(11-26-2021 04:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-26-2021 04:18 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(11-26-2021 04:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-26-2021 03:32 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-26-2021 01:12 PM)clpp01 Wrote:  The P12 would reach down and pull up other UC schools before they would add Baylor, Boise or BYU.

The PAC could easily substitute SMU for Baylor (Baylor could replace Tulane in the SEC) and replace Boise State with San Diego State, but since BYU is already "in" and geography demands that they be placed in the PAC. Like it or not, your stuck with BYU.

The PAC could then become:
Houston, SMU, Texas Tech, TCU, Colorado, Arizona State
Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, Utah, BYU
Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC, San Diego State, Arizona

SEC
Baylor, Arkansas, Oklahoma, OSU, Texas, Texas A&M
LSU, Mizzou, Ole Miss, MSU, Alabama, Vanderbilt
Ky, Tenn, Georgia, little Carolina, Auburn, Florida

ACC
BC, Syracuse, Pitt, West Virginia, Cincinnati, Louisville
UVa, Carolina, Duke, GT, UCF, Miami
VT, NC State, Wake Forest, Clemson, FSU, USF

B1G
Kansas, KSU, Iowa, ISU, Nebraska, Minnesota
Wisconsin, Northwestern, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio State
Notre Dame, Purdue, Michigan State, PSU, Maryland, Rutgers

And yet another wholly impossible scenario in light of financial reality.

My only difference with JR’s is having SMU over Tulane but I could see either. Tulane may very well be the better overall option.

Clearly when you get down to the last 2 in there are legitimate debates to be had. I looked at New Orleans and academics and knew that though in a different conference TCU had DFW covered especially with Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M and Texas Tech already included. New Orleans is covered only by LSU. And since both Tulane and SMU are private I went for Tulane.

That’s fair

(11-26-2021 12:10 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(11-25-2021 03:29 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(11-25-2021 03:19 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(11-25-2021 03:02 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(11-25-2021 01:28 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Penn State arrogantly refuse to play their actual rivals.

Nebraska and Tennessee have been so bad for so long that their rivalries are dead.

Where is VT - Virginia???

same place as Alabama - Tennessee?
(although VT-UVa actually may be returning)

Only Tennessee believes Alabama is their rival. No one in Alabama believes UT is their rival (or at least their biggest rival).

I know plenty of Alabama fans who definitely place Tennessee as a high #2 for rivals.

Opponents for Alabama #games and how much Alabama is ahead in series
Miss. St. 105 games +66
Tennessee 103 games +20 (only because they have won 15 in a row)
Auburn 86 +11
LSU 86 +29
Ole Miss 65 +43

We'll give this one more shot to try to satisfy some suggestions:

So, if I read you correctly:

*There are 72 teams at the P level
*16 teams would make the playoffs
*within the conference playoff structure there would be an opening round (two games, played by the three division champs in each conference plus the highest rated/best record non-champion).
*the winners would then play for the "conference championship"
*the conference champions then advance to the 4 team playoff

Would all other sports championships be handled in the same way?

I think we would have to go more "regional" with less movement.
I appreciate the compliment of wanting Duke and Carolina in the SEC, JR, but I just don't ever see that happening.
ACC adds 5 to get to 18: Cincinnati, West Virginia, UCF, Tulane, Baylor
SEC adds 2 to get to 18: USF and Oklahoma State
B1G adds 4 to get to 18: Notre Dame, Iowa State, Kansas, Pitt
PAC adds 6 to get to 18: Boise State, BYU, Texas Tech, TCU, Kansas State, Houston

ACC
BC, Syracuse, UCF, West Virginia, Cincinnati, Louisville
UVa, Carolina, Duke, GT, Tulane, Baylor
VT, NC State, Wake Forest, Clemson, FSU, Miami

SEC
Mizzou, Arkansas, Oklahoma, OSU, Texas, A&M
LSU, Ole Miss, MSU, Alabama, Vanderbilt, Tennessee
USF, Georgia, South Carolina, Auburn, Florida, Kentucky

B1G
Kansas, Iowa, ISU, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Northwestern, Michigan, Illinois, Purdue, Pitt, Notre Dame
Michigan State, PSU, Maryland, Rutgers, Ohio State, Indiana

PAC
Houston, Texas Tech, TCU, Colorado, BYU, Kansas State
Utah, Boise State, Washington, WSU, Oregon, OSU
Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Arizona, Arizona State


Or, if the B1G would stoop to take a non AAU school (and Ohio State would agree to some competition)

ACC
BC, Syracuse, UCF, West Virginia, Cincinnati, Louisville
UVa, Carolina, Duke, GT, Tulane, Baylor
VT, NC State, Wake Forest, Clemson, FSU, Miami

B1G
Rutgers, Maryland, Penn State, Cincinnati, Ohio State, Indiana
Michigan, Michigan State, Notre Dame, Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Iowa State, Nebraska, Kansas

