(05-16-2022 05:20 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-15-2022 10:22 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(05-15-2022 07:31 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-15-2022 06:50 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(05-15-2022 06:25 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  Larry Scott would make a lot of people look good imo.


Getting everyone aligned that there is a existential problem would give them a chance, but the inherent issues remain. Low fan interest in combination with location means the Pac12 MUST become less Pac.

I do think they benefited from getting someone that isn't a career president or AD. Unlike the Big 12, the Pac12 SHOULD have unity if they can remain halfway close to P2.

I just don't know what network will want to go long on a conference with declining demographics and performance.

I think their primary chance is to borrow against the future on their deal- punting it down the road and hope something changes. Get a front loaded deal in exchange for giving the network length and a deal on the back half.

Performance where? Football and basketball, yes, all other sports, not a chance. What demographics? 6 of the 10 fastest growing states are all inside the PAC's footprint and if they were to expand into Texas that would give them 7.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-...ing-states

The demise of population in the west is overblown and as I previously stated, if the PAC expands into Texas they re-coup those Californians that are leaving.

Football and basketball are all that matter.

Demographics- as in people that watch college athletics, in particular Pac12 vs Pac12. This isn’t the T3 era of realignment in which raw population was king, but that too was an issue for the P12 in part because locals don’t care as much as in the Midwest or south

The PAC 12 has a PAC problem. That doesn’t bode well for longevity.

The locals increasingly don’t care, the time zones limiting, and there’s not consensus the future of high major FB and MBB is for them. Perhaps the last aspect is improving. There’s also some political instability from the penchant for things like this new CA bill to arise.

The two things they had going for them, conference pride and geography are on shaky ground.
Pay to play and NIL could cause fissures, and paying players removes the geography moat. Now it’s just a limiting timezone. A BIG or SEC school offering twice the pay is going to further suppress the P12s performance

I do think a front loaded deal could work to delay the death, but long term there’s really only one solution- cut the PAC fat, and top 6 to 9 schools go to BIG.

Again, your demographics comment holds no water. College football has seen a decrease in butts in seats in every year for almost a decade now. This includes the mighty SEC. This isn't a PAC problem, this is a College football/basketball problem. Hence all the Breakaway talk.

If you chop off the G5 and require P5 schools to only play P5 schools you can lesson this... you can lesson it even more by actually giving all of the remaining schools and conferences equal chances at the CFP... this is what an NFL or professional model looks like...

A lot of people here want to yell about the sanctity of college athletics but that ship sailed years ago, this doesn't make me happy, in fact I am appalled at what these sports have become, but we all need to live in the here and now...

If you believe as JR does in a P2, I think it's 2x32 and in that case only 2 PAC schools might not make it, I believe in a 4x20... all current P5 schools survive and a few get a call up. I guess in the end it's all about what model you believe in. What I would offer to you though is that if the final solution is anymore than two conferences it's not the PAC that needs to worry, it's the NB12 and the ACC.

The only college football will survive for a while is with regionalism. You can't have regionalism with only two conferences. If the B1G and SEC headline two half of the country will be alienated. It's too big a jump from 5 to two. And 80 schools is just too many........you really start to scrape the bottom after about 60 or so.

Just an observation:
The SEC center is in Alabama; 5 of their six additions have been to the west
The ACC center is in North Carolina; 5 of their additions have been to the north
The PAC's additions have all been to the east
And three of the B1G's four additions have been to the east.

Before you can get to 2X anything, it is necessary to get to 4X something. And at this point in time 16 is plenty big for any conference or group of fans to understand and even then it will be necessary to shift some teams around for balance. The NFL had to do it as well as MLB.

Another observation:
SEC losses to other conferences=0
PAC losses to other conferences=0
B1G losses to other conferences=0
ACC losses to other conferences=1 (Maryland to the B1G)
Big 12 losses to other conferences=6 (Nebraska, Missouri, Colorado, Texas A&M, Texas, Oklahoma), 7 if you counted Arkansas from the old SWC.

I would say that we are pretty close to reaching P4 status pretty soon.

Paging Dr. XLance to surgery!! Paging Dr. XLance to surgery!!! The patient (the ACC) is about to flatline!!!!!

Thanks for your concern Dawg. I'll give you fair warning if we are ever going to croak.

(05-08-2022 07:42 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-30-2022 02:50 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(04-30-2022 02:15 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(04-28-2022 11:35 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Jamie Pollard, Iowa State AD, thinks that there may be a breakaway of 30 programs in the near future.

https://www.iheart.com/podcast/487-the-m...-96196394/

Start at 24:20

I would not say it's definite just from his statements but he sure sounded extremely frustrated, like he knows something is coming and is trying to figure out how to work around it.

