(06-15-2011 04:37 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  

(06-15-2011 04:33 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(06-15-2011 03:14 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  That's exactly right. B1G paid people who understands the overall market a lot better than some random reporters or bloggers off the street to assess what is ideal for the B1G. They have done their studies and made their recommendations. B1G is tied to their TV contract until 2023 I believe. Nothing will happen before then. I am almost 100% sure B1G is done unless ND and Texas all suddenly want to join.

The B1G's deals with ABC/ESPN, CBS (hoops only), and Fox (Football CCG only), are all up after 2015. They will be looking to blow the P12 deal away at that time. Any further B1G expansion, ND or otherwise, will occur by that date. After that date, the lineup will be carved in stone for a very long time.

I very much doubt B1G can blow away the PAC-12 deal. I am not even 100% sure they can match the PAC-12. They might have more fans in the B1G country but so what? Most mid-western states are declining while the west is growing by leaps and bounds. Most future money will be tied to the West or East, not midwest. I am sure TV execs will pay attention to that. I think they will get a nice contract, but blowing away PAC-12 I highly highly doubt it.

Also, it is not like ad execs gonna pay whatever price TV execs want to advertise during college football season. There is a ceiling somewhere and that will determine all the future TV contracts for conferences.

The B1G has historically received higher rights fees. I expect the same again. Despite population trends, the population of B1G states still tops the P12 something like 69 million to 62 million. The B1G also benefits from significant interest in states outside the region where alumni reside, such as Florida and the New York area. Not sure the P12 delivers that.

The population trend does present an interesting problem for the B1G, though. In addition to fans, its traditional recruiting base is declining while TX and FL are growing. The obviously sniffed around UTA before settling on NU. I think they would have done better going after someone like FSU to provide a sun belt presence. That's an interesting what if.

(06-16-2011 07:14 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  Which conferences have expanded in the last 10 years? By my accounts...all of them except the Big XII and that's because they lost two teams to another that was expanding.

Arkansas and South Carolina joined the SEC in 1991. That's the last time the SEC had any change in membership.

(06-16-2011 09:34 AM)orangefan Wrote:  The B1G has historically received higher rights fees. I expect the same again. Despite population trends, the population of B1G states still tops the P12 something like 69 million to 62 million. The B1G also benefits from significant interest in states outside the region where alumni reside, such as Florida and the New York area. Not sure the P12 delivers that.

In other words, the B1G will make a lot more money on its next round of TV deals without adding any more schools.

As for the B1G's stagnant population and recruiting base, I've said before that it would have been interesting if they had made a run at Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina, three schools that are academically compatible with the B1G and are not in SEC territory.

But I think they're done for quite awhile. It's difficult enough to get the politics in a major conference lined up for any expansion; it would be a lot more difficult to get it done when you're talking about bloating the conference up to a size where it's no longer a true conference but almost just a television-rights alliance.

(06-16-2011 11:56 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-16-2011 07:14 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  Which conferences have expanded in the last 10 years? By my accounts...all of them except the Big XII and that's because they lost two teams to another that was expanding.

Arkansas and South Carolina joined the SEC in 1991. That's the last time the SEC had any change in membership.

I stand corrected. That still leaves the PAC-12, B1G, Big East and ACC...not to mention C-USA, MAC, etc. There is more action than not. Some of it reaction but most of the AQ conferences have sought expansion on their own. The SEC has actually been public saying they have/are considering it.

(06-16-2011 12:05 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-16-2011 09:34 AM)orangefan Wrote:  The B1G has historically received higher rights fees. I expect the same again. Despite population trends, the population of B1G states still tops the P12 something like 69 million to 62 million. The B1G also benefits from significant interest in states outside the region where alumni reside, such as Florida and the New York area. Not sure the P12 delivers that.

In other words, the B1G will make a lot more money on its next round of TV deals without adding any more schools.