SEC
Mizzou, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M
LSU, Ole Miss, MSU, Alabama, Vanderbilt, Tennessee
USF, Georgia, South Carolina, Auburn, Florida, Kentucky

PAC
Washington, Washington State, Oregon Oregon State, BYU, Utah
Colorado, Kansas State, Texas Tech, TCU, Houston, Arizona State
Arizona, San Diego State, UCLA, Southern Cal, California, Stanford

(11-23-2021 08:00 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-22-2021 03:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-22-2021 03:47 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-21-2021 01:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-21-2021 11:39 AM)XLance Wrote:  We now have 69 P teams divided into 5 conferences.
Since Jan. 12, 1969 (the first "Super Bowl" when the Jets defeated the Colts, now know as super bowl 3) the sports world in the US has been enthralled with playoffs.
College football, which is late to the party, is the last major sporting event that has shunned the playoff fever that has swept professional sports.
The networks have discovered the potential and have laid the groundwork while the schools themselves have fought tooth and nail to keep things from happening. Until now, when money has become the motivator.
The trick will be to divide those 69 schools into 4 or 5 units that will provide the feeders into some sort of playoff structure such that all of the P units can profit from a collegiate football tournament..
Now that we have identified all of the players, the division into entities can now be finalized once the playoff structure can be agreed on.

No matter what you call the trigger to cause those final decisions, they will be made, and soon.
It is said that there are two steps between honesty and dishonesty and they are opportunity and need. The same can be applied to the "integrity" of college sports. Like it or not, the collegiate sports world finds itself with massive need for a multitude of reasons and an opportunity to sell it soul.
Somebody, somewhere in a "smoke filled room" will look at those 69 schools and devise a way to divide them into 4 or 5 units, such that the schools and the networks will be able to profit and college football will survive.
How long will it be before the Gladiators return to the arena?

Well X, they will either add 3 more, or cull 4, and divide by 4, if they want the structure to produce the participants. If they want to keep a finger, a tainted one, in the process we will divide by 3 which means an at large must be selected. This would mean 3 conferences of 24 as opposed to 4 conferences of 18. I would think it easier and a bit more politically savvy to add 3. Service Academies? San Diego State, Fresno State and Boise State? Others? You could push this out to 80 and segregate by earnings and value. I think 20 still works for a natural rotation within a 3 year conference span. 24 means you only play within conference and I don't see networks going for that.

So for win / loss balance, segregating by value and making each competitive in football and basketball and allowing for outside of conference games means a 4 x 20 or 4 x 18 are more likely and a 3 x 18, or 3 x 20, or 3 x 24 either too exclusive or too unwieldy to be as likely.

And we don't know, and won't know, which if any of the current 65 step down until it happens, and having a few do so is still probable. So, we'll see.

With gambling involvement becoming more prevalent as the unseen booth officials increase the number of inexplicable and ambiguous rulings, I expect the finger in the selection process to disappear in order to try to keep the public believing in some semblance of fairness. Every now and then I wish P.T. Barnum was wrong!

I'm thinking 4 X 18 would work best JR, and even then the mix is a little diluted.
My short list for the three adds includes:

Boise State
USF
SMU
Temple
Memphis
Tulane
I like the service academies, would the government?
Do the west coast teams you mentioned have the valuation to fit in?

San Diego State, probably. Tulane is the best academically and a nice bridge to Texas for USF. But who is added depends on how you align each of the conferences.

Well, I'll give it a quick run through.
PAC needs: CTZ, football audience
SEC needs: basketball power, continued access to population
B1G needs: ego stroked, AAU schools
ACC needs: a little of everything

(using San Diego State, Tulane, USF)

PAC
Cal, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State, Utah
Stanford, UCLA, USC, San Diego State, Arizona, Arizona State
BYU, Colorado, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, TCU

SEC
Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, LSU
USF, Florida, Auburn, Georgia, South Carolina, Kentucky
Louisville, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Alabama, Ole Miss, Mississippi State

B1G
Rutgers, Maryland, Penn State, Pitt, Ohio State, Indiana
Michigan, Michigan State, Notre Dame, Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Iowa State, Nebraska, Kansas

ACC
Boston College, Syracuse, Wake Forest, NC State, Clemson, Florida State
UCF, Virginia Tech, UVa, Carolina, Duke, Georgia Tech
Miami, Tulane, Houston, Baylor, Cincinnati, West Virginia



More logically we would break things down into 18, 18, 18, 15 and not have to elevate any other G level schools

PAC
Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, TCU, BYU
Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, Cal, Stanford
Utah, Colorado, Arizona, Arizona State, UCLA, USC

SEC
Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, LSU
UCF, Florida, Auburn, Georgia, South Carolina, Kentucky
Louisville, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Alabama, Ole Miss, Mississippi State

B1G
Rutgers, Maryland, Penn State, Pitt, Indiana
Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, Northwestern
Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin

ACC
UVa, Carolina, Duke, Georgia Tech, Baylor, Houston
Boston College, Syracuse, Notre Dame, Cincinnati, Louisville, Miami
Wake Forest, NC State, Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

In your 18, 18, 15, 18 you appear to have dropped out Kansas but have added UCF and have kept Wake and BC, to name 3 with lesser brand value.

