UCF May Force The Issue

[Huckleberry 34,701]

Our revenue distribution will not be as big the next time around, and certainly won't be as big as some of the other conferences. The Big 12 is viewed as a dying conference in the AD offices around the league because of the one thing that none of them can control - the tiny markets that many of the conference's members are in.

Edited October 10, 2018 by Huckleberry

[GringoSalado 1,653]

2 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Winning the Big 12 CCG could be what puts Texas in the playoffs this year.

 

[Al_4_ISU 12,645]

Just now, Huckleberry said:

Our revenue distribution will not be as big the next time around, and certainly won't be as big as some of the other conferences. The Big 12 is viewed as a dying conference in the AD offices around the league because of the one thing that none of them can control - the tiny markets that many of the conference's members are in.

Giant TV markets don't mean shit when no one watches.  This is why the Pac 12 and ACC are behind the Big 12 financially.

If the world functioned the same way that it did in 2010, I'd agree with you.  The Big 12 does have smaller markets.  However, the conference network model being forced onto cable is dying quickly with cord cutting.  What matters is viewership. The Big 12 is doing well in that category because even though it's markets are smaller, they are markets that are heavily interested in college sports.

I could see wholesale changes to the structure of the sport that would lead to the destruciton of the Big 12, but it would alter the whole conference model altogether.  The 4 x 16 model of the Pac, Big 10, SEC, and ACC is not going to happen.

[Huckleberry 34,701]

14 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Giant TV markets don't mean shit when no one watches.  This is why the Pac 12 and ACC are behind the Big 12 financially.

If the world functioned the same way that it did in 2010, I'd agree with you.  The Big 12 does have smaller markets.  However, the conference network model being forced onto cable is dying quickly with cord cutting.  What matters is viewership. The Big 12 is doing well in that category because even though it's markets are smaller, they are markets that are heavily interested in college sports.

I could see wholesale changes to the structure of the sport that would lead to the destruciton of the Big 12, but it would alter the whole conference model altogether.  The 4 x 16 model of the Pac, Big 10, SEC, and ACC is not going to happen.

Okay, man. I hope the Big 12 survives and I'd rather be wrong than right on this one. But I don't think I am.

Market size does still matter, the cord-cutting situation only disrupts the conference network model in terms of carriers being willing to add those networks to tiers and then charge all their customers for the channel regardless of their viewing habits. That in turn makes the smaller market teams even less valuable than they were before, not more. 

Kansas-Baylor drew 414K viewers. In terms of conference revenue those two football programs could be replaced by Rice and Wichita State and nobody else's bank accounts would notice. The money is there because of the big name programs. That sucks but it's true. And you're high as a kite if you think the networks haven't explained to Oklahoma and Texas how much more money it would be worth over a 10 year period for them to be playing Auburn instead of Oklahoma State, or Mississippi State instead of Kansas State.

Now I happen to think that such things are oversold by the networks. I don't think that Oklahoma-Mississippi State would actually draw considerably more viewers than Oklahoma-Kansas State. I think lots of the ratings differences are based on the fact that nobody thinks of Fox as a college football channel right now, but that just points to more failures by the Big 12 office. I'm not telling you what I think or what I want, I'm telling you the way it's being seen by the decision-makers right now.

[Slacks 7,066]

Wait a minute... You guys renamed the Conference Realignment thread and didnt tell me...


I see how you are.

[Al_4_ISU 12,645]

19 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Okay, man. I hope the Big 12 survives and I'd rather be wrong than right on this one. But I don't think I am.

Market size does still matter, the cord-cutting situation only disrupts the conference network model in terms of carriers being willing to add those networks to tiers and then charge all their customers for the channel regardless of their viewing habits. That in turn makes the smaller market teams even less valuable than they were before, not more. 

Kansas-Baylor drew 414K viewers. In terms of conference revenue those two football programs could be replaced by Rice and Wichita State and nobody else's bank accounts would notice. The money is there because of the big name programs. That sucks but it's true. And you're high as a kite if you think the networks haven't explained to Oklahoma and Texas how much more money it would be worth over a 10 year period for them to be playing Auburn instead of Oklahoma State, or Mississippi State instead of Kansas State.

Now I happen to think that such things are oversold by the networks. I don't think that Oklahoma-Mississippi State would actually draw considerably more viewers than Oklahoma-Kansas State. I think lots of the ratings differences are based on the fact that nobody thinks of Fox as a college football channel right now, but that just points to more failures by the Big 12 office. I'm not telling you what I think or what I want, I'm telling you the way it's being seen by the decision-makers right now.

