Those who think the Big XII expansion rumors for FSU, Clemson, Louisville, etc. all seem to have one common factor: the announcement on expansion is waiting on the announcement of the new BCS Playoff format. A few weeks ago, it was "wait until the new commish gets named." Now it seems that most of the rumors I've seen have it being announced after the new playoff format. My question is why then? What's so special about the announcement of the format?

My guess: they won't expand if it's just the top 4, but they would expand to 12 if its conference champions only or something like that. Texas especially was miffed about 2008, where fractions of a point in the BCS standings (largely due to computer rankings) kept them out of the CCG and thus the NCG. I would think that a straight top-4 would appeal more to Texas and the threat of losing a top-4 ranking by losing a CCG would have them continue to support the status quo. But if the format had provisions for conference champions to get automatic inclusion or more consideration, Texas might change their mind and allow a CCG.

Any other ideas?

If anything top 4 helps expansion. Possibility of more league revenue from getting two big 12 teams in and increased probability of the ACC missing it and the revenue that would likely accompany it.

(05-10-2012 09:00 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  If anything top 4 helps expansion. Possibility of more league revenue from getting two big 12 teams in and increased probability of the ACC missing it and the revenue that would likely accompany it.

So to extrapolate from your thought, do you think a conference champions-favored format hinders expansion? If so, why?

I think the top-4 hinders expansion because without a CCG, if you have two 1-loss programs, you can get them both in relatively conceivably. But with a conference-champions-favored format, and no CCG, you only get one team in, most likely.

I'd say first commish formally starts job, then 4 team playoff details revealed and reviewed, meanwhile Big12 trying to recruit a big fish like FSU....then compliment them with UL.

If not, there is a growing support for going with 11 (UL) and stopping for awhile......I'm not sure about that for this summer.

As a UL fan, I'm starting to think I can take care of my summer chores and start looking at the fall/next summer for real news.

(05-10-2012 08:56 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Those who think the Big XII expansion rumors for FSU, Clemson, Louisville, etc. all seem to have one common factor: the announcement on expansion is waiting on the announcement of the new BCS Playoff format. A few weeks ago, it was "wait until the new commish gets named." Now it seems that most of the rumors I've seen have it being announced after the new playoff format. My question is why then? What's so special about the announcement of the format?

My guess: they won't expand if it's just the top 4, but they would expand to 12 if its conference champions only or something like that. Texas especially was miffed about 2008, where fractions of a point in the BCS standings (largely due to computer rankings) kept them out of the CCG and thus the NCG. I would think that a straight top-4 would appeal more to Texas and the threat of losing a top-4 ranking by losing a CCG would have them continue to support the status quo. But if the format had provisions for conference champions to get automatic inclusion or more consideration, Texas might change their mind and allow a CCG.

Any other ideas?

Its not the format. Its the revenue distribution. You can't make a good analysis until you know all the numbers. FSU and Clemson aren't going to leave the ACC without better information. The Big 12 isn't going to decide whether to expand with a non-ACC school until it knows the numbers. I don't believe anyone has made any decisions.

(05-10-2012 09:07 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(05-10-2012 09:00 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  If anything top 4 helps expansion. Possibility of more league revenue from getting two big 12 teams in and increased probability of the ACC missing it and the revenue that would likely accompany it.

So to extrapolate from your thought, do you think a conference champions-favored format hinders expansion? If so, why?

There is going to be at least some cash tied to appearing in the playoff.

In conf champs only the ACC would place more teams in as SEC & Big 12 teams would not take 2nd spots.

In top 4, well they only qualified for it once (07 vt) in the last 9 years.

Big 12 would likely have had two in during the 2004 & 2008 seasons and if you count TCU possibly the 2009 season. Big 12 rarely if ever misses the thing.

If there are big dollar amounts tied to appearing in it, not only is the Big 12 outpacing the ACC cut but FSU & Clemson's SEC rivals would have a widening gap as well from getting multiple teams in.

(05-10-2012 09:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-10-2012 08:56 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Those who think the Big XII expansion rumors for FSU, Clemson, Louisville, etc. all seem to have one common factor: the announcement on expansion is waiting on the announcement of the new BCS Playoff format. A few weeks ago, it was "wait until the new commish gets named." Now it seems that most of the rumors I've seen have it being announced after the new playoff format. My question is why then? What's so special about the announcement of the format?

