(01-07-2020 01:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 12:56 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  I think if CFB goes to a top heavy situation where the B1G & SEC make 30M more than every other league's teams, it will be the beginning of the decline of CFB. You can't have 2 leagues making that much more than everyone else and not destroy the overall national viewership of the sport. The NFL will continue to take more and more fans, as CFB will just become more niche and goofy with the way they pick and choose a 4 team playoff field out of 65 teams and continue to run their post-season exhibition season. I know this has already made me lose a lot of interest in watching the sport outside of the two teams in my state and I have no desire to watch exhibition bowls whatsoever and very limited interest in the playoffs. I use to watch the sport all day long, now I realize how engineered the outcome is and I liken to watching it to WWE

I think CFB will be better served if they look at the makeup of the sport strategically for the long run not one more huge 7-8 year contract.

The sport would be a lot smarter to realign into 4 leagues and negotiate the tv contract as one.

You use the world league. We don't have leagues, we have conferences. The issue with college football is demographic. There is one region of the country where most high school boys still try to play the sport, the Southeast. It is why there are more recruits in the Southeast and why (including Clemson and Florida State) a Southeast Team has won all but 1 CFP and most of the last 10 BCS games before that.

Popularity of college football on the Pacific coast is the lowest anywhere. Upper middle class people in along the Eastern seaboard and in the Northern Midwest don't encourage their kids to play. Look at the key recruits on Ohio State, Michigan, and even Minnesota's roster this year and you will see many of them came from the South.

I agree about TV contracts and collective bargaining, but if they are creating a Big 10 and SEC which will be 30 million ahead of everyone else it's because they are trying to save the national appeal of the game. How? By actually creating a league, actually two leagues. The monetary difference would be the lure for the top programs in the PAC and ACC to merge with those two conferences to form leagues.

Get your top 64 schools into two leagues of 4 school divisions each and you have a natural way to play the champion off without polls and committees.

And while what you say about the NFL is true, it is not true in the Southeast. In the Southeast College football is king and that is why the SEC is worth so much money. If advertisers want to reach sports fans in the Southeast College Football is the best way to reach them.

There might not be one Power College football league but you have one CFB Power Conference level sport. I am well aware of where the recruits come from as I have looked over Rivals state ratings and know the descrepancy between the South and northern midwest. I think recruiting is a reason that some miss for adding Rutgers & Maryland to the B1G. Those are now the 2nd & 3rd best recruiting areas in the conference footprint. I don't think there is any coincidence in those additions and PSU improving and having monster ratings game again.

I know where the recruits are coming from and where participation rates are falling among high school students. But you also need those viewers from those areas and if you make CFB two conferences that dominate everyone else financially and from a competitive standpoint your going to lose overall viewers.

I think if you eliminate too many teams you will lose viewers also.

I may be in the minority but the sport needs to figure out a way to have 64-72 teams and have balanced leagues financially and competitively. Otherwise I think the NFL is just going to gain more viewers.

(01-07-2020 04:01 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 01:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 12:56 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  I think if CFB goes to a top heavy situation where the B1G & SEC make 30M more than every other league's teams, it will be the beginning of the decline of CFB. You can't have 2 leagues making that much more than everyone else and not destroy the overall national viewership of the sport. The NFL will continue to take more and more fans, as CFB will just become more niche and goofy with the way they pick and choose a 4 team playoff field out of 65 teams and continue to run their post-season exhibition season. I know this has already made me lose a lot of interest in watching the sport outside of the two teams in my state and I have no desire to watch exhibition bowls whatsoever and very limited interest in the playoffs. I use to watch the sport all day long, now I realize how engineered the outcome is and I liken to watching it to WWE

I think CFB will be better served if they look at the makeup of the sport strategically for the long run not one more huge 7-8 year contract.

The sport would be a lot smarter to realign into 4 leagues and negotiate the tv contract as one.

You use the world league. We don't have leagues, we have conferences. The issue with college football is demographic. There is one region of the country where most high school boys still try to play the sport, the Southeast. It is why there are more recruits in the Southeast and why (including Clemson and Florida State) a Southeast Team has won all but 1 CFP and most of the last 10 BCS games before that.

Popularity of college football on the Pacific coast is the lowest anywhere. Upper middle class people in along the Eastern seaboard and in the Northern Midwest don't encourage their kids to play. Look at the key recruits on Ohio State, Michigan, and even Minnesota's roster this year and you will see many of them came from the South.

I agree about TV contracts and collective bargaining, but if they are creating a Big 10 and SEC which will be 30 million ahead of everyone else it's because they are trying to save the national appeal of the game. How? By actually creating a league, actually two leagues. The monetary difference would be the lure for the top programs in the PAC and ACC to merge with those two conferences to form leagues.

Get your top 64 schools into two leagues of 4 school divisions each and you have a natural way to play the champion off without polls and committees.

And while what you say about the NFL is true, it is not true in the Southeast. In the Southeast College football is king and that is why the SEC is worth so much money. If advertisers want to reach sports fans in the Southeast College Football is the best way to reach them.

There might not be one Power College football league but you have one CFB Power Conference level sport. I am well aware of where the recruits come from as I have looked over Rivals state ratings and know the descrepancy between the South and northern midwest. I think recruiting is a reason that some miss for adding Rutgers & Maryland to the B1G. Those are now the 2nd & 3rd best recruiting areas in the conference footprint. I don't think there is any coincidence in those additions and PSU improving and having monster ratings game again.

I know where the recruits are coming from and where participation rates are falling among high school students. But you also need those viewers from those areas and if you make CFB two conferences that dominate everyone else financially and from a competitive standpoint your going to lose overall viewers.

I think if you eliminate too many teams you will lose viewers also.

I may be in the minority but the sport needs to figure out a way to have 64-72 teams and have balanced leagues financially and competitively. Otherwise I think the NFL is just going to gain more viewers.

Some fans will gravitate to the NFL and some will gravitate to pro soccer because of the community focus those leagues typically employ...there's actually a lot of similarities between how soccer clubs and colleges approach their fans.

Either way, I think the sport is destined to be diminished a little bit and mostly because of the demographic changes. Some of that cannot be stopped, but I do think college football will survive and still be very popular as a whole. It just won't look the same as it does today.

In all honesty, the college game is very popular and probably 2nd only to the NFL. The thing is, those college fans are spread out all over the country whereas with typical pro sports, the markets are limited to around 30 active participants. The college game has more flexibility, but it also has greater disparity from top to bottom when it comes to the viability of its individual products.

I also think that's why they'll end up expanding the playoff...to replicate the phenomenon of the NCAA Tournament and get more schools in from different regions. Obviously they won't start with 64 teams, but it will be more than 4.

Whether the games end up being blowouts or not, doesn't matter. The main thing will be can they obtain higher viewership that way.

(01-07-2020 04:40 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 04:01 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 01:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 12:56 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  I think if CFB goes to a top heavy situation where the B1G & SEC make 30M more than every other league's teams, it will be the beginning of the decline of CFB. You can't have 2 leagues making that much more than everyone else and not destroy the overall national viewership of the sport. The NFL will continue to take more and more fans, as CFB will just become more niche and goofy with the way they pick and choose a 4 team playoff field out of 65 teams and continue to run their post-season exhibition season. I know this has already made me lose a lot of interest in watching the sport outside of the two teams in my state and I have no desire to watch exhibition bowls whatsoever and very limited interest in the playoffs. I use to watch the sport all day long, now I realize how engineered the outcome is and I liken to watching it to WWE

I think CFB will be better served if they look at the makeup of the sport strategically for the long run not one more huge 7-8 year contract.

The sport would be a lot smarter to realign into 4 leagues and negotiate the tv contract as one.

You use the world league. We don't have leagues, we have conferences. The issue with college football is demographic. There is one region of the country where most high school boys still try to play the sport, the Southeast. It is why there are more recruits in the Southeast and why (including Clemson and Florida State) a Southeast Team has won all but 1 CFP and most of the last 10 BCS games before that.

Popularity of college football on the Pacific coast is the lowest anywhere. Upper middle class people in along the Eastern seaboard and in the Northern Midwest don't encourage their kids to play. Look at the key recruits on Ohio State, Michigan, and even Minnesota's roster this year and you will see many of them came from the South.

I agree about TV contracts and collective bargaining, but if they are creating a Big 10 and SEC which will be 30 million ahead of everyone else it's because they are trying to save the national appeal of the game. How? By actually creating a league, actually two leagues. The monetary difference would be the lure for the top programs in the PAC and ACC to merge with those two conferences to form leagues.

Get your top 64 schools into two leagues of 4 school divisions each and you have a natural way to play the champion off without polls and committees.

And while what you say about the NFL is true, it is not true in the Southeast. In the Southeast College football is king and that is why the SEC is worth so much money. If advertisers want to reach sports fans in the Southeast College Football is the best way to reach them.

There might not be one Power College football league but you have one CFB Power Conference level sport. I am well aware of where the recruits come from as I have looked over Rivals state ratings and know the descrepancy between the South and northern midwest. I think recruiting is a reason that some miss for adding Rutgers & Maryland to the B1G. Those are now the 2nd & 3rd best recruiting areas in the conference footprint. I don't think there is any coincidence in those additions and PSU improving and having monster ratings game again.

I know where the recruits are coming from and where participation rates are falling among high school students. But you also need those viewers from those areas and if you make CFB two conferences that dominate everyone else financially and from a competitive standpoint your going to lose overall viewers.

I think if you eliminate too many teams you will lose viewers also.

I may be in the minority but the sport needs to figure out a way to have 64-72 teams and have balanced leagues financially and competitively. Otherwise I think the NFL is just going to gain more viewers.

Some fans will gravitate to the NFL and some will gravitate to pro soccer because of the community focus those leagues typically employ...there's actually a lot of similarities between how soccer clubs and colleges approach their fans.

Either way, I think the sport is destined to be diminished a little bit and mostly because of the demographic changes. Some of that cannot be stopped, but I do think college football will survive and still be very popular as a whole. It just won't look the same as it does today.

In all honesty, the college game is very popular and probably 2nd only to the NFL. The thing is, those college fans are spread out all over the country whereas with typical pro sports, the markets are limited to around 30 active participants. The college game has more flexibility, but it also has greater disparity from top to bottom when it comes to the viability of its individual products.

I also think that's why they'll end up expanding the playoff...to replicate the phenomenon of the NCAA Tournament and get more schools in from different regions. Obviously they won't start with 64 teams, but it will be more than 4.

Whether the games end up being blowouts or not, doesn't matter. The main thing will be can they obtain higher viewership that way.

There's going to be a lot of water under the bridge before we get to playoff expansion. These contracts will get wrapped up and we'll wait to see if that lures expansion, and we might know by that time what the courts are going to do on players rights and pay for play. If we wind up consolidating into 4 P conferences I think we are headed to a champs only format and a self contained schedule down the road inclusive only of that P4.

And it won't be anti-trust because none of the schools who operate on subsidies will be able to afford to go that route.