I understand what you want, where you're coming from, and why you believe that.  My honest opinion is that I don't believe that the decision makers want Prestige Worldwide.  Why?  It's simple.  Blue bloods didn't get to that point by losing games and finishing 6-6 every year.   If you overly consolidate power, you will, long term, reduce the quality of (and interest in) all the programs involved.  If Texas and OU join the SEC, not only are THEY going to lose more games, so are all the other schools in the SEC.  

The decision makers made it very clear in 2010-2011 that they wanted to prevent an excessive consolidation of power.  That is why they gave Texas and OU financial incentive to stay in the Big 12.  They were aware of the financial implications of those schools joining the SEC at that time, but it wasn't pursued.  Why?  They make more money, and draw more eyeballs with a certain spread of power.  They're trying to find that sweet spot.

If I were leading with what I want to happen, I'd be talking about all of CFB reforming around 8 9 team divisions that recreate the pre 1995 conference models.  THAT is what I want to happen.  I think that would work really well, but I don't believe it will actually happen.  What I actually believe is that the next round of TV contracts will bring little change.  The SEC will get the biggest contract, the Big 10 the second, Big 12 third, ACC fourth, and Pac 12 fifth.  I don't think any schools switch, for the reasons I laid out.  Other than the schools who left the Big East and Mountain West for the P5, none of the other schools that changed conferences in 2010-11 really changed their overall status in the game.  You can argue that one in particular (Nebraska) did outright damage to their program.

Edited October 10, 2018 by Al_4_ISU

[kopp0e 1,135]

1 minute ago, Snacks said:

Wait a minute... You guys renamed the Conference Realignment thread and didnt tell me...


I see how you are.

College Football Playoff Expansion Won't Go Away..?

If the college football playoff is expanded...

Here are some thoughts from both the coaches:

(Mike, out in the paloose)

(Scott, out in the prairie)

Quote

Expand the Playoff to 8 teams, per Scott Frost: How it could work
SB Nation
Jul 24, 2018 · Scott Frost's 8-team College Football Playoff vision is the most feasible expansion plan.

And personally I think going to a 6 team playoff would be best, in having 2 first round byes for #1 & #2... Or an 8 team playoff, at most, it's possible for teams on the outskirts currently as UT & OU to be still squarely in the mix for a playoff birth with as many as 1 added loss...
 

On the extreme end of the spectrum, you could always go for a 64 team playoff, that eliminates all conference championship games, as the top 3 teams are taken from all divisions in the ACC/B1G/SEC/XII/PAC for 30 bids, and the G5 has a "legitimate" chance at pulling a Cinderella upset, with 2 bids for each division for 20 bids, leaving 14 wildcard slots... Then yes, even Kansas can hope for a playoff birth..!

[Al_4_ISU 12,645]

God damn it guys, it happened.  I'm sorry for all the realignment related posts I made.

Brace yo ass for maps, graphics, and fan fiction.

[kopp0e 1,135]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

Our revenue distribution will not be as big the next time around, and certainly won't be as big as some of the other conferences. The Big 12 is viewed as a dying conference in the AD offices around the league because of the one thing that none of them can control - the tiny markets that many of the conference's members are in.

You might not realize it, but the XII "tiny market" members as Iowa State/ Kansas State & Oklahoma State, gets higher attendance numbers than 50% of the B1G & over 50% of the PAC...

[JBJ 3,828]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

Our revenue distribution will not be as big the next time around, and certainly won't be as big as some of the other conferences. The Big 12 is viewed as a dying conference in the AD offices around the league because of the one thing that none of them can control - the tiny markets that many of the conference's members are in.

I don't think this is true even looking at market reach alone.

Conference DMA ranks: 

Big XII: 5, 7, 24 (split-Pittsburgh), 31, 39, 41, 62, 67, 68, 73, 84, 86. maybe 93 (El Paso)

SEC: 9 (split-Atlanta), 13 (split-Tampa), 18 (split-Orlando), 37 (split-WPB), 42 (split-Jacksonville), 44, 50, 51, 56 (split-Fort Myers), 59, 61, 63, 75, 77, 80, 83, 89, 90, 92, 94, 95.

Owning Texas outright is a huge benefit. 

As the dude above points out: Ames, Wichita, and Tulsa are underrated markets as far as markets go.  They are all bigger than Spokane, Omaha, Buffalo, or Springfield.

Edited October 10, 2018 by JBJ

[Huckleberry 34,701]

The fact that Texas is like 70% of TV households in the footprint is a problem, not a good thing.

