(01-28-2014 09:06 AM)Bearcat61 Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 12:54 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  That being said, I don't think the Maryland case will have too much to do with further realignment either way. The Big Ten, ACC, SEC and Pac-12 are all very settled for the foreseeable future. There's one power conference that isn't settled (regardless of what their commissioner says publicly) and, as a result of that, realignment will still very much matter to the AAC specifically.

So without the financial deterrent of a GOR what is the final outcome for conference realignment? How do we get to five-16 team conferences? First, let’s remember there are two major players (BIG and SEC) in the room and they are battling for money, prestige, and power. Advantage goes to the BIG because they have a better sidekick (PAC12). So here is how it goes down (first of all, try to understand that the two biggest prizes left in the marketplace are Notre Dame and Texas).

The BIG will extend an invite to Florida State (or Virginia) for selection #15 and hold position for the PAC to make their move on Texas. The PAC12 make a final push for Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State, thus breaking up the Big 12 and leaving 6 teams in the aftermath.

The SEC, fighting for top dog status goes after 2 teams from the ACC (Clemson and Virginia Tech) leaving the ACC conference with 11 members (plus ND) and in need of 4 new members.

At that point, ND is facing the threat that the BIG could take another ACC team and they would be in associated with a conference down to 10 members and in need of FIVE NEWCOMERS from the despised AAC. Game over and checkmate, ND accepts a bid from the BIG as # 16.

The ACC is now down to 11 members (w/o Notre Dame) and the Big12 is down to 6 members (Baylor, TCU, West Virginia, Kansas, Kansas State, and Iowa State) and not all of them compatible with ACC standards. The ACC selects UConn, UC, UCF, Tulane, and Temple to get to 16 teams.


The AAC is down to 7 teams, including Navy and there are the remaining 6 teams from the Big 12, combining for 13 teams. This combo conference will probably take 2 from the MW and BYU.

The NEW-AAC conference will include the following: Navy, ECU, USF, Memphis, Houston, SMU, Tulsa, West Virginia, TCU, Baylor, Iowa State. Kansas, Kansas State, Air Force, BYU, and one more from the MW.

The main drivers in the next round of conference realignment are the following: The BIG finally gets ND and the Big Ten Network expands into Florida. The PAC finally gets Texas. The SEC stays lock step with the BIG at 16 members picking up South Carolina and Virginia markets.

I won't fault you for being a dreamer and wanting your school included as that's a natural feeling. That is not happening however.

This isn't a board game to start. Then even IF your first 4 paragraphs happened, the ACC would take Big 12 teams, not take teams from elsewhere. It's a fan misnomer that we need to have some magical 5x16 set-up.

(01-28-2014 12:54 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  That being said, I don't think the Maryland case will have too much to do with further realignment either way. The Big Ten, ACC, SEC and Pac-12 are all very settled for the foreseeable future.

That's exactly what everyone says after every conf adds new members.

That's what they said about the Big Ten when Penn State was added...and then again after Nebraska was added to be the 12th member of that conf...but then the conf expanded AGAIN.

Thats what they said about the SEC when they expanded to 12 teams...then expanded again to add teams from Missouri and TX.

Thats what they said about the ACC when they expanded to 12 teams...then again when they added 2 more teams...and then again why they added a hybrid membership to Notre Dame.

Thats what they said when the Big 12 was formed...but then they lost members...then added new members to get back to 10...yet they are always rumored to be adding more.

Only thing constant in collegiate athletics is change...and that includes conf memberships.

(01-27-2014 05:30 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(01-27-2014 05:19 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(01-27-2014 05:14 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(01-27-2014 05:05 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  would cincy want to join a b12 without Texas and Oklahoma?

As long as the Big 12 is still a P5....in a heartbeat.

In a world in which Oklahoma and Texas have both deserted the Big <12, you can bet Okie State and TT have joined them. Maybe KU, as well. To blithely assume that what's left will be deemed a "P5" league seems… reckless.

That's why I said "As long as."

Reading comp seems to be an issue over here too.

Maryland is applying serious settlement pressure on ACC with risk of discovery
if the case goes to court.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/terr...nterclaim/

The AAC has several advantages over other G5 conferences.
It can expand if one or more teams leave by adding from several conferences.

Our major competitor is the MWC. It has no good expansion possibilities.
It has other disadvantages including:
fewer quality football programs
exposure
recruiting areas ( The AAC has schools in every good recruiting area except Cal. )
facilities
weather
elevation
time zones
DMAs

247sports - Average Rankings Class of 2011-14

At the top, the AAC has 5 teams above 80.0, the MWC has 1.
The AAC has 8 teams above 77.0, the MWC has 4.

AVERAGE CLASS RANKING
1. SEC - 20.9 (96.0) - 87.45
2. Pac 12 - 35.9 (87.2) - 85.07
3. Big 12 - 36.9 (94.9) - 84.36
4. Big Ten - 39.9 (86.0) - 84.60
5. ACC - 40.1 (87.9) - 84.76
6. AAC - 76.2 (88.9) - 79.27
7. MWC - 97.1 (84.5) - 76.37
8. CUSA - 98.8 (79.1) - 76.04
9. MAC - 101.5 (78.8) - 75.74
10. Sun Belt - 108.3 (71.3) - 75.34

BIG 12
9. Texas (87) - 90.71
15. Oklahoma (86) - 88.59
29. Oklahoma State (99) - 85.14
31. Texas Tech (111) - 84.16
31. Baylor (102) - 83.91
38. TCU (85) - 85.12
38. West Virginia (102) - 83.51
58. Kansas State (83) - 81.82
60. Iowa State (90) - 81.70
60. Kansas (104) - 80.00