(12-27-2021 09:34 PM)EdwordL Wrote:  

(11-23-2021 08:00 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-22-2021 03:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-22-2021 03:47 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-21-2021 01:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well X, they will either add 3 more, or cull 4, and divide by 4, if they want the structure to produce the participants. If they want to keep a finger, a tainted one, in the process we will divide by 3 which means an at large must be selected. This would mean 3 conferences of 24 as opposed to 4 conferences of 18. I would think it easier and a bit more politically savvy to add 3. Service Academies? San Diego State, Fresno State and Boise State? Others? You could push this out to 80 and segregate by earnings and value. I think 20 still works for a natural rotation within a 3 year conference span. 24 means you only play within conference and I don't see networks going for that.

So for win / loss balance, segregating by value and making each competitive in football and basketball and allowing for outside of conference games means a 4 x 20 or 4 x 18 are more likely and a 3 x 18, or 3 x 20, or 3 x 24 either too exclusive or too unwieldy to be as likely.

And we don't know, and won't know, which if any of the current 65 step down until it happens, and having a few do so is still probable. So, we'll see.

With gambling involvement becoming more prevalent as the unseen booth officials increase the number of inexplicable and ambiguous rulings, I expect the finger in the selection process to disappear in order to try to keep the public believing in some semblance of fairness. Every now and then I wish P.T. Barnum was wrong!

I'm thinking 4 X 18 would work best JR, and even then the mix is a little diluted.
My short list for the three adds includes:

Boise State
USF
SMU
Temple
Memphis
Tulane
I like the service academies, would the government?
Do the west coast teams you mentioned have the valuation to fit in?

San Diego State, probably. Tulane is the best academically and a nice bridge to Texas for USF. But who is added depends on how you align each of the conferences.

Well, I'll give it a quick run through.
PAC needs: CTZ, football audience
SEC needs: basketball power, continued access to population
B1G needs: ego stroked, AAU schools
ACC needs: a little of everything

(using San Diego State, Tulane, USF)

PAC
Cal, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State, Utah
Stanford, UCLA, USC, San Diego State, Arizona, Arizona State
BYU, Colorado, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, TCU

SEC
Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, LSU
USF, Florida, Auburn, Georgia, South Carolina, Kentucky
Louisville, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Alabama, Ole Miss, Mississippi State

B1G
Rutgers, Maryland, Penn State, Pitt, Ohio State, Indiana
Michigan, Michigan State, Notre Dame, Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Iowa State, Nebraska, Kansas

ACC
Boston College, Syracuse, Wake Forest, NC State, Clemson, Florida State
UCF, Virginia Tech, UVa, Carolina, Duke, Georgia Tech
Miami, Tulane, Houston, Baylor, Cincinnati, West Virginia



More logically we would break things down into 18, 18, 18, 15 and not have to elevate any other G level schools

PAC
Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, TCU, BYU
Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, Cal, Stanford
Utah, Colorado, Arizona, Arizona State, UCLA, USC

SEC
Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, LSU
UCF, Florida, Auburn, Georgia, South Carolina, Kentucky
Louisville, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Alabama, Ole Miss, Mississippi State

B1G
Rutgers, Maryland, Penn State, Pitt, Indiana
Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, Northwestern
Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin

ACC
UVa, Carolina, Duke, Georgia Tech, Baylor, Houston
Boston College, Syracuse, Notre Dame, Cincinnati, Louisville, Miami
Wake Forest, NC State, Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

In your 18, 18, 15, 18 you appear to have dropped out Kansas but have added UCF and have kept Wake and BC, to name 3 with lesser brand value.

And Louisville gets to play in both the ACC and SEC.

Thanks IHAVETRIED.

I'll attempt it again:
PAC
Iowa State, Kansas State, Kansas, Texas Tech, Houston, BYU
Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, Cal, Stanford
Utah, Colorado, Arizona, Arizona State, UCLA, USC

SEC
Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma State
UCF, Florida, Auburn, Georgia, South Carolina, Kentucky
Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Alabama, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, LSU

B1G
Rutgers, Maryland, Penn State, Pitt, Indiana
Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, Northwestern
Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin

ACC
UVa, Carolina, Duke, Georgia Tech, Baylor, TCU
Boston College, Syracuse, Notre Dame, Cincinnati, Louisville, Miami
Wake Forest, NC State, Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

I honestly think the question we should be asking is will there be 1 super conference or 2?

The SEC already has 12 of the top 25 valued programs. The Big 10 has 7, then there’s ND, 2 in the ACC, and 3 in the PAC 12.

There’s simply not enough big time programs to stock 3 conferences, let alone 4. So the models you’re looking at are either:

The SEC gobbles up everyone
or
The SEC and Big 10 each form the nucleus of a super league.

