(08-02-2022 05:27 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  I think the best case playoff scenario is where the P4 champs earn a double bye, the P4 CCG losers and G# champ (via. 4 team G# playoff for top 3 champs + top G# at-large or top 4 G# champs rather than individual CCGs or top 2 G# champs play-in game after individual G# conferences play their CCGs as their 12th game) earn a single bye, and play 3 wild card games for the top 6 at-large equating to a 5+10 CFP.

I use G# because I can see C-USA being finished off for a G4, but if not many G5 teams reach P4, then obviously C-USA should survive unless the other 4 conferences are told they could earn more through the CFP if there is only 4 G conferences. I honestly would prefer G4 in my opinion just so the G4 conferences play 3 non-conference games, 8 conference games with the 8th serving as a CCG for division winners or top 2 teams, then using their 12th overall game as a G4 semis Thanksgiving weekend while the non-champs participate in a conference head to head challenge like in basketball, but the players can earn money if their conference win. Then the 2 G4 semi winners play for the CFP spot the same weekend as the P4 CCGs. That way every conference has a path to the CFP via. win your conference.

With this 5+10 CFP, CCGs stay relevant, G4 or G5 has a guarenteed spot with additional paths, ND has a good path if they stay independent, Army-Navy has their own time slot still, and teams remain limited to 17 games at most while fans would have games every weekend from Week 0 to New Years. Heck, the B1G and SEC could probably profit off of conference semis (2 winners earn a playoff spot and at least a single bye) and a 5th v. 6th conference game all on Thanksgiving weekend where the winner either wins a playoff spot or trip to the Citrus Bowl and the loser goes to the Citrus Bowl or a lesser bowl.

Summarize Version of 5+10 CFP Format
Weekend before Thanksgiving:
a) P4 Rivalry Week + G# CCGs (champions week format)

Thanksgiving Weekend:
a) P4 Conference Semis + G# semis w/ potential G# conference challenge
b) P4 Rivalry Week + G# CCGs (champions week format)
- Wild Card Matchups Revealed (Sunday at noon)

1st Weekend of December:
P4 CCGs + G# championship

Selection Sunday:
CFP Bracket Revealed
- P4 Champs Seeded 1-4
- Top 4 of P4 CCG losers + G# champ Seeded 5-8
- Top 3 At-Large + 5th P4 CCG loser/G# champ Seeded 9-12
- Bottom 3 At-Large Seeded 13-15

2nd Weekend of December:
Army-Navy
3 Wild Card Games (top 6 at-large)
- Top 3 At-Large Host

3rd Weekend of December:
3 Wild Card Winners + P4 CCG losers + G# Champ
- Top 4 of P4 CCG losers & G# Champ host

New Years:
4 Winners + P4 Champs
- Uses Cotton/Fiesta, Orange, Rose, and Sugar Bowls

2nd Thursday-Friday of January:
CFP Semis (in Vegas or Orlando)

4th Monday of January:
CFP Championship (Host City)

(08-02-2022 07:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 04:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 04:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Thats pretty good news for everyone who is trying to survive in college football outside the cozy confines of the P2.

He doesn't rule out going beyond, but doesn't even seem to be considering it. He answers the questions about superconferences by talking about 18 to 20.

And this means exactly what? Nada! Rule #1 of expansion. You don't talk about expansion. Rule #2 of expansion. You don't talk about expansion.

Sankey's AD's are saying 20 plus. Sankey will see what the Big 10 does out West before he does anything. If they add 2 more, he'll add 2 more. If they add 4, he'll add four, or add 2 to the West and hold slots for the East.

Until then he'll admit there is a possibility and deny any action. They already know who they accept next. They likely know who they would accept after that. If the Big 10 takes Oregon, Washington, Cal and Stanford to move to 20, then Sankey knows no slots were spent on the ACC. This could open up a couple of current or past B12 schools. And any ACC interests would be lined up. If the Big Ten attempts a move on the ACC the SEC would be ready to announce in a moment's notice. If not we sit.

Citing these kinds of interviews means practically nothing. Sankey says 18-20, but isn't planning anything now. Standard Operating Procedure for any Commissioner. Warren wanted an Alliance to "stop the power grab" only it really meant "stall things until I can grab some power."

Frank wants to believe intentions are good, and Sankey speaks of the greater good, but one destroyed the Big 12's value and the other the PAC 12's value, and yet you, Frank, and others in denial, pay heed and take hope in these legally obfuscatory declarations while the Big 10 reloads tubes 1-4 to finish off the PAC and Sankey admits 4 more are possible for the SEC.

Well, if the SEC takes 4 valuable ACC targets and Warren finishes taking half of the PAC how can anyone doubt the impact it will have on playoff inclusion? Yes, there will be a catch all tweener conference, but for how long? Until present contracts expire, or the best of that conference are absorbed as well.

Nonsense to me is the extreme denial of what is going on as you watch it happening and after being wrong about the Big 10 raiding the PAC and calling the concept nonsense and fanatical, I would expect Frank to be a bit more judicious and cautious as to his stances, especially as credible sources openly discuss the possible next move of 4 more PAC schools.

All conferences deny activity until they announce it. All stories are denied or not mentioned until it happens. Nothing new there! And P.T. Barnum is still correct, there's one born every minute!

Don’t get me wrong - I don’t think anyone’s intentions are for anything outside of what maximizes value for their own respective leagues. I’m also not in denial - the Big Ten could very well end up adding more Pac-12 schools, but I just don’t think they’re approaching that it’s a fast quick mass acquisition and instead would require digesting and integrating USC and UCLA into the league. I’ve already personally said that I would add Stanford, Cal, Washington and Oregon now if I were running the Big Ten, but I get that there may several reasons why they may not move quickly on it (if ever).

