I agree that there will be "tiers" of sorts.

However, there will remain a divide between the five best leagues and the five others.

(09-21-2021 01:15 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 12:43 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 12:18 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 11:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 10:56 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  B-12 is a done deal , a g6
pac and acc are soon to follow bringing the G conferences up to 8

I suspect we will have P2/M2/T2/G4 kind of thing before too long.

It is ridiculous to think that the Pac-12 and ACC are going to be a part of a G8 or a G anything. That is not going to happen. I also don’t buy the multiple tier levels for conferences. Basing tier levels on anticipated TV revenue per school should not be the dividing line. What do tier levels accomplish?

In 2026 under a new playoff setup, I see the power conferences keeping the bulk of the playoff revenue as they do today. Without a marquee football program, it will be difficult to see how the Big 12 stays with the other power conferences, but you never know. A P4/G6 or P5/G5 system is likely. Just keep it simple, expand the playoffs, and give every FBS conference a lot more money.

if the pac-12 loses oregon and usc, then they are a aG7 or whatever you want call it
if the acc loses clemson and florida st then same thing a G8 and just Imagine all these additional leftouts schools Vying for one litttle ny6 spot
So come 2026 the deep state networks will not be who they are today, don’t believe me, just keep your eyes on the senate floor come this Friday, MSM will be held accountable and big college sports money could become scarce for awhile

More candy and nuts than ifs and buts please.

OK, i repeat, watch what happens this friday in the senate, the fuse has already been lit...

(09-21-2021 12:18 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 11:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 10:56 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  B-12 is a done deal , a g6
pac and acc are soon to follow bringing the G conferences up to 8

I suspect we will have P2/M2/T2/G4 kind of thing before too long.

It is ridiculous to think that the Pac-12 and ACC are going to be a part of a G8 or a G anything. That is not going to happen. I also don’t buy the multiple tier levels for conferences. Basing tier levels on anticipated TV revenue per school should not be the dividing line. What do tier levels accomplish?

In 2026 under a new playoff setup, I see the power conferences keeping the bulk of the playoff revenue as they do today. Without a marquee football program, it will be difficult to see how the Big 12 stays with the other power conferences, but you never know. A P4/G6 or P5/G5 system is likely. Just keep it simple, expand the playoffs, and give every FBS conference a lot more money.

I largely agree with this.

If a 12-team playoff is enacted, and I expect it will be, I suppose the P4 will get the lion's share of the revenue, the G5 will get very little, and the L12 might get a "tweener" amount, maybe closer to what the G5 get.

(09-21-2021 11:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 10:56 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  B-12 is a done deal , a g6
pac and acc are soon to follow bringing the G conferences up to 8

I suspect we will have P2/M2/T2/G4 kind of thing before too long.

There have always been "tiers" more than 2 if one was willing to look. Not all conferences are created equal. There are only 2 tier measurements that exist that really matter, though. Either you are in the big boys club, P5 or A5, or you are not(G5).

(09-21-2021 10:56 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  B-12 is a done deal , a g6
pac and acc are soon to follow bringing the G conferences up to 8

If that was an attempt at humor, it missed the bulls eye.

Nothing has changed, and nothing is changing. Follks can call the Big Ten and SEC the "P2" if they want to, but that doesn't make the others "G" conferences.

The Big 12 is going to be stronger, not weaker. They lose two schools. Of those two, only Oklahoma was consistently good in FB & BB.

They add four schools, 3 of which are top 25 quality FB & BB programs.

This may not have sunk in yet, but the PAC-12 dominated the NCAA tournament this year, and the ACC had 2 teams in the CFP this year.

(09-21-2021 02:33 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 10:56 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  B-12 is a done deal , a g6
pac and acc are soon to follow bringing the G conferences up to 8

If that was an attempt at humor, it missed the bulls eye.

Nothing has changed, and nothing is changing. Follks can call the Big Ten and SEC the "P2" if they want to, but that doesn't make the others "G" conferences.

The Big 12 is going to be stronger, not weaker. They lose two schools. Of those two, only Oklahoma was consistently good in FB & BB.

They add four schools, 3 of which are top 25 quality FB & BB programs.

This may not have sunk in yet, but the PAC-12 dominated the NCAA tournament this year,and the ACC had 2 teams in the CFP this year.

1) There is no metric by which anyone can colorably and rationally assert that the Big XII will be stronger with BYU, UCF, Cincy and Houston than it is with Texas and Oklahoma.
2) I’ll grant you that Oregon State and SC had surprising runs to the Elite 8, but the PAC-12 had one Final Four team and UCLA lost to the eventual runner up. I don’t know that that is “dominance” in my book.
3) The two ACC playoff teams is cute but ND doesn’t really count.

(09-21-2021 02:46 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 02:33 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 10:56 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  B-12 is a done deal , a g6
pac and acc are soon to follow bringing the G conferences up to 8

If that was an attempt at humor, it missed the bulls eye.

Nothing has changed, and nothing is changing. Follks can call the Big Ten and SEC the "P2" if they want to, but that doesn't make the others "G" conferences.