I'll have to listen on Wednesday. From what you say though, sounds like he wants in the P2, and I don't doubt that he does want in. Can't blame him for that, but what does Iowa State bring to the table: basketball?? baseball?? hockey?? lacrosse???

(04-29-2022 08:25 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(04-28-2022 11:35 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Jamie Pollard, Iowa State AD, thinks that there may be a breakaway of 30 programs in the near future.

https://www.iheart.com/podcast/487-the-m...-96196394/

Start at 24:20

I would not say it's definite just from his statements but he sure is sounded extremely frustrated, like he knows something is coming and is trying to figure out how to work around it.

Is this the same AD that 12 years ago complained about players being able to transfer?

He’s a relic AD from last century that owes millions of his personal wealth to OU and UT. A small budget AD that’s done little to improve his position or grow his revenue

Well, I think he knows that he is going to have to change that if he wants back in the club, IMO.

You would think so.

I listened- he sounds ready to fold.
If you’re an AD of a p6 with $100 million budget and you can’t figure out how to cover $105 million from your most important input cost increasing, you’re a talentless businessman just riding the TV revenues from the top of CFB

You have your numbers wrong. There is currently a P5 not a P6, and it will soon become a P4. This will happen when Oklahoma and Texas leave the Big 12 and the Big 12 product is diluted. Then the Big 12 will no longer be considered a P conference. To further reinforce that view, the Big 12 will be the only conference currently in the P5 to exist without a conference network (and with no plans to start one).
At best the Big 12 will be thought of a the new "tweener" conference after poaching most of the value from the AAC and having that conference slide into mediocracy.

You do realize that the P5 designation is due to being an autonomous conference and has nothing to do with how it is perceived right? I believe that it has also been confirmed that the Big 12 isn't going to lose the designation either.

If the MAC got OSU and Michigan it doesn't magically become a P5 conference.

(05-16-2022 11:27 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-16-2022 09:05 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-16-2022 08:43 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-16-2022 08:07 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-16-2022 05:20 AM)XLance Wrote:  The only college football will survive for a while is with regionalism. You can't have regionalism with only two conferences. If the B1G and SEC headline two half of the country will be alienated. It's too big a jump from 5 to two. And 80 schools is just too many........you really start to scrape the bottom after about 60 or so.

Just an observation:
The SEC center is in Alabama; 5 of their six additions have been to the west
The ACC center is in North Carolina; 5 of their additions have been to the north
The PAC's additions have all been to the east
And three of the B1G's four additions have been to the east.

Before you can get to 2X anything, it is necessary to get to 4X something. And at this point in time 16 is plenty big for any conference or group of fans to understand and even then it will be necessary to shift some teams around for balance. The NFL had to do it as well as MLB.

Another observation:
SEC losses to other conferences=0
PAC losses to other conferences=0
B1G losses to other conferences=0
ACC losses to other conferences=1 (Maryland to the B1G)
Big 12 losses to other conferences=6 (Nebraska, Missouri, Colorado, Texas A&M, Texas, Oklahoma), 7 if you counted Arkansas from the old SWC.

I would say that we are pretty close to reaching P4 status pretty soon.

All to P2 except CU.

I think you’re on to something…Consolidation to P2

It's a long process.
But one thing is certain....the Big 12 has already been demoted.

Agree- it’s already gone through the consolidation process, which is why it’s more stable than the ACC.

What’s a bad sign for a conference? To be a peer in revenue of a conference that’s already lost its brands of value.

We'll see what happens with the next contract when the Big 12 doesn't have Texas and Oklahoma to bloat their numbers.

Decent chance it’s a P3 setup before that occurs.

Given the ACC is locked in at old rates, and risk, seems like it shouldn’t be a large delta. Certainly not big enough to have schools wanting to get in on the instability of the ACC

(05-17-2022 11:46 AM)AzonTheKid Wrote:  You do realize that the P5 designation is due to being an autonomous conference and has nothing to do with how it is perceived right? I believe that it has also been confirmed that the Big 12 isn't going to lose the designation either.

If the MAC got OSU and Michigan it doesn't magically become a P5 conference.

Um, no. Why do you think those 5 conferences were given autonomy in the first place?

(05-17-2022 12:57 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-16-2022 11:27 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-16-2022 09:05 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-16-2022 08:43 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-16-2022 08:07 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  All to P2 except CU.

I think you’re on to something…Consolidation to P2

It's a long process.
But one thing is certain....the Big 12 has already been demoted.

Agree- it’s already gone through the consolidation process, which is why it’s more stable than the ACC.

