Realignment talk not going away

[closetohumping 17434]

9 hours ago, LTbear said:

Yes, and if I lived in Texas and were attending Baylor games, I would enjoy that aspect. Not sure why that seems difficult for you to understand? It's pretty simple, right?

We didn’t enjoy that aspect.  Really ambivalent towards most teams in the big 12

[billfromlaketravis 11447]

If you want to lose 20+ minutes of you life that you won’t get back, Bud Elliott debates Tom Fornelli on FSU’s “leverage” to leave the ACC. 
 

 

Basically, Florida State and their dogshit lawyers have lost every single motion in their lawsuit to force their way out of the ACC. Predictably, FSU and Clemson have reached out to the conference about an unequal revenue split.

Bud argues passionately that FSU has enough leverage to force the ACC to give them $80 million a year and only lock them in until 2030. He bases this on a 5% chance that FSU can leave with their TV rights at no costs to the school. His logic assumes that Wake Forest and other small ACC schools will be so afraid of this 5% chance scenario succeeding, that they’ll roll over and give FSU and Clemson whatever they want. Fornelli rightfully points out that doesn’t make any sense and podcast chaos ensues. 
 

Elliott should ask for his money back from Bama Law. Based on his context clues, it’s clear he’s advising FSU in some capacity in their lawsuit. FSU undergrad + Bama JD + who works as a journalist going up against Duke and Virginia’s attorneys. Well no shit, of course they’ve lost every motion.

Florida State is in hell. 0-3. Unable to recruit high school well enough to rebuild their roster. And stuck in the ACC. 

[Huckleberry 32848]

4 hours ago, notre dame joe said:

He said the new way is better then proceeded to list the ways the sport has become a corporation. 

Those who want college football to be the NFL but with college team names love the super league idea. 

[LTtxfan 49143]

59 minutes ago, billfromlaketravis said:

Basically, Florida State and their dogshit lawyers have lost every single motion in their lawsuit to force their way out of the ACC. Predictably, FSU and Clemson have reached out to the conference about an unequal revenue split.

Bud argues passionately that FSU has enough leverage to force the ACC to give them $80 million a year and only lock them in until 2030. He bases this on a 5% chance that FSU can leave with their TV rights at no costs to the school. His logic assumes that Wake Forest and other small ACC schools will be so afraid of this 5% chance scenario succeeding, that they’ll roll over and give FSU and Clemson whatever they want. Fornelli rightfully points out that doesn’t make any sense and podcast chaos ensues. 
 

Elliott should ask for his money back from Bama Law. Based on his context clues, it’s clear he’s advising FSU in some capacity in their lawsuit. FSU undergrad + Bama JD + who works as a journalist going up against Duke and Virginia’s attorneys. Well no shit, of course they’ve lost every motion.

Florida State is in hell. 0-3. Unable to recruit high school well enough to rebuild their roster. And stuck in the ACC. 

Guess this article believes Bud Elliott...

ACC reportedly considering a new revenue structure to keep Clemson and Florida State

https://footballscoop.com/news/acc-reportedly-considering-a-new-revenue-structure-to-keep-clemson-and-florida-state

[statsman 5450]

2 hours ago, closetohumping said:

We didn’t enjoy that aspect.  Really ambivalent towards most teams in the big 12

I enjoy that aspect. I find my needs for nearby games and rival fan interaction are met just fine by having OU, TAMU and Arkansas on the annual schedule. 
 
I think Baylor fans needs are met just fine by having TCU, UH, and TT on their annual schedule. 

[billfromlaketravis 11447]

9 minutes ago, LTtxfan said:

Guess this article believes Bud Elliott...

ACC reportedly considering a new revenue structure to keep Clemson and Florida State

https://footballscoop.com/news/acc-reportedly-considering-a-new-revenue-structure-to-keep-clemson-and-florida-state

I think there’s mutual interest in unequal revenue, but the parties have very different numbers. 
 

FSU and Clemson want $80 million. The conference can get there if every other school take a 20% haircut.  That includes schools with options like UNC and Virginia. I just don’t see it.

Biased Bud and Dumbass Danny Kanell  think the ACC will counter with $6O million. Kanell thinks FSU and Clemson might take $65 million if they can get out in 2030. 

[SimonBolivar 10957]

12 minutes ago, statsman said:

I enjoy that aspect. I find my needs for nearby games and rival fan interaction are met just fine by having OU, TAMU and Arkansas on the annual schedule. 
 
I think Baylor fans needs are met just fine by having TCU, UH, and TT on their annual schedule. 

As a Baylor fan yes that's fine though I'd like to have SMU on it. 

 

I think the regional argument doesn't land as well here because UT is sort of just sliding in fine to the SEC with OU, A&M, Arky, and LSU being all nearby. Though those schools not all playing each other is dumb.

 

 

[statsman 5450]

24 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

As a Baylor fan yes that's fine though I'd like to have SMU on it. 

