Realignment talk not going away

[closetojumping 62247]

20 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

“We want to get out of here to play real schools!  Not you plebes!”

”Ok, cool, go do that”

”No that’s not what we mean you fucking moron”

All I can figure out about what you (you specifically) actually want is just to fuck over a handful of schools that you disdain for some very silly reasons.

I (and many other college fans) just want to see the game reach some of regional congruity with similarly situated schools playing each other.  You’re just on some fucking nonsensical tirade at this point, moving the goal posts with each new post.

I don't think I've been asked to disclose what I want and it hasn't been important to me to insert that on this thread as a non sequitur. There is a scheduling thread on this board where I voice my opinion on the matter and it isn't mercurial or complicated. I have addressed elements of what I don't want, as have many others. That usually revolves around refuting your gooberism around why we're living and why we have no interest in playing Big 12 schools in the future.

I didn't offer a tirade. You do that regularly, however. All I've done is call out your continued histrionics while you pound the table with both fists and insist that, in order of priority,: UT, its fans, and other programs like it are just money-grubbing whores who don't care about anything else, including the sanctity of college sports; that Iowa State and its ilk are pure college sports Americana, simply being trampled on by the bigger meanies; that you understand all angles of how everyone is experiencing all of this and only you have it straight; and that roughly 16 schools are bullying jerks who simply need to take their ball and go home so you can get back to focusing on the purity of the sport. 

You're a semi-entertaining ping pong ball to swat around while real alignment news is on the brink of hitting this thread.

 

[Hagbard Celine 10763]

6 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

real alignment news is on the brink of hitting this thread

yesterday's shoe drop b1g contract not done) is clearly a reason why things have been stuck

until fox signs, then the b1g (league) signs, then all the b1g current (not-LA) schools sign, then and only then can the LA schools really sign

is this real news associated with that above cause/effect?

[Al_4_ISU 12409]

8 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

I don't think I've been asked to disclose what I want and it hasn't been important to me to insert that on this thread as a non sequitur. There is a scheduling thread on this board where I voice my opinion on the matter and it isn't mercurial or complicated. I have addressed elements of what I don't want, as have many others. That usually revolves around refuting your gooberism around why we're living and why we have no interest in playing Big 12 schools in the future.

I didn't offer a tirade. You do that regularly, however. All I've done is call out your continued histrionics while you pound the table with both fists and insist that, in order of priority,: UT, its fans, and other programs like it are just money-grubbing whores who don't care about anything else, including the sanctity of college sports; that Iowa State and its ilk are pure college sports Americana, simply being trampled on by the bigger meanies; that you understand all angles of how everyone is experiencing all of this and only you have it straight; and that roughly 16 schools are bullying jerks who simply need to take their ball and go home so you can get back to focusing on the purity of the sport. 

You're a semi-entertaining ping pong ball to swat around while real alignment news is on the brink of hitting this thread.

 

You inject so many things I never even insinuate into my posts.  Clearly because you feel the need to manufacture some kind of target for your impotent faux tough guy persona.

[TKthunder2 4981]

6 hours ago, 'stache said:

Oh yay, back to this stuff for the fortieth time. The one thing I observed while living in Texas is that there really does appear to be animosity among Texas universities at the administrative level and not just the fans. I don't know much about the PUF but it sounds like a real issue, although I still don't think it should matter to sports rivalries.

We can talk about the PUF in another thread but the simple answer is that there are two university systems in the PUF. Tech, UH, UNT, others started systems due to the pride of their sports teams, not for any other reason (I give Tech a historical pass due to their geographic isolation, but what once was necessary is no longer so due to technology interconnectedness).

The simple solution is to join the UT system like SFA just did or aggy system just like East Texas State (Commerce) 30 years ago.

Having the UT system setting program standards and setting growth strategies (both for geographic and academic programs) is way more beneficial to the state than letting every campus start unprofitable duplicate programs just to prove they’re as good as the flagship. The state lege does a okay job at stopping big money pits like law, med, vet schools from popping up everywhere but they don’t regulate down to department level.

No need to have a mediocre Vietnamese culture/history/language department on every campus when you could have a excellent world class program on a Houston campus. You could use German, Czech, or any other nationality to make this point. California despite its many issues has grown the UC system into a powerhouse. If we ever want a system as good as theirs we need to mirror their setup as much as possible as it can both reduce overhead and make the programs at each school more effective.

[mdmost 42865]

And so it begins.

 

['stache 21774]

They should put a UM and FSU logo on the back with a dollar sign on it, for the lulz.

[Josef Pwag 1728]

1 hour ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I (and many other college fans) just want to see the game reach some of regional congruity with similarly situated schools playing each other.  

You have made that point very clear. Please don't feel compelled to make it again and again. 

[Zeus 5950]

5 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

That’s not a bad idea either, but seems overly complex.

In the current system, there’s almost a disincentive to play big time non-conference games.  In a system where playoff access is based squarely on winning a division, there’s no risk in playing (and losing) marquee games with that open portion.

At the end of the day I just want to see the game return to a regional base, with a diverse national group of schools.

Apparently, to some, that’s a horrifying suggestion born from leech hood and the fact that my alma mater isn’t a blue blood and I need to just shut up and know my lowly place in this beacon of human brilliance and achievement.

ok have a blast

 

[Zeus 5950]

1 hour ago, bullet said:

I'm glad TCU and UH got back into a major conference.  I feel bad for Rice, but then if they got in a major conference, they would never win.  As for SMU, they made their bed.

