(08-13-2013 08:24 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 05:24 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 01:36 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  RE: discussion of 32.

I would wager that if there is any shred of accuracy to that, it was a "what do we do if the NCAA loses O'Bannon" conversation.

When involved in high level negotiations, one must always have a scary "trump" card. I think the 32 discussion is one that would be used to leverage the NCAA itself.

Nah that's more of "Hey Slive" back off buddy threat.

I don't know, I think Slive could pull the same card.

(08-13-2013 10:29 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Not that I actually believe the crap this guy is spewing but you've got to have more than 12 in a league that spread out. I'd probably go with 16 or maybe 18 for football. Full round robin on each side in football and a strong basketball conference as well.

WEST
Boise
Fresno
SDSU
UNLV
Tulsa
SMU
Colorado State
New Mexico
Air Force (FB only, explored FB only membership a couple of yrs ago)

EAST
UConn
Cincy
ECU
USF
UCF
Temple
Memphis
Houston
Navy (FB only)

Have stated 18 teams, 2 round robin Div, best of the east/west coast, a 1 lost Champion would get a playoff spot.

(08-13-2013 09:16 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 08:24 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 05:24 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 01:36 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  RE: discussion of 32.

I would wager that if there is any shred of accuracy to that, it was a "what do we do if the NCAA loses O'Bannon" conversation.

When involved in high level negotiations, one must always have a scary "trump" card. I think the 32 discussion is one that would be used to leverage the NCAA itself.

Nah that's more of "Hey Slive" back off buddy threat.

I don't know, I think Slive could pull the same card.

I doubt it. If it is hitting the fan there are obviously 18 more schools that would meet the Big 10's standards of compatibility that would align with them. I doubt there are 18 more than would align with the SEC way of thinking that can do anything for the SEC. If you look at how the leagues vote, ACC and Pac-12 would appear to be very inclined to cast their lot with a Big 10 super division.

(08-13-2013 08:19 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  MHver3 ‏@MHver3 8 Aug Schools that had representation there that I know: UH, USF, SDSU, BSU, Uconn, and ECU. There more there but those are the only I can confirm.

MHver3 ‏@MHver3 8 Aug Being told there is a strong desire for those that met to form their own new conference.

MHver3 ‏@MHver3 8 Aug Being told today that several members of both the MWC and the AAC participated in clandestine activities over the past few days.

Total BS......

1) D4 is no more real than the tooth fairy until Jan 2014. Nothing can be said or done by any block of schools until the direction is certain.

2) Is there going to be an AQ or a contract bowl on the line for the MWC/AAC out of this? No. These institutions have to be worried about making it to D4 first.

3) Didn't the ink just dry on the TV contracts last winter for both the MWC and AAC? All the way out to 2020?

4) This rumored idea sounds like a great way to put your autobids in jeopardy.

(08-13-2013 10:30 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 09:16 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 08:24 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 05:24 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 01:36 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  RE: discussion of 32.

I would wager that if there is any shred of accuracy to that, it was a "what do we do if the NCAA loses O'Bannon" conversation.

When involved in high level negotiations, one must always have a scary "trump" card. I think the 32 discussion is one that would be used to leverage the NCAA itself.

Nah that's more of "Hey Slive" back off buddy threat.

I don't know, I think Slive could pull the same card.

I doubt it. If it is hitting the fan there are obviously 18 more schools that would meet the Big 10's standards of compatibility that would align with them. I doubt there are 18 more than would align with the SEC way of thinking that can do anything for the SEC. If you look at how the leagues vote, ACC and Pac-12 would appear to be very inclined to cast their lot with a Big 10 super division.

7 in the PAC, 3 in the Big 12, 5 in the ACC and Notre Dame. That's 16 and they wouldn't and couldn't get them all. In fact the mere suggestion is ridiculous prima facia. If the Big 10 was all powerful they would already have U.N.C., Duke, Virginia and Georgia Tech. They don't. If they were all powerful they would already have Texas and Kansas. They don't. I might add ditto for the SEC. If we were all powerful we would already be in the states of Virginia and North Carolina and we are not. If we were all powerful we would have gotten Texas and Oklahoma with A&M and we didn't.

All I hear is a lot of butt hurt people moaning about something that hasn't even happened yet and before they, or any of us, know the details.