 

I think the regional argument doesn't land as well here because UT is sort of just sliding in fine to the SEC with OU, A&M, Arky, and LSU being all nearby. Though those schools not all playing each other is dumb.

 

 

Sure. And the Big XII is similarly dumb for not having UH play TT these next couple of years, as well as TCU dropping the SMU series. 

[SimonBolivar 10957]

8 minutes ago, statsman said:

Sure. And the Big XII is similarly dumb for not having UH play TT these next couple of years, as well as TCU dropping the SMU series. 

Yup or ISU/KSU every year 

[TKthunder2 4985]

2 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

Those who want college football to be the NFL but with college team names love the super league idea. 

Just to be clear. What many of us want and what we think is the most profitable and probable are not mutually exclusive.

I’m happy with the new 16 team SEC and I doubt I’ll ever get used to the Big Ten being in LA/PNW but I still recognize that for USC it’s the most profitable move.

I think a true 40 team NFL lite super league might be most profitable, but is not probable due to antitrust concerns.

I prefer a playoff that is competitive and inclusive but if those games don’t get eye balls then they are unlikely to remain as permanent fixtures.

[LTbear 4168]

2 hours ago, SimonBolivar said:

As a Baylor fan yes that's fine though I'd like to have SMU on it. 

 

I think the regional argument doesn't land as well here because UT is sort of just sliding in fine to the SEC with OU, A&M, Arky, and LSU being all nearby. Though those schools not all playing each other is dumb.

 

 

Agreed on SMU 

1 hour ago, SimonBolivar said:

Yup or ISU/KSU every year 

 

1 hour ago, statsman said:

Sure. And the Big XII is similarly dumb for not having UH play TT these next couple of years

Yep to both 

[Al_4_ISU 12451]

2 hours ago, SimonBolivar said:

Yup or ISU/KSU every year 

That’s partially on both of our ADs.  They seem to love downplaying Farmageddon even though both fanbases and players/coaches will tell you it’s the biggest conference game.

Its infuriating.

[USC Traveler 488]

13 hours ago, LTbear said:

One can like brand on brand matchups while still thinking it's stupid to see serious reports discuss the merits of FSU joining the Big Ten. 

The BIG would be stupid to pass on FSU for a number of reasons.

1. BIG doesn't have as many programs at the top who have the potential to be legit championship contenders as the SEC.  Adding FSU and Miami would help.

2. Adding FSU and Miami makes the media package more valuable, as it gives you more top tier matchups in your inventory.

3. BIG has wanted UNC and UVA for a long time.  Adding those two plus the FL schools would eliminate the ACC as a viable conference for ND's other sports.

4. If the ACC collapses, adding ND becomes much more realistic.  Adding ND, FSU and Miami to your tv inventory would be a massive win.

5. BIG is already a coast to coast conference, but have no presence in FL, the 3rd most populous state, and top state for recruiting.  

6. Easier travel, esp for non-rev sports.  If they added the above 5 schools, they'd be at 23.  Bringing in Stanford as #24 would allow BIG to set up 4 divisions of 6 that would create regionality within a national conference.  ND would want to be with the former ACC schools (including MD), which would create a nice division.

The original BIG members plus PSU and Rutgers divide into two divisions pretty easily.  Nebraska would be the only school to have a travel increase, as they'd be in a division with the former PAC schools, but the access to CA for recruiting would make it well worth it, and NU's best non-rev sport (volleyball) is more important out west than it is in the midwest.  And LAX-Lincoln is about the same as LAX-Seattle (around 3 hours).

You wouldn't need divisions in football, but if they wanted to use them, they'd just make games like USC-ND and NE-IA protected rivals.

Most media people are assuming we end up with a "super league" of top programs, but as folks like Huckleberry have correctly pointed out in this thread, fans of bluebloods aren't going to be excited about going 7-5 on a regular basis.  The BIG going to 24, and the SEC going to 20 with VT and NCSt (or similar scenarios with some of the schools flipped around) seems much more likely to me in the medium term, and maybe even in the long run.  

 

[Huckleberry 32848]

1 hour ago, Al_4_ISU said:

That’s partially on both of our ADs.  They seem to love downplaying Farmageddon even though both fanbases and players/coaches will tell you it’s the biggest conference game.

Its infuriating.

ADs openly acting like they're above the alumni and fans is the worst but unfortunately very common. At least keep that feeling to yourself like I assume our current AD does. 

[Al_4_ISU 12451]

19 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

ADs openly acting like they're above the alumni and fans is the worst but unfortunately very common. At least keep that feeling to yourself like I assume our current AD does. 

When our fans flipped shit, our AD said “well, it obviously isn’t a big deal because we only sold 500 tickets to the game in Manhattan through our allotment”.

There were several thousand ISU fans there, they just found better/cheaper seats on the secondary market.  Not paying the official university mark up.

