Realignment talk not going away

[DanTheHorn 4925]

2 minutes ago, 'stache said:

He explained that "relegated" to him means completely shut out, like the BIG/SEC forming a new division. The BIG 12 will have every opportunity to get more than one playoff bid in any given year. In fact, I think it'll happen every few years. More than 2, probably not. It's understood that BIG/SEC will take the majority of the spots. It is what it is, but the Big XII champ at least will get their opportunity, like TCU this year in a four team playoff, beating a damn good Michigan team, then, well, you know. It doesn't take away the Michigan win. What really sucks for TCU is they didn't get a conference title trophy out of it, which blows.

He also put bulk as part of it. Bulk is what I keyed on since they would be down to one bid and unlikely to get a second.

Edited August 14, 2023 by DanTheHorn

['stache 21816]

TCU and KSU both would have been in last year if the 12-team format was in place. It's unlikely, in my opinion, that Utah would be in too once part of the same conference and without USC to beat on title weekend, but two for sure (no telling if KSU or Utah would be the one out). I think it's more likely that ACC and XII will battle for a third spot in any given year, and some years each will only get 1. I think it makes sense given the new landscape.

New SEC: 3

New BIG: 4

New XII: 3

ACC: 1

G5: 1

 

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/college-football-playoff-expansion-how-a-12-team-bracket-would-have-looked-for-2022-postseason/

In 2021, OSU, Baylor, Cincy, and Utah were all top 12. Again, unlikely in the new setup that 4 teams would make it, but two for sure. You also would need to adjust for a G5 since Cincy would be part of the XII. Notre Dame also took a spot that year, so it was:

New SEC: 3

New BIG: 3

New XII: 4 (including Cincy as G5)

ACC: 1

Indy: 1

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/college-football-playoff-expansion-how-a-12-team-bracket-would-have-looked-for-the-2021-postseason/

Edited August 14, 2023 by 'stache

[Al_4_ISU 12463]

27 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

If you had said Indiana or Illinois then I would agree, but…

Iowa - flagship school of the state with 3 million people, with 5 national titles, top 40 in all time wins and a top 25 stadium by capacity

Minnesota -flagship and ONLY FBS school of a state with 6 million people, 7 national titles, top 25 in all time wins, top 50 stadium by capacity 

vs

Iowa State - 2nd school in a state of 3 million people, zero national titles, top 90 in all time wins, top 30 stadium by capacity

 

You guys have a nice stadium but otherwise I don’t get the resentment on programs that are clearly superior.

Minnesota has no fanbase.  Nobody cares about college football in that state.

Iowa’s clearly a better program, but they are closer to being us than they are to being a blue blood.

I picked those schools because they are the closest to me.

[Al_4_ISU 12463]

32 minutes ago, DanTheHorn said:

"If you relegate schools like the bulk of the Big 12 schools, their fans will just lose interest in college football"  vs "Every I8 fan should be completely fine with this arrangement"

Right now the BIG 12 has one auto birth. The remaining 6 at large could easily go to the BIG 10 and SEC just like when Ohio State jumped TCU. It is a fact that the brand name schools will probably jump non-brand name schools. To me that is relegating the bulk of BIG 12 schools. So I did not understand how you guys were fine with the arrangement. Had the BIG 12 remained schools other than the champions that finished ahead of Texas and Oklahoma could have claim multiple wins against brand name programs to reach the playoffs.

It may be possible that the BIG 12 will get two teams in but as elite recruits start to all flow to the Power 2 then I see it as improbable.

Every Big 12 school can make the playoff by winning the league, currently.

If only Big 10 and SEC schools got in, the Big 12 would be relegated.  That hasn’t happened yet.

If the TV networks force there to be 40 schools with playoff access, based on current Big 10 and SEC membership, the bulk of the Big 12 and ACC would be relegated, and those fanbases would heavily punch out.

[Hurtlocker 2212]

42 minutes ago, DanTheHorn said:

"If you relegate schools like the bulk of the Big 12 schools, their fans will just lose interest in college football"  vs "Every I8 fan should be completely fine with this arrangement"

Right now the BIG 12 has one auto birth. The remaining 6 at large could easily go to the BIG 10 and SEC just like when Ohio State jumped TCU. It is a fact that the brand name schools will probably jump non-brand name schools. To me that is relegating the bulk of BIG 12 schools. So I did not understand how you guys were fine with the arrangement. Had the BIG 12 remained schools other than the champions that finished ahead of Texas and Oklahoma could have claim multiple wins against brand name programs to reach the playoffs.

It may be possible that the BIG 12 will get two teams in but as elite recruits start to all flow to the Power 2 then I see it as improbable.

Looking at past results, it is far more likely that the ACC and B12 will get 2 in out of 12 per year, than the SEC/B1G will get 4.   It will always vary but the most likely blend every year is:

• B1G/SEC = 6 bids
• ACC/B12 = 4 bids
• G5 = 1 bid
• ND or a random 3-4 loss from the B1G/SEC

 

[Al_4_ISU 12463]

7 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

I think 80 is the right number, personally. 64 leaves too many good fanbases out and results in too many losses each season for the top teams. That would be a shock to the system when solid top 25 teams are 6-6.