Because their GOR is up in 2025 and because this may be the last round up of mega contracts before the Boomer decline sets in I expect Texas and Oklahoma to make their moves. And if that happens don't be surprised if other antsy schools try to make a dash out as well. The PAC's GOR is also up at the same time. And if enough of this is in ESPN's hands where they can maneuver there could even be some surprises in their other conference.

I truly believe that the SEC and Big 10 will be paid so handsomely to facilitate this movement and the rebuilding of some conferences.

I wouldn't rule it out of the realm of possibility for the Big 10 to possibly move to just 16 but with a pair not spoken of for this early.

What if they move to 16 with Notre Dame and Virginia? What if the SEC moves there with North Carolina and Duke?

What if Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Tech move to the PAC?

Could you not create a decent conference with these:
Baylor, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, T.C.U.
Iowa State, Louisville, Pittsburgh, West Virginia
Boston College, N.C. State, Syracuse, Virginia Tech
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

Wouldn't the PAC make more sense if Texas and Oklahoma went into the West and diminished?

Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech
California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal, Stanford
Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah
Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State

And the Big 10:
Maryland, Notre Dame, Rutgers, Virginia
Indiana, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue
Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern
Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin

And the SEC:
Duke, North Carolina, Kentucky, South Carolina
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Vanderbilt
Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Texas A&M

The expansion would work better by doing this and would be more balanced.

But that would take somebody who cared about the game as a whole instead of quarterly profits making the moves and decisions.

So we are still more likely for this to happen:
Texas and Texas Tech to the SEC.
Oklahoma and Kansas to the Big 10
West Virginia to the ACC
Nobody to the PAC and some decent football and basketball programs from the Big 12 left in the lurch.

And if it is all profit driven then
Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC
Colorado and Kansas to the Big 10
West Virginia and T.C.U. to the ACC for markets and content and N.D. stays independent.
Maybe Texas Tech to the PAC to take Colorado's place
And some decent football and basketball programs from the Big 12 are left in the lurch.

When are the Big 12 and Pac 12 GOR deals expiring? Is that 2023 or 2025?

I think this offseason the SEC deal is probably the biggest thing to track, followed closely by discussions of playoff expansion.

If we continue to see expansion talk during the summer (league meetings and media days) then I think it shows that the idea actually has legs or if it was merely rumors. I still stand by my prediction that we'll hear something on this before 1/1/23

(01-09-2020 12:11 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 04:40 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 04:01 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 01:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 12:56 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  I think if CFB goes to a top heavy situation where the B1G & SEC make 30M more than every other league's teams, it will be the beginning of the decline of CFB. You can't have 2 leagues making that much more than everyone else and not destroy the overall national viewership of the sport. The NFL will continue to take more and more fans, as CFB will just become more niche and goofy with the way they pick and choose a 4 team playoff field out of 65 teams and continue to run their post-season exhibition season. I know this has already made me lose a lot of interest in watching the sport outside of the two teams in my state and I have no desire to watch exhibition bowls whatsoever and very limited interest in the playoffs. I use to watch the sport all day long, now I realize how engineered the outcome is and I liken to watching it to WWE

I think CFB will be better served if they look at the makeup of the sport strategically for the long run not one more huge 7-8 year contract.

The sport would be a lot smarter to realign into 4 leagues and negotiate the tv contract as one.

You use the world league. We don't have leagues, we have conferences. The issue with college football is demographic. There is one region of the country where most high school boys still try to play the sport, the Southeast. It is why there are more recruits in the Southeast and why (including Clemson and Florida State) a Southeast Team has won all but 1 CFP and most of the last 10 BCS games before that.

Popularity of college football on the Pacific coast is the lowest anywhere. Upper middle class people in along the Eastern seaboard and in the Northern Midwest don't encourage their kids to play. Look at the key recruits on Ohio State, Michigan, and even Minnesota's roster this year and you will see many of them came from the South.

I agree about TV contracts and collective bargaining, but if they are creating a Big 10 and SEC which will be 30 million ahead of everyone else it's because they are trying to save the national appeal of the game. How? By actually creating a league, actually two leagues. The monetary difference would be the lure for the top programs in the PAC and ACC to merge with those two conferences to form leagues.

Get your top 64 schools into two leagues of 4 school divisions each and you have a natural way to play the champion off without polls and committees.

And while what you say about the NFL is true, it is not true in the Southeast. In the Southeast College football is king and that is why the SEC is worth so much money. If advertisers want to reach sports fans in the Southeast College Football is the best way to reach them.

There might not be one Power College football league but you have one CFB Power Conference level sport. I am well aware of where the recruits come from as I have looked over Rivals state ratings and know the descrepancy between the South and northern midwest. I think recruiting is a reason that some miss for adding Rutgers & Maryland to the B1G. Those are now the 2nd & 3rd best recruiting areas in the conference footprint. I don't think there is any coincidence in those additions and PSU improving and having monster ratings game again.

I know where the recruits are coming from and where participation rates are falling among high school students. But you also need those viewers from those areas and if you make CFB two conferences that dominate everyone else financially and from a competitive standpoint your going to lose overall viewers.

I think if you eliminate too many teams you will lose viewers also.

I may be in the minority but the sport needs to figure out a way to have 64-72 teams and have balanced leagues financially and competitively. Otherwise I think the NFL is just going to gain more viewers.

Some fans will gravitate to the NFL and some will gravitate to pro soccer because of the community focus those leagues typically employ...there's actually a lot of similarities between how soccer clubs and colleges approach their fans.

Either way, I think the sport is destined to be diminished a little bit and mostly because of the demographic changes. Some of that cannot be stopped, but I do think college football will survive and still be very popular as a whole. It just won't look the same as it does today.

In all honesty, the college game is very popular and probably 2nd only to the NFL. The thing is, those college fans are spread out all over the country whereas with typical pro sports, the markets are limited to around 30 active participants. The college game has more flexibility, but it also has greater disparity from top to bottom when it comes to the viability of its individual products.

I also think that's why they'll end up expanding the playoff...to replicate the phenomenon of the NCAA Tournament and get more schools in from different regions. Obviously they won't start with 64 teams, but it will be more than 4.

Whether the games end up being blowouts or not, doesn't matter. The main thing will be can they obtain higher viewership that way.

There's going to be a lot of water under the bridge before we get to playoff expansion. These contracts will get wrapped up and we'll wait to see if that lures expansion, and we might know by that time what the courts are going to do on players rights and pay for play. If we wind up consolidating into 4 P conferences I think we are headed to a champs only format and a self contained schedule down the road inclusive only of that P4.

And it won't be anti-trust because none of the schools who operate on subsidies will be able to afford to go that route.

Because their GOR is up in 2025 and because this may be the last round up of mega contracts before the Boomer decline sets in I expect Texas and Oklahoma to make their moves. And if that happens don't be surprised if other antsy schools try to make a dash out as well. The PAC's GOR is also up at the same time. And if enough of this is in ESPN's hands where they can maneuver there could even be some surprises in their other conference.

I truly believe that the SEC and Big 10 will be paid so handsomely to facilitate this movement and the rebuilding of some conferences.

I wouldn't rule it out of the realm of possibility for the Big 10 to possibly move to just 16 but with a pair not spoken of for this early.

What if they move to 16 with Notre Dame and Virginia? What if the SEC moves there with North Carolina and Duke?

What if Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Tech move to the PAC?

Could you not create a decent conference with these:
Baylor, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, T.C.U.
Iowa State, Louisville, Pittsburgh, West Virginia
Boston College, N.C. State, Syracuse, Virginia Tech
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

Wouldn't the PAC make more sense if Texas and Oklahoma went into the West and diminished?

Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech
California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal, Stanford
Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah
Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State

And the Big 10:
Maryland, Notre Dame, Rutgers, Virginia
Indiana, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue
Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern
Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin

And the SEC:
Duke, North Carolina, Kentucky, South Carolina
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Vanderbilt
Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Texas A&M

The expansion would work better by doing this and would be more balanced.

But that would take somebody who cared about the game as a whole instead of quarterly profits making the moves and decisions.

So we are still more likely for this to happen:
Texas and Texas Tech to the SEC.
Oklahoma and Kansas to the Big 10
West Virginia to the ACC
Nobody to the PAC and some decent football and basketball programs from the Big 12 left in the lurch.

And if it is all profit driven then
Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC
Colorado and Kansas to the Big 10
West Virginia and T.C.U. to the ACC for markets and content and N.D. stays independent.
Maybe Texas Tech to the PAC to take Colorado's place
And some decent football and basketball programs from the Big 12 are left in the lurch.

Kansas and Colorado wouldn't even add to the B1G bottom line. I don't see any way they do that.

If tv revenue is going to decline after this next contract due to boomers dying off, why is there a huge incentive to take a money grab for one contract for UT and OU that will reduce their political power and competitive advantage they have now?

Granted Texas football has underachieved for some time. With the right coach they can right the ship further. But they are putting their brand at risk in the SEC because they don't have the same advantages. It isn't going to be good for them if they continue to underachieve. I also think there are a LOT of risks for OU in realignment if they don't stay with Texas.

I don't think the networks will get the T1 ratings they want nationally if you combine everyone in one league unless those leagues are a lot larger than 16. Everyone can't be "elite" and the more powers you get in one league some of the traditional bluebloods are having marginal years and thats not good for tv viewership.

(01-09-2020 01:33 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(01-09-2020 12:11 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 04:40 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 04:01 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 01:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  You use the world league. We don't have leagues, we have conferences. The issue with college football is demographic. There is one region of the country where most high school boys still try to play the sport, the Southeast. It is why there are more recruits in the Southeast and why (including Clemson and Florida State) a Southeast Team has won all but 1 CFP and most of the last 10 BCS games before that.

Popularity of college football on the Pacific coast is the lowest anywhere. Upper middle class people in along the Eastern seaboard and in the Northern Midwest don't encourage their kids to play. Look at the key recruits on Ohio State, Michigan, and even Minnesota's roster this year and you will see many of them came from the South.

I agree about TV contracts and collective bargaining, but if they are creating a Big 10 and SEC which will be 30 million ahead of everyone else it's because they are trying to save the national appeal of the game. How? By actually creating a league, actually two leagues. The monetary difference would be the lure for the top programs in the PAC and ACC to merge with those two conferences to form leagues.

Get your top 64 schools into two leagues of 4 school divisions each and you have a natural way to play the champion off without polls and committees.

And while what you say about the NFL is true, it is not true in the Southeast. In the Southeast College football is king and that is why the SEC is worth so much money. If advertisers want to reach sports fans in the Southeast College Football is the best way to reach them.

There might not be one Power College football league but you have one CFB Power Conference level sport. I am well aware of where the recruits come from as I have looked over Rivals state ratings and know the descrepancy between the South and northern midwest. I think recruiting is a reason that some miss for adding Rutgers & Maryland to the B1G. Those are now the 2nd & 3rd best recruiting areas in the conference footprint. I don't think there is any coincidence in those additions and PSU improving and having monster ratings game again.

I know where the recruits are coming from and where participation rates are falling among high school students. But you also need those viewers from those areas and if you make CFB two conferences that dominate everyone else financially and from a competitive standpoint your going to lose overall viewers.

I think if you eliminate too many teams you will lose viewers also.

