Realignment talk not going away

[Hurtlocker 2212]

5 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

I know you disagree (we’ve had this talk before I’m fairly certain) but I still have yet to see any evidence of a GOR being enforced on a government entity. That the major difference here. ESPN/FOX would not be involved. The ACC would have to sue FSU directly and I don’t think that would have a favorable outcome. Plus even if it did it would cost money and the state could theoretically pass a law voiding unfavorable government contracts which is unique versus a standard GOR on an individual or private company.

Courts have also ruled certain GORs invalid where people signed away their lifetime of rights for $1. I’m no media rights expert here but while I agree that it will cost many MANY dollars to lawyers, I do not think this is a cut and dry as say Taylor Swift’s GOR (which she was still able to get out of by re-recording her music). FSU seems to have a plan, I’m curious to see the outcome.

Right on both points, however two things of note:

1) The ACC doesn't have to sue FSU, so sovereign immunity doesn't come into play.    If FSU wants them back, they need to sue the ACC.

2) What makes GoR's extremely tight is that they have an end date.   In this case, FSU gets all their rights back...in 2036, and will make hundreds of millions in the process, which negates the argument that someone fleeced FSU.   FSU actually asked for this deal, they wanted the ACC Network, and this is what it cost.   They're not in the best position.

As for Taylor, kind of.   That situation wasn't a grant of rights where she didn't control the ownership of her songs, she just didn't own the masters to the original recordings.   Usually this is done so the recording companies can continue to release those recordings on either new copies of the same album or make a compilation.  Each time they did that, they'd still have to pay her, she just can't tell them they can't release it.    And, unless you're a massive act, you don't own them.   I think Ray Charles was the first to win that in a contract and it was after he was a huge act and didn't pertain to previously recorded materials.

A better example would be George Michael, who signed a rights agreement. but hated the terms after.   He tried to fight it, but the case was dismissed because, basically, while he may not have liked the terms now, he signed them in good faith and has adequate access to legal advice prior, they were standard operating procedure in the industry, the terms were fair and had an end date, and he had basically reaffirmed all this by taking an advance on the deal.

FSU is not some underage music star with no representation who signed their life away for some magic beans.   It got exactly what it wanted in the deal, until it didn't want it.  Buyer's remorse because the Joneses signed a better deal later, doesn't make for a solid case.

 

 

Edited October 26, 2023 by Hurtlocker

[TKthunder2 4985]

1 hour ago, Hurtlocker said:

Right on both points, however two things of note:

1) The ACC doesn't have to sue FSU, so sovereign immunity doesn't come into play.    If FSU wants them back, they need to sue the ACC.

2) What makes GoR's extremely tight is that they have an end date.   In this case, FSU gets all their rights back...in 2036, and will make hundreds of millions in the process, which negates the argument that someone fleeced FSU.   FSU actually asked for this deal, they wanted the ACC Network, and this is what it cost.   They're not in the best position.

As for Taylor, kind of.   That situation wasn't a grant of rights where she didn't control the ownership of her songs, she just didn't own the masters to the original recordings.   Usually this is done so the recording companies can continue to release those recordings on either new copies of the same album or make a compilation.  Each time they did that, they'd still have to pay her, she just can't tell them they can't release it.    And, unless you're a massive act, you don't own them.   I think Ray Charles was the first to win that in a contract and it was after he was a huge act and didn't pertain to previously recorded materials.

A better example would be George Michael, who signed a rights agreement. but hated the terms after.   He tried to fight it, but the case was dismissed because, basically, while he may not have liked the terms now, he signed them in good faith and has adequate access to legal advice prior, they were standard operating procedure in the industry, the terms were fair and had an end date, and he had basically reaffirmed all this by taking an advance on the deal.

FSU is not some underage music star with no representation who signed their life away for some magic beans.   It got exactly what it wanted in the deal, until it didn't want it.  Buyer's remorse because the Joneses signed a better deal later, doesn't make for a solid case.

 

 

We agree on 90% I just think enforcement is the issue. FSU owns the stadium and can physically broadcast their games independently. They don’t HAVE to sue to get them back because they are them.