Agreed.  It’s better to have a little fat in terms of uninvested fanbases than to leave out a school that’s trying to compete with fans who care because they didn’t grow up in the right neighborhood 

[Al_4_ISU 12463]

And Iowa does NOT have 5 national titles.  They have one heavily disputed one from the 50’s, where LSU won the AP poll and had a better record.  Very similar to the OK State disputed title.

[billfromlaketravis 11485]

Frankly I expected more schadenfreude from Cazano and Wilner podcast.

Their latest fan fiction is the remaining 4 PAC schools will band together, add 2 more programs “that won’t dilute the conference brand”, and try to remain in the autonomous 5 or power 5. They’re skeptical the Big Ten will vote them out because of legal issues. But they’d have to find a TV partner to get them to 2031.

I’m here for laughing at PAC 6 consisting of SMU, SDSU, Cal, Stanford, Oregon State, and Wazzou. 

Edited August 14, 2023 by billfromlaketravis

[DanTheHorn 4925]

43 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Every Big 12 school can make the playoff by winning the league, currently.

If only Big 10 and SEC schools got in, the Big 12 would be relegated.  That hasn’t happened yet.

If the TV networks force there to be 40 schools with playoff access, based on current Big 10 and SEC membership, the bulk of the Big 12 and ACC would be relegated, and those fanbases would heavily punch out.

Would you consider an 11-2 team that lost in the BIG 12 championship game missing out on the playoffs to a 9-3 BIG 10 name brand team to not be relegated? I say it since I can see it easily happening. Anyways you have cleared up what you mean by relegated and what I understood as relegated and that is where we saw things differently.

['stache 21816]

1 minute ago, DanTheHorn said:

Would you consider an 11-2 team that lost in the BIG 12 championship game missing out on the playoffs to a 9-3 BIG 10 name brand team to not be relegated? I say it since I can see it easily happening. Anyways you have cleared up what you mean by relegated and what I understood as relegated and that is where we saw things differently.

Speaking for myself, I don't see that as relegated. That scenario isn't all that different than TCU and BU both being shut out in 2014, and OSU being bypassed for Alabama in 2011. As long as our champion is an auto qualifier, with a good shot that the runner up could also be chosen, it's not relegation, any more than being below the blue bloods already required near perfection previously. The money disparity is a bigger issue to me than playoff access, but again, it is what it is, we're getting paid enough to compete and our media deal will get most of our games on linear TV.

[Sbbruin 21856]

35 minutes ago, billfromlaketravis said:

Frankly I expected more schadenfreude from Cazano and Wilner podcast.

Their latest fan fiction is the remaining 4 PAC schools will band together, add 2 more programs “that won’t dilute the conference brand”, and try to remain in the autonomous 5 or power 5. They’re skeptical the Big Ten will vote them out because of legal issues. But they’d have to find a TV partner to get them to 2031.

I’m here for laughing at PAC 6 consisting of SMU, SDSU, Cal, Stanford, Oregon State, and Wazzou. 

The one thought that this is Apple’s only shot at getting into the CFB game leads to the possibility of getting a media deal better than what they’d get in a sweetened MWC media deal.  Depends on how bad they want in.

[Welshy 907]

24 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Speaking for myself, I don't see that as relegated. That scenario isn't all that different than TCU and BU both being shut out in 2014, and OSU being bypassed for Alabama in 2011. As long as our champion is an auto qualifier, with a good shot that the runner up could also be chosen, it's not relegation, any more than being below the blue bloods already required near perfection previously. The money disparity is a bigger issue to me than playoff access, but again, it is what it is, we're getting paid enough to compete and our media deal will get most of our games on linear TV.

Kstate, TCU, Baylor, Tech, Okst will get a crack once decade...maybe a few times. Add a few others who have come up just short in the last 20 years like Cincinnati, remove several dominant OU and UT teams, and their odds may actually be a lot better. 

[billfromlaketravis 11485]

31 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

The one thought that this is Apple’s only shot at getting into the CFB game leads to the possibility of getting a media deal better than what they’d get in a sweetened MWC media deal.  Depends on how bad they want in.

Wilner went full soap box on Stanford refusing to be the same conference as San Jose State. He said it was something they would never consider and would be a non-starter/deal killer. But Jon has been absolutely wrong before. 

[bullet 1597]

2 hours ago, statsman said:

Oh, really? Where is the official report and accounting on Baylor? I can’t find it when I google, just references to “oral reports to the regents” and settlements with accusers, with NDAs attached. 

You should have stopped while you simply looked biased, not ridiculous.  You can't even look up Wikipedia?  Try Baylor and Scandal.  Sandusky and Scandal.  Michigan St. and Scandal.  Baylor is not the only school to have turned a blind eye to sexual assault issues.  Florida St., Missouri and Notre Dame have similar stories on a single victim.

[The Hot Dog Buffet 1291]

20 hours ago, statsman said:

I don’t get the argument that the top league heads to include 64 teams in order to not lose fan viewership. 
 
In the UK, there is a Premiere League and lesser leagues, based on attendance, win % and revenue. People still watch their teams, even if relegated. 
 