ACC
5. Florida State (99) - 90.28
14. Clemson (94) - 87.43
17. Miami (99) - 87.26
25. Virginia Tech (97) - 85.91
27. Virginia (97) - 84.95
29. North Carolina (85) - 86.19
38. Louisville (79) - 85.23
43. Pittsburgh (90) - 82.93
54. NC State (94) - 82.62
55. Georgia Tech (72) - 83.73
61. Boston College (90) - 80.84
62. Duke (75) - 84.45
63. Syracuse (86) - 81.41
68. Wake Forest (74) - 81.64

BIG TEN
4. Ohio State (95) - 91.74
12. Michigan (89) - 89.70
27. Nebraska (97) - 84.05
34. Michigan State (79) - 85.69
35. Penn State (73) - 85.99
36. Rutgers (89) - 84.85
43. Iowa (93) - 83.36
44. Wisconsin (79) - 84.11
46. Maryland (80) - 83.54
51. Indiana (94) - 81.84
52. Northwestern (71) - 83.98
53. Illinois (90) - 82.57
61. Purdue (86) - 81.74
61. Minnesota (89) - 81.00

PAC 12
11. Southern Cal (74) - 91.10
15. Oregon (82) - 88.14
22. UCLA (86) - 87.65
24. Stanford (71) - 88.71
34. California (79) - 85.85
37. Washington (79) - 85.69
40. Arizona (109) - 83.00
41. Arizona State (91) - 84.30
42. Utah (95) - 83.75
49. Oregon State (94) - 82.75
57. Washington State (99) - 81.36
59. Colorado (87) - 81.88

SEC
1. Alabama (103) - 92.53
7. Florida (91) - 90.51
8. LSU (93) - 90.39
9. Georgia (95) - 90.05
10. Auburn (99) - 87.96
16. Texas A&M (95) - 88.06
16. Tennessee (109) - 87.54
19. South Carolina (99) - 87.10
22. Mississippi (97) - 87.00
26. Arkansas (113) - 84.07
30. Mississippi State (92) - 85.20
37. Kentucky (100) - 84.06
42. Missouri (79) - 84.94
49. Vanderbilt (79) - 84.46

AAC
53. Cincinnati (97) - 82.48
54. South Florida (86) - 82.64
62. Houston (97) - 80.91
71. SMU (91) - 80.01
74. East Carolina (91) - 79.13
77. Central Florida (72) - 80.94
78. Temple (97) - 77.57
79. Tulane (85) - 78.95
82. Connecticut (74) - 79.89
82. Tulsa (77) - 79.04
83. Memphis (140) - 75.85
119. Navy (60) - 74.32

CUSA
67. Marshall (88) - 79.85
82. Southern Miss (90) - 77.26
86. Florida Atlantic (89) - 76.61
89. Western Kentucky (103) - 75.68
93. Rice (81) - 77.06
93. Florida International (99) - 75.81
99. Middle Tennessee (84) - 75.38
101. Louisiana Tech (72) - 75.99
101. UAB (100) - 74.78
107. North Texas (78) - 74.91
111. Old Dominion (67) - 74.51
116. Texas-San Antonio (39) - 78.38
118. Charlotte (47) - 74.80
120. UTEP (70) - 73.53

MAC
80. Toledo (93) - 78.22
87. Western Michigan (93) - 77.45
91. Bowling Green (84) - 76.47
95. Central Michigan (87) - 75.99
97. Ball State (82) - 76.24
97. Northern Illinois (94) - 74.79
104. Miami, OH (76) - 75.70
105. Ohio (85) - 75.11
107. Buffalo (79) - 74.33
112. Eastern Michigan (68) - 74.59
113. Massachusetts (41) - 76.66
115. Kent State (73) - 74.39
117. Akron (69) - 74.00

MWC
66. Boise State (81) - 81.57
73. San Diego State (89) - 79.26
91. Colorado State (94) - 76.80
94. Fresno State (76) - 77.17
96. Nevada (88) - 75.60
101. Hawaii (84) - 75.85
101. New Mexico (78) - 75.77
105. San Jose State (79) - 75.34
105. Air Force (134) - 74.76
107. UNLV (69) - 75.35
112. Utah State (71) - 74.69
114. Wyoming (71) - 74.46

SUN BELT
89. Arkansas State (90) - 77.11
91. Louisiana-Lafayette (92) - 76.70
104. Troy (80) - 75.47
105. Texas State (56) - 78.55
105. South Alabama (94) - 74.77
112. Louisiana-Monroe (78) - 74.36
114. Appalachian State (48) - 75.77
114. New Mexico State (72) - 74.66
115. Idaho (78) - 74.03
120. Georgia State (68) - 73.30
122. Georgia Southern (27) - 75.48

INDEPENDENTS
10. Notre Dame (92) - 89.01
65. BYU (80) - 80.94
123. Army (60) - 72.94

(01-28-2014 10:07 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 12:54 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  That being said, I don't think the Maryland case will have too much to do with further realignment either way. The Big Ten, ACC, SEC and Pac-12 are all very settled for the foreseeable future.

That's exactly what everyone says after every conf adds new members.

That's what they said about the Big Ten when Penn State was added...and then again after Nebraska was added to be the 12th member of that conf...but then the conf expanded AGAIN.

Thats what they said about the SEC when they expanded to 12 teams...then expanded again to add teams from Missouri and TX.