[JBJ 3,828]

2 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

The fact that Texas is like 70% of TV households in the footprint is a problem, not a good thing.

One could say the same about GA+FL and those are states with conference competition.

[kopp0e 1,135]

5 minutes ago, JBJ said:

I don't think this is true even looking at market reach alone.

Conference DMA ranks: 

Big XII: 5, 7, 24 (split-Pittsburgh), 31, 39, 41, 62, 67, 68, 73, 84, 86. maybe 93 (El Paso)

SEC: 9 (split-Atlanta), 13 (split-Tampa), 18 (split-Orlando), 37 (split-WPB), 42 (split-Jacksonville), 44, 50, 51, 56 (split-Fort Myers), 59, 61, 63, 75, 77, 80, 83, 89, 90, 92, 94, 95.

Owning Texas outright is a huge benefit. 

As the dude above points out: Ames, Wichita, and Tulsa are underrated markets as far as markets go.  They are all bigger than Spokane, Omaha, Buffalo, or Springfield.

Part of the reason I mention the PAC & XII merger as a possibility:

Having the top markets in about a 10 state reach, allows for the league to comprise about 103.5 million residents in the conference footprint... (+Lubbock)

Here is a breakdown by conference, of shared & exclusive markets within each footprint...

 

[Huckleberry 34,701]

8 minutes ago, JBJ said:

One could say the same about GA+FL and those are states with conference competition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_television_markets

That isn't the case. I took the list and assigned households to the SEC based on an estimated share within each market. So they get a percentage of the Florida sets (because of the ACC) in non-campus towns and share of Georgia (ACC - Georgia Tech), but they get all the Alabama and Mississippi sets, for example. TV households in the SEC footprint from that list:

Tennessee - 2,909,580

Florida - 2,721,673

Georgia - 2,693,558

Texas - 2,599,278

Kentucky - 2,357,406

Alabama - 1,887,990

Louisiana - 1,781,420

Missouri - 1,553,549

South Carolina - 1,051,631

Arkansas - 891,550

Mississippi - 825,770

[Huckleberry 34,701]

Here's the Big 12 (and I was extremely generous with West Virginia's reach into Pennsylvania).

Texas - 4,607,756

Oklahoma - 1,222,380

West Virginia - 800,150

Iowa - 593,044

Kansas - 577,410

Pennsylvania - 275,090

Missouri - 225,255

Edited October 10, 2018 by Huckleberry
Forgot to give a little credit for the Kansas City market

[Vic Mackey 47,985]

4 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

There also wasn't playoffs and yammering about "13th data points" when the Pac 10 had 10 teams.

The rules changed.  Having conferences where half the teams don't play and creating a 13th game that may or may not be a rematch is pretty fucking stupid too, but everyone accepts it as making sense and moves on.

There is no rule stating you need a conference championship game to get into the playoffs. Guarantee you OU or Texas is not getting left out like TCU did in 2014. 

There is absolutely no reason for rematches in a round robin conference schedule. Playoffs or no playoffs.

[Al_4_ISU 12,645]

5 minutes ago, Vic Mackey said:

There is no rule stating you need a conference championship game to get into the playoffs. Guarantee you OU or Texas is not getting left out like TCU did in 2014. 

There is absolutely no reason for rematches in a round robin conference schedule. Playoffs or no playoffs.

There is no rule stating you need to do anything to get into the playoffs.  You don't even HAVE to win a game.

['stache 22,145]

2 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

OU wants to leave, period.

Texas will leave if OU leaves and is in the process of being convinced to leave.

That's all there is to it. I know it sucks as an Iowa State fan and maybe you are sticking to what you want to believe versus what you should believe. That's perfectly understandable. I do think it's funny that you somehow believe that Texas and OU would get any conference's scraps. Ha. Regardless, if you want the Big 12 to survive then you should make sure your administration is convincing the league office to stop being so damn stupid all the time.

David Boren wanted OU to join the Big 10 for academic reasons.  He spent his decades long presidency trying to make OU an elite academic institution.  He took them about as far as he could but could never overcome that it's a public school in Oklahoma and will never be super elite academically.  I think he supported the PAC deal, also for academic reasons, but wanted UT and OSU to be part of it.  Bottom line, OU has no desire to leave without UT and to a lesser extent OSU.  As long as UT is happy, OU will stay.  And they also have been able to basically dominate the conference title with UT struggling over the years and having very few challengers they couldn't handle.  