What’s a bad sign for a conference? To be a peer in revenue of a conference that’s already lost its brands of value.

We'll see what happens with the next contract when the Big 12 doesn't have Texas and Oklahoma to bloat their numbers.

Decent chance it’s a P3 setup before that occurs.

Given the ACC is locked in at old rates, and risk, seems like it shouldn’t be a large delta. Certainly not big enough to have schools wanting to get in on the instability of the ACC

P3? Where are you getting that garbage? Schedules are now being adjusted for more regional play because divisions have become too large and the schools too spread out to have a real rivalry.

(05-19-2022 11:52 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-17-2022 12:57 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-16-2022 11:27 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-16-2022 09:05 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-16-2022 08:43 AM)XLance Wrote:  It's a long process.
But one thing is certain....the Big 12 has already been demoted.

Agree- it’s already gone through the consolidation process, which is why it’s more stable than the ACC.

What’s a bad sign for a conference? To be a peer in revenue of a conference that’s already lost its brands of value.

We'll see what happens with the next contract when the Big 12 doesn't have Texas and Oklahoma to bloat their numbers.

Decent chance it’s a P3 setup before that occurs.

Given the ACC is locked in at old rates, and risk, seems like it shouldn’t be a large delta. Certainly not big enough to have schools wanting to get in on the instability of the ACC

P3? Where are you getting that garbage? Schedules are now being adjusted for more regional play because divisions have become too large and the schools too spread out to have a real rivalry.

X, you do realize that going division-less actually enhances the likelihood of more consolidation instead of hindering it, right? You do realize that in the age of NIL and soon to be pay for play that the pressure to keep up financially will be more crucial than ever, even for hoops? And you do realize that reducing redundant overhead like 5 sets of commissioners, conference staffs, corporate offices, utilities, and retirements is no longer practical when less overhead split more ways is more efficient? Regional play within consolidation makes sense for market reach and reduction in travel and may be achieved inside a larger organization where brands and numbers yield synergy and leverage.

The world we loved and wanted is rapidly passing. It's coming and even a P3 is likely to be a transitional phase.

(05-19-2022 12:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-19-2022 11:52 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-17-2022 12:57 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-16-2022 11:27 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-16-2022 09:05 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  Agree- it’s already gone through the consolidation process, which is why it’s more stable than the ACC.

What’s a bad sign for a conference? To be a peer in revenue of a conference that’s already lost its brands of value.

We'll see what happens with the next contract when the Big 12 doesn't have Texas and Oklahoma to bloat their numbers.

Decent chance it’s a P3 setup before that occurs.

Given the ACC is locked in at old rates, and risk, seems like it shouldn’t be a large delta. Certainly not big enough to have schools wanting to get in on the instability of the ACC

P3? Where are you getting that garbage? Schedules are now being adjusted for more regional play because divisions have become too large and the schools too spread out to have a real rivalry.

X, you do realize that going division-less actually enhances the likelihood of more consolidation instead of hindering it, right? You do realize that in the age of NIL and soon to be pay for play that the pressure to keep up financially will be more crucial than ever, even for hoops? And you do realize that reducing redundant overhead like 5 sets of commissioners, conference staffs, corporate offices, utilities, and retirements is no longer practical when less overhead split more ways is more efficient? Regional play within consolidation makes sense for market reach and reduction in travel and may be achieved inside a larger organization where brands and numbers yield synergy and leverage.

The world we loved and wanted is rapidly passing. It's coming and even a P3 is likely to be a transitional phase.

With 10 conference games:
32 Schools: 3 annual + 7-7-7-7
26 Schools: 5 annual + 5-5-5-5
20 Schools: 7 annual + 3-3-3-3

With 9 conference games:
28 Schools: 3 annual + 6-6-6-6
22 Schools: 5 annual + 4-4-4-4
16 Schools: 7 annual + 2-2-2-2

With 8 conference games:
24 Schools: 3 annual + 5-5-5-5
18 Schools: 5 annual + 3-3-3-3
12 Schools: 7 annual + 1-1-1-1

(05-19-2022 04:17 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

Transic, the bigger bullet dodged was by the PAC 12! The NCAA would have only suffered tangentially. Pay for play and a % of profits are in separate universes from each other. No judge or legislator with business acumen could have passed or approved that bill. They could easily pass a Pay for Play.

(05-19-2022 12:47 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(05-19-2022 12:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-19-2022 11:52 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-17-2022 12:57 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-16-2022 11:27 AM)XLance Wrote:   We'll see what happens with the next contract when the Big 12 doesn't have Texas and Oklahoma to bloat their numbers.

Decent chance it’s a P3 setup before that occurs.