I may be in the minority but the sport needs to figure out a way to have 64-72 teams and have balanced leagues financially and competitively. Otherwise I think the NFL is just going to gain more viewers.

Some fans will gravitate to the NFL and some will gravitate to pro soccer because of the community focus those leagues typically employ...there's actually a lot of similarities between how soccer clubs and colleges approach their fans.

Either way, I think the sport is destined to be diminished a little bit and mostly because of the demographic changes. Some of that cannot be stopped, but I do think college football will survive and still be very popular as a whole. It just won't look the same as it does today.

In all honesty, the college game is very popular and probably 2nd only to the NFL. The thing is, those college fans are spread out all over the country whereas with typical pro sports, the markets are limited to around 30 active participants. The college game has more flexibility, but it also has greater disparity from top to bottom when it comes to the viability of its individual products.

I also think that's why they'll end up expanding the playoff...to replicate the phenomenon of the NCAA Tournament and get more schools in from different regions. Obviously they won't start with 64 teams, but it will be more than 4.

Whether the games end up being blowouts or not, doesn't matter. The main thing will be can they obtain higher viewership that way.

There's going to be a lot of water under the bridge before we get to playoff expansion. These contracts will get wrapped up and we'll wait to see if that lures expansion, and we might know by that time what the courts are going to do on players rights and pay for play. If we wind up consolidating into 4 P conferences I think we are headed to a champs only format and a self contained schedule down the road inclusive only of that P4.

And it won't be anti-trust because none of the schools who operate on subsidies will be able to afford to go that route.

Because their GOR is up in 2025 and because this may be the last round up of mega contracts before the Boomer decline sets in I expect Texas and Oklahoma to make their moves. And if that happens don't be surprised if other antsy schools try to make a dash out as well. The PAC's GOR is also up at the same time. And if enough of this is in ESPN's hands where they can maneuver there could even be some surprises in their other conference.

I truly believe that the SEC and Big 10 will be paid so handsomely to facilitate this movement and the rebuilding of some conferences.

I wouldn't rule it out of the realm of possibility for the Big 10 to possibly move to just 16 but with a pair not spoken of for this early.

What if they move to 16 with Notre Dame and Virginia? What if the SEC moves there with North Carolina and Duke?

What if Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Tech move to the PAC?

Could you not create a decent conference with these:
Baylor, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, T.C.U.
Iowa State, Louisville, Pittsburgh, West Virginia
Boston College, N.C. State, Syracuse, Virginia Tech
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

Wouldn't the PAC make more sense if Texas and Oklahoma went into the West and diminished?

Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech
California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal, Stanford
Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah
Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State

And the Big 10:
Maryland, Notre Dame, Rutgers, Virginia
Indiana, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue
Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern
Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin

And the SEC:
Duke, North Carolina, Kentucky, South Carolina
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Vanderbilt
Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Texas A&M

The expansion would work better by doing this and would be more balanced.

But that would take somebody who cared about the game as a whole instead of quarterly profits making the moves and decisions.

So we are still more likely for this to happen:
Texas and Texas Tech to the SEC.
Oklahoma and Kansas to the Big 10
West Virginia to the ACC
Nobody to the PAC and some decent football and basketball programs from the Big 12 left in the lurch.

And if it is all profit driven then
Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC
Colorado and Kansas to the Big 10
West Virginia and T.C.U. to the ACC for markets and content and N.D. stays independent.
Maybe Texas Tech to the PAC to take Colorado's place
And some decent football and basketball programs from the Big 12 are left in the lurch.

Kansas and Colorado wouldn't even add to the B1G bottom line. I don't see any way they do that.

If tv revenue is going to decline after this next contract due to boomers dying off, why is there a huge incentive to take a money grab for one contract for UT and OU that will reduce their political power and competitive advantage they have now?

Granted Texas football has underachieved for some time. With the right coach they can right the ship further. But they are putting their brand at risk in the SEC because they don't have the same advantages. It isn't going to be good for them if they continue to underachieve. I also think there are a LOT of risks for OU in realignment if they don't stay with Texas.

I don't think the networks will get the T1 ratings they want nationally if you combine everyone in one league unless those leagues are a lot larger than 16. Everyone can't be "elite" and the more powers you get in one league some of the traditional bluebloods are having marginal years and thats not good for tv viewership.

As long as the upper tier, no matter how it is divided up, has 64-72 schools in it the win loss records will stay within 1 deviation of where they are now. Now if you break it down to the top 32 things change. And the biggest reason for a breakaway isn't football, it's basketball. Why? Because without the NCAA keeping large sums of tournament money most schools could make another 25 million from their hoops.

Jon Wilner seems to think the PAC is the vulnerable league also.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/01/09/p...like-this/

I know OU & UT have the most value so I understand the desire to speculate on them to the SEC or B1G but their brands have the most to lose in that situation due to reduced competitiveness and political power. I think the next Big 12 contract can get the league close enough or at least those 2 schools that its not worth it for them to risk.

I do think its a real possibility for the Big 12 to add 4-6 PAC schools. Or a parsing out of the PAC between the Big 12 and B1G. I think the biggest risk there is the B1G getting 4 California schools, Washington & Oregon and the Big 12 settling with Az, ASU, Colorado & Utah because I think the B12 could really use one of the Southern California schools.

The more I think about it in regards to the above post, you could make 4 decent balanced leagues with similar pay with the ACC as the weakest even if the B1G took the 4 California teams & UW,OR if the networks looked at making a few minor changes to bring back a better slate of games.

While I would like the Big 12 to get a Southern California school, if the B1G took USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, UW & OR they might as well take a 7th school to make it easier like Arizona that is AAU. If that happened it might make more sense for a network to steer Nebraska back to the B12. Then the B12 adds ASU, Co. & Utah.

If the networks are looking at plugging in schools so they get the most value out of them in a balanced setting Arkansas is way underutilized in the SEC IMO. You could send WVU to the ACC, NC St. to the SEC and Arkansas to the B12 and everyone gets something. If that happens Missouri in the SEC is a sore thumb and its T2 and T3 content would be much better off in the B12. If the SEC wanted TCU for some exposure in Dallas/Fort Worth so be it or maybe they would rather add UCF for long term potential or maybe both because even if they took TCU they would still be at 14.

If TCU was moved to the SEC the Big 12 could take Houston. I know there is some resistance from OU especially but it gives the Big 12 a local presence and there is no denying the tv ratings with UH and Big 12 has been good. If the Big 12 needs 16 they can add BYU and UH or stay at 14.

You would have something like this

B1G: OSU, PSU, Mich., MSU, Wisky, Ia., Ill., Northwestern, Ind., Purdue, Mn. PSU, MD, Rutgers,
USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal, UW, Or, Az.

SEC: Alabama, Auburn, LSU, MSU, Ole Mis, Texas A&M, NC St., Florida, Tn., Vandy, Ga., SC, Ky, TCU or UCF(maybe both and another)?

Big 12: UT, OU, Neb., Ark., TT, OSU, KS, KSU, ISU, Missouri, Colorado, ASU, Utah, Baylor, BYU & UH could make 16 or stay at 14.

ACC: ND, NC, Duke, Va., Va. Tech, Pitt, Ga. Tech, WVU, Clemson, FSU, Louisville, Syr., Virignia , BC, WF, Miami
**If the networks thought MD & Rutgers should be moved to the ACC they could engineer that. I doubt XLance gets his wet dream of PSU to the ACC, although you could make the argument things would be more balanced.

With this you have balance and most of the rivalries are restored. UT & Texas A&M could start playing OOC. The leagues are free to have a single set of division standings and CFP is made up of the 4 league champs. Leagues would expand to at least semi-finals and maybe 6 with seeding like the NFL does and no more useless Post season exhibition games known as bowl games! (schools could take one week off for finals).

(01-10-2020 02:54 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  The more I think about it in regards to the above post, you could make 4 decent balanced leagues with similar pay with the ACC as the weakest even if the B1G took the 4 California teams & UW,OR if the networks looked at making a few minor changes to bring back a better slate of games.

While I would like the Big 12 to get a Southern California school, if the B1G took USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, UW & OR they might as well take a 7th school to make it easier like Arizona that is AAU. If that happened it might make more sense for a network to steer Nebraska back to the B12. Then the B12 adds ASU, Co. & Utah.

If the networks are looking at plugging in schools so they get the most value out of them in a balanced setting Arkansas is way underutilized in the SEC IMO. You could send WVU to the ACC, NC St. to the SEC and Arkansas to the B12 and everyone gets something. If that happens Missouri in the SEC is a sore thumb and its T2 and T3 content would be much better off in the B12. If the SEC wanted TCU for some exposure in Dallas/Fort Worth so be it or maybe they would rather add UCF for long term potential or maybe both because even if they took TCU they would still be at 14.

If TCU was moved to the SEC the Big 12 could take Houston. I know there is some resistance from OU especially but it gives the Big 12 a local presence and there is no denying the tv ratings with UH and Big 12 has been good. If the Big 12 needs 16 they can add BYU and UH or stay at 14.

You would have something like this

B1G: OSU, PSU, Mich., MSU, Wisky, Ia., Ill., Northwestern, Ind., Purdue, Mn. PSU, MD, Rutgers,
USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal, UW, Or, Az.

SEC: Alabama, Auburn, LSU, MSU, Ole Mis, Texas A&M, NC St., Florida, Tn., Vandy, Ga., SC, Ky, TCU or UCF(maybe both and another)?

Big 12: UT, OU, Neb., Ark., TT, OSU, KS, KSU, ISU, Missouri, Colorado, ASU, Utah, Baylor, BYU & UH could make 16 or stay at 14.

ACC: ND, NC, Duke, Va., Va. Tech, Pitt, Ga. Tech, WVU, Clemson, FSU, Louisville, Syr., Virignia , BC, WF, Miami
**If the networks thought MD & Rutgers should be moved to the ACC they could engineer that. I doubt XLance gets his wet dream of PSU to the ACC, although you could make the argument things would be more balanced.

With this you have balance and most of the rivalries are restored. UT & Texas A&M could start playing OOC. The leagues are free to have a single set of division standings and CFP is made up of the 4 league champs. Leagues would expand to at least semi-finals and maybe 6 with seeding like the NFL does and no more useless Post season exhibition games known as bowl games! (schools could take one week off for finals).

Nobody is leaving a conference that is minimally going to be making 66 million in 2024, or possibly as much as 86 million in 2024. So forget Missouri and Arkansas leaving to go hat in hand back to the Big 12 or Nebraska leaving the Big 10 which will be making in the same ballpark as the SEC. That kind of thinking is wholly fantasy and is not going to happen. They aren't taking the pay cuts and (if) Texas and Oklahoma get unequal revenue sharing they sure as hell aren't gong consider it.

And when you've seen ATU and I discussing South Florida it is as a really great location which ties the conference and its proposed expansion together through the Gulf region, and is only speculated about because they have a much greater emphasis on research than UCF. UCF is not and likely never will be a school the SEC would add.

And where Texas and Oklahoma are concerned they both are objects of interest for the SEC and Big 10 and FOX and ESPN can integrate them into either conference much more economically and much more profitably than letting them stay in any new iteration of the Big 12.