As for the B1G's stagnant population and recruiting base, I've said before that it would have been interesting if they had made a run at Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina, three schools that are academically compatible with the B1G and are not in SEC territory.

But I think they're done for quite awhile. It's difficult enough to get the politics in a major conference lined up for any expansion; it would be a lot more difficult to get it done when you're talking about bloating the conference up to a size where it's no longer a true conference but almost just a television-rights alliance.

I'm sure the Big East could get more money now than they did before without adding any more schools. Arguably, many believe they could fetch a far bigger per slice take with adding schools. But do you believe the B1G would rake in the same $$$ in the coming years had they not added Nebraska?

(06-16-2011 12:50 PM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(06-16-2011 12:05 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-16-2011 09:34 AM)orangefan Wrote:  The B1G has historically received higher rights fees. I expect the same again. Despite population trends, the population of B1G states still tops the P12 something like 69 million to 62 million. The B1G also benefits from significant interest in states outside the region where alumni reside, such as Florida and the New York area. Not sure the P12 delivers that.

In other words, the B1G will make a lot more money on its next round of TV deals without adding any more schools.

As for the B1G's stagnant population and recruiting base, I've said before that it would have been interesting if they had made a run at Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina, three schools that are academically compatible with the B1G and are not in SEC territory.

But I think they're done for quite awhile. It's difficult enough to get the politics in a major conference lined up for any expansion; it would be a lot more difficult to get it done when you're talking about bloating the conference up to a size where it's no longer a true conference but almost just a television-rights alliance.

I'm sure the Big East could get more money now than they did before without adding any more schools. Arguably, many believe they could fetch a far bigger per slice take with adding schools. But do you believe the B1G will rake in the same $$$ in the coming years had they not added Nebraska?

There is an enormous difference between adding Nebraska and adding schools just for the sake of adding schools.

(06-16-2011 01:12 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-16-2011 12:50 PM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(06-16-2011 12:05 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-16-2011 09:34 AM)orangefan Wrote:  The B1G has historically received higher rights fees. I expect the same again. Despite population trends, the population of B1G states still tops the P12 something like 69 million to 62 million. The B1G also benefits from significant interest in states outside the region where alumni reside, such as Florida and the New York area. Not sure the P12 delivers that.

In other words, the B1G will make a lot more money on its next round of TV deals without adding any more schools.

As for the B1G's stagnant population and recruiting base, I've said before that it would have been interesting if they had made a run at Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina, three schools that are academically compatible with the B1G and are not in SEC territory.

But I think they're done for quite awhile. It's difficult enough to get the politics in a major conference lined up for any expansion; it would be a lot more difficult to get it done when you're talking about bloating the conference up to a size where it's no longer a true conference but almost just a television-rights alliance.

I'm sure the Big East could get more money now than they did before without adding any more schools. Arguably, many believe they could fetch a far bigger per slice take with adding schools. But do you believe the B1G will rake in the same $$$ in the coming years had they not added Nebraska?

There is an enormous difference between adding Nebraska and adding schools just for the sake of adding schools.

Wow, there's alot of judgment in that response. No one is trying to say X C-USA school or even BYU is the same as Nebraska. Do you not agree that it is your opinion that if the Big East added schools it was "just for the sake of adding schools" and not necessarily reality.

(06-15-2011 12:40 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Potential adds:

Big Ten: Rutgers, Maryland
SEC: TCU/TAMU
ACC: Syracuse

4/5

TCU isn't going to the SEC, though...ever.

(06-14-2011 11:05 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I think its impossible to know whats going to happen 5,10, or 15 years down the road. We may see 5 more teams added to the BCS ranks(3 BE, 2 B12) and thats the end of expansion forever. We just might end up seeing 4-5 16 team leagues. Or this could go a different route if the Big 6 leaves forms its own division within the NCAA and leaves the rest of the FBS in the dust. Hell what about a playoff forces some leagues to split in half and adds some nonaq like schools so they could get more schools into a playoff. The paradigm always changes. Right now it is about the money, but who knows what the next paradigm is.