Thats what they said about the ACC when they expanded to 12 teams...then again when they added 2 more teams...and then again why they added a hybrid membership to Notre Dame.

Thats what they said when the Big 12 was formed...but then they lost members...then added new members to get back to 10...yet they are always rumored to be adding more.

Only thing constant in collegiate athletics is change...and that includes conf memberships.

Yes, I grant that change is constant, but as I've pointed out before, the "expansion" up to this point is really just shuffling with only a couple of exceptions.

In 1998 (the first year of the BCS), there were 63 schools in 6 power conferences plus Notre Dame.

In 2014 (the first year of the CFP), there are 65 schools in 5 power conferences plus Notre Dame.

That's a net change of 2 in 16 years, with Louisville, TCU and Utah moving up and Temple moving down (and they were demoted for reasons unrelated to conference realignment).

Could the Big Ten decide to expand? Sure. However, the schools that they actually want (UNC and UVA from the ACC, Texas from the Big 12) are among the ones that are least likely to leave because, particularly UNC and Texas, are the power brokers in their respective conferences as opposed to malcontents. Same thing with the SEC - they'd want that exact same set of schools. The Pac-12 obviously wants Texas, but once again, they're a power broker.

So, yes, in theory, Texas could move, but they're sort of like Notre Dame in terms of being an island, only they want the control of an entire conference as opposed to simply controlling their schedule via independence. Expansion in and of itself isn't the goal. These conferences aren't just going up to 16 without anyone - it would take the most powerful schools of them all that have the ability to control their own destinies to decide to move at this point, which is a lot different than getting valuable assets that aren't happy with their current conferences to move.

At the same time, these conferences want nothing to do with coordinating with each other (even ones that are friendly with each other like the Big Ten and Pac-12). I get asked all of the time why these leagues don't get together and divvy things up so that there are 4 (or 5) 16-school conferences and the response is that this is NEVER how it works. We (the fans) like that idea because it's orderly, looks nice for a hypothetical future playoff system, and is inclusive enough where many G5 schools suddenly have hope that they'll be included in the power structure, but the reality is that conference realignment is a messy process with lots of different actors making lots of different decisions without any coordination whatsoever (with the end result being that the club is still just as exclusive as it was back in 1998 when the BCS system began).

Now, with all that being said, the Big 12 *specifically* is a different matter. They can talk all they want about having a 10-school tight-knit conference, but they're going to have to expand at some point. That setup is simply an anachronism in this day and age. They might be dragged kicking and screaming through expansion, but my semi-educated guess is that it will happen sooner rather than later. That expansion will come from the G5 ranks - none of the other P5 schools would ever leave their conferences for the Big 12, so there will be 2 lucky G5 schools that will get golden tickets to the power structure. Who they will be and when it will happen are open questions, but it's certainly still relevant. The conference realignment landscape is largely settled, but it isn't *completely* settled.

(01-28-2014 11:29 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 10:07 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 12:54 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  That being said, I don't think the Maryland case will have too much to do with further realignment either way. The Big Ten, ACC, SEC and Pac-12 are all very settled for the foreseeable future.

That's exactly what everyone says after every conf adds new members.

That's what they said about the Big Ten when Penn State was added...and then again after Nebraska was added to be the 12th member of that conf...but then the conf expanded AGAIN.

Thats what they said about the SEC when they expanded to 12 teams...then expanded again to add teams from Missouri and TX.

Thats what they said about the ACC when they expanded to 12 teams...then again when they added 2 more teams...and then again why they added a hybrid membership to Notre Dame.

Thats what they said when the Big 12 was formed...but then they lost members...then added new members to get back to 10...yet they are always rumored to be adding more.

Only thing constant in collegiate athletics is change...and that includes conf memberships.

Yes, I grant that change is constant, but as I've pointed out before, the "expansion" up to this point is really just shuffling with only a couple of exceptions.

1998 (the first year of the BCS), there were 63 schools in 6 power conference plus Notre Dame.

In 2014 (the first year of the CFP), there are 65 schools in 5 power conferences plus Notre Dame.

That's a net change of 2 in 16 years, with Louisville, TCU and Utah moving up and Temple moving down (and they were demoted for reasons unrelated to conference realignment).

Could the Big Ten decide to expand? Sure. However, the schools that they actually want (UNC and UVA from the ACC, Texas from the Big 12) are among the ones that are least likely to leave because, particularly UNC and Texas, are the power brokers in their respective conferences as opposed to malcontents. Same thing with the SEC - they'd want that exact same set of schools. The Pac-12 obviously wants Texas, but once again, they're a power broker.

So, yes, in theory, Texas could move, but they're sort of like Notre Dame in terms of being an island, only they want the control of an entire conference as opposed to simply controlling their schedule via independence. Expansion in and of itself isn't the goal. These conferences aren't just going up to 16 without anyone - it would take the most powerful schools of them all that have the ability to control their own destinies to decide to move at this point, which is a lot different than getting valuable assets that aren't happy with their current conferences to move.

At the same time, these conferences want nothing to do with coordinating with each other (even ones that are friendly with each other like the Big Ten and Pac-12). I get asked all of the time why these leagues don't get together and divvy things up so that there are 4 (or 5) 16-school conferences and the response is that this is NEVER how it works. We (the fans) like that idea because it's orderly, looks nice for a hypothetical future playoff system, and is inclusive enough where many G5 schools suddenly have hope that they'll be included in the power structure, but the reality is that conference realignment is a messy process with lots of different actors making lots of different decisions without any coordination whatsoever (with the end result being that the club is still just as exclusive as it was back in 1998 when the BCS system began).