Role play this out.

FSU leaves the ACC and sets up a full independent schedule for 2025.  Announces all game will be streaming PPV on FSU.edu including their home game against Alabama. The ACC still holds their GOR and ESPN shows up to broadcast the game but FSU doesn’t let them into the stadium.

Someone is going to have to sue someone else because ESPN/ACC can waive a piece of paper around all they want but that doesn’t get their cameras into the stadium.

That will take some sort of law enforcement with a court order.

Edited October 26, 2023 by TKthunder2

[Guest]

6 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

I know you disagree (we’ve had this talk before I’m fairly certain) but I still have yet to see any evidence of a GOR being enforced on a government entity. That the major difference here. ESPN/FOX would not be involved. The ACC would have to sue FSU directly and I don’t think that would have a favorable outcome. Plus even if it did it would cost money and the state could theoretically pass a law voiding unfavorable government contracts which is unique versus a standard GOR on an individual or private company.

 

You have aggy's attention

[Hurtlocker 2212]

2 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

We agree on 90% I just think enforcement is the issue. FSU owns the stadium and can physically broadcast their games independently. They don’t HAVE to sue to get them back because they are them.

Role play this out.

FSU leaves the ACC and sets up a full independent schedule for 2025.  Announces all game will be streaming PPV on FSU.edu including their home game against Alabama. The ACC still holds their GOR and ESPN shows up to broadcast the game but FSU doesn’t let them into the stadium.

Someone is going to have to sue someone else because ESPN/ACC can waive a piece of paper around all they want but that doesn’t get their cameras into the stadium.

That will take some sort of law enforcement with a court order.

 

Getting cameras into the stadium is like the lowest concern here.   Could FSU stream their sports to bypass the agreement?    Sure, they could try, though, at a minimum they'd take on all the production and marketing costs too.   And, just like how things get pulled off YouTube all the time, the rights holder can go after internet distribution.   ISPs cannot knowingly allow pirated content to go through their pipeline any more than CBS can over the air.   Rights need to be secured to be broadcast either way.   And if you think broadcasts go to die on T3 channels or ESPN+, just wait until the only way you see it is a university website that likely isn't designed to handle mass media.

Even if they were allowed to broadcast on their website without concern, it would also have an effect on if they could even put together an independent schedule worth watching if none of their games are T1.    Why would ND swap that home and home when one year it's in a void.    They'd get a bigger audience traveling to Ball State. 

What not allowing the cameras into the stadium does do, however, is put them into breach of contract, for another level of expense, regardless of if one believes sovereign immunity or government immunity would protect them against the liability of breaking said contract they entered into in good faith.   Just find a big pile of money laying around that already isn't laying around just so you can go to court about not making money over the internet.

Which brings us to the crux of this, FSU wants to leave to make more money, not less.   That's what all their whining is about.  Adding more expenses and getting less exposure on an outlet that pays out pennies on the dollar in value isn't the way to do that.    They want to take them back to sell to BTN or the SEC.   Well ESPN clearly cannot broadcast them if the ACC holds the rights and BTN isn't going to get into a legal battle over it.    They'll just sit back and let it play out, on FSU's dime.   No major provider who can offer to hand FSU money is going to do that.  This is why Texas/OU cut a deal just to get out a year early and USC/UCLA set it up to go when their contract was over.

They either need to do what hasn't been done and prove that the contract isn't binding, or they need to settle out of it, or they just need to STFU and wait.

 

 

[Hurtlocker 2212]

9 hours ago, 'stache said:

I’m looking forward to the 30 for 30 on realignment to learn how all the ACC schools didn’t see the trend of escalating media rights values and locked themselves into that shitty deal. I bet ESPN execs were dancing in the streets. “I can’t believed all of them signed, LoL!!!”

What locked them into the deal was that FSU/Clemson and others wanted an ACC Network because they thought the SEC made more than them because of the T3 content.    Did they make more than the ACC on T3 content, yes, but we're talking $5-7ms here.   The big money is the T1 content and the SEC took theirs to market and made a lot more (then the B1G blew that out of the water).  

