Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Twitter Rumor
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #81
RE: Twitter Rumor
(06-07-2015 06:44 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Once again, I'm not wearing blinders. Please stop assuming a disagreement means that I'm not open to looking at different possibilities. I just disagree.

1. If you have a 9-0 and 8-1 team in the same division, in a 4 power conference set-up, the best way to ensure one team in the national championship race is to have both in the conference playoff. The 8-1 will be far easier to leave out of the playoff if they are not competing for the conference championship and with both the 9-0 and 8-1 teams in, you're much more likely to have a strong team win the conference (who will make a good argument to get into the playoff) than if you only have 1 serious playoff contender in the semi-finals.

With just CCGs, I'll grant the opposite is might be true and that you might be better off having a strong team from one division playing a weak team from the other most of the time. That very much changes when you start talking about 4 teams though (meaning an extra chance to lose for the best team and fewer conference champs to compete with).

2. The conferences care every bit as much about their own rating as they do about representation in a national playoff. If necessary (and I don't think it is because of #1), they would sacrifice one team every couple of years if it meant their own conference playoff was a bigger success (which it will be with better teams in).

Teams get left out quite often in the NFL. I know, I was already living in Phoenix when The Cardinals had a 10 win season but didn't make it into the playoffs. It happens, so what. You missed the point and thus why I made the blinder comment.

They don't care about getting that second divisional team in. Win your division first, if you don't then you don't deserve to represent it. When I responded with why the conference wouldn't care about having a weaker team as the #4, you went on to talk about second place teams in divisions. Well, the conferences are working hand in hand with the Networks and the Networks are well versed in this from working with the NFL. These conferences will have their divisional games as the last three games of the season most likely or something close to that.

So leading up to that, your 9-0 team and your 8-1 team might have both been 8-0 going into that last week. That basically turns out to be an extension game just before the conference tournament thus becoming another big rating game. What you are trying to turn into negatives can also be seen as positives depending upon the perspective.

So you see, your negative bias and my positive bias are shining through in this conversation.
06-07-2015 09:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ohio1317 Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 5,675
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 358
I Root For: Ohio State
Location:
Post: #82
RE: Twitter Rumor
(06-07-2015 09:32 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(06-07-2015 06:44 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Once again, I'm not wearing blinders. Please stop assuming a disagreement means that I'm not open to looking at different possibilities. I just disagree.

1. If you have a 9-0 and 8-1 team in the same division, in a 4 power conference set-up, the best way to ensure one team in the national championship race is to have both in the conference playoff. The 8-1 will be far easier to leave out of the playoff if they are not competing for the conference championship and with both the 9-0 and 8-1 teams in, you're much more likely to have a strong team win the conference (who will make a good argument to get into the playoff) than if you only have 1 serious playoff contender in the semi-finals.

With just CCGs, I'll grant the opposite is might be true and that you might be better off having a strong team from one division playing a weak team from the other most of the time. That very much changes when you start talking about 4 teams though (meaning an extra chance to lose for the best team and fewer conference champs to compete with).

2. The conferences care every bit as much about their own rating as they do about representation in a national playoff. If necessary (and I don't think it is because of #1), they would sacrifice one team every couple of years if it meant their own conference playoff was a bigger success (which it will be with better teams in).

Teams get left out quite often in the NFL. I know, I was already living in Phoenix when The Cardinals had a 10 win season but didn't make it into the playoffs. It happens, so what. You missed the point and thus why I made the blinder comment.

They don't care about getting that second divisional team in. Win your division first, if you don't then you don't deserve to represent it. When I responded with why the conference wouldn't care about having a weaker team as the #4, you went on to talk about second place teams in divisions. Well, the conferences are working hand in hand with the Networks and the Networks are well versed in this from working with the NFL. These conferences will have their divisional games as the last three games of the season most likely or something close to that.

So leading up to that, your 9-0 team and your 8-1 team might have both been 8-0 going into that last week. That basically turns out to be an extension game just before the conference tournament thus becoming another big rating game. What you are trying to turn into negatives can also be seen as positives depending upon the perspective.

So you see, your negative bias and my positive bias are shining through in this conversation.

1. The NFL model is exactly what I was thinking of. Look at the NFC, the AFC, the American League, the National League, the East and West in the NBA, etc. Every single one of them leaves room for wildcards. Now when there were only teams from each conference/league, they didn't do that, but not one of them went to 4 teams without having a wildcard. If college football does, it will be the oddball.