What I am constantly amazed by is the total lack of recognition that to a large degree Delany and Slive have been working in concert. If the SEC had truly desired the destruction of the ACC they would have taken Clemson and F.S.U. and then picked off whomever they wished in the ensuing panic and they didn't. It's not like they would lose money on Clemson and F.S.U., it is just that they would not have made as much. If this were about conferences then there would be a lot more mayhem than what we have had. This was, is, and shall be a careful parsing of the teams until the networks have what they want. They are paying the bills so it is their tune to which we dance. The only thing in these tweets that I believe is the number 2. I don't think Delany or the networks want a war for acquisition of markets. Delany could have taken Missouri with ease and he didn't. The networks determined that the SEC needed more exposure in the heartland so they added Missouri. Delany needed more exposure in New England so they get Rutgers. They wanted beltway exposure so they get Maryland. The ACC needed stability so they get Louisville and partner with Notre Dame (although the networks didn't help ND, but they didn't stop the deal either as it served their purposes).

All of the story lines are just cover. They have in just a couple of years whittled down the division of schools. Larry Scott made a play that was rebuffed. Now he waits patiently for those central time zone slots. When Slive and Delany have two more a piece he will be the only game left for those not taken into the Big 10 and SEC. The ACC will get one. The networks will decide who these are and where they will go. If deals are done it will be the networks pulling the strings. They want some blurring of traditional divisional lines so that any two regions of the country might be interested in teams not necessarily in their conference. It's good for ratings.

I imagine they will start the new upper division with 64 or 65 teams. Then they will wait a couple of years and then consider whether or not to move to 18 each or even 20. If they do it will be to spur more interest and blur more regional lines.

The soap opera that is realignment is merely the usual business of desensitizing the public to major change. Give them time to belly ache about what they hate and spew venom, especially when it is stupidly aimed at the wrong targets, the conferences, and they'll get it out of their systems. I imagine that in the distant future the corporate networks might like to see those conference bonds and identities eroded enough to be dissolved so that they may more completely arrange the teams as they see fit. Three of the four conference commissioners will be old enough to retire soon anyway. That too would be a great time for them to make their move.

It is not the SEC, Big 10, Big 12, ACC, or PAC that are the driving force behind all of this. They are merely responding to the dangled cash at a time when their states are having to cut back. So all of the schools that will be in lesser divisions can keep pouring hate on the bigger schools if they desire, but their angst and vitriol is misguided and misdirected.

The stipends and scholarship limits are just a bar that has been intentionally set to enable the division to take place. Then the networks will have what they have wanted, the cream of market movers with only compelling games for television to maximize their own profits. The rest of the hand wringing and the leaks are just the drama to disguise a done deal. It will all be just as phony and cheap to produce as the stupid reality programs which bear no resemblance to reality and only show the idiocy of the average dumbed down citizen. And Saturdays will never be the same again. Regionalism will be gone. Rivalries will take a back seat. Cohesion will slowly be broken down until all the members of the upper division are acting only in their self interest, which only makes them weak and easily manipulated. Like Midas when the Corporations turn things into gold they usually kill it. They really create precious little and exploit the things the rest of us hold interest in, because where our interests reside there is the profit to be gleaned.

So wake up, grow a pair, and do something about it instead of just fighting among yourselves and blaming everyone but the guilty. Hold your representatives accountable and if they don't respond seek office and do something about it yourself. Hold your school administration responsible for their short sightedness in dealing with their budgets. And most importantly hold yourselves responsible for continuing to support that of which you do not approve. Then you can stop at the end of the day and sleep well. Because, when these asses don't get your cash they finally listen.

(08-14-2013 02:49 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 10:30 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 09:16 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 08:24 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 05:24 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  When involved in high level negotiations, one must always have a scary "trump" card. I think the 32 discussion is one that would be used to leverage the NCAA itself.

Nah that's more of "Hey Slive" back off buddy threat.

I don't know, I think Slive could pull the same card.

I doubt it. If it is hitting the fan there are obviously 18 more schools that would meet the Big 10's standards of compatibility that would align with them. I doubt there are 18 more than would align with the SEC way of thinking that can do anything for the SEC. If you look at how the leagues vote, ACC and Pac-12 would appear to be very inclined to cast their lot with a Big 10 super division.

7 in the PAC, 3 in the Big 12, 5 in the ACC and Notre Dame. That's 16 and they wouldn't and couldn't get them all. In fact the mere suggestion is ridiculous prima facia. If the Big 10 was all powerful they would already have U.N.C., Duke, Virginia and Georgia Tech. They don't. If they were all powerful they would already have Texas and Kansas. They don't. I might add ditto for the SEC. If we were all powerful we would already be in the states of Virginia and North Carolina and we are not. If we were all powerful we would have gotten Texas and Oklahoma with A&M and we didn't.