There have been numerous trophy proposals from both sides, with several being legitimately good.  The ADs just keep going “nah, we’re good”.

[USC Traveler 488]

22 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

It will also shock a lot of alumni when 7-5 is a good season. That's what happens when there are only 40 teams and you only play each other. One of the reasons I think it can be held off is when the coaches and athletic directors realize this. 

Agreed on fanbases reacting to reality in a super league.  We'll probably get a good preview of it with OU fans this year.

I think the number that ensures mass unhappiness is less than 40 teams, though.  

If the BIG goes to 24 and SEC to 20, or something similar to my post above, that's 44 total.

Still lots of bottom feeders and mid-tier programs there: NW, Purdue, UVA, UCLA, MN, MD, IU, IA, Vandy, MSU, NCSt, SCar, UK, Mizzou, VT, aggy

That's a lot of wins for bluebloods in most years, and probably not much different than it it now.

Seems more likely in the short-medium term.  Your point about the coaches and ADs is a good one.

['stache 21795]

2 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

That’s partially on both of our ADs.  They seem to love downplaying Farmageddon even though both fanbases and players/coaches will tell you it’s the biggest conference game.

Its infuriating.

I really wish we had more permanent games, even if they feel forced. KSU is really the only one left that has two rivals but one of them far outweighs the other. Here would be my permanent games and they seem to work out just fine.

AU-ASU

BU - TCU

BYU - UU

UCF - UH

UC - WVU

CU - KU

ISU - KSU

OSU - TT

If a second permanent is added though these feel forced only for KU/KSU which never struck me as much of a big time rivalry:

AU - UU

ASU - TT

BU - UH

BYU - CU

UCF - WVU

ISU - UC

KU - KSU

OSU - TCU

 

 

[Josef Pwag 1738]

5 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

FSU and Clemson want $80 million. The conference can get there if every other school take a 20% haircut.  That includes schools with options like UNC and Virginia. I just don’t see it.

I agree. The argument pro-FSU people are making is this, the less valuable propoerties (the schools that won't get an offer from the B1G or SEC if the ACC goes away) are better off taking the financial hit of unequal revenue sharing than the $10 million/year payout of a lesser conference. However, schools like Miami and NC (and likely the politically tethered NCSU) and maybe Virginia would also go to the B1G or SEC if the ACC melts down. Not only is there no reason for them to take a financial hit to preserve the conference, there is every reason for them to demand the same $ as Clemson and FSU. That means an even bigger haircut for the other ACC members (and this is amplified because there is barely anything to take from SMU). I think we are reaching the point where it makes more sense for the remaing schools to flip everyone the bird and to plan on splitting the buyout money of those who eject.

I still have yet to hear a cogent argument on why ESPN wouldn't want to exercise their option to extend the ACC GOR, which further complicates things. 

[USC Traveler 488]

4 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

Just to be clear. What many of us want and what we think is the most profitable and probable are not mutually exclusive.

I’m happy with the new 16 team SEC and I doubt I’ll ever get used to the Big Ten being in LA/PNW but I still recognize that for USC it’s the most profitable move.

Agree 100% with you on your first sentence.

I love the new SEC.  I've always watched a lot of SEC games.  Adding UT and OU (along with the 12 team playoff arriving) has already created so many better games than under the divisional structure.  Hopefully we see a 9 game schedule soon.

For USC, finances were obviously the biggest driver in the BIG move, but we'd been unhappy with the way the PAC was run for 20+ years, so being in a conference that cares about football and is run by intelligent people is a light-years difference from the PAC under Commissar Scott and Klownkoff.   

And like the UT Shaggy/Surly posters prior to the SEC move, we wanted to play against programs we view as peers on a regular basis.  It's counterintuitive for a lot of people, but we've had enough Rose Bowls (and some great regular season matchups) vs OSU, UM and even PSU that there is a lot of familiarity and respect there.  Even with the next tier down, we've had some fun Orange Bowls, Holiday Bowls, etc vs IA, WI, NU, etc.  So playing these teams feels natural and makes sense, maybe somewhat similar to how older UT fans feel about getting Arky back on the schedule.  We didn't play OSU and UM as often as UT played Arky, but we had some Rose Bowls that were truly epic and decided the national championship, similar to the UT-Arky "Game of the Century".

Maybe it's because our main rival is in South Bend, so people are used to traveling there, but no SC person that I know is unhappy about traveling to the Midwest for away games.  Quite the opposite- they're fired up to go to most of the stadiums in the BIG.  People are even looking forward to RU and MD, since they're easy, non-stop flights with a weekend in NY or DC.  That's much better than a weekend in Corvallis or Pullman for a game against a lower tier team.

 

PS- there are a ton of BIG grads in LA, which also adds to familiarity/rivalries.  I know lots of UCLA and Stanford grads, but I know as many or more BIG grads who live in the LA area as I do alums of former PAC schools not named USC, UCLA or Stanford.  Lots of OSU, UM and NW alums especially.