(12-28-2021 01:49 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I honestly think the question we should be asking is will there be 1 super conference or 2?

The SEC already has 12 of the top 25 valued programs. The Big 10 has 7, then there’s ND, 2 in the ACC, and 3 in the PAC 12.

There’s simply not enough big time programs to stock 3 conferences, let alone 4. So the models you’re looking at are either:

The SEC gobbles up everyone
or
The SEC and Big 10 each form the nucleus of a super league.

I have often thought the networks would push for a “one league” of say 80 schools separated by geographic divisions. This way they could negotiate one large media deal. This would end schools within the single league from conference hopping.

Of course, the elite schools 10-20 schools would never agree to this unless there was some sort of unequal revenue distribution to them.

(12-28-2021 03:46 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(12-28-2021 01:49 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I honestly think the question we should be asking is will there be 1 super conference or 2?

The SEC already has 12 of the top 25 valued programs. The Big 10 has 7, then there’s ND, 2 in the ACC, and 3 in the PAC 12.

There’s simply not enough big time programs to stock 3 conferences, let alone 4. So the models you’re looking at are either:

The SEC gobbles up everyone
or
The SEC and Big 10 each form the nucleus of a super league.

I have often thought the networks would push for a “one league” of say 80 schools separated by geographic divisions. This way they could negotiate one large media deal. This would end schools within the single league from conference hopping.

Of course, the elite schools 10-20 schools would never agree to this unless there was some sort of unequal revenue distribution to them.

With regards to desires of elite brands…they may not agree to equal media distribution when the group is 80 schools, but a 50+/- team grouping could make financial sense.

(12-28-2021 05:51 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(12-28-2021 03:46 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(12-28-2021 01:49 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I honestly think the question we should be asking is will there be 1 super conference or 2?

The SEC already has 12 of the top 25 valued programs. The Big 10 has 7, then there’s ND, 2 in the ACC, and 3 in the PAC 12.

There’s simply not enough big time programs to stock 3 conferences, let alone 4. So the models you’re looking at are either:

The SEC gobbles up everyone
or
The SEC and Big 10 each form the nucleus of a super league.

I have often thought the networks would push for a “one league” of say 80 schools separated by geographic divisions. This way they could negotiate one large media deal. This would end schools within the single league from conference hopping.

Of course, the elite schools 10-20 schools would never agree to this unless there was some sort of unequal revenue distribution to them.

With regards to desires of elite brands…they may not agree to equal media distribution when the group is 80 schools, but a 50+/- team grouping could make financial sense.

All you need to do to get the top brands on board is to have a collective media deal that pay's them more than they are currently making under their current conference media deals. So would 60 million dollar per year for 72 teams work?? That is 4.3 billion per year for and 43 billion on a ten year media contract... This is less than half of the 110billion that the NFL is under contract for and last time I checked College football is the second most popular sport in America. These are rough numbers and might not be completely accurate but they get you thinking about what it could look like.

(12-28-2021 08:04 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(12-28-2021 05:51 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(12-28-2021 03:46 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(12-28-2021 01:49 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I honestly think the question we should be asking is will there be 1 super conference or 2?

The SEC already has 12 of the top 25 valued programs. The Big 10 has 7, then there’s ND, 2 in the ACC, and 3 in the PAC 12.

There’s simply not enough big time programs to stock 3 conferences, let alone 4. So the models you’re looking at are either:

The SEC gobbles up everyone
or
The SEC and Big 10 each form the nucleus of a super league.

I have often thought the networks would push for a “one league” of say 80 schools separated by geographic divisions. This way they could negotiate one large media deal. This would end schools within the single league from conference hopping.

Of course, the elite schools 10-20 schools would never agree to this unless there was some sort of unequal revenue distribution to them.

With regards to desires of elite brands…they may not agree to equal media distribution when the group is 80 schools, but a 50+/- team grouping could make financial sense.

All you need to do to get the top brands on board is to have a collective media deal that pay's them more than they are currently making under their current conference media deals. So would 60 million dollar per year for 72 teams work?? That is 4.3 billion per year for and 43 billion on a ten year media contract... This is less than half of the 110billion that the NFL is under contract for and last time I checked College football is the second most popular sport in America. These are rough numbers and might not be completely accurate but they get you thinking about what it could look like.

Nope. By 2025 SEC schools will be earning ~76.5 million per school.

This is why I see 3 distinct conferences. The B1G will cling like a tick to the academic distinction (and I get that). The SEC won't take less to include more. And not everyone will be able to adjust to the overhead, so some will play a year or two and drop out. So schools the networks don't want to pay 76.5 million will be grouped in a conference with relative pay to what networks will pay.

I think this will last maybe a decade and surviving schools will be absorbed with the B1G and SEC into a league where the pay will equal out.

