(10-22-2013 11:33 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 11:32 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 11:31 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 11:24 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 11:15 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  On the flip side, I'm not sure your Big10 tinted glasses are giving you the full story. Glasses which are notoriously delusional.

I don't think Texas is interested in going anywhere. The Big10 could very well pull Kansas.

As for Mizzou, I think they've found something that works very well for them.

The Rust Belt Conference just doesn't have the allure it once had and being culturally isolated from your targets doesn't help you.

You obviously have zero response to what I said so you decided to go the "ad hom" approach. You lose.

Everything I said was fact. Texas stated through Dodds that they preferred the ACC to the PAC. They had talked to the PAC then they decided they preferred the ACC. No where in there did they say anything about the SEC. The Aggies chose the SEC, you think Texas would allow themselves to be viewed as following the Aggies?

You didn't response to Oklahoma because perhaps you have an inkling of knowledge about where the Administration there is trying to take Oklahoma.

The best response you have is about Missouri and I never said they didn't like the SEC. I was merely talking about the fact that if anything would lure them to the Big Ten it would be the lure of being back with Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma all in one division. They would be with Texas again but Texas wouldn't be able to have full control.

Every point I made had NOTHING to do with the Big Ten or my "delusional big ten colored glasses" as you so ignorantly put it.

If anyone displayed such tinting it was you with your unfounded statement about all those schools would all prefer the SEC.

Come on...do it....give us that glorious "SEC SEC SEC" chant.

I never said anything to the contrary to much of that. Also, preferring the SEC over the Big10 is a separate statement from saying a school prefers the SEC outright. Besides, I never even made the first statement I merely said that several of these schools are better fits by being more culturally similar to the SEC.

Don't be so childish all the time.

BTW, since you obviously aren't sure the full term is ad hominem which is not correct since there was no personal attack as you have so classlessly chosen to employ.

Stick to talking about schools in the Rust Belt because clearly you have zero understanding of people in other parts of the nation.

So, lets hear it. Give me your best retort! I promise; I won't waste my time reading it.

Actually...clown. I lived in Lafayette Louisiana. Display your complete ignorance on this forum some more. Please!

"Clown"

That's ad hominem; good, you're getting it.

That is called a trap. You latched onto that instead of responding to the fact that I blew your previous personal attack on me right out of the water.

Keep trying. Thought you weren't going to read or respond? You responded before I even made that edit. Shall I break out another "ad hom" in regards to what that says about you?

(10-22-2013 11:35 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 11:33 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 11:32 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 11:31 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 11:24 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  You obviously have zero response to what I said so you decided to go the "ad hom" approach. You lose.

Everything I said was fact. Texas stated through Dodds that they preferred the ACC to the PAC. They had talked to the PAC then they decided they preferred the ACC. No where in there did they say anything about the SEC. The Aggies chose the SEC, you think Texas would allow themselves to be viewed as following the Aggies?

You didn't response to Oklahoma because perhaps you have an inkling of knowledge about where the Administration there is trying to take Oklahoma.

The best response you have is about Missouri and I never said they didn't like the SEC. I was merely talking about the fact that if anything would lure them to the Big Ten it would be the lure of being back with Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma all in one division. They would be with Texas again but Texas wouldn't be able to have full control.

Every point I made had NOTHING to do with the Big Ten or my "delusional big ten colored glasses" as you so ignorantly put it.

If anyone displayed such tinting it was you with your unfounded statement about all those schools would all prefer the SEC.

Come on...do it....give us that glorious "SEC SEC SEC" chant.

I never said anything to the contrary to much of that. Also, preferring the SEC over the Big10 is a separate statement from saying a school prefers the SEC outright. Besides, I never even made the first statement I merely said that several of these schools are better fits by being more culturally similar to the SEC.

Don't be so childish all the time.

BTW, since you obviously aren't sure the full term is ad hominem which is not correct since there was no personal attack as you have so classlessly chosen to employ.