Edited September 19 by USC Traveler

[billfromlaketravis 11447]

35 minutes ago, Josef Pwag said:

I agree. The argument pro-FSU people are making is this, the less valuable propoerties (the schools that won't get an offer from the B1G or SEC if the ACC goes away) are better off taking the financial hit of unequal revenue sharing than the $10 million/year payout of a lesser conference. However, schools like Miami and NC (and likely the politically tethered NCSU) and maybe Virginia would also go to the B1G or SEC if the ACC melts down. Not only is there no reason for them to take a financial hit to preserve the conference, there is every reason for them to demand the same $ as Clemson and FSU. That means an even bigger haircut for the other ACC members (and this is amplified because there is barely anything to take from SMU). I think we are reaching the point where it makes more sense for the remaing schools to flip everyone the bird and to plan on splitting the buyout money of those who eject.

I still have yet to hear a cogent argument on why ESPN wouldn't want to exercise their option to extend the ACC GOR, which further complicates things. 

Well said. FSU and Clemson need to look in the mirror. Their attorneys allowed them to sign their GOR away with an ACCN IOU from ESPN. They signed a bad contract, and lost at musical chairs. It sucks, but Bud Elliott going stream of consciousness isn’t going to accomplish anything. 

[TrashMaster G 17544]

33 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

Agree 100% with you on your first sentence.

Yes! "Just to be clear" was brilliantly written.

[LTbear 4168]

2 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

The BIG would be stupid to pass on FSU for a number of reasons.

1. BIG doesn't have as many programs at the top who have the potential to be legit championship contenders as the SEC.  Adding FSU and Miami would help.

2. Adding FSU and Miami makes the media package more valuable, as it gives you more top tier matchups in your inventory.

3. BIG has wanted UNC and UVA for a long time.  Adding those two plus the FL schools would eliminate the ACC as a viable conference for ND's other sports.

4. If the ACC collapses, adding ND becomes much more realistic.  Adding ND, FSU and Miami to your tv inventory would be a massive win.

5. BIG is already a coast to coast conference, but have no presence in FL, the 3rd most populous state, and top state for recruiting.  

6. Easier travel, esp for non-rev sports.  If they added the above 5 schools, they'd be at 23.  Bringing in Stanford as #24 would allow BIG to set up 4 divisions of 6 that would create regionality within a national conference.  ND would want to be with the former ACC schools (including MD), which would create a nice division.

The original BIG members plus PSU and Rutgers divide into two divisions pretty easily.  Nebraska would be the only school to have a travel increase, as they'd be in a division with the former PAC schools, but the access to CA for recruiting would make it well worth it, and NU's best non-rev sport (volleyball) is more important out west than it is in the midwest.  And LAX-Lincoln is about the same as LAX-Seattle (around 3 hours).

You wouldn't need divisions in football, but if they wanted to use them, they'd just make games like USC-ND and NE-IA protected rivals.

Most media people are assuming we end up with a "super league" of top programs, but as folks like Huckleberry have correctly pointed out in this thread, fans of bluebloods aren't going to be excited about going 7-5 on a regular basis.  The BIG going to 24, and the SEC going to 20 with VT and NCSt (or similar scenarios with some of the schools flipped around) seems much more likely to me in the medium term, and maybe even in the long run.  

 

I didn't say it would be a stupid financial move for the B1G to take FSU. I said as a fan, I can find FSU joining a conference based in Ohio and Michigan (and likely not having a single conference mate within a thousand miles) - ya, that is stupid. 

[bullet 1596]

On 9/18/2024 at 2:59 PM, TKthunder2 said:

I personally don’t think you’ll see a true super league, ironically I think we’ll see the 12 team playoff as a turning point going back to the old bowl system (hear me out).

SEC and Big Ten see the bulk of the 12 team playoff selections and the other games against the B12/ACC/G5 are mostly non competitive (Cincy) or they win the first round and fail the second round (TCU/UGA) which damages the product overall. At the same time more pressure will be placed on CCGs and especially the loser (or winner if they go to 16).

The best solution would be to bring the majority of the playoffs in house. CCG weekend becomes round one of a 4 team conference playoff. The 1&2 seed host home games, then round two on NYD becomes the new CCG (SEC at Atlanta, Big Ten in the Rose which solves 2 major issues for them). Then two weeks later the winners of these games play against each other in a BigTen/SEC challenge (not an official national championship, but it is defacto).

After this we go back to the old bowl/poll system. The round 1 playoff losers can play in the bowls versus Big 12/ACC/G5 teams just like they always have. They can still do a NY6 type bowl arrangement and have contractual bowl games so this avoids many of the pitfalls of antitrust because it’s just going back to a previous system.