My guess: they won't expand if it's just the top 4, but they would expand to 12 if its conference champions only or something like that. Texas especially was miffed about 2008, where fractions of a point in the BCS standings (largely due to computer rankings) kept them out of the CCG and thus the NCG. I would think that a straight top-4 would appeal more to Texas and the threat of losing a top-4 ranking by losing a CCG would have them continue to support the status quo. But if the format had provisions for conference champions to get automatic inclusion or more consideration, Texas might change their mind and allow a CCG.

Any other ideas?

Its not the format. Its the revenue distribution. You can't make a good analysis until you know all the numbers. FSU and Clemson aren't going to leave the ACC without better information. The Big 12 isn't going to decide whether to expand with a non-ACC school until it knows the numbers. I don't believe anyone has made any decisions.

OK, but revenue distribution won't be known until they start the TV/bowl negotiations in the fall. They are only decided the where, when, and who they prefer at this point, and then the TV/bowl partners get to make their choices. They might have an estimate, but they'll have to give the bowls, venues, and TV partners a chance to bid and decide accordingly. So the revenue split may not be known until Thanksgiving.

(05-10-2012 09:17 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  

(05-10-2012 09:07 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(05-10-2012 09:00 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  If anything top 4 helps expansion. Possibility of more league revenue from getting two big 12 teams in and increased probability of the ACC missing it and the revenue that would likely accompany it.

So to extrapolate from your thought, do you think a conference champions-favored format hinders expansion? If so, why?

There is going to be at least some cash tied to appearing in the playoff.

In conf champs only the ACC would place more teams in as SEC & Big 12 teams would not take 2nd spots.

In top 4, well they only qualified for it once (07 vt) in the last 9 years.

Big 12 would likely have had two in during the 2004 & 2008 seasons and if you count TCU possibly the 2009 season. Big 12 rarely if ever misses the thing.

If there are big dollar amounts tied to appearing in it, not only is the Big 12 outpacing the ACC cut but FSU & Clemson's SEC rivals would have a widening gap as well from getting multiple teams in.

But the Big XII is not a welfare state for FSU & Clemson - if they can't get a better situation in the ACC, that's not the Big XII's fault. The Big XII is not inviting them to just give them more money, they need to add value to the Big XII. And by adding them, the Big XII gets a CCG. But if they can place more teams in the FFF by not expanding, then why would they expand?

I think the top 4 makes expansion less likely because then you have no CCG to knock someone down, if they lose the game, and you're not adding two programs that can cannibalize your best teams' records. Adding FSU and Clemson just reduces that chance of having multiple 1-loss teams that could get into the FFF because that adds more quality programs to knock off the best teams - which has plagued the BE for the last few years.

On the other hand, if you have another 2008 situation, you are likely to get at least 1-loss team in with expansion to a CCG, even if that team is the at-large and one loses the CCG to a weaker division's opponent.

Well, you have to at least consider the possibility that the Big 12 may not expand at all and may remain at 10.

(05-10-2012 09:42 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Well, you have to at least consider the possibility that the Big 12 may not expand at all and may remain at 10.

Agreed. But I am addressing those expansionistas who seem to have this uber-important information and have stressed that the timeline is as described. I just wondered what the motivation for the timeline is.

(05-10-2012 09:37 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(05-10-2012 09:17 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  

(05-10-2012 09:07 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(05-10-2012 09:00 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  If anything top 4 helps expansion. Possibility of more league revenue from getting two big 12 teams in and increased probability of the ACC missing it and the revenue that would likely accompany it.

So to extrapolate from your thought, do you think a conference champions-favored format hinders expansion? If so, why?

There is going to be at least some cash tied to appearing in the playoff.

In conf champs only the ACC would place more teams in as SEC & Big 12 teams would not take 2nd spots.

In top 4, well they only qualified for it once (07 vt) in the last 9 years.

Big 12 would likely have had two in during the 2004 & 2008 seasons and if you count TCU possibly the 2009 season. Big 12 rarely if ever misses the thing.

If there are big dollar amounts tied to appearing in it, not only is the Big 12 outpacing the ACC cut but FSU & Clemson's SEC rivals would have a widening gap as well from getting multiple teams in.

But the Big XII is not a welfare state for FSU & Clemson - if they can't get a better situation in the ACC, that's not the Big XII's fault. The Big XII is not inviting them to just give them more money, they need to add value to the Big XII. And by adding them, the Big XII gets a CCG. But if they can place more teams in the FFF by not expanding, then why would they expand?

I think the top 4 makes expansion less likely because then you have no CCG to knock someone down, if they lose the game, and you're not adding two programs that can cannibalize your best teams' records. Adding FSU and Clemson just reduces that chance of having multiple 1-loss teams that could get into the FFF because that adds more quality programs to knock off the best teams - which has plagued the BE for the last few years.