What is the advantage to keeping the PAC around? Are they waiting for the playoff to be settled? Why not monopolize the Rose Bowl? It's obvious the corner 4 would never be able to hold that RB tie-in by themselves let alone an AQ slot to a 12-team playoff. Is the B1G scared the Big 12 would surpass them in football in select years if Utah goes there? I mean, there is literally no good excuse not to move to 20. You can cycle through everyone every 3 years. Do we really need USC vs Rutgers every other year?

(08-02-2022 07:25 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 07:11 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 06:28 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 06:12 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  SO if ND says no right now to the B1G, do they still even go to 18 to get more of a western wing and then take a final shot at ND towards the end of the ACC GOR along w/ 1 more? ND says yes do they still go to 20 or just 18 to maximize $$.

SEC sits until the end of the ACC gor and matches the B1G 18 or 20 w/ the same number.

Personally, I don’t think so for now (meaning the next few years). I think fans in their zeal to see the final form of all these super/mega-conferences underestimate some of the inertia where none of these leagues really want to add entire wings of schools all at one time.

USC and UCLA need to be integrated as Big Ten members first and foremost as opposed to being the “West Coast schools” that they would inevitably grouped with if the B1G invited more Pac-12 schools.

From a pure TV perspective at least as of now, the Big Ten wants as many Michigan/Ohio State/Penn State/Wisconsin vs. USC/UCLA games as possible and those would ALL occur at least 2 times out of every 4 years in a 3-6-6 scheduling format. Every school that gets added will dilute that rotation. I think that has been an underestimated check on expansion - every Big Ten school being guaranteed to visit the LA market at least once every other year is pretty huge in terms of both TV exposure and recruiting.

I’d say the same in the SEC. They’re finally moving to a 3-6-6 format where those Alabama/Texas A&M vs. Georgia/Florida games are played 2 out of every 4 years instead of once every 7 years and they’re integrating Texas and Oklahoma on top of it. Every addition goes back to diluting that rotation, so that makes every expansion school particularly critical.

As much as I’m a realignment guy and I’ll talk about it all day, there’s one thing that I’m somewhat traditionalist on: a conference should still actually have their teams play each other frequently and regularly as opposed to being a CFA-style scheduling arrangement. Once you get past 16 schools, that becomes increasingly difficult unless you start going to 10 conference games or more and effectively eliminate any P5 non-conference opponents completely (which, to be sure, I wouldn’t put past either the Big Ten or SEC in the long term).

You might be right about USC/UCLA Frank but if that truly is the case this is one of the most boneheaded expansion moves that has ever happened.

OUT at least makes some kind of sense to the SEC, They're in contiguous states, and there is a history of the SEC flirting with these schools for decades.

USC and UCLA was a money grab and you gutted your brother to do it. You talk about conference integration but it will never happen if you leave them on an island with no partners and 2000 miles to B1G conference HQ and 1500 to their nearest conference rival. It's not sustainable, money is the attraction to get you in the door but if you don't have people like you at your work your attitude sours quickly regardless of how much you make. The B1G will add more schools to avoid this problem or they will have a major headache on their hands.

I understand all of what you’re saying. It surprised me that USC and UCLA were able to move without at least Cal and Stanford and I would have thought it would have taken at least 2 other Pac-12 schools, too.

My guess is that the Big Ten simply sees that they can take anyone else from the Pac-12 whenever they want now that they have the LA schools, which is probably true.

By the same token, it’s interesting to hear reports in a few different places that at least USC did NOT want other Pac-12 schools besides UCLA to come along, particularly Oregon. USC may be looking at this more like they’re the “national school” a la their rival of Notre Dame as opposed to a West Coast school and they want the recruiting advantage that comes from being national. That may be delusional and not work, but it was interesting to see that perspective.

It’s a given that this screws all other sports besides football at USC and UCLA. If I were running the Big Ten, I’d actually add Stanford, Cal, Washington and Oregon regardless of what ND does or doesn’t do because, to your point, it’s what makes the expansion at least somewhat more than just two isolated appendages out West and certainly addresses the issues of all other sports.

However, this might be one issue where the Big Ten leadership and I aren’t aligned. I think they’re looking at this as primarily a money grab right now with their soon-to-be record breaking media deal and they’ll adjust to fill out the rest of the league later.

Where I will agree and agree with the logic is the up-front money grab. Adding the two LA schools while you're in the midst of negotiating your TV deal is a smart move.

What's even smarter is having language in that contract that lines out what the money would look like if you add more schools before the end of the contract and who those schools could possibly be.

The genius move is adding more schools from the PAC before the 2024 season( August 1st to be exact) and getting them at a discounted price just like was done with Maryland and Rutgers.

I really don't disagree with a delay but I think our ideas of delay may differ. I think it will happen in the next two years, the impression I get from you is that you think if they add more PAC schools it will be in 10 or 12 years. Maybe your right but I think that would be a bad move.

As far as USC is concerned, if any of the rumors of them not wanting to add Oregon or other PAC schools are true it doesn't surprise me. What I always bristle at is the idea that it has to do with California recruiting. California kids are taken by schools from every conference in the country and that's never going to change. If there is any merit to this it's just USC's giant heads that can barely fit thru doors. The Trojans have as big an ego as any college you can name, including Texas. They would like to believe their presence alone can bring viewership from the entire west coast, that's patently false. Out of pride the Trojan brass would probably try to ride it out without any other west coast schools for as long as they could, UCLA on the other hand will be pining for friends.

In the end I believe there will be at least 3 more PAC schools gobbled up by the B1G. Depending on the numbers settled on between the SEC, B1G, ESPN, and FOX in this nuclear arms race the number of schools could be as high as 8.

If they don't create a western wing it will be a major gaff. You will satellite the LA schools and set yourselves up for having like minded schools with major media markets slip away to other conferences and networks. I don't see it, Warren is an NFL guy and the NFL spans coast to coast and hit's nearly every major DMA. IMO the B1G will be modeled the same.

(08-02-2022 08:33 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 08:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 07:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 04:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 04:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Thats pretty good news for everyone who is trying to survive in college football outside the cozy confines of the P2.