In Texas HS, there are different divisions based on student body size. People still watch the games. 
 
Are you arguing that if ISU, OSU and BYU were in a lower division than the SEC and B1G 10, their fans would stop attending and tuning in?

The games would get about as much tv coverage as FCS football.

[Al_4_ISU 12463]

1 hour ago, DanTheHorn said:

Would you consider an 11-2 team that lost in the BIG 12 championship game missing out on the playoffs to a 9-3 BIG 10 name brand team to not be relegated? I say it since I can see it easily happening. Anyways you have cleared up what you mean by relegated and what I understood as relegated and that is where we saw things differently.

That’s the same shit that’s been going on basically forever, to me.  I don’t see that as a drastic change.

It’s 2014 playoffs redux

[USC Traveler 488]

22 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

But it's interesting that their premier slot is a no go for home games at the 4 schools they just brought in. They're not really going to kick off at 9am are they?

 

22 hours ago, mdmost said:

No but that's 4 more options for away game teams for Big Noon. Ohio State-Oregon or Penn State-Washington is certainly going to get Big Noon. You also have USC and UCLA when they travel to any number of Big 10 away games. Not all the Big Noon games were great matchups. Home games on the West Coast will now be in the 2:30-6 Central time frame. Fox will also get some night games I believe. The problem I see is CBS and NBC are also going to get some first cracks and now Fox loses some evening content. I'm not sure who gets what first in those time frames. I know NBC has a prime time slot for the Big 10 and CBS now has a 2:30 Big 10 game of the week. Then you have Peacock getting the lesser games. Notre Dame will always be a 2:30 kickoff for their home games on NBC. 

 

Yeah- it's all about maximizing the number of top tier matchups for Fox, CBS and NBC.  Each one has the first pick sometimes.

I don't know how many times each one has the first pick, but there are definitely weekends where CBS and NBC get it.

If you look at the schedule this year, there are definitely some duds in there.  Adding the former PAC schools next year helps a lot.

BIG will have OSU, UM, USC, PSU on the top tier, with a strong second tier (for tv ratings) of UW, UO, UCLA, Wisc, IA, NU, MSU.

That's a lot of good games.  Spread out between the three networks, they'll plug most, if not all, of the holes in this year's schedule.

//

If they stay at 9 games and do a 1-8-8 rotation, based off what they already have, then 2024would look something like this:

UM-OSU, USC-UCLA, PSU-MSU, UW-UO, IA-NU, UM-UW, UM-USC, OSU-UO, OSU- UCLA, USC-PSU, PSU-UW, USC-UW, UCLA-UO

UM- Wisc, OSU-IA, USC- IA, PSU- Wisc, UO-Wisc, UW-IA, OSU-NU, UM-MSU, UCLA- NU, UCLA-MSU, etc, etc

Throw in games like OSU-MD, UM-RU that will still do solid numbers b/c of OSU and UM, and that's a lot of games doing good/solid ratings.

If they go to 10 games and a 3-7-7, then it's that many more good games every year.

//

The other factor is that existing BIG schools don't want to play night games at home in November because of weather issues.  Adding UW and UO doubles the amount of schools that will happily host games in the Prime time window (Eastern/Central time).  

I love 4-5pm Pacific time starts.  My favorite game time.  Big games and Primetime exposure in most of the country.

I'm hoping the need to supply good games for all three tv partners means there won't be a lot of USC "BIG After Dark" games.

 

Edited August 15, 2023 by USC Traveler

[statsman 5471]

1 hour ago, bullet said:

You should have stopped while you simply looked biased, not ridiculous.  You can't even look up Wikipedia?  Try Baylor and Scandal.  Sandusky and Scandal.  Michigan St. and Scandal.  Baylor is not the only school to have turned a blind eye to sexual assault issues.  Florida St., Missouri and Notre Dame have similar stories on a single victim.

I know reading can be hard. Try again. 
 
There has never been an official report, internal and external, written by an official investigative body or court, about the Baylor scandal. Unlike PSU and MSU, who had official investigations and reports. 
 
Baylor commissioned an investigation and has sheltered it. The B12 asked for them to share their internal investigation and Baylor said “No”. 
 
There has never been an official reckoning. That’s why Baylor gets to say the story is overblown and nothing happened that doesn’t happen everywhere. 

[statsman 5471]

Find something like this on Baylor. Not Wikipedia. 
 
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/396512-report-final-071212

https://oig.justice.gov/news/doj-oig-releases-report-investigation-and-review-fbis-handling-allegations-sexual-abuse-former

[Texas Wahoo 3397]

4 hours ago, 'stache said:

TCU and KSU both would have been in last year if the 12-team format was in place. It's unlikely, in my opinion, that Utah would be in too once part of the same conference and without USC to beat on title weekend, but two for sure (no telling if KSU or Utah would be the one out). I think it's more likely that ACC and XII will battle for a third spot in any given year, and some years each will only get 1. I think it makes sense given the new landscape.