2. Negative and positive are relative. You look at the negatives of the current system, how they fail to bring in the revenue you think is there, while I look at the positives. I look how the current system brings makes everything more valuable. It has few enough power conferences to make following them possible, but enough that everyone knows winning doesn't put you in which means games all across the nation matter even if you only really care about local teams. It has enough regionality to it that people care about conferences for regional pride issues, but not quite so much that the markets of any one league are too limited (outside arguably the Big 12 and the 10 team model still works for it).
06-07-2015 12:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GE and MTS Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 3,656
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 83
I Root For: Liberty/Penn St
Location: FBS!!!
Post: #83
RE: Twitter Rumor
(06-06-2015 07:49 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(06-05-2015 08:59 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  Why would the PAC 12 (or anyone for that matter) take Texas Tech, Iowa State, Kansas State, etc. if Texas, Oklahoma, and/or Kansas is available? Or to better phrase it, to dissolve the Big 12 everyone needs a home, why would the PAC 12 agree to take the relative scraps? Granted they are worth more to the PAC 12 than to everyone else but if they'd be available anyway, why would they essentially give away Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma?

The Pac tried and failed, in a very public attempt. Is this little tidbit of reality lost upon you? You do understand how the complication of travelling two time zones to the West sucks, don't you?

Do we need to run you through a beginners class for realignment? I am not having a go at you with this comment, I'm honestly at a loss when it comes to understanding your comment about the Pac "giving away" schools that chose to not join The PAC. Oklahoma only wanted to come if Texas was willing. They weren't so...Oklahoma doesn't want to go to the PAC.

Okay this isn't rocket science but it must have been hard to figure out so let's try again: To get out of the Big 12 grant of rights early instead of waiting for them to end in a decade plus, the Big 12 would have to dissolve which is YOUR scenario, right? So if we can all agree that Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas are all the big money makers, and they don't want to go to the PAC 12 or can't get the votes with "little brother", then why would the PAC 12 agree to "give them away" to the other conferences?

The PAC is already at a disadvantage on a per school payout to the Big Ten and SEC before anyone they get any new schools (and I'll bet you whoever the Big Ten and SEC gets are more valuable than Kansas State, Iowa State, etc. that ends up in the PAC). And the rich get richer and create an even bigger gulf of money between the PAC and the other two. So again I'll ask: why would the PAC give away Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas to give the Big Ten and SEC (and even ACC) more money, prestige, and power in order to take an uninspiring group of four that puts them further behind the top two and possibly even the ACC?
06-08-2015 04:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #84
RE: Twitter Rumor
(06-08-2015 04:45 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  
(06-06-2015 07:49 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(06-05-2015 08:59 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  Why would the PAC 12 (or anyone for that matter) take Texas Tech, Iowa State, Kansas State, etc. if Texas, Oklahoma, and/or Kansas is available? Or to better phrase it, to dissolve the Big 12 everyone needs a home, why would the PAC 12 agree to take the relative scraps? Granted they are worth more to the PAC 12 than to everyone else but if they'd be available anyway, why would they essentially give away Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma?

The Pac tried and failed, in a very public attempt. Is this little tidbit of reality lost upon you? You do understand how the complication of travelling two time zones to the West sucks, don't you?

Do we need to run you through a beginners class for realignment? I am not having a go at you with this comment, I'm honestly at a loss when it comes to understanding your comment about the Pac "giving away" schools that chose to not join The PAC. Oklahoma only wanted to come if Texas was willing. They weren't so...Oklahoma doesn't want to go to the PAC.

Okay this isn't rocket science but it must have been hard to figure out so let's try again: To get out of the Big 12 grant of rights early instead of waiting for them to end in a decade plus, the Big 12 would have to dissolve which is YOUR scenario, right? So if we can all agree that Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas are all the big money makers, and they don't want to go to the PAC 12 or can't get the votes with "little brother", then why would the PAC 12 agree to "give them away" to the other conferences?

The PAC is already at a disadvantage on a per school payout to the Big Ten and SEC before anyone they get any new schools (and I'll bet you whoever the Big Ten and SEC gets are more valuable than Kansas State, Iowa State, etc. that ends up in the PAC). And the rich get richer and create an even bigger gulf of money between the PAC and the other two. So again I'll ask: why would the PAC give away Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas to give the Big Ten and SEC (and even ACC) more money, prestige, and power in order to take an uninspiring group of four that puts them further behind the top two and possibly even the ACC?

03-lmfao

Did you really just try to talk down to me? Oh that's rich.

The PAC isn't "giving" anyone away because the PAC completely failed to get the highest caliber schools in the big 12. So it's not the PAC giving them away, it's the PAC being handed a big bag of money to take some of the lesser schools. Now THAT is a very simple concept and I do hope you can wrap your little Liberty addled brain around it. I know this big sports and big money thing is foreign to you guys.

