Realignment talk not going away

[Sandbagging Steve 982]

The active Power 5 teams Texas has faced the most out of conference in the history of the program:

1. Oklahoma: 85 games

2. LSU: 18 games

3(t). Vanderbilt: 12 games

3(t). Notre Dame: 12 games

5(t). Alabama: 9 games

5(t). North Carolina: 9 games

7. Ole Miss: 8 games

8. Auburn: 8 games

9(t). USC: 7 games

9(t). UCLA: 7 games

9(t). Cal: 7 games

- Six of the top 8 most played OOC games will be in the SEC plus conference mates A&M and Arkansas.

- #5 North Carolina could be a future SEC member.

- We've also played Georgia 5 times and MSU 4 times.

- Kind of surprising we've only played Tennessee 3 times.

 

Source: http://www.winsipedia.com/texas

 

[mdmost 44049]

 

[TKthunder2 5059]

 

Alabama: Auburn (86 games), Tennessee (103), Mississippi St (105). Notable miss: LSU (86)

Arkansas: LSU (68), Texas (79), TAMU (78). Notable miss: Ole Miss (68)

Auburn: Alabama (86), Georgia (126), Mississippi St (95). Notable miss: Florida (84)

Florida: Georgia (99), South Carolina (42), Oklahoma (2). Notable miss: Auburn (84), Kentucky (72), LSU (68)

Georgia: Florida (99), Auburn (126), South Carolina (74). Notable miss: Vanderbilt (81)

Kentucky: Vandy (94), Tennessee (117), Mizzou (12). Notable miss: Georgia (75), Florida (72)

LSU: Arkansas (67), TAMU (60), Ole Miss (110). Notable miss: Mississippi St (115), Alabama (86), Florida (68)

Mississippi St: Ole Miss (116), Alabama (106), Auburn (95). Notable miss: LSU (115)

Mizzou: Oklahoma (96), Kentucky (12), South Carolina (12). Notable miss: Texas (24)

Oklahoma: Texas (117), Mizzou (96), Florida (2). Notable miss: TAMU (31), Arkansas (15)

Ole Miss: Mississippi St (116), LSU (109), Vandy (94). Notable miss: Alabama (68), Arkansas (66), Tennessee (66)

South Carolina: Florida (42), Georgia (74), Mizzou (12). Notable miss: Tennessee (40), Kentucky (32)

Tennessee: Vandy (116), Alabama (103), Kentucky (117). Notable miss: Ole Miss (66)

Texas: Oklahoma (117), TAMU (118), Arkansas (79). Notable miss: Mizzou (24)

Texas A&M: Texas (118), LSU (60), Arkansas (78). Notable miss: Oklahoma (31)

Vandy: Tennessee (116), Kentucky (94), Ole Miss (96). Notable miss: Alabama (84), Georgia (81)

 

50% of the SEC: Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Ole Miss, Tennessee, Texas, TAMU, Vanderbilt all play their top 3 all time conference opponents in this model.

80% of the SEC: above plus Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi St, Oklahoma, South Carolina, will play 2 of their top 2 all time conference opponents.

Only Florida, LSU, and Mizzou will not.  Mizzou just doesn’t have a lot of history outside of OU (who they will play annually) so most won’t be concerned with them.

Pairing Florida and LSU makes sense however it messes with the rest of the pairings and LSU has about as much history with regional former OOC foes Arkansas (67) and TAMU (60) as they do with in conference Florida (68). LSU’s issue is losing games against Mississippi St and big time games against Alabama and Florida but those lost games will be supplemented with games against Texas, OU, UGA, and Tennessee.

Florida gets UGA and plays geographically close South Carolina but then doesn’t really have another historic rival outside of Auburn who already has their top 3.  Penciling in Oklahoma gives them a make up game for losing LSU, plus even if it’s a force rivalry, it’s a made for TV game that will bring eyeballs.

[Texas Wahoo 3631]

8 minutes ago, mdmost said:

 

Is he suggesting that (1) he has sources saying different things or (2) Oregon and the Big Ten are having discussions, but the leaders of both organizations are not involved?

[Gidnik 3490]

well, its mcmurohy and he may be a jamoke but he doesnt just put bullshit out.

[thunderlounge 8410]

See, when you copy and then paste text into the box, it gives you the option to post as plain text. 
 

Much more efficient to do so. Just sayin.