Now is a network wants to pay for key PAC schools to be added to the Big 12 don't expect the result to be anywhere close to the new pay levels of the Big 10 or SEC. The PAC is in trouble because they don't add eyeballs. Therefore their product is not as valuable and it won't add much value or any to the Big 12 just because they become bound together. If you add less valuable viewership to more valuable viewership you don't get an increase of value, but an average less than the better viewership once got paid for.

(01-09-2020 12:11 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 04:40 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 04:01 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 01:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 12:56 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  I think if CFB goes to a top heavy situation where the B1G & SEC make 30M more than every other league's teams, it will be the beginning of the decline of CFB. You can't have 2 leagues making that much more than everyone else and not destroy the overall national viewership of the sport. The NFL will continue to take more and more fans, as CFB will just become more niche and goofy with the way they pick and choose a 4 team playoff field out of 65 teams and continue to run their post-season exhibition season. I know this has already made me lose a lot of interest in watching the sport outside of the two teams in my state and I have no desire to watch exhibition bowls whatsoever and very limited interest in the playoffs. I use to watch the sport all day long, now I realize how engineered the outcome is and I liken to watching it to WWE

I think CFB will be better served if they look at the makeup of the sport strategically for the long run not one more huge 7-8 year contract.

The sport would be a lot smarter to realign into 4 leagues and negotiate the tv contract as one.

You use the world league. We don't have leagues, we have conferences. The issue with college football is demographic. There is one region of the country where most high school boys still try to play the sport, the Southeast. It is why there are more recruits in the Southeast and why (including Clemson and Florida State) a Southeast Team has won all but 1 CFP and most of the last 10 BCS games before that.

Popularity of college football on the Pacific coast is the lowest anywhere. Upper middle class people in along the Eastern seaboard and in the Northern Midwest don't encourage their kids to play. Look at the key recruits on Ohio State, Michigan, and even Minnesota's roster this year and you will see many of them came from the South.

I agree about TV contracts and collective bargaining, but if they are creating a Big 10 and SEC which will be 30 million ahead of everyone else it's because they are trying to save the national appeal of the game. How? By actually creating a league, actually two leagues. The monetary difference would be the lure for the top programs in the PAC and ACC to merge with those two conferences to form leagues.

Get your top 64 schools into two leagues of 4 school divisions each and you have a natural way to play the champion off without polls and committees.

And while what you say about the NFL is true, it is not true in the Southeast. In the Southeast College football is king and that is why the SEC is worth so much money. If advertisers want to reach sports fans in the Southeast College Football is the best way to reach them.

There might not be one Power College football league but you have one CFB Power Conference level sport. I am well aware of where the recruits come from as I have looked over Rivals state ratings and know the descrepancy between the South and northern midwest. I think recruiting is a reason that some miss for adding Rutgers & Maryland to the B1G. Those are now the 2nd & 3rd best recruiting areas in the conference footprint. I don't think there is any coincidence in those additions and PSU improving and having monster ratings game again.

I know where the recruits are coming from and where participation rates are falling among high school students. But you also need those viewers from those areas and if you make CFB two conferences that dominate everyone else financially and from a competitive standpoint your going to lose overall viewers.

I think if you eliminate too many teams you will lose viewers also.

I may be in the minority but the sport needs to figure out a way to have 64-72 teams and have balanced leagues financially and competitively. Otherwise I think the NFL is just going to gain more viewers.

Some fans will gravitate to the NFL and some will gravitate to pro soccer because of the community focus those leagues typically employ...there's actually a lot of similarities between how soccer clubs and colleges approach their fans.

Either way, I think the sport is destined to be diminished a little bit and mostly because of the demographic changes. Some of that cannot be stopped, but I do think college football will survive and still be very popular as a whole. It just won't look the same as it does today.

In all honesty, the college game is very popular and probably 2nd only to the NFL. The thing is, those college fans are spread out all over the country whereas with typical pro sports, the markets are limited to around 30 active participants. The college game has more flexibility, but it also has greater disparity from top to bottom when it comes to the viability of its individual products.

I also think that's why they'll end up expanding the playoff...to replicate the phenomenon of the NCAA Tournament and get more schools in from different regions. Obviously they won't start with 64 teams, but it will be more than 4.

Whether the games end up being blowouts or not, doesn't matter. The main thing will be can they obtain higher viewership that way.

There's going to be a lot of water under the bridge before we get to playoff expansion. These contracts will get wrapped up and we'll wait to see if that lures expansion, and we might know by that time what the courts are going to do on players rights and pay for play. If we wind up consolidating into 4 P conferences I think we are headed to a champs only format and a self contained schedule down the road inclusive only of that P4.

And it won't be anti-trust because none of the schools who operate on subsidies will be able to afford to go that route.

Because their GOR is up in 2025 and because this may be the last round up of mega contracts before the Boomer decline sets in I expect Texas and Oklahoma to make their moves. And if that happens don't be surprised if other antsy schools try to make a dash out as well. The PAC's GOR is also up at the same time. And if enough of this is in ESPN's hands where they can maneuver there could even be some surprises in their other conference.

I truly believe that the SEC and Big 10 will be paid so handsomely to facilitate this movement and the rebuilding of some conferences.

I wouldn't rule it out of the realm of possibility for the Big 10 to possibly move to just 16 but with a pair not spoken of for this early.

What if they move to 16 with Notre Dame and Virginia? What if the SEC moves there with North Carolina and Duke?

What if Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Tech move to the PAC?

Could you not create a decent conference with these:
Baylor, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, T.C.U.
Iowa State, Louisville, Pittsburgh, West Virginia
Boston College, N.C. State, Syracuse, Virginia Tech
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

Wouldn't the PAC make more sense if Texas and Oklahoma went into the West and diminished?

Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech
California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal, Stanford
Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah
Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State

And the Big 10:
Maryland, Notre Dame, Rutgers, Virginia
Indiana, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue
Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern
Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin

And the SEC:
Duke, North Carolina, Kentucky, South Carolina
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Vanderbilt
Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Texas A&M

The expansion would work better by doing this and would be more balanced.

But that would take somebody who cared about the game as a whole instead of quarterly profits making the moves and decisions.

So we are still more likely for this to happen:
Texas and Texas Tech to the SEC.
Oklahoma and Kansas to the Big 10
West Virginia to the ACC
Nobody to the PAC and some decent football and basketball programs from the Big 12 left in the lurch.

And if it is all profit driven then
Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC
Colorado and Kansas to the Big 10
West Virginia and T.C.U. to the ACC for markets and content and N.D. stays independent.
Maybe Texas Tech to the PAC to take Colorado's place
And some decent football and basketball programs from the Big 12 are left in the lurch.

I don't see the champs only format ever working.

The primary reason is because some leagues are clearly tougher than others. If you guarantee a winner from 4 different conferences then some schools will have a much easier time making the final 4 on a regular basis. That impacts recruiting and other tangential dynamics.

Especially if we're trying to entice schools like Texas and Oklahoma, if we're offering a setup where only one power from the league can make the playoff in any given year then that's a heck of a lot of competition in the SEC. It's a good bit in the Big Ten albeit less. Meanwhile the PAC and ACC would have very few contenders.

Even a couple of years ago when Alabama and Georgia made the CFP, it was more beneficial to the SEC to have that option available to them. Why have a system that doesn't reward the competitiveness of an ultra-competitive league?

Even if the CFP stays at 4, I don't see the SEC voting for a system that limits their options. They'll want it to be pretty much the same as it is now with conference titles not necessarily required.

Some leagues will want the expansion while the SEC probably doesn't. Personally, I think the compromise will be an expansion to 6 or 8. The SEC gets to keep their ability to place more than 1 school while the other leagues get better odds of placing a single team at all.

The advantage of going to 6 is that 2 of the teams get 1st round byes...a very special reward for a great season. That likely helps the SEC champion in most years. Subsequently, the value of the SEC title game is not altered yet the SEC still has a shot of getting a 2nd team in most years. It's possible that 2 teams will play the extra game, but it's also possible no one plays an extra game beyond what the current system requires.

(01-10-2020 04:10 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-09-2020 12:11 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 04:40 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 04:01 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 01:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  You use the world league. We don't have leagues, we have conferences. The issue with college football is demographic. There is one region of the country where most high school boys still try to play the sport, the Southeast. It is why there are more recruits in the Southeast and why (including Clemson and Florida State) a Southeast Team has won all but 1 CFP and most of the last 10 BCS games before that.

Popularity of college football on the Pacific coast is the lowest anywhere. Upper middle class people in along the Eastern seaboard and in the Northern Midwest don't encourage their kids to play. Look at the key recruits on Ohio State, Michigan, and even Minnesota's roster this year and you will see many of them came from the South.

I agree about TV contracts and collective bargaining, but if they are creating a Big 10 and SEC which will be 30 million ahead of everyone else it's because they are trying to save the national appeal of the game. How? By actually creating a league, actually two leagues. The monetary difference would be the lure for the top programs in the PAC and ACC to merge with those two conferences to form leagues.

Get your top 64 schools into two leagues of 4 school divisions each and you have a natural way to play the champion off without polls and committees.

And while what you say about the NFL is true, it is not true in the Southeast. In the Southeast College football is king and that is why the SEC is worth so much money. If advertisers want to reach sports fans in the Southeast College Football is the best way to reach them.

There might not be one Power College football league but you have one CFB Power Conference level sport. I am well aware of where the recruits come from as I have looked over Rivals state ratings and know the descrepancy between the South and northern midwest. I think recruiting is a reason that some miss for adding Rutgers & Maryland to the B1G. Those are now the 2nd & 3rd best recruiting areas in the conference footprint. I don't think there is any coincidence in those additions and PSU improving and having monster ratings game again.

I know where the recruits are coming from and where participation rates are falling among high school students. But you also need those viewers from those areas and if you make CFB two conferences that dominate everyone else financially and from a competitive standpoint your going to lose overall viewers.

I think if you eliminate too many teams you will lose viewers also.

I may be in the minority but the sport needs to figure out a way to have 64-72 teams and have balanced leagues financially and competitively. Otherwise I think the NFL is just going to gain more viewers.

Some fans will gravitate to the NFL and some will gravitate to pro soccer because of the community focus those leagues typically employ...there's actually a lot of similarities between how soccer clubs and colleges approach their fans.

Either way, I think the sport is destined to be diminished a little bit and mostly because of the demographic changes. Some of that cannot be stopped, but I do think college football will survive and still be very popular as a whole. It just won't look the same as it does today.

In all honesty, the college game is very popular and probably 2nd only to the NFL. The thing is, those college fans are spread out all over the country whereas with typical pro sports, the markets are limited to around 30 active participants. The college game has more flexibility, but it also has greater disparity from top to bottom when it comes to the viability of its individual products.

I also think that's why they'll end up expanding the playoff...to replicate the phenomenon of the NCAA Tournament and get more schools in from different regions. Obviously they won't start with 64 teams, but it will be more than 4.

Whether the games end up being blowouts or not, doesn't matter. The main thing will be can they obtain higher viewership that way.

