Realignment talk not going away

[TrashMaster G 17551]

12 hours ago, RoyalBevo21 said:

belle of the ball

 

phrase of belle

 

1. the most beautiful and popular girl or woman at a dance.

    

Definitions from Oxford Languages

 

[Hurtlocker 2212]

21 minutes ago, Stella Link said:

Hummm....I seemed to have missed exactly where the rest of the Big 12 fits in with all of this.

I'm sure it's in there somewhere....I'll go back and read it again more carefully.... 

 

 

Yeah the two biggest things are either:

1) this says we won't feed on each other, so we're carving you up or

2) shore up your shit and we'll toss you some OOC scraps to vote how we tell you

[Gidnik 3268]

edit: heres the audio at about the 3:45 mark

https://www.audacy.com/670thescore/podcasts/the-mully-haugh-show-on-670-the-score-64/mully-haugh-dave-wannstedt-and-mike-florio-hour-4-678862424

Edited August 24, 2021 by Gidnik

[GTX Horn 1708]

1 minute ago, Gidnik said:

 

What’s the draw of someone like KSU vs. Tech or TCU? KSU brings very little to the table. At least Tech or TCU could get the PAC a foothold in Texas.

[Burt Macklin 19020]

2 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

 

It's funny, the biggest complaint lodged against the SEC, justifiably, was that they didn't play enough conference games. Well, now they get Texas and OU, and they're likely doing away with FCS bullshit, and the move by the other conferences is to reduce their conference games and play more OOC. Sure, they think they'll be adding these premium matchups, but I don't think we'll be seeing Ohio State, Oregon, USC, and Clemson rotating every 3 years. It's going to have to be a lot of UCLA versus Nebraska in there, and no one gives one flying fuck about that shit. Unless they are deliberately manipulating these alliance schedules every single season for maximum matchup value...are they really adding anything of merit? And if they do manipulate it heavily, there's going to be a lot of upset little brother conference members getting pissed off that they're perpetually flying to Corvalis and Pullman, not getting visits from Ohio State and USC. That doesn't seem like it's going to be good for membership harmony.

Also, I can't wait to hear what logical reasoning they block the expansion of a playoff, because the only one that exists is their fucking butthurt and willingness to cut off their nose to spite their stupid, pinched faces. The playoff expansion benefits those conferences more than ever before now with the SEC expansion, but they want to limit slots for their conferences to maybe catch lightning in a bottle? Well, ok then. Have at it, renobs. 

They’ll be against expansion until tOSU or Clemson have a bad year and then the SEC puts 3 teams in the playoff and then we’ll have an expanded playoff the next year. 

1 hour ago, TKthunder2 said:

I agree with all that.  But that would be a significant system change which the “alliance” has come out against.  By sticking with the 4 team playoff, SEC will be virtually limited to a single playoff spot with a 10 conference games, but likely not 2 as they have been.  If this is a bet towards playoff expansion then so be it, but after seeing how the SEC operates these past 3 decades they typically don’t make changes that hurt their schools for future gain, but maybe Texas and OU are so big that they have a fuck it attitude now knowing that despite the voting numbers of the alliance, any league without the SEC will be considered inferior and they feel like they can throw their weight around even more so.

This is nonsense. The SEC will be putting two teams in the playoff pretty much every year. Any team that’s not in the SEC or named Clemson or Ohio State will have to go undefeated to get in and even then that will probably be at the expense of those two teams. The Irate 8 and PAC have basically 0 chance of putting a team in a 4 team playoff any time soon. 

[closetohumping 17438]

5 minutes ago, Gidnik said:

edit: heres the audio at about the 3:45 mark

https://www.audacy.com/670thescore/podcasts/the-mully-haugh-show-on-670-the-score-64/mully-haugh-dave-wannstedt-and-mike-florio-hour-4-678862424

I'm not really anti-Wannstedt but that sounds dubious.

[closetohumping 17438]

4 minutes ago, Burt Macklin said:

They’ll be against expansion until tOSU or Clemson have a bad year and then the SEC puts 3 teams in the playoff and then we’ll have an expanded playoff the next year. 