[hawkfan 60]

1 hour ago, Texas Wahoo said:

Is he suggesting that (1) he has sources saying different things or (2) Oregon and the Big Ten are having discussions, but the leaders of both organizations are not involved?

 

Seems to me both?

It seems like a near certainty that Oregon would have called the B1G after the UCLA/USC news broke, it also seems likely the talks wouldn't start at the presidential level.  Not sure that report tells us anything that couldn't have already been assumed.

The only real questions in the near term are:

1.  What does ND want to do?  If they can still fill their schedule without joining a conference, it seems likely that's what they'll do.  I think we'll get to a point where the B1G/SEC increase the number of conference games to the point where ND will be forced to join, in the end I think it will be irrelevant though.  More on that in a minute.

2. Is the ACC's GOR rock solid?  It's clear Oregon/Washington would immediately jump at a B1G invite, and Stanford too probably (maybe not quite as eager).  If ND doesn't move, the only other thing that would create more fireworks in the short term would be an out in the ACC's GOR.

I don't think any of this will matter in 10-15 years because I think what will eventually happen after the B1G/SEC pick who they want out of the PAC/ACC, they'll eventually just combine into a single "league" for TV purposes that will be split between FOX/NBC/CBS/Disney and they'll share games with each other via a mega deal for all members who only play each other for the most part - maybe 10-11 conference games, while allowing a game or two against left behinds from the B12/ACC/PAC and maybe an NFL style preseason game or two (against G5/FCS), which will finally lead us to a place of stability longer term.

If you got down to where 44 total got in, you could do a 44 school conference with four divisions of 11 schools - 10 conference games and full round robin with top seed auto-qualifiers going to each "division" champion.  For the last 50 years it's been as easy as following consolidation and TV money, I kind of view something like that as the inevitable conclusion of all this.

[Gidnik 3490]

for ND it all comes down to thier ability to get into the playoffs.  they will never be explicitly kept out but they can make it so that its so hard for ND to get in that they would have no choice.

[Al_4_ISU 12623]

I think Notre Dame would always get in the playoff.

I think it comes down to something like the Big 10 mandating their schools can't play Notre Dame in the non-conference.  With USC, Purdue, and Michigan State in that fold, I think Notre Dame would buckle finally.

[Al_4_ISU 12623]

10 minutes ago, hawkfan said:

 

Seems to me both?

It seems like a near certainty that Oregon would have called the B1G after the UCLA/USC news broke, it also seems likely the talks wouldn't start at the presidential level.  Not sure that report tells us anything that couldn't have already been assumed.

The only real questions in the near term are:

1.  What does ND want to do?  If they can still fill their schedule without joining a conference, it seems likely that's what they'll do.  I think we'll get to a point where the B1G/SEC increase the number of conference games to the point where ND will be forced to join, in the end I think it will be irrelevant though.  More on that in a minute.

2. Is the ACC's GOR rock solid?  It's clear Oregon/Washington would immediately jump at a B1G invite, and Stanford too probably (maybe not quite as eager).  If ND doesn't move, the only other thing that would create more fireworks in the short term would be an out in the ACC's GOR.

I don't think any of this will matter in 10-15 years because I think what will eventually happen after the B1G/SEC pick who they want out of the PAC/ACC, they'll eventually just combine into a single "league" for TV purposes that will be split between FOX/NBC/CBS/Disney and they'll share games with each other via a mega deal for all members who only play each other for the most part - maybe 10-11 conference games, while allowing a game or two against left behinds from the B12/ACC/PAC and maybe an NFL style preseason game or two (against G5/FCS), which will finally lead us to a place of stability longer term.

If you got down to where 44 total got in, you could do a 44 school conference with four divisions of 11 schools - 10 conference games and full round robin with top seed auto-qualifiers going to each "division" champion.  For the last 50 years it's been as easy as following consolidation and TV money, I kind of view something like that as the inevitable conclusion of all this.

Paring it down to a league of 44 schools that are in will lead to a wild amount of anti-trust suits from the 20-30 schools left out that aren't any different from about half of the 44 schools that get in.

It would be far more stable to let the third, lesser paid conference have a spot in the playoff, even if they make less money and get less teams in.  There's not really any reason for the Big 10 and SEC not to allow that other than the "nana nana boo boo" thing, which I suspect certain fanbases long to see.