[SwanderedTalent 5,761]

39 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

There is no rule stating you need to do anything to get into the playoffs.  You don't even HAVE to win a game.

spoken like a Notre Dame fan

[kopp0e 1,135]

19 minutes ago, 'stache said:

David Boren wanted OU to join the Big 10 for academic reasons.  He spent his decades long presidency trying to make OU an elite academic institution.  He took them about as far as he could but could never overcome that it's a public school in Oklahoma and will never be super elite academically.  I think he supported the PAC deal, also for academic reasons, but wanted UT and OSU to be part of it.  Bottom line, OU has no desire to leave without UT and to a lesser extent OSU.  As long as UT is happy, OU will stay.  And they also have been able to basically dominate the conference title with UT struggling over the years and having very few challengers they couldn't handle.  

The deal is with that, there's a new guy in Gallogly who is a wildcard, a Texas resident who worked in the petroleum sector in Houston, and planned to move to Austin to retire before the call from Oklahoma to become president... He also sat on the board at the University of Colorado in some capacity, and donated to the school(s) in both the main campus of Boulder & also the campus he attended in Colorado Springs... For whatever all that backstory may mean in the future, I don't really know...

[kopp0e 1,135]

22 minutes ago, SwanderedTalent said:

spoken like a Notre Dame fan

Isn't that how it worked for Alabama last year..? The team didn't go to the SEC title game and was the 3 placed team in the league/ but still made the CFP...

[MirrOlure 15,291]

So if UCF goes undefeated, put them in the damn playoff as a 4 seed.  They'll either win or lose and then the decision will either be justified or vilified.  "Problem" solved.

[sushihorn 3,249]

2 hours ago, Vic Mackey said:

There is no rule stating you need a conference championship game to get into the playoffs. Guarantee you OU or Texas is not getting left out like TCU did in 2014. 

There is absolutely no reason for rematches in a round robin conference schedule. Playoffs or no playoffs.

$ure there i$

[El Squared 1,854]

5 hours ago, Richard Kimball said:

The big thing to remember about the current situation is that it's a show, not a sport.  The P5s don't want G5s in the playoffs, because they don't want the competition for talent. Whatever the committee says, the point is to keep the thumb on the scale. They won't outright say it, but the team that gets higher ratings will get the nod. The "data points" are the excuse, not the reason. 

This is the solid truth. P5s spend more money on their FB programs and want their share back. ESPN pushes their conferences relentlessly along w/ CBS. 

Ratings chances also have to figure in. But any time subjectivity enters into brackets and selections, there will be bias. Dedicated conference champions removes much of the subjectivity bs, but the money folks will insist upon "wild card/at large" selections so that the NDs and #2 SEC and B1G have a chance to get in, not G5s, unless Congress gets into the fracus.

[Disco Missile 456]

9 hours ago, Thermos H. Christ said:

Oh also expand the playoff to 8, with autobids for P5 champions and the top G5 team plus 2 at-large spots. Easy. I swear college football has to be the only sport where so many people actively root against underdogs and hate the idea of cinderella teams being allowed to crash the party.

Having a playoff with autobids for conference champions is a shittastic idea. Were you alive during the BCS era? Some crappy team knocked off an undefeated conference opponent in the championship game every year. It made the BCS bowls shitty and it would make the playoffs shitty too.

1998: 10-2 Texas aTm beat 11-0 Kansas St and lost in the Sugar Bowl.
1999: 8-3 Stanford won the Pac.
2000: 8-3 Purdue won the Big 10.
2001: 9-3 LSU won the SEC
2002: 9-4 Florida State won the ACC
2003: KANSAS STATE
2004: 8-3 Pitt won the Big East
2005: 8-4 Florida State won the ACC
2006: 11-2 Wake Forest beat 9-4 Georgia Tech to win the ACC
2007: LSU, first 2 loss BCS Champion
2008: 9-4 Virginia Tech won the ACC

This goes on and on and on. Anyone who wants autobids for conference champs needs to get the thought out of their heads.

[Magus Ossis 3,004]

4 minutes ago, Disco Missile said:

Having a playoff with autobids for conference champions is a shittastic idea. Were you alive during the BCS era? Some crappy team knocked off an undefeated conference opponent in the championship game every year. It made the BCS bowls shitty and it would make the playoffs shitty too.