Given the ACC is locked in at old rates, and risk, seems like it shouldn’t be a large delta. Certainly not big enough to have schools wanting to get in on the instability of the ACC

P3? Where are you getting that garbage? Schedules are now being adjusted for more regional play because divisions have become too large and the schools too spread out to have a real rivalry.

X, you do realize that going division-less actually enhances the likelihood of more consolidation instead of hindering it, right? You do realize that in the age of NIL and soon to be pay for play that the pressure to keep up financially will be more crucial than ever, even for hoops? And you do realize that reducing redundant overhead like 5 sets of commissioners, conference staffs, corporate offices, utilities, and retirements is no longer practical when less overhead split more ways is more efficient? Regional play within consolidation makes sense for market reach and reduction in travel and may be achieved inside a larger organization where brands and numbers yield synergy and leverage.

The world we loved and wanted is rapidly passing. It's coming and even a P3 is likely to be a transitional phase.

With 10 conference games:
32 Schools: 3 annual + 7-7-7-7
26 Schools: 5 annual + 5-5-5-5
20 Schools: 7 annual + 3-3-3-3

With 9 conference games:
28 Schools: 3 annual + 6-6-6-6
22 Schools: 5 annual + 4-4-4-4
16 Schools: 7 annual + 2-2-2-2

With 8 conference games:
24 Schools: 3 annual + 5-5-5-5
18 Schools: 5 annual + 3-3-3-3
12 Schools: 7 annual + 1-1-1-1

How each conference will divide into their division-less scheduling has been all the rage over the last several days.
What you haven't seen is how the SEC will divide to go division-less. Wonder why?
The 3-5-5 model for a 14 team conference seems to work pretty well AND there are only 8 conference games. If there were 15 teams and 9 conference games a 4-5-5 would work.
When you get a conference with more than 15 teams scheduling to allow every team to play every other team in the conference home and home within a four year period gets really tricky. Of course the solution is just to add more conference games and eliminate non-conference matchups.
It's going to be interesting to see how the SEC addresses their new scheduling dilemma when Texas and Oklahoma join the fold.

(05-20-2022 05:11 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-19-2022 12:47 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(05-19-2022 12:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-19-2022 11:52 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-17-2022 12:57 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  Decent chance it’s a P3 setup before that occurs.

Given the ACC is locked in at old rates, and risk, seems like it shouldn’t be a large delta. Certainly not big enough to have schools wanting to get in on the instability of the ACC

P3? Where are you getting that garbage? Schedules are now being adjusted for more regional play because divisions have become too large and the schools too spread out to have a real rivalry.

X, you do realize that going division-less actually enhances the likelihood of more consolidation instead of hindering it, right? You do realize that in the age of NIL and soon to be pay for play that the pressure to keep up financially will be more crucial than ever, even for hoops? And you do realize that reducing redundant overhead like 5 sets of commissioners, conference staffs, corporate offices, utilities, and retirements is no longer practical when less overhead split more ways is more efficient? Regional play within consolidation makes sense for market reach and reduction in travel and may be achieved inside a larger organization where brands and numbers yield synergy and leverage.

The world we loved and wanted is rapidly passing. It's coming and even a P3 is likely to be a transitional phase.

With 10 conference games:
32 Schools: 3 annual + 7-7-7-7
26 Schools: 5 annual + 5-5-5-5
20 Schools: 7 annual + 3-3-3-3

With 9 conference games:
28 Schools: 3 annual + 6-6-6-6
22 Schools: 5 annual + 4-4-4-4
16 Schools: 7 annual + 2-2-2-2

With 8 conference games:
24 Schools: 3 annual + 5-5-5-5
18 Schools: 5 annual + 3-3-3-3
12 Schools: 7 annual + 1-1-1-1

How each conference will divide into their division-less scheduling has been all the rage over the last several days.
What you haven't seen is how the SEC will divide to go division-less. Wonder why?
The 3-5-5 model for a 14 team conference seems to work pretty well AND there are only 8 conference games. If there were 15 teams and 9 conference games a 4-5-5 would work.
When you get a conference with more than 15 teams scheduling to allow every team to play every other team in the conference home and home within a four year period gets really tricky. Of course the solution is just to add more conference games and eliminate non-conference matchups.
It's going to be interesting to see how the SEC addresses their new scheduling dilemma when Texas and Oklahoma join the fold.

I have a sneaky suspicion that we will be seeing bigger conferences add more conference games. As you correctly stated the solution to the SEC problem is to add. In order to get a full round robin in 4 years you go to a 10 game conference schedule problem is solved...

5 annual + 5-5-5-5

I'm curious how long until we start hearing whisper's about this kind of schedule.