I'm not sure we wind up with salary caps though. It will remain to be seen if the SCOTUS chooses to act on it.

Anyway I don't believe we breakaway as one cohesive unit. Like the AFC and NFC it will take time to coalesce.

(12-28-2021 08:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-28-2021 08:04 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(12-28-2021 05:51 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(12-28-2021 03:46 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(12-28-2021 01:49 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I honestly think the question we should be asking is will there be 1 super conference or 2?

The SEC already has 12 of the top 25 valued programs. The Big 10 has 7, then there’s ND, 2 in the ACC, and 3 in the PAC 12.

There’s simply not enough big time programs to stock 3 conferences, let alone 4. So the models you’re looking at are either:

The SEC gobbles up everyone
or
The SEC and Big 10 each form the nucleus of a super league.

I have often thought the networks would push for a “one league” of say 80 schools separated by geographic divisions. This way they could negotiate one large media deal. This would end schools within the single league from conference hopping.

Of course, the elite schools 10-20 schools would never agree to this unless there was some sort of unequal revenue distribution to them.

With regards to desires of elite brands…they may not agree to equal media distribution when the group is 80 schools, but a 50+/- team grouping could make financial sense.

All you need to do to get the top brands on board is to have a collective media deal that pay's them more than they are currently making under their current conference media deals. So would 60 million dollar per year for 72 teams work?? That is 4.3 billion per year for and 43 billion on a ten year media contract... This is less than half of the 110billion that the NFL is under contract for and last time I checked College football is the second most popular sport in America. These are rough numbers and might not be completely accurate but they get you thinking about what it could look like.

Nope. By 2025 SEC schools will be earning ~76.5 million per school.

This is why I see 3 distinct conferences. The B1G will cling like a tick to the academic distinction (and I get that). The SEC won't take less to include more. And not everyone will be able to adjust to the overhead, so some will play a year or two and drop out. So schools the networks don't want to pay 76.5 million will be grouped in a conference with relative pay to what networks will pay.

I think this will last maybe a decade and surviving schools will be absorbed with the B1G and SEC into a league where the pay will equal out.

I'm not sure we wind up with salary caps though. It will remain to be seen if the SCOTUS chooses to act on it.

Anyway I don't believe we breakaway as one cohesive unit. Like the AFC and NFC it will take time to coalesce.

College football is more popular than it has ever been and there are more schools at the FBS level then there has ever been. In my opinion these two facts are not mutually exclusive, I believe they are tied together. Obviously there are numerous other reasons but 130+ schools at this level adds eyeballs.

What you are suggesting is there will be no drop in viewership when you cut out 60%+ of the schools that have helped make this the 2nd most watched sports league. I don't buy it. I'm not suggesting that a 130 team pay to play league is the answer, but I think I don't think a 30-40 team select league will have the desired outcome you expect.

I may be wrong and if I am hopefully I'm still around to come back and own my mistake, but IMO a breakaway will consist of between 60-80 schools.

I guess we'll see...

(12-28-2021 09:51 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(12-28-2021 08:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-28-2021 08:04 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(12-28-2021 05:51 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(12-28-2021 03:46 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  I have often thought the networks would push for a “one league” of say 80 schools separated by geographic divisions. This way they could negotiate one large media deal. This would end schools within the single league from conference hopping.

Of course, the elite schools 10-20 schools would never agree to this unless there was some sort of unequal revenue distribution to them.

With regards to desires of elite brands…they may not agree to equal media distribution when the group is 80 schools, but a 50+/- team grouping could make financial sense.

All you need to do to get the top brands on board is to have a collective media deal that pay's them more than they are currently making under their current conference media deals. So would 60 million dollar per year for 72 teams work?? That is 4.3 billion per year for and 43 billion on a ten year media contract... This is less than half of the 110billion that the NFL is under contract for and last time I checked College football is the second most popular sport in America. These are rough numbers and might not be completely accurate but they get you thinking about what it could look like.

Nope. By 2025 SEC schools will be earning ~76.5 million per school.

This is why I see 3 distinct conferences. The B1G will cling like a tick to the academic distinction (and I get that). The SEC won't take less to include more. And not everyone will be able to adjust to the overhead, so some will play a year or two and drop out. So schools the networks don't want to pay 76.5 million will be grouped in a conference with relative pay to what networks will pay.

I think this will last maybe a decade and surviving schools will be absorbed with the B1G and SEC into a league where the pay will equal out.

I'm not sure we wind up with salary caps though. It will remain to be seen if the SCOTUS chooses to act on it.

Anyway I don't believe we breakaway as one cohesive unit. Like the AFC and NFC it will take time to coalesce.

College football is more popular than it has ever been and there are more schools at the FBS level then there has ever been. In my opinion these two facts are not mutually exclusive, I believe they are tied together. Obviously there are numerous other reasons but 130+ schools at this level adds eyeballs.