SEC and Big Ten keep what they kill. Early OOC games and bowl games can still be played. I think this is a more likely future especially since it came out that the networks considered the first round playoff games to less than desirable. The expansion to 12 was to satisfy the B12/ACC/G5/ND but if the Big Ten/SEC can do their own thing and each get 4 spots where their games are more valued, this seems like the most obvious solution especially if they add in ND/FSU/Clemson and a few others into the mix.

There's a political factor in that scenario they really don't want to get into.  I think it was Sankey who talked about when they tried to get more exclusive, they always ran into legal and political problems.  Most likely, I think they just spend a lot of schools into irrelevance.

[USC Traveler 488]

16 minutes ago, LTbear said:

I didn't say it would be a stupid financial move for the B1G to take FSU. I said as a fan, I can find FSU joining a conference based in Ohio and Michigan (and likely not having a single conference mate within a thousand miles) - ya, that is stupid. 

Yeah- I thought your op was talking about the bigger picture for the BIG.

From an FSU fan perspective, it would be stupid for them to join by themselves, but that seems unlikely.

FOX/BIG would certainly want to pair them with Miami or Clemson, and given everything we've heard over the years about the BIG wanting UNC and UVA, adding a four school ACC block seems like the most likely eventual outcome (could be another 10 years).  Assuming they would play the other ex-ACC schools every year, other than an occasional trip to the West Coast, there's not much difference between flying to BC, Syracuse or Pitt vs Chicago, Detroit or Columbus.

[bullet 1596]

22 hours ago, LTbear said:

I think the Sun Belt is a great fit for Texas State. And it's a pretty solid G5 league. 

Well there are a lot of former Southland Conference members-Arkansas St., ULL, ULM, Troy.

[Al_4_ISU 12451]

2 hours ago, 'stache said:

I really wish we had more permanent games, even if they feel forced. KSU is really the only one left that has two rivals but one of them far outweighs the other. Here would be my permanent games and they seem to work out just fine.

AU-ASU

BU - TCU

BYU - UU

UCF - UH

UC - WVU

CU - KU

ISU - KSU

OSU - TT

If a second permanent is added though these feel forced only for KU/KSU which never struck me as much of a big time rivalry:

AU - UU

ASU - TT

BU - UH

BYU - CU

UCF - WVU

ISU - UC

KU - KSU

OSU - TCU

 

 

In my perfect world, we would be in a permanent pod with you guys, KU, and KSU.

The ISU/OSU series has been absolutely wild almost every year since ‘11.  I don’t think it’s a rivalry, but it’s absolutely a game both fanbases are on edge for.

[bullet 1596]

UTSA coach admits they are talking to PAC.

 

https://clutchpoints.com/pac-12-news-utsa-coach-admits-conversation-expansion-rumblings

[TKthunder2 4985]

2 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

In my perfect world, we would be in a permanent pod with you guys, KU, and KSU.

The ISU/OSU series has been absolutely wild almost every year since ‘11.  I don’t think it’s a rivalry, but it’s absolutely a game both fanbases are on edge for.

Pods would have been nice but having only 3 in the East and 5 in the West sorta fucked everything up. If you could go back in time and take a school like Memphis, USF, UConn over BYU it would have lined up nicely.

4Corners
Texas schools
Big8 schools in the CTZ
Eastern schools

[Al_4_ISU 12451]

3 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

Pods would have been nice but having only 3 in the East and 5 in the West sorta fucked everything up. If you could go back in time and take a school like Memphis, USF, UConn over BYU it would have lined up nicely.

4Corners
Texas schools
Big8 schools in the CTZ
Eastern schools

AZ/UT

Big 8 Central time

CU/TT/Cen Tex

Coog/Eastern time

Easy enough.  Swap CU/OSU if the Pokes have a problem with it.

[TKthunder2 4985]

1 hour ago, Al_4_ISU said:

AZ/UT

Big 8 Central time

CU/TT/Cen Tex

Coog/Eastern time

Easy enough.  Swap CU/OSU if the Pokes have a problem with it.

I mean, yes fuck cougar high, but I’m sure their admin want to play tech, rape, and the roaches every year.

can it be done, sure, but it’s just not clean, they could very easily turn the table on ISU and make the map graphic look logical…

AZ/UT
Texas teams
Big8-ISU
ISU+Eastern teams

[Al_4_ISU 12451]

6 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

I mean, yes fuck cougar high, but I’m sure their admin want to play tech, rape, and the roaches every year.

can it be done, sure, but it’s just not clean, they could very easily turn the table on ISU and make the map graphic look logical…

AZ/UT
Texas teams
Big8-ISU
ISU+Eastern teams

ISU is closer to the KS schools and OK State than it is to any of the eastern schools

[closetohumping 17434]

23 hours ago, statsman said:

I enjoy that aspect. I find my needs for nearby games and rival fan interaction are met just fine by having OU, TAMU and Arkansas on the annual schedule. 
 