He doesn't rule out going beyond, but doesn't even seem to be considering it. He answers the questions about superconferences by talking about 18 to 20.

And this means exactly what? Nada! Rule #1 of expansion. You don't talk about expansion. Rule #2 of expansion. You don't talk about expansion.

Sankey's AD's are saying 20 plus. Sankey will see what the Big 10 does out West before he does anything. If they add 2 more, he'll add 2 more. If they add 4, he'll add four, or add 2 to the West and hold slots for the East.

Until then he'll admit there is a possibility and deny any action. They already know who they accept next. They likely know who they would accept after that. If the Big 10 takes Oregon, Washington, Cal and Stanford to move to 20, then Sankey knows no slots were spent on the ACC. This could open up a couple of current or past B12 schools. And any ACC interests would be lined up. If the Big Ten attempts a move on the ACC the SEC would be ready to announce in a moment's notice. If not we sit.

Citing these kinds of interviews means practically nothing. Sankey says 18-20, but isn't planning anything now. Standard Operating Procedure for any Commissioner. Warren wanted an Alliance to "stop the power grab" only it really meant "stall things until I can grab some power."

Frank wants to believe intentions are good, and Sankey speaks of the greater good, but one destroyed the Big 12's value and the other the PAC 12's value, and yet you, Frank, and others in denial, pay heed and take hope in these legally obfuscatory declarations while the Big 10 reloads tubes 1-4 to finish off the PAC and Sankey admits 4 more are possible for the SEC.

Well, if the SEC takes 4 valuable ACC targets and Warren finishes taking half of the PAC how can anyone doubt the impact it will have on playoff inclusion? Yes, there will be a catch all tweener conference, but for how long? Until present contracts expire, or the best of that conference are absorbed as well.

Nonsense to me is the extreme denial of what is going on as you watch it happening and after being wrong about the Big 10 raiding the PAC and calling the concept nonsense and fanatical, I would expect Frank to be a bit more judicious and cautious as to his stances, especially as credible sources openly discuss the possible next move of 4 more PAC schools.

All conferences deny activity until they announce it. All stories are denied or not mentioned until it happens. Nothing new there! And P.T. Barnum is still correct, there's one born every minute!

Well as Frank points out, playing each other is what makes a conference. Is Sankey going to destroy what made the SEC great by making it too big? No other conference has the rivalries that the SEC has. And that generates fan interest. Which generates dollars and creates loud crowds that look good on TV.

The 5-2-1 schedule when they first went to 12 was a mistake and they realized it, switching to 5-1-2. They were only playing 4 schools at home once every 8 years. It got worse with the expansion to 14 as it was only every 12 years for 6 schools. But at least the division was intact as was the biggest cross-division rivalry.

22 or 24 and you aren't going to see some schools that often and you won't have anything but crazy tiebreaks to figure out who gets in the ccg. The SEC title is still a big deal. Might not be then.

How does it go? Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered. Sankey realizes we do need a national sport.

They don't necessarily need to be destroyed if you go big enough so that the conference is basically a network of bundled rights.

16-18 schools is awkward. Kind of a conference, sort of a league.

At 20+, certainly at 24, it is a league. Keep the 12 core SEC together, increase the conference game count (and the 24 school BIG does the same) so that 1-2 games that would have been prime non-conference are conference value adders that people want to see. The low value schools will give up a home game more often than the prime schools, and say thank you for the check that comes with being a P2.

Ideally, in terms of making the sport less regional, the cold war between BIG and SEC would have a hot war weekend with 24 cross-P2 games. Maybe that being the only non-conference eventually. And the outcome would have playoff implications.

Well you could do a 24 team model, but it looks kind of ridiculous now with 2 more western schools. You could do a 5-3-2 model. All 5 teams in your division, 3 teams in the opposite divsion (so you play every other year-or maybe 5-1-2-2 for a fixed rival and you get the rest 2 in 5 years) and 2 teams in the other league (so you play once in 6 years).
SEC East
South Carolina
Florida
Georgia
Vanderbilt
Tennessee
Kentucky
SEC West
Alabama
Auburn
LSU
Ole Miss
Miss. St.
Arkansas

That's ok, but then you get the other league
SE Atlantic East
FSU
Miami
Georgia Tech
Clemson
UNC
Duke
SE Atlantic West
Virginia Tech
Louisville
Missouri
Oklahoma
Texas A&M
Texas

And also, there aren't 8 teams who wouldn't lower the average payout at least in the short term. Now before Texas and OU joined, you could do something logical with ACC schools. Just move South Carolina and Missouri with 10 eastern schools.

(08-02-2022 09:54 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  What is the advantage to keeping the PAC around? Are they waiting for the playoff to be settled? Why not monopolize the Rose Bowl? It's obvious the corner 4 would never be able to hold that RB tie-in by themselves let alone an AQ slot to a 12-team playoff. Is the B1G scared the Big 12 would surpass them in football in select years if Utah goes there? I mean, there is literally no good excuse not to move to 20. You can cycle through everyone every 3 years. Do we really need USC vs Rutgers every other year?

Personally, I’m generally with you in the sense that if the Big Ten wants any other Pac-12 schools, then I’d just take them now.

However, I think the bolded gets to the practical point of why the Big Ten may not want to expand that fast. It’s not that we need USC vs. Rutgers every other year, but rather the 16-team 3-6-6 format can almost guarantee that one of either USC or UCLA plays Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan State, Wisconsin and Nebraska every single year for the TV purposes. All of those matchups might be more highly-rated than any Pac-12 regular season game for the past several years.

Also, it’s not just about the new schools. You might be looking at it from the perspective of a Rutgers fan where being in the Big Ten East just means getting your brains bashed in by Michigan, Ohio State, Michigan State and Penn State annually. However, the Big Ten West *craves* those games against the big names from the East and once every 3 years isn’t the same for a league where, up until the addition of Nebraska, was used to playing *everyone* in the league almost annually and, in many cases, for over 100 years. That’s why divisions were going to be scrapped even before the expansion with USC/UCLA - the Big Ten schools really do have a history where they play each other a LOT and the current divisional structure was really jarring on that front.