Based upon demographic and economic trends the next paradigm is the driving force today, survival.

(06-16-2011 01:12 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-16-2011 12:50 PM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(06-16-2011 12:05 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-16-2011 09:34 AM)orangefan Wrote:  The B1G has historically received higher rights fees. I expect the same again. Despite population trends, the population of B1G states still tops the P12 something like 69 million to 62 million. The B1G also benefits from significant interest in states outside the region where alumni reside, such as Florida and the New York area. Not sure the P12 delivers that.

In other words, the B1G will make a lot more money on its next round of TV deals without adding any more schools.

As for the B1G's stagnant population and recruiting base, I've said before that it would have been interesting if they had made a run at Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina, three schools that are academically compatible with the B1G and are not in SEC territory.

But I think they're done for quite awhile. It's difficult enough to get the politics in a major conference lined up for any expansion; it would be a lot more difficult to get it done when you're talking about bloating the conference up to a size where it's no longer a true conference but almost just a television-rights alliance.

I'm sure the Big East could get more money now than they did before without adding any more schools. Arguably, many believe they could fetch a far bigger per slice take with adding schools. But do you believe the B1G will rake in the same $$$ in the coming years had they not added Nebraska?

There is an enormous difference between adding Nebraska and adding schools just for the sake of adding schools.

The reason for adding a few schools within your market will be to create easier more regional travel which can spur interest, and most importantly to eliminate two conferences so that the 60 or so remaining schools all get a boost of 2 million per year, plus other perks. At 14 for the SEC and Big 10 reducing the ACC by 12 kills it as a power conference. Then the PAC taking 6-8 of the Big 12 kills it. What other moves at that point increases everyone's revenue by 2 million, plus markets, plus any content, and guarantees an equal opportunity once a year to claim the boon of a second playoff spot?

(04-19-2013 06:01 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-15-2011 12:40 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Potential adds:

Big Ten: Rutgers, Maryland
SEC: TCU/TAMU
ACC: Syracuse

4/5

TCU isn't going to the SEC, though...ever.

Heh.

TCU was good enough to be a fall back for the B12. If Missouri left the SEC for the B1G and UT/TT/OU/OSU go West then it makes potential sense.

(06-14-2011 09:15 PM)miko33 Wrote:  The age of superconferences will begin within 5 years. That is my prediction, and it seems that a number of the Big10 schools are beginning to arrange their future OOC schedules around 2016 and beyond with ND, Pitt, Rutgers and Syracuse. Case in point, PSU has had zero desire to play Pitt since 2000. Now, it appears that PSU has changed on that stance. Why? Because they need to expand their eastern presence and that when superconferences become a reality the B1G will need to deepen those bonds with the more traditional eastern FB teams, which ND is included in due to their "eastern feel". The link below is merely the beginning of a progression of steps that will be occurring in within the next 5 years.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11165/1153636-100-2.stm

I would rather see Syracuse and Pitt in the Big 10 than in the SEC. And I would rather see Florida State and Georgia Tech in the SEC than in the Big 10. But most of all I would rather they just all stay in the ACC. If we must get to 16 each in 4 conferences then let's agree how best to divide the one in the middle of the country and end this thing.

Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech and Texas to the PAC.
Kansas and Iowa State to the Big 10.
Baylor and Oklahoma to the SEC.
Connecticut and West Virginia to the ACC.

The ACC gets contiguous states. The SEC gets one national brand and a good program close enough to Dallas/Ft.Worth. The Big 10 gets 1 national brand and two AAU schools. The PAC gets one national brand in Texas a West Texas school as a bridge, and two central time zone states with two strong football programs.

I can think of one very big reason you can count ND out of this group. A new contract running through 2025 with NBC. How would the B1G handle that issue?

