(09-21-2021 06:28 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 06:02 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 02:49 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Yes. The "The Big 12 is going to be stronger, not weaker" line is a head-scratcher. I could not disagree more.

I always respect your opinions, even when I disagree with you.

Look this over - - do you still think it's a "head scratcher?"

I. FOOTBALL (COMPARE TEXAS WITH CINCY & UCF)

Texas W-L (FB - over the past 8 years)

2020 7-3 (finished #19 in final AP poll)
2019 8-5 (finished #25 in final AP poll)
2018 10-4 (finished #9 in final AP poll)
2017 7-6
2016 5-7
2015 5-7
2014 5-7
2013 6-7
2012 9-4 (finished #19 in final AP poll)
2011 8-5

U. Texas Average: 7.0 FB wins per year over the past decade

Cincy W-L:

2020 9-1 (finished #8 in final AP poll)
2019 11-3 (finished #21 in final AP poll)
2018 11-2 (finished #24 in final AP poll)
2017 4-8
2016 4-8
2015 7-6
2014 9-4
2013 9-4
2012 10-3
2011 10-3 (finished #15 in final AP poll)

Cincinnati Average: 8.4 FB wins per year over the past decade.


UCF W-L:

2020 6-4
2019 10-3 (finished #24 in final AP poll)
2018 10-3 (finished #11 in final AP poll)
2017 12-1 (finished #6 in final AP poll)
2016 13-0
2015 6-7
2014 0-12
2013 9-4 (finished #10 in final AP poll)
2012 10-4
2011 5-7

UCF Average: 8.1 FB wins per year over the past decade

.

II. BASKETBALL:

COMPARE TEXAS WITH CINCINNATI: Advantage: Cincinnati

Texas has only had one basketball team in the past decade that won more than 21 basketball games, and only one team that finished their season in the AP Top 25.

Cincinnati has had six basketball teams that won more than 21 games (e.g., 28 wins in 2018-19, 31 wins in 2017-18, 30 wins in 2016-17, 27 wins in 2013-14, 26 wins in 2011-12), and four of Cincinnati's teams have finished their season in the AP Top 25.

COMPARE OKLAHOMA WITH HOUSTON: Advantage: None (comparable records)

Three of Oklahoma's teams in the past decade have won more than 21 basketball games (e.g., 29 wins in 2015-16), and 3 have finished in the top 25. In comparison, five of Houston's basketball teams have won more than 21 games (e.g., 33 wins in 2018-19) and four have finished in the top 25).

.

In summary:

Cincinnati and UCF both won more games per year than Texas did over the past decade.

They also finished in the final AP Top 25 as often as Texas did, and when they were ranked, their rankings were as good or better as Texas FB's rankings were.

Over the past decade, Cincinnati had five 26+ win basketball teams and four that finished in the final top 25; Texas's basketball teams rarely won more than 21 games per season and rarely finished in the top 25.

In addition, Houston has had one more top 25 basketball teams than Oklahoma has had over the past decade.

.

That's one of the keystones to my argument, but there is a lot more to it.

Another important consideration is viewership.


.

III. VIEWERSHIP:

Cincy, Houston, UCF, and BYU viewership data suggest that, when they play week after week after week against P5 teams, their viewership is likely to be similar to those of the other Big 12 schools. All four of the schools joining the Big 12 have had strong viewership, and when they play in the Big 12, the viewership for BYU, Cincy, Houston, and UCF is likely to skyrocket, based on their prior viewership for P5 games.

BUT THE QUESTION ISN'T WHETHER CINCY CAN MATCH TEXAS' VIEWERSHIP OR IF UCF'S VIEWERSHIP CAN MATCH OKLAHOMA'S.

THE QUESTIONS ARE: CAN OKLAHOMA GET MORE VIEWERS THAN CINCY AND HOUSTON COMBINED? AND CAN TEXAS GET MORE VIEWERS THAN UCF AND BYU COMBINED?

THE ANSWER IS THAT WE SIMPLY DON'T KNOW YET, AND THERE'S NO WAY TO KNOW UNTIL THEY START PLAYING INT HE BIG 12.

V: MORE VARIETY: A WIDER SELECTION / A BIGGER MENU / MORE OPTIONS

Oklahoma and Texas only play 24 regular season football games per season.

Cincy, UCF, BYU, and Houston play 48 games. There's simply no comparison. Football viewers who want a wider range of viewing options will get twice as many with Cincy, UCF, BYU, and Houston in the conference.