All I hear is a lot of butt hurt people moaning about something that hasn't even happened yet and before they, or any of us, know the details.

What I am constantly amazed by is the total lack of recognition that to a large degree Delany and Slive have been working in concert. If the SEC had truly desired the destruction of the ACC they would have taken Clemson and F.S.U. and then picked off whomever they wished in the ensuing panic and they didn't. It's not like they would lose money on Clemson and F.S.U., it is just that they would not have made as much. If this were about conferences then there would be a lot more mayhem than what we have had. This was, is, and shall be a careful parsing of the teams until the networks have what they want. They are paying the bills so it is their tune to which we dance. The only thing in these tweets that I believe is the number 2. I don't think Delany or the networks want a war for acquisition of markets. Delany could have taken Missouri with ease and he didn't. The networks determined that the SEC needed more exposure in the heartland so they added Missouri. Delany needed more exposure in New England so they get Rutgers. They wanted beltway exposure so they get Maryland. The ACC needed stability so they get Louisville and partner with Notre Dame (although the networks didn't help ND, but they didn't stop the deal either as it served their purposes).

All of the story lines are just cover. They have in just a couple of years whittled down the division of schools. Larry Scott made a play that was rebuffed. Now he waits patiently for those central time zone slots. When Slive and Delany have two more a piece he will be the only game left for those not taken into the Big 10 and SEC. The ACC will get one. The networks will decide who these are and where they will go. If deals are done it will be the networks pulling the strings. They want some blurring of traditional divisional lines so that any two regions of the country might be interested in teams not necessarily in their conference. It's good for ratings.

SECeond to none is the most powerful conference—period. It doesn’t need a GOR to stop schools from leaving because there’s no better place to go. The B10, ACC, and B12 couldn’t take the worst football school in the SEC if they tried. Moreover, I think you underestimate the power that the SEC has. It could have gotten at least two of the following schools that you’ve mentioned: U.N.C., Duke, Virginia and Georgia Tech by doing exactly what you’ve suggested, “If the SEC had truly desired the destruction of the ACC they would have taken Clemson and F.S.U. and then picked off whomever they wished in the ensuing panic and they didn't.” Why didn’t the SEC do it? It didn’t want to in my opinion. The SEC could have also taken OU and OSU and called it a day. Furthermore, it could have taken any school in the B12 other than TX (because TX doesn’t want to be viewed as following A&M ).

Regarding Missou, you’re absolutely right that the B10 could have taken it with ease (and Kansas). In fact, that’s where Missou originally wanted to go. However, I don’t think that it was the networks guiding B1Greed; it was too focused on eastern expansion to understand the importance of taking Kansas and Misssou when they were available. The B10 also overlooked the fact that Rutgers and Maryland would have still been available. In addition to this, if CBS really wanted to boost the SEC’s ratings, adding OU and OSU would have been icing on the cake. Nevertheless, there are instances where the networks have been directly involved: ESPN told the ACC to take CUSE and PITT. Fox $aw the same value in WV and TCU.

However, some of the realignment decisions that the networks wanted were ignored by certain conferences. It’s a known fact that FOX wants the B12 to have a CCG, but certain people in the B12 want to stay at ten in order to play each school in the conference for football. I believe that the B12 made this decision to help increase the bond in a conference that almost collapsed from dissension. The PAC 12 turning down OU and OSU was purely a conference decision that was based primarily on academic standards. The PAC 12 put more value on academics than the tv $$$ that OU (and OSU) could have generated in the conference.

My point is that the networks are a major factor in some realignment decisions, but not all when it comes to the Big 5 (as they are now called by the media). They still want to distinguish themselves from each other and the G5 even more, which the networks can't stop….

(08-14-2013 02:49 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 10:30 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 09:16 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 08:24 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 05:24 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  When involved in high level negotiations, one must always have a scary "trump" card. I think the 32 discussion is one that would be used to leverage the NCAA itself.

Nah that's more of "Hey Slive" back off buddy threat.

I don't know, I think Slive could pull the same card.