Now, with all that being said, the Big 12 *specifically* is a different matter. They can talk all they want about having a 10-school tight-knit conference, but they're going to have to expand at some point. That setup is simply an anachronism in this day and age. They might be dragged kicking and screaming through expansion, but my semi-educated guess is that it will happen sooner rather than later. That expansion will come from the G5 ranks - none of the other P5 schools would ever leave their conferences for the Big 12, so there will be 2 lucky G5 schools that will get golden tickets to the power structure. Who they will be and when it will happen are open questions, but it's certainly still relevant. The conference realignment landscape is largely settled, but it isn't *completely* settled.

Nailed it...in retrospect...the more things changed the more they stayed the same....

(01-28-2014 12:54 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-27-2014 05:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Mark my words---it will never ever get to a court decision.

This is true. No one - not Maryland, not the ACC, not the Big Ten, and not ESPN - will let that lawsuit proceed to trial. It will get settled, just like 99.99% of all lawsuits.

The above posts that I've quoted both make sense.

And yet, this issue has been hanging around for 14 months now. If it was simply a matter of negotiating a $$-amount, couldn't that have been done by now?

(01-28-2014 10:07 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  Thats what they said about the ACC when they expanded to 12 teams...then again when they added 2 more teams...and then again why they added a hybrid membership to Notre Dame.

Because it was probably the only conference that gave the the deal Norte Dame wanted, not the other way around.

Besides if anyone thinks that ND is going to the Big Ten is dead wrong! The rich alumni there will NEVER allow that to happen. Ever!

(01-28-2014 11:29 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Yes, I grant that change is constant, but as I've pointed out before, the "expansion" up to this point is really just shuffling with only a couple of exceptions.

In 1998 (the first year of the BCS), there were 63 schools in 6 power conferences plus Notre Dame.

In 2014 (the first year of the CFP), there are 65 schools in 5 power conferences plus Notre Dame.

That's a net change of 2 in 16 years, with Louisville, TCU and Utah moving up and Temple moving down (and they were demoted for reasons unrelated to conference realignment).

All true, and this actually highlights a fact that most people seem slow to grasp. The BCS didn't merely impose a new, nationwide competitive balance over college-football, it imposed a balance and then sought to keep that balance frozen in place, with the handful of exceptions noted by Frank. The P5 now seeks to extend that freeze into permanency. For the first 11 or so decades that "college sports" were a part of American life, there was never anything else like that in existence. The BCS ("P5") represents something revolutionary in the history of college sports, and utterly destructive to all but 65 members of a favored cartel. Even some of those 65, actually, will be harmed by it, too, though they apparently don't see it that way.

(01-28-2014 12:34 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 11:29 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Yes, I grant that change is constant, but as I've pointed out before, the "expansion" up to this point is really just shuffling with only a couple of exceptions.

In 1998 (the first year of the BCS), there were 63 schools in 6 power conferences plus Notre Dame.

In 2014 (the first year of the CFP), there are 65 schools in 5 power conferences plus Notre Dame.

That's a net change of 2 in 16 years, with Louisville, TCU and Utah moving up and Temple moving down (and they were demoted for reasons unrelated to conference realignment).

All true, and this actually highlights a fact that most people seem slow to grasp. The BCS didn't merely impose a new, nationwide competitive balance over college-football, it imposed a balance and then sought to keep that balance frozen in place, with the handful of exceptions noted by Frank. The P5 now seeks to extend that freeze into permanency. For the first 11 or so decades that "college sports" were a part of American life, there was never anything else like that in existence. The BCS ("P5") represents something revolutionary in the history of college sports, and utterly destructive to all but 65 members of a favored cartel. Even some of those 65, actually, will be harmed by it, too, though they apparently don't see it that way.

Very true. And only a matter of time before those 65 start cannibalizing their own.

(01-28-2014 11:29 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 10:07 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 12:54 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  That being said, I don't think the Maryland case will have too much to do with further realignment either way. The Big Ten, ACC, SEC and Pac-12 are all very settled for the foreseeable future.

That's exactly what everyone says after every conf adds new members.

That's what they said about the Big Ten when Penn State was added...and then again after Nebraska was added to be the 12th member of that conf...but then the conf expanded AGAIN.

Thats what they said about the SEC when they expanded to 12 teams...then expanded again to add teams from Missouri and TX.

Thats what they said about the ACC when they expanded to 12 teams...then again when they added 2 more teams...and then again why they added a hybrid membership to Notre Dame.

Thats what they said when the Big 12 was formed...but then they lost members...then added new members to get back to 10...yet they are always rumored to be adding more.

Only thing constant in collegiate athletics is change...and that includes conf memberships.

Yes, I grant that change is constant, but as I've pointed out before, the "expansion" up to this point is really just shuffling with only a couple of exceptions.

In 1998 (the first year of the BCS), there were 63 schools in 6 power conferences plus Notre Dame.

In 2014 (the first year of the CFP), there are 65 schools in 5 power conferences plus Notre Dame.

That's a net change of 2 in 16 years, with Louisville, TCU and Utah moving up and Temple moving down (and they were demoted for reasons unrelated to conference realignment).

Could the Big Ten decide to expand? Sure. However, the schools that they actually want (UNC and UVA from the ACC, Texas from the Big 12) are among the ones that are least likely to leave because, particularly UNC and Texas, are the power brokers in their respective conferences as opposed to malcontents. Same thing with the SEC - they'd want that exact same set of schools. The Pac-12 obviously wants Texas, but once again, they're a power broker.