[hawkfan 60]

15 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I think Notre Dame would always get in the playoff.

I think it comes down to something like the Big 10 mandating their schools can't play Notre Dame in the non-conference.  With USC, Purdue, and Michigan State in that fold, I think Notre Dame would buckle finally.

Sure they'd have access to the postseason, good luck filling the schedule once the B1G/SEC go to 10/11 conference games though.

 

11 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Paring it down to a league of 44 schools that are in will lead to a wild amount of anti-trust suits from the 20-30 schools left out that aren't any different from about half of the 44 schools that get in.

It would be far more stable to let the third, lesser paid conference have a spot in the playoff, even if they make less money and get less teams in.  There's not really any reason for the Big 10 and SEC not to allow that other than the "nana nana boo boo" thing, which I suspect certain fanbases long to see.

I didn't say the "left behinds" wouldn't have access, they'd have "at large" access, they'd just be paid a lot less.  I still fully expect a 12-16 school playoff.

Edited August 22, 2022 by hawkfan

[billfromlaketravis 11823]

2 hours ago, mdmost said:

 

Does anybody know if the media rights escalator applies to Oregon/Washington or just Notre Dame? 

The PAC is never going to get a new TV deal if Oregon is openly flirting with the Big Ten. 

Tech might get their wish and add the Corner Schools. 

[Al_4_ISU 12623]

6 minutes ago, hawkfan said:

Sure they'd have access to the postseason, good luck filling the schedule once the B1G/SEC go to 10/11 conference games though.

 

I didn't say the "left behinds" wouldn't have access, they'd have "at large" access, they'd just be paid a lot less.  I still fully expect a 12-16 school playoff.

If Notre Dame gets shut out of access to Big 10 teams, I think they'll join.  That's the Big 10's ultimate trump card.

If a 12 team playoff has, say 5 SEC, 5 Big 10, and 2 3rd conference teams (or a similar percentage of a 16 team playoff), I think everyone would be completely fine with that.

Stability comes when the Big 10 and SEC are done adding schools.  The sooner they figure out who they want, and end this, the quicker we have stability.

[bullet 1630]

29 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I think Notre Dame would always get in the playoff.

I think it comes down to something like the Big 10 mandating their schools can't play Notre Dame in the non-conference.  With USC, Purdue, and Michigan State in that fold, I think Notre Dame would buckle finally.

I think it comes down to recruiting.  Can they recruit at the top level playing ACC schools and their indie schedule?  I think they eventually decide they can't.

[bullet 1630]

14 minutes ago, billfromlaketravis said:

Does anybody know if the media rights escalator applies to Oregon/Washington or just Notre Dame? 

The PAC is never going to get a new TV deal if Oregon is openly flirting with the Big Ten. 

Tech might get their wish and add the Corner Schools. 

Nobody knows and nobody knows exactly what it says.  At least not anybody who is talking.

https://sicem365.com/s/13021/how-do-the-conferences-stack-up-in-television-viewers

Baylor blogger does a deeper dive into conferences TV results.  Definitely some interesting graphs.

[bullet 1630]

If you don't want to read, its usually SEC #1, but Big 10 was #1 in 2021.  Big 12 #3, ACC/Pac 12 #4/5, AAC not that far behind, then MWC, then everyone else.

With realignment factored in after the P2, its

ACC

nBig12/Pac 10 even

ACC minus FSU, Clemson

old AAC

ACC minus FSU, Clemson, Miami

new AAC a good bit behind

MWC just behind

The rest

[tonedeaf 56]

28 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

If Notre Dame gets shut out of access to Big 10 teams, I think they'll join.  That's the Big 10's ultimate trump card.

If a 12 team playoff has, say 5 SEC, 5 Big 10, and 2 3rd conference teams (or a similar percentage of a 16 team playoff), I think everyone would be completely fine with that.

Stability comes when the Big 10 and SEC are done adding schools.  The sooner they figure out who they want, and end this, the quicker we have stability.

I like you Al.  Don't go away when we are no longer conference mates. 

[Texas Wahoo 3631]

30 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

If Notre Dame gets shut out of access to Big 10 teams, I think they'll join.  That's the Big 10's ultimate trump card.

If a 12 team playoff has, say 5 SEC, 5 Big 10, and 2 3rd conference teams (or a similar percentage of a 16 team playoff), I think everyone would be completely fine with that.