(05-20-2022 11:08 AM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(05-20-2022 05:11 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-19-2022 12:47 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(05-19-2022 12:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-19-2022 11:52 AM)XLance Wrote:  P3? Where are you getting that garbage? Schedules are now being adjusted for more regional play because divisions have become too large and the schools too spread out to have a real rivalry.

X, you do realize that going division-less actually enhances the likelihood of more consolidation instead of hindering it, right? You do realize that in the age of NIL and soon to be pay for play that the pressure to keep up financially will be more crucial than ever, even for hoops? And you do realize that reducing redundant overhead like 5 sets of commissioners, conference staffs, corporate offices, utilities, and retirements is no longer practical when less overhead split more ways is more efficient? Regional play within consolidation makes sense for market reach and reduction in travel and may be achieved inside a larger organization where brands and numbers yield synergy and leverage.

The world we loved and wanted is rapidly passing. It's coming and even a P3 is likely to be a transitional phase.

With 10 conference games:
32 Schools: 3 annual + 7-7-7-7
26 Schools: 5 annual + 5-5-5-5
20 Schools: 7 annual + 3-3-3-3

With 9 conference games:
28 Schools: 3 annual + 6-6-6-6
22 Schools: 5 annual + 4-4-4-4
16 Schools: 7 annual + 2-2-2-2

With 8 conference games:
24 Schools: 3 annual + 5-5-5-5
18 Schools: 5 annual + 3-3-3-3
12 Schools: 7 annual + 1-1-1-1

How each conference will divide into their division-less scheduling has been all the rage over the last several days.
What you haven't seen is how the SEC will divide to go division-less. Wonder why?
The 3-5-5 model for a 14 team conference seems to work pretty well AND there are only 8 conference games. If there were 15 teams and 9 conference games a 4-5-5 would work.
When you get a conference with more than 15 teams scheduling to allow every team to play every other team in the conference home and home within a four year period gets really tricky. Of course the solution is just to add more conference games and eliminate non-conference matchups.
It's going to be interesting to see how the SEC addresses their new scheduling dilemma when Texas and Oklahoma join the fold.

I have a sneaky suspicion that we will be seeing bigger conferences add more conference games. As you correctly stated the solution to the SEC problem is to add. In order to get a full round robin in 4 years you go to a 10 game conference schedule problem is solved...

5 annual + 5-5-5-5

I'm curious how long until we start hearing whisper's about this kind of schedule.

What I'm seeing and hearing is that fans/schools want to play each other more often not less. Nine game schedules are not preferred but doable. My bet is that conferences will top out at 14 or 15 teams and get no bigger.
The SEC is scheduled to have 16 teams. I think they either never get to 16 of if they do they will have one team leave (despite the money) and move to another conference.
Time will tell, but the networks and conference administrators had better start listening to the fans if they want to keep their stadiums full. If they can't keep the fans engaged it won't matter how much media income there is.

(05-20-2022 11:36 AM)XLance Wrote:  What I'm seeing and hearing is that fans/schools want to play each other more often not less. Nine game schedules are not preferred but doable. My bet is that conferences will top out at 14 or 15 teams and get no bigger.
The SEC is scheduled to have 16 teams. I think they either never get to 16 of if they do they will have one team leave (despite the money) and move to another conference.
Time will tell, but the networks and conference administrators had better start listening to the fans if they want to keep their stadiums full. If they can't keep the fans engaged it won't matter how much media income there is.

Not sure what you are "seeing and hearing", but 16 teams is not a problem with divisionless scheduling - if they're willing to accept 9 conference games (and I think they are), it's simply 3 annual + 6 rotating. They'll play every team, every other year (or twice every four years).

Admittedly, you start making some really hard choices beyond 16.

(05-20-2022 01:59 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-20-2022 11:36 AM)XLance Wrote:  What I'm seeing and hearing is that fans/schools want to play each other more often not less. Nine game schedules are not preferred but doable. My bet is that conferences will top out at 14 or 15 teams and get no bigger.
The SEC is scheduled to have 16 teams. I think they either never get to 16 of if they do they will have one team leave (despite the money) and move to another conference.
Time will tell, but the networks and conference administrators had better start listening to the fans if they want to keep their stadiums full. If they can't keep the fans engaged it won't matter how much media income there is.

Not sure what you are "seeing and hearing", but 16 teams is not a problem with divisionless scheduling - if they're willing to accept 9 conference games (and I think they are), it's simply 3 annual + 6 rotating. They'll play every team, every other year (or twice every four years).

Admittedly, you start making some really hard choices beyond 16.