This is nonsense. The SEC will be putting two teams in the playoff pretty much every year. Any team that’s not in the SEC or named Clemson or Ohio State will have to go undefeated to get in and even then that will probably be at the expense of those two teams. The Irate 8 and PAC have basically 0 chance of putting a team in a 4 team playoff any time soon. 

I think the worry is the SEC putting 4 and maybe 5 teams in a 12 teamer and for good reason.  Been a while since the Pac has had anyone worthwhile get in.

[DigglerontheHoof 21186]

KSU to Pac and not Tech makes zero sense. 

[Burt Macklin 19020]

2 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

I think the worry is the SEC putting 4 and maybe 5 teams in a 12 teamer and for good reason.  Been a while since the Pac has had anyone worthwhile get in.

Right but is that really worse than pretty much every team outside the SEC except for two getting stonewalled from the playoff every single year? And how many years is the PAC willing to go without making it in the playoff before they change their mind? 

[SimonBolivar 10958]

12 minutes ago, GTX Horn said:

What’s the draw of someone like KSU vs. Tech or TCU? KSU brings very little to the table. At least Tech or TCU could get the PAC a foothold in Texas.

There's 0 reason to take KSU over Tech. 

[Gidnik 3268]

 

Just now, DigglerontheHoof said:

KSU to Pac and not Tech makes zero sense. 

if you listen to the audio he says that he just hasnt heard anything about them. which kind of makes sense that tech is trying to keep the texas schools together (which was previously reported. 

[closetohumping 17438]

Just now, Burt Macklin said:

Right but is that really worse than pretty much every team outside the SEC except for two getting stonewalled from the playoff every single year? And how many years is the PAC willing to go without making it in the playoff before they change their mind? 

No I agree.  Look if it's a 2 team cap for each conference I think I would've just stayed in Big or gone to PAC.  

[Gidnik 3268]

1 minute ago, SimonBolivar said:

There's 0 reason to take KSU over Tech. 

listen to the audio 

[DCLonghorn 244]

listen to the audio 

Audio pulled down.

That would mean every Big 8 member lands with a lot of SWC not landing well.

[Pato del Muerto 52489]

13 minutes ago, Gidnik said:

 

if you listen to the audio he says that he just hasnt heard anything about them. which kind of makes sense that tech is trying to keep the texas schools together (which was previously reported. 

Tech’s best pitch at a state of Texas draw is all 3 remaining Texas big 12 schools as a set. If there’s no takers at P5, their best value might be aac together. 

[Gidnik 3268]

11 minutes ago, DCLonghorn said:

Audio pulled down.

That would mean every Big 8 member lands with a lot of SWC not landing well.

 

[Burt Macklin 19020]

6 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Tech’s best pitch at a state of Texas draw is all 3 remaining Texas big 12 schools as a set. If there’s no takers at P5, their best value might be aac together. 

There’s no way tying themselves down with the realignment anchors that are TCU and Baylor is their best pitch. There’s no chance any of the other 3 conferences would be willing to take all 3 on, especially the PAC re Baylor. 

[SimonBolivar 10958]

1 minute ago, Gidnik said:

 

Yeah but he didn't explain why and I can't imagine a school that the Pac12 would want less than KSU with the possible exception of Baylor.

[DCLonghorn 244]

Yeah but he didn't explain why and I can't imagine a school that the Pac12 would want less than KSU with the possible exception of Baylor.

Sounds like he was passing on scuttlebutt from "Big 10 people" more than has scoop on the moves. That might explain the Big 8 focus over the Texas focus. Nothing said seems crazy, but I imagine a foothold in Texas has real appeal.

[SimonBolivar 10958]

9 minutes ago, Burt Macklin said:

There’s no way tying themselves down with the realignment anchors that are TCU and Baylor is their best pitch. There’s no chance any of the other 3 conferences would be willing to take all 3 on, especially the PAC re Baylor. 