So the ACC extended their deal so ESPN could absorb the cost of building a network for T3 content that they could have just let go to ESPN+ for free, and went to market in a few years from now instead of 13.

[Frank Drebin 5659]

16 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

Right on both points, however two things of note:

1) The ACC doesn't have to sue FSU, so sovereign immunity doesn't come into play.    If FSU wants them back, they need to sue the ACC.

2) What makes GoR's extremely tight is that they have an end date.   In this case, FSU gets all their rights back...in 2036, and will make hundreds of millions in the process, which negates the argument that someone fleeced FSU.   FSU actually asked for this deal, they wanted the ACC Network, and this is what it cost.   They're not in the best position.

As for Taylor, kind of.   That situation wasn't a grant of rights where she didn't control the ownership of her songs, she just didn't own the masters to the original recordings.   Usually this is done so the recording companies can continue to release those recordings on either new copies of the same album or make a compilation.  Each time they did that, they'd still have to pay her, she just can't tell them they can't release it.    And, unless you're a massive act, you don't own them.   I think Ray Charles was the first to win that in a contract and it was after he was a huge act and didn't pertain to previously recorded materials.

A better example would be George Michael, who signed a rights agreement. but hated the terms after.   He tried to fight it, but the case was dismissed because, basically, while he may not have liked the terms now, he signed them in good faith and has adequate access to legal advice prior, they were standard operating procedure in the industry, the terms were fair and had an end date, and he had basically reaffirmed all this by taking an advance on the deal.

FSU is not some underage music star with no representation who signed their life away for some magic beans.   It got exactly what it wanted in the deal, until it didn't want it.  Buyer's remorse because the Joneses signed a better deal later, doesn't make for a solid case.

 

 

FSU would sue the ACC in a Florida state court for declaratory relief on sovereign immunity.  That's how to tee it up.

[ButtFumble 5164]

On 10/25/2023 at 10:42 PM, bullet said:

CUSA with a lot of the schools now in the AAC.  Memphis, Tulane, UAB, ECU along with Southern Miss, UH, Cincy and Louisville.  And eventually USF and TCU before they dropped out.

USM is SunBelt FunBelt not AAC

[Hurtlocker 2212]

1 hour ago, Frank Drebin said:

FSU would sue the ACC in a Florida state court for declaratory relief on sovereign immunity.  That's how to tee it up.

Not sure what the relief is for, currently they're being paid quite a bit of money on the contract and are not harmed in anyway, outside the wish they had more.

Also, the ACC has been through this before, though with a buyout, which is likely the easier to claim foul on:

Quote

The university sued the ACC in Maryland in January, calling the amount an illegal penalty. A Maryland judge has put the school's lawsuit on hold until North Carolina courts issue a final judgment. Maryland's ACC departure is scheduled for July.

Maryland's attorneys argued in the North Carolina lawsuit that the ACC's lawsuit should be dismissed because the school is an arm of the state, and Maryland and other states enjoy sovereign immunity that protects them from lawsuits. North Carolina's Court of Appeals rejected that argument.

 

[Frank Drebin 5659]

9 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

Not sure what the relief is for, currently they're being paid quite a bit of money on the contract and are not harmed in anyway, outside the wish they had more.

Also, the ACC has been through this before, though with a buyout, which is likely the easier to claim foul on:

 

It would be for declaratory relief to establish or clarify the existing rights, status or other legal relationships between parties.  I am not certain a grant of right is enforceable against a state actor unless the legislature consented to the transfer.  It is an open question.

Edited October 27, 2023 by Frank Drebin

[Hurtlocker 2212]

8 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

I am not certain a grant of right is enforceable against a state actor unless the legislature consented to the transfer.  It is an open question.

It's basically how Learfield exists, colleges sign them all the time and have for ages for merchandising, broadcasts, or really any avenue to monetize their IP.

Logoed T-Shirts don't end up all over Walmart unless someone went through this process.

[Frank Drebin 5659]

9 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

It's basically how Learfield exists, colleges sign them all the time and have for ages for merchandising, broadcasts, or really any avenue to monetize their IP.