On the other hand, if you have another 2008 situation, you are likely to get at least 1-loss team in with expansion to a CCG, even if that team is the at-large and one loses the CCG to a weaker division's opponent.

CCG can help and hurt. Upsets happen but SOS boosts from that 13th game helps too.

It has always been after the new commish is hired, after the present one leaves office and after (probably) the new BCS deal is finalized-along with a few other things.

The new commish hasn't officially taken office, the existing one hasn't left, the BCS deal isn't finalized, the tv contracts aren't finalized and the other matters aren't settled yet. It has always been set for sometime this summer.

(05-10-2012 09:49 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  

(05-10-2012 09:37 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(05-10-2012 09:17 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  

(05-10-2012 09:07 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(05-10-2012 09:00 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  If anything top 4 helps expansion. Possibility of more league revenue from getting two big 12 teams in and increased probability of the ACC missing it and the revenue that would likely accompany it.

So to extrapolate from your thought, do you think a conference champions-favored format hinders expansion? If so, why?

There is going to be at least some cash tied to appearing in the playoff.

In conf champs only the ACC would place more teams in as SEC & Big 12 teams would not take 2nd spots.

In top 4, well they only qualified for it once (07 vt) in the last 9 years.

Big 12 would likely have had two in during the 2004 & 2008 seasons and if you count TCU possibly the 2009 season. Big 12 rarely if ever misses the thing.

If there are big dollar amounts tied to appearing in it, not only is the Big 12 outpacing the ACC cut but FSU & Clemson's SEC rivals would have a widening gap as well from getting multiple teams in.

But the Big XII is not a welfare state for FSU & Clemson - if they can't get a better situation in the ACC, that's not the Big XII's fault. The Big XII is not inviting them to just give them more money, they need to add value to the Big XII. And by adding them, the Big XII gets a CCG. But if they can place more teams in the FFF by not expanding, then why would they expand?

I think the top 4 makes expansion less likely because then you have no CCG to knock someone down, if they lose the game, and you're not adding two programs that can cannibalize your best teams' records. Adding FSU and Clemson just reduces that chance of having multiple 1-loss teams that could get into the FFF because that adds more quality programs to knock off the best teams - which has plagued the BE for the last few years.

On the other hand, if you have another 2008 situation, you are likely to get at least 1-loss team in with expansion to a CCG, even if that team is the at-large and one loses the CCG to a weaker division's opponent.

CCG can help and hurt. Upsets happen but SOS boosts from that 13th game helps too.

I think they should go to 12 either way, here's why...On the last week of the season say a 10-1 Oklahoma is playing a 7-4 Oklahoma St. (say WVU is 9-2 and would have been in a title game if the B12 had one, this woulda helped the sos) while a 12-0 Alabama is playing a 10-2 Georgia in the SEC title game. The winner of the title game will get a bigger boost and the loser won't drop very far because it's such a tough game. Plus OSU could still beat OU. Also if they go to a committee to choose the 4 I think winning a title game will be worth a lot more since the top 2 teams in the conf would be playing while in the B12 they might not to end the year. If the loser plays a close game, the committee might be more willing to give them another shot in the Final 4 over someone w/ a weaker schedule who didn't have a hard test to close out the season.

Wow, this conversation has already reached multiple layers just two pages in. I will try to catch up as this is one of the few good ones!

The first order of business for the Big 12 has been about getting the new commissioner in place. Now while the new Commish has already been giving public statements, he has not yet even taken over officially. So we still have the major roadblock to Big 12 expansion yet to happen.

The second order of business is definitely what is to come out of the BCS meetings. For all we know, the Big 12 thinks they can influence those meetings more if they go in with a strong 10 team league. It gives them a bargaining advantage in that it is in the best interests of the other conferences to try and force them into going to 12 and having a conference championship game as well. Any type of forcing requires negotiations and then the Big 12 can gain something that they would actually be giving away for free if they expand to 12 before those meetings are over.

So that is two reasons for staying at 10 right now. For all we know some schools may be ready to join now but it is in the Big 12's best interests to stay at 10 throughout the BCS meetings.


Now for the second tier of the conversation, which BCS version is more conducive to expansion.

