012 CFP deal even if it had not been raided, similarly I do not think the L8 will come 2025 either. Those things are based on brand value, and the brand value just isn't there, as it wasn't in the 8-team Big East.

Nor do I think the L8 will be regarded as a Power conference in the court of public opinion. How can you compare a conference with Iowa State, Texas Tech, West Virginia and Kansas with the lineup of brands in any of the other four? Like with the 8-team Big East, which was commonly referred to as the Big Least, despite its good performance on the field, it just doesn't add up to public acceptatnce.

Yes, that’s a good point about the contracts. Regardless, I think BYU gives them their best chance at maintaining the “power” label in the court of public opinion.

"Public" opinion.

That's the rub. Certain media outlets want to shape the narrative and I doubt the little 8 are given a chance.

(08-15-2021 04:32 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(08-15-2021 04:31 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-15-2021 12:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-15-2021 08:57 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-15-2021 08:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  No question. In terms of fan interest and performance, the L8 is a P-level grouping.

But they are IMO clearly not a P-level grouping in brand value, which is likely what matters.

And, once they are not recognized as a "P" conference, will that fan interest still abide?

I believe the fan interest will continue because the schools aren’t going to drastically decrease enrollment and the football culture will still be strong at places like Texas Tech, Baylor, OK State etc.

The 8-team Big East football conference didn’t have much for brands and was still considered “P-level”. I would argue the Big 8 has more, heck they currently have one of the strongest brands from the Big East. IMO, this is why adding BYU would be their best bet. It’s really the only realistic brand out there available. I suppose one could argue for Boise State too, but I just don’t see that being a realistic hurdle to jump for the school presidents. That said, BYU comes with their own set of concerns for school presidents to navigate.

The 8-team Big East was an AQ conference from 2005 - 2012 because all the contracts had been signed. On the same basis, the L8 will remain a P-conference on all the dimensions that matter - CFP money, media money, bowl lineup - until 2025 as well, because all the contracts have been signed.

But just as I do not believe the Big East would have remained a "P" conference in the 2012 CFP deal even if it had not been raided, similarly I do not think the L8 will come 2025 either. Those things are based on brand value, and the brand value just isn't there, as it wasn't in the 8-team Big East.

Nor do I think the L8 will be regarded as a Power conference in the court of public opinion. How can you compare a conference with Iowa State, Texas Tech, West Virginia and Kansas with the lineup of brands in any of the other four? Like with the 8-team Big East, which was commonly referred to as the Big Least, despite its good performance on the field, it just doesn't add up to public acceptatnce.

Yes, that’s a good point about the contracts. Regardless, I think BYU gives them their best chance at maintaining the “power” label in the court of public opinion.

"Public" opinion.

That's the rub. Certain media outlets want to shape the narrative and I doubt the little 8 are given a chance.

It's simpler even than that:
West Virginia: Flagship in a state of under 2 million.
Iowa State: #2 in a state of over 3 million.
Kansas and Kansas State: Flagship and #2 in a state of over 2 million.

Missouri~= Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, West Virginia

Then:
Baylor: Small Private / Big Scandals

Oklahoma State: Solid #2 in a state of over 4 million but in a growing city.
TCU: Small private, great market
Texas Tech: #3 in very large state. Remote location. Solid alumni base in DFW.

So 5 who won't be considered (Kansas for hoops only) for football due to market reach.
1 with baggage.
3. Solid second adds but no star to travel with.

(08-15-2021 09:39 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Unless I’m misreading the piece—-this isn’t an opinion piece—-it’s what sources within the negotiations are saying. ...

Or what they aren't saying.

On the scheduling alliance:

Quote: Collusion? You bet. Completely legal in the cutthroat corporate world of major college athletics. While this process has been rapid in nature, sources tell CBS Sports there is currently no appetite for such a move among stakeholders.

A scheduling alliance remains complicated. There would be current nonconference contracts to unwind. There are conference media rights deals that expire at different times: the Big Ten in 2023, the Pac-12 in 2024 and the ACC in 2036.

Explicitly, sources say the type of scheduling alliance he discusses is not on the cards.

Quote:The four power conferences could then agree to a common set of playing and eligibility rules to keep that circle taut and powerful.

Which appears to be speculation, and the only ambiguity is whether it is his or somebody else's ... if he has a source or sources for this part, they go unmentioned.

Quote: With the SEC strengthened and the other three conferences potentially aligned, would any of those leagues actually want to give two berths to the Group of Five?

A rhetorical question in lieu of a sourced claim.

Quote: Taken a step further, it suggests a reality that could see the Big 12 or American fade away with one likely absorbing the other.

Clearly unsourced speculation.

Now, HERE we finally get to a sourced claim:

Quote: Cut from that herd would be eight Big 12 athletic departments with a combined nine national championships in football and basketball and 44 major bowl berths.

"That's a massive, massive blow," one high-profile sports TV industry source said.

Breaking News: The Big12 dropping from Power conference status is a "massive blow".