Logoed T-Shirts don't end up all over Walmart unless someone went through this process.

And the future portions of those contracts that have not been performed are not enforceable.  Now schools often do not renege.  Because it can hurt them in future negotiations.  But the future, un-performed parts of contracts are not enforceable against state actors. Ask Mike Leach's family about that.  

A&M could tell Jimbo to fuck off with respect to the future years of his contract and there is nothing he could do about it.

Edited October 27, 2023 by Frank Drebin

[Hurtlocker 2212]

9 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

And the future portions of those contracts that have not been performed are not enforceable.  Now schools often do not renege.  Because it can hurt them in future negotiations.  But the future, un-performed parts of contracts are not enforceable against state actors. Ask Mike Leach's family about that.  

A&M could tell Jimbo to fuck off with respect to the future years of his contract and there is nothing he could do about it.

True, but what part of the contract isn't being performed?   Or do you mean that the contract is only for today and tomorrow doesn't count?    That's not really true.  Especially if something was provided for that future, in this case the development of a cable channel.   That's like saying you're not bound to pay off a debt you signed up for, because tomorrow isn't enforceable.   It is, otherwise they'd never get anything done, they'd have horrible credit, and capital projects couldn't be financed.

Edited October 27, 2023 by Hurtlocker

[Laxtonto 12078]

 

Derp….wrong thread… I am a potato…

I present you gifs as a apology for my incompetence.

 

 

Edited October 27, 2023 by Laxtonto

[LonghornBreeder 550]

3 minutes ago, Laxtonto said:

We are getting closer and closer to a world that to keep sports competitive we will need to impose rules about banning the use of real time AI during games as well… 
 

But in truth you could go low tech and do all the data capture by hand with GAs watching your feeds and get probabilistic solutions of codes every drive that should stabilize fairly quickly. The fully automated concept is cool since less people means more secrecy and potentially a faster answer, but in practice you need 4 GAs and a laptop and you could crank out models as quickly as they GAs input the data each drive.

Or we could just let QB's and OC's use headsets.

[Hurtlocker 2212]

1 hour ago, LonghornBreeder said:

Or we could just let QB's and OC's use headsets.

[Jabberwocky 1666]

The FSU BOT is holding a virtual open forum meeting this evening. I do not expect anything to come of it except some more vitriol from the participants directed toward the ACC.

[ButtFumble 5164]

I think there are still major issues that could arise between conferences and various media partners

enticing or luring a program to break a contract to come to you is generally not legal and the conferences first obtain the money from the various sources (mostly media partners) and then distribute it so they have assets to go after.....and one media partner taking the content of another media company and profiting from that is an issue

even i it was ESPN and the ACC and SEC SEC SEC that ESPN owns 100% of the content of the ACC can still make some claim of damages for ESPN breaking their conference apart or moving members.....the loss of home game revenues when bigger name programs are pulled away is a meaningful loss

I think that is the main thing that is preventing this from happening.....the media companies do not want to be drug into this and accused of collusion and enticement and face the massive potential damages from that....which is why Texas and OU had to compensate Fox directly for the loss of a single years worth of games

in addition there is simply the cost.....ESPN has the ACC for a good rate (really I think they have the SEC SEC SEC for WAY over paying and the ACC is about right), so why in the hell does ESPN want to face major legal actions and pay more just to move teams from one conference to another when they own the content already

I think Fox, NBC, and CBS are happy with what they have and they are only going to take action if teams fall in their lap for the right price like with the PAC 12 and Big 10.....right place, right time, right price....clean break at the end of a contract and GOR and not even a conference exit fee to worry about

[bullet 1596]

On 10/27/2023 at 11:01 AM, ButtFumble said:

USM is SunBelt FunBelt not AAC

That's why I listed them with UH, Cincy and Louisville who aren't there anymore either.

[Texas Wahoo 3389]

[mdmost 42999]

8 conference games a year. Get fucked ACC. SMU gets a game in the Bay Area every year. That's nice. 