I think Baylor fans needs are met just fine by having TCU, UH, and TT on their annual schedule. 

Right. I didn’t enjoy it with the big 12 schools other than ou

[gatormarc 911]

19 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

3. BIG has wanted UNC and UVA for a long time.  Adding those two plus the FL schools would eliminate the ACC as a viable conference for ND's other sports.

Wouldn't that go against key aspects of The Alliance™?

[TKthunder2 4985]

4 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

ISU is closer to the KS schools and OK State than it is to any of the eastern schools

You can say the same the about Houston too.

[Al_4_ISU 12451]

2 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

You can say the same the about Houston too.

Agreed, but as you so eloquently said earlier, fuck 'em.

I don't get the impression that other Texas schools in the Big 12 care anywhere near as much about playing Houston as they care about playing each other.  I could be wrong on that in regards to Tech, but I'm sure it's true of Baylor and TCU.  Houston legitimately has less history with them than we have with the Big 8 schools, and I just don't get the impression Houston really gives a shit about anything other than having a seat at this table at this point.  They have more history with Cincy and UCF than we have with any of the eastern schools.

[Ojo Rojo 1950]

As my earlier post indicated, I'm most interested in how this all ends. That would tell us how things are likely to be for the next 5-10 years.

Money is the only thing that matters here, really. Regionality, longstanding rivalry games, travel difficulty, stress on student athletes, etc. - none of that shit matters.  So if it's all about money, that means more eyeballs on TVs and butts in seats. That means better games, which means fewer matchups against cupcakes and lower tier, overmatched opponents that have less interest and lower ratings.  Everything that has already happened is leading in that direction.  So, yeah, two conferences with a combined 48 teams or so.  Those two conferences are currently vying for all of the highest value properties.  ACC is doomed; it's just a matter of time.  Same with Big XII.  Once it all shakes out, it's going to be an AFL/NFL type situation with perhaps a merger in the future to create a whole new governing structure and financial model.  I don't know if all of that is good, bad or indifferent.  For me, I don't want college football to become NFL lite.  I don't watch the NFL now.  Just too sterile for me and I don't relate as well to the fans.

Potential obstacles or things that could warp the gravity:  ND - will they be better off as an independent even if there ends up being two super conferences?  Antitrust issues - the lower tier schools who benefit financially by association with the bigger, more successful programs will have huge incentive to prevent this from happening and being left out of a spot at the trough.  And what happens if the SEC gets the ACC schools?  The SEC would be more way more powerful and richer than the B1G. Would that give the SEC total control to dictate the future of college football?

[Evil Bill Obrien 3258]

18 hours ago, bullet said:

UTSA coach admits they are talking to PAC.

 

https://clutchpoints.com/pac-12-news-utsa-coach-admits-conversation-expansion-rumblings

Gonna be interesting to see how things evolve for the new-PAC, they willing take a flyer on UTSA and either Texas State or UNT (or maybe Rice?) to get a couple Texas schools in the footprint even if as they currently stand viewership support doesn't really add up financially but might pan out in the future? 

Would love for Texas State to get together in a conference with UTSA again and whatever form new-PAC takes does seem like an optimal way for that to happen, 2nd to AAC getting raided for Tulane and Memphis but leaving UTSA behind and Texas State getting the call to fill in there. 

Feels good possibly having multiple decent possibilities open in realignment for once, last time it was "here is your Sunbelt spot, take or get left for dead on the side of the road somewhere"

 

[statsman 5450]

53 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Agreed, but as you so eloquently said earlier, fuck 'em.

I don't get the impression that other Texas schools in the Big 12 care anywhere near as much about playing Houston as they care about playing each other.  I could be wrong on that in regards to Tech, but I'm sure it's true of Baylor and TCU.  Houston legitimately has less history with them than we have with the Big 8 schools, and I just don't get the impression Houston really gives a shit about anything other than having a seat at this table at this point.  They have more history with Cincy and UCF than we have with any of the eastern schools.

The Texas schools in the B12 have a lot of history, and should care about playing each other, but I’m not convinced they do. Baylor and TCU have one of the longest rivalries, and yet, only occasionally played each other while not in the same conference. TCU is declining to continue its SMU series. 
 

The dynamic you see repeated again and again- the school perceived to have (or believes it has) the superior status is less willing to schedule its longtime nearby rival if it’s not forced to by its conference. 

['stache 21795]

57 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Agreed, but as you so eloquently said earlier, fuck 'em.

I don't get the impression that other Texas schools in the Big 12 care anywhere near as much about playing Houston as they care about playing each other.  I could be wrong on that in regards to Tech, but I'm sure it's true of Baylor and TCU.  Houston legitimately has less history with them than we have with the Big 8 schools, and I just don't get the impression Houston really gives a shit about anything other than having a seat at this table at this point.  They have more history with Cincy and UCF than we have with any of the eastern schools.