You see, for someone to give something away, THEY HAVE TO OWN IT FIRST. You have to be able to understand something that simple.

The PAC makes the most use of schools like Iowa State, Kansas State, Texas Tech and TCU because that gets the PAC into the Central Time Zone. I have told everyone plenty of times why that is so valuable. If the concept is beyond you, well so be it but I really don't feel like taking the time to explain it to you on OUR forum because it seems like the concept is beyond you.

One more thing, start acting like a Moderator that is visiting a forum that he doesn't moderate.
06-08-2015 06:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GE and MTS Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 3,656
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 83
I Root For: Liberty/Penn St
Location: FBS!!!
Post: #85
RE: Twitter Rumor
(06-08-2015 06:44 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(06-08-2015 04:45 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  
(06-06-2015 07:49 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(06-05-2015 08:59 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  Why would the PAC 12 (or anyone for that matter) take Texas Tech, Iowa State, Kansas State, etc. if Texas, Oklahoma, and/or Kansas is available? Or to better phrase it, to dissolve the Big 12 everyone needs a home, why would the PAC 12 agree to take the relative scraps? Granted they are worth more to the PAC 12 than to everyone else but if they'd be available anyway, why would they essentially give away Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma?

The Pac tried and failed, in a very public attempt. Is this little tidbit of reality lost upon you? You do understand how the complication of travelling two time zones to the West sucks, don't you?

Do we need to run you through a beginners class for realignment? I am not having a go at you with this comment, I'm honestly at a loss when it comes to understanding your comment about the Pac "giving away" schools that chose to not join The PAC. Oklahoma only wanted to come if Texas was willing. They weren't so...Oklahoma doesn't want to go to the PAC.

Okay this isn't rocket science but it must have been hard to figure out so let's try again: To get out of the Big 12 grant of rights early instead of waiting for them to end in a decade plus, the Big 12 would have to dissolve which is YOUR scenario, right? So if we can all agree that Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas are all the big money makers, and they don't want to go to the PAC 12 or can't get the votes with "little brother", then why would the PAC 12 agree to "give them away" to the other conferences?

The PAC is already at a disadvantage on a per school payout to the Big Ten and SEC before anyone they get any new schools (and I'll bet you whoever the Big Ten and SEC gets are more valuable than Kansas State, Iowa State, etc. that ends up in the PAC). And the rich get richer and create an even bigger gulf of money between the PAC and the other two. So again I'll ask: why would the PAC give away Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas to give the Big Ten and SEC (and even ACC) more money, prestige, and power in order to take an uninspiring group of four that puts them further behind the top two and possibly even the ACC?

03-lmfao

Did you really just try to talk down to me? Oh that's rich.

The PAC isn't "giving" anyone away because the PAC completely failed to get the highest caliber schools in the big 12. So it's not the PAC giving them away, it's the PAC being handed a big bag of money to take some of the lesser schools. Now THAT is a very simple concept and I do hope you can wrap your little Liberty addled brain around it. I know this big sports and big money thing is foreign to you guys.

You see, for someone to give something away, THEY HAVE TO OWN IT FIRST. You have to be able to understand something that simple.

The PAC makes the most use of schools like Iowa State, Kansas State, Texas Tech and TCU because that gets the PAC into the Central Time Zone. I have told everyone plenty of times why that is so valuable. If the concept is beyond you, well so be it but I really don't feel like taking the time to explain it to you on OUR forum because it seems like the concept is beyond you.

One more thing, start acting like a Moderator that is visiting a forum that he doesn't moderate.

If anyone started anything, you began it with your "Do we need to run you through a beginners class for realignment?" and your backtracking "I am not having a go at you with this comment," followed up with another jab of "I'm honestly at a loss when it comes to understanding your comment about the Pac "giving away" schools that chose to not join The PAC." But as you pointed out, I'm a mod so I'll try better to stay above the instigation and do my part to have an adult conversation. No more jabs from me.

I guess it boils down to you and I having different expectations of what we think the PAC will do. I am under the assumption that Oklahoma and Kansas to the Big Ten (Move A), Texas to the ACC (or wherever plus a potential buddy; Move B), and Oklahoma State and West Virginia (or whomever; Move C) to the SEC would make those conferences more money than Iowa State, Kansas State, Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, or whatever other group of four gets added to the PAC. Will the PAC make more money per school? Yes. Will the per school payout gulf that currently exists between the Big Ten/SEC and PAC increase as a result? Yes. So why would the PAC (from your scenario where all the P5 conferences divvy up the Big 12 by dissolving the GoR and finding 8/10 or so homes) agree break up a conference, get the short end of the stick, and create a further gulf between them and the two richest conferences? Okay, maybe "giving them away" isn't literally accurate because they aren't members of the conference but they can only go away in your scenario if the GoR is dissolved which wouldn't happen without the PAC's support.