So, yes, in theory, Texas could move, but they're sort of like Notre Dame in terms of being an island, only they want the control of an entire conference as opposed to simply controlling their schedule via independence. Expansion in and of itself isn't the goal. These conferences aren't just going up to 16 without anyone - it would take the most powerful schools of them all that have the ability to control their own destinies to decide to move at this point, which is a lot different than getting valuable assets that aren't happy with their current conferences to move.

At the same time, these conferences want nothing to do with coordinating with each other (even ones that are friendly with each other like the Big Ten and Pac-12). I get asked all of the time why these leagues don't get together and divvy things up so that there are 4 (or 5) 16-school conferences and the response is that this is NEVER how it works. We (the fans) like that idea because it's orderly, looks nice for a hypothetical future playoff system, and is inclusive enough where many G5 schools suddenly have hope that they'll be included in the power structure, but the reality is that conference realignment is a messy process with lots of different actors making lots of different decisions without any coordination whatsoever (with the end result being that the club is still just as exclusive as it was back in 1998 when the BCS system began).

Now, with all that being said, the Big 12 *specifically* is a different matter. They can talk all they want about having a 10-school tight-knit conference, but they're going to have to expand at some point. That setup is simply an anachronism in this day and age. They might be dragged kicking and screaming through expansion, but my semi-educated guess is that it will happen sooner rather than later. That expansion will come from the G5 ranks - none of the other P5 schools would ever leave their conferences for the Big 12, so there will be 2 lucky G5 schools that will get golden tickets to the power structure. Who they will be and when it will happen are open questions, but it's certainly still relevant. The conference realignment landscape is largely settled, but it isn't *completely* settled.

Frank I agree with you on most of this. My disagreement relates to the BIG, Texas and the PAC12. I believe the BIG will move in its self interest to add Virginia/FSU with the objective of creating instability in the ACC in order to secure ND. The PAC already made a play for Texas and I think the next approach will grant them more power (they get to keep their network), again this is in self interest.
What is left is for the SEC to secure two of the best remaining teams (the BIG and PAC will both be at 16).
What remains in the ACC, Big 12 and the rest is just about survial. I think the ultimat goal is to finally close the door on any additions to the final members of the Power 5. I believe there will be 2 remaining conferences at the table derived from the remainers. All of this for self interest and to place a final cutoff for the true Div I football. No one outside the final 80 would be able to move up to Div I.
We only differ on whether the final is 64 or 80. I just don't see 64 if the BIG expands with Virginia and Notre Dame.

Go Bearcats

(01-28-2014 12:55 PM)Bearcat61 Wrote:  Frank I agree with you on most of this. My disagreement relates to the BIG, Texas and the PAC12. I believe the BIG will move in its self interest to add Virginia/FSU with the objective of creating instability in the ACC in order to secure ND.

ND has had in essence an open inviation for decades to join the B10 and not taken them up on it. ND will just remain in the ACC (non-FB) or move onto another similar situation. Nobody will force ND into a conference unless ND wants in on its own. There will always be a seat at the table for ND in any scenario so this argument has no merit.

(01-28-2014 12:55 PM)Bearcat61 Wrote:  The PAC already made a play for Texas and I think the next approach will grant them more power (they get to keep their network), again this is in self interest.

The P12 has been spurned twice now by Texas once in the 90's and recently. "If" Texas came to the P12 and some sort of legally binding agrement was made you would see UT go west.

I don't see that happening now because as Frank said Texas is having its cake and eating it to now in the B12 why would they move or even feel the itch to move out west? The last two times they considered it, it was out of necessity and that is not the case now. They rule the B12 which is a P5 conference and isnt going anywhere. Because they rule the B12 they have their network now so no need to move to keep it.

(01-28-2014 12:55 PM)Bearcat61 Wrote:  What is left is for the SEC to secure two of the best remaining teams (the BIG and PAC will both be at 16).

Again why would they need to? There is no rule making them move to 16. "If" the other conferences did the SEC could just as easily march on at 14 and not skip a beat.

(01-28-2014 12:55 PM)Bearcat61 Wrote:  What remains in the ACC, Big 12 and the rest is just about survial. I think the ultimate goal is to finally close the door on any additions to the final members of the Power 5.

Now if expansion does happen I would agree there is one more wave and its is done so we agree here.

(01-28-2014 12:55 PM)Bearcat61 Wrote:  I believe there will be 2 remaining conferences at the table derived from the remainers. All of this for self interest and to place a final cutoff for the true Div I football. No one outside the final 80 would be able to move up to Div I.

I just dont see how you can legally make that happen. "If" a school meets the standards set at that level regardless of how lofty they would be I don't see how you can keep the door closed. I am not a lawyer but wouldnt anti-trust litigation come into play if that stance was attempted?

Don't get me wrong I want my school on the other side of the tracks as much as any other G5 school. Coming from an alum at a school that was in the club, before there was a club, and dumped on the side of the road you have to look at things from the schools/conferences in a position of power's perspective.

We (UH) have proven we can compete at the highest level when we where in the "club" so we would be a valuable member in that regard. Have we had attendance issues? Yes, but any G5 school can have one or more marks made against them by the P5 as evidence supporting exclusion.

The conference that makes the most sense historically and geographically to us is the B12 but I have come to terms that even if we averaged 50k in the stands and 11 wins a season that we would still be left out of the B12. Its about looking at things from their perspective and something that seems to have been overlooked in this argument.