I doubt it. If it is hitting the fan there are obviously 18 more schools that would meet the Big 10's standards of compatibility that would align with them. I doubt there are 18 more than would align with the SEC way of thinking that can do anything for the SEC. If you look at how the leagues vote, ACC and Pac-12 would appear to be very inclined to cast their lot with a Big 10 super division.

7 in the PAC, 3 in the Big 12, 5 in the ACC and Notre Dame. That's 16 and they wouldn't and couldn't get them all. In fact the mere suggestion is ridiculous prima facia. If the Big 10 was all powerful they would already have U.N.C., Duke, Virginia and Georgia Tech. They don't. If they were all powerful they would already have Texas and Kansas. They don't. I might add ditto for the SEC. If we were all powerful we would already be in the states of Virginia and North Carolina and we are not. If we were all powerful we would have gotten Texas and Oklahoma with A&M and we didn't.

All I hear is a lot of butt hurt people moaning about something that hasn't even happened yet and before they, or any of us, know the details.

What I am constantly amazed by is the total lack of recognition that to a large degree Delany and Slive have been working in concert. If the SEC had truly desired the destruction of the ACC they would have taken Clemson and F.S.U. and then picked off whomever they wished in the ensuing panic and they didn't. It's not like they would lose money on Clemson and F.S.U., it is just that they would not have made as much. If this were about conferences then there would be a lot more mayhem than what we have had. This was, is, and shall be a careful parsing of the teams until the networks have what they want. They are paying the bills so it is their tune to which we dance. The only thing in these tweets that I believe is the number 2. I don't think Delany or the networks want a war for acquisition of markets. Delany could have taken Missouri with ease and he didn't. The networks determined that the SEC needed more exposure in the heartland so they added Missouri. Delany needed more exposure in New England so they get Rutgers. They wanted beltway exposure so they get Maryland. The ACC needed stability so they get Louisville and partner with Notre Dame (although the networks didn't help ND, but they didn't stop the deal either as it served their purposes).

All of the story lines are just cover. They have in just a couple of years whittled down the division of schools. Larry Scott made a play that was rebuffed. Now he waits patiently for those central time zone slots. When Slive and Delany have two more a piece he will be the only game left for those not taken into the Big 10 and SEC. The ACC will get one. The networks will decide who these are and where they will go. If deals are done it will be the networks pulling the strings. They want some blurring of traditional divisional lines so that any two regions of the country might be interested in teams not necessarily in their conference. It's good for ratings.

I imagine they will start the new upper division with 64 or 65 teams. Then they will wait a couple of years and then consider whether or not to move to 18 each or even 20. If they do it will be to spur more interest and blur more regional lines.

The soap opera that is realignment is merely the usual business of desensitizing the public to major change. Give them time to belly ache about what they hate and spew venom, especially when it is stupidly aimed at the wrong targets, the conferences, and they'll get it out of their systems. I imagine that in the distant future the corporate networks might like to see those conference bonds and identities eroded enough to be dissolved so that they may more completely arrange the teams as they see fit. Three of the four conference commissioners will be old enough to retire soon anyway. That too would be a great time for them to make their move.

It is not the SEC, Big 10, Big 12, ACC, or PAC that are the driving force behind all of this. They are merely responding to the dangled cash at a time when their states are having to cut back. So all of the schools that will be in lesser divisions can keep pouring hate on the bigger schools if they desire, but their angst and vitriol is misguided and misdirected.

The stipends and scholarship limits are just a bar that has been intentionally set to enable the division to take place. Then the networks will have what they have wanted, the cream of market movers with only compelling games for television to maximize their own profits. The rest of the hand wringing and the leaks are just the drama to disguise a done deal. It will all be just as phony and cheap to produce as the stupid reality programs which bear no resemblance to reality and only show the idiocy of the average dumbed down citizen. And Saturdays will never be the same again. Regionalism will be gone. Rivalries will take a back seat. Cohesion will slowly be broken down until all the members of the upper division are acting only in their self interest, which only makes them weak and easily manipulated. Like Midas when the Corporations turn things into gold they usually kill it. They really create precious little and exploit the things the rest of us hold interest in, because where our interests reside there is the profit to be gleaned.

So wake up, grow a pair, and do something about it instead of just fighting among yourselves and blaming everyone but the guilty. Hold your representatives accountable and if they don't respond seek office and do something about it yourself. Hold your school administration responsible for their short sightedness in dealing with their budgets. And most importantly hold yourselves responsible for continuing to support that of which you do not approve. Then you can stop at the end of the day and sleep well. Because, when these asses don't get your cash they finally listen.