New SEC: 3

New BIG: 4

New XII: 3

ACC: 1

G5: 1

 

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/college-football-playoff-expansion-how-a-12-team-bracket-would-have-looked-for-2022-postseason/

In 2021, OSU, Baylor, Cincy, and Utah were all top 12. Again, unlikely in the new setup that 4 teams would make it, but two for sure. You also would need to adjust for a G5 since Cincy would be part of the XII. Notre Dame also took a spot that year, so it was:

New SEC: 3

New BIG: 3

New XII: 4 (including Cincy as G5)

ACC: 1

Indy: 1

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/college-football-playoff-expansion-how-a-12-team-bracket-would-have-looked-for-the-2021-postseason/

You’re assuming the committee voting will happen the same way when those spots matter instead of being just for show mostly. 

Edited August 15, 2023 by Texas Wahoo

[bullet 1597]

1 hour ago, statsman said:

I know reading can be hard. Try again. 
 
There has never been an official report, internal and external, written by an official investigative body or court, about the Baylor scandal. Unlike PSU and MSU, who had official investigations and reports. 
 
Baylor commissioned an investigation and has sheltered it. The B12 asked for them to share their internal investigation and Baylor said “No”. 
 
There has never been an official reckoning. That’s why Baylor gets to say the story is overblown and nothing happened that doesn’t happen everywhere. 

So did Art Briles rape your sister?  Or you?  You have an irrational hatred of Baylor.  Maybe you should read up on Sandusky raping children for at least 13 years unconstrained at Penn St.  Art Briles was only at Baylor for 7 years.

I guess you are totally incapable of reading.  You made the stupid claim even for Surly that nobody in the Big 10 was as bad as Baylor.  Well at least two schools were.  I never said everyone was as bad as Baylor.  Just that other schools had problems and two schools in the pristine Big 10, yes, were absolutely as bad as Baylor.  And after Sandusky, Penn St. hired the guy who tried to cover up a rape by football players at Vanderbilt.  PSU is totally tone deaf.

Baylor is not the reason we left the Big 12.  There have been scandals in the SEC as well.  Recruiting was the reason we moved.

[bullet 1597]

36 minutes ago, Texas Wahoo said:

You’re assuming the committee voting will happen the same way when those spots matter instead of being just for show mostly. 

I like getting the committee out of it as much as possible.  That's why we need guaranteed slots for at least 5 and maybe 6 conference champs.

[Hurtlocker 2212]

6 minutes ago, bullet said:

I like getting the committee out of it as much as possible.  That's why we need guaranteed slots for at least 5 and maybe 6 conference champs.

I agree.   They've had some strange ones.   I say we just turn it all over to our future AI overlords now and be done with it.

[Hurtlocker 2212]

8 minutes ago, bullet said:

You made the stupid claim even for Surly that nobody in the Big 10 was as bad as Baylor.  Well at least two schools were.  I never said everyone was as bad as Baylor.  Just that other schools had problems and two schools in the pristine Big 10, yes, were absolutely as bad as Baylor.  And after Sandusky, Penn St. hired the guy who tried to cover up a rape by football players at Vanderbilt.  PSU is totally tone deaf.

Don't forget this one:   Ohio State Doc Abuses Wrestlers

[statsman 5471]

22 minutes ago, bullet said:

So did Art Briles rape your sister?  Or you?  You have an irrational hatred of Baylor.  Maybe you should read up on Sandusky raping children for at least 13 years unconstrained at Penn St.  Art Briles was only at Baylor for 7 years.

I guess you are totally incapable of reading.  You made the stupid claim even for Surly that nobody in the Big 10 was as bad as Baylor.  Well at least two schools were.  I never said everyone was as bad as Baylor.  Just that other schools had problems and two schools in the pristine Big 10, yes, were absolutely as bad as Baylor.  And after Sandusky, Penn St. hired the guy who tried to cover up a rape by football players at Vanderbilt.  PSU is totally tone deaf.

Baylor is not the reason we left the Big 12.  There have been scandals in the SEC as well.  Recruiting was the reason we moved.

You are misstating what I wrote, but that’s ok. Not everyone is good at reading comprehension. 
 
Keep at it!

[TKthunder2 4991]

1 hour ago, bullet said:

I like getting the committee out of it as much as possible.  That's why we need guaranteed slots for at least 5 and maybe 6 conference champs.

Might want to start wrapping your head around 4 (which even that might not happen, if we end up straight at large selections).

If the ACC hangs around that’s giving the 4 Power conferences spots now that they’re all going divisionless and it won’t be possible to have a 6-6 UCLA in the CCG anymore with bid stealing potential.

If the ACC implodes that’s giving the 3 conferences spots and saving the 4th for the G5-PAC/ACC leftovers. Which is about as good as anyone could realistically hope for.

[bullet 1597]

1 hour ago, Hurtlocker said:

I agree.   They've had some strange ones.   I say we just turn it all over to our future AI overlords now and be done with it.

My wife now has AI suggesting the start of e-mail for her!

Wonder what AI would think about the realignment decisions over the past 15 years.

[bullet 1597]

1 hour ago, statsman said:

You are misstating what I wrote, but that’s ok. Not everyone is good at reading comprehension. 
 
Keep at it!

"...I don’t think Michigan has to worry about Purdue covering up a gang rape scandal (don’t throw PSU at me- that all came out in the news, unlike with our Baptist friends)...."