I didn't know anybody liked SMU.

Next year the Big 12 isn't a major conference anymore.

[billfromlaketravis 11362]

7 hours ago, 'stache said:

Oh yay, back to this stuff for the fortieth time. The one thing I observed while living in Texas is that there really does appear to be animosity among Texas universities at the administrative level and not just the fans. I don't know much about the PUF but it sounds like a real issue, although I still don't think it should matter to sports rivalries. Fuck Baylor, I think everyone can agree that they should have lost their right to play high level sports (or sports at all) through the basketball murder and rape culture scandals. I get that a bunch of you hate us for some poorly officiated games, same as rape culture I guess. 

It seems silly though for such a large economically powerful state to have true hatred at the administrative level among its major universities (although with aggy it might be unavoidable because of their ridiculous fake army culture). Do the Cal and Cal State systems have the same dynamic? I honestly have no idea, so maybe it's normal. OU and OSU get along at an administrative level, but maybe its because we're a small state and cooperation is necessary to have any semblance of competitiveness in the economy. We have enough holding us back, don't need university fights making it worse.

None of this matters. Al's post was realignment pron that all of us have been participating in for over a decade. It's how things should be but we all know will never in a million years happen. Peak offseason I guess. BIG and SEC get all the money, XII will get good money and be a competitive conference, ACC screwed themselves financially for the next decade, and the PAC is a shell and likely done for, all we're waiting on is for it to finally happen. I'm hyped currently for the Big XII baseball tourney.

aggy and Texas are in alignment on the PUF. It's ours, and everybody better keep their damn paws off of it. That might be the only thing we agree on, but it's a pretty important piece that drives many policy decisions in the legislature and the governor's mansion. We'll team up to protect our money. 

Tech is bitching that Lubbock is closer to University Lands, and they don't see a piece of the PUF. This is in turn is a determent to their system/the state/locals. They completely ignore the existence of UTPB in Odessa. 

They also ignore the fact that UT backed them for a large animal veterinary school which they've trying to build since the 1970s. 

[Teamdirtyleg 1058]

20 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

Trojan Man explained it well, but since your cognitive dissonance is seemingly impenetrable, I'll take another shot.

Your worldview revolves around playing schools that are close to your school and similar to your school.  We get it.

Understand this: UT and USC want to play schools that are similar to our schools.  Those schools are named UGA, tOSU, UM, Bama, ND, LSU, etc.

UT's most important rival is in another state.  

USC's only true rival is in the Midwest.  (UCLA is an annoying little brother.)  We've been traveling across the country to play for almost 100 years.

UT and USC folks don't give a fuck about the schools that are close to us because we want to compete against the best.

We'll happily trade unexciting matchups in the B12/PAC (that make up the majority of the schedule) to play unexciting schools in the BIG/SEC (that make up a smaller part of the schedule) because we get to play other bluebloods and near bluebloods.  Games that we will be excited for and that will be memorable.

When you're sitting on your tractor making a list of divisions that looks almost exactly like the way things were 50 years ago and acting like it would be some kind of CFB nirvana, you're only looking at it from your point of view.  You somehow can't understand that your pov is very different from the pov of someone who has seen his team win multiple National Titles  and lives less than 20 minutes from an airport that has nonstop flights to any road destination that we would want to visit.  

//

Short version- for USC and UT, we don't care about travel because we're going to be playing more schools that are our peers, and we don't care about playing schools that are closer to us because we have never cared about playing them.  

We're going to have more games that are exciting to watch, make more money, and have better exposure for recruiting.  It would be crazy not make the BIG/SEC move.

This can't be overstated.  In the case of Texas, when the top recruits in your own state keep telling you they want to play in, and then go to the SEC, you better adjust or you're going to get left behind.

Edited May 24, 2023 by Teamdirtyleg

[bullet 1596]

1 hour ago, closetojumping said:

I don't think I've been asked to disclose what I want and it hasn't been important to me to insert that on this thread as a non sequitur. There is a scheduling thread on this board where I voice my opinion on the matter and it isn't mercurial or complicated. I have addressed elements of what I don't want, as have many others. That usually revolves around refuting your gooberism around why we're living and why we have no interest in playing Big 12 schools in the future.

I didn't offer a tirade. You do that regularly, however. All I've done is call out your continued histrionics while you pound the table with both fists and insist that, in order of priority,: UT, its fans, and other programs like it are just money-grubbing whores who don't care about anything else, including the sanctity of college sports; that Iowa State and its ilk are pure college sports Americana, simply being trampled on by the bigger meanies; that you understand all angles of how everyone is experiencing all of this and only you have it straight; and that roughly 16 schools are bullying jerks who simply need to take their ball and go home so you can get back to focusing on the purity of the sport. 

You're a semi-entertaining ping pong ball to swat around while real alignment news is on the brink of hitting this thread.

 

If it was primarily about money, UT would have left the SWC much earlier and the Big 12 much earlier.