Stability comes when the Big 10 and SEC are done adding schools.  The sooner they figure out who they want, and end this, the quicker we have stability.

I actually think if the Big Ten forbid its teams from playing Notre Dame (which they are not likely to do), it would have the opposite effect.  Notre Dame may eventually join the Big Ten, but I doubt it will be because the Big Ten threatened them.  Since the ACC deal, Notre Dame has generally only played two Big Ten schools a year (including USC) with an occasional third Big Ten game.

[Al_4_ISU 12623]

43 minutes ago, tonedeaf said:

I like you Al.  Don't go away when we are no longer conference mates. 

I probably won't.  We already aren't conference mates, IMO.  Even though we technically have a few match ups left, I just kinda don't care that much.  My anger has mostly subsided and I'm just ready to get onto the future.  Oklahoma's last visit to Ames might stir up some feels, but that's different - we have a lot more history there.

Lots of interesting non-sports related topics on this board.  There are already loads of people here who's rooting interests don't intersect the UTverse at all.

37 minutes ago, Texas Wahoo said:

I actually think if the Big Ten forbid its teams from playing Notre Dame (which they are not likely to do), it would have the opposite effect.  Notre Dame may eventually join the Big Ten, but I doubt it will be because the Big Ten threatened them.  Since the ACC deal, Notre Dame has generally only played two Big Ten schools a year (including USC) with an occasional third Big Ten game.

Maybe I read it wrong, but they seem REALLY attached to playing USC, and if that were off the table (combined with the stupid amount of money they'd get) I think they'd cave. 

[Horn of Gabriel 1886]

31 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I probably won't.  We already aren't conference mates, IMO.  Even though we technically have a few match ups left, I just kinda don't care that much.  My anger has mostly subsided and I'm just ready to get onto the future.  Oklahoma's last visit to Ames might stir up some feels, but that's different - we have a lot more history there.

Lots of interesting non-sports related topics on this board.  There are already loads of people here who's rooting interests don't intersect the UTverse at all.

Maybe I read it wrong, but they seem REALLY attached to playing USC, and if that were off the table (combined with the stupid amount of money they'd get) I think they'd cave. 

You're alright, Al and have gotten plenty of undeserved shit from people here; if the situations were swapped I'd be pissed too.  I'd be doubly pissed to have done all the "right" things as a program and still get left out as a circumstance of geography or not hooking up with the "correct" conference 100 years ago.

WRT: ND and the Big10, what would be really interesting is if the Big10 took another 4 out of the west coast like Cal, UW, Oregon and...Stanford.  Now the Big10 would hold 2 of ND's biggest and most important rivals.  Kinda fait accompli at that point.  "Hey ND those are some nice rivalry games you've got there.  It would be a shame if something happened to them."

[Texas Wahoo 3631]

51 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I probably won't.  We already aren't conference mates, IMO.  Even though we technically have a few match ups left, I just kinda don't care that much.  My anger has mostly subsided and I'm just ready to get onto the future.  Oklahoma's last visit to Ames might stir up some feels, but that's different - we have a lot more history there.

Lots of interesting non-sports related topics on this board.  There are already loads of people here who's rooting interests don't intersect the UTverse at all.

Maybe I read it wrong, but they seem REALLY attached to playing USC, and if that were off the table (combined with the stupid amount of money they'd get) I think they'd cave. 

I think both USC and Notre Dame need that game and want it to continue.  My point was only that I think the Big Ten has to try to entice them through money and additional rivalries with Michigan State/Purdue/etc. as opposed to trying to force their hand by threatening to take away the USC game and others, which are possibly more important to USC and the Big Ten than to Notre Dame (although I am not sure about that).  My understanding is that there are a lot of longstanding issues between Notre Dame and the Big Ten and if the Big Ten overplays their hand, it will drive Notre Dame away.

[hawkfan 60]

1 hour ago, Texas Wahoo said:

I actually think if the Big Ten forbid its teams from playing Notre Dame (which they are not likely to do), it would have the opposite effect.  Notre Dame may eventually join the Big Ten, but I doubt it will be because the Big Ten threatened them.  Since the ACC deal, Notre Dame has generally only played two Big Ten schools a year (including USC) with an occasional third Big Ten game.