04-cheers
06-08-2015 09:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #86
RE: Twitter Rumor
(06-08-2015 09:23 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  
(06-08-2015 06:44 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(06-08-2015 04:45 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  
(06-06-2015 07:49 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(06-05-2015 08:59 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  Why would the PAC 12 (or anyone for that matter) take Texas Tech, Iowa State, Kansas State, etc. if Texas, Oklahoma, and/or Kansas is available? Or to better phrase it, to dissolve the Big 12 everyone needs a home, why would the PAC 12 agree to take the relative scraps? Granted they are worth more to the PAC 12 than to everyone else but if they'd be available anyway, why would they essentially give away Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma?

The Pac tried and failed, in a very public attempt. Is this little tidbit of reality lost upon you? You do understand how the complication of travelling two time zones to the West sucks, don't you?

Do we need to run you through a beginners class for realignment? I am not having a go at you with this comment, I'm honestly at a loss when it comes to understanding your comment about the Pac "giving away" schools that chose to not join The PAC. Oklahoma only wanted to come if Texas was willing. They weren't so...Oklahoma doesn't want to go to the PAC.

Okay this isn't rocket science but it must have been hard to figure out so let's try again: To get out of the Big 12 grant of rights early instead of waiting for them to end in a decade plus, the Big 12 would have to dissolve which is YOUR scenario, right? So if we can all agree that Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas are all the big money makers, and they don't want to go to the PAC 12 or can't get the votes with "little brother", then why would the PAC 12 agree to "give them away" to the other conferences?

The PAC is already at a disadvantage on a per school payout to the Big Ten and SEC before anyone they get any new schools (and I'll bet you whoever the Big Ten and SEC gets are more valuable than Kansas State, Iowa State, etc. that ends up in the PAC). And the rich get richer and create an even bigger gulf of money between the PAC and the other two. So again I'll ask: why would the PAC give away Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas to give the Big Ten and SEC (and even ACC) more money, prestige, and power in order to take an uninspiring group of four that puts them further behind the top two and possibly even the ACC?

03-lmfao

Did you really just try to talk down to me? Oh that's rich.

The PAC isn't "giving" anyone away because the PAC completely failed to get the highest caliber schools in the big 12. So it's not the PAC giving them away, it's the PAC being handed a big bag of money to take some of the lesser schools. Now THAT is a very simple concept and I do hope you can wrap your little Liberty addled brain around it. I know this big sports and big money thing is foreign to you guys.

You see, for someone to give something away, THEY HAVE TO OWN IT FIRST. You have to be able to understand something that simple.

The PAC makes the most use of schools like Iowa State, Kansas State, Texas Tech and TCU because that gets the PAC into the Central Time Zone. I have told everyone plenty of times why that is so valuable. If the concept is beyond you, well so be it but I really don't feel like taking the time to explain it to you on OUR forum because it seems like the concept is beyond you.

One more thing, start acting like a Moderator that is visiting a forum that he doesn't moderate.

If anyone started anything, you began it with your "Do we need to run you through a beginners class for realignment?" and your backtracking "I am not having a go at you with this comment," followed up with another jab of "I'm honestly at a loss when it comes to understanding your comment about the Pac "giving away" schools that chose to not join The PAC." But as you pointed out, I'm a mod so I'll try better to stay above the instigation and do my part to have an adult conversation. No more jabs from me.

I guess it boils down to you and I having different expectations of what we think the PAC will do. I am under the assumption that Oklahoma and Kansas to the Big Ten (Move A), Texas to the ACC (or wherever plus a potential buddy; Move B), and Oklahoma State and West Virginia (or whomever; Move C) to the SEC would make those conferences more money than Iowa State, Kansas State, Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, or whatever other group of four gets added to the PAC. Will the PAC make more money per school? Yes. Will the per school payout gulf that currently exists between the Big Ten/SEC and PAC increase as a result? Yes. So why would the PAC (from your scenario where all the P5 conferences divvy up the Big 12 by dissolving the GoR and finding 8/10 or so homes) agree break up a conference, get the short end of the stick, and create a further gulf between them and the two richest conferences? Okay, maybe "giving them away" isn't literally accurate because they aren't members of the conference but they can only go away in your scenario if the GoR is dissolved which wouldn't happen without the PAC's support.