The networks need games to fill out their schedule. Doesn't seem like it would help them to marginalize half the teams on their schedule. That's not a network's doing, it's the P5 doing that.

(08-14-2013 08:35 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 02:49 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 10:30 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 09:16 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 08:24 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Nah that's more of "Hey Slive" back off buddy threat.

I don't know, I think Slive could pull the same card.

I doubt it. If it is hitting the fan there are obviously 18 more schools that would meet the Big 10's standards of compatibility that would align with them. I doubt there are 18 more than would align with the SEC way of thinking that can do anything for the SEC. If you look at how the leagues vote, ACC and Pac-12 would appear to be very inclined to cast their lot with a Big 10 super division.

7 in the PAC, 3 in the Big 12, 5 in the ACC and Notre Dame. That's 16 and they wouldn't and couldn't get them all. In fact the mere suggestion is ridiculous prima facia. If the Big 10 was all powerful they would already have U.N.C., Duke, Virginia and Georgia Tech. They don't. If they were all powerful they would already have Texas and Kansas. They don't. I might add ditto for the SEC. If we were all powerful we would already be in the states of Virginia and North Carolina and we are not. If we were all powerful we would have gotten Texas and Oklahoma with A&M and we didn't.

All I hear is a lot of butt hurt people moaning about something that hasn't even happened yet and before they, or any of us, know the details.

What I am constantly amazed by is the total lack of recognition that to a large degree Delany and Slive have been working in concert. If the SEC had truly desired the destruction of the ACC they would have taken Clemson and F.S.U. and then picked off whomever they wished in the ensuing panic and they didn't. It's not like they would lose money on Clemson and F.S.U., it is just that they would not have made as much. If this were about conferences then there would be a lot more mayhem than what we have had. This was, is, and shall be a careful parsing of the teams until the networks have what they want. They are paying the bills so it is their tune to which we dance. The only thing in these tweets that I believe is the number 2. I don't think Delany or the networks want a war for acquisition of markets. Delany could have taken Missouri with ease and he didn't. The networks determined that the SEC needed more exposure in the heartland so they added Missouri. Delany needed more exposure in New England so they get Rutgers. They wanted beltway exposure so they get Maryland. The ACC needed stability so they get Louisville and partner with Notre Dame (although the networks didn't help ND, but they didn't stop the deal either as it served their purposes).

All of the story lines are just cover. They have in just a couple of years whittled down the division of schools. Larry Scott made a play that was rebuffed. Now he waits patiently for those central time zone slots. When Slive and Delany have two more a piece he will be the only game left for those not taken into the Big 10 and SEC. The ACC will get one. The networks will decide who these are and where they will go. If deals are done it will be the networks pulling the strings. They want some blurring of traditional divisional lines so that any two regions of the country might be interested in teams not necessarily in their conference. It's good for ratings.

I imagine they will start the new upper division with 64 or 65 teams. Then they will wait a couple of years and then consider whether or not to move to 18 each or even 20. If they do it will be to spur more interest and blur more regional lines.

The soap opera that is realignment is merely the usual business of desensitizing the public to major change. Give them time to belly ache about what they hate and spew venom, especially when it is stupidly aimed at the wrong targets, the conferences, and they'll get it out of their systems. I imagine that in the distant future the corporate networks might like to see those conference bonds and identities eroded enough to be dissolved so that they may more completely arrange the teams as they see fit. Three of the four conference commissioners will be old enough to retire soon anyway. That too would be a great time for them to make their move.

It is not the SEC, Big 10, Big 12, ACC, or PAC that are the driving force behind all of this. They are merely responding to the dangled cash at a time when their states are having to cut back. So all of the schools that will be in lesser divisions can keep pouring hate on the bigger schools if they desire, but their angst and vitriol is misguided and misdirected.

The stipends and scholarship limits are just a bar that has been intentionally set to enable the division to take place. Then the networks will have what they have wanted, the cream of market movers with only compelling games for television to maximize their own profits. The rest of the hand wringing and the leaks are just the drama to disguise a done deal. It will all be just as phony and cheap to produce as the stupid reality programs which bear no resemblance to reality and only show the idiocy of the average dumbed down citizen. And Saturdays will never be the same again. Regionalism will be gone. Rivalries will take a back seat. Cohesion will slowly be broken down until all the members of the upper division are acting only in their self interest, which only makes them weak and easily manipulated. Like Midas when the Corporations turn things into gold they usually kill it. They really create precious little and exploit the things the rest of us hold interest in, because where our interests reside there is the profit to be gleaned.