I also didn't say threaten, I'm saying no one will have an incentive to add an additional really tough game to their schedule when they have to play 10/11 B1G/SEC games already and are already making piles of money and exposure.

They can just tell ND they're happy to play them as part of their conference schedule, but they need to join to continue the rivalry - think most schools would feel that way once you've got 10/11 P5 games already.

Edited August 22, 2022 by hawkfan

[SimonBolivar 11064]

1 hour ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I probably won't. 

Also there are plenty of left behinds that'll still be on here so it isn't like you'll be the only one. Where else do we have to go? The BYU board? lulz.

Edited August 22, 2022 by SimonBolivar

[Texas Wahoo 3631]

1 minute ago, hawkfan said:

I also didn't say threaten, I'm saying no one will have an incentive to add an additional really tough game to their schedule when they have to play 10/11 B1G/SEC games already and are already making piles of money and exposure.

They can just tell ND they're happy to play them as part of their conference schedule, but they need to join to continue the rivalry - think most schools would feel that way once you've got 10/11 P5 games already.

We'll see, but I doubt USC is going to be willing to give up the Notre Dame game, even if they play a 10 game conference schedule.

[hawkfan 60]

 

17 minutes ago, Texas Wahoo said:

We'll see, but I doubt USC is going to be willing to give up the Notre Dame game, even if they play a 10 game conference schedule.

Ok, lets assume USC does (and they very well might) - ND will still need to find 9/10 other teams to sign up for that.  Half the SEC is balking at going up to 9 conference games, I don't imagine many of them will want to add ND in addition to 9/10 SEC games, which (IMO) will happen because the money will lead them there.  And ND won't have the ACC to fall back on as a schedule crutch once it is picked apart by the SEC/B1G, I guess that's my ultimate point.

ND is going to want to schedule games farther out than conference schedules are even available to have some degree of certainty it has a viable 12 game schedule.  If you're in the B1G/SEC currently, it's not that big of a deal to schedule ND because you know what your schedule is going to look like well in advance and you can schedule cupcakes around ND to make a marquee non-con game not be a huge obstacle for your season.  If there are no longer divisions, and schedules get generated only 12-24 months in advance (like some recent articles have hinted), that will also squeeze ND for quality opponents willing to take that risk.

If ND believes that conferences will follow the TV money in the future and reduce the number of non-cons, it would make sense for them to join a conference pro-actively and have a say in how future rules/expansion look in said conference rather than wait until they're forced - the result ends up the same either way.

I just don't see any future where the playoff doesn't expand to 12/16 AND conferences then expand their number of conference games to 10/11 games as a result because the TV money will be there.  If both those things are true, ND's scheduling situation in the future becomes a dumpster fire to try and navigate.

[TKthunder2 5059]

5 hours ago, sportsbay said:

This guy has some good stuff on divisionless conferences.  His B1G/PAC is outdated by a month but the rest is good nonetheless.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJf3Ih4SUC8&t=793s

 

100% the same for both our schedules: Auburn, Georgia, Ole Miss, Texas, Vanderbilt

Below are the differences:

Alabama: My schedule: Mississippi St (105), His schedule: LSU (86)

Arkansas: My schedule: LSU (68), His schedule: Mizzou (13)

Florida: My schedule: South Carolina (42)/Oklahoma (2), His schedule: LSU (68)/Tennessee (51)

Kentucky: My schedule: Tennessee (117), His schedule: South Carolina (33)

LSU: My schedule: Arkansas (67)/TAMU (60), His schedule: Alabama (86)/Florida (68)

Mississippi St: My schedule: Alabama (106), His schedule: South Carolina (16)

Mizzou: My schedule: South Carolina (12), His schedule: Arkansas (13)

Oklahoma: My schedule: Florida (2), His schedule: TAMU (31)

South Carolina: My schedule Florida (42)/Mizzou (12), His schedule: Kentucky (32), Mississippi St (16)

Tennessee: My schedule: Kentucky (117), His schedule: Florida (51)

Texas A&M: My schedule LSU (60), His schedule: Oklahoma (31)

I think Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi St, South Carolina, and TAMU would prefer my schedule

I think Florida, LSU, Mizzou, and Oklahoma would prefer his schedule

Not sure about Alabama and Tennessee since they have a choice between a high profile games and a most played geographic rivalry they’ve played over 100 times.