What you are suggesting is there will be no drop in viewership when you cut out 60%+ of the schools that have helped make this the 2nd most watched sports league. I don't buy it. I'm not suggesting that a 130 team pay to play league is the answer, but I think I don't think a 30-40 team select league will have the desired outcome you expect.

I may be wrong and if I am hopefully I'm still around to come back and own my mistake, but IMO a breakaway will consist of between 60-80 schools.

I guess we'll see...

You make the same erroneous judgment of me that most posters here make.

I'm telling you what the powers making these decisions are doing and why.

That doesn't mean I approve of any of it! If you could find my first post here, you would know it. I tell people the truth, as best I understand it, and they in return play shoot the messenger and offer denial, or ridicule, or anger in return. I want people to see just how much of their lives the corporatists are fouling up. Yet time and time again they defend the corporations and hate those who tell them the truth. As a sociologist I am both fascinated and appalled by how impotent a majority can be and how scared they are to stand up for what they claim to love.

Once again JR fully clears his doctoral committee.

So many people do not want to see money and greed as the driver behind many things.

I remember a Methodist minister after listening to an evangelical drone on and on about being "called" by the local first Baptist church. After 10 minutes the Methodist said "Bob I don't know about you but I was called by the Bishop and told that my four years in my last town were up and that I was moving here"

(12-28-2021 11:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-28-2021 09:51 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(12-28-2021 08:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-28-2021 08:04 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(12-28-2021 05:51 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  With regards to desires of elite brands…they may not agree to equal media distribution when the group is 80 schools, but a 50+/- team grouping could make financial sense.

All you need to do to get the top brands on board is to have a collective media deal that pay's them more than they are currently making under their current conference media deals. So would 60 million dollar per year for 72 teams work?? That is 4.3 billion per year for and 43 billion on a ten year media contract... This is less than half of the 110billion that the NFL is under contract for and last time I checked College football is the second most popular sport in America. These are rough numbers and might not be completely accurate but they get you thinking about what it could look like.

Nope. By 2025 SEC schools will be earning ~76.5 million per school.

This is why I see 3 distinct conferences. The B1G will cling like a tick to the academic distinction (and I get that). The SEC won't take less to include more. And not everyone will be able to adjust to the overhead, so some will play a year or two and drop out. So schools the networks don't want to pay 76.5 million will be grouped in a conference with relative pay to what networks will pay.

I think this will last maybe a decade and surviving schools will be absorbed with the B1G and SEC into a league where the pay will equal out.

I'm not sure we wind up with salary caps though. It will remain to be seen if the SCOTUS chooses to act on it.

Anyway I don't believe we breakaway as one cohesive unit. Like the AFC and NFC it will take time to coalesce.

College football is more popular than it has ever been and there are more schools at the FBS level then there has ever been. In my opinion these two facts are not mutually exclusive, I believe they are tied together. Obviously there are numerous other reasons but 130+ schools at this level adds eyeballs.

What you are suggesting is there will be no drop in viewership when you cut out 60%+ of the schools that have helped make this the 2nd most watched sports league. I don't buy it. I'm not suggesting that a 130 team pay to play league is the answer, but I think I don't think a 30-40 team select league will have the desired outcome you expect.

I may be wrong and if I am hopefully I'm still around to come back and own my mistake, but IMO a breakaway will consist of between 60-80 schools.

I guess we'll see...

You make the same erroneous judgment of me that most posters here make.

I'm telling you what the powers making these decisions are doing and why.

That doesn't mean I approve of any of it! If you could find my first post here, you would know it. I tell people the truth, as best I understand it, and they in return play shoot the messenger and offer denial, or ridicule, or anger in return. I want people to see just how much of their lives the corporatists are fouling up. Yet time and time again they defend the corporations and hate those who tell them the truth. As a sociologist I am both fascinated and appalled by how impotent a majority can be and how scared they are to stand up for what they claim to love.

I'm not sure what erroneous judgment I have made, I'm certainly not shooting the messenger, I'm also not denying that there could be a breakaway and I'm definitely not angry at you or anyone else here. Above all nothing in my statement should be interpreted as support or defense of the corporations. In fact quite the contrary, what I'm saying is if the corporate oligarchy in fact does what you're saying, it will fail. It will fail because they don't understand what truly drives graduates and tee shirt wearing fans to follow sports like college football and basketball.

No, I don't know what drives each individual person to love these sports but in my opinion cutting 70% of your current schools out of the system and expecting there not to be backlash and loss of viewership seems almost laughable. But hey maybe I'm the dumb one, it's obvious by your post that you think so. Happy holidays.

(12-28-2021 11:35 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(12-28-2021 11:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-28-2021 09:51 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(12-28-2021 08:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-28-2021 08:04 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  All you need to do to get the top brands on board is to have a collective media deal that pay's them more than they are currently making under their current conference media deals. So would 60 million dollar per year for 72 teams work?? That is 4.3 billion per year for and 43 billion on a ten year media contract... This is less than half of the 110billion that the NFL is under contract for and last time I checked College football is the second most popular sport in America. These are rough numbers and might not be completely accurate but they get you thinking about what it could look like.