Most SEC schools seem to have multiple schools that they name as a super-hated rival, but then basically have a relatively truncated playing history against everyone else in the league despite having been conference-mates for a long time. In contrast, the Big Ten schools generally only have one super-hated rival (with maybe one secondary rival like Michigan-MSU or OSU-PSU), but they’re also used to playing everyone in the core “original” Big Ten annually or close to annually. We can get something close to that again in a 16-school league, but that’s completely gone as even an option once it grows beyond that.

(08-02-2022 04:29 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...e-football

So he's still in favor of expanding the playoff even if he has to drag some members along. And when he talks about superconferences, he is talking 18 to 20, not 24.


"...So what might get us to superconferences then?

Sankey: It's impossible to answer all the hypotheticals, but we're mindful to what's happening around us. But you don't just make change because it sounds great to be at 18 or 20. You have to think about the right affiliations, opportunities and culture. Part of our work is to support, sustain and magnify a healthy culture, and that's one of the most under-observed realities in college sports today. That informs how we make national decisions. Can we collaborate together?...


Sankey: We've had a lot of change. All of us thinking big-picture has to be rethought, repositioned and reemphasized. But I'll give you an example: The SEC did not need to expand the College Football Playoff early. We didn't pound our fists about it. We looked at our colleague conferences who, rather than play through the 12-year cycle, demanded expansion sooner than later. I think it's a problem we've not had any meaningful West Coast participation in the playoff since 2016. I don't think that's good for college football. [The SEC] didn't need a 12-team playoff, and we certainly didn't need to give conference champions guaranteed access, but that seemed like an enormously healthy step in bringing new participants in and ensuring different regions participate. We can look big-picture, but some didn't want to move. Now we have to go back and rethink our position. We're certainly not perfect, and I'm not going to be altruistic in everything, but that's good evidence that we can think beyond our own needs to figure out how to keep college football strong across the nation...."

The problem we are getting into around the CFP expansion is the threat of future consolidation in the short to mid term is high.

How then can the power brokers sign onto a 10 autobid format when quite soon a few conferences could be going by the wayside? The uncertainty is a factor here.

Thus we may just end up at 6+6 as an upgrade over what we have. There won't be the pressure to require 14 or 16 members to be part of the CFP going with 6+6 and instead see where the numbers are in another 10 years time.

In two years we get 20 B1G and PAC dissolves it opens up a second autobid for the G5. Then in 2030 the ACC gets carved up by the SEC and we are folded down to 8 FBS conferences.

(08-02-2022 10:24 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 09:54 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  What is the advantage to keeping the PAC around? Are they waiting for the playoff to be settled? Why not monopolize the Rose Bowl? It's obvious the corner 4 would never be able to hold that RB tie-in by themselves let alone an AQ slot to a 12-team playoff. Is the B1G scared the Big 12 would surpass them in football in select years if Utah goes there? I mean, there is literally no good excuse not to move to 20. You can cycle through everyone every 3 years. Do we really need USC vs Rutgers every other year?

Personally, I’m generally with you in the sense that if the Big Ten wants any other Pac-12 schools, then I’d just take them now.

However, I think the bolded gets to the practical point of why the Big Ten may not want to expand that fast. It’s not that we need USC vs. Rutgers every other year, but rather the 16-team 3-6-6 format can almost guarantee that one of either USC or UCLA plays Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan State, Wisconsin and Nebraska every single year for the TV purposes. All of those matchups might be more highly-rated than any Pac-12 regular season game for the past several years.

Also, it’s not just about the new schools. You might be looking at it from the perspective of a Rutgers fan where being in the Big Ten East just means getting your brains bashed in by Michigan, Ohio State, Michigan State and Penn State annually. However, the Big Ten West *craves* those games against the big names from the East and once every 3 years isn’t the same for a league where, up until the addition of Nebraska, was used to playing *everyone* in the league almost annually and, in many cases, for over 100 years. That’s why divisions were going to be scrapped even before the expansion with USC/UCLA - the Big Ten schools really do have a history where they play each other a LOT and the current divisional structure was really jarring on that front.

Most SEC schools seem to have multiple schools that they name as a super-hated rival, but then basically have a relatively truncated playing history against everyone else in the league despite having been conference-mates for a long time. In contrast, the Big Ten schools generally only have one super-hated rival (with maybe one secondary rival like Michigan-MSU or OSU-PSU), but they’re also used to playing everyone in the core “original” Big Ten annually or close to annually. We can get something close to that again in a 16-school league, but that’s completely gone as even an option once it grows beyond that.

Agree with this point. Part of the reason for that is that the SEC was originally a 13 team league and then 12 from 1941 until the mid 60s. Tulane and Georgia Tech who left in the 60s were big rivals for many of the schools. And most schools only played a 6 game conference schedule. The Big 9 played 6 games and then when MSU joined moved quickly to a 7 game schedule.

I think if we do get a 20 team B1G within the next couple of months the field will almost have to go to 16 with the B1G being such a big conference.

The agreement though for CFP expansion needs to be in place in the next 8-10 months so cannot wait on final realignment configurations.

Going to a 6+10 is also an option that would add bids to support larger conferences. One other aspect of 16 I like is it would probably execute in a double bye format which would be more favorable to lower seeds and possibly 1st round at bowl sites.

For an example of the above with Georgia, Florida, Auburn and Georgia Tech are "super-hated" rivals. Clemson was almost on that level, but SEC expansion made that an infrequent game. Ole Miss was also a very big game, but SEC expansion also made that infrequent. It did add South Carolina which is similar to what Ole Miss was. And Tennessee who was rarely played before probably is at the Ole Miss level. Alabama and LSU are not played very often. The rest are kind of meh games.

By comparison with Texas, when I was in school, OU was the "super-hated" rival. Only one. Arkansas, Houston and A&M were big games like Ole Miss for UGA. The rest of the Southwest Conference was meh games.