It's a good PR move if you aren't going anywhere and makes the legislators feel all warm and fuzzy, but there's no way Tech was contacted by any conference and they responded by saying they wanted to stay with Baylor and TCU instead.

['stache 21802]

47 minutes ago, GTX Horn said:

What’s the draw of someone like KSU vs. Tech or TCU? KSU brings very little to the table. At least Tech or TCU could get the PAC a foothold in Texas.

If this is credible (and I'm skeptical) it makes sense that KSU and OSU can commit if KU is going BIG and OU is already gone. Tech has some politics to deal with and their public position that they are working with Baylor and TCU (while we all know they will do whatever is in their best interest). If this is credible (and again I'm skeptical) my speculation is that TCU and Tech would be part of the PAC deal. This arrangment makes the most sense. KU and ISU to the BIG (AAU, geography, KC market), WVU to the ACC (geography, good program with good ratings, despite any nonsense about their fans), and Baylor is the only one left behind, because fuck them.

[Tex-19 2872]

Seems like another BS rumor imo. But all makes sense except the KSU part. 

[BurntOrange&White 39931]

1 minute ago, SimonBolivar said:

It's a good PR move if you aren't going anywhere and makes the legislators feel all warm and fuzzy, but there's no way Tech was contacted by any conference and they responded by saying they wanted to stay with Baylor and TCU instead.

Legislators don’t care about those 3.  Only care about us. Every legislator from those schools would turn their back on each other if their team got the opportunity

[Saint Austin 745]

Okie State to the PAC makes sense. I feel like K-State is probably slightly better academically than Tech, but by every other metric, Tech would seem to be the much more attractive candidate.

[Stella Link 534]

8 minutes ago, Gidnik said:

 

 

I don't believe it.  Any remaining team doesn't increase the value of any of the Pac 12, Big 10 or ACC, or add national TV eyeballs.  I could see why the $$$ pie slices could remain the same with certain additions, but certainly wouldn't increase each slice of anyone's pie. 

I don't think the Pac 12 will add any Big 12 members at all.  In that scenario, I have trouble seeing why adding it makes sense for the Big 10 adding any Big 12 members as well. 

I also think this alliance is just a knee-jerk reaction.  They haven't even worked anything out yet.  

Just IMHO.

 

 

[Pig Bellmont 8712]

So what’s this all about?

[Tex-19 2872]

1 minute ago, Stella Link said:

 

I don't believe it.  Any remaining team doesn't increase the value of any of the Pac 12, Big 10 or ACC, or add national TV eyeballs.  I could see why the $$$ pie slices could remain the same with certain additions, but certainly wouldn't increase each slice of anyone's pie. 

I don't think the Pac 12 will add any Big 12 members at all.  In that scenario, I have trouble seeing why adding it makes sense for the Big 10 adding any Big 12 members as well. 

I also think this alliance is just a knee-jerk reaction.  They haven't even worked anything out yet.  

Just IMHO.

 

 

I can't remember the exact numbers but someone posted TV viewer numbers and Ok St was in the top 25, which would definitely be top half of the PAC, probably top 3rd or 4th. That means increasing the average so likely increasing the pie slices. Idk about the others though

[Burt Macklin 19020]

2 minutes ago, Stella Link said:

 

I don't believe it.  Any remaining team doesn't increase the value of any of the Pac 12, Big 10 or ACC, or add national TV eyeballs.  I could see why the $$$ pie slices could remain the same with certain additions, but certainly wouldn't increase each slice of anyone's pie. 

I don't think the Pac 12 will add any Big 12 members at all.  In that scenario, I have trouble seeing why adding it makes sense for the Big 10 adding any Big 12 members as well. 

I also think this alliance is just a knee-jerk reaction.  They haven't even worked anything out yet.  

Just IMHO.

 

 

I think it’s obvious none of the Irate 8 will be a big boon, but these conferences will have to expand at some point and they’re not likely to have better options later. Plus, while the teams may not be a revenue increaser, there is value to the PAC beyond just the new teams’ viewership numbers in expanding their geographic footprint and adding the central time zone games. So the PAC adding 2-4 makes the most sense IMO. Who knows if they’ll do it, though.
 