This. You don't even have to be mean about it, they're the newbs and have history with UCF and Cincy. WVU is the one that would be upset but they really don't have an argument for any other pod because of they're location. And to your earlier point, OSU should be with the Texas schools.

West: UU, BYU, AU, ASU

South: OSU, TT, TCU, BU

North: CU, KU, KSU, ISU

East: WVU, UC, UCF, UH

Play your pod every year plus two from the other pods. This is for scheduling only, still divisionless for standings and CCG purposes.

It makes too much sense, so of course it didn't happen, because college football has lost its fucking mind. 

Edited September 20 by 'stache

['stache 21795]

6 minutes ago, statsman said:

The dynamic you see repeated again and again- the school perceived to have (or believes it has) the superior status is less willing to schedule its longtime nearby rival if it’s not forced to by its conference. 

That can't possibly be true, a bunch of people around here are convinced the death of Bedlam is solely because OU has offered an open invitation and OSU refuses to agree. /s/sarcasm because it's complete bullshit.

Edited September 20 by 'stache

[Al_4_ISU 12451]

One elephant in the room in the future is the quality gap between the Big 10 and SEC.  The Big 10 just isn't that deep with elite teams.  2/3rds of the league are Big 12/ACC schools with nicer, richer parents.  The SEC is about 25% schools that fit that bill, by comparison.

Another thing is people keep asking "what's the end game?" like there's a tight cabal that has a specific outcome in mind and is just slow rolling the whole thing.  I think it is FAR more chaotic and random than that, with decisions being made on what's profitable in that moment, with no centralized goal whatsoever.  Over the last 20 years there have been many guarantees in realignment that didn't pan out.  The 4 x 16 superconferences with the champions in the playoffs made up of pods, with the conferences being the Big 10, SEC, Pac 12, and ACC as the Big 12 died was the guarantee.  Now the Pac 12 is dead, and the Big 12 is as well positioned as the ACC if not better.  The current guarantee du jour is that the Big 10 and SEC will break away into somewhere between 32-48 schools into an NFL Lite.

I have little doubt there will be future brand consolidation (the big ACC brands going to the SEC/Big 10) but I don't think that straight AFC/NFC model unfolds like that.  I think there's some kind of split in D1 with the current G5 in one group and the current P4 in one group.  The Big 10 and SEC will have the bulk of the money and power, but whatever playoff exists will have some token access to the third conference (if we even call them that at that point) that shakes out when the ACC left-behinds that still care about sports merge with the Big 12 into a third conference.  I believe that ultimately walling off access to the roughly 60 schools not in a top 48 would lead to less interest in that level of the sport, and therefore less revenue created.

Basically, I think it continues on the same path it's kind of on already, just with some more deck reshuffling and brand consolidation.

[bullet 1596]

14 minutes ago, 'stache said:

This. You don't even have to be mean about it, they're the newbs and have history with UCF and Cincy. WVU is the one that would be upset but they really don't have an argument for any other pod because of they're location. And to your earlier point, OSU should be with the Texas schools.

West: UU, BYU, AU, ASU

South: OSU, TT, TCU, BU

North: CU, KU, KSU, ISU

East: WVU, UC, UCF, UH

Play your pod every year plus two from the other pods. This is for scheduling only, still divisionless for standings and CCG purposes.

It makes too much sense, so of course it didn't happen, because college football has lost its fucking mind. 

UH has barely played UCF.  They don't really care about Cincinnati.

[bullet 1596]

44 minutes ago, Evil Bill Obrien said:

Gonna be interesting to see how things evolve for the new-PAC, they willing take a flyer on UTSA and either Texas State or UNT (or maybe Rice?) to get a couple Texas schools in the footprint even if as they currently stand viewership support doesn't really add up financially but might pan out in the future? 

Would love for Texas State to get together in a conference with UTSA again and whatever form new-PAC takes does seem like an optimal way for that to happen, 2nd to AAC getting raided for Tulane and Memphis but leaving UTSA behind and Texas State getting the call to fill in there. 

Feels good possibly having multiple decent possibilities open in realignment for once, last time it was "here is your Sunbelt spot, take or get left for dead on the side of the road somewhere"

 

https://sports.yahoo.com/go-west-the-next-wave-of-realignment-is-in-memphis-hands-135625431.html

Article today.  Apparently its all on Memphis.  PAC wants Memphis, Tulane, USF and UTSA.  Projecting $12-$15 million total conference distributions (TV, NCAA bb, etc.).  Memphis isn't thrilled and worried about the validity of the projections.

[Al_4_ISU 12451]

1 minute ago, bullet said:

UH has barely played UCF.  They don't really care about Cincinnati.

I don't get the impression that there's much of a UH fanbase to even give a shit about who they play.  My guess is the schools they want to play the most are in the SEC already anyhow.