(04-19-2013 10:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-14-2011 09:15 PM)miko33 Wrote:  The age of superconferences will begin within 5 years. That is my prediction, and it seems that a number of the Big10 schools are beginning to arrange their future OOC schedules around 2016 and beyond with ND, Pitt, Rutgers and Syracuse. Case in point, PSU has had zero desire to play Pitt since 2000. Now, it appears that PSU has changed on that stance. Why? Because they need to expand their eastern presence and that when superconferences become a reality the B1G will need to deepen those bonds with the more traditional eastern FB teams, which ND is included in due to their "eastern feel". The link below is merely the beginning of a progression of steps that will be occurring in within the next 5 years.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11165/1153636-100-2.stm

I would rather see Syracuse and Pitt in the Big 10 than in the SEC. And I would rather see Florida State and Georgia Tech in the SEC than in the Big 10. But most of all I would rather they just all stay in the ACC. If we must get to 16 each in 4 conferences then let's agree how best to divide the one in the middle of the country and end this thing.

Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech and Texas to the PAC.
Kansas and Iowa State to the Big 10.
Baylor and Oklahoma to the SEC.
Connecticut and West Virginia to the ACC.

The ACC gets contiguous states. The SEC gets one national brand and a good program close enough to Dallas/Ft.Worth. The Big 10 gets 1 national brand and two AAU schools. The PAC gets one national brand in Texas a West Texas school as a bridge, and two central time zone states with two strong football programs.

I think there is a state law prohibiting separation of these two Okie schools. Someone else should be able to clarify.

(04-19-2013 10:55 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 10:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-14-2011 09:15 PM)miko33 Wrote:  The age of superconferences will begin within 5 years. That is my prediction, and it seems that a number of the Big10 schools are beginning to arrange their future OOC schedules around 2016 and beyond with ND, Pitt, Rutgers and Syracuse. Case in point, PSU has had zero desire to play Pitt since 2000. Now, it appears that PSU has changed on that stance. Why? Because they need to expand their eastern presence and that when superconferences become a reality the B1G will need to deepen those bonds with the more traditional eastern FB teams, which ND is included in due to their "eastern feel". The link below is merely the beginning of a progression of steps that will be occurring in within the next 5 years.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11165/1153636-100-2.stm

I would rather see Syracuse and Pitt in the Big 10 than in the SEC. And I would rather see Florida State and Georgia Tech in the SEC than in the Big 10. But most of all I would rather they just all stay in the ACC. If we must get to 16 each in 4 conferences then let's agree how best to divide the one in the middle of the country and end this thing.

Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech and Texas to the PAC.
Kansas and Iowa State to the Big 10.
Baylor and Oklahoma to the SEC.
Connecticut and West Virginia to the ACC.

The ACC gets contiguous states. The SEC gets one national brand and a good program close enough to Dallas/Ft.Worth. The Big 10 gets 1 national brand and two AAU schools. The PAC gets one national brand in Texas a West Texas school as a bridge, and two central time zone states with two strong football programs.

I think there is a state law prohibiting separation of these two Okie schools. Someone else should be able to clarify.

It could be amended if they both were able to make similar money in their respective homes. It was put in place to make sure OSU didn't get left out when the Big 12 was being parsed out. Plus it would bring a lot more travel to Oklahoma from a wider array of states.

(04-19-2013 10:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 10:55 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 10:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-14-2011 09:15 PM)miko33 Wrote:  The age of superconferences will begin within 5 years. That is my prediction, and it seems that a number of the Big10 schools are beginning to arrange their future OOC schedules around 2016 and beyond with ND, Pitt, Rutgers and Syracuse. Case in point, PSU has had zero desire to play Pitt since 2000. Now, it appears that PSU has changed on that stance. Why? Because they need to expand their eastern presence and that when superconferences become a reality the B1G will need to deepen those bonds with the more traditional eastern FB teams, which ND is included in due to their "eastern feel". The link below is merely the beginning of a progression of steps that will be occurring in within the next 5 years.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11165/1153636-100-2.stm

I would rather see Syracuse and Pitt in the Big 10 than in the SEC. And I would rather see Florida State and Georgia Tech in the SEC than in the Big 10. But most of all I would rather they just all stay in the ACC. If we must get to 16 each in 4 conferences then let's agree how best to divide the one in the middle of the country and end this thing.

Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech and Texas to the PAC.
Kansas and Iowa State to the Big 10.
Baylor and Oklahoma to the SEC.
Connecticut and West Virginia to the ACC.

The ACC gets contiguous states. The SEC gets one national brand and a good program close enough to Dallas/Ft.Worth. The Big 10 gets 1 national brand and two AAU schools. The PAC gets one national brand in Texas a West Texas school as a bridge, and two central time zone states with two strong football programs.

I think there is a state law prohibiting separation of these two Okie schools. Someone else should be able to clarify.

It could be amended if they both were able to make similar money in their respective homes. It was put in place to make sure OSU didn't get left out when the Big 12 was being parsed out. Plus it would bring a lot more travel to Oklahoma from a wider array of states.

I would love to see the Sooners in the SEC. Imagine the SEC West! Texas? Not so much. We do not need a big boss. Take a couple eastern schools and move Mizzou west and have an 18 team conference. Then go to 9 conference games. Option #2 is to take OU and another eastern school and go to sixteen. Would one of the Mississippi schools trade divisions with Missouri? Just a thought.

Why was a thread nearly 2 years old bumped tho.

(04-19-2013 11:09 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 10:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 10:55 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 10:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-14-2011 09:15 PM)miko33 Wrote:  The age of superconferences will begin within 5 years. That is my prediction, and it seems that a number of the Big10 schools are beginning to arrange their future OOC schedules around 2016 and beyond with ND, Pitt, Rutgers and Syracuse. Case in point, PSU has had zero desire to play Pitt since 2000. Now, it appears that PSU has changed on that stance. Why? Because they need to expand their eastern presence and that when superconferences become a reality the B1G will need to deepen those bonds with the more traditional eastern FB teams, which ND is included in due to their "eastern feel". The link below is merely the beginning of a progression of steps that will be occurring in within the next 5 years.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11165/1153636-100-2.stm

I would rather see Syracuse and Pitt in the Big 10 than in the SEC. And I would rather see Florida State and Georgia Tech in the SEC than in the Big 10. But most of all I would rather they just all stay in the ACC. If we must get to 16 each in 4 conferences then let's agree how best to divide the one in the middle of the country and end this thing.

Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech and Texas to the PAC.
Kansas and Iowa State to the Big 10.
Baylor and Oklahoma to the SEC.
Connecticut and West Virginia to the ACC.

The ACC gets contiguous states. The SEC gets one national brand and a good program close enough to Dallas/Ft.Worth. The Big 10 gets 1 national brand and two AAU schools. The PAC gets one national brand in Texas a West Texas school as a bridge, and two central time zone states with two strong football programs.

I think there is a state law prohibiting separation of these two Okie schools. Someone else should be able to clarify.

It could be amended if they both were able to make similar money in their respective homes. It was put in place to make sure OSU didn't get left out when the Big 12 was being parsed out. Plus it would bring a lot more travel to Oklahoma from a wider array of states.

I would love to see the Sooners in the SEC. Imagine the SEC West! Texas? Not so much. We do not need a big boss. Take a couple eastern schools and move Mizzou west and have an 18 team conference. Then go to 9 conference games. Option #2 is to take OU and another eastern school and go to sixteen. Would one of the Mississippi schools trade divisions with Missouri? Just a thought.