Their conference leadership rivals Bowlsby in idiocy and apathy. 
 

1 minute ago, Pig Bellmont said:

So what’s this all about?

The scheduling alliance that’s been discussed for the last five pages. 

['stache 21802]

3 minutes ago, Stella Link said:

 

I don't believe it.  Any remaining team doesn't increase the value of any of the Pac 12, Big 10 or ACC, or add national TV eyeballs.  I could see why the $$$ pie slices could remain the same with certain additions, but certainly wouldn't increase each slice of anyone's pie. 

I don't think the Pac 12 will add any Big 12 members at all.  In that scenario, I have trouble seeing why adding it makes sense for the Big 10 adding any Big 12 members as well. 

I also think this alliance is just a knee-jerk reaction.  They haven't even worked anything out yet.  

Just IMHO.

 

 

So many of you keep saying this and the numbers just don't support it. OSU and Tech's TV ratings are better than everyone in the Pac 12 except USC. ISU would be squarely within the average for the Big 10 in football and their fans support their team regardless of whether they're good or not. KU has value in basketball, which is not the driving factor here, but it cannot be ignored.

[Pato del Muerto 52489]

23 minutes ago, Burt Macklin said:

There’s no way tying themselves down with the realignment anchors that are TCU and Baylor is their best pitch. There’s no chance any of the other 3 conferences would be willing to take all 3 on, especially the PAC re Baylor. 

Which is why kstate to pac works in wannstedt’s scenario. Meaning they go to the aac and try to argue that all the Texas teams in it now carries a decent part of the Texas market.  It’s not like tech brings a ton on its own- just more than Baylor and tcu would on their own. Tallest midget might not be appealing enough, but the tallest midget and his 2 shorter brothers might draw more interest from some parties. 

Edited August 24, 2021 by Pato del Muerto

[SimonBolivar 10958]

24 minutes ago, Saint Austin said:

Okie State to the PAC makes sense. I feel like K-State is probably slightly better academically than Tech, but by every other metric, Tech would seem to be the much more attractive candidate.

I don't think you can really quantify a reason why KSU would be considered better academically than Tech. At least in any way that matters.

Edited August 24, 2021 by SimonBolivar

[Stella Link 534]

1 minute ago, Tex-19 said:

I can't remember the exact numbers but someone posted TV viewer numbers and Ok St was in the top 25, which would definitely be top half of the PAC, probably top 3rd or 4th. That means increasing the average so likely increasing the pie slices. Idk about the others though

So, do you think many across the nation are going to mark their calendars to watch OSU vs Colorado, or OSU vs Arizona State or OSU vs Utah??

[Pig Bellmont 8712]

2 minutes ago, Burt Macklin said:

The scheduling alliance that’s been discussed for the last five pages. 

whatever man - I read a lot about the Dave Wannstat rumors and tv ratings. Cool tho. 

[SydneyCarton 48075]

6 minutes ago, Tex-19 said:

I can't remember the exact numbers but someone posted TV viewer numbers and Ok St was in the top 25, which would definitely be top half of the PAC, probably top 3rd or 4th. That means increasing the average so likely increasing the pie slices. Idk about the others though

 

5 minutes ago, 'stache said:

So many of you keep saying this and the numbers just don't support it. OSU and Tech's TV ratings are better than everyone in the Pac 12 except USC. ISU would be squarely within the average for the Big 10 in football and their fans support their team regardless of whether they're good or not. KU has value in basketball, which is not the driving factor here, but it cannot be ignored.

Are they really? Now subtract the eyeballs they got for the Texas and OU games, re-average, and tell me what their average viewers per game are? If they're still that impressive, I'll fuck right off. But I'm guessing removing 6 million eyeballs from their season and dividing by 2 less is going to be a disproportionate hit. You don't get to average in the Sooner and Horn games anymore. 