The Big 12 is going to be stronger, not weaker. They lose two schools. Of those two, only Oklahoma was consistently good in FB & BB.

They add four schools, 3 of which are top 25 quality FB & BB programs.

This may not have sunk in yet, but the PAC-12 dominated the NCAA tournament this year,and the ACC had 2 teams in the CFP this year.

1) There is no metric by which anyone can colorably and rationally assert that the Big XII will be stronger with BYU, UCF, Cincy and Houston than it is with Texas and Oklahoma.
2) I’ll grant you that Oregon State and SC had surprising runs to the Elite 8, but the PAC-12 had one Final Four team and UCLA lost to the eventual runner up. I don’t know that that is “dominance” in my book.
3) The two ACC playoff teams is cute but ND doesn’t really count.

Yes. The "The Big 12 is going to be stronger, not weaker" line is a head-scratcher. I could not disagree more.

Will the future Big 12 be closer in overall prestige, success, value, positive perception, performance, etc., to the power leagues than the current AAC has been to the P5?

I would think "yes."

As such, I foresee the future Big 12 to be more "power-esque" than "tweener-esque."

(09-21-2021 02:16 PM)YYes Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 11:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 10:56 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  B-12 is a done deal , a g6
pac and acc are soon to follow bringing the G conferences up to 8

I suspect we will have P2/M2/T2/G4 kind of thing before too long.

There have always been "tiers" more than 2 if one was willing to look. Not all conferences are created equal. There are only 2 tier measurements that exist that really matter, though. Either you are in the big boys club, P5 or A5, or you are not(G5).

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.

(09-21-2021 01:17 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 11:44 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 11:37 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 11:31 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  The ACC and PAC make way more money than the G5.

The new BIG XII will make many multiples of what the AAC and MW make.

Those 3 power conferences have nothing in common with the rest of the G5.

Keep trying to spin it any other way.

hey thanks man...

I’m a “ACC” guy ...but I just laugh at those that now try to belittle the Big XII-(with the L12 or whatever moniker now) and the “measuring contest” between conferences. Bottom line is this even with the defections of Texas and Oklahoma most of the media will likely still regard the Big XII in a much better light than the current G5 and it will have a much better TV Contract and Bowl Lineup than anyone in the current G5. It will be more than likely closer to the ACC than the G5 after 2025...JMO....

You're right but you're kidding yourself if KSU-TT is getting a 12pm EST slot on ABC.
That's also the key point - without these future high profile slots, the conference will fall out of the mindset of regular CFB fans. Whereas Oklahoma was always slotted into key time slots on ABC or FOX each week.

But I can see a ranked TCU vs. UCF/WVU at Noon on Fox if not a strong week that week...honestly the Big XII and the Current ACC are very similar....The Big XII has Oklahoma and the ACC has Clemson. But with the additions I can argue that from Top to Bottom currently even without Oklahoma the Big XII has better teams.

(09-21-2021 02:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 02:16 PM)YYes Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 11:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 10:56 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  B-12 is a done deal , a g6
pac and acc are soon to follow bringing the G conferences up to 8

I suspect we will have P2/M2/T2/G4 kind of thing before too long.

There have always been "tiers" more than 2 if one was willing to look. Not all conferences are created equal. There are only 2 tier measurements that exist that really matter, though. Either you are in the big boys club, P5 or A5, or you are not(G5).

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.

(09-21-2021 03:04 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 02:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 02:16 PM)YYes Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 11:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 10:56 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  B-12 is a done deal , a g6
pac and acc are soon to follow bringing the G conferences up to 8

I suspect we will have P2/M2/T2/G4 kind of thing before too long.

There have always been "tiers" more than 2 if one was willing to look. Not all conferences are created equal. There are only 2 tier measurements that exist that really matter, though. Either you are in the big boys club, P5 or A5, or you are not(G5).

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.

(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:  

(09-21-2021 02:16 PM)YYes Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 11:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I suspect we will have P2/M2/T2/G4 kind of thing before too long.

There have always been "tiers" more than 2 if one was willing to look. Not all conferences are created equal. There are only 2 tier measurements that exist that really matter, though. Either you are in the big boys club, P5 or A5, or you are not(G5).

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....

(09-21-2021 02:49 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 02:46 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 02:33 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 10:56 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  B-12 is a done deal , a g6
pac and acc are soon to follow bringing the G conferences up to 8

If that was an attempt at humor, it missed the bulls eye.

Nothing has changed, and nothing is changing. Follks can call the Big Ten and SEC the "P2" if they want to, but that doesn't make the others "G" conferences.

The Big 12 is going to be stronger, not weaker. They lose two schools. Of those two, only Oklahoma was consistently good in FB & BB.

They add four schools, 3 of which are top 25 quality FB & BB programs.

This may not have sunk in yet, but the PAC-12 dominated the NCAA tournament this year,and the ACC had 2 teams in the CFP this year.