I'm sorry for arguing with you.  You clearly have dementia.

[bullet 1597]

46 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

Might want to start wrapping your head around 4 (which even that might not happen, if we end up straight at large selections).

If the ACC hangs around that’s giving the 4 Power conferences spots now that they’re all going divisionless and it won’t be possible to have a 6-6 UCLA in the CCG anymore with bid stealing potential.

If the ACC implodes that’s giving the 3 conferences spots and saving the 4th for the G5-PAC/ACC leftovers. Which is about as good as anyone could realistically hope for.

Well there is a reason they did 6.  They didn't want to shut the G5 out and risk political and legal backlash.  They may go 5 with the Pac disappearing, but the ACC would also have to totally go away to get to 4.  I suspect they will complain, but stick to 6 for 2024 and 2025 and change the deal in 2026 if #6 is a TV ratings stinker.

[TKthunder2 4991]

46 minutes ago, bullet said:

Well there is a reason they did 6.  They didn't want to shut the G5 out and risk political and legal backlash.  They may go 5 with the Pac disappearing, but the ACC would also have to totally go away to get to 4.  I suspect they will complain, but stick to 6 for 2024 and 2025 and change the deal in 2026 if #6 is a TV ratings stinker.

I was talking about the next contract.

For the expansion to 12, they went with 6 because that was the agreement to get all 10 conferences to agree on playoff expansion. It had to be unanimous to expand while under the still ongoing CFP contract that all 10 conferences and ND agreed to. The thought was that it would be the Power 5 champions plus the highest ranked G5. That thought looks “messy” after this round of realignment.

That agreement, as you said, is only for 2024-25. The Big Ten, SEC, and Big 12 might try to push for a change for those 2 years but the G5/ACC/PAC4 have really no reason to change it unless they increase the standard payouts or something like that. Still, if they don’t, you could see even worse terms happening in the next contract. Maybe they drop it to 5 now in hopes that they can keep it going forward as we all realize 6 won’t happen again.

[Welshy 907]

4 minutes ago, bullet said:

Well there is a reason they did 6.  They didn't want to shut the G5 out and risk political and legal backlash.  They may go 5 with the Pac disappearing, but the ACC would also have to totally go away to get to 4.  I suspect they will complain, but stick to 6 for 2024 and 2025 and change the deal in 2026 if #6 is a TV ratings stinker.

Maybe, but I personally think they aren't worried about legals and actually want a stream of Novus Homo challengers, even if someone completely random like TCU wins it all. ESPFOX doesn't care who wins, they care about how many people watch. APP ST and ATM is too few and far between to be bankable. 

Nothing brings viewers like an upstart, though...an uppidy, clueless underdog. Murica. That's why 40 is wrong. 64 works. You need cannon fodder, even if its expensive cannon fodder like ASU or WVU. Even if you could lose. TV just cares if it's interesting. Right now, College TV is rarely interesting. a couple times a year it's interesting. It will be interesting every week, whatever your school affiliation. 

There are two or three Saturdays where I say "I'm out. My day is booked. Divorce, fire, whatever...I'm sitting in my resort pavilion and watching foosball for 14 hours. Sorry.  I'll happily cook...make drinks...empty the dishwasher, whatever, but I'm NOT GOING TO TARGET OR OR JENNA'S HOUSE FOR COCKTAILS. Sometimes it works.

What the fuck happens if every Saturday is non-stop amazing shit? Seriously, this is happening because there have been whole Saturdays without a meaningful game, and there absolutely doesn't have to be. College football is already more interesting to me than Pro...make every game compelling, and I'm junkie status. 

 WHAT IF EVERY SATURDAY WAS "OMGOMGOMGOMGOMG?" It could be, even with games like Oh St Minn or UT Tech. Those games will still draw between 1-2m and there is actual risk involved. What they won't do is be a foregone conclusion. 

For 20-30 supremes you need 60-90 also rans who are striving to become number 31. 

Every weekend can't have  "Bamer and TX, GA v OU, FL v LSO, USC v Mich. OhSt. v. Penn St." without half of those schools sucking ass. You need a bigger class of plebs to beat up, sometimes lose to and occasionally promote because "gosh darn it, you're scrappy, tenacious, and you deserve a seat at the table. just not too many of you, and not too often!"

YAY!

 

 

 

[notre dame joe 187]

18 hours ago, statsman said:

The problem is conferences have to weigh adding teams to strengthen the conference vs. conference members’ desire to maximize their own team’s outlook. Yes, FSU and Clemson are competitive at very high levels. Yes, they would like to be in the SEC. Yes, ESPN might like them in the SEC (maybe not- that’s a sweet deal for ESPN the ACC has). But, what’s in it for MSU? Or Arkansas?

 
Maybe the right end result is two conferences having a lot more money than the others, but the others are allowed into the playoffs. They might even win a first round game, as TCU did. 
 
TCU won, because it had a modern offense, and a puncher’s chance, and they made it. Duggan carried the ball 15 times against Michigan. Very few QBs can do that two games in a row against top defenses, and be effective in the second game. No B12 OL and DL can be competitive two games in a row. That’s the advantage the B10 and SEC have - the line play. 
 