[Stella Link 534]

5 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

 

Are they really? Now subtract the eyeballs they got for the Texas and OU games, re-average, and tell me what their average viewers per game are? If they're still that impressive, I'll fuck right off. But I'm guessing removing 6 million eyeballs from their season and dividing by 2 less is going to be a disproportionate hit. You don't get to average in the Sooner and Horn games anymore. 

Bingo.

[Tex Long 4384]

When this all kicked off with The Announcement, my first thought was that, were I in Bowlsby's place, I'da picked up my phone and called SMU and UH immediately, get their assent, then go after Cincy and Memphis and get back to 12. No doubt there are myriad reasons why all four of these are wrong, wrong, wrong, which means (since he didn't do it) Bowlsby must be smarter than he appears. On the other hand, the way XII has proceeded looks pretty fucking stupid at this point.

All non-football sports are already good, conference-wise, are they not? Why fuck with that?

I still like the idea of splitting off conference away from playoffs at all, let them play a 9 or 10-week regular season... under the auspices of NCAA. The 128 D1 FPS teams separate the Playoffs from NCAA, and define 8 "regions" of 16 teams each, and have a four-week regional playoff within each region, followed by a three week playoff among the eight regional champions. Plenty of room for "bowls" amongst the rest. The money would almost certainly work itself out. Unfortunately, it'll never happen because none of the entities involved want real change.

[Tex-19 2872]

7 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

 

Are they really? Now subtract the eyeballs they got for the Texas and OU games, re-average, and tell me what their average viewers per game are? If they're still that impressive, I'll fuck right off. But I'm guessing removing 6 million eyeballs from their season and dividing by 2 less is going to be a disproportionate hit. You don't get to average in the Sooner and Horn games anymore. 

Fair point but the other Big 12 and PAC teams have this dynamic too. You'd have to subtract USC and I guess Oregon from all the PAC schools if you wanted to compare this way. Idk how it would turn out but I'm guessing they'd still be top half

[Hurtlocker 2212]

1 hour ago, GTX Horn said:

What’s the draw of someone like KSU vs. Tech or TCU? KSU brings very little to the table. At least Tech or TCU could get the PAC a foothold in Texas.

They don't draw terrible numbers and you could always do an Arrowhead feature like they do in DFW/Atlanta at the beginning of the year.

I cannot imagine the Pac even accepting a call from Baylor, that's probably already blocked.   So if Tech is trying to keep the three together, I guess the AAC jumps to 14.

[LTtxfan 49170]

 

[SydneyCarton 48075]

2 minutes ago, Tex-19 said:

Fair point but the other Big 12 and PAC teams have this dynamic too. You'd have to subtract USC and I guess Oregon from all the PAC schools if you wanted to compare this way. Idk how it would turn out but I'm guessing they'd still be top half

What? Why the fuck would I subtract those #s? None of the PAC schools, currently, are at risk of leaving the PAC, so why do I need to re-evaluate what Oregon versus Oregon State does in regards to being attractive for the Beavers to join another conference?

Oklahoma State is trying to sell what THEY offer to another conference. And what they sell no longer includes their two by far biggest viewership games of the year. Period. They don't get to sell that. And on the other end. UCLA isn't at risk from losing their games from their two biggest conference mates and trying to sell themselves to the Big 10 so there isn't some fuck all apples to apples to comparison you need to construct. There aren't two sides to this coin. 

Edited August 24, 2021 by SydneyCarton

[Bill Lumbergh 7171]

I wonder if Bowlsby is still waiting on his evite to join the alliance party.

Remember when he made sure it was publicly known that he was meeting with the PAC12 commissioner about forming an alliance, and less than a week later rumors of this alliance started to break?

aggy definitely showed their ass early on in this, but it will be hard to beat Bowlsby for the crown of biggest loser. So far he's failed to see the writing on the wall that his two biggest brands were shopping around, pissed off ESPN, helped break up what would've been a pretty good offer for some schools who may end up homeless now, and failed to secure an alliance with any of the stable p5 conferences. I had low expectations for him already, but he's really forcing me to recalibrate.