1) There is no metric by which anyone can colorably and rationally assert that the Big XII will be stronger with BYU, UCF, Cincy and Houston than it is with Texas and Oklahoma.
2) I’ll grant you that Oregon State and SC had surprising runs to the Elite 8, but the PAC-12 had one Final Four team and UCLA lost to the eventual runner up. I don’t know that that is “dominance” in my book.
3) The two ACC playoff teams is cute but ND doesn’t really count.

Yes. The "The Big 12 is going to be stronger, not weaker" line is a head-scratcher. I could not disagree more.

Texas is a great national brand. Theyve done nothing in either hoops or basketball since 2010. Only one year theyve won more than 10 games in FB.

Theyve been a middle of the pack program in FB. Prestige and money can only take a team so far.

(09-21-2021 04:11 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 02:49 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 02:46 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 02:33 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 10:56 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  B-12 is a done deal , a g6
pac and acc are soon to follow bringing the G conferences up to 8

If that was an attempt at humor, it missed the bulls eye.

Nothing has changed, and nothing is changing. Follks can call the Big Ten and SEC the "P2" if they want to, but that doesn't make the others "G" conferences.

The Big 12 is going to be stronger, not weaker. They lose two schools. Of those two, only Oklahoma was consistently good in FB & BB.

They add four schools, 3 of which are top 25 quality FB & BB programs.

This may not have sunk in yet, but the PAC-12 dominated the NCAA tournament this year,and the ACC had 2 teams in the CFP this year.

1) There is no metric by which anyone can colorably and rationally assert that the Big XII will be stronger with BYU, UCF, Cincy and Houston than it is with Texas and Oklahoma.
2) I’ll grant you that Oregon State and SC had surprising runs to the Elite 8, but the PAC-12 had one Final Four team and UCLA lost to the eventual runner up. I don’t know that that is “dominance” in my book.
3) The two ACC playoff teams is cute but ND doesn’t really count.

Yes. The "The Big 12 is going to be stronger, not weaker" line is a head-scratcher. I could not disagree more.

Texas is a great national brand. Theyve done nothing in either hoops or basketball since 2010. Only one year they've won more than 10 games in FB.

Theyve been a middle of the pack program in FB. Prestige and money can only take a team so far.

The Texas men's hoops program made the Sweet 16 in 2011 and 2014. The 2018 Texas football team won 10 games and the Sugar Bowl. The baseball program (and, yes, for many folks, college baseball is a big deal) has been to the NCAA tourney seven times since 2010.

UT sports have underachieved since 2010, no doubt. But to write "They've done nothing in either hoops or basketball since 2010" is a slight exaggeration. UT football and hoops clearly has been mediocre during that span. And "middle of the pack" is a fair assessment.

(09-21-2021 12:43 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 12:26 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  SEC vs the Field

Agree, and the gap is about to widen significantly.

SEC>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Everyone else combined. In both football and basketball.

And it happened the day OU and UT agreed to join.

(09-21-2021 04:11 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 02:49 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 02:46 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 02:33 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 10:56 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  B-12 is a done deal , a g6
pac and acc are soon to follow bringing the G conferences up to 8

If that was an attempt at humor, it missed the bulls eye.

Nothing has changed, and nothing is changing. Follks can call the Big Ten and SEC the "P2" if they want to, but that doesn't make the others "G" conferences.

The Big 12 is going to be stronger, not weaker. They lose two schools. Of those two, only Oklahoma was consistently good in FB & BB.

They add four schools, 3 of which are top 25 quality FB & BB programs.

This may not have sunk in yet, but the PAC-12 dominated the NCAA tournament this year,and the ACC had 2 teams in the CFP this year.

1) There is no metric by which anyone can colorably and rationally assert that the Big XII will be stronger with BYU, UCF, Cincy and Houston than it is with Texas and Oklahoma.
2) I’ll grant you that Oregon State and SC had surprising runs to the Elite 8, but the PAC-12 had one Final Four team and UCLA lost to the eventual runner up. I don’t know that that is “dominance” in my book.
3) The two ACC playoff teams is cute but ND doesn’t really count.

Yes. The "The Big 12 is going to be stronger, not weaker" line is a head-scratcher. I could not disagree more.

Texas is a great national brand. Theyve done nothing in either hoops or basketball since 2010. Only one year theyve won more than 10 games in FB.

Theyve been a middle of the pack program in FB. Prestige and money can only take a team so far.

Despite that, Texas has the 3rd best conference record in the Big 12 since the last realignment. Oklahoma is 1st and Oklahoma St. is 2nd.

Texas has been about .500 in conference the last 10 years in basketball, but that followed 14 straight years in the NCAA and 22 out of 24. And Texas has still won at least 19 games all but 2 years since 1998.

(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 that


.

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.

(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 that


.

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).

(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:  

(09-21-2021 02:16 PM)YYes Wrote:  There have always been "tiers" more than 2 if one was willing to look. Not all conferences are created equal. There are only 2 tier measurements that exist that really matter, though. Either you are in the big boys club, P5 or A5, or you are not(G5).

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.