Edited October 30, 2023 by mdmost

['stache 21797]

FSU going to SMU is kinda cool, and will probably just be added to their list of grievances.

[billfromlaketravis 11448]

35 minutes ago, Texas Wahoo said:

Well if SMU on their schedule isn’t the final straw for Florida State, I’m not sure what is. 

[Al_4_ISU 12451]

8 minutes ago, billfromlaketravis said:

Well if SMU on their schedule isn’t the final straw for Florida State, I’m not sure what is. 

They’ve been playing in half empty private school 30K stadiums for decades

[Texas Wahoo 3389]

I don’t necessarily agree, but this made me laugh. 

 

[Left Coast 863]

Stanford hosting Wake, SMU and Louisville?  Just when you thought their attendance couldn’t get any lower…

[TKthunder2 4985]

5 hours ago, Texas Wahoo said:

I don’t necessarily agree, but this made me laugh. 

 

It really is odds how segregated the ACC is setting up. You would have assumed either fewer rival or more crossover.

I don’t get the Miami/VT pairing. I know they were Big East buds and in the same division but that doesn’t seem like a reason to keep it going.

I also find it interesting that they brought back NCSU/Duke as an annual game but not UNC/WF (I get that would have given UNC 4 rivals)

And finally, why does everyone hate Georgia Tech and Louisville? Seems weird to give them 8 different teams each year…

['stache 21797]

Everyone should have the same number of annual games even if some aren’t traditional rivalries. SMU-Cal-Stanford are for geography and because they joined at the same time. Find a reason for others, probably geography, or maybe Big East history. This new era is so dumb. I’m giddy for the first major tiebreaker controversy in any of the new expanded conferences. 

Edited October 31, 2023 by 'stache

[Al_4_ISU 12451]

Everyone should have the same number of annual games even if some aren’t traditional rivalries. SMU-Cal-Stanford are for geography and because they joined at the same time. Find a reason for others, probably geography, or maybe Big East history. This new era is so dumb. I’m giddy for the first major tiebreaker controversy in any of the new expanded conferences. 

Seeing this makes me really hope Yormark understands the value of keeping the pockets of history and geography within the new Big 12 together. Between the Rockies group, the Big 8, and Texas you have a lot of opportunities to do just that. The Easterns even some history, geographical closeness, and recruiting ties.

['stache 21797]

10 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Seeing this makes me really hope Yormark understands the value of keeping the pockets of history and geography within the new Big 12 together. Between the Rockies group, the Big 8, and Texas you have a lot of opportunities to do just that. The Easterns even some history, geographical closeness, and recruiting ties.

Yup, the new 12 is perfectly set up for everyone to have the same 3 annual games. Won’t call them pods because that term has been beat up over time, but basically pods.

UU, BYU, AU, ASU - West/Mountains

CU, KU, KSU, ISU - Old Big 8

Tech, TCU, BU, OSU - Old Big XII South (+ TCU)

Cincy, UCF, WVU, UH - Old AAC + Geography + Holgy

Nine game schedule, 3+2+2+2. A four year player could expect to play everyone in the conference during their career.

Edited October 31, 2023 by 'stache

[Al_4_ISU 12451]

Yup, the new 12 is perfectly set up for everyone to have the same 3 annual games. Won’t call them pods because that term has been beat up over time, but basically pods.
UU, BYU, AU, ASU - West/Mountains
CU, KU, KSU, ISU - Old Big 8
Tech, TCU, BU, OSU - Old Big XII South (+ TCU)
Cincy, UCF, WVU, UH - Old AAC + Geography + Holgy
Nine game schedule, 3+2+2+2. A four year player could expect to play everyone in the conference during their career.

It’s so obvious.

Those are your annual games, and then you have 2 from each other “pod” every season and you never go more than a season without playing the entire conference.

[Evil Bill Obrien 3263]

On 10/27/2023 at 11:36 AM, Laxtonto said:

 

 

If you've got any more of her I don't think anyone would complain...

[BigHornedLurker 1935]

1 hour ago, 'stache said:

Yup, the new 12 is perfectly set up for everyone to have the same 3 annual games. Won’t call them pods because that term has been beat up over time, but basically pods.