[USC Traveler 488]

7 hours ago, Trojan Man said:

I think it's a realization they're going to be on the hook for more than 1/12th of the reimbursement for that 50M cable partner overpayment.  USC and UCLA are trying to get out of it by saying it's a conference fuck up, not a USC/UCLA fuck up, and we won't be in the conference when you repay it so we're not pitching in.  If that's successful, schools leaving for the Big 12 could make the same argument.  50/12 = 4.167M owed per team, which is painful for Washington State even in the best of times.  It becomes a lot more painful with an uncertain future, especially if more teams get out of paying for the overpayment.  50/10 = 5M, 50/8 = 6.25M, 50/6 = 8.33M, 50/4 = 12.5M.

It's really hard to kill off a conference and I thought the Pac 12 would survive by left behind teams absorbing midmajors because the Pac 12 brand is more valuable than the MWC brand, but it's possible the Pac 12 dies because of this.  The left behind teams will have to decide if the Pac 12's brand value outweighs paying off that 50M.  If not they might euthanize the Pac 12 and join the MWC or create a new conference with their favorite G5 teams.

It sounds like the revenue crunch is happening now, which would indicate Comcast has been holding back money this year, possibly since the story broke, which is what I would do if I was running Comcast, in addition to suing all the PAC schools to get my money back asap.

I'd also be going after Larry Scott and the other fraudsters personally, since as fraud is one of the few ways to pierce the corporate veil and go after the individual's assets, iirc.  Will be happy to be corrected by any Shaggy/Surly legal types. 

[hook me 2080]

3 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Yeah, lots of history with schools we played for a decade a century ago.

Like I said, if the blue bloods did their own super exclusive thing, I think that would be great.  Top 12-16 schools do their own thing and the next 50-60 schools can square off in a geographically logical arrangement with schools they’ve played a million times.

Everyone gets what they want.

The best part of your argument is the idea that your standards are any different than our standards. You look at us as arrogant assholes who are ruining the sport because we want to play people who matter while your own suggestion is itself an expression of which schools you believe "matter" enough to get into the club. We have more "history" with Rice & SMU than we do OSU, TTU, or UH yet they're not included because.... why? Well ,they suck for one but I know that's not how you would choose opponents given your strict geographical/historical preferences, so why aren't they included? Maybe they just slipped your mind since you weren't digging through all the records & it was just a suggestion, I'll let it slide. Funny how TCU is playing really close to home in the fucking Mountain division. Real "regional". It's also amazing how your team somehow gets in even though they have extensive history with all of about 7 schools & a losing record against almost every school they've faced 10+ times with the only notable exception being KSU. Not sure what makes ISU worth including over Rice or SMU. Why would anyone want you in their conference other than to be the easy win & rest week they need? What exactly does your football program bring to the table? You should be real, real careful about drawing lines around who's in & who's not since I don't think anyone in the entire country would even notice if you're not one of the schools that make the cut.

Now, before you get all huffy, let that settle & realize that few people (maybe none actually) here are interested in a 16 team league which you must admit you pulled straight out of your strawmans ass. You and your Cyclones can still play close to (but no longer against) the big boys, still get paid very well (for now), still have a shot at the playoffs (an even better shot with UT & OU gone), & can still participate in Farmageddon. We want, generally, what you want, which is to be able to play meaningful games against teams that we care to play. The difference between us & you is that you're happy as hell to play the KU, OSU, KSU, TTU, etc. of the world & consider those games meaningful because that's the level of your football program (and that's being VERY generous to you so you're welcome). We're not interested in that - at least not as the only kind of teams we're playing - because our football program (even with a few trips through the desert of mediocrity) is not on the same level as those types of schools. We want to play more of the OU, Bama, LSU, UGA, & UF of the world. We're also going to a conference that reinstates 2 of our older rivalries that contain much more animosity for large portions of the fan base than the likes of TCU, TTU, OSU, BU, UH, or anyone not named OU & are mostly closer to home than the likes of Kansas, Cincy, & WVU. Your way of "almost everyone gets included" is littered with problems, some of which have been mentioned & some should be so obvious as to not need mentioning & would lead to schools breaking away at the first opportunity. I'd rather have 2 leagues with relegation/promotion of a portion of teams than what you suggested (and I'm not exactly keen on that for the record). Don't act like you can stick USC back with the likes of the PAC 12 & expect them to be happy when they literally just chose to travel 1/2 way across the country to get the hell away from them & find teams worth a shit. USC vs SDSU at midnight, who wouldn't want to watch that shit? Air Force vs. CSU would be must watch. It's a "good idea" for schools like yours. Our school isn't like yours, so it sounds like nails on a chalk board to most of us.

[hawkfan 60]

I really don't understand how this is turning out poorly for ISU.  It's going to turn out a lot better than it looked like it was going to early on when UT/OU announced they were leaving.

The only thing that sucks for the B12 is I'm sure they wish they could have a do over on UCF/Houston/Cincinnati probably.  They'll almost surely get AZ/ASU/Colorado/Utah, and once the SEC/B1G take who they want from the ACC, they can probably grab Pitt/Louisville/Va Tech/Etc too.

This will end up being the B1G/SEC as the top two, but the B12 will remain at the top level of CFB - just be thankful you aren't Washington State/Oregon State/Wake Forest/Boston College/Etc who won't have a seat at the table IMO.