Not really Mark. Remember you don't have to go division-less. You could simply break into 3 regional divisions at 18 and play 5 games in your division and rotate 2 schools annually from each other division. You still play everyone in 3 years. What you don't have is a home and home with everyone in 4 years. Similarly, at 20 you have 4 divisions of 5 and rotate a division every year and you still play the other 19 in 3 years' time.

At 24 you have 4 six team divisions. You likely play 11 games in conference, rotate a division each year and play everyone in 3 years time. Since 24 would likely mean at least a P3 each school would have 1 OOC game with which to play an OOC rival.

(05-20-2022 11:36 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-20-2022 11:08 AM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(05-20-2022 05:11 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-19-2022 12:47 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(05-19-2022 12:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  X, you do realize that going division-less actually enhances the likelihood of more consolidation instead of hindering it, right? You do realize that in the age of NIL and soon to be pay for play that the pressure to keep up financially will be more crucial than ever, even for hoops? And you do realize that reducing redundant overhead like 5 sets of commissioners, conference staffs, corporate offices, utilities, and retirements is no longer practical when less overhead split more ways is more efficient? Regional play within consolidation makes sense for market reach and reduction in travel and may be achieved inside a larger organization where brands and numbers yield synergy and leverage.

The world we loved and wanted is rapidly passing. It's coming and even a P3 is likely to be a transitional phase.

With 10 conference games:
32 Schools: 3 annual + 7-7-7-7
26 Schools: 5 annual + 5-5-5-5
20 Schools: 7 annual + 3-3-3-3

With 9 conference games:
28 Schools: 3 annual + 6-6-6-6
22 Schools: 5 annual + 4-4-4-4
16 Schools: 7 annual + 2-2-2-2

With 8 conference games:
24 Schools: 3 annual + 5-5-5-5
18 Schools: 5 annual + 3-3-3-3
12 Schools: 7 annual + 1-1-1-1

How each conference will divide into their division-less scheduling has been all the rage over the last several days.
What you haven't seen is how the SEC will divide to go division-less. Wonder why?
The 3-5-5 model for a 14 team conference seems to work pretty well AND there are only 8 conference games. If there were 15 teams and 9 conference games a 4-5-5 would work.
When you get a conference with more than 15 teams scheduling to allow every team to play every other team in the conference home and home within a four year period gets really tricky. Of course the solution is just to add more conference games and eliminate non-conference matchups.
It's going to be interesting to see how the SEC addresses their new scheduling dilemma when Texas and Oklahoma join the fold.

I have a sneaky suspicion that we will be seeing bigger conferences add more conference games. As you correctly stated the solution to the SEC problem is to add. In order to get a full round robin in 4 years you go to a 10 game conference schedule problem is solved...

5 annual + 5-5-5-5

I'm curious how long until we start hearing whisper's about this kind of schedule.

What I'm seeing and hearing is that fans/schools want to play each other more often not less. Nine game schedules are not preferred but doable. My bet is that conferences will top out at 14 or 15 teams and get no bigger.
The SEC is scheduled to have 16 teams. I think they either never get to 16 of if they do they will have one team leave (despite the money) and move to another conference.
Time will tell, but the networks and conference administrators had better start listening to the fans if they want to keep their stadiums full. If they can't keep the fans engaged it won't matter how much media income there is.

The Dude of North Carolina has spoken.

(05-20-2022 04:46 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-20-2022 11:36 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-20-2022 11:08 AM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(05-20-2022 05:11 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-19-2022 12:47 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  With 10 conference games:
32 Schools: 3 annual + 7-7-7-7
26 Schools: 5 annual + 5-5-5-5
20 Schools: 7 annual + 3-3-3-3

With 9 conference games:
28 Schools: 3 annual + 6-6-6-6
22 Schools: 5 annual + 4-4-4-4
16 Schools: 7 annual + 2-2-2-2

With 8 conference games:
24 Schools: 3 annual + 5-5-5-5
18 Schools: 5 annual + 3-3-3-3
12 Schools: 7 annual + 1-1-1-1

How each conference will divide into their division-less scheduling has been all the rage over the last several days.
What you haven't seen is how the SEC will divide to go division-less. Wonder why?
The 3-5-5 model for a 14 team conference seems to work pretty well AND there are only 8 conference games. If there were 15 teams and 9 conference games a 4-5-5 would work.
When you get a conference with more than 15 teams scheduling to allow every team to play every other team in the conference home and home within a four year period gets really tricky. Of course the solution is just to add more conference games and eliminate non-conference matchups.
It's going to be interesting to see how the SEC addresses their new scheduling dilemma when Texas and Oklahoma join the fold.

I have a sneaky suspicion that we will be seeing bigger conferences add more conference games. As you correctly stated the solution to the SEC problem is to add. In order to get a full round robin in 4 years you go to a 10 game conference schedule problem is solved...