So wake up, grow a pair, and do something about it instead of just fighting among yourselves and blaming everyone but the guilty. Hold your representatives accountable and if they don't respond seek office and do something about it yourself. Hold your school administration responsible for their short sightedness in dealing with their budgets. And most importantly hold yourselves responsible for continuing to support that of which you do not approve. Then you can stop at the end of the day and sleep well. Because, when these asses don't get your cash they finally listen.

The networks need games to fill out their schedule. Doesn't seem like it would help them to marginalize half the teams on their schedule. That's not a network's doing, it's the P5 doing that.

Exactly. Eliminating (in fact, not just eliminating, but actually angering and alienating) half the FBS fan bases does not increase the value of the top level of football for the networks. If the networks are really pulling the strings, a split will not occur because it does not serve their interests. Ask yourself this, would a network ever willingly cut 20-30% of its most valuable affluent college educated audience for a hit show on purpose?

Also, the networks would find it easier to promote a game between 8-2 Team X and 9-1 Team Y. With the complete split there will be very few of those. Most of the games will be 6-4 Team X against 5-5 Team Y.

(08-14-2013 02:49 AM)JRsec Wrote:  7 in the PAC, 3 in the Big 12, 5 in the ACC and Notre Dame. That's 16 and they wouldn't and couldn't get them all. In fact the mere suggestion is ridiculous prima facia. If the Big 10 was all powerful they would already have U.N.C., Duke, Virginia and Georgia Tech. They don't. If they were all powerful they would already have Texas and Kansas. They don't. I might add ditto for the SEC. If we were all powerful we would already be in the states of Virginia and North Carolina and we are not. If we were all powerful we would have gotten Texas and Oklahoma with A&M and we didn't.

All I hear is a lot of butt hurt people moaning about something that hasn't even happened yet and before they, or any of us, know the details.

What I am constantly amazed by is the total lack of recognition that to a large degree Delany and Slive have been working in concert. If the SEC had truly desired the destruction of the ACC they would have taken Clemson and F.S.U. and then picked off whomever they wished in the ensuing panic and they didn't. It's not like they would lose money on Clemson and F.S.U., it is just that they would not have made as much. If this were about conferences then there would be a lot more mayhem than what we have had. This was, is, and shall be a careful parsing of the teams until the networks have what they want. They are paying the bills so it is their tune to which we dance. The only thing in these tweets that I believe is the number 2. I don't think Delany or the networks want a war for acquisition of markets. Delany could have taken Missouri with ease and he didn't. The networks determined that the SEC needed more exposure in the heartland so they added Missouri. Delany needed more exposure in New England so they get Rutgers. They wanted beltway exposure so they get Maryland. The ACC needed stability so they get Louisville and partner with Notre Dame (although the networks didn't help ND, but they didn't stop the deal either as it served their purposes).

All of the story lines are just cover. They have in just a couple of years whittled down the division of schools. Larry Scott made a play that was rebuffed. Now he waits patiently for those central time zone slots. When Slive and Delany have two more a piece he will be the only game left for those not taken into the Big 10 and SEC. The ACC will get one. The networks will decide who these are and where they will go. If deals are done it will be the networks pulling the strings. They want some blurring of traditional divisional lines so that any two regions of the country might be interested in teams not necessarily in their conference. It's good for ratings.

I imagine they will start the new upper division with 64 or 65 teams. Then they will wait a couple of years and then consider whether or not to move to 18 each or even 20. If they do it will be to spur more interest and blur more regional lines.

The soap opera that is realignment is merely the usual business of desensitizing the public to major change. Give them time to belly ache about what they hate and spew venom, especially when it is stupidly aimed at the wrong targets, the conferences, and they'll get it out of their systems. I imagine that in the distant future the corporate networks might like to see those conference bonds and identities eroded enough to be dissolved so that they may more completely arrange the teams as they see fit. Three of the four conference commissioners will be old enough to retire soon anyway. That too would be a great time for them to make their move.

It is not the SEC, Big 10, Big 12, ACC, or PAC that are the driving force behind all of this. They are merely responding to the dangled cash at a time when their states are having to cut back. So all of the schools that will be in lesser divisions can keep pouring hate on the bigger schools if they desire, but their angst and vitriol is misguided and misdirected.