[CustersDoctor 584]

2 hours ago, Hagbard Celine said:

cock/jelly/klan are home/away league games with state flagships that we previously had to schedule OOC if at all

oSu/rape/tceh are soon to be OOC games with non-flagships that we have no desire to schedule for reasons cited above

oSu/rape/tceh "regional hate" is also not bidirectional; they hate us, we're sick of them, and those are not the same thing

oSu/rape/tceh "mutual disdain" is also not bidirectional; "disdain" does not describe their attitudes towards us; we certainly feel disdain towards all 3 of them, and again the adjective does not describe how they feel about us, and therefore not mutual

NOTE: only sips are allowed to define how we interpret the feelings of others towards us, and only sips are allowed to define how we interpret our feelings towards others

You can act like the Tech game isn't a big deal but the years that they play in Austin it's the biggest home game of the season. Not only is it always a sellout, but there are 10 of thousands of people here in town who don't even have tickets. 

[Gidnik 3251]

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/sports/college/big-12/2023/05/23/big-12-expansion-speculation-is-colorado-close-to-leaving-pac-12/70247928007/

Quote

Colorado joined the Big Seven Conference in 1948 and stayed through its various itinerations for 62 years. Could the Buffaloes be coming back? 

A Big 12 source told me last week that Colorado is ready to commit to joining the Big 12 “soon.” 

I thought it was interesting but not necessarily a revelation. Lots of talk in this realignment-crazed era of college sports. Most of it not written on tablets descending from Mount Sinai. 

But the Colorado comment has a lot more juice after the events this week. 

Washington State president Kirk Schulz on Monday issued a variety of spending freezes in the wake of the Pac-12's financial crisis. 

The New York Post reported that ESPN and the Pac-12 are having “no substantive talks” about extending the league’s television contract, which expires in summer 2024. 

Plus, CBS reported a couple of weeks ago that Big 12 officials were told by ESPN that the Big 12 would be one of three leagues (along with the Southeastern and Atlantic Coast conferences) that ESPN would air in terms of a Tier 1 level. 

All of which casts further gloom on the Pac-12's financial future. 

Since Southern Cal and UCLA announced their 2024 move to the Big Ten, and new Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark went public with his desire to expand the league with westward members, the Pac-12 has seemed vulnerable. 

But the prevailing opinion was that the Pac-12 members would find a way to stay together. That’s becoming an increasingly difficult decision financially. 

Network suitors are either asking the Pac-12 members to take a financial haircut on a new television contract, or proceed with a reduced distribution platform, heavy on streaming and short on traditional outlets. 

The former has administrators scared, and the latter has coaches leery. 

Could the Big 12 – with a television contract in hand with ESPN and Fox, through 2031 – capitalize? 

Securing four Pac-12 members would raise the Big 12 membership to 16 and give the Big 12 coveted presence in four time zones. A weekly late-night college football game from the West Coast is one of the few advantages the Pac-12 offers, and if the Big 12 gets such a corner on the market, it figures to enhance the conference’s brand both financially and promotionally. 

The four-corner schools – Colorado, Arizona, Arizona State and Utah – are the Pac-12 schools most mentioned as Big 12 candidates. 

Arizona, in particular, seems a prominent Big 12 candidate, with the Wildcats’ basketball tradition and Yormark’s clear interest in capitalizing on the conference’s prominence in hoops. 

Utah seems to be the most reluctant of the four-corner schools to engage with the Big 12. 

But it only takes one school from the remaining Pac-12 to create a domino effect. If Colorado, which also faces financial dilemmas with its athletic department, jumps, others are expected to follow. 

CU football has received a tremendous jolt from new coach Deion Sanders. But the gridiron in the flatirons has been largely dormant since Gary Barnett left the coaching office 18 years ago. 

Since Barnett’s departure, Colorado has had two winning seasons, and one of those was a 4-2 record in the pandemic season of 2020. CU was 12-28 in conference play its final five Big 12 seasons and is 27-76 in a dozen Pac-12 seasons. 

In men’s basketball, the Buffaloes have fared better with the Pac-12 than in Big 12 days but still have made just one NCAA Tournament since 2016. 

The pandemic put most athletic programs in a precarious financial situation, and some have yet to recover. Count much of the Pac-12 within that crowd. 

In Pullman, Washington, this week, WSU president Schulz announced that his school would place a “temporary freeze on all current & future vacant positions until further review, as well as a pause on non-essential travel, purchases & new professional development” because of “significant decrease in Pac-12 revenue distribution as result of overpayments from one of the conference media partners that must be resolved.” 

The Pac-12 Network overpaid about $50 million to the conference members, money which must be returned. In addition, Schulz said, the Pac-12 headquarters’ relocation out of San Francisco cost more than anticipated. 

The Pac-12 had hoped that ESPN would get involved in serious negotiations for a new Pac-12 broadcasting contract, but ESPN is tightening its belt. The New York Post reported that ESPN has “passed on Big Ten, Sunday Ticket, Premier League, Champions League & MLS, so the idea it will be completely out on Pac-12 is not in the least bit surprising.” 

All of which means Yormark’s successful contract negotiations with Fox and ESPN last October seem prescient.  

When OU and Texas announced they would jump to the SEC, the Big 12’s financial future seemed in jeopardy. Some figured the remaining Big 12 members might have to take a 50% cut in broadcast revenue. 

Instead, the Big 12 added four new members – Brigham Young, Cincinnati, Houston and Central Florida – and signed a TV deal that brought in more money per school than the previous contract, which included OU and Texas. 