Stick to talking about schools in the Rust Belt because clearly you have zero understanding of people in other parts of the nation.

So, lets hear it. Give me your best retort! I promise; I won't waste my time reading it.

Actually...clown. I lived in Lafayette Louisiana. Display your complete ignorance on this forum some more. Please!

"Clown"

That's ad hominem; good, you're getting it.

That is called a trap. You latched onto that instead of responding to the fact that I blew your previous personal attack on me right out of the water.

Keep trying.

(10-22-2013 11:36 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 11:35 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 11:33 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 11:32 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 11:31 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I never said anything to the contrary to much of that. Also, preferring the SEC over the Big10 is a separate statement from saying a school prefers the SEC outright. Besides, I never even made the first statement I merely said that several of these schools are better fits by being more culturally similar to the SEC.

Don't be so childish all the time.

BTW, since you obviously aren't sure the full term is ad hominem which is not correct since there was no personal attack as you have so classlessly chosen to employ.

Stick to talking about schools in the Rust Belt because clearly you have zero understanding of people in other parts of the nation.

So, lets hear it. Give me your best retort! I promise; I won't waste my time reading it.

Actually...clown. I lived in Lafayette Louisiana. Display your complete ignorance on this forum some more. Please!

"Clown"

That's ad hominem; good, you're getting it.

That is called a trap. You latched onto that instead of responding to the fact that I blew your previous personal attack on me right out of the water.

Keep trying.

And that is you admitting that you failed. Seriously, I lived IN the town of one of the Universities you claim in your profile as well as the avatar that you choose.

That is how new you are around here and how little you know. So go ahead and respond to this again despite saying you wouldn't. I wonder what intellectually superior emote you will choose this time to use in order to show that you picked an argument you had zero chance in winning?

(10-22-2013 11:38 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 11:36 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 11:35 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 11:33 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 11:32 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Actually...clown. I lived in Lafayette Louisiana. Display your complete ignorance on this forum some more. Please!

"Clown"

That's ad hominem; good, you're getting it.

That is called a trap. You latched onto that instead of responding to the fact that I blew your previous personal attack on me right out of the water.

Keep trying.

And that is you admitting that you failed. Seriously, I lived IN the town of one of the Universities you claim in your profile as well as the avatar that you choose.

That is how new you are around here and how little you know. So go ahead and respond to this again despite saying you wouldn't. I wonder what intellectually superior emote you will choose this time to use in order to show that you picked an argument you had zero chance in winning?

Have another!

(10-22-2013 11:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If you looked at one of Frank the Tank's old articles from before the time that Nebraska joined the Big 10 you would find that he put together a list of targets that were given him by a TV guy who had listed the value of each to the Big 10. #1 was Texas. That's not going to happen. #2, 3, & 4 were Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland.

By that list of the available remaining targets the next two up are Kansas and Connecticut. Oklahoma was not on the list. Certainly they may be looked at now, but they weren't on the list back then and I imagine it was because they didn't add enough value market wise.

I really do love all of the Risk board "take over the world" scenarios whether they have Big 10 origins, or SEC origins, or every now and then ACC origins. The only conference that doesn't seem to have one of these theories is the PAC (other than Texahoma).

The Big 10 isn't going to raid the SEC and the SEC isn't going to raid the Big 10. Those two conferences have much more to gain by working together than they do by pissing each other off. The time will come when both of them can work together more profitably than they can over the Big 12. There are 3 targets worth the effort in the Big 12 and perhaps only two worth it for the Big 10. If there is a parsing of the Big 12 it will be agreed upon tacitly by the SEC and Big 10 before it ever happens. Likely the PAC will be included as well and perhaps the ACC if they have any interest beyond Texas and West Virginia.

There are only two reasons to parse the Big 12: 1. The elimination of the 5th wheel so that a more streamlined playoff structure can emerge (one with guaranteed participation and equal payouts). 2. The absorption of the 5th share of the playoff revenue pile plus the addition of new markets.