Thanks for the kind words, Milwaukee.

It basically has little to do with results. It's about resources and influence in the world of big-time college sports. And in that regard — which is truly what "power" is all about — the one-two punch of Oklahoma and Texas is more impressive than the one-two-three-four uppercut of UC, UCF, BYU and UH (though the latter grouping is, collectively, strong).

That conjured up a funny mental image - - a 4-on-2 WWF-style "tag-team" match:

"Can the four newbies knock off the pair of grizzled veterans?"

"Tune in this Sunday on pay-per-view and find out!"

(09-21-2021 07:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 03:29 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 03:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 03:04 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 02:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, but that number changes. E.g., ten years ago there were the six AQ conferences and the ... others. Since 2012 it's been P5 and G5.

However, the reason I think about all those tiers is because previously, there was a hard-and-fast definition of being AQ or P: Does your conference have a contract tie-in with one of the BCS/NY6 bowls, and does your conference get a "P-level" or "AQ-level" share of the BCS/CFP revenues?

But if the expanded 12-team playoff goes through, and I suspect it will in the end, then one of those markers will likely be gone. Because if it is a 6+6 or 5+7 model, there likely will no longer be any NY6 bowls to have tie-ins with, so it will be strictly about the guaranteed share of playoff money.

In that regard, we could see tiers of the kind I mention. If not, then I suspect that the SEC, B1G, PAC and ACC will get a large lion's share amount, and the other six conferences will split a G-level amount. It simply beggars belief to me that e.g. the SEC will agree to give the New Big 12, with vastly inferior brand value, an equal share of that big pot of money

But hey, I've been wrong before.

I have a hard time seeing a A5 Conference not getting a similar share as the Pac 12 and ACC and even after 2025 the Big XII will be a A5 Conference.

IMO, "A5" is not a marker because the B12 gained it while OU and TX were in the fold. Now that they have it, there's no NCAA mechanism to take it away.

But CFP/playoff money is IMO a different animal. That will be based on market value, and the difference between the SEC and B1G and the NB12 is so vast I just don't see them agreeing to anything like an equal split.

The B12 had less value than the SEC previously, but it had two members, TX and OU, who were brand-peers with their elite and had to be treated accordingly. The NB12 just has nothing like that.

We will find out soon enough who is correct...also my argument was NEVER SEC/Big Ten to the upcoming Big XII...It was mostly ACC & Pac 12 to the upcoming Big XII...But all of this is now is just speculation....

I understood your argument. But, and I apologize if I projected this on to you, there seems to be a narrative in the New Big 12 community that makes this kind of linkage:

1) The New Big 12 won't have anything like the brand value of the SEC and B1G, but ...

2) The NB12 will be pretty close in value to the ACC and PAC, there's a value-tether there and ...

3) Since the SEC and B1G are unlikely to try and treat the ACC and PAC differently than they are now, this means that ...

4) The NB12 will in fact get treated like a "Power" conference in the new regime too!

I just don't see that happening. I don't think the SEC and B1G will allow that kind of second-order tethering to result in the NB12 getting a full playoff share.

It's like the music critic Robert Cristgau once said about some 1980s rock stars:

"Maybe I'll let Bruce Springsteen teach me how to hear John Cougar Mellencamp, but damned if I'm going to let John Cougar Mellencamp teach me how to hear Bryan Adams. "

https://www.robertchristgau.com/get_arti...ryan+Adams

That was just a Bridge Too Far for him, and I believe the same will be true of the NB12. Both the PAC and ACC have some peer-brand-elites that the B1G and SEC will acknowledge. I don't think there are any such entities in the NB12 and so that tether will be severed in any big playoff deals.

But we shall see.

BTW, I loved Springsteen, Mellencamp *and* Adams back then, LOL.

This is where we agree and disagree at the same time...I’m not confident that the Pac 12, ACC and Big XII will get the same share as the SEC/Big Ten.

I can see it going to a merit based system-(remember the hinting that the label could go away). The more schools that get into a let say a 12 School Playoff from a Conference a bigger piece of the revenue pie goes to that conference...and if past is prologue the vast majority of the revenue from a 6 to 6 and especially a 5-7 split would go to the SEC/Big Ten.

We will also get a good idea where the Big XII stands is what they will receive officially from their media deals once the Flagships are gone.