04-cheers

I like this version of you better, despite the fact that you are correct in saying I started it. 07-coffee3

I can answer this in very short, very simple and very accurate manner.

Why would the PAC go along with this? At the end of the big 12 GoR, similar result will happen. None of the major players in the big 12 will go West. That has already been made abundantly clear to us. What is the difference? The Networks wont have to pay The PAC big dollars for them to go along with anything. The PAC can be ignored at that point and then they will drastically fall behind.

Sure, with TCU, TTU, ISU and KSU they may not get equal money but if they are decent negotiators then they will realize how much money will be lost to the Networks if they cannot move things forward for the next decade. That alone will mean the Networks will end up paying them equally to the other conferences despite the differences that you point out. The longer time runs out though, the less leverage that the PAC has and thus the less money they can command for going along with The Plan.

That is why The PAC will get equivalent money for going along with this. They are Necessary. The excuse that the Networks will give for paying them the money will be the 90 extra tv slots that the PAC will then be able to offer match ups for. That number, Ninety, is a huge number. It's enough to explain the payoff to the masses.
06-08-2015 09:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ohio1317 Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 5,675
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 358
I Root For: Ohio State
Location:
Post: #87
RE: Twitter Rumor
GE and MTS,

I definitely have to agree that the conferences care not just about how much money they are getting, but how it compares to everyone else. They are all spending money trying to stay on top, so it certainly matters if you have a big financial disadvantage vs. competitors (who might well outspend you). I think that's almost as important a question as how much extra money a move makes in and of itself.

Of course, I also disagree about this being a net positive for the PAC-12 at all. I think they'd be more likely to see the average payout per team drop with those 4 additions rather than increase.
(This post was last modified: 06-08-2015 09:47 PM by ohio1317.)
06-08-2015 09:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #88
RE: Twitter Rumor
(06-08-2015 09:44 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  GE and MTS,

I definitely have to agree that the conferences care not just about how much money they are getting, but how it compares to everyone else. They are all spending money trying to stay on top, so it certainly matters if you have a big financial disadvantage vs. competitors (who might well outspend you). I think that's almost as important a question as how much extra money a move makes in and of itself.

I answered this in my explanation to the above. If you think that the current line up of the PAC will stand up against the rest when they pass new rules allowing them to have different division rules that allow them to then expand their conference postseasons to tournaments instead of just championships, then you aren't paying attention to what is going on with the big 12 currently.

The same game can be played upon a PAC that gets passed up.

Of course though you think it would be a net negative payout. You think with old rules in mind. You don't wish to see what I see and you don't wish to think that big money can have this big of an affect. It can and it will.
(This post was last modified: 06-08-2015 09:48 PM by He1nousOne.)
06-08-2015 09:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ohio1317 Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 5,675
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 358
I Root For: Ohio State
Location:
Post: #89
RE: Twitter Rumor
He1nous, I appreciate you looking at the math and saying things have to go that way. I wish more people would try the math on a great many things. That said, please consider this:

1. If conference semi-finals were really something the powers-that-be thought brought the value you think they do, why didn't the conferences move toward them last round? If they were really so valuable, it seems very odd to start expansion, take a break to sign grant of rights agreements and a long term CFP deal (12 years and signed between the conferences), and then decide it's now a good time to break up the Big 12 (which signed a grant of rights and is tied to the Sugar Bowl).

2. The only way the above makes any sense is if something changed in the last year or so that made conference semi-finals more valuable than it was a couple years ago. There's nothing I see that significant that changed.

I appreciate He1nous how much you think the math works that way, but the actions of the commissioners suggests they do not agree with the math or simply haven't done it. Either way, that strongly suggests to me this is the norm we can expect for awhile.
(This post was last modified: 06-08-2015 10:11 PM by ohio1317.)
06-08-2015 10:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #90
RE: Twitter Rumor
(06-08-2015 10:10 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  He1nous, I appreciate you looking at the math and saying things have to go that way. I wish more people would try the math on a great many things. That said, please consider this:

1. If conference semi-finals were really something the powers-that-be thought brought the value you think they do, why didn't the conferences move toward them last round? If they were really so valuable, it seems very odd to start expansion, take a break to sign grant of rights agreements and a long term CFP deal (12 years and signed between the conferences), and then decide it's now a good time to break up the Big 12 (which signed a grant of rights and is tied to the Sugar Bowl).

2. The only way the above makes any sense is if something changed in the last year or so that made conference semi-finals more valuable than it was a couple years ago. There's nothing I see that significant that changed.