 

16 minutes ago, 'stache said:

This. You don't even have to be mean about it, they're the newbs and have history with UCF and Cincy. WVU is the one that would be upset but they really don't have an argument for any other pod because of they're location. And to your earlier point, OSU should be with the Texas schools.

West: UU, BYU, AU, ASU

South: OSU, TT, TCU, BU

North: CU, KU, KSU, ISU

East: WVU, UC, UCF, UH

Play your pod every year plus two from the other pods. This is for scheduling only, still divisionless for standings and CCG purposes.

It makes too much sense, so of course it didn't happen, because college football has lost its fucking mind. 

But would they?  That gives them games in excellent recruiting locations and their only close opponent.  Outside of Cincy, they aren't driving anywhere anyhow.

['stache 21795]

Just now, bullet said:

UH has barely played UCF.  They don't really care about Cincinnati.

Well then we'll just go with Al's first instinct, fuck 'em, they're lucky to have been promoted. They were added out of desperation and out of unfortunate timing for the Big XII. If we had known that USC/UCLA would make the move and the PAC would collapse we would have just taken the four corners and left the AAC alone.

[bullet 1596]

4 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

One elephant in the room in the future is the quality gap between the Big 10 and SEC.  The Big 10 just isn't that deep with elite teams.  2/3rds of the league are Big 12/ACC schools with nicer, richer parents.  The SEC is about 25% schools that fit that bill, by comparison.

Another thing is people keep asking "what's the end game?" like there's a tight cabal that has a specific outcome in mind and is just slow rolling the whole thing.  I think it is FAR more chaotic and random than that, with decisions being made on what's profitable in that moment, with no centralized goal whatsoever.  Over the last 20 years there have been many guarantees in realignment that didn't pan out.  The 4 x 16 superconferences with the champions in the playoffs made up of pods, with the conferences being the Big 10, SEC, Pac 12, and ACC as the Big 12 died was the guarantee.  Now the Pac 12 is dead, and the Big 12 is as well positioned as the ACC if not better.  The current guarantee du jour is that the Big 10 and SEC will break away into somewhere between 32-48 schools into an NFL Lite.

I have little doubt there will be future brand consolidation (the big ACC brands going to the SEC/Big 10) but I don't think that straight AFC/NFC model unfolds like that.  I think there's some kind of split in D1 with the current G5 in one group and the current P4 in one group.  The Big 10 and SEC will have the bulk of the money and power, but whatever playoff exists will have some token access to the third conference (if we even call them that at that point) that shakes out when the ACC left-behinds that still care about sports merge with the Big 12 into a third conference.  I believe that ultimately walling off access to the roughly 60 schools not in a top 48 would lead to less interest in that level of the sport, and therefore less revenue created.

Basically, I think it continues on the same path it's kind of on already, just with some more deck reshuffling and brand consolidation.

There is no end game.  It always changes.

The conferences are getting so big, there are going to be differences and schools dissatisfied with their number of conference titles.  Every conference that has gotten to 16 or more has eventually split.  Its happened before, it will happen again.

But I think it will take a while this time, maybe 20-30 years before the Big 10 and SEC crack up.

[Al_4_ISU 12451]

1 minute ago, 'stache said:

Well then we'll just go with Al's first instinct, fuck 'em, they're lucky to have been promoted. They were added out of desperation and out of unfortunate timing for the Big XII. If we had known that USC/UCLA would make the move and the PAC would collapse we would have just taken the four corners and left the AAC alone.

Would have preferred that, but I truly believe that the Big 12 only stabilized enough to pick up the 4 Corners BECAUSE of the AAC/BYU ads.

Although I will say that in hoops, ISU/UH was a really fun and intense series last year.  2 absolute slobber knockers in the regular season before we broke them in the Big 12 CCG.  I like having them on that end of things.

['stache 21795]

Just now, Al_4_ISU said:

Would have preferred that, but I truly believe that the Big 12 only stabilized enough to pick up the 4 Corners BECAUSE of the AAC/BYU ads.

Although I will say that in hoops, ISU/UH was a really fun and intense series last year.  2 absolute slobber knockers in the regular season before we broke them in the Big 12 CCG.  I like having them on that end of things.

If OU/TX had announced the same week as USC/UCLA I still think the XII would have been the survivor. 

[Al_4_ISU 12451]

1 minute ago, 'stache said:

If OU/TX had announced the same week as USC/UCLA I still think the XII would have been the survivor. 

I'd agree there.  I don't think the USC/UCLA departure was anywhere close to done at that point.

Texas and Oklahoma leaving spurred the remainder of the Big 12 to more aggressively and collectively shape their future than they ever had to previously.  I think surviving the previous bouts of realignment drove home the reality that none of them were getting a home in a wealthier conference and forced the realization that working together was the best option they all had.

['stache 21795]

Ok, this is hilarious, lol! Nice troll job by TCU.

 

Edited September 20 by 'stache