1998: 10-2 Texas aTm beat 11-0 Kansas St and lost in the Sugar Bowl.
1999: 8-3 Stanford won the Pac.
2000: 8-3 Purdue won the Big 10.
2001: 9-3 LSU won the SEC
2002: 9-4 Florida State won the ACC
2003: KANSAS STATE
2004: 8-3 Pitt won the Big East
2005: 8-4 Florida State won the ACC
2006: 11-2 Wake Forest beat 9-4 Georgia Tech to win the ACC
2007: LSU, first 2 loss BCS Champion
2008: 9-4 Virginia Tech won the ACC

This goes on and on and on. Anyone who wants autobids for conference champs needs to get the thought out of their heads.

Any playoff is inherently premised on the idea that favored teams may not win and that most favored teams may not win out all the way. And yet playoffs hold the allure over beauty-pageant-style coronations for many fans.

[hpslugga 4,097]

24 minutes ago, Disco Missile said:

Anyone who wants autobids for conference champs needs to get the thought out of their heads.

Well given that you haven't given any of us a reason to trust that, we have no reason to trust that.

[Huckleberry 34,701]

27 minutes ago, Disco Missile said:

Having a playoff with autobids for conference champions is a shittastic idea. Were you alive during the BCS era? Some crappy team knocked off an undefeated conference opponent in the championship game every year. It made the BCS bowls shitty and it would make the playoffs shitty too.

1998: 10-2 Texas aTm beat 11-0 Kansas St and lost in the Sugar Bowl.
1999: 8-3 Stanford won the Pac.
2000: 8-3 Purdue won the Big 10.
2001: 9-3 LSU won the SEC
2002: 9-4 Florida State won the ACC
2003: KANSAS STATE
2004: 8-3 Pitt won the Big East
2005: 8-4 Florida State won the ACC
2006: 11-2 Wake Forest beat 9-4 Georgia Tech to win the ACC
2007: LSU, first 2 loss BCS Champion
2008: 9-4 Virginia Tech won the ACC

This goes on and on and on. Anyone who wants autobids for conference champs needs to get the thought out of their heads.

Oh no, what a terrible situation where those shitty teams have to go on the road to the home stadium of the #1 team in the country, giving the #1 team a huge advantage in the playoffs.

Wait, my bad. I meant to say what a perfectly logical and desirable situation. My fault.

[Disco Missile 456]

Just now, Huckleberry said:

Oh no, what a terrible situation where those shitty teams have to go on the road to the home stadium of the #1 team in the country, giving the #1 team a huge advantage in the playoffs.

Wait, my bad. I meant to say what a perfectly logical and desirable situation. My fault.

That never happened, and never would happen. The bowls aren't going away. There are even regular season 'bowls' at 'neutral sites' regularly.

5 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

Well given that you haven't given any of us a reason to trust that, we have no reason to trust that.

The BCS. 

[Disco Missile 456]

25 minutes ago, Magus Ossis said:

Any playoff is inherently premised on the idea that favored teams may not win and that most favored teams may not win out all the way. And yet playoffs hold the allure over beauty-pageant-style coronations for many fans.

I'm a fan of the four team playoff as is. There are usually only 3-5 top flight teams any given year. The BCS left them out too many times. An 8-team playoff would water it down too much, like it does in FCS.

The committee is better than sheer voting but its miles better than the crappy autobids were.

Edited October 11, 2018 by Disco Missile

[Magus Ossis 3,004]

FBS comprises 130 schools. In addition to independent schools, FBS has 10 conferences. 5 of those are considered ‘elite’ or P5. A playoff with not only fewer slots than conferences but fewer than elite conferences presupposes that 100% of the schools in at least 20% of the upper crust will be mathematically prevented from having the chance to compete in the post-season. Also, 100% of the non-upper-crust is excluded because they don’t schedule tough enough opponents the guys benefitting from the status quo wouldn’t dream of seriously jeopardizing their monopoly.

The current system works like this

1. Fill all 4 slots with undefeated blue-bloods as available

2. Next allow one-loss SEC runner-up

3. Next allow 1-loss teams from ‘in’ conferences if they have a good reputation

4. 2-loss blue bloods

5. 1-loss ‘in’ conference teams with less historical rep

Nowhere is there room for teams that are killing it now but whose QB and MLB were out for September, resulting in three tough OOC losses. No room for undefeated, gritty G5 teams that knock off the 1 or 2 P5 schools willing to play them. No room for the 5th ‘elite’ conference champion with the same record as the champions of 2 other conferences not excluded. Some fans want to see the champion chosen in a tournament of champions, not a pairing of pageant-winners.

[Valmy77 13,626]

9 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

The fact that Texas is like 70% of TV households in the footprint is a problem, not a good thing.