5 annual + 5-5-5-5

I'm curious how long until we start hearing whisper's about this kind of schedule.

What I'm seeing and hearing is that fans/schools want to play each other more often not less. Nine game schedules are not preferred but doable. My bet is that conferences will top out at 14 or 15 teams and get no bigger.
The SEC is scheduled to have 16 teams. I think they either never get to 16 of if they do they will have one team leave (despite the money) and move to another conference.
Time will tell, but the networks and conference administrators had better start listening to the fans if they want to keep their stadiums full. If they can't keep the fans engaged it won't matter how much media income there is.

The Dude of North Carolina has spoken.

Now that I have a title......am I required to make YouTube videos?

(05-20-2022 05:48 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-20-2022 04:46 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-20-2022 11:36 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-20-2022 11:08 AM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(05-20-2022 05:11 AM)XLance Wrote:  How each conference will divide into their division-less scheduling has been all the rage over the last several days.
What you haven't seen is how the SEC will divide to go division-less. Wonder why?
The 3-5-5 model for a 14 team conference seems to work pretty well AND there are only 8 conference games. If there were 15 teams and 9 conference games a 4-5-5 would work.
When you get a conference with more than 15 teams scheduling to allow every team to play every other team in the conference home and home within a four year period gets really tricky. Of course the solution is just to add more conference games and eliminate non-conference matchups.
It's going to be interesting to see how the SEC addresses their new scheduling dilemma when Texas and Oklahoma join the fold.

I have a sneaky suspicion that we will be seeing bigger conferences add more conference games. As you correctly stated the solution to the SEC problem is to add. In order to get a full round robin in 4 years you go to a 10 game conference schedule problem is solved...

5 annual + 5-5-5-5

I'm curious how long until we start hearing whisper's about this kind of schedule.

What I'm seeing and hearing is that fans/schools want to play each other more often not less. Nine game schedules are not preferred but doable. My bet is that conferences will top out at 14 or 15 teams and get no bigger.
The SEC is scheduled to have 16 teams. I think they either never get to 16 of if they do they will have one team leave (despite the money) and move to another conference.
Time will tell, but the networks and conference administrators had better start listening to the fans if they want to keep their stadiums full. If they can't keep the fans engaged it won't matter how much media income there is.

The Dude of North Carolina has spoken.

Now that I have a title......am I required to make YouTube videos?

Yes! You must lose a front tooth, wear a baseball cap backwards, shoot it from inside your mobile home, try to speak colloquially and with bad grammar, swear sporadically, and since you are a Carolina fan paint your face and wear Ram's horns like your bro in the Finger Hut commercial. After that try to calculate an equal conference schedule with an odd number of full members. It will be priceless!

Nine-game Big Ten schedule here 'for foreseeable future'

https://purdue.rivals.com/news/nine-game...le-future-

Quote:Last August, the Big Ten joined forces with the Pac-12 and ACC to form The Alliance, described at the time as a "collaborative approach surrounding the future evolution of college athletics and scheduling."

But nothing substantive has come from the union. And, certainly, any notion of Big Ten schools re-doing non-league schedules to work in ACC and Pac-12 schools—or falling back to eight-game league schedules to accommodate non-conference games with the ACC and Pac-12—appears to be folly.

“(The Alliance is) not dead,” said Bobinski. “There will still be things that we collaborate with those leagues on because we share a lot of the same thoughts and values and philosophies. But I don't know that you're going to see anything substantive in terms of scheduling because there's just not that much room in your schedule to start to carve out guaranteed games against other leagues.”

Among the power trio of leagues, the Big Ten has the most reason to move cautiously and with prudence.

“It sounded good in concept,” said Bobinski. “If there was more room and flexibility, yeah, that sounds great. But at the end of the day, the Big Ten, I think, by everyone's estimation, we had more at risk than the other two leagues in terms of adjusting our plan and our schedule to fit them in.

“We've intentionally slowed that one down. And everybody understands. They all get it. They all understand that we've got a lot more on the table right now than they do in terms of media rights deals and other things.”

The Big Ten is on the precipice of finishing negations on what’s expected to be a jaw-dropping TV deal which would begin in 2023 and could be worth a record-setting $1 billion per season.

One dynamic that could change for the Big Ten in the near future: elimination of the East-West divisional construct. And if that happens, a new conference scheduling model will likely need to be developed.

“We've got a skilled scheduling consultant that works with us, that's really good,” said Bobinski. “And he can spit out every option that you can imagine. And so we've looked at a couple of things, two protected (opponents). Three protected. I don't think anybody has settled on any one as this is the best way to go. And nor have we decided that we're not going to play divisions. It's still very much right now at the exploratory and conversation stage.”