Nope. By 2025 SEC schools will be earning ~76.5 million per school.

This is why I see 3 distinct conferences. The B1G will cling like a tick to the academic distinction (and I get that). The SEC won't take less to include more. And not everyone will be able to adjust to the overhead, so some will play a year or two and drop out. So schools the networks don't want to pay 76.5 million will be grouped in a conference with relative pay to what networks will pay.

I think this will last maybe a decade and surviving schools will be absorbed with the B1G and SEC into a league where the pay will equal out.

I'm not sure we wind up with salary caps though. It will remain to be seen if the SCOTUS chooses to act on it.

Anyway I don't believe we breakaway as one cohesive unit. Like the AFC and NFC it will take time to coalesce.

College football is more popular than it has ever been and there are more schools at the FBS level then there has ever been. In my opinion these two facts are not mutually exclusive, I believe they are tied together. Obviously there are numerous other reasons but 130+ schools at this level adds eyeballs.

What you are suggesting is there will be no drop in viewership when you cut out 60%+ of the schools that have helped make this the 2nd most watched sports league. I don't buy it. I'm not suggesting that a 130 team pay to play league is the answer, but I think I don't think a 30-40 team select league will have the desired outcome you expect.

I may be wrong and if I am hopefully I'm still around to come back and own my mistake, but IMO a breakaway will consist of between 60-80 schools.

I guess we'll see...

You make the same erroneous judgment of me that most posters here make.

I'm telling you what the powers making these decisions are doing and why.

That doesn't mean I approve of any of it! If you could find my first post here, you would know it. I tell people the truth, as best I understand it, and they in return play shoot the messenger and offer denial, or ridicule, or anger in return. I want people to see just how much of their lives the corporatists are fouling up. Yet time and time again they defend the corporations and hate those who tell them the truth. As a sociologist I am both fascinated and appalled by how impotent a majority can be and how scared they are to stand up for what they claim to love.

I'm not sure what erroneous judgment I have made, I'm certainly not shooting the messenger, I'm also not denying that there could be a breakaway and I'm definitely not angry at you or anyone else here. Above all nothing in my statement should be interpreted as support or defense of the corporations. In fact quite the contrary, what I'm saying is if the corporate oligarchy in fact does what you're saying, it will fail. It will fail because they don't understand what truly drives graduates and tee shirt wearing fans to follow sports like college football and basketball.

No, I don't know what drives each individual person to love these sports but in my opinion cutting 70% of your current schools out of the system and expecting there not to be backlash and loss of viewership seems almost laughable. But hey maybe I'm the dumb one, it's obvious by your post that you think so. Happy holidays.

I bolded and addressed the attribution of the erroneous judgment. That said I addressed a larger audience and apologize if you thought I was singling you out as that was not my objective. The fact remains however that fans have had 30 years to react to the hostile corporate takeover of a sleepy, disorganized, but oh so loved, American institution complete with the removal of school traditions to facilitate IMG, and inclusive of corporate signage everywhere, especially on bowl names.

And what have the adoring and roused fans done to stop it while they look at the Big Screen in their stadia, or catch all of the commercials at home? Nada!

You said we weren't so far apart in our views, and that is true. But your argument largely resides in "the masses won't approve, and it will fail." I agree that they and you believe this. Corporations don't believe it. And why should they? They've been screwing with the whole country for longer than the 30 years they've tortured college football. And in that time, they've lobbied private business about out of existence, shipped our jobs to places that use slave labor, permitted adversaries to steal our patents, corrupted research in our schools via corporate grants, and sold all of our birthrights and history for a quarterly bowl of lintels. And what amid that consummate chaos have we the ticked off people done? Nada!

So, their nefarious plans will be carried out because they see only an upside in it. Less overhead, only schools with national draw, solid ad rates, and it's all theirs because we sold them the rights.

The issue here is that I too see what you see but acknowledge heretofore the demonstrated impotence of the nation's people to prevent it. So doomed or not it's coming.

(12-28-2021 11:14 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Once again JR fully clears his doctoral committee.

So many people do not want to see money and greed as the driver behind many things.

I remember a Methodist minister after listening to an evangelical drone on and on about being "called" by the local first Baptist church. After 10 minutes the Methodist said "Bob I don't know about you but I was called by the Bishop and told that my four years in my last town were up and that I was moving here"

The pertinent question is the same for ministers as coaches. How many move for less money? And those which do move for less, what are they being punished for? It seems in either case the call of God has little to do with their motives. I have met the truly called and they are rare. They work for the satisfaction of helping others. Sadly, most of these have little to do with organized religion and would not be confined by a building.

For the longest time, we all thought the last train could only carry 64.
Texas and Oklahoma broke the log jam, but interestingly the Big 12 has refused to die and the passenger list has expanded to 69 (which is not a workable number).