(01-28-2014 12:55 PM)Bearcat61 Wrote:  Frank I agree with you on most of this. My disagreement relates to the BIG, Texas and the PAC12. I believe the BIG will move in its self interest to add Virginia/FSU with the objective of creating instability in the ACC in order to secure ND. The PAC already made a play for Texas and I think the next approach will grant them more power (they get to keep their network), again this is in self interest.
What is left is for the SEC to secure two of the best remaining teams (the BIG and PAC will both be at 16).
What remains in the ACC, Big 12 and the rest is just about survial. I think the ultimat goal is to finally close the door on any additions to the final members of the Power 5. I believe there will be 2 remaining conferences at the table derived from the remainers. All of this for self interest and to place a final cutoff for the true Div I football. No one outside the final 80 would be able to move up to Div I.
We only differ on whether the final is 64 or 80. I just don't see 64 if the BIG expands with Virginia and Notre Dame.

Go Bearcats

I'm as big of a Big Ten guy as there is (as others here may like to point out), but they're not getting Notre Dame. I deal with Domers on a daily basis and, believe it or not, they're even CRAZIER about independence than most college football fans even realize. It's a complete institutional identity issue for them. ND is also completely protected by the power structure - no matter what system is in place, they will ALWAYS have a seat at the table. The latest round of realignment and the CFP playoff discussions should have proven that - *every* single proposal provided an outlet for ND. Part of this is fear among all power conferences - they'd rather have ND be an independent "Switzerland" than fully join any conference other than their own, so they're not going to push them to do anything.

I'd also love for the Big Ten to add UVA and FSU, but I'm not seeing that happen any time soon, either. UVA is still a generation away from moving to a "Northern" league - they might eventually get there, but there are cultural barriers there that didn't really exist in the case of Maryland. FSU is great, but I don't think the Big Ten presidents want the from an academic perspective and, even if they did, they'd need to provide much more of a geographic bridge.

Even as a realignment blogger, I've pushed back on all of these apocalyptic visions of leagues blowing up. Changes happen, but they're generally piece-by-piece. Even the collapse of the old Big East was a case of many different moves taking place over a 10 year period.

I also don't see the power ranks expanding to 80 schools. I know that's what most people on this board *want* to see happen because it increases the chances that their favorite school will be covered, but that's simply not how the power structure has acted for the past two decade. Instead, if too many "undesirables" end up in a league, that league will get eliminated from the power ranks completely even if it might have a few schools that are P5-worthy. Instead, the power conferences will pick off the handful of schools that they deem worthy just as they are now. Cincinnati is in decent shape because they would fit nicely into the Big 12 and that's the league that is most likely to expand. UConn ought to be in good shape on paper, but their problem is that the Big Ten and ACC are the ones that would make the most sense for them and neither of them are in a rush to act. UCF and USF have location on their side. Other schools like Memphis, Houston, Tulane, etc. have their attributes, but no one seems to be a slam dunk for the Big 12. BYU is also lurking out there as a free agent for the Big 12 expansion and they could take a spot.

So, there really isn't that much room in the proverbial power conference inn. If a G5 can't get into the Big 12 whenever they decide to expand, it's simply going to be extremely tough going. If the power structure were cool with the concept of 80 schools in the power ranks, they wouldn't have ever kicked the AAC out in the first place. They're clearly battening down the hatches and there might be 2 or 4 spots left at the most.

(01-28-2014 02:52 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 12:55 PM)Bearcat61 Wrote:  Frank I agree with you on most of this. My disagreement relates to the BIG, Texas and the PAC12. I believe the BIG will move in its self interest to add Virginia/FSU with the objective of creating instability in the ACC in order to secure ND. The PAC already made a play for Texas and I think the next approach will grant them more power (they get to keep their network), again this is in self interest.
What is left is for the SEC to secure two of the best remaining teams (the BIG and PAC will both be at 16).
What remains in the ACC, Big 12 and the rest is just about survial. I think the ultimat goal is to finally close the door on any additions to the final members of the Power 5. I believe there will be 2 remaining conferences at the table derived from the remainers. All of this for self interest and to place a final cutoff for the true Div I football. No one outside the final 80 would be able to move up to Div I.
We only differ on whether the final is 64 or 80. I just don't see 64 if the BIG expands with Virginia and Notre Dame.

Go Bearcats

I'm as big of a Big Ten guy as there is (as others here may like to point out), but they're not getting Notre Dame. I deal with Domers on a daily basis and, believe it or not, they're even CRAZIER about independence than most college football fans even realize. It's a complete institutional identity issue for them. ND is also completely protected by the power structure - no matter what system is in place, they will ALWAYS have a seat at the table. The latest round of realignment and the CFP playoff discussions should have proven that - *every* single proposal provided an outlet for ND. Part of this is fear among all power conferences - they'd rather have ND be an independent "Switzerland" than fully join any conference other than their own, so they're not going to push them to do anything.

I'd also love for the Big Ten to add UVA and FSU, but I'm not seeing that happen any time soon, either. UVA is still a generation away from moving to a "Northern" league - they might eventually get there, but there are cultural barriers there that didn't really exist in the case of Maryland. FSU is great, but I don't think the Big Ten presidents want the from an academic perspective and, even if they did, they'd need to provide much more of a geographic bridge.

Even as a realignment blogger, I've pushed back on all of these apocalyptic visions of leagues blowing up. Changes happen, but they're generally piece-by-piece. Even the collapse of the old Big East was a case of many different moves taking place over a 10 year period.