I appreciate He1nous how much you think the math works that way, but the actions of the commissioners suggests they do not agree with the math or simply haven't done it. Either way, that strongly suggests to me this is the norm we can expect for awhile.

What round are we talking about? You mean Maryland and Rutgers?

Conference Semifinals really only work if you have a viable reason for having more than two. Just taking the next two highest ranked teams undermines the regular season in a very obvious way. When you take four division winners....well acceptance for that has already been programmed into sports fans due to the NFL.

Yes, Math works that way. Of course you appreciate that. That doesn't mean you wish to end the debate. That's alright, I don't mind decent debate. It's good practice.
06-08-2015 10:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ohio1317 Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 5,675
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 358
I Root For: Ohio State
Location:
Post: #91
RE: Twitter Rumor
I have to disagree about the NFL proving the concept would work at the college level. Yes the NFL has 4 divisions in each conference, but it's not just the 4 champions that make it. If the NFL were forced to go down to just 4 teams in each conference, I don't doubt for a second they'd keep at least one wildcard and either rework the divisions or leave a divisional champ out. They don't mind a 3rd wildcard team being left out over a weaker divisional champ, but they'd never go for the highest being out.

As for the money, my main point is that the powers-that-be don't seem to think it's there or not worth it if it is. They spent a lot of time studying all that with realignment the past few years, but rather than going to 16, none went past 14. If most the Big 12 and the leaders in the ACC, Big Ten, SEC, and PAC-12 all wanted to go this route, it would have made most sense to do it a few years ago when Nebraska, Colorado, Texas A&M, Rutgers, Maryland, etc were leaving. Signing the CFP and grant of rights made no sense if that was the plan they were looking at.

My opinion is that the presidents have mostly moved on from realignment for now. We may eventually get there, but I'm inclined to think the money just isn't there or at least the powers-that-be don't think it is.
(This post was last modified: 06-09-2015 08:12 AM by ohio1317.)
06-09-2015 08:12 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #92
RE: Twitter Rumor
The fact that The Presidents voted to go to 14 is proof that realignment isn't over. Fourteen is just a stop gap on the way to 16. That discussion has happened so many times and the arguments for both sides are no where near being balanced.

You will see, it's coming. No one has been more right than me.
06-09-2015 06:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GE and MTS Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 3,656
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 83
I Root For: Liberty/Penn St
Location: FBS!!!
Post: #93
RE: Twitter Rumor
(06-08-2015 09:43 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I like this version of you better, despite the fact that you are correct in saying I started it. 07-coffee3

I can answer this in very short, very simple and very accurate manner.

Why would the PAC go along with this? At the end of the big 12 GoR, similar result will happen. None of the major players in the big 12 will go West. That has already been made abundantly clear to us. What is the difference? The Networks wont have to pay The PAC big dollars for them to go along with anything. The PAC can be ignored at that point and then they will drastically fall behind.

Sure, with TCU, TTU, ISU and KSU they may not get equal money but if they are decent negotiators then they will realize how much money will be lost to the Networks if they cannot move things forward for the next decade. That alone will mean the Networks will end up paying them equally to the other conferences despite the differences that you point out. The longer time runs out though, the less leverage that the PAC has and thus the less money they can command for going along with The Plan.

That is why The PAC will get equivalent money for going along with this. They are Necessary. The excuse that the Networks will give for paying them the money will be the 90 extra tv slots that the PAC will then be able to offer match ups for. That number, Ninety, is a huge number. It's enough to explain the payoff to the masses.

I like this version of you better too but I ought to stop there before others tell us to get a room. By the way, I am a fan of the Big Ten from growing up in and currently living in Big Ten territory. Just haven't attended a Big Ten school (yet). I see the media and fans like to use the Big Ten as a punching bag but I just laugh at the unrealistic haters.

Enough chit-chat and back to business! I don't agree with what you think will play out and that's okay. I don't see the networks paying to destroy the Big 12. A quick Google search gives me a figure that the Big 12 got paid $220.1 million in 2013-2014 which was the lowest of the P5 conferences (but the ACC was lowest in per school at $20.8 million except for Notre Dame which was undisclosed). Interestingly the article has the PAC with the most total revenue at $341 million but behind only the Big Ten per school average of $27.5 million (versus $21.2 million for the PAC).