To the extent that Dodds received the bulk of this article from any sources, it would seem to be from sources who were aware that they were just speculating and refused to be acknowledged as a source in the piece, even anonymously.

To the extent that he took his own speculations to industry sources for confirmation, the piece is entirely compatible with most everyone saying, "yeah, for most of that stuff, maybe, I dunno, though there isn't any appetite for that scheduling thing you are talking about" and one TV industry source saying, "yeah, I don't know if the Big12 realignment is going to shake out that way, but I tell you, it's a massive, massive blow to the Big12 to get dropped down from power conference status."

In my opinion, this meeting or alliance making is getting way overblown. They met so they can be on the same page for the CFP negotiations. It probably had a lot to do with making sure all 3 conferences were willing to vote to wait on moving to a 12 team playoff until the current contract ends. That is the common theme from every article, get the playoff to the open market.

Another thing, it's my opinion that these conferences all need each other more than they'll ever say. Many people have compared these last couple weeks to a cold war arms race. Well the final conclusion to the arms build up was the shared understanding between the US and USSR of M.A.D. for the youth in the room, M.A.D. stands for mutually assured destruction. If this realignment is truly an arms race there will be no winner only losers. ESPN knows this and so does the SEC.

The end goal is definitely a smaller group of schools that get a piece of the pie but it's not going to be 20 or 30 schools. College football is the 2nd most popular sport in the country behind only the NFL, no one associated with college football wants to destroy what they have, they just want to trim the fat.

So what makes the most sense? IMHO I think we will end up with a P3 or 4, and 1 or 2 gate keeper conferences, 60 - 80 schools, and I lean more towards 80.

So to close this post, this meeting isn't some kind of declaration of war against the SEC and ESPN, that would be stupid. All 3 need the SEC and the mouse, just as much as they need the B1G, PAC, and ACC.

(08-15-2021 10:05 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  ... So to close this post, this meeting isn't some kind of declaration of war against the SEC and ESPN, that would be stupid. All 3 need the SEC and the mouse, just as much as they need the B1G, PAC, and ACC.

The ACC is married to ESPN until the mid 2030's, and with the ESPN handling their conference network, practically beyond that if they still exist in anything like their current form.

So the ACC as part of the "Alliance" pretty much assures us that it is not an "ESPN Rebel Alliance".

(08-15-2021 10:34 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-15-2021 10:05 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  ... So to close this post, this meeting isn't some kind of declaration of war against the SEC and ESPN, that would be stupid. All 3 need the SEC and the mouse, just as much as they need the B1G, PAC, and ACC.

The ACC is married to ESPN until the mid 1930's, and with the ESPN handling their conference network, practically beyond that if they still exist in anything like their current form.

So the ACC as part of the "Alliance" pretty much assures us that it is not an "ESPN Rebel Alliance".

Yup!

Any type of AAU vs SEC schism in college athletics... means the eventual breakup of the current ACC.

One problem you see here is that all this realignment have killed off some attendance across the board in conferences lately. Look at Oklahoma vs Nebraska? Fan interests there. Texas vs Texas A&M is another one. You need to sell tickets because you can't rely on tv dollars. Plus, look at SWC? It was not spread across the country, and it is not hard to travel like a bus ride. Going by plane and all that to go to the games is expensive for everyday diehard fans. I do think college sports should be based on the population of the city, the student body and other factors. Several D2 and D3 public schools would be D1, schools like Presbyterian would be like d3. I would do away the stupid rules of FBS can't play D2 schools either or that all games against D2, D3 and nAIA do count in your w/l record in basketball. We had cases of D2 beat FBS teams before. I think the last one was North Alabama beat La.-Lafayette back in 1998.

(08-15-2021 10:34 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  The ACC is married to ESPN until the mid 1930's, and with the ESPN handling their conference network, practically beyond that if they still exist in anything like their current form.

So the ACC as part of the "Alliance" pretty much assures us that it is not an "ESPN Rebel Alliance".

I’m hopeful we can get through the Great Depression easier and be better prepared for the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor this time around….

(08-16-2021 03:52 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(08-15-2021 10:34 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  The ACC is married to ESPN until the mid 1930's, and with the ESPN handling their conference network, practically beyond that if they still exist in anything like their current form.

So the ACC as part of the "Alliance" pretty much assures us that it is not an "ESPN Rebel Alliance".

I’m hopeful we can get through the Great Depression easier and be better prepared for the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor this time around….

We might indeed get through the next Great Depression and next Attack on Pearl Harbor easier than my chances of making it through the 2030's. Jeeze, even Blade Runner was set in 2019 because the 2030's would have been too far in the future.

Yeah, when it comes to this alliance, it’s not the SEC power grab that would be the main topic. It’s the expanded CFP. As in, the SEC can’t jam up the at-large pool if we, the other power conferences, vote against this proposal now. When it comes to a decent football playoff structure, if the PAC, B1G, and Rose Bowl are around, you can count on any real change to be heavily compromised if not thwarted at best.