The Big 12 still will remain significantly behind the Big Ten and SEC in revenue, but has leaped ahead of the Pac-12 and the ACC, the latter of which is tied to a contract through 2036. 

The Big 12’s newfound stability is attractive to Pac-12 members wondering about its future. Especially Colorado, which already has a history with the Big 12. 

Both the New York Post and CBS reported that ESPN still could consider a limited package with the Pac-12, which might be that conference’s lifeline. 

So stay tuned. But it only takes one school to jump for others to follow. 

Some in the Big 12 believe Colorado is that one.  

 

[Deej 76568]

Has anyone explained to Colorado that's how they get Al_4_ISU posting on their boards?

Edited May 23, 2023 by Deej

[Magus Ossis 2784]

20 minutes ago, CustersDoctor said:

You can act like the Tech game isn't a big deal but the years that they play in Austin it's the biggest home game biggest home conference game of the season. Not only is it always a sellout, but there are 10 of thousands of people here in town who don't even have tickets. 

We play in a conference with OU (never at DKR), some midwest mid-majors, some private pseudo-Christian schools, and WVU. Who the heck is the big draw to which Tech is being compared? The real tragedy is that in the B12 our home slate is so lame that a sellout is worth mentioning.

[Vertigo 20267]

1 hour ago, Zeus said:

Next year the Big 12 isn't a major conference anymore.

Eh, I think they will stay relevant. You will likely have a carousel of teams who cycle up with senior laden teams that will be playoff participants. Ok State, BYU, UCF, Tech, TCU, Iowa State, Kansas State should all see some time at the top. They just won't have the staying power to do it year over year. 

[USC Traveler 488]

4 hours ago, Crockett said:

Did you feel this way before the expansion to a 12 team playoff? More big time matchups could mean more losses, but getting into the playoff will be a bit easier now, so that dynamic has changed. 

I did.  I always felt like you have to beat the best to be the best, and I grew up mostly watching SC kick various BIG teams’ asses in the Rose Bowl in the ‘70s, and then seeing Pete’s teams beat BIG and SEC teams, so it’s not like it’s intimidating to go to the BIG.  IF the program is being run correctly, we can play with anyone.
 

I wanted the PAC16 to happen because I loved the idea of playing UT and OU regularly.  Once that door closed, my friends and I started talking about going BIG.  We knew, as did a number of folks from Shaggy who are in this thread, that with UT and OU off the board, the PAC was going to eventually fall too far behind the SEC and BIG.  There were a number of posts from various people about it in the Shaggy thread 10 or so years ago.

We all knew there would eventually be too big of a revenue gap to overcome.  I didn’t think it would grow as fast as it did, but it was clear where it was headed.  Once UT and OU went to the SEC, in combination with the media deal projections that were coming out of Navigate, the level of urgency to make a move skyrocketed.

All the USC people I know have always felt we have more in common with OSU and UM (football is the priority, National Title aspirations, epic Rose Bowl games, big dog in the conference, etc) than we do with Wazzu or the Eugene Community College Zeros.

IRL, I know more UM and OSU people in LA than I do people from half the PAC.  I know lots of SC, UCLA and Stanford grads, but I don’t know anyone who went to WSU, UO, Oregon St, and UW, and only a couple of people who went to UA, ASU, CU, Utah and Cal.

I think Stanford is pretty much of a given to get into the BIG as ND’s partner, and once that happens, there is literally no school from the PAC that I ever care about playing again, outside of kicking any of their asses in a playoff game.

[Crockett 488]

4 hours ago, closetojumping said:

Texas, USC, Notre Dame, Ohio State and very few other schools have always maintained a policy of being willing to play anyone, any time, and they continue to do so. None of those schools have had a FCS school on their program in a very long time outside a random occurrence that was a one-off in the first place. Texas had SHSU on theirs in 2007, the only one in 30 years, due to another school bailing on a game late in the process. 

Shame on OU, UCLA, the SEC, Michigan, the ACC, Nebraska, and other historically notable programs who have begun the practice of going after OOC cupcakes and FCS games. At least UCLA and OU held out until recently, I guess. 

I do respect that anyone, anytime, anywhere mentality. Hat tip.

 

Alabama almost never plays anyone west of the Mississippi and usually pads its record with 1 FCS team and 1 bottom-feeder FBS school. Always thought that was lame, but they won the big games so it worked for them. It boggles my mind that FBS teams are still allowed to play FCS teams and have it count. My team started doing it in independence, but I want to be done with that. 

[FartingDreamer 138]

2 hours ago, Zeus said:

Next year the Big 12 isn't a major conference anymore.

Disagree, the Big 12 will continue to be relevant as a major conference and with a parity that most fans will find compelling.  

[JFKFC 4878]

6 minutes ago, FartingDreamer said:

with a parity that most fans will find compelling.  

Shut-ins who have either lost their remote or are too high/drunk to successfully change the chanel.

[Deej 76568]

Have they announced which Big12 team has the misfortune of taking over all of UT's 11 am kickoffs?

[Hurtlocker 2208]

4 minutes ago, Deej said:

Have they announced which Big12 team has the misfortune of taking over all of UT's 11 am kickoffs?

Those noon T1 slots are money makers, they're not going away with the move.

[Deej 76568]

Just now, Hurtlocker said:

Those noon T1 slots are money makers, they're not going away with the move.

I ain't waking up at 10:30 on a Saturday to watch Iowa State be mediocre. 