Oh good. Footprint. My favorite college football topic.

Can we also talk about branding? 

[Valmy77 13,626]

32 minutes ago, Disco Missile said:

I'm a fan of the four team playoff as is. There are usually only 3-5 top flight teams any given year. The BCS left them out too many times. An 8-team playoff would water it down too much, like it does in FCS.

The committee is better than sheer voting but its miles better than the crappy autobids were.

FCS? They have a 24 team playoff in FCS. Are you honestly comparing a 24 team to 8 team as the same thing?

And I disagree. The committee and the four team playoff completely failed and broke down last year. UCF went undefeated and they had no chance to win the championship. That cannot happen, if it does that means the system did not work. So it must be expanded. But maybe it is expanded to 6 instead of 8.

[hpslugga 4,097]

56 minutes ago, Disco Missile said:

An 8-team playoff would water it down too much

That claim has already been debunked. It's emotionally-driven horseshit, and there is no truth in it.

Edited October 11, 2018 by hpslugga

[hpslugga 4,097]

1 hour ago, Disco Missile said:

The BCS. 

That's not a reason, that's rhetoric.

[kopp0e 1,135]

10 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

Okay, man. I hope the Big 12 survives and I'd rather be wrong than right on this one. But I don't think I am.

Market size does still matter, the cord-cutting situation only disrupts the conference network model in terms of carriers being willing to add those networks to tiers and then charge all their customers for the channel regardless of their viewing habits. That in turn makes the smaller market teams even less valuable than they were before, not more. 

Kansas-Baylor drew 414K viewers. In terms of conference revenue those two football programs could be replaced by Rice and Wichita State and nobody else's bank accounts would notice. The money is there because of the big name programs. That sucks but it's true. And you're high as a kite if you think the networks haven't explained to Oklahoma and Texas how much more money it would be worth over a 10 year period for them to be playing Auburn instead of Oklahoma State, or Mississippi State instead of Kansas State.

Now I happen to think that such things are oversold by the networks. I don't think that Oklahoma-Mississippi State would actually draw considerably more viewers than Oklahoma-Kansas State. I think lots of the ratings differences are based on the fact that nobody thinks of Fox as a college football channel right now, but that just points to more failures by the Big 12 office. I'm not telling you what I think or what I want, I'm telling you the way it's being seen by the decision-makers right now.

But since all conferences have low hanging fruit of athletic teams that aren't optimal in drawing viewership, it would be wise to merger the best of the best into one league as the PAC-XII... Otherwise, you wind up with as you say killing the XII and dropping KSU/ISU, etc., just to save schools with lower home game attendance in Minnesota/ Indiana & Rutgers...

 

Either way, some.thought choices must be made, as in the two years leading up to 2025, there will currently be 50 P5 schools looking to increase revenue from media payouts, from the SEC on 1st tier/ B1G-XII-PAC, on both 1st & 2nd tier deals... it of moving chairs going in just a few years...    

[Machinator 32,103]

For the love of god, take the branding and footprint stuff here:

 

[gmr548 16,702]

If you can't get excited at the prospect of going back to Dallas and beating OU again it's hard for me to accept the premise that you are a fan of Texas or even college football.

Fuck playing OU in jerryworld.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[Shmitty 112]

UCF needs to get their act together in a hurry

You can't fault UCF for their entire schedule.  

 

  

[Shmitty 112]

Fuck.  C'mon UCF, you've got to keep up the good fight!

[Brothahorn 10,097]

The chariot is turning back into a pumpkin today.

[Shmitty 112]

Haha!!!!!  Fuck you Memphis!!!

[Brothahorn 10,097]

The chariot is turning back into a pumpkin today.

My bad.

[Vic Mackey 47,985]

Memphis fucking botched that last sequence. No idea what they were doing.

[Shmitty 112]

1 hour ago, Vic Mackey said:

Memphis fucking botched that last sequence. No idea what they were doing.

Replicating their family pole.  

[hpslugga 4,097]

That was awesome

[Shmitty 112]

UCF droped to #10 in the AP

[kopp0e 1,135]

UCF still poised well for potential entry into the top 6, the Knghts get there that's all they can ask for as hoping to jump one of the runners up in the SEC or B1G, in getting a CFP bid...

Edited October 14, 2018 by kopp0e

[Magus Ossis 3,004]

If the teams in line to go now stumble, UCF looks to be second in line behind a Texas that manages to win out.

[NowThis 931]

ucf will lose @ usf , maybe even to Temple which is fully capable of an upset.