There may be a push to allow a school to visit and play host to each Big Ten foe during a four-year period.

“It's important in your league to see as many teams as you can,” said Bobinski. “That's one of the arguments for not having divisions, is that you then have a chance to rotate through all the teams around the league on a more regular basis. That, to me, is probably the most compelling thing, is that you get a chance to see other people in your stadiums and you get to visit, take your team to play in environments that ordinarily they may not see.

“Guys may go through a whole career and never compete against certain schools or never see their campus or all those kinds of things. So, I think that's worth thinking about. Whether or not that's a reason to make a move remains to be seen, but I think it's certainly worth thinking about.”

Another possible dynamic that would impact future scheduling: Big Ten expansion.

"I think the only way you expand is if you have prospective league members that add value, that move the needle in a real way, in a substantive way," said Bobinski. "Again, we're in a really good spot in the Big Ten. We don't need numbers for numbers sake.

"But if there were potential league members that are sort of the spirit of what the Big Ten's about, the academic profile and sort of the strength of the institution, and they brought athletic programs, football programs, basketball programs, that added real value, I think anything's possible. But there's nothing active on that front at this point."

(05-20-2022 08:54 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Nine-game Big Ten schedule here 'for foreseeable future'

https://purdue.rivals.com/news/nine-game...le-future-

Quote:Last August, the Big Ten joined forces with the Pac-12 and ACC to form The Alliance, described at the time as a "collaborative approach surrounding the future evolution of college athletics and scheduling."

But nothing substantive has come from the union. And, certainly, any notion of Big Ten schools re-doing non-league schedules to work in ACC and Pac-12 schools—or falling back to eight-game league schedules to accommodate non-conference games with the ACC and Pac-12—appears to be folly.

“(The Alliance is) not dead,” said Bobinski. “There will still be things that we collaborate with those leagues on because we share a lot of the same thoughts and values and philosophies. But I don't know that you're going to see anything substantive in terms of scheduling because there's just not that much room in your schedule to start to carve out guaranteed games against other leagues.”

Among the power trio of leagues, the Big Ten has the most reason to move cautiously and with prudence.

“It sounded good in concept,” said Bobinski. “If there was more room and flexibility, yeah, that sounds great. But at the end of the day, the Big Ten, I think, by everyone's estimation, we had more at risk than the other two leagues in terms of adjusting our plan and our schedule to fit them in.

“We've intentionally slowed that one down. And everybody understands. They all get it. They all understand that we've got a lot more on the table right now than they do in terms of media rights deals and other things.”

The Big Ten is on the precipice of finishing negations on what’s expected to be a jaw-dropping TV deal which would begin in 2023 and could be worth a record-setting $1 billion per season.

One dynamic that could change for the Big Ten in the near future: elimination of the East-West divisional construct. And if that happens, a new conference scheduling model will likely need to be developed.

“We've got a skilled scheduling consultant that works with us, that's really good,” said Bobinski. “And he can spit out every option that you can imagine. And so we've looked at a couple of things, two protected (opponents). Three protected. I don't think anybody has settled on any one as this is the best way to go. And nor have we decided that we're not going to play divisions. It's still very much right now at the exploratory and conversation stage.”

There may be a push to allow a school to visit and play host to each Big Ten foe during a four-year period.

“It's important in your league to see as many teams as you can,” said Bobinski. “That's one of the arguments for not having divisions, is that you then have a chance to rotate through all the teams around the league on a more regular basis. That, to me, is probably the most compelling thing, is that you get a chance to see other people in your stadiums and you get to visit, take your team to play in environments that ordinarily they may not see.

“Guys may go through a whole career and never compete against certain schools or never see their campus or all those kinds of things. So, I think that's worth thinking about. Whether or not that's a reason to make a move remains to be seen, but I think it's certainly worth thinking about.”

Another possible dynamic that would impact future scheduling: Big Ten expansion.

"I think the only way you expand is if you have prospective league members that add value, that move the needle in a real way, in a substantive way," said Bobinski. "Again, we're in a really good spot in the Big Ten. We don't need numbers for numbers sake.

"But if there were potential league members that are sort of the spirit of what the Big Ten's about, the academic profile and sort of the strength of the institution, and they brought athletic programs, football programs, basketball programs, that added real value, I think anything's possible. But there's nothing active on that front at this point."

I'm reasonably sure the new SEC contract says we will be moving to 9 conference games as well. The only alliance which needs to exist, as it quietly did between Slive and Delaney, is one between the SEC and Big 10. Sadly, Warren is a problem.