I also don't see the power ranks expanding to 80 schools. I know that's what most people on this board *want* to see happen because it increases the chances that their favorite school will be covered, but that's simply not how the power structure has acted for the past two decade. Instead, if too many "undesirables" end up in a league, that league will get eliminated from the power ranks completely even if it might have a few schools that are P5-worthy. Instead, the power conferences will pick off the handful of schools that they deem worthy just as they are now. Cincinnati is in decent shape because they would fit nicely into the Big 12 and that's the league that is most likely to expand. UConn ought to be in good shape on paper, but their problem is that the Big Ten and ACC are the ones that would make the most sense for them and neither of them are in a rush to act. UCF and USF have location on their side. Other schools like Memphis, Houston, Tulane, etc. have their attributes, but no one seems to be a slam dunk for the Big 12. BYU is also lurking out there as a free agent for the Big 12 expansion and they could take a spot.

So, there really isn't that much room in the proverbial power conference inn. If a G5 can't get into the Big 12 whenever they decide to expand, it's simply going to be extremely tough going. If the power structure were cool with the concept of 80 schools in the power ranks, they wouldn't have ever kicked the AAC out in the first place. They're clearly battening down the hatches and there might be 2 or 4 spots left at the most.

Frank, thanks for your reponse. I tried to get it out of you on your blog but with little success. If the Big does not move on ND (because there's no chance for success), then I agree there's little on the realignment front for the forseeable future. The only push would come from the Big 12 to expand by two to beef up for a Big 12 championship game in the new CFP. My #1 team is the Bearcats but I'm from Columbus, Ohio and grew up on OSU, so I enjoy your posts on the BIG and on college football realignment.
Net, until the Big 12 comes calling, lets make the AAC the best it can be and go kick some P5 ***

(01-27-2014 09:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  There are those that believe the GOR can be breached on the basis that no compensation was received for the rights. Each school was already entitled to a full share of the earnings---so what exactly did the ACC give each individual school for its rights?

Actually ESPN specifically increased the ACC contract by ESPN

' Wrote:But, TV money may trump. The GTAA projects it will receive $22.2 million from the ACC in the 2015 fiscal year. (That’s $5.5 million more than was previously projected. The increase is due in part to the league signing its grant of rights, which was worth about $1.1 million per school from ESPN.) That is largely ESPN cash. That number would increase in the future if plans for an ACC network are realized.

Plus the GOR, at least from the ACC side, was signed to work on a Network, similar to the Pac 12 and Big Ten. But they were each given money specifically for binding together. Plus the lack of compensation argument you are speaking of, even beside this (and I know this argument because I was the one who raised it) is not about getting paid for signing away the rights, it is that you must continue to be paid in order to retain the rights. I.e. if a team leaves, you can enforce the grant of rights and retain their broadcast rights, but only if you continue to pay for them. Only the Big 12 thinks you can get away with not paying teams if they leave. No one else thinks that.
So there is no case for what you imply.

So long as you continue to pay to retain rights, the GOR makes any team wanting to leave the ACC, PAC 12, and Big Ten useless to another conference while the GOR is in affect, unless you create value by being a road opponent (similar to ND football for the ACC). The goal of most GOR's is not to trap a team, but to guarantee stability during an investment period (investing in the infrastructure of a network, and guaranteeing you will have certain rights during that time). They are not meant to be punative the way exit fees are.

And that is why grants of rights have been upheld in the media business for over a century. So long as you follow the terms of the contract (which is often were problems arise: the pissed off party does not adhere to the terms).

(01-28-2014 12:55 PM)Bearcat61 Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 11:29 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 10:07 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 12:54 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  That being said, I don't think the Maryland case will have too much to do with further realignment either way. The Big Ten, ACC, SEC and Pac-12 are all very settled for the foreseeable future.

That's exactly what everyone says after every conf adds new members.

That's what they said about the Big Ten when Penn State was added...and then again after Nebraska was added to be the 12th member of that conf...but then the conf expanded AGAIN.

Thats what they said about the SEC when they expanded to 12 teams...then expanded again to add teams from Missouri and TX.

Thats what they said about the ACC when they expanded to 12 teams...then again when they added 2 more teams...and then again why they added a hybrid membership to Notre Dame.

Thats what they said when the Big 12 was formed...but then they lost members...then added new members to get back to 10...yet they are always rumored to be adding more.

Only thing constant in collegiate athletics is change...and that includes conf memberships.

Yes, I grant that change is constant, but as I've pointed out before, the "expansion" up to this point is really just shuffling with only a couple of exceptions.

In 1998 (the first year of the BCS), there were 63 schools in 6 power conferences plus Notre Dame.

In 2014 (the first year of the CFP), there are 65 schools in 5 power conferences plus Notre Dame.

That's a net change of 2 in 16 years, with Louisville, TCU and Utah moving up and Temple moving down (and they were demoted for reasons unrelated to conference realignment).

Could the Big Ten decide to expand? Sure. However, the schools that they actually want (UNC and UVA from the ACC, Texas from the Big 12) are among the ones that are least likely to leave because, particularly UNC and Texas, are the power brokers in their respective conferences as opposed to malcontents. Same thing with the SEC - they'd want that exact same set of schools. The Pac-12 obviously wants Texas, but once again, they're a power broker.