(08-02-2022 10:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 08:33 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 08:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 07:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 04:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  He doesn't rule out going beyond, but doesn't even seem to be considering it. He answers the questions about superconferences by talking about 18 to 20.

And this means exactly what? Nada! Rule #1 of expansion. You don't talk about expansion. Rule #2 of expansion. You don't talk about expansion.

Sankey's AD's are saying 20 plus. Sankey will see what the Big 10 does out West before he does anything. If they add 2 more, he'll add 2 more. If they add 4, he'll add four, or add 2 to the West and hold slots for the East.

Until then he'll admit there is a possibility and deny any action. They already know who they accept next. They likely know who they would accept after that. If the Big 10 takes Oregon, Washington, Cal and Stanford to move to 20, then Sankey knows no slots were spent on the ACC. This could open up a couple of current or past B12 schools. And any ACC interests would be lined up. If the Big Ten attempts a move on the ACC the SEC would be ready to announce in a moment's notice. If not we sit.

Citing these kinds of interviews means practically nothing. Sankey says 18-20, but isn't planning anything now. Standard Operating Procedure for any Commissioner. Warren wanted an Alliance to "stop the power grab" only it really meant "stall things until I can grab some power."

Frank wants to believe intentions are good, and Sankey speaks of the greater good, but one destroyed the Big 12's value and the other the PAC 12's value, and yet you, Frank, and others in denial, pay heed and take hope in these legally obfuscatory declarations while the Big 10 reloads tubes 1-4 to finish off the PAC and Sankey admits 4 more are possible for the SEC.

Well, if the SEC takes 4 valuable ACC targets and Warren finishes taking half of the PAC how can anyone doubt the impact it will have on playoff inclusion? Yes, there will be a catch all tweener conference, but for how long? Until present contracts expire, or the best of that conference are absorbed as well.

Nonsense to me is the extreme denial of what is going on as you watch it happening and after being wrong about the Big 10 raiding the PAC and calling the concept nonsense and fanatical, I would expect Frank to be a bit more judicious and cautious as to his stances, especially as credible sources openly discuss the possible next move of 4 more PAC schools.

All conferences deny activity until they announce it. All stories are denied or not mentioned until it happens. Nothing new there! And P.T. Barnum is still correct, there's one born every minute!

Well as Frank points out, playing each other is what makes a conference. Is Sankey going to destroy what made the SEC great by making it too big? No other conference has the rivalries that the SEC has. And that generates fan interest. Which generates dollars and creates loud crowds that look good on TV.

The 5-2-1 schedule when they first went to 12 was a mistake and they realized it, switching to 5-1-2. They were only playing 4 schools at home once every 8 years. It got worse with the expansion to 14 as it was only every 12 years for 6 schools. But at least the division was intact as was the biggest cross-division rivalry.

22 or 24 and you aren't going to see some schools that often and you won't have anything but crazy tiebreaks to figure out who gets in the ccg. The SEC title is still a big deal. Might not be then.

How does it go? Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered. Sankey realizes we do need a national sport.

They don't necessarily need to be destroyed if you go big enough so that the conference is basically a network of bundled rights.

16-18 schools is awkward. Kind of a conference, sort of a league.

At 20+, certainly at 24, it is a league. Keep the 12 core SEC together, increase the conference game count (and the 24 school BIG does the same) so that 1-2 games that would have been prime non-conference are conference value adders that people want to see. The low value schools will give up a home game more often than the prime schools, and say thank you for the check that comes with being a P2.

Ideally, in terms of making the sport less regional, the cold war between BIG and SEC would have a hot war weekend with 24 cross-P2 games. Maybe that being the only non-conference eventually. And the outcome would have playoff implications.

Well you could do a 24 team model, but it looks kind of ridiculous now with 2 more western schools. You could do a 5-3-2 model. All 5 teams in your division, 3 teams in the opposite divsion (so you play every other year-or maybe 5-1-2-2 for a fixed rival and you get the rest 2 in 5 years) and 2 teams in the other league (so you play once in 6 years).
SEC East
South Carolina
Florida
Georgia
Vanderbilt
Tennessee
Kentucky
SEC West
Alabama
Auburn
LSU
Ole Miss
Miss. St.
Arkansas

That's ok, but then you get the other league
SE Atlantic East
FSU
Miami
Georgia Tech
Clemson
UNC
Duke
SE Atlantic West
Virginia Tech
Louisville
Missouri
Oklahoma
Texas A&M
Texas

And also, there aren't 8 teams who wouldn't lower the average payout at least in the short term. Now before Texas and OU joined, you could do something logical with ACC schools. Just move South Carolina and Missouri with 10 eastern schools.

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, South Carolina

Duke, Kentucky, Louisville, Miami, North Carolina, Virginia Tech

Quit trying to create problems with an absurd and contrived division.

And how many times must you be told, the value is in the collective and a 3-billion-dollar CFP and a billion-dollar hoops tourney. Then networks are buying the package, not just individual schools.

Only Miami is outside of its normal area but it always is, and Va Tech is an old BE foe and they would be in a division where they should have success. And LSU is one of A&M's oldest rivals and Arkansas has become a thing. LSU would like being out and away from Alabama. Their old SEC rival is Ole Miss.

Much of what you assume as rivals were created in '92 with divisional play.

While I can see anything happen, I have never been of the opinion that there are generally any grand plans in all of this. The conferences make one move at a time with individual voices having specific ideas, but the collective whole just doing the next logical step. The networks, for their part, would prefer more competition ( more strong conferences rather than fewer super-conferences), but in the end are so scared of losing valuable properties they end up paying more as the conferences consolidate.

All of this is why the sport has been slowly consolidating rather than staying steady or quickly consolidating. A grand plan would move things faster, but economic incentives are pushing us there a step at a time anyway.