So we can have a future where five conferences send teams to the playoffs, but only B10 and SEC teams ever make it to the semifinals. 

 

10 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

And Iowa does NOT have 5 national titles.  They have one heavily disputed one from the 50’s, where LSU won the AP poll and had a better record.  Very similar to the OK State disputed title.

Now do Iowa pre-flight.

[Al_4_ISU 12463]

14 hours ago, 'stache said:

He explained that "relegated" to him means completely shut out, like the BIG/SEC forming a new division. The BIG 12 will have every opportunity to get more than one playoff bid in any given year. In fact, I think it'll happen every few years. More than 2, probably not. It's understood that BIG/SEC will take the majority of the spots. It is what it is, but the Big XII champ at least will get their opportunity, like TCU this year in a four team playoff, beating a damn good Michigan team, then, well, you know. It doesn't take away the Michigan win. What really sucks for TCU is they didn't get a conference title trophy out of it, which blows.

The Big 12 should have awarded trophies for winning the round robin AND the CCG.  We do a regular season champ and tournament champ in basketball.  Football has been in the same boat since the CCG started, but only the winner of the rematch gets a trophy.

The last 3 round robin winners have lost the CCG against a team they’d previously beaten and its horse shit they get nothing to show for it.

[statsman 5471]

13 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

And Iowa does NOT have 5 national titles.  They have one heavily disputed one from the 50’s, where LSU won the AP poll and had a better record.  Very similar to the OK State disputed title.

Iowa claims one title, 1958. I looked it up. Most MNC polls, at the time, named undefeated and untied LSU as the MNC. One, the FWAA, named Iowa the MNC. 
 
This is a better claim than any of the years after-the-fact claims. The FWAA (Football Writers Association of America) is a real group, and they award a real, physical trophy. What is Iowa to do when the trophy arrives at their AD? If, in 2008, the FWAA had awarded Texas the trophy, do you think we should have turned it down? I don’t  

 
But,…Iowa finished 8-1-1. How did the writers put them ahead of LSU? Was it because, playing in the segregated SEC, LSU was considered to have played a weaker schedule?

It’s a puzzler, but Iowa’s claim is a little stronger than OSU’s 1946 claim and a lot stronger than SMU’s ‘81 and ‘82 claims. 

[Al_4_ISU 12463]

2 hours ago, statsman said:

Iowa claims one title, 1958. I looked it up. Most MNC polls, at the time, named undefeated and untied LSU as the MNC. One, the FWAA, named Iowa the MNC. 
 
This is a better claim than any of the years after-the-fact claims. The FWAA (Football Writers Association of America) is a real group, and they award a real, physical trophy. What is Iowa to do when the trophy arrives at their AD? If, in 2008, the FWAA had awarded Texas the trophy, do you think we should have turned it down? I don’t  

 
But,…Iowa finished 8-1-1. How did the writers put them ahead of LSU? Was it because, playing in the segregated SEC, LSU was considered to have played a weaker schedule?

It’s a puzzler, but Iowa’s claim is a little stronger than OSU’s 1946 claim and a lot stronger than SMU’s ‘81 and ‘82 claims. 

I have no idea, and honestly I've only met one Iowa fan in my life who actually claims it.

I'm not saying the AD should turn it down.  If they sent one of these to ISU, you're god damn right our AD would claim it, although as a fan, especially 60 years after the fact, it wouldn't mean anything to me.  And the vast majority of Iowa fans I know find it meaningless to them.  

[camel at sea 589]

13 hours ago, bullet said:

Well there is a reason they did 6.  They didn't want to shut the G5 out and risk political and legal backlash.  They may go 5 with the Pac disappearing, but the ACC would also have to totally go away to get to 4.  I suspect they will complain, but stick to 6 for 2024 and 2025 and change the deal in 2026 if #6 is a TV ratings stinker.

Yeah, I think they'll keep the number at one more than the number of power conferences even in the next contract cycle.  That avoids any backlash and it creates some potentially good TV opportunities for the playoff itself. 

I am in the camp that believes the CFP will try to make that opening round into an equivalent of the first weekend of the NCAA tourney and to do that, you need at least the possibility of a Cinderella team.  It'll be a huge gambling event.  Last year's opening round games would have been:

5 TCU v 12 Tulane
6 tOSU v 11 Penn St
7 Bama v 10 SC
8 Tenn v 9 K-State

That would have set up 1 UGA vs Tenn/KSU; 2 Mich vs. Bama/SC; 3 Clem vs. tOSU/PSU; and 4 Utah vs. TCU/Tulane

Out of the first 8 games, most of them are potentially pretty good on paper and there's a plausible path for the G5 school to become a huge media story and reach the semi-final.  If that happens occasionally, it'll spur bottom-up investment from other G5 programs who want to replicate that type of exposure for themselves.     

[CustersDoctor 584]

Penn St fans may downplay Sandusky, but almost none deny it.

Baylor donors spent millions buying off victims on one hand and claim there were no victims on the other hand. Nearly 100% of their fanbase gaslights the victims, the scandals and the perps. Their fans universally say the lack of charges and convictions proves the accusations were false.