So, yes, in theory, Texas could move, but they're sort of like Notre Dame in terms of being an island, only they want the control of an entire conference as opposed to simply controlling their schedule via independence. Expansion in and of itself isn't the goal. These conferences aren't just going up to 16 without anyone - it would take the most powerful schools of them all that have the ability to control their own destinies to decide to move at this point, which is a lot different than getting valuable assets that aren't happy with their current conferences to move.

At the same time, these conferences want nothing to do with coordinating with each other (even ones that are friendly with each other like the Big Ten and Pac-12). I get asked all of the time why these leagues don't get together and divvy things up so that there are 4 (or 5) 16-school conferences and the response is that this is NEVER how it works. We (the fans) like that idea because it's orderly, looks nice for a hypothetical future playoff system, and is inclusive enough where many G5 schools suddenly have hope that they'll be included in the power structure, but the reality is that conference realignment is a messy process with lots of different actors making lots of different decisions without any coordination whatsoever (with the end result being that the club is still just as exclusive as it was back in 1998 when the BCS system began).

Now, with all that being said, the Big 12 *specifically* is a different matter. They can talk all they want about having a 10-school tight-knit conference, but they're going to have to expand at some point. That setup is simply an anachronism in this day and age. They might be dragged kicking and screaming through expansion, but my semi-educated guess is that it will happen sooner rather than later. That expansion will come from the G5 ranks - none of the other P5 schools would ever leave their conferences for the Big 12, so there will be 2 lucky G5 schools that will get golden tickets to the power structure. Who they will be and when it will happen are open questions, but it's certainly still relevant. The conference realignment landscape is largely settled, but it isn't *completely* settled.

Frank I agree with you on most of this. My disagreement relates to the BIG, Texas and the PAC12. I believe the BIG will move in its self interest to add Virginia/FSU with the objective of creating instability in the ACC in order to secure ND. The PAC already made a play for Texas and I think the next approach will grant them more power (they get to keep their network), again this is in self interest.
What is left is for the SEC to secure two of the best remaining teams (the BIG and PAC will both be at 16).
What remains in the ACC, Big 12 and the rest is just about survial. I think the ultimat goal is to finally close the door on any additions to the final members of the Power 5. I believe there will be 2 remaining conferences at the table derived from the remainers. All of this for self interest and to place a final cutoff for the true Div I football. No one outside the final 80 would be able to move up to Div I.
We only differ on whether the final is 64 or 80. I just don't see 64 if the BIG expands with Virginia and Notre Dame.

Go Bearcats

Close the door or be real selective about who they allow through that door; in the future? If a school is making a run, say like Miami did in the 80's but in this case a AAC school, a kicking butt and taking name type football program, and creating a national following and stir while doing it, do you not think a P5 conference would not come a calling to that school (worked for TCU had 2 conferences competing for them BE and B12) to their conference if it made economic sense. So I believe the magical 65 members could become 68-72 max depending on what the other school or schools bring to the table. People have to remember these decisions are being made by college Presidents within the individual conferences along with their Commissioners who usually make recommendations with all the accompanying consulting firms and studies and presentations that come along with this type of decision on who to add and why. As anyone who looked at a prospectus while trying to make a investment decision in a mutual fund knows, they all ways put the disclaimer, past performance is no guarantee of future performance. I look at it the same way with the P5 with the historical 65 or 66 member number, they will add if it makes sense for the conference in question, so 10 could become 12 and 12 could become 14 and 14 can become 16 . Only if it makes economic, academic, and cultural sense. One more thing if the B12 adds 2 more school as speculated a new precedent has been established, because you'll have 67 members in the P5 which historically has never been the case, so the old mold will have been broken.

(01-28-2014 05:38 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-27-2014 09:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  There are those that believe the GOR can be breached on the basis that no compensation was received for the rights. Each school was already entitled to a full share of the earnings---so what exactly did the ACC give each individual school for its rights?

Actually ESPN specifically increased the ACC contract by ESPN

' Wrote:But, TV money may trump. The GTAA projects it will receive $22.2 million from the ACC in the 2015 fiscal year. (That’s $5.5 million more than was previously projected. The increase is due in part to the league signing its grant of rights, which was worth about $1.1 million per school from ESPN.) That is largely ESPN cash. That number would increase in the future if plans for an ACC network are realized.

Plus the GOR, at least from the ACC side, was signed to work on a Network, similar to the Pac 12 and Big Ten. But they were each given money specifically for binding together. Plus the lack of compensation argument you are speaking of, even beside this (and I know this argument because I was the one who raised it) is not about getting paid for signing away the rights, it is that you must continue to be paid in order to retain the rights. I.e. if a team leaves, you can enforce the grant of rights and retain their broadcast rights, but only if you continue to pay for them. Only the Big 12 thinks you can get away with not paying teams if they leave. No one else thinks that.
So there is no case for what you imply.

So long as you continue to pay to retain rights, the GOR makes any team wanting to leave the ACC, PAC 12, and Big Ten useless to another conference while the GOR is in affect, unless you create value by being a road opponent (similar to ND football for the ACC). The goal of most GOR's is not to trap a team, but to guarantee stability during an investment period (investing in the infrastructure of a network, and guaranteeing you will have certain rights during that time). They are not meant to be punative the way exit fees are.

And that is why grants of rights have been upheld in the media business for over a century. So long as you follow the terms of the contract (which is often were problems arise: the pissed off party does not adhere to the terms).

If it operates the way you indicate, it sounds much more enforceable. That said, it also would not really stop a school from leaving if their best long term interests lied with say the Big-10. It does tend to make a school less attractive in the near term, but as the GOR nears its end, it becomes less of a obstacle.