There's going to be a lot of water under the bridge before we get to playoff expansion. These contracts will get wrapped up and we'll wait to see if that lures expansion, and we might know by that time what the courts are going to do on players rights and pay for play. If we wind up consolidating into 4 P conferences I think we are headed to a champs only format and a self contained schedule down the road inclusive only of that P4.

And it won't be anti-trust because none of the schools who operate on subsidies will be able to afford to go that route.

Because their GOR is up in 2025 and because this may be the last round up of mega contracts before the Boomer decline sets in I expect Texas and Oklahoma to make their moves. And if that happens don't be surprised if other antsy schools try to make a dash out as well. The PAC's GOR is also up at the same time. And if enough of this is in ESPN's hands where they can maneuver there could even be some surprises in their other conference.

I truly believe that the SEC and Big 10 will be paid so handsomely to facilitate this movement and the rebuilding of some conferences.

I wouldn't rule it out of the realm of possibility for the Big 10 to possibly move to just 16 but with a pair not spoken of for this early.

What if they move to 16 with Notre Dame and Virginia? What if the SEC moves there with North Carolina and Duke?

What if Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Tech move to the PAC?

Could you not create a decent conference with these:
Baylor, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, T.C.U.
Iowa State, Louisville, Pittsburgh, West Virginia
Boston College, N.C. State, Syracuse, Virginia Tech
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

Wouldn't the PAC make more sense if Texas and Oklahoma went into the West and diminished?

Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech
California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal, Stanford
Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah
Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State

And the Big 10:
Maryland, Notre Dame, Rutgers, Virginia
Indiana, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue
Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern
Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin

And the SEC:
Duke, North Carolina, Kentucky, South Carolina
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Vanderbilt
Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Texas A&M

The expansion would work better by doing this and would be more balanced.

But that would take somebody who cared about the game as a whole instead of quarterly profits making the moves and decisions.

So we are still more likely for this to happen:
Texas and Texas Tech to the SEC.
Oklahoma and Kansas to the Big 10
West Virginia to the ACC
Nobody to the PAC and some decent football and basketball programs from the Big 12 left in the lurch.

And if it is all profit driven then
Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC
Colorado and Kansas to the Big 10
West Virginia and T.C.U. to the ACC for markets and content and N.D. stays independent.
Maybe Texas Tech to the PAC to take Colorado's place
And some decent football and basketball programs from the Big 12 are left in the lurch.

I don't see the champs only format ever working.

The primary reason is because some leagues are clearly tougher than others. If you guarantee a winner from 4 different conferences then some schools will have a much easier time making the final 4 on a regular basis. That impacts recruiting and other tangential dynamics.

Especially if we're trying to entice schools like Texas and Oklahoma, if we're offering a setup where only one power from the league can make the playoff in any given year then that's a heck of a lot of competition in the SEC. It's a good bit in the Big Ten albeit less. Meanwhile the PAC and ACC would have very few contenders.

Even a couple of years ago when Alabama and Georgia made the CFP, it was more beneficial to the SEC to have that option available to them. Why have a system that doesn't reward the competitiveness of an ultra-competitive league?

Even if the CFP stays at 4, I don't see the SEC voting for a system that limits their options. They'll want it to be pretty much the same as it is now with conference titles not necessarily required.

Some leagues will want the expansion while the SEC probably doesn't. Personally, I think the compromise will be an expansion to 6 or 8. The SEC gets to keep their ability to place more than 1 school while the other leagues get better odds of placing a single team at all.

The advantage of going to 6 is that 2 of the teams get 1st round byes...a very special reward for a great season. That likely helps the SEC champion in most years. Subsequently, the value of the SEC title game is not altered yet the SEC still has a shot of getting a 2nd team in most years. It's possible that 2 teams will play the extra game, but it's also possible no one plays an extra game beyond what the current system requires.

Well, we are an at impasse on this one. There is no logical reason to expand a playoff structure that so infrequently has been able to yield a good semifinal game. Expansion means more crap playoff games where contending schools could lose key players to injury. I think the whole thing is great for message boards but will not come to pass, and shouldn't.

(01-10-2020 04:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 02:54 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  The more I think about it in regards to the above post, you could make 4 decent balanced leagues with similar pay with the ACC as the weakest even if the B1G took the 4 California teams & UW,OR if the networks looked at making a few minor changes to bring back a better slate of games.

While I would like the Big 12 to get a Southern California school, if the B1G took USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, UW & OR they might as well take a 7th school to make it easier like Arizona that is AAU. If that happened it might make more sense for a network to steer Nebraska back to the B12. Then the B12 adds ASU, Co. & Utah.

If the networks are looking at plugging in schools so they get the most value out of them in a balanced setting Arkansas is way underutilized in the SEC IMO. You could send WVU to the ACC, NC St. to the SEC and Arkansas to the B12 and everyone gets something. If that happens Missouri in the SEC is a sore thumb and its T2 and T3 content would be much better off in the B12. If the SEC wanted TCU for some exposure in Dallas/Fort Worth so be it or maybe they would rather add UCF for long term potential or maybe both because even if they took TCU they would still be at 14.

If TCU was moved to the SEC the Big 12 could take Houston. I know there is some resistance from OU especially but it gives the Big 12 a local presence and there is no denying the tv ratings with UH and Big 12 has been good. If the Big 12 needs 16 they can add BYU and UH or stay at 14.

You would have something like this

B1G: OSU, PSU, Mich., MSU, Wisky, Ia., Ill., Northwestern, Ind., Purdue, Mn. PSU, MD, Rutgers,
USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal, UW, Or, Az.

SEC: Alabama, Auburn, LSU, MSU, Ole Mis, Texas A&M, NC St., Florida, Tn., Vandy, Ga., SC, Ky, TCU or UCF(maybe both and another)?

Big 12: UT, OU, Neb., Ark., TT, OSU, KS, KSU, ISU, Missouri, Colorado, ASU, Utah, Baylor, BYU & UH could make 16 or stay at 14.

ACC: ND, NC, Duke, Va., Va. Tech, Pitt, Ga. Tech, WVU, Clemson, FSU, Louisville, Syr., Virignia , BC, WF, Miami
**If the networks thought MD & Rutgers should be moved to the ACC they could engineer that. I doubt XLance gets his wet dream of PSU to the ACC, although you could make the argument things would be more balanced.

With this you have balance and most of the rivalries are restored. UT & Texas A&M could start playing OOC. The leagues are free to have a single set of division standings and CFP is made up of the 4 league champs. Leagues would expand to at least semi-finals and maybe 6 with seeding like the NFL does and no more useless Post season exhibition games known as bowl games! (schools could take one week off for finals).

Nobody is leaving a conference that is minimally going to be making 66 million in 2024, or possibly as much as 86 million in 2024. So forget Missouri and Arkansas leaving to go hat in hand back to the Big 12 or Nebraska leaving the Big 10 which will be making in the same ballpark as the SEC. That kind of thinking is wholly fantasy and is not going to happen. They aren't taking the pay cuts and (if) Texas and Oklahoma get unequal revenue sharing they sure as hell aren't gong consider it.

And when you've seen ATU and I discussing South Florida it is as a really great location which ties the conference and its proposed expansion together through the Gulf region, and is only speculated about because they have a much greater emphasis on research than UCF. UCF is not and likely never will be a school the SEC would add.

And where Texas and Oklahoma are concerned they both are objects of interest for the SEC and Big 10 and FOX and ESPN can integrate them into either conference much more economically and much more profitably than letting them stay in any new iteration of the Big 12.

Now is a network wants to pay for key PAC schools to be added to the Big 12 don't expect the result to be anywhere close to the new pay levels of the Big 10 or SEC. The PAC is in trouble because they don't add eyeballs. Therefore their product is not as valuable and it won't add much value or any to the Big 12 just because they become bound together. If you add less valuable viewership to more valuable viewership you don't get an increase of value, but an average less than the better viewership once got paid for.

If you thought the networks could pay this league competitively
Baylor, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, T.C.U.
Iowa State, Louisville, Pittsburgh, West Virginia
Boston College, N.C. State, Syracuse, Virginia Tech
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

There is no reason a network couldn't pay the league I mentioned competitively. Also, your going to ruin the sport and the overall pie by jamming OU & UT into the B1G or SEC at 16 teams and making the PAC & ACC basically as serfs to those leagues. If anyone cares about the longevity of college football it won't happen, and that could be schools and the networks. The overall revenue that gets distributed will eventually be reduced and there is less to go to the schools. You need to look at ways to make it a national sport not one about 1 or 2 leagues.

I hope Nebraska and Arkansas enjoy hanging conference revenue banners up because it sure isn't about success on the field for them. Oh wait we don't hang up conference revenue banners. Continued futility hurts fundraising and revenue.

Also, in regards to the playoffs just because a semi-final game is not close it doesn't mean a previous round can't be close but if you want to make the current situation worse just try and stack one or two conferences and that compounds the situation.

(01-10-2020 05:41 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 04:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 02:54 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  The more I think about it in regards to the above post, you could make 4 decent balanced leagues with similar pay with the ACC as the weakest even if the B1G took the 4 California teams & UW,OR if the networks looked at making a few minor changes to bring back a better slate of games.

While I would like the Big 12 to get a Southern California school, if the B1G took USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, UW & OR they might as well take a 7th school to make it easier like Arizona that is AAU. If that happened it might make more sense for a network to steer Nebraska back to the B12. Then the B12 adds ASU, Co. & Utah.

If the networks are looking at plugging in schools so they get the most value out of them in a balanced setting Arkansas is way underutilized in the SEC IMO. You could send WVU to the ACC, NC St. to the SEC and Arkansas to the B12 and everyone gets something. If that happens Missouri in the SEC is a sore thumb and its T2 and T3 content would be much better off in the B12. If the SEC wanted TCU for some exposure in Dallas/Fort Worth so be it or maybe they would rather add UCF for long term potential or maybe both because even if they took TCU they would still be at 14.

If TCU was moved to the SEC the Big 12 could take Houston. I know there is some resistance from OU especially but it gives the Big 12 a local presence and there is no denying the tv ratings with UH and Big 12 has been good. If the Big 12 needs 16 they can add BYU and UH or stay at 14.

You would have something like this

B1G: OSU, PSU, Mich., MSU, Wisky, Ia., Ill., Northwestern, Ind., Purdue, Mn. PSU, MD, Rutgers,
USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal, UW, Or, Az.

SEC: Alabama, Auburn, LSU, MSU, Ole Mis, Texas A&M, NC St., Florida, Tn., Vandy, Ga., SC, Ky, TCU or UCF(maybe both and another)?

Big 12: UT, OU, Neb., Ark., TT, OSU, KS, KSU, ISU, Missouri, Colorado, ASU, Utah, Baylor, BYU & UH could make 16 or stay at 14.

ACC: ND, NC, Duke, Va., Va. Tech, Pitt, Ga. Tech, WVU, Clemson, FSU, Louisville, Syr., Virignia , BC, WF, Miami
**If the networks thought MD & Rutgers should be moved to the ACC they could engineer that. I doubt XLance gets his wet dream of PSU to the ACC, although you could make the argument things would be more balanced.