(09-21-2021 08:27 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 07:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 03:29 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 03:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 03:04 PM)Maize Wrote:  I have a hard time seeing a A5 Conference not getting a similar share as the Pac 12 and ACC and even after 2025 the Big XII will be a A5 Conference.

IMO, "A5" is not a marker because the B12 gained it while OU and TX were in the fold. Now that they have it, there's no NCAA mechanism to take it away.

But CFP/playoff money is IMO a different animal. That will be based on market value, and the difference between the SEC and B1G and the NB12 is so vast I just don't see them agreeing to anything like an equal split.

The B12 had less value than the SEC previously, but it had two members, TX and OU, who were brand-peers with their elite and had to be treated accordingly. The NB12 just has nothing like that.

We will find out soon enough who is correct...also my argument was NEVER SEC/Big Ten to the upcoming Big XII...It was mostly ACC & Pac 12 to the upcoming Big XII...But all of this is now is just speculation....

I understood your argument. But, and I apologize if I projected this on to you, there seems to be a narrative in the New Big 12 community that makes this kind of linkage:

1) The New Big 12 won't have anything like the brand value of the SEC and B1G, but ...

2) The NB12 will be pretty close in value to the ACC and PAC, there's a value-tether there and ...

3) Since the SEC and B1G are unlikely to try and treat the ACC and PAC differently than they are now, this means that ...

4) The NB12 will in fact get treated like a "Power" conference in the new regime too!

I just don't see that happening. I don't think the SEC and B1G will allow that kind of second-order tethering to result in the NB12 getting a full playoff share.

It's like the music critic Robert Cristgau once said about some 1980s rock stars:

"Maybe I'll let Bruce Springsteen teach me how to hear John Cougar Mellencamp, but damned if I'm going to let John Cougar Mellencamp teach me how to hear Bryan Adams. "

https://www.robertchristgau.com/get_arti...ryan+Adams

That was just a Bridge Too Far for him, and I believe the same will be true of the NB12. Both the PAC and ACC have some peer-brand-elites that the B1G and SEC will acknowledge. I don't think there are any such entities in the NB12 and so that tether will be severed in any big playoff deals.

But we shall see.

BTW, I loved Springsteen, Mellencamp *and* Adams back then, LOL.

This is where we agree and disagree at the same time...I’m not confident that the Pac 12, ACC and Big XII will get the same share as the SEC/Big Ten.

I can see it going to a merit based system-(remember the hinting that the label could go away). The more schools that get into a let say a 12 School Playoff from a Conference a bigger piece of the revenue pie goes to that conference...and if past is prologue the vast majority of the revenue from a 6 to 6 and especially a 5-7 split would go to the SEC/Big Ten.

We will also get a good idea where the Big XII stands is what they will receive officially from their media deals once the Flagships are gone.

FWIW, I do not see a bigger merit-based component to the new playoff system money distribution, at least not much bigger. Even the SEC and B1G must know that there's no guarantee their current dominance of the top-12 will continue, and if it doesn't, then the PAC or ACC would make more money than they do from the playoffs, even though it is their brand-value which is the enduring appeal of high-level college football.

So I suspect that the playoff money will be overwhelmingly guaranteed, as it is now, with just a relatively small amount, maybe 10% to 15%, varying depending on how many teams get in. And no question, the new media deals will provide a lot of information about the relative value of the conferences as well.

It will be interesting to see.

I think this all hinges on how many teams, or more importantly conferences, are included in the new playoff format.

The 4-team format was already starting to make people question whether it was "Power 5" or "Power 4". It's hard to argue that, in a system where the majority of years we'd have 4 teams in from 4 conferences, the format itself isn't driving this idea.

If the proposed 12-team model sticks, with it's 6-best conferences getting in format, I think that the number of conferences currently thought of as "power" grows rather than shrinks.

If teams can start playing their way into the playoffs, then the viewership and money start to shift around. I'm not saying that the Sun Belt will start making more money than the SEC, but any current G5 team that starts getting to those games and winning them is going to grow in value, making them more competitive. First teams get in, then they start getting in regularly, then they start winning a few games, then all of a sudden the AP and CFP committees aren't artificially capping their rankings movement. The g5's that get in regularly will stop automatically falling off the rankings when they are recycled annually to make room for Michigan and UNC to be there for three weeks.

To be clear, I'm not saying that this would happen fast. It would probably be an unreasonably slow process that would take decades. But I'm also saying that the only reason it's not happening now is because those teams are all but barred from playing their way in.