For now, I lean to the Big Ten being done. The schools get extra money but still get to play everyone half the time. Short term, no one besides Notre Dame adds enough to be worth messing with that to too many existing members
In the next contract though, they'll end up looking closer at expanding again as they will want the next way to push up their accounts and will be looking at things fresh again.

(08-02-2022 11:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 10:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 08:33 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 08:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 07:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And this means exactly what? Nada! Rule #1 of expansion. You don't talk about expansion. Rule #2 of expansion. You don't talk about expansion.

Sankey's AD's are saying 20 plus. Sankey will see what the Big 10 does out West before he does anything. If they add 2 more, he'll add 2 more. If they add 4, he'll add four, or add 2 to the West and hold slots for the East.

Until then he'll admit there is a possibility and deny any action. They already know who they accept next. They likely know who they would accept after that. If the Big 10 takes Oregon, Washington, Cal and Stanford to move to 20, then Sankey knows no slots were spent on the ACC. This could open up a couple of current or past B12 schools. And any ACC interests would be lined up. If the Big Ten attempts a move on the ACC the SEC would be ready to announce in a moment's notice. If not we sit.

Citing these kinds of interviews means practically nothing. Sankey says 18-20, but isn't planning anything now. Standard Operating Procedure for any Commissioner. Warren wanted an Alliance to "stop the power grab" only it really meant "stall things until I can grab some power."

Frank wants to believe intentions are good, and Sankey speaks of the greater good, but one destroyed the Big 12's value and the other the PAC 12's value, and yet you, Frank, and others in denial, pay heed and take hope in these legally obfuscatory declarations while the Big 10 reloads tubes 1-4 to finish off the PAC and Sankey admits 4 more are possible for the SEC.

Well, if the SEC takes 4 valuable ACC targets and Warren finishes taking half of the PAC how can anyone doubt the impact it will have on playoff inclusion? Yes, there will be a catch all tweener conference, but for how long? Until present contracts expire, or the best of that conference are absorbed as well.

Nonsense to me is the extreme denial of what is going on as you watch it happening and after being wrong about the Big 10 raiding the PAC and calling the concept nonsense and fanatical, I would expect Frank to be a bit more judicious and cautious as to his stances, especially as credible sources openly discuss the possible next move of 4 more PAC schools.

All conferences deny activity until they announce it. All stories are denied or not mentioned until it happens. Nothing new there! And P.T. Barnum is still correct, there's one born every minute!

Well as Frank points out, playing each other is what makes a conference. Is Sankey going to destroy what made the SEC great by making it too big? No other conference has the rivalries that the SEC has. And that generates fan interest. Which generates dollars and creates loud crowds that look good on TV.

The 5-2-1 schedule when they first went to 12 was a mistake and they realized it, switching to 5-1-2. They were only playing 4 schools at home once every 8 years. It got worse with the expansion to 14 as it was only every 12 years for 6 schools. But at least the division was intact as was the biggest cross-division rivalry.

22 or 24 and you aren't going to see some schools that often and you won't have anything but crazy tiebreaks to figure out who gets in the ccg. The SEC title is still a big deal. Might not be then.

How does it go? Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered. Sankey realizes we do need a national sport.

They don't necessarily need to be destroyed if you go big enough so that the conference is basically a network of bundled rights.

16-18 schools is awkward. Kind of a conference, sort of a league.

At 20+, certainly at 24, it is a league. Keep the 12 core SEC together, increase the conference game count (and the 24 school BIG does the same) so that 1-2 games that would have been prime non-conference are conference value adders that people want to see. The low value schools will give up a home game more often than the prime schools, and say thank you for the check that comes with being a P2.

Ideally, in terms of making the sport less regional, the cold war between BIG and SEC would have a hot war weekend with 24 cross-P2 games. Maybe that being the only non-conference eventually. And the outcome would have playoff implications.

Well you could do a 24 team model, but it looks kind of ridiculous now with 2 more western schools. You could do a 5-3-2 model. All 5 teams in your division, 3 teams in the opposite divsion (so you play every other year-or maybe 5-1-2-2 for a fixed rival and you get the rest 2 in 5 years) and 2 teams in the other league (so you play once in 6 years).
SEC East
South Carolina
Florida
Georgia
Vanderbilt
Tennessee
Kentucky
SEC West
Alabama
Auburn
LSU
Ole Miss
Miss. St.
Arkansas

That's ok, but then you get the other league
SE Atlantic East
FSU
Miami
Georgia Tech
Clemson
UNC
Duke
SE Atlantic West
Virginia Tech
Louisville
Missouri
Oklahoma
Texas A&M
Texas

And also, there aren't 8 teams who wouldn't lower the average payout at least in the short term. Now before Texas and OU joined, you could do something logical with ACC schools. Just move South Carolina and Missouri with 10 eastern schools.

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, South Carolina

Duke, Kentucky, Louisville, Miami, North Carolina, Virginia Tech

Quit trying to create problems with an absurd and contrived division.

And how many times must you be told, the value is in the collective and a 3-billion-dollar CFP and a billion-dollar hoops tourney. Then networks are buying the package, not just individual schools.

Only Miami is outside of its normal area but it always is, and Va Tech is an old BE foe and they would be in a division where they should have success. And LSU is one of A&M's oldest rivals and Arkansas has become a thing. LSU would like being out and away from Alabama. Their old SEC rival is Ole Miss.

Much of what you assume as rivals were created in '92 with divisional play.

Georgia, Florida, LSU and Kentucky get cut off from the rest of the SEC. That setup works for Auburn and Alabama, but is bad for those first 4 schools. Its destroying the last 90 years for those 4. It would be a disaster for UK attendance.

There is simply nothing about this that couldn't be achieved with a 20 team conference. Instead you have a loose association where teams don't play those in the other divisions and there is no true conference champion.

IF you trust Sankey to do "what is right"-- that is not harm college sports for the dollar-- you are NAIVE.
He doesn't care who he steps on. He is an economic bully. Fair play? Level playing field--- not even close.