With this you have balance and most of the rivalries are restored. UT & Texas A&M could start playing OOC. The leagues are free to have a single set of division standings and CFP is made up of the 4 league champs. Leagues would expand to at least semi-finals and maybe 6 with seeding like the NFL does and no more useless Post season exhibition games known as bowl games! (schools could take one week off for finals).

Nobody is leaving a conference that is minimally going to be making 66 million in 2024, or possibly as much as 86 million in 2024. So forget Missouri and Arkansas leaving to go hat in hand back to the Big 12 or Nebraska leaving the Big 10 which will be making in the same ballpark as the SEC. That kind of thinking is wholly fantasy and is not going to happen. They aren't taking the pay cuts and (if) Texas and Oklahoma get unequal revenue sharing they sure as hell aren't gong consider it.

And when you've seen ATU and I discussing South Florida it is as a really great location which ties the conference and its proposed expansion together through the Gulf region, and is only speculated about because they have a much greater emphasis on research than UCF. UCF is not and likely never will be a school the SEC would add.

And where Texas and Oklahoma are concerned they both are objects of interest for the SEC and Big 10 and FOX and ESPN can integrate them into either conference much more economically and much more profitably than letting them stay in any new iteration of the Big 12.

Now is a network wants to pay for key PAC schools to be added to the Big 12 don't expect the result to be anywhere close to the new pay levels of the Big 10 or SEC. The PAC is in trouble because they don't add eyeballs. Therefore their product is not as valuable and it won't add much value or any to the Big 12 just because they become bound together. If you add less valuable viewership to more valuable viewership you don't get an increase of value, but an average less than the better viewership once got paid for.

If you thought the networks could pay this league competitively
Baylor, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, T.C.U.
Iowa State, Louisville, Pittsburgh, West Virginia
Boston College, N.C. State, Syracuse, Virginia Tech
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

There is no reason a network couldn't pay the league I mentioned competitively. Also, your going to ruin the sport and the overall pie by jamming OU & UT into the B1G or SEC at 16 teams and making the PAC & ACC basically as serfs to those leagues. If anyone cares about the longevity of college football it won't happen, and that could be schools and the networks. The overall revenue that gets distributed will eventually be reduced and there is less to go to the schools. You need to look at ways to make it a national sport not one about 1 or 2 leagues.

I hope Nebraska and Arkansas enjoy hanging conference revenue banners up because it sure isn't about success on the field for them. Oh wait we don't hang up conference revenue banners. Continued futility hurts fundraising and revenue.

Also, in regards to the playoffs just because a semi-final game is not close it doesn't mean a previous round can't be close but if you want to make the current situation worse just try and stack one or two conferences and that compounds the situation.

1. Competitive for the new conference means more than any of them were earning in the Big 12 or ACC so ~ 40 million to 50 million in the new rights era. Still a far cry from being competitive with the Big 10 and SEC but certainly better than any of them get now.

2. If you have read my posts I don't post what I want. I post what I see coming and why. If it was left up to me the SEC would add Florida State and Clemson and call it a day. The networks have shaped the Big 10 and the SEC and will continue to do so for their advantages not ours. They pay the money and we dance to the tune, but within narrow parameters that we agree to before hand. For the Big 10 that means AAU or schools the say in advance would be acceptable (Notre Dame & Oklahoma). For the SEC that's schools that are contiguous and have a semblance of Southern culture. Historically Missouri did, as did Texas. Oklahoma is within the gray by a slither of the state like Missouri. What would be interesting is whether Kansas in that regard was acceptable. The SEC and Big 10 both have a another stipulation. They have to make the bottom line greater for everyone in the conference.

3. The Networks don't give a crap about conferences. If they command viewership that's important. If they don't whether they survive or not is irrelevant to arranging conferences that draw the most eyes and dominate the ratings sufficiently to earn the network more money. They don't give a rat's ass whether or not things remain competitive between all 4 or even all 5 conferences. They care solely how much key product can be locked up in 1 conference contract and how much overall profit that conference can make for them.

4. The PAC doesn't make anyone much money, let alone the PAC. To the networks the Big 12 is Texas and Oklahoma for football and nobody else because those two draw national attention. Kansas does that for hoops. Outside of those 3 nobody else exists to the networks.

So if those three can be pitted more often against other top brands (which currently the PAC has none in the top 15 and only 2 in the top 25) the networks would be more likely to pay for those brands to be pitted against 6 other top brands in the Big 10 or 7 other top brands in the SEC. Because each Texas or Oklahoma game in either of those conferences makes them a lot more money than games against the Big 12 schools or any games against the PAC schools.

And that Winchester is the long and short of it. They don't give a damn about the SEC, Big 10, Big 12, ACC, or PAC. They care about which alignments make them the most money. And when Missouri and Arkansas joined the SEC and Maryland and Nebraska joined the Big 10 their presidents knew exactly why they were joining and it sure as hell wasn't for the banners.

I would agree that the networks care only about profit. They are private businesses and that is their job.

With that said, they might be willing to make a tweak here and there if they perceived that certain combinations would result in weaker ratings. They certainly won't go back on anything they've already done, but I can see them looking at current alignments and wanting to reunite old rivals. Those games make sense so it's likely better for the bottom line if they played.

Games like Texas/Texas A&M or Kansas/Missouri or Oklahoma/Nebraska or Pittsburgh/West Virginia. Personally, I think BYU and Utah should be in the same league because that's always been a great game...I guess we'll see on that one.

But I do agree with JR...the guiding principle is controlling content and profiting off of the investment. That's how they make money. Whatever is the best way to accomplish that is what they will try to do.

I don't think much of anyone anywhere is concerned with the "health of the game" on a macro level. While it's only practical to consider the wide-ranging consequences of any move, the game itself is only as valuable as it can utilized. They won't kill the golden goose, but they will squeeze the eggs out of her if they can.

When the market pushes back then they'll change course.

(01-11-2020 01:40 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I would agree that the networks care only about profit. They are private businesses and that is their job.

With that said, they might be willing to make a tweak here and there if they perceived that certain combinations would result in weaker ratings. They certainly won't go back on anything they've already done, but I can see them looking at current alignments and wanting to reunite old rivals. Those games make sense so it's likely better for the bottom line if they played.

Games like Texas/Texas A&M or Kansas/Missouri or Oklahoma/Nebraska or Pittsburgh/West Virginia. Personally, I think BYU and Utah should be in the same league because that's always been a great game...I guess we'll see on that one.

But I do agree with JR...the guiding principle is controlling content and profiting off of the investment. That's how they make money. Whatever is the best way to accomplish that is what they will try to do.

I don't think much of anyone anywhere is concerned with the "health of the game" on a macro level. While it's only practical to consider the wide-ranging consequences of any move, the game itself is only as valuable as it can utilized. They won't kill the golden goose, but they will squeeze the eggs out of her if they can.

When the market pushes back then they'll change course.

I can tell you if I was running the networks I would have to take very seriously an approach to keeping fans engaged and keeping schools engaged. And I'm not talking about inclusion of all FBS schools because that simply isn't profitable or desirable by the networks. They do understand that better match ups are desirable.

The issues to be addressed are the profitability of the PAC, the viability of the Big 12, and profitability of the ACC.

Currently the AAC gives ESPN plenty of extra content with some competitive programs. But it doesn't give them large fan bases for that purpose.

The Big 10 is 14 and there are 9 PAC schools that meet their metrics and they do both love the Rose Bowl. Arizona, California, U.C.L.A., Colorado, Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington and Utah are now AAU add Notre Dame to them and make a 24 school Big 12.

The SEC is at 14 let them add Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech, and N.C. State to get to 24.

then form that conference that will replace the AAC as the main producer of viable extra content and do it with better brands.

Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, T.C.U.
Arizona State, Air Force, Brigham Young, Oregon State, San Diego State, Washington State
Boston College, Cincinnati, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
Army, Georgia Tech, Memphis, Miami, Navy, Wake Forest

Now you give all of those schools upper tier status.

The Big 24 contains everything they could want and elevates the main schools of the PAC to competitive levels of income with the former Big 10 schools and Notre Dame would fit right in with both Big 10 and PAC schools on their schedule and with Navy in the upper tier.

The SEC would be the best of the South and Southwest. I can't imagine a more dynamic 24.

The third grouping has an auto bid into a 4 team CFP a competitively close payout (think 10 to 15 million below the other two) and gives the networks much more filler and some prime time games.

You take the 3 conference champs after conference semis of division winners and 1 at large team each year to complete the field (likely the best of the runner ups).

Now you have enough schools to keep the win / loss bell curve healthy.

You have all existing main rivals available for OOC games. The Big 10 and SEC have no trouble with peer groups issues and the markets are all covered.

But if the Networks don't do this the money will eventually lead to two large leagues but fewer involved schools and markets and some tough political decisions for some states. For the inclusion of the 3 service academies and the five best remain G5 schools that fit geographically with the gaps you get a very practical alignment.

Big 24:
Maryland, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Wisconsin
Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Utah
California, U.C.L.A., Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington.

SEC:
Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M
Alabama, Auburn, Florida State, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State
Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Virginia Tech
Clemson, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

IMO something like this is the only way to make it competitive, keep the maximum engaged, hang onto the history that fans love, and produce a champion reasonably decided on the field.

What's more the networks get 2 conferences that are essentially the 48 programs they want for market penetration, the content they want, and if they did it now they could probably pacify everyone at 75 million for the arrangement and then pay the new P conference 60 million which doubles or more what most of them make. That money more than covers the travel costs and leaves these athletic departments enough revenue to keep up.

As for the conferences you play everyone in your division and rotate a division a year and play 1 OOC game that can be an annual rival or a rotating opponent.

I think we could get 4 leagues out of this in the not too distant future, but maybe a different alignment of what those leagues could be?

Reading Wilner's piece made me come back to certain ideas I've batted around in the past.

For one, the PAC 12 has a problem and it's not likely to be fixed in any substantive way unless a network like CBS comes along and promises tons of coverage on an OTA during prime time and maybe even late on Saturday nights. I actually think that would work because the only property they would compete against is SNL on NBC. If the PAC dedicates their best games to CBS then ESPN and FOX would be second fiddle in the late night time slot. That later slot becomes more valuable, however, if CBS uses a prime time game in the same conference to lead in.

This would not be ideal for the PAC. They'd rather have prime time games on FOX or ABC or ESPN, but that's not going to happen often going forward. Of course, even this notion only works if CBS thinks it's a good idea. It could work for them and still be pretty profitable for the investment. They don't like to spend market prices after all. Simultaneously, it would give them a good solid audience on Saturday night...a unique product rather than the same old stuff other networks are running. They wouldn't beat out ABC or FOX or ESPN for ratings on sports broadcasts, but it might make them more attractive compared to most other channels in that slot.

Most importantly, the exposure would be good for the PAC and that's really something they need to start thinking about. Truth is no network is going to come along and pay a crap ton of money for a product that people haven't already been consistently exposed to.