[Hurtlocker 2208]

5 minutes ago, Deej said:

I ain't waking up at 10:30 on a Saturday to watch Iowa State be mediocre. 

I mean the SEC will have noon games on ABC, the biggest B1G games lived there for years until now and College Gameday feeds right into it.   There are six T1 eastern windows on ABC/ESPN per day, noon, 3:30, and Prime.  The SEC will likely have 4 while the ACC/B12 will have one each, or it will be SEC (3) and ACC/B12 (3).  I would severely doubt that ESPN would pit SEC v SEC consistently at 3:30 when they could put big games back-to-back-to-back, so don't expect the 11am central to go away anytime soon.

Edited May 24, 2023 by Hurtlocker

[Deej 76568]

Which of those teams have almost all their games at 11? 

[Hurtlocker 2208]

3 minutes ago, Deej said:

Which of those teams have almost all their games at 11? 

Teams that play in the eastern and central time zones

[billfromlaketravis 11362]

RE: 11 am games. Will Fox have first pick of Big Ten games when the dust settles? If so, they’re going to put damn near every tOSU game at noon EST. 

[Hurtlocker 2208]

9 minutes ago, billfromlaketravis said:

RE: 11 am games. Will Fox have first pick of Big Ten games when the dust settles? If so, they’re going to put damn near every tOSU game at noon EST. 

Yeah they'll keep pimping Big Noon big time.   I thinkt hey gave the second and third picks for the afternoon and prime contracts, but its likely not every #1 at noon or CBS and NBC wouldn't have wanted to play ball.

[USC Traveler 488]

4 hours ago, bullet said:

There are about 20 teams who are contenders.  You can go all the way back to 1960 and the only teams outside the P2 to win an AP title are Miami, FSU, ND, Clemson; along with Colorado in '90, BYU in '84 and Pitt in '76.  Washington '91 and Georgia Tech '90 shared titles by winning the coaches poll.  For that matter, going back to TCU's 1938 title, the only other schools to win the AP were Syracuse in '59 and Army twice during WWII.

I knew about the 1960 stats from some of your previous posts, but bringing it back to 1938 with only Syracuse and Army added to the list is eye-opening.

In total, over the last 84 years, 77 out of the 84 national titles have been won by teams who are in the P2 or will be within 10 years (ND, FSU, Miami, Clemson).

Of the other 7 titles, 5 occurred before 1985, with 1990 and 1991 being the only times in the last 38 years where schools outside the group referenced above won a National Title, and both of those occurrences were over 30 years ago.

[Zeus 5950]

1 hour ago, FartingDreamer said:

Disagree, the Big 12 will continue to be relevant as a major conference and with a parity that most fans will find compelling.  

They are the new AAC.

Farting dreamer sounds about right for that post lmao

Edited May 24, 2023 by Zeus

[VoteforHank 117]

49 minutes ago, Zeus said:

They are the new AAC.

Farting dreamer sounds about right for that post lmao

Exactly. Which B12 matchup will be a national draw? Tell me please. 

[TKthunder2 4981]

31 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

I would severely doubt that ESPN would pit SEC v SEC consistently at 3:30 when they could put big games back-to-back-to-back, so don't expect the 11am central to go away anytime soon.

The 330 window on ABC is an exclusive window for the SEC, no SEC games can be on any other network (including ESPN) at that time. The only exception to this exclusive clause is for a game on the SECN.

At least that’s how the contract was setup when CBS had the SEC’s Tier One rights. Maybe they change it but I think splitting your audience during the biggest game of the week isn’t the best strategy.

Assuming it didn’t change, once fully into conference play that’s 1 game on ABC at 330, 3 games on the SECN, and up to 4 other games that can be slotted into the Noon/Prime slots on either ABC or ESPN. Those will be in competition with the Big12 and ACC so some will likely drop to ESPN2/U or at worst SECN alternate/ESPN3.

Odds are the #2 and #3 SEC games of the week will lock up 2 of those 4 spots most weeks, which leaves 2 slots for the Big12/ACC to fight for.

[FartingDreamer 138]

18 minutes ago, VoteforHank said:

Exactly. Which B12 matchup will be a national draw? Tell me please. 

Has OU ever beaten BYU?  I'm all ears...

[VoteforHank 117]

6 minutes ago, FartingDreamer said:

Has OU ever beaten BYU?  I'm all ears...

So? You think OU vs. BYU is going to be a game with national interest? Really? 

[USC Traveler 488]

33 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

The 330 window on ABC is an exclusive window for the SEC, no SEC games can be on any other network (including ESPN) at that time. The only exception to this exclusive clause is for a game on the SECN.

At least that’s how the contract was setup when CBS had the SEC’s Tier One rights. Maybe they change it but I think splitting your audience during the biggest game of the week isn’t the best strategy.

Assuming it didn’t change, once fully into conference play that’s 1 game on ABC at 330, 3 games on the SECN, and up to 4 other games that can be slotted into the Noon/Prime slots on either ABC or ESPN. Those will be in competition with the Big12 and ACC so some will likely drop to ESPN2/U or at worst SECN alternate/ESPN3.

Odds are the #2 and #3 SEC games of the week will lock up 2 of those 4 spots most weeks, which leaves 2 slots for the Big12/ACC to fight for.