Sidenote--if it is "just for football"--- then it is TIME for FB only leagues. All these massive changes going on with the transformation committee, etc.--- and we can't change that aspect-- WHY NOT? Football greed is destroying or at least HARMING all the other college athletes and sports!!!

Of course if you are an SEC or BIG10 fan you probably can't see or don't care about the above statements.

There are 4 teams that SEC is not interested in adding on JRSEC's list.

Miami, Duke, Georgia Tech, Louisville

They could be interested in Cincinnati, UCF, Oklahoma State and Houston.

(08-02-2022 09:47 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 07:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 04:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 04:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Thats pretty good news for everyone who is trying to survive in college football outside the cozy confines of the P2.

He doesn't rule out going beyond, but doesn't even seem to be considering it. He answers the questions about superconferences by talking about 18 to 20.

And this means exactly what? Nada! Rule #1 of expansion. You don't talk about expansion. Rule #2 of expansion. You don't talk about expansion.

Sankey's AD's are saying 20 plus. Sankey will see what the Big 10 does out West before he does anything. If they add 2 more, he'll add 2 more. If they add 4, he'll add four, or add 2 to the West and hold slots for the East.

Until then he'll admit there is a possibility and deny any action. They already know who they accept next. They likely know who they would accept after that. If the Big 10 takes Oregon, Washington, Cal and Stanford to move to 20, then Sankey knows no slots were spent on the ACC. This could open up a couple of current or past B12 schools. And any ACC interests would be lined up. If the Big Ten attempts a move on the ACC the SEC would be ready to announce in a moment's notice. If not we sit.

Citing these kinds of interviews means practically nothing. Sankey says 18-20, but isn't planning anything now. Standard Operating Procedure for any Commissioner. Warren wanted an Alliance to "stop the power grab" only it really meant "stall things until I can grab some power."

Frank wants to believe intentions are good, and Sankey speaks of the greater good, but one destroyed the Big 12's value and the other the PAC 12's value, and yet you, Frank, and others in denial, pay heed and take hope in these legally obfuscatory declarations while the Big 10 reloads tubes 1-4 to finish off the PAC and Sankey admits 4 more are possible for the SEC.

Well, if the SEC takes 4 valuable ACC targets and Warren finishes taking half of the PAC how can anyone doubt the impact it will have on playoff inclusion? Yes, there will be a catch all tweener conference, but for how long? Until present contracts expire, or the best of that conference are absorbed as well.

Nonsense to me is the extreme denial of what is going on as you watch it happening and after being wrong about the Big 10 raiding the PAC and calling the concept nonsense and fanatical, I would expect Frank to be a bit more judicious and cautious as to his stances, especially as credible sources openly discuss the possible next move of 4 more PAC schools.

All conferences deny activity until they announce it. All stories are denied or not mentioned until it happens. Nothing new there! And P.T. Barnum is still correct, there's one born every minute!

Don’t get me wrong - I don’t think anyone’s intentions are for anything outside of what maximizes value for their own respective leagues. I’m also not in denial - the Big Ten could very well end up adding more Pac-12 schools, but I just don’t think they’re approaching that it’s a fast quick mass acquisition and instead would require digesting and integrating USC and UCLA into the league. I’ve already personally said that I would add Stanford, Cal, Washington and Oregon now if I were running the Big Ten, but I get that there may several reasons why they may not move quickly on it (if ever).

I don't believe we are on the SEC's or Big Ten's timeline here. CFP contracts are up in a couple of years, SCOTUS is orchestrating change and has more on the docket (3 cases I believe), and Boomer's with their passion for college football, their money for donations and tickets, and cable conference networks, will be statically irrelevant in 2036. These forces are dictating the pace of change.

We are looking at a completely alien vista for team sports beginning ~2036 and utterly changing by 2056. There is urgency because we are looking at a decline in enrollment age students of 15% in 2026, and then the end of Boomers in 2036, and Boomers are a global phenomenon. So, a global recession is virtually a gestalt. No university or network wants to whiff on maximizing the last 12-14 years of the golden years of college sports. There's a reason so many contracts are timing out from 2032 to 2036. It's because what has been exponentially going up since 1983 is about to come back down!

(08-02-2022 06:28 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 06:12 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  SO if ND says no right now to the B1G, do they still even go to 18 to get more of a western wing and then take a final shot at ND towards the end of the ACC GOR along w/ 1 more? ND says yes do they still go to 20 or just 18 to maximize $$.

SEC sits until the end of the ACC gor and matches the B1G 18 or 20 w/ the same number.

Personally, I don’t think so for now (meaning the next few years). I think fans in their zeal to see the final form of all these super/mega-conferences underestimate some of the inertia where none of these leagues really want to add entire wings of schools all at one time.

USC and UCLA need to be integrated as Big Ten members first and foremost as opposed to being the “West Coast schools” that they would inevitably grouped with if the B1G invited more Pac-12 schools.

From a pure TV perspective at least as of now, the Big Ten wants as many Michigan/Ohio State/Penn State/Wisconsin vs. USC/UCLA games as possible and those would ALL occur at least 2 times out of every 4 years in a 3-6-6 scheduling format. Every school that gets added will dilute that rotation. I think that has been an underestimated check on expansion - every Big Ten school being guaranteed to visit the LA market at least once every other year is pretty huge in terms of both TV exposure and recruiting.

I’d say the same in the SEC. They’re finally moving to a 3-6-6 format where those Alabama/Texas A&M vs. Georgia/Florida games are played 2 out of every 4 years instead of once every 7 years and they’re integrating Texas and Oklahoma on top of it. Every addition goes back to diluting that rotation, so that makes every expansion school particularly critical.

As much as I’m a realignment guy and I’ll talk about it all day, there’s one thing that I’m somewhat traditionalist on: a conference should still actually have their teams play each other frequently and regularly as opposed to being a CFA-style scheduling arrangement. Once you get past 16 schools, that becomes increasingly difficult unless you start going to 10 conference games or more and effectively eliminate any P5 non-conference opponents completely (which, to be sure, I wouldn’t put past either the Big Ten or SEC in the long term).