The stipends and scholarship limits are just a bar that has been intentionally set to enable the division to take place. Then the networks will have what they have wanted, the cream of market movers with only compelling games for television to maximize their own profits. The rest of the hand wringing and the leaks are just the drama to disguise a done deal. It will all be just as phony and cheap to produce as the stupid reality programs which bear no resemblance to reality and only show the idiocy of the average dumbed down citizen. And Saturdays will never be the same again. Regionalism will be gone. Rivalries will take a back seat. Cohesion will slowly be broken down until all the members of the upper division are acting only in their self interest, which only makes them weak and easily manipulated. Like Midas when the Corporations turn things into gold they usually kill it. They really create precious little and exploit the things the rest of us hold interest in, because where our interests reside there is the profit to be gleaned.

So wake up, grow a pair, and do something about it instead of just fighting among yourselves and blaming everyone but the guilty. Hold your representatives accountable and if they don't respond seek office and do something about it yourself. Hold your school administration responsible for their short sightedness in dealing with their budgets. And most importantly hold yourselves responsible for continuing to support that of which you do not approve. Then you can stop at the end of the day and sleep well. Because, when these asses don't get your cash they finally listen.

As I said. I don't think 32 has ever been discussed any context other than "If the NCAA loses O'Bannon". Big 10 and a number of Pac-12 and ACC have thrown the gauntlet down and declared they will never cross the line of full cost of attendance. They understand the score. Cross that line and they are no longer charitable institutions under IRS regulations because they are no longer promoting amateur athletics. They are also the schools that tend to have many more sports than SEC and Big XII schools and would be hit much worse trying to comply with Title IX.

I deem "butthurt" to be the new "Hitler". Invoking it means you don't have an argument.

Delany and Slive ain't buddies. When Slive was ranting at dinner about Delany and the Rose at a BCS meeting, I know the person who told him he needed to start his own contract bowl with the Big XII or ACC to counter Delany. They agree on what is the right amount of access for the G5 and the right amount of money. They agree on their dislike of Emmert. The current split for the CFP was never a G5/P5 negotiation. The P5 walked in and said "this is the offer". There was never a G5 proposal made nor a counter. Before the CFP format was approved the Sun Belt and ACC pitched the 11 game proposal. 1-4 in the playoff, 5-20 in bowls with no auto-bids. TV liked it but SEC, Big 10, Big XII, and Pac-12 rejected it (irony is based on past history the SEC would have made out better than anyone).

Stipends and scholarship limits aren't a bar. The majority of the G5 endorsed them and planned to offer them.

(08-14-2013 09:17 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I deem "butthurt" to be the new "Hitler". Invoking it means you don't have an argument.

This is fantastic. If you had a newsletter, arkstfan, I would subscribe to it.

If you have stipends though, doesn't that become an arms race? Certain conferences would want to pay a higher stipend than that originally agreed upon ostensibly because they feel it's necessary, but really so they can pay more than the other conferences and steal recruits?

(08-14-2013 10:00 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  If you have stipends though, doesn't that become an arms race? Certain conferences would want to pay a higher stipend than that originally agreed upon ostensibly because they feel it's necessary, but really so they can pay more than the other conferences and steal recruits?

They say, "Be careful what you wish for. You might get it." The smaller schools have been a break on totally out of control spending by the bigger schools.

(08-14-2013 10:13 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 10:00 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  If you have stipends though, doesn't that become an arms race? Certain conferences would want to pay a higher stipend than that originally agreed upon ostensibly because they feel it's necessary, but really so they can pay more than the other conferences and steal recruits?

They say, "Be careful what you wish for. You might get it." The smaller schools have been a break on totally out of control spending by the bigger schools.

That's actually a good point. How long before college players unionize?

Good luck getting players unions in the SEC. We bust unions for amusement in the south.

I don't think you ever see stipends exceed full cost of attendance. Opens an ugly can of worms.

He must be bored today



MHver3 ‏@MHver3 1h
The list I promised from the AAC/MWC teams that met last week:

MHver3 ‏@MHver3 51m
Since I flubbed it; MWC:SDSU, UNLV, BSU,FRESNO, AF, CSU. AAC; UH, SMU, ECU, USF, UCF, MEMPHIS, TEMPLE, NAVY, Uconn.

MHver3 ‏@MHver3 1h
With BSU in the West as well and an open slot in the east for Cincy if they stay. If they don't Tulane is in


MHver3 ‏@MHver3 37m
The fact that Cincy didnt attend and Uconn did tells me a lot though.