Now for the moves to be worthwhile for the PAC, the combined total for the four new schools needs to add $84.8 million combined to breakeven. That leaves $135.3 million remaining (now split 6 ways) from the Big 12 pool that was dissolved. Let's say Kansas and Oklahoma to the Big Ten at breakeven: that leaves $80.3 million left from the Big 12 pool for four schools. Two to the SEC ($20.9 million per) breakeven drops the pool to $38.5 million. If the ACC gets Texas on a Notre Dame deal or they bring the other remaining school with them, that still breaks down to less than the $20.8 million per school to breakeven from the Big 12 contract. And this is (or should be) before the networks bid for semi-final conference football games.

So would semi-final games make enough profit for the networks to get them to push enough money in the direction of the PAC to grab Kansas State, Iowa State, TCU, Baylor, and/or Texas Tech? The ACC and PAC have trouble filling a stadium for their conference championship game. Think of how much harder it will be for them to fill both that and then a semi-final game the week before. Sure the hardcore fans will tune in and buy tickets regardless but I think we're close to saturation for the general public and average college football fan.

I could be wrong. I may likely be wrong. I'm not a psychic and I don't know what is coming so each man's opinion is valid even if some are complete long shots. If you get it 100% right then kudos to you because you saw it coming and I (and many others) didn't.
06-09-2015 07:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ohio1317 Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 5,675
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 358
I Root For: Ohio State
Location:
Post: #94
RE: Twitter Rumor
(06-09-2015 06:16 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The fact that The Presidents voted to go to 14 is proof that realignment isn't over. Fourteen is just a stop gap on the way to 16. That discussion has happened so many times and the arguments for both sides are no where near being balanced.

You will see, it's coming. No one has been more right than me.

The fact they voted 14 was proof they wanted to add 2 new teams, not that they had a goal of 16. If the right teams hadn't been available they'd still be at 12. If we ever do get to 16, they'll go to 18 or 20 if the right teams appeared.

I enjoy the discussion, but we're too far apart here to likely to be able to agree to much. You are completely convinced of a near-term Big 12 break-up and semi-finals and I just don't see how that scenario has even a 1000 to 1 chance of happening in the next 2-3 years.
06-09-2015 08:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GE and MTS Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 3,656
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 83
I Root For: Liberty/Penn St
Location: FBS!!!
Post: #95
RE: Twitter Rumor
(06-09-2015 06:16 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The fact that The Presidents voted to go to 14 is proof that realignment isn't over. Fourteen is just a stop gap on the way to 16. That discussion has happened so many times and the arguments for both sides are no where near being balanced.

You will see, it's coming. No one has been more right than me.

I thought 12 was the perfect number for conferences but they have since gone to 14. Kicking out members won't happen so I too think 16 is the expected final or at least next step. I am worried that any more expansion without more in-conference games will result in the conference being less tight-knit and therefore unstable.
06-10-2015 07:20 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #96
RE: Twitter Rumor
(06-10-2015 07:20 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  
(06-09-2015 06:16 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The fact that The Presidents voted to go to 14 is proof that realignment isn't over. Fourteen is just a stop gap on the way to 16. That discussion has happened so many times and the arguments for both sides are no where near being balanced.

You will see, it's coming. No one has been more right than me.

I thought 12 was the perfect number for conferences but they have since gone to 14. Kicking out members won't happen so I too think 16 is the expected final or at least next step. I am worried that any more expansion without more in-conference games will result in the conference being less tight-knit and therefore unstable.

You would be 100% spot on correct IF their plans were to stick to the two division system. That is why we know that the two division system is already planned for replacement. The biggest talk lately has been about divisional rules. Once the breakdown of the big 12 happens, then they will finish the new rules. Part of them will come out before the big 12 breaks apart as that will be the catalyst for it, the excuse.

A 16 team conference with four divisions actually has better scheduling than a two division conference with 14 teams.
06-10-2015 07:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #97
RE: Twitter Rumor
(06-09-2015 07:54 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  
(06-08-2015 09:43 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I like this version of you better, despite the fact that you are correct in saying I started it. 07-coffee3

I can answer this in very short, very simple and very accurate manner.

Why would the PAC go along with this? At the end of the big 12 GoR, similar result will happen. None of the major players in the big 12 will go West. That has already been made abundantly clear to us. What is the difference? The Networks wont have to pay The PAC big dollars for them to go along with anything. The PAC can be ignored at that point and then they will drastically fall behind.

Sure, with TCU, TTU, ISU and KSU they may not get equal money but if they are decent negotiators then they will realize how much money will be lost to the Networks if they cannot move things forward for the next decade. That alone will mean the Networks will end up paying them equally to the other conferences despite the differences that you point out. The longer time runs out though, the less leverage that the PAC has and thus the less money they can command for going along with The Plan.