The Big 12 GOR simply means that nothing can happen unless at least 8 teams find new homes, but more likely all 10. Since no 1 conference can guarantee 8 spots (except the PAC) cooperation will have to be utilized for this feat to be accomplished. The ACC can't land Texas without the SEC's & Big 10's assistance. The SEC can't land Oklahoma with the ACC's & Big 10's assistance. The Big 10 can't land Kansas or anybody else without the SEC's & ACC's assistance.

The best move on the board would be for the PAC to simply take the 8 they wanted as long as that 8 included Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas.

If that move ever occurs all the heat will be back on the ACC, GOR or not. If their network becomes a reality then the issue dies. If it doesn't the financial disparity that will develop between the ACC and the SEC & Big 10 will ratchet up the heat.

Really the best targets for the PAC are in the Big 12. The best future targets for the Big 10 and SEC are in the ACC. It takes 12 teams to dissolve the GOR in the ACC. If the SEC and Big 10 take any teams from the Big 12 then that possibility dies. If they take no teams from the Big 12 and the PAC expands to 20 then the SEC will need 6 and the Big 10 will need 6 to do the same. That is the only way the ACC is vulnerable and then only if they can't add the revenue that they would derive from a network.

Now having said all of this the best outcome, for the best structure, for the new upper tier, would be a 4 x 16 model. For the sake of teams on the bubble even a 4 x 18 model could work. But the parsing of the Big 12 seems to be the only way for us to get there and until there is enough cooperation from the Big 10, PAC, SEC, and ACC to a lesser extent to get there we will remain stalemated. And when I say cooperation between the conferences what I really mean is the cooperation between the networks (ESPN & FOX) that pay them.

Until the networks know where the Big 12 teams go and who gets which school nothing happens. Delany and Slive and Scott and Swafford don't move without guaranteed funding. Right now ESPN has more of an interest in Texas and Kansas and FOX has more of an interest in Oklahoma. Once the details are worked out the GOR won't be an issue at all. Why? Because if the networks pay each school an amount equal to, or greater than, they would have gotten in the Big 12 there are no damages. And if all 10 schools are placed then there is also no damage incurred from being left behind.

So until FOX and ESPN agree upon a structure, the total number of properties they desire within that structure, and how the rights to those properties will be divided, don't expect anything to happen. It's really not about Risk board domination. It's more about overhead, maximizing advertising dollars, and the engagement of all sectors of the country's interest. So I'd say look for selected market overlap (blurring of some boundaries to create dual region interest), and the use of the remaining schools to create a little more balance between the regions. This means that the SEC and Big 10 will likely settle for some market additions within their parameters rather than home run additions. Texas may have more say so in where they go, but everyone else will just be happy to be included.

If we go to 72 look for some uncharacteristic additions that will represent developmental projects for the respective conferences (e.g. Buffalo to the Big 10 or Nevada to the PAC type of additions). Such additions would be for markets and for schools with a demonstrated growth for both athletics and academics as well as growth in their student body.

I don't think there is much left to realignment for the next 5 decades than this. And, if we don't keep the plastic out of the oceans (and find a way to filter out what is already sublimated in the Oceans) and get a handle on the global population growth (now +7 million per month) nobody will be left who gives a damn about football in a 100 years anyway.

That's the linchpin of the entire exercise.

Good post.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Big 10 will make some sort of move to finalize its alignment before the TV contract expires in 2016.

I also get the feeling that the Big 12 is the weakest link among the P5 with Notre Dame now aligned with the ACC, and all the TV sets in the ACC compared to the midlands. A P4 makes so much sense in terms of an 8 or even 16 team playoff. And as between the two GORs, the Big 12 would be easier to break.

So - Kansas & UConn to the Big 10 for 16. West Virginia and Oklahoma to the SEC for 16. Texas does a Notre Dame deal with the ACC. As the "religious" conference, the ACC also adds Baylor and TCU for 16 in football and 18 in the other