Anyway, barring something creative like that, the PAC is about done. Even if they got a contract from a new player in the market, most sports fans aren't going to sign up for a service just for that. A lot of fans won't even know they need to. They will gravitate to the brands and channels they know. Whatever short term profit the PAC gets from a FAANG company won't last.

But under my plan, the PAC could be saved! Vote ATU in 2020!

Anyway, I'm starting to warm to the idea that the Big Ten could snatch up some PAC teams. The travel would be horrendous and I'm not exactly sure how they would make it work for anything other than football. But if the major PAC players want to compete then that's basically what it's going to take.

For the Big Ten's part, they need that sort of market exposure outside their footprint. They need talent from CA too and it would probably be better for the core PAC schools if everyone and their brother from the West wasn't raiding Southern CA for prospects. A lot of those players will stay closer to home if their options at the top echelon are reduced. The Big Ten powers will snatch a player every now and then, but that's a different dynamic than 12 schools feeding off the same recruiting grounds while all the respectable G5s in the region get to feed off the leftovers. In other words, the elite programs around the country will recruit CA either way. You can't take them out of the picture, but you can subvert the ability of more local schools(the ones with lesser resources) to make a splash.

So I propose this:

Washington, Oregon, California, Stanford, UCLA, and USC move to the Big Ten

Anyway, I'm not going to draw divisions because at 20, I think the Big Ten will only have a conference title games that pits the best 2 teams against each other. It's the best practice.

Now, what about the rest of the country?

I think the SEC is going to come down with some quality additions as well, probably the best additions.

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Kansas

I'm tempted to find 2 more and place the SEC at 20, but it's not necessary. They'll be making more money than everyone else and the only other additions that might make sense are currently stuck in the ACC. Unless we're talking about the prospect of USF and UCF just to fill out numbers, I don't think anything else is worth taking a risk on.

I think ESPN wants these products in their fold for one reason or another and the SEC is the safest, easiest place to store them.

Now how about this?

I've reasoned that a league combining Mountain Time Zone and Central Time Zone schools should work. It won't be nearly as profitable as the other 2, but I think it works for a region that includes mostly Heartland-type people and fewer large markets with major pro sports.

Boise State, BYU, Utah, Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Kansas State, Iowa State, Oklahoma State, TCU, Baylor, Houston

Welcome to the new Big 12.

The ACC will more or less remain the same, but I do think they could add West Virginia and they should add a 16th school if they're going to that trouble. It won't be Notre Dame though unless they can talk ND into some sort of special category that allows them to make extra money for their trouble.

The ACC will also prioritize basketball success here so I think the limits the candidates. Cincinnati would be my pick. They are reasonably competitive in the major sports, in a good market, and the state of OH would be good for ESPN as they won't regain a majority of the Big Ten any time soon.

The 2 additions will open up the contract and ESPN can pay them a little more competitively so that schools like Florida State and Clemson aren't tempted to bail at the first sign of freedom.

SEC = 18
Big Ten = 20
Big 12 = 12
ACC = 16+1

There you have 66 schools plus Notre Dame.

Basically, it's the Bible and the Catholics add some extra to it.

That's my last joke of the night...

(01-11-2020 02:36 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I think we could get 4 leagues out of this in the not too distant future, but maybe a different alignment of what those leagues could be?

Reading Wilner's piece made me come back to certain ideas I've batted around in the past.

For one, the PAC 12 has a problem and it's not likely to be fixed in any substantive way unless a network like CBS comes along and promises tons of coverage on an OTA during prime time and maybe even late on Saturday nights. I actually think that would work because the only property they would compete against is SNL on NBC. If the PAC dedicates their best games to CBS then ESPN and FOX would be second fiddle in the late night time slot. That later slot becomes more valuable, however, if CBS uses a prime time game in the same conference to lead in.

This would not be ideal for the PAC. They'd rather have prime time games on FOX or ABC or ESPN, but that's not going to happen often going forward. Of course, even this notion only works if CBS thinks it's a good idea. It could work for them and still be pretty profitable for the investment. They don't like to spend market prices after all. Simultaneously, it would give them a good solid audience on Saturday night...a unique product rather than the same old stuff other networks are running. They wouldn't beat out ABC or FOX or ESPN for ratings on sports broadcasts, but it might make them more attractive compared to most other channels in that slot.

Most importantly, the exposure would be good for the PAC and that's really something they need to start thinking about. Truth is no network is going to come along and pay a crap ton of money for a product that people haven't already been consistently exposed to.

Anyway, barring something creative like that, the PAC is about done. Even if they got a contract from a new player in the market, most sports fans aren't going to sign up for a service just for that. A lot of fans won't even know they need to. They will gravitate to the brands and channels they know. Whatever short term profit the PAC gets from a FAANG company won't last.

But under my plan, the PAC could be saved! Vote ATU in 2020!

Anyway, I'm starting to warm to the idea that the Big Ten could snatch up some PAC teams. The travel would be horrendous and I'm not exactly sure how they would make it work for anything other than football. But if the major PAC players want to compete then that's basically what it's going to take.

For the Big Ten's part, they need that sort of market exposure outside their footprint. They need talent from CA too and it would probably be better for the core PAC schools if everyone and their brother from the West wasn't raiding Southern CA for prospects. A lot of those players will stay closer to home if their options at the top echelon are reduced. The Big Ten powers will snatch a player every now and then, but that's a different dynamic than 12 schools feeding off the same recruiting grounds while all the respectable G5s in the region get to feed off the leftovers. In other words, the elite programs around the country will recruit CA either way. You can't take them out of the picture, but you can subvert the ability of more local schools(the ones with lesser resources) to make a splash.

So I propose this:

Washington, Oregon, California, Stanford, UCLA, and USC move to the Big Ten

Anyway, I'm not going to draw divisions because at 20, I think the Big Ten will only have a conference title games that pits the best 2 teams against each other. It's the best practice.

Now, what about the rest of the country?

I think the SEC is going to come down with some quality additions as well, probably the best additions.

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Kansas

I'm tempted to find 2 more and place the SEC at 20, but it's not necessary. They'll be making more money than everyone else and the only other additions that might make sense are currently stuck in the ACC. Unless we're talking about the prospect of USF and UCF just to fill out numbers, I don't think anything else is worth taking a risk on.

I think ESPN wants these products in their fold for one reason or another and the SEC is the safest, easiest place to store them.

Now how about this?

I've reasoned that a league combining Mountain Time Zone and Central Time Zone schools should work. It won't be nearly as profitable as the other 2, but I think it works for a region that includes mostly Heartland-type people and fewer large markets with major pro sports.

Boise State, BYU, Utah, Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Kansas State, Iowa State, Oklahoma State, TCU, Baylor, Houston

Welcome to the new Big 12.

The ACC will more or less remain the same, but I do think they could add West Virginia and they should add a 16th school if they're going to that trouble. It won't be Notre Dame though unless they can talk ND into some sort of special category that allows them to make extra money for their trouble.

The ACC will also prioritize basketball success here so I think the limits the candidates. Cincinnati would be my pick. They are reasonably competitive in the major sports, in a good market, and the state of OH would be good for ESPN as they won't regain a majority of the Big Ten any time soon.

The 2 additions will open up the contract and ESPN can pay them a little more competitively so that schools like Florida State and Clemson aren't tempted to bail at the first sign of freedom.

SEC = 18
Big Ten = 20
Big 12 = 12
ACC = 16+1

There you have 66 schools plus Notre Dame.

Basically, it's the Bible and the Catholics add some extra to it.

That's my last joke of the night...

Perhaps unintended but Protestants say there are 66 books in the Bible and that the Catholic added to that. Your set up has 66 schools and Notre Dame adds to that number!

(01-11-2020 11:30 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(01-11-2020 02:36 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I think we could get 4 leagues out of this in the not too distant future, but maybe a different alignment of what those leagues could be?

Reading Wilner's piece made me come back to certain ideas I've batted around in the past.

For one, the PAC 12 has a problem and it's not likely to be fixed in any substantive way unless a network like CBS comes along and promises tons of coverage on an OTA during prime time and maybe even late on Saturday nights. I actually think that would work because the only property they would compete against is SNL on NBC. If the PAC dedicates their best games to CBS then ESPN and FOX would be second fiddle in the late night time slot. That later slot becomes more valuable, however, if CBS uses a prime time game in the same conference to lead in.

This would not be ideal for the PAC. They'd rather have prime time games on FOX or ABC or ESPN, but that's not going to happen often going forward. Of course, even this notion only works if CBS thinks it's a good idea. It could work for them and still be pretty profitable for the investment. They don't like to spend market prices after all. Simultaneously, it would give them a good solid audience on Saturday night...a unique product rather than the same old stuff other networks are running. They wouldn't beat out ABC or FOX or ESPN for ratings on sports broadcasts, but it might make them more attractive compared to most other channels in that slot.

Most importantly, the exposure would be good for the PAC and that's really something they need to start thinking about. Truth is no network is going to come along and pay a crap ton of money for a product that people haven't already been consistently exposed to.

Anyway, barring something creative like that, the PAC is about done. Even if they got a contract from a new player in the market, most sports fans aren't going to sign up for a service just for that. A lot of fans won't even know they need to. They will gravitate to the brands and channels they know. Whatever short term profit the PAC gets from a FAANG company won't last.

But under my plan, the PAC could be saved! Vote ATU in 2020!

Anyway, I'm starting to warm to the idea that the Big Ten could snatch up some PAC teams. The travel would be horrendous and I'm not exactly sure how they would make it work for anything other than football. But if the major PAC players want to compete then that's basically what it's going to take.

For the Big Ten's part, they need that sort of market exposure outside their footprint. They need talent from CA too and it would probably be better for the core PAC schools if everyone and their brother from the West wasn't raiding Southern CA for prospects. A lot of those players will stay closer to home if their options at the top echelon are reduced. The Big Ten powers will snatch a player every now and then, but that's a different dynamic than 12 schools feeding off the same recruiting grounds while all the respectable G5s in the region get to feed off the leftovers. In other words, the elite programs around the country will recruit CA either way. You can't take them out of the picture, but you can subvert the ability of more local schools(the ones with lesser resources) to make a splash.

So I propose this:

Washington, Oregon, California, Stanford, UCLA, and USC move to the Big Ten

Anyway, I'm not going to draw divisions because at 20, I think the Big Ten will only have a conference title games that pits the best 2 teams against each other. It's the best practice.

Now, what about the rest of the country?

I think the SEC is going to come down with some quality additions as well, probably the best additions.

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Kansas

I'm tempted to find 2 more and place the SEC at 20, but it's not necessary. They'll be making more money than everyone else and the only other additions that might make sense are currently stuck in the ACC. Unless we're talking about the prospect of USF and UCF just to fill out numbers, I don't think anything else is worth taking a risk on.

I think ESPN wants these products in their fold for one reason or another and the SEC is the safest, easiest place to store them.

Now how about this?

I've reasoned that a league combining Mountain Time Zone and Central Time Zone schools should work. It won't be nearly as profitable as the other 2, but I think it works for a region that includes mostly Heartland-type people and fewer large markets with major pro sports.