About going past 16 - I have thought that doing that creates more danger of internal instability, as at that point you basically have two full conferences under one umbrellla, such that two 8 team configurations, or something, could eventually hive off from each other. And schools not playing each other often enough could result in cohesion erosion that leads to that.

The SEC and B1G may be too big and strong to fall to any external threats, but like many empires of the past could collapse under their own weight. Looking far down the line, the biggest threat to the B1G might be the presence of many schools, arguably all the additions since Penn State and including the two brand new schools, that are there imo solely for the money.

For the SEC it is the growing number of ex- Big 12 schools. IMO the SEC should create a lot of matchups between Big 12 noobs and eastern SEC schools to head off an east-west erosion. And no more B12 adds. Any new SEC adds should come from the ACC.

(08-03-2022 02:09 AM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  IF you trust Sankey to do "what is right"-- that is not harm college sports for the dollar-- you are NAIVE.
He doesn't care who he steps on. He is an economic bully. Fair play? Level playing field--- not even close.


Sidenote--if it is "just for football"--- then it is TIME for FB only leagues. All these massive changes going on with the transformation committee, etc.--- and we can't change that aspect-- WHY NOT? Football greed is destroying or at least HARMING all the other college athletes and sports!!!

Of course if you are an SEC or BIG10 fan you probably can't see or don't care about the above statements.

I think Sankey is far sighted enough to not do long-term damage for short term dollars. Don't think that is the case with Warren. I don't think he understands the college game. He has made some good dollar decisions for the intermediate term.

Unfortunately, a Pac 16 with Texas and OU just didn't generate the dollars for it to make sense, in 2010 or now.

SEC is a better fit for Texas and OU, but for college football, it would be better to have a strong western conference.

(08-03-2022 07:36 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 09:47 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 07:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 04:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 04:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Thats pretty good news for everyone who is trying to survive in college football outside the cozy confines of the P2.

He doesn't rule out going beyond, but doesn't even seem to be considering it. He answers the questions about superconferences by talking about 18 to 20.

And this means exactly what? Nada! Rule #1 of expansion. You don't talk about expansion. Rule #2 of expansion. You don't talk about expansion.

Sankey's AD's are saying 20 plus. Sankey will see what the Big 10 does out West before he does anything. If they add 2 more, he'll add 2 more. If they add 4, he'll add four, or add 2 to the West and hold slots for the East.

Until then he'll admit there is a possibility and deny any action. They already know who they accept next. They likely know who they would accept after that. If the Big 10 takes Oregon, Washington, Cal and Stanford to move to 20, then Sankey knows no slots were spent on the ACC. This could open up a couple of current or past B12 schools. And any ACC interests would be lined up. If the Big Ten attempts a move on the ACC the SEC would be ready to announce in a moment's notice. If not we sit.

Citing these kinds of interviews means practically nothing. Sankey says 18-20, but isn't planning anything now. Standard Operating Procedure for any Commissioner. Warren wanted an Alliance to "stop the power grab" only it really meant "stall things until I can grab some power."

Frank wants to believe intentions are good, and Sankey speaks of the greater good, but one destroyed the Big 12's value and the other the PAC 12's value, and yet you, Frank, and others in denial, pay heed and take hope in these legally obfuscatory declarations while the Big 10 reloads tubes 1-4 to finish off the PAC and Sankey admits 4 more are possible for the SEC.

Well, if the SEC takes 4 valuable ACC targets and Warren finishes taking half of the PAC how can anyone doubt the impact it will have on playoff inclusion? Yes, there will be a catch all tweener conference, but for how long? Until present contracts expire, or the best of that conference are absorbed as well.

Nonsense to me is the extreme denial of what is going on as you watch it happening and after being wrong about the Big 10 raiding the PAC and calling the concept nonsense and fanatical, I would expect Frank to be a bit more judicious and cautious as to his stances, especially as credible sources openly discuss the possible next move of 4 more PAC schools.

All conferences deny activity until they announce it. All stories are denied or not mentioned until it happens. Nothing new there! And P.T. Barnum is still correct, there's one born every minute!

Don’t get me wrong - I don’t think anyone’s intentions are for anything outside of what maximizes value for their own respective leagues. I’m also not in denial - the Big Ten could very well end up adding more Pac-12 schools, but I just don’t think they’re approaching that it’s a fast quick mass acquisition and instead would require digesting and integrating USC and UCLA into the league. I’ve already personally said that I would add Stanford, Cal, Washington and Oregon now if I were running the Big Ten, but I get that there may several reasons why they may not move quickly on it (if ever).

I don't believe we are on the SEC's or Big Ten's timeline here. CFP contracts are up in a couple of years, SCOTUS is orchestrating change and has more on the docket (3 cases I believe), and Boomer's with their passion for college football, their money for donations and tickets, and cable conference networks, will be statically irrelevant in 2036. These forces are dictating the pace of change.

We are looking at a completely alien vista for team sports beginning ~2036 and utterly changing by 2056. There is urgency because we are looking at a decline in enrollment age students of 15% in 2026, and then the end of Boomers in 2036, and Boomers are a global phenomenon. So, a global recession is virtually a gestalt. No university or network wants to whiff on maximizing the last 12-14 years of the golden years of college sports. There's a reason so many contracts are timing out from 2032 to 2036. It's because what has been exponentially going up since 1983 is about to come back down!

I don't know about that, but its clear the revenue model will drastically change, both with streaming and with a different generation that consumes entertainment differently.

(08-03-2022 10:53 AM)bullet Wrote:  I think Sankey is far sighted enough to not do long-term damage for short term dollars. Don't think that is the case with Warren. I don't think he understands the college game. He has made some good dollar decisions for the intermediate term.

I agree with this 100%.

The SEC's leadership is making moves that should benefit the league for the next 50 years while the Big Ten is making moves for their next TV deal.