I think when you get down to logistics and Thanksgiving week comes up and you have everyone in the conference playing their in state rivals except Oklahoma, Mizzou, Arkansas, and LSU it far less messy for the league office to pair them up and just pencil in those games.  My schedule takes that into account and his does not.

[closetohumping 17818]

I don't hate ND or anything but I'm of the opinion that a title isn't automatically disputed because ND is not invited to the dance.

[Guest]

The Notre Dame issue is easily solved.  Any team not playing in a conference championship game gets an automatic loss not on their season record, but in playoff seeding/ qualifying.  That solves for some of the backdoor bullshit by other schools, and is a huge reason it would never come to fruition.

Edited August 22, 2022 by slorch

[closetohumping 17818]

8 minutes ago, slorch said:

The Notre Dame issue is easily solved.  Any team not playing in a conference championship game gets an automatic loss not on their season record, but in playoff seeding/ qualifying.  That solves for some of the backdoor bullshit by other schools, and is a huge reason it would never come to fruition.

If we go 12-16 teams I’m ok with with a couple of independents sneaking in. What I don’t want is this “what about Notre dame” attitude.  If sec or big champ goes undefeated and wins the playoffs there shouldn’t be an asterisk

[Not a Sock 2366]

1 hour ago, slorch said:

The Notre Dame issue is easily solved.  Any team not playing in a conference championship game gets an automatic loss not on their season record, but in playoff seeding/ qualifying.  That solves for some of the backdoor bullshit by other schools, and is a huge reason it would never come to fruition.

Notre Dame already pretty much agreed to this before the alliance torpedo the CFP expansion.

[closetohumping 17818]

6 minutes ago, Not a Sock said:

Notre Dame already pretty much agreed to this before the alliance torpedo the CFP expansion.

Of course now the alliance is no more but the former alliance members are now ok with playoff expansion

[billfromlaketravis 11823]

2 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

 

 

100% the same for both our schedules: Auburn, Georgia, Ole Miss, Texas, Vanderbilt

Below are the differences:

Alabama: My schedule: Mississippi St (105), His schedule: LSU (86)

Arkansas: My schedule: LSU (68), His schedule: Mizzou (13)

Florida: My schedule: South Carolina (42)/Oklahoma (2), His schedule: LSU (68)/Tennessee (51)

Kentucky: My schedule: Tennessee (117), His schedule: South Carolina (33)

LSU: My schedule: Arkansas (67)/TAMU (60), His schedule: Alabama (86)/Florida (68)

Mississippi St: My schedule: Alabama (106), His schedule: South Carolina (16)

Mizzou: My schedule: South Carolina (12), His schedule: Arkansas (13)

Oklahoma: My schedule: Florida (2), His schedule: TAMU (31)

South Carolina: My schedule Florida (42)/Mizzou (12), His schedule: Kentucky (32), Mississippi St (16)

Tennessee: My schedule: Kentucky (117), His schedule: Florida (51)

Texas A&M: My schedule LSU (60), His schedule: Oklahoma (31)

I think Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi St, South Carolina, and TAMU would prefer my schedule

I think Florida, LSU, Mizzou, and Oklahoma would prefer his schedule

Not sure about Alabama and Tennessee since they have a choice between a high profile games and a most played geographic rivalry they’ve played over 100 times.

I think when you get down to logistics and Thanksgiving week comes up and you have everyone in the conference playing their in state rivals except Oklahoma, Mizzou, Arkansas, and LSU it far less messy for the league office to pair them up and just pencil in those games.  My schedule takes that into account and his does not.

To summarize, who are the expected permanent opponents for Texas, aggy, and OU? 

[billfromlaketravis 11823]

10 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

Of course now the alliance is no more but the former alliance members are now ok with playoff expansion

FOX ordered Warren to torpedo the playoff expansion so they could bid on it, and to possibly destabilize the PAC. ACC and PAC went along with it because they're idiots. 

Now the ACC will sign literally anything that guarantees playoff access for their schools. 

If Notre Dame makes the top 8 or top 12, I'm fine with them making the playoff. They play a good schedule every year. 

[Deej 77829]

aggy probably pushing for Vandy, South Carolina, and Missouri as their three.  

[HouClone 10]

6 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

If Notre Dame gets shut out of access to Big 10 teams, I think they'll join.  That's the Big 10's ultimate trump card.

If a 12 team playoff has, say 5 SEC, 5 Big 10, and 2 3rd conference teams (or a similar percentage of a 16 team playoff), I think everyone would be completely fine with that.

Stability comes when the Big 10 and SEC are done adding schools.  The sooner they figure out who they want, and end this, the quicker we have stability.

If 10 SEC / Big 10 teams gets selected from a 12 team CFP, might as well just have it SEC and Big 10.  It would mean a 8-4, maybe 9-3, team is selected over 1 loss teams in other conferences.  

Other conferences shouldn't sign up for it.  Call the SEC / Big 10's bluff when they threaten to go alone. 

College football interest and ratings would crater without access for the rest of the teams and non SEC / Big 10 country.

[billfromlaketravis 11823]

I assume OU's worst recruiting nightmare is Mizzou, piggy, and Texas. 

I'm expecting a mild surprise in the aggy 3. Texas for sure, probably LSU, and then who the hell knows? 

[billfromlaketravis 11823]

3 minutes ago, HouClone said:

If 10 SEC / Big 10 teams gets selected from a 12 team CFP, might as well just have it SEC and Big 10.  It would mean a 8-4, maybe 9-3, team is selected over 1 loss teams in other conferences.  

Other conferences shouldn't sign up for it.  Call the SEC / Big 10's bluff when they threaten to go alone. 

College football interest and ratings would crater without access for the rest of the teams and non SEC / Big 10 country.

I'd ask U of H for your money back. This is dumb. 

[Gidnik 3490]

3 hours ago, slorch said:

The Notre Dame issue is easily solved.  Any team not playing in a conference championship game gets an automatic loss not on their season record, but in playoff seeding/ qualifying.  That solves for some of the backdoor bullshit by other schools, and is a huge reason it would never come to fruition.

you just stop including them in the negotiations for everything.

[TKthunder2 5059]

58 minutes ago, billfromlaketravis said:

To summarize, who are the expected permanent opponents for Texas, aggy, and OU? 

Texas: OU, aggy, Arkansas is pretty much guaranteed.

After that most of it hinges on LSU.

LSU fans want Alabama/Florida and Ole Miss but logistically it works out better for the conference as a whole and to better tie in the old SWC schools into the fold if they get Arkansas/aggy and Ole Miss.

Without LSU involved, you end up with 5 teams only playing each other with only UK as the single outsider.

Texas: OU, aggy, Arkansas
OU: Texas, Mizzou, aggy
aggy: Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma
Arkansas: Texas, aggy, Mizzou
Mizzou: OU, Arkansas, Kentucky

With LSU involved, you end up with 6 teams playing each other with 4 outsiders rotating in which seems like a healthier setup for keeping the conference strong and connected.  Something the old E/W N/S divisions didn’t really facilitate.

Texas: OU, aggy, Arkansas
OU: Texas, Mizzou, ?UF?
aggy: Texas, Arkansas, LSU
Arkansas: Texas, aggy, LSU
Mizzou: OU, Kentucky, ?SC?
LSU: Arkansas, aggy, Ole Miss

[FartingDreamer 138]

46 minutes ago, billfromlaketravis said:

I'd ask U of H for your money back. This is dumb. 

You think interest in CFB wouldn't decline if those non-Big 10 and SEC schools are left out?  This would be the final nail in the coffin for the sport.  

Edited August 23, 2022 by FartingDreamer

[TKthunder2 5059]

3 minutes ago, FartingDreamer said:

You think interest in CFB wouldn't decline if those non-Big 10 and SEC schools are left out?  This would be the final nail in the coffin for the sport.  

Yeah the sport really took a nose dive when they split FCS/FBS, and then half the SWC was left out, and then again when the Big East was left out. Its barely hanging on…coffin is almost closed.

 

/s

[HouClone 10]

7 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

Yeah the sport really took a nose dive when they split FCS/FBS, and then half the SWC was left out, and then again when the Big East was left out. Its barely hanging on…coffin is almost closed.

 

/s

Big difference of your examples versus SEC / Big 10 only.  U of Mass and Montana technically still have access in the current CFP.  With no access for college teams with interest that routinely average 50,000+ alums/students a game, much different.

[FartingDreamer 138]

39 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

Yeah the sport really took a nose dive when they split FCS/FBS, and then half the SWC was left out, and then again when the Big East was left out. Its barely hanging on…coffin is almost closed.

 

/s

This would be WAY different then the FCS/FBS and SWC splits Fans of those teams (a huge portion of  the CFB fanbase) aren't just going to switch allegiances and start cheering for teams in the B1G or SEC, they're just going tune out.   It will take a nose dive without those fanbases and with it becoming an NFL lite.  

[SimonBolivar 11064]

6 minutes ago, FartingDreamer said:

This would be WAY different then the FCS/FBS and SWC splits Fans of those teams (a huge portion of  the CFB fanbase) aren't just going to switch allegiances and start cheering for teams in the B1G or SEC, they're just going tune out.   It will take a nose dive without those fanbases and with it becoming an NFL lite.  

Maybe, but I think you overestimate people like us. There are 3 or 4 NFL fans for every college football diehard alum. They can "kill" college football and probably get better ratings and more money for it. We won't be happy but they have the numbers.

Edited August 23, 2022 by SimonBolivar

[TrashMaster G 18094]

2 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

I'm expecting a mild surprise in the aggy 3. Texas for sure, probably LSU, and then who the hell knows? 

Shouldn't it be South Carolina? I mean, they are big rivals by now, right?

[Horn of Gabriel 1886]

2 hours ago, FartingDreamer said:

This would be WAY different then the FCS/FBS and SWC splits Fans of those teams (a huge portion of  the CFB fanbase) aren't just going to switch allegiances and start cheering for teams in the B1G or SEC, they're just going tune out.   It will take a nose dive without those fanbases and with it becoming an NFL lite.  

Yeah and it would be a blip on the radar compared to pulling more fan interest from the top programs

[Guest]

5 hours ago, SimonBolivar said:

Maybe, but I think you overestimate people like us. There are 3 or 4 NFL fans for every college football diehard alum. They can "kill" college football and probably get better ratings and more money for it. We won't be happy but they have the numbers.

I like them both for very different reasons.

I don't pay for NFL tickets and haven't in a long-ass time.  I deeply enjoy college road trips and big games, as does my family. I watch a shit-ton of games on TV for both levels.

I never have viewed it as a zero sum or either/or situation; but rather it has been a "por que no los dos?" relationship since my childhood. College football keeps telling me they don't GAF if I'm a fan or not. I'm not going to argue with them over it.

Edited August 23, 2022 by slorch

[statsman 5693]

Let’s look at TCU. They were relegated with the SWC breakup and clawed their way back. They have had nationally competitive teams, and they sell themselves on fan support (they average sales of 44k tix in a 48k stadium) and their location in a metro region. 
 
When TCU joined the B12, I bought TCU season tickets (I live in Arlington). My idea was that when Texas was good, tickets to the TCU game were expensive. When both schools have good teams, they get really expensive. I figured I could buy season tix and sell all the other games on StubHub. I bought the base price tickets with no donation. 
 
I did this for a few years. I found that when TCU was good (as they were for the first few years), the market value of the tix pretty much matched what I paid. The cost was around $60 per ticket, and the Texas game was worth around $125-160, the OU game around $75-100, the BU, OSU and TT games around $45-60, the other B12 games around $15-30, the SMU game would (depending on SMU) go for $20-50, and the FCS patsy would go for $2-5 (basically worthless). 
 
When TCU struggled in recent years, the Texas and OU ticket values dropped a little and the other games’ values a lot. I stopped buying the season tickets; it just made more sense to go to StubHub for the one game every other year that I cared about and pay what they asked. 
 
Someone above mentioned the fans of all the programs that have 50k attendance. That 50k attendance gets a lot of support breadth and depth from playing the big ‘uns. Take that away, and they’re going to look a lot more like UH, post 1995. 

[SimonBolivar 11064]

49 minutes ago, statsman said:

That 50k attendance gets a lot of support breadth and depth from playing the big ‘uns. Take that away, and they’re going to look a lot more like UH, post 1995. 

They had 46k for SMU and 43k for UT last year. They'll be fine.

[statsman 5693]

36 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

They had 46k for SMU and 43k for UT last year. They'll be fine.

They will be fine, on attendance, if they reduce season tickets prices by $100 after Texas and OU leave. Because there aren’t 40,000 people willing to pay $60 to watch TCU play WVU. There never has been. Riding the big state schools to relevance has been the TCU, Baylor and others’ strategy for decades. 

Edited August 23, 2022 by statsman