UU, BYU, AU, ASU - West/Mountains

CU, KU, KSU, ISU - Old Big 8

Tech, TCU, BU, OSU - Old Big XII South (+ TCU)

Cincy, UCF, WVU, UH - Old AAC + Geography + Holgy

Nine game schedule, 3+2+2+2. A four year player could expect to play everyone in the conference during their career.

something funny about houston getting stuck with the leftovers 'elsewhere' 

['stache 21797]

18 minutes ago, BigHornedLurker said:

something funny about houston getting stuck with the leftovers 'elsewhere' 

I don’t have any real hate for UH but old Big XII South and Big XII North schools should be together. The alternative is UH with Texas, OSU to the north, and ISU to the east. That’s not fair to ISU and splits Farmageddon which is one of the good rivalries left. Also didn’t UH and UCF play for some stupid trophy?

Edited October 31, 2023 by 'stache

[Dnaguy 11920]

15 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I don’t have any real hate for UH but old Big XII South and Big XII schools should be together. The alternative is IH with Texas, OSU to the north, and ISU to the east. That’s not fair to ISU and splits Farmageddon which is one of the good rivalries left. Also didn’t UH and UCF play for some stupid trophy?

Houston would be happy with whatever they get and competitively this actually puts them in a better spot / a better chance of making a bowl every year.

WVU will be happy b/c of geography and a playing in Florida every other year as it's their major recruiting base.

In actuality, the midwest / Big 8 schools probably lose out more than any others your format just due to the fact that they won't be playing in Texas near as much as they have in the past and that's where they get most of their players. But they get to keep their rivalries so it's a mixed bag I guess.

Edited October 31, 2023 by Dnaguy

[Texas Wahoo 3389]

3 hours ago, 'stache said:

Yup, the new 12 is perfectly set up for everyone to have the same 3 annual games. Won’t call them pods because that term has been beat up over time, but basically pods.

UU, BYU, AU, ASU - West/Mountains

CU, KU, KSU, ISU - Old Big 8

Tech, TCU, BU, OSU - Old Big XII South (+ TCU)

Cincy, UCF, WVU, UH - Old AAC + Geography + Holgy

Nine game schedule, 3+2+2+2. A four year player could expect to play everyone in the conference during their career.

I cannot imagine CU would be particularly enamored by this arrangement, not being in a pod with either their Pac 12 brethren near California or any of the Texas schools, but if you are doing pods, it's hard to break up the Utah and Arizona schools.

['stache 21797]

3 minutes ago, Texas Wahoo said:

I cannot imagine CU would be particularly enamored by this arrangement, not being in a pod with either their Pac 12 brethren near California or any of the Texas schools, but if you are doing pods, it's hard to break up the Utah and Arizona schools.

They're free to rejoin the PAC if they want since that was such a big deal to them a decade ago. 

But seriously, the 3+2+2+2 spreads games around pretty regularly so nobody should be too pissed about playing or not playing in Texas or in any other geographic area. Same for the old Big 8 pod concerns, they only have three permanent games, the rest get spread, so they'll play in Texas regularly enough.

Edited October 31, 2023 by 'stache

[Mitch Cumsteen 18547]

4 hours ago, 'stache said:

I don’t have any real hate for UH but old Big XII South and Big XII North schools should be together. The alternative is UH with Texas, OSU to the north, and ISU to the east. That’s not fair to ISU and splits Farmageddon which is one of the good rivalries left. Also didn’t UH and UCF play for some stupid trophy?

5 hours ago, 'stache said:

Yup, the new 12 is perfectly set up for everyone to have the same 3 annual games. Won’t call them pods because that term has been beat up over time, but basically pods.

UU, BYU, AU, ASU - West/Mountains

CU, KU, KSU, ISU - Old Big 8

Tech, TCU, BU, OSU - Old Big XII South (+ TCU)

Cincy, UCF, WVU, UH - Old AAC + Geography + Holgy

Nine game schedule, 3+2+2+2. A four year player could expect to play everyone in the conference during their career.