Looking at my paper this morning, all the standings are laid out on the sports page.
NFL=two conferences w/four divisions each
NBA=two conferences w/three divisions each
NHL=two conferences w/two divisions each

in the spring we'll see baseball
MLB=two leagues w/three divisions each

So what about college football will be different? NOTHING.
At this point we need to how many will the train carry? I would imagine at this point that number will either be 70 or 72.
There will be two leagues, divided into two, three or 4 regional conferences.
And yes there will be some teams in a superior setting that will "move down" like the Pittsburgh Steelers, Baltimore Colts or the Cleveland Browns did, or more recently the Houston Astros did for balance.

What has gotten us to this point, where everything could be restructured? MONEY.
What will be the impetus to move forward? Even more money. Playoffs generate more money for everybody. much more than the regular season can.

So the real questions are:
who gets the last ticket(s)?
which format will be followed?
how do they sub-divide?

All Aboard!

(12-29-2021 06:25 AM)XLance Wrote:  For the longest time, we all thought the last train could only carry 64.
Texas and Oklahoma broke the log jam, but interestingly the Big 12 has refused to die and the passenger list has expanded to 69 (which is not a workable number).

Looking at my paper this morning, all the standings are laid out on the sports page.
NFL=two conferences w/four divisions each
NBA=two conferences w/three divisions each
NHL=two conferences w/two divisions each

in the spring we'll see baseball
MLB=two leagues w/three divisions each

So what about college football will be different? NOTHING.
At this point we need to how many will the train carry? I would imagine at this point that number will either be 70 or 72.
There will be two leagues, divided into two, three or 4 regional conferences.
And yes there will be some teams in a superior setting that will "move down" like the Pittsburgh Steelers, Baltimore Colts or the Cleveland Browns did, or more recently the Houston Astros did for balance.

What has gotten us to this point, where everything could be restructured? MONEY.
What will be the impetus to move forward? Even more money. Playoffs generate more money for everybody. much more than the regular season can.

So the real questions are:
who gets the last ticket(s)?
which format will be followed?
how do they sub-divide?

All Aboard!

Yep, I once had the OCD bug for an equitable 64 team breakaway. If UT and OU would have moved to the PAC, then this model could have materialized.

UT and OU moving to the SEC changes the calculus. The pecking-order of power conferences will be much more hierarchical…from B1G & SEC > ACC & B12 & PAC, to SEC > B1G > ACC & PAC > B12. The SEC now doesn’t have to compromise as much when creating a new model. That’s why the Alliance was formed. NIL and pay-for-play should weed-out some of the A5 schools. Then a 40-50 team collegiate breakaway makes more sense.

(12-28-2021 08:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-28-2021 08:04 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(12-28-2021 05:51 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(12-28-2021 03:46 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(12-28-2021 01:49 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I honestly think the question we should be asking is will there be 1 super conference or 2?

The SEC already has 12 of the top 25 valued programs. The Big 10 has 7, then there’s ND, 2 in the ACC, and 3 in the PAC 12.

There’s simply not enough big time programs to stock 3 conferences, let alone 4. So the models you’re looking at are either:

The SEC gobbles up everyone
or
The SEC and Big 10 each form the nucleus of a super league.

I have often thought the networks would push for a “one league” of say 80 schools separated by geographic divisions. This way they could negotiate one large media deal. This would end schools within the single league from conference hopping.

Of course, the elite schools 10-20 schools would never agree to this unless there was some sort of unequal revenue distribution to them.

With regards to desires of elite brands…they may not agree to equal media distribution when the group is 80 schools, but a 50+/- team grouping could make financial sense.

All you need to do to get the top brands on board is to have a collective media deal that pay's them more than they are currently making under their current conference media deals. So would 60 million dollar per year for 72 teams work?? That is 4.3 billion per year for and 43 billion on a ten year media contract... This is less than half of the 110billion that the NFL is under contract for and last time I checked College football is the second most popular sport in America. These are rough numbers and might not be completely accurate but they get you thinking about what it could look like.

Nope. By 2025 SEC schools will be earning ~76.5 million per school.

This is why I see 3 distinct conferences. The B1G will cling like a tick to the academic distinction (and I get that). The SEC won't take less to include more. And not everyone will be able to adjust to the overhead, so some will play a year or two and drop out. So schools the networks don't want to pay 76.5 million will be grouped in a conference with relative pay to what networks will pay.

I think this will last maybe a decade and surviving schools will be absorbed with the B1G and SEC into a league where the pay will equal out.

I'm not sure we wind up with salary caps though. It will remain to be seen if the SCOTUS chooses to act on it.

Anyway I don't believe we breakaway as one cohesive unit. Like the AFC and NFC it will take time to coalesce.

I follow your logic but I don’t get why schools which don’t get invited to the SEC or the BIG would be grouped in one leftover conference. Can there be two (or more) leftover conferences like the ACC or the Pac?