UT suspended Beard immediately, thoroughly vetted the story, then dismissed Chris Beard. I know ONE UT fan who believes that Beard was exonerated by the DA when no charges were pressed. Everyone else believes Beard should have broken up with his GF long before it came to blows.

There's a difference in how universities deal with their dirty laundry. UT did it right. Penn St and Baylor are still mocked for their cover up. UT is not.

 

[Hurtlocker 2212]

51 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

Yeah, I think they'll keep the number at one more than the number of power conferences even in the next contract cycle.  That avoids any backlash and it creates some potentially good TV opportunities for the playoff itself. 

I am in the camp that believes the CFP will try to make that opening round into an equivalent of the first weekend of the NCAA tourney and to do that, you need at least the possibility of a Cinderella team.  It'll be a huge gambling event.  Last year's opening round games would have been:

5 TCU v 12 Tulane
6 tOSU v 11 Penn St
7 Bama v 10 SC
8 Tenn v 9 K-State

That would have set up 1 UGA vs Tenn/KSU; 2 Mich vs. Bama/SC; 3 Clem vs. tOSU/PSU; and 4 Utah vs. TCU/Tulane

Out of the first 8 games, most of them are potentially pretty good on paper and there's a plausible path for the G5 school to become a huge media story and reach the semi-final.  If that happens occasionally, it'll spur bottom-up investment from other G5 programs who want to replicate that type of exposure for themselves.     

Yeah especially with Tulane shocking USC

[thunderlounge 7837]

4:50 on 8/15 and not so much as a whimper. 

[Hurtlocker 2212]

19 minutes ago, thunderlounge said:

4:50 on 8/15 and not so much as a whimper. 

Not happening this year it seems...

[gatormarc 911]

If you're already gonna break the GoR, why not break the bylaws too?

[tonedeaf 56]

20 hours ago, bullet said:

So did Art Briles rape your sister?  Or you?  You have an irrational hatred of Baylor.  Maybe you should read up on Sandusky raping children for at least 13 years unconstrained at Penn St.  Art Briles was only at Baylor for 7 years.

I guess you are totally incapable of reading.  You made the stupid claim even for Surly that nobody in the Big 10 was as bad as Baylor.  Well at least two schools were.  I never said everyone was as bad as Baylor.  Just that other schools had problems and two schools in the pristine Big 10, yes, were absolutely as bad as Baylor.  And after Sandusky, Penn St. hired the guy who tried to cover up a rape by football players at Vanderbilt.  PSU is totally tone deaf.

Baylor is not the reason we left the Big 12.  There have been scandals in the SEC as well.  Recruiting was the reason we moved.

Well,  whatever the reason,  I'm glad we are getting away from the motherfuckers.

[tonedeaf 56]

3 hours ago, CustersDoctor said:

Penn St fans may downplay Sandusky, but almost none deny it.

Baylor donors spent millions buying off victims on one hand and claim there were no victims on the other hand. Nearly 100% of their fanbase gaslights the victims, the scandals and the perps. Their fans universally say the lack of charges and convictions proves the accusations were false.

UT suspended Beard immediately, thoroughly vetted the story, then dismissed Chris Beard. I know ONE UT fan who believes that Beard was exonerated by the DA when no charges were pressed. Everyone else believes Beard should have broken up with his GF long before it came to blows.

There's a difference in how universities deal with their dirty laundry. UT did it right. Penn St and Baylor are still mocked for their cover up. UT is not.

 

Baylor fans wanted the BoR fired.  

[camel at sea 589]

4 hours ago, CustersDoctor said:

Penn St fans may downplay Sandusky, but almost none deny it.

Baylor donors spent millions buying off victims on one hand and claim there were no victims on the other hand. Nearly 100% of their fanbase gaslights the victims, the scandals and the perps. Their fans universally say the lack of charges and convictions proves the accusations were false.

UT suspended Beard immediately, thoroughly vetted the story, then dismissed Chris Beard. I know ONE UT fan who believes that Beard was exonerated by the DA when no charges were pressed. Everyone else believes Beard should have broken up with his GF long before it came to blows.

There's a difference in how universities deal with their dirty laundry. UT did it right. Penn St and Baylor are still mocked for their cover up. UT is not.

 

Penn State fans / alums / admins absolutely denied it.  Their collective reaction was one of the most insane things I've ever witnessed and I still think it was a mistake that they didn't get the death penalty.  There was a state employee, raping children, in state facilities, for decades, and other state officials (Paterno included) covered it up for decades.  There are probably still more Penn State fans who deny that JoePa knew anything about what Sandusky was doing than there are Baylor fans in total.      

Side note:  One of the best things that ever happened on the previous site was the UT effort to send someone dressed as pedobear to the Penn State - Houston bowl game right after all that happened.  

[camel at sea 589]

4 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

Yeah especially with Tulane shocking USC

They beat K-State in Manhattan during the regular season, too.  

[notre dame joe 187]

13 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

The Big 12 should have awarded trophies for winning the round robin AND the CCG.  We do a regular season champ and tournament champ in basketball.  Football has been in the same boat since the CCG started, but only the winner of the rematch gets a trophy.