Boise State, BYU, Utah, Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Kansas State, Iowa State, Oklahoma State, TCU, Baylor, Houston

Welcome to the new Big 12.

The ACC will more or less remain the same, but I do think they could add West Virginia and they should add a 16th school if they're going to that trouble. It won't be Notre Dame though unless they can talk ND into some sort of special category that allows them to make extra money for their trouble.

The ACC will also prioritize basketball success here so I think the limits the candidates. Cincinnati would be my pick. They are reasonably competitive in the major sports, in a good market, and the state of OH would be good for ESPN as they won't regain a majority of the Big Ten any time soon.

The 2 additions will open up the contract and ESPN can pay them a little more competitively so that schools like Florida State and Clemson aren't tempted to bail at the first sign of freedom.

SEC = 18
Big Ten = 20
Big 12 = 12
ACC = 16+1

There you have 66 schools plus Notre Dame.

Basically, it's the Bible and the Catholics add some extra to it.

That's my last joke of the night...

Perhaps unintended but Protestants say there are 66 books in the Bible and that the Catholic added to that. Your set up has 66 schools and Notre Dame adds to that number!

Completely intended.

(01-11-2020 03:15 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-11-2020 11:30 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(01-11-2020 02:36 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I think we could get 4 leagues out of this in the not too distant future, but maybe a different alignment of what those leagues could be?

Reading Wilner's piece made me come back to certain ideas I've batted around in the past.

For one, the PAC 12 has a problem and it's not likely to be fixed in any substantive way unless a network like CBS comes along and promises tons of coverage on an OTA during prime time and maybe even late on Saturday nights. I actually think that would work because the only property they would compete against is SNL on NBC. If the PAC dedicates their best games to CBS then ESPN and FOX would be second fiddle in the late night time slot. That later slot becomes more valuable, however, if CBS uses a prime time game in the same conference to lead in.

This would not be ideal for the PAC. They'd rather have prime time games on FOX or ABC or ESPN, but that's not going to happen often going forward. Of course, even this notion only works if CBS thinks it's a good idea. It could work for them and still be pretty profitable for the investment. They don't like to spend market prices after all. Simultaneously, it would give them a good solid audience on Saturday night...a unique product rather than the same old stuff other networks are running. They wouldn't beat out ABC or FOX or ESPN for ratings on sports broadcasts, but it might make them more attractive compared to most other channels in that slot.

Most importantly, the exposure would be good for the PAC and that's really something they need to start thinking about. Truth is no network is going to come along and pay a crap ton of money for a product that people haven't already been consistently exposed to.

Anyway, barring something creative like that, the PAC is about done. Even if they got a contract from a new player in the market, most sports fans aren't going to sign up for a service just for that. A lot of fans won't even know they need to. They will gravitate to the brands and channels they know. Whatever short term profit the PAC gets from a FAANG company won't last.

But under my plan, the PAC could be saved! Vote ATU in 2020!

Anyway, I'm starting to warm to the idea that the Big Ten could snatch up some PAC teams. The travel would be horrendous and I'm not exactly sure how they would make it work for anything other than football. But if the major PAC players want to compete then that's basically what it's going to take.

For the Big Ten's part, they need that sort of market exposure outside their footprint. They need talent from CA too and it would probably be better for the core PAC schools if everyone and their brother from the West wasn't raiding Southern CA for prospects. A lot of those players will stay closer to home if their options at the top echelon are reduced. The Big Ten powers will snatch a player every now and then, but that's a different dynamic than 12 schools feeding off the same recruiting grounds while all the respectable G5s in the region get to feed off the leftovers. In other words, the elite programs around the country will recruit CA either way. You can't take them out of the picture, but you can subvert the ability of more local schools(the ones with lesser resources) to make a splash.

So I propose this:

Washington, Oregon, California, Stanford, UCLA, and USC move to the Big Ten

Anyway, I'm not going to draw divisions because at 20, I think the Big Ten will only have a conference title games that pits the best 2 teams against each other. It's the best practice.

Now, what about the rest of the country?

I think the SEC is going to come down with some quality additions as well, probably the best additions.

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Kansas

I'm tempted to find 2 more and place the SEC at 20, but it's not necessary. They'll be making more money than everyone else and the only other additions that might make sense are currently stuck in the ACC. Unless we're talking about the prospect of USF and UCF just to fill out numbers, I don't think anything else is worth taking a risk on.

I think ESPN wants these products in their fold for one reason or another and the SEC is the safest, easiest place to store them.

Now how about this?

I've reasoned that a league combining Mountain Time Zone and Central Time Zone schools should work. It won't be nearly as profitable as the other 2, but I think it works for a region that includes mostly Heartland-type people and fewer large markets with major pro sports.

Boise State, BYU, Utah, Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Kansas State, Iowa State, Oklahoma State, TCU, Baylor, Houston

Welcome to the new Big 12.

The ACC will more or less remain the same, but I do think they could add West Virginia and they should add a 16th school if they're going to that trouble. It won't be Notre Dame though unless they can talk ND into some sort of special category that allows them to make extra money for their trouble.

The ACC will also prioritize basketball success here so I think the limits the candidates. Cincinnati would be my pick. They are reasonably competitive in the major sports, in a good market, and the state of OH would be good for ESPN as they won't regain a majority of the Big Ten any time soon.

The 2 additions will open up the contract and ESPN can pay them a little more competitively so that schools like Florida State and Clemson aren't tempted to bail at the first sign of freedom.

SEC = 18
Big Ten = 20
Big 12 = 12
ACC = 16+1

There you have 66 schools plus Notre Dame.

Basically, it's the Bible and the Catholics add some extra to it.

That's my last joke of the night...

Perhaps unintended but Protestants say there are 66 books in the Bible and that the Catholic added to that. Your set up has 66 schools and Notre Dame adds to that number!

Completely intended.

Well maybe 72 is the number because the Catholic Bible which contains the writings in-between the Old and New Testament contains 73 books and it contains histories, prophecies, and more.

So if we are looking for Biblical relevance 72 plus N.D. as an indy does it.

As for me I'm looking for the new heaven and new earth in a breakaway division. It is an eschatological end for this wilderness experience.

(01-11-2020 03:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-11-2020 03:15 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-11-2020 11:30 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(01-11-2020 02:36 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I think we could get 4 leagues out of this in the not too distant future, but maybe a different alignment of what those leagues could be?

Reading Wilner's piece made me come back to certain ideas I've batted around in the past.

For one, the PAC 12 has a problem and it's not likely to be fixed in any substantive way unless a network like CBS comes along and promises tons of coverage on an OTA during prime time and maybe even late on Saturday nights. I actually think that would work because the only property they would compete against is SNL on NBC. If the PAC dedicates their best games to CBS then ESPN and FOX would be second fiddle in the late night time slot. That later slot becomes more valuable, however, if CBS uses a prime time game in the same conference to lead in.

This would not be ideal for the PAC. They'd rather have prime time games on FOX or ABC or ESPN, but that's not going to happen often going forward. Of course, even this notion only works if CBS thinks it's a good idea. It could work for them and still be pretty profitable for the investment. They don't like to spend market prices after all. Simultaneously, it would give them a good solid audience on Saturday night...a unique product rather than the same old stuff other networks are running. They wouldn't beat out ABC or FOX or ESPN for ratings on sports broadcasts, but it might make them more attractive compared to most other channels in that slot.

Most importantly, the exposure would be good for the PAC and that's really something they need to start thinking about. Truth is no network is going to come along and pay a crap ton of money for a product that people haven't already been consistently exposed to.

Anyway, barring something creative like that, the PAC is about done. Even if they got a contract from a new player in the market, most sports fans aren't going to sign up for a service just for that. A lot of fans won't even know they need to. They will gravitate to the brands and channels they know. Whatever short term profit the PAC gets from a FAANG company won't last.

But under my plan, the PAC could be saved! Vote ATU in 2020!

Anyway, I'm starting to warm to the idea that the Big Ten could snatch up some PAC teams. The travel would be horrendous and I'm not exactly sure how they would make it work for anything other than football. But if the major PAC players want to compete then that's basically what it's going to take.

For the Big Ten's part, they need that sort of market exposure outside their footprint. They need talent from CA too and it would probably be better for the core PAC schools if everyone and their brother from the West wasn't raiding Southern CA for prospects. A lot of those players will stay closer to home if their options at the top echelon are reduced. The Big Ten powers will snatch a player every now and then, but that's a different dynamic than 12 schools feeding off the same recruiting grounds while all the respectable G5s in the region get to feed off the leftovers. In other words, the elite programs around the country will recruit CA either way. You can't take them out of the picture, but you can subvert the ability of more local schools(the ones with lesser resources) to make a splash.

So I propose this:

Washington, Oregon, California, Stanford, UCLA, and USC move to the Big Ten

Anyway, I'm not going to draw divisions because at 20, I think the Big Ten will only have a conference title games that pits the best 2 teams against each other. It's the best practice.

Now, what about the rest of the country?

I think the SEC is going to come down with some quality additions as well, probably the best additions.

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Kansas

I'm tempted to find 2 more and place the SEC at 20, but it's not necessary. They'll be making more money than everyone else and the only other additions that might make sense are currently stuck in the ACC. Unless we're talking about the prospect of USF and UCF just to fill out numbers, I don't think anything else is worth taking a risk on.

I think ESPN wants these products in their fold for one reason or another and the SEC is the safest, easiest place to store them.

Now how about this?

I've reasoned that a league combining Mountain Time Zone and Central Time Zone schools should work. It won't be nearly as profitable as the other 2, but I think it works for a region that includes mostly Heartland-type people and fewer large markets with major pro sports.

Boise State, BYU, Utah, Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Kansas State, Iowa State, Oklahoma State, TCU, Baylor, Houston

Welcome to the new Big 12.

The ACC will more or less remain the same, but I do think they could add West Virginia and they should add a 16th school if they're going to that trouble. It won't be Notre Dame though unless they can talk ND into some sort of special category that allows them to make extra money for their trouble.

The ACC will also prioritize basketball success here so I think the limits the candidates. Cincinnati would be my pick. They are reasonably competitive in the major sports, in a good market, and the state of OH would be good for ESPN as they won't regain a majority of the Big Ten any time soon.

The 2 additions will open up the contract and ESPN can pay them a little more competitively so that schools like Florida State and Clemson aren't tempted to bail at the first sign of freedom.

SEC = 18
Big Ten = 20
Big 12 = 12
ACC = 16+1

There you have 66 schools plus Notre Dame.

Basically, it's the Bible and the Catholics add some extra to it.

That's my last joke of the night...

Perhaps unintended but Protestants say there are 66 books in the Bible and that the Catholic added to that. Your set up has 66 schools and Notre Dame adds to that number!

Completely intended.

Well maybe 72 is the number because the Catholic Bible which contains the writings in-between the Old and New Testament contains 73 books and it contains histories, prophecies, and more.

So if we are looking for Biblical relevance 72 plus N.D. as an indy does it.

As for me I'm looking for the new heaven and new earth in a breakaway division. It is an eschatological end for this wilderness experience.

Greek Orthodox have 79.
Ethiopic Greek Orthodox have 86.