That is why The PAC will get equivalent money for going along with this. They are Necessary. The excuse that the Networks will give for paying them the money will be the 90 extra tv slots that the PAC will then be able to offer match ups for. That number, Ninety, is a huge number. It's enough to explain the payoff to the masses.

I like this version of you better too but I ought to stop there before others tell us to get a room. By the way, I am a fan of the Big Ten from growing up in and currently living in Big Ten territory. Just haven't attended a Big Ten school (yet). I see the media and fans like to use the Big Ten as a punching bag but I just laugh at the unrealistic haters.

Enough chit-chat and back to business! I don't agree with what you think will play out and that's okay. I don't see the networks paying to destroy the Big 12. A quick Google search gives me a figure that the Big 12 got paid $220.1 million in 2013-2014 which was the lowest of the P5 conferences (but the ACC was lowest in per school at $20.8 million except for Notre Dame which was undisclosed). Interestingly the article has the PAC with the most total revenue at $341 million but behind only the Big Ten per school average of $27.5 million (versus $21.2 million for the PAC).

Now for the moves to be worthwhile for the PAC, the combined total for the four new schools needs to add $84.8 million combined to breakeven. That leaves $135.3 million remaining (now split 6 ways) from the Big 12 pool that was dissolved. Let's say Kansas and Oklahoma to the Big Ten at breakeven: that leaves $80.3 million left from the Big 12 pool for four schools. Two to the SEC ($20.9 million per) breakeven drops the pool to $38.5 million. If the ACC gets Texas on a Notre Dame deal or they bring the other remaining school with them, that still breaks down to less than the $20.8 million per school to breakeven from the Big 12 contract. And this is (or should be) before the networks bid for semi-final conference football games.

So would semi-final games make enough profit for the networks to get them to push enough money in the direction of the PAC to grab Kansas State, Iowa State, TCU, Baylor, and/or Texas Tech? The ACC and PAC have trouble filling a stadium for their conference championship game. Think of how much harder it will be for them to fill both that and then a semi-final game the week before. Sure the hardcore fans will tune in and buy tickets regardless but I think we're close to saturation for the general public and average college football fan.

I could be wrong. I may likely be wrong. I'm not a psychic and I don't know what is coming so each man's opinion is valid even if some are complete long shots. If you get it 100% right then kudos to you because you saw it coming and I (and many others) didn't.

The PAC got paid 20 million for its championship game so its not a stretch to say that 15 million per semifinal is possible. So that is 30 million of that 84 million. Then you figure in the fact that every major conference left will be moving to these tournaments and that means a huge advertising dollar boost for the Networks BUT that all depends upon the PAC going along with this plan. That means the PAC has to be OVERPAID in order for any of it to happen. You cant simply look at the PAC value with those four schools, you have to look at the Overall value of the entire movement.

I also expect to see Fox getting a portion of The Big Ten's Tier 1 if this happens in order to offset their major loss with the big 12 that they used to fill a majority of their time slots. That will keep Fox from raising any major issues when the GoR is indirectly voided through dissolution of the conference.
06-10-2015 07:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GE and MTS Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 3,656
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 83
I Root For: Liberty/Penn St
Location: FBS!!!
Post: #98
RE: Twitter Rumor
You make a lot of good points. We'll see what happens. I do agree Fox would get screwed in your scenario. They lose Texas and tier 1 rights of Kansas and Oklahoma if things stayed the same. They would be desperate for some programming and maybe try to buy into the PAC network.
06-10-2015 09:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #99
RE: Twitter Rumor
(06-10-2015 09:54 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  You make a lot of good points. We'll see what happens. I do agree Fox would get screwed in your scenario. They lose Texas and tier 1 rights of Kansas and Oklahoma if things stayed the same. They would be desperate for some programming and maybe try to buy into the PAC network.

An expanded PAC that would now have Central Time Zone games to be played during the Noon Eastern Time kickoff slot. Fox has to depend entirely upon the big 12 currently for that so moving the PAC into the Central helps Fox out in this scenario. ESPN would have to not cut out Fox from the Big Ten contract negotiations this time around if they want to get down to this scenario. I do believe ESPN will favor smaller divisions with stronger rivalries. That makes for great games late in the regular season. That leads to those tournament games which are huge money makers. Those conference tournaments leading into the National Tournament will make for even larger ratings than what the first CFP garnered.

It's a major win/win. Fox has to be allowed to get a piece of The Big Ten Tier 1 rights though else they will raise holy hell about an indirect voiding of the GoR caused by Dissolution.
06-10-2015 05:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.