The last 3 round robin winners have lost the CCG against a team they’d previously beaten and its horse shit they get nothing to show for it.

The sport decided to be NFL-lite about 10 years ago.  It hasn't gotten less dumb.

12 hours ago, statsman said:

Iowa claims one title, 1958. I looked it up. Most MNC polls, at the time, named undefeated and untied LSU as the MNC. One, the FWAA, named Iowa the MNC. 
 
This is a better claim than any of the years after-the-fact claims. The FWAA (Football Writers Association of America) is a real group, and they award a real, physical trophy. What is Iowa to do when the trophy arrives at their AD? If, in 2008, the FWAA had awarded Texas the trophy, do you think we should have turned it down? I don’t  

 
But,…Iowa finished 8-1-1. How did the writers put them ahead of LSU? Was it because, playing in the segregated SEC, LSU was considered to have played a weaker schedule?

It’s a puzzler, but Iowa’s claim is a little stronger than OSU’s 1946 claim and a lot stronger than SMU’s ‘81 and ‘82 claims. 

Notre Dame claims to be the only team that does not claim a title they were awarded, 1953.  No thanks to Iowa

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Notre_Dame_Fighting_Irish_football_team

2 hours ago, gatormarc said:

If you're already gonna break the GoR, why not break the bylaws too?

Reportedly FSU woulda needed a board meeting yesterday or at least called one with 24 hours notice. 

 

I would just ask the Noles publicly, "If the ACC meets your demands you will extend the GOR?" 

[statsman 5471]

1 hour ago, camel at sea said:

Penn State fans / alums / admins absolutely denied it.  Their collective reaction was one of the most insane things I've ever witnessed and I still think it was a mistake that they didn't get the death penalty.  There was a state employee, raping children, in state facilities, for decades, and other state officials (Paterno included) covered it up for decades.  There are probably still more Penn State fans who deny that JoePa knew anything about what Sandusky was doing than there are Baylor fans in total.      

Side note:  One of the best things that ever happened on the previous site was the UT effort to send someone dressed as pedobear to the Penn State - Houston bowl game right after all that happened.  

Sure. But there is that damning Freeh report, so they look like fools and worse when they deny it or make excuses for Joe. The rational ones know it. 
 
As noted above, Baylor suppressed their internal report and paid off victims. There were reports by at least three victims of going black, and waking up with evidence of having had sex, and then told by friends that there were videos of them being gang banged from that night being shared. It appears that it might have been a rite of passage for Baylor football to roofie a girl and run a train on her. 
 
We’ll never know for sure; Baylor shut that shit down and paid the girls off, making sure an NDA was part of it. 
 
And that’s why Baylor fans will tell you that Briles was railroaded, that nothing happened at Baylor that doesn’t happen everywhere, because they made sure to keep it all in house. The Big 12 formally voted and requested the verbal report the BoR received. Baylor refused. 
 
The poster above said I have an irrational hatred of Baylor. Maybe I do. Jesus said that what we do for the least of them, we do to or for him. Well, if you put it that way, Baylor roofied Jesus, tan a train on Him, and when He sought help the next day, Baylor told Him to shut up and transfer or be exposed as a slut. (I have used that description before on this site; that’s when the Baylor sympathizers beg me). 
 
What does this have to do with realignment? Simple- Baylor is a shitty conference mate, and not a victim. It sucks that we have to let Baylor distribute some tickets to their games against us in Austin, almost certainly bringing some horrible ex players into our stadium. Leaving Baylor behind is a bonus feature of realignment and not a bug. 

Edited August 16, 2023 by statsman

[gatormarc 911]

4 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

2 hours ago, gatormarc said:

If you're already gonna break the GoR, why not break the bylaws too?

Reportedly FSU woulda needed a board meeting yesterday or at least called one with 24 hours notice. 

Yeah. They have to put notice in by 8/15 of a given year to leave by 6/30 of the next year.

All that happens by not making this cutoff, is that now the soonest they can leave is 6/30/25.

It was just a joke that since they are already breaking the GoR, why not just say fuck it, and break the bylaws too.

Quote

I would just ask the Noles publicly, "If the ACC meets your demands you will extend the GOR?" 

Bwahahahaha. Something tells me the goalposts would move.

[gatormarc 911]

16 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

Notre Dame claims to be the only team that does not claim a title they were awarded, 1953.  No thanks to Iowa

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Notre_Dame_Fighting_Irish_football_team

Unless I'm missing some distinction, there are plenty of schools out there that don't claim a title that they were awarded by someone other than the AP/Coaches/BCS.

I know Florida doesn't claim 1984 or 1985.

Edited August 16, 2023 by gatormarc

[Hagbard Celine 10866]

On 8/14/2023 at 2:53 PM, Al_4_ISU said:

I resent that Iowa and Minnesota never have to go through the same existential dread that we’ve been facing for over a decade.

i may be forgetting someone....  with the exception of penn state, ohio state and louisiana state, the public state flagship football program is a school named after the state that does not have the word "state" in the name of the school.

the really strong cardinals are every bit the equal of your state flagship...  but you're still not the state flagship