For a school like FSU, if the BCS choice is to go with the top four ranked schools, that is going to be more difficult for them to do in a conference that is perceived as weak vs one that is perceived as strong because that is really all that goes into SOS ratings. It is a perception. When 3/4 of your games are played within your conference, your conference HAS to have a high perception of strength. So for a strong school that intends to put out top notch teams you want to be in a conference with a perception of strength. So for the Big 12 a BCS choice of top four ranked teams means they try to pull in some very strong programs to boost that Conference SOS even more. IF the final choice is about conference champions then perhaps they go with a weaker addition so that the route for the current conference powers is easier. If a conference championship game is not a requirement set forth then perhaps the Big 12 doesn't expand right away at all.

That is why the BCS meetings are so very important.

Where does FSU have a better chance to go undefeated?

THE ACC. And an undefeated ACC champ will be ranked in the top 4.

(05-11-2012 10:10 AM)curtis0620 Wrote:  Where does FSU have a better chance to go undefeated?

THE ACC. And an undefeated ACC champ will be ranked in the top 4.

An undefeated champ of practically any conference (well, maybe not the SBC or MAC) could get into the top 4, or at least the undefeated champ of a top 6 conference would. That's not the problem. The question is: would a 1-loss ACC champ get into the FFF? Maybe not.

(05-11-2012 10:17 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(05-11-2012 10:10 AM)curtis0620 Wrote:  Where does FSU have a better chance to go undefeated?

THE ACC. And an undefeated ACC champ will be ranked in the top 4.

An undefeated champ of practically any conference (well, maybe not the SBC or MAC) could get into the top 4, or at least the undefeated champ of a top 6 conference would. That's not the problem. The question is: would a 1-loss ACC champ get into the FFF? Maybe not.

Also is the low likelihood of any other programs besides vt or Clemson getting in going to make a revenue gap between the ACC and the B12 & SEC? If appearing is worth 15m per league per participant a team with two in gets 2m per school more.

Rumors are payouts could be bigger or smaller or not tied at all. Time will tell.

(05-11-2012 10:17 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(05-11-2012 10:10 AM)curtis0620 Wrote:  Where does FSU have a better chance to go undefeated?

THE ACC. And an undefeated ACC champ will be ranked in the top 4.

An undefeated champ of practically any conference (well, maybe not the SBC or MAC) could get into the top 4, or at least the undefeated champ of a top 6 conference would. That's not the problem. The question is: would a 1-loss ACC champ get into the FFF? Maybe not.

Yeah, anyone that is planning their affiliation based on undefeated seasons should be fired immediately. A four year old could make that choice. Where a highly paid administrator earns his money is by gauging where to be during those not so sure seasons like 11-1 and 10-2. Where do you want to be during those seasons because THOSE seasons are much more likely.

Besides, if FSU had a good chance to go undefeated in the ACC then we would see that happen more often. FSU actually schedules strong OOC games too such as the Oklahoma game. Why do they do that? Because the SOS in the ACC is so low.

(05-10-2012 09:19 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(05-10-2012 09:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-10-2012 08:56 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Those who think the Big XII expansion rumors for FSU, Clemson, Louisville, etc. all seem to have one common factor: the announcement on expansion is waiting on the announcement of the new BCS Playoff format. A few weeks ago, it was "wait until the new commish gets named." Now it seems that most of the rumors I've seen have it being announced after the new playoff format. My question is why then? What's so special about the announcement of the format?

My guess: they won't expand if it's just the top 4, but they would expand to 12 if its conference champions only or something like that. Texas especially was miffed about 2008, where fractions of a point in the BCS standings (largely due to computer rankings) kept them out of the CCG and thus the NCG. I would think that a straight top-4 would appeal more to Texas and the threat of losing a top-4 ranking by losing a CCG would have them continue to support the status quo. But if the format had provisions for conference champions to get automatic inclusion or more consideration, Texas might change their mind and allow a CCG.

Any other ideas?

Its not the format. Its the revenue distribution. You can't make a good analysis until you know all the numbers. FSU and Clemson aren't going to leave the ACC without better information. The Big 12 isn't going to decide whether to expand with a non-ACC school until it knows the numbers. I don't believe anyone has made any decisions.

OK, but revenue distribution won't be known until they start the TV/bowl negotiations in the fall. They are only decided the where, when, and who they prefer at this point, and then the TV/bowl partners get to make their choices. They might have an estimate, but they'll have to give the bowls, venues, and TV partners a chance to bid and decide accordingly. So the revenue split may not be known until Thanksgiving.

True, but I don't believe any of this gets approved until the Presi
dents have an idea of the formula for the revenue distribution. I think that has to be decided before any format gets approved.

And maybe everyone is waiting until after the format, revenue distribution formula and TV contract is settled.