You could move Missouri to the West without having to take two eastern teams. You simply move Auburn and Alabama to the East. It would bring more balance anyway. My little exercise was just to point out that if we wanted this to end it could. But, each of the remaining conferences would have to compromise to get it done. The SEC, PAC, and Big 10 could each have just one of the national brands that the Big 12 has. The second team that each takes would be the necessary cost of being able to dissolve the Big 12. The ACC is the only conference not contiguous to the Big 12 so they get West Virginia and could then choose #16 between Cincinnati, Connecticut, and T.C.U.. I just figured they would take UConn in that scenario. The PAC gets Texas and the third largest public school in the state in Texas Tech. Kansas State and O.S.U. give them two states and some football props that they lack but is a compromise in that they don't get the second national brand, but they do get an extra state versus their original Texahoma plan. The SEC's compromise is a good academic school but one outside of their profile in Baylor. And the Big 10's compromise is an AAU school, but one already in their footprint.

It won't happen, but that would be a more equitable finish to this mess than what I think might happen if something like this doesn't happen.

(04-19-2013 11:27 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Why was a thread nearly 2 years old bumped tho.

Because it is just as irrelevant now as it was then. So, in its irrelevance it is timeless.

(04-19-2013 11:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 11:09 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 10:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 10:55 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 10:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I would rather see Syracuse and Pitt in the Big 10 than in the SEC. And I would rather see Florida State and Georgia Tech in the SEC than in the Big 10. But most of all I would rather they just all stay in the ACC. If we must get to 16 each in 4 conferences then let's agree how best to divide the one in the middle of the country and end this thing.

Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech and Texas to the PAC.
Kansas and Iowa State to the Big 10.
Baylor and Oklahoma to the SEC.
Connecticut and West Virginia to the ACC.

The ACC gets contiguous states. The SEC gets one national brand and a good program close enough to Dallas/Ft.Worth. The Big 10 gets 1 national brand and two AAU schools. The PAC gets one national brand in Texas a West Texas school as a bridge, and two central time zone states with two strong football programs.

I think there is a state law prohibiting separation of these two Okie schools. Someone else should be able to clarify.

It could be amended if they both were able to make similar money in their respective homes. It was put in place to make sure OSU didn't get left out when the Big 12 was being parsed out. Plus it would bring a lot more travel to Oklahoma from a wider array of states.

I would love to see the Sooners in the SEC. Imagine the SEC West! Texas? Not so much. We do not need a big boss. Take a couple eastern schools and move Mizzou west and have an 18 team conference. Then go to 9 conference games. Option #2 is to take OU and another eastern school and go to sixteen. Would one of the Mississippi schools trade divisions with Missouri? Just a thought.

You could move Missouri to the West without having to take two eastern teams. You simply move Auburn and Alabama to the East. It would bring more balance anyway. My little exercise was just to point out that if we wanted this to end it could. But, each of the remaining conferences would have to compromise to get it done. The SEC, PAC, and Big 10 could each have just one of the national brands that the Big 12 has. The second team that each takes would be the necessary cost of being able to dissolve the Big 12. The ACC is the only conference not contiguous to the Big 12 so they get West Virginia and could then choose #16 between Cincinnati, Connecticut, and T.C.U.. I just figured they would take UConn in that scenario. The PAC gets Texas and the third largest public school in the state in Texas Tech. Kansas State and O.S.U. give them two states and some football props that they lack but is a compromise in that they don't get the second national brand, but they do get an extra state versus their original Texahoma plan. The SEC's compromise is a good academic school but one outside of their profile in Baylor. And the Big 10's compromise is an AAU school, but one already in their footprint.

It won't happen, but that would be a more equitable finish to this mess than what I think might happen if something like this doesn't happen.

True Jr,
I had thought that would be very simple, moving the Alabama schools east. It would ensure the Tide gets to play Auburn and Tennessee every year, which was the big issue when we came into the SEC. Some SEC folks might think that A&M, Mizzou, and Oklahoma might be too much "old Big XII for the SEC in the same division. Personally I, as a Mizzou fan, love the east, but I want to do what is best for the SEC.