[SimonBolivar 10958]

Just now, Bill Lumbergh said:

I wonder if Bowlsby is still waiting on his evite to join the alliance party.

Remember when he made sure it was publicly known that he was meeting with the PAC12 commissioner about forming an alliance, and less than a week later rumors of this alliance started to break?

aggy definitely showed their ass early on in this, but it will be hard to beat Bowlsby for the crown of biggest loser. So far he's failed to see the writing on the wall that his two biggest brands were shopping around, pissed off ESPN, helped break up what would've been a pretty good offer for some schools who may end up homeless now, and failed to secure an alliance with any of the stable p5 conferences. I had low expectations for him already, but he's really forcing me to recalibrate.

I'm pretty sure that Oliver Luck was hired to be his eventual replacement.

[UDontKnow 10444]

Been alluded to upstream in this thread, but for the sake of simplicity.

Also, the Big 12 is dead. 

And Texas Tech, Texas Christian, and Baylor look have their micropeens flapping in the wind....just the way it should be.

[ShaggyBevo RIP 3868]

1 hour ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

KSU to Pac and not Tech makes zero sense. 

The new metric, from cord cutting, is how many eyes do you actually deliver and not forced carriage fees from media footprint.  I believe both KSU and OSU deliver more eyeballs than TTech.

Edited August 24, 2021 by ShaggyBevo RIP

[TreatyOak 16313]

[UDontKnow 10444]

Just now, TreatyOak said:

Fuck Bowlsby and Fuck Pakistan!

[Pimphand 5735]

 

51 minutes ago, Gidnik said:

 

B1G is pretty OCD on AAU status so I can see them adding KU and ISU as they are the lone AAU remnants in the BDF.

I can also see ACC adding WVU since they have most of the Big East (football) remnants anyways

I can see the P12 wanting TxTech & OSU just to boost reach and add programs that give a shit about football since that is their primary struggle.

I don't see where KSU, TCU, & Baylor fit into anyone's mix....

Edited August 24, 2021 by Pimphand

[Tex-19 2872]

Just now, SydneyCarton said:

What? Why the fuck would I subtract those #s? None of the PAC schools, currently, are at risk of leaving the PAC, so why do I need to re-evaluate what Oregon versus Oregon State does in regards to being attractive for the Beavers to join another confererence?

I wasn't evaluating Oregon St joining another conference. I'm evaluating OK St value to the PAC (are they an above-average contributor to the pie).

Including USC viewers for ASU (as an example) while excluding UT viewers for OkSt is apples to oranges. ASU includes the viewer boost from the power program, while OSU's are basically "organic" viewers.

Alternatively, you could think about it this way: OSU loses UT/OU, which brings their numbers down. But then they gain USC, Oregon, etc which brings the average back up some (probably not equal, but some). What do their numbers look like then?

Point is, if we're evaluating their standing within the PAC, it's apples to oranges to take out the major Big 12 opponents without adjusting the PAC comparisons or without adding in the big PAC opponents to OSU.

[UDontKnow 10444]

4 minutes ago, Pimphand said:

 

B1G is pretty OCD on AAU status so I can see them adding KU and ISU as they are the lone AAU remnants in the BDF.

I can also see ACC adding WVU since they have most of the Big East remnants anyways

I can see the P12 wanting TxTech & OSU just to boost reach and add programs that give a shit about football since that is their primary struggle.

I don't see where KSU, TCU, & Baylor fit into anyone's mix....

If it is indeed K-State over Texas Tech, then it's because no athletic conference wants to deal with the Texas State Legislature...and I certainly don't blame them.

[SimonBolivar 10958]

12 minutes ago, ShaggyBevo RIP said:

 I believe both KSU and OSU deliver more eyeballs than TTech.

I don't believe that's accurate based on this...

Now, I'm not sure if that does include UT and OU so maybe the networks see something different without those games.

 

Edited August 24, 2021 by SimonBolivar