I dunno about all of this. I think CU fits with the Utah schools. l also think Tech and the Arizona schools fit . Sticking Houston with the east teams is just weird when there are three other in-state teams. To me, this is why pods don't work. Get your three permanent rivals so you can mix and match, and then have 6 rotating games against the rest so you play everybody home and away at least once every 4 years. I don't give enough of a shit about this conference going forward to figure it out, but surely there is a way that makes better sense.

Also, as a Texas fan, I find your attitude towards Colorado (fuck them, they can go back to the Pac-2) and Houston (screw 'em, not part of original Big 12 North/South) appalling. It's very disruptive to the conference harmony and brotherhood that you guys have been sucking each other's dicks about ever since you got your TV contract and don't have to worry about mean old Texas bullying everybody around any more. Nature abhors a vacuum. Can't wait to see how well you guys all get along after all the midgets whip it out in the most uninspiring dick measuring contest ever.

[Al_4_ISU 12451]

I don’t have any real hate for UH but old Big XII South and Big XII North schools should be together. The alternative is UH with Texas, OSU to the north, and ISU to the east. That’s not fair to ISU and splits Farmageddon which is one of the good rivalries left. Also didn’t UH and UCF play for some stupid trophy?

There’s absolutely no way you stick a legacy school on an island like that. Houston should just be thankful to be here, and they have like 5 damn fans. They don’t need to play lots of road games in Texas either.

The closest destination if ISU went east is about the same distance from Ames as the farthest away school in the old Big 12 North pod.

[Al_4_ISU 12451]

They're free to rejoin the PAC if they want since that was such a big deal to them a decade ago. 
But seriously, the 3+2+2+2 spreads games around pretty regularly so nobody should be too pissed about playing or not playing in Texas or in any other geographic area. Same for the old Big 8 pod concerns, they only have three permanent games, the rest get spread, so they'll play in Texas regularly enough.

Right. In this model you preserve every actual rivalry and everyone plays each other frequently. Everyone gets Texas games. You visit all corners of the league. And you keep a little bit of what’s good about the sport.

[mdmost 42999]

So the WVU problem now becomes the Houston problem. It makes a lot more sense to have Houston in with the Texas schools and oSu with the old Big 8 teams if you had a more even geographic additions but you took 5 west coast schools. CU should more be with the other Mountain and Pacific schools but that gets too uneven. So either one of the old Big 12 is going with the newer schools or yes, you make Houston go East. They're used to it and Houston should just be thankful they still exist. 

[mdmost 42999]

 

[gatormarc 911]

SEC is expected to unveil it's 2025 football scheduling plan August 27, 2025.

[Saint Austin 745]

8 hours ago, 'stache said:

Yup, the new 12 is perfectly set up for everyone to have the same 3 annual games. Won’t call them pods because that term has been beat up over time, but basically pods.

UU, BYU, AU, ASU - West/Mountains

CU, KU, KSU, ISU - Old Big 8

Tech, TCU, BU, OSU - Old Big XII South (+ TCU)

Cincy, UCF, WVU, UH - Old AAC + Geography + Holgy

Nine game schedule, 3+2+2+2. A four year player could expect to play everyone in the conference during their career.

This is the correct answer. Houston kinda gets screwed, but they're lucky to have a seat to begin with. Plus, they only joined the SWC in the '70s.

['stache 21797]

16 minutes ago, Saint Austin said:

This is the correct answer. Houston kinda gets screwed, but they're lucky to have a seat to begin with. Plus, they only joined the SWC in the '70s.

Again, if this were the model, nobody really gets "screwed" because everyone plays everyone pretty regularly. Of course, they'll almost certainly go with the dumbass way of a few "protected" games without any consistency and fuck all with everything else. 

[closetohumping 17435]

1 hour ago, mdmost said:

 

[Francisco 2.0 32389]

 

 

 

[Hurtlocker 2212]

10 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

 

[Big Frog II 511]

14 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

 

Before 60,000 empty seats.

[Huckleberry 32848]

[ztejas 43411]

45 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

 

Why the fuck would SMU do that.