Will be interesting to see how ESPN programs those slots.  How many SEC games vs B12 and ACC games ?

Will they put SEC in both primetime slots ?

Will the ACC and B12 get one game each on ESPN/ABC every week ?  I'm assuming so, but don't know the details of their deals.

[bullet 1596]

1 hour ago, USC Traveler said:

I knew about the 1960 stats from some of your previous posts, but bringing it back to 1938 with only Syracuse and Army added to the list is eye-opening.

In total, over the last 84 years, 77 out of the 84 national titles have been won by teams who are in the P2 or will be within 10 years (ND, FSU, Miami, Clemson).

Of the other 7 titles, 5 occurred before 1985, with 1990 and 1991 being the only times in the last 38 years where schools outside the group referenced above won a National Title, and both of those occurrences were over 30 years ago.

Its about 20 teams from 1968, but before that there are most of the same group but some additional current SEC/Big 10 teams who were strong.  Arkansas and Michigan St. notably in the 60s.  In the 50s, Ole Miss, Iowa, UCLA, Maryland and again Michigan St. were near the top a lot.

[Trojan Man 429]

1 hour ago, VoteforHank said:

Exactly. Which B12 matchup will be a national draw? Tell me please. 

Whichever Big 12 teams happen to be contending will have good ratings.  The Big 12 won't have any one team that dominates year after year like Oklahoma did but they have enough teams capable of putting together a top 10 year that they'll always have a couple of them on the upswing.  I think that unpredictability and churn will be compelling for neutral fans tired of watching the same teams own other conferences, plus it will be a major draw for gamblers.  Also, the expanded CFP will be a boost to every conference's ratings because there will be more CFP races to watch and they won't all be in the B1G or the SEC.

For example,. last year TCU had some high ratings and it wasn't just when they played Texas and Oklahoma.  They pulled 4.34M vs Iowa State, 4.35M vs Baylor, 2.5M vs Tech and 2.14M vs Oklahoma State.  The Big 12 CCG between TCU and Kansas State had 9.41M viewers, which wasn't that far behind the B1G (10.7M) and SEC (10.89M) CCGs.  It was 4 million more than the Pac 12 CCG, which had CFP stakes for USC, and 6 million more than the ACC CCG (Clemson/North Carolina).  The AAC CCG, between Tulane and soon to be Big 12 member UCF, went head to head with the SEC CCG and still had 2.7M viewers.

[Richard Kimball 1492]

Not everything ages well. 

There's a reason Kelly McGillis wasn't asked to be in Top Gun Maverick.

Kelly then and now:

  

Seventy-five years ago, traveling all over the country was harder, and most of the football money came from the gate. It made sense that colleges should play schools within driving distance for both the teams and the fans. Travel distance was more important than the quality of the opponent. The schools were wildly different, though, and there were a lot of massacres, cause some schools emphasized athletics, others didn't care. When the real money started rolling in, some of the schools were happy to be the Washington Generals for the marquee schools. 

Those days are gone. 

The world I grew up in no longer exists. 

Today, the opponent is more important than the travel distance. Money alone won't buy championships, but it's no longer possible to compete at a high level without a lot of money. Some schools, because of fan base or school size can't keep up. It may suck, but that's the way it is. 

Texas doesn't want to play Kelly McGillis anymore. 

The Horns want to play Jennifer Connelly. 

 

[LTtxfan 48980]

 

[bullet 1596]

24 minutes ago, Richard Kimball said:

Not everything ages well. 

There's a reason Kelly McGillis wasn't asked to be in Top Gun Maverick.

Kelly then and now:

  

Seventy-five years ago, traveling all over the country was harder, and most of the football money came from the gate. It made sense that colleges should play schools within driving distance for both the teams and the fans. Travel distance was more important than the quality of the opponent. The schools were wildly different, though, and there were a lot of massacres, cause some schools emphasized athletics, others didn't care. When the real money started rolling in, some of the schools were happy to be the Washington Generals for the marquee schools. 

Those days are gone. 

The world I grew up in no longer exists. 

Today, the opponent is more important than the travel distance. Money alone won't buy championships, but it's no longer possible to compete at a high level without a lot of money. Some schools, because of fan base or school size can't keep up. It may suck, but that's the way it is. 

Texas doesn't want to play Kelly McGillis anymore. 

The Horns want to play Jennifer Connelly. 

 

In fairness, Val Kilmer had throat cancer and can't really speak, but they found a role for him.  Does that make him comparable to Vanderbilt?

[Hurtlocker 2208]

2 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

The 330 window on ABC is an exclusive window for the SEC, no SEC games can be on any other network (including ESPN) at that time. The only exception to this exclusive clause is for a game on the SECN.

At least that’s how the contract was setup when CBS had the SEC’s Tier One rights. Maybe they change it but I think splitting your audience during the biggest game of the week isn’t the best strategy.

Assuming it didn’t change, once fully into conference play that’s 1 game on ABC at 330, 3 games on the SECN, and up to 4 other games that can be slotted into the Noon/Prime slots on either ABC or ESPN. Those will be in competition with the Big12 and ACC so some will likely drop to ESPN2/U or at worst SECN alternate/ESPN3.

Odds are the #2 and #3 SEC games of the week will lock up 2 of those 4 spots most weeks, which leaves 2 slots for the Big12/ACC to fight for.