MHver3 ‏@MHver3 50m
@Jeffery_Cobb UC is on deck for a B12 invite along with BYU if D4 requires CCg. Which it is looking to be true.

MHver3 ‏@MHver3 49m
@carnot3 Cincy has the inside slant to join this league but have their eyes on a bigger prize. Tulsa and Tulane= close oh so close. NM too

MHver3 ‏@MHver3 47m
There is a possibility that Uconn could get a P5 invite and another at those meetings as well.

MHver3 ‏@MHver3 44m
Ok, so the idea is that this "merger" would make AAC or MWC DOA. AAC name and ncaa credits would be retained.

MHver3 ‏@MHver3 44m
Schools left out would get MWC credits and exit fee money which would be split by all merging schools.

The rest of the attendance list for the alleged AAC/MW "clandestine" meeting from last week has been posted by MHver3. By the way, the list reflects the proposed divisions rather the conference affiliations.

MHver3 ‏@MHver3 1h
The list I promised from the AAC/MWC teams that met last week

MHver3 ‏@MHver3 1h
AAC: Uconn, ECU, USF, UCF, Temple, Memphis, Navy
MWC: SDSU, UH, SMU, Fresno, UNLV, Air Force, and Colorado St.

MHver3 ‏@MHver3 1h
Oh yeah, Boise was there too. Didn't mean to leave you guys out! 15 schools

MHver3 ‏@MHver3 1h
Yeah I flubbed my list. Lol. Those were the divisions proposed. Lol.

MHver3 ‏@MHver3 1h
With BSU in the West as well and an open slot in the east for Cincy if they stay. If they don't Tulane is in

MHver3 ‏@MHver3 1h
Also the idea was to leave enough room to add a MAC school or two maybe

MHver3 ‏@MHver3 1h
Since I flubbed it; MWC:SDSU, UNLV, BSU,FRESNO, AF, CSU. AAC; UH, SMU, ECU, USF, UCF, MEMPHIS, TEMPLE, NAVY, Uconn.

MHver3 ‏@MHver3 56m
They like to add a NY school as well and may if Uconn becomes unavailable.

MHver3 ‏@MHver3 55m
There is a possibility that Uconn could get a P5 invite and another at those meetings as well.

MHver3 ‏@MHver3 53m
Ok, so the idea is that this "merger" would make AAC or MWC DOA. AAC name and ncaa credits would be retained.

MHver3 ‏@MHver3 52m
Schools left out would get MWC credits and exit fee money which would be split by all merging schools.

MHver3 ‏@MHver3 49m
The fact that Cincy didnt attend and Uconn did tells me a lot though.

(08-14-2013 10:49 AM)Bearcat2012 Wrote:  He must be bored today



MHver3 ‏@MHver3 1h
The list I promised from the AAC/MWC teams that met last week:

MHver3 ‏@MHver3 51m
Since I flubbed it; MWC:SDSU, UNLV, BSU,FRESNO, AF, CSU. AAC; UH, SMU, ECU, USF, UCF, MEMPHIS, TEMPLE, NAVY, Uconn.

MHver3 ‏@MHver3 1h
With BSU in the West as well and an open slot in the east for Cincy if they stay. If they don't Tulane is in


MHver3 ‏@MHver3 37m
The fact that Cincy didnt attend and Uconn did tells me a lot though.

MHver3 ‏@MHver3 50m
@Jeffery_Cobb UC is on deck for a B12 invite along with BYU if D4 requires CCg. Which it is looking to be true.

MHver3 ‏@MHver3 49m
@carnot3 Cincy has the inside slant to join this league but have their eyes on a bigger prize. Tulsa and Tulane= close oh so close. NM too

MHver3 ‏@MHver3 47m
There is a possibility that Uconn could get a P5 invite and another at those meetings as well.

MHver3 ‏@MHver3 44m
Ok, so the idea is that this "merger" would make AAC or MWC DOA. AAC name and ncaa credits would be retained.

MHver3 ‏@MHver3 44m
Schools left out would get MWC credits and exit fee money which would be split by all merging schools.

lol...beat me to it. I have to say, I'd like that western division.

Seems like a full on merger would be easier than trying to kick out a couple of teams.

(08-14-2013 10:53 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  lol...beat me to it.

yeah , huge , reliable news like this we were both on top of.