It did change, they got the top T1 game, but it has a clause in it that it isn't required to be at the 3:30 window like CBS held.  They just have to provide a T1 ABC window.

Quote

The ESPN family of networks will own rights to every SEC football and men’s basketball game over the term of the deal. ABC will carry at least one SEC football game per week, including some on Saturday Night Football, and also air the SEC Championship Game.

Notably, ESPN does not plan to prioritize the mid-afternoon window — or broadcast television — for the SEC “game of the week,” instead scheduling games “in the window and on the network that best maximizes exposure.”

 

[Hurtlocker 2208]

1 hour ago, USC Traveler said:

Will be interesting to see how ESPN programs those slots.  How many SEC games vs B12 and ACC games ?

Will they put SEC in both primetime slots ?

Will the ACC and B12 get one game each on ESPN/ABC every week ?  I'm assuming so, but don't know the details of their deals.

My guess is B12 gets 1 and ACC gets 2 and the SEC gets 3.   The B12 will get another one with Fox.   The rest fall to secondary channels.

[Hurtlocker 2208]

1 hour ago, Trojan Man said:

Whichever Big 12 teams happen to be contending will have good ratings.  The Big 12 won't have any one team that dominates year after year like Oklahoma did but they have enough teams capable of putting together a top 10 year that they'll always have a couple of them on the upswing.  I think that unpredictability and churn will be compelling for neutral fans tired of watching the same teams own other conferences, plus it will be a major draw for gamblers.  Also, the expanded CFP will be a boost to every conference's ratings because there will be more CFP races to watch and they won't all be in the B1G or the SEC.

For example,. last year TCU had some high ratings and it wasn't just when they played Texas and Oklahoma.  They pulled 4.34M vs Iowa State, 4.35M vs Baylor, 2.5M vs Tech and 2.14M vs Oklahoma State.  The Big 12 CCG between TCU and Kansas State had 9.41M viewers, which wasn't that far behind the B1G (10.7M) and SEC (10.89M) CCGs.  It was 4 million more than the Pac 12 CCG, which had CFP stakes for USC, and 6 million more than the ACC CCG (Clemson/North Carolina).  The AAC CCG, between Tulane and soon to be Big 12 member UCF, went head to head with the SEC CCG and still had 2.7M viewers.

Yeah, the one stat mentioned that stood out to me when the B12 resigned was that schools not named Texas and Oklahoma had increased their viewership against each other by 40% since the last time to market.   You're right, they're not going to have that Bama/Georgia or Ohio State/Michigan kind of draw, but they'll still pull in 4-6m for their top teams in any given year and a big CCG.

Now, if they fall flat and can't produce any good teams, that will clearly change, but I'd guess someone of that group will put it together in any given year like TCU did last year.

[Crockett 488]

2 hours ago, VoteforHank said:

So? You think OU vs. BYU is going to be a game with national interest? Really? 

BYU v UT might be. People wondering if BYU can get another UT DC fired the day after the game. 

[TKthunder2 4981]

50 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

Will be interesting to see how ESPN programs those slots.  How many SEC games vs B12 and ACC games ?

Will they put SEC in both primetime slots ?

Will the ACC and B12 get one game each on ESPN/ABC every week ?  I'm assuming so, but don't know the details of their deals.

The 14 team SEC last year during conference play averaged 3 games a week on CBS or ESPN and 3 games a week on the SEC Network. Only 2 games fell to ESPN2/U (Mizzou/UF, MSU/Aub).

Texas and Oklahoma accounted for 8 games on ABC/ESPN while in the Big12 (and many also were in FOX). Their addition easily equates to an extra game a week which would give the SEC 4 quality games worthy of an ABC/ESPN broadcast.

I suspect we’ll see push back from the B12/ACC from showing 3 SEC games back to back to back on ABC so I’d guess we’ll see 2 on ABC most weekends and a 3rd and highly likely 4th game on ESPN in a Noon/Prime kick.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t think ESPN aggressively bid to get the SEC’s Tier One rights from CBS and help orchestrate expansion with UT/OU just to throw more SEC games on ESPN2/U.

[bullet 1596]

5 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

I knew about the 1960 stats from some of your previous posts, but bringing it back to 1938 with only Syracuse and Army added to the list is eye-opening.

In total, over the last 84 years, 77 out of the 84 national titles have been won by teams who are in the P2 or will be within 10 years (ND, FSU, Miami, Clemson).

Of the other 7 titles, 5 occurred before 1985, with 1990 and 1991 being the only times in the last 38 years where schools outside the group referenced above won a National Title, and both of those occurrences were over 30 years ago.

Decided to go all the way back to 1936.  All the AP titles:

()-not part of top 20 programs over last 55 years
2024 SEC	AP titles 1936-2022
Alabama	13
Oklahoma	7
Texas	3
Florida	3
LSU	3
Georgia	3
Tennessee	2
Auburn	2
(Texas A&M)	1
		37
2024 Big 10
Ohio St.	5
USC	5
Nebraska	4
Penn St.	2
Michigan	2
(Minesota)	4
(Michigan St.)	1
(Maryland)	1
		24
Potential Big 10/SEC
Notre Dame	8
Miami	5
Florida St.	3
Clemson	3
Colorado	1
Oregon	0
Washington	0
		20
Others
(Pitt)	2
(Army)	2
(TCU)	1
(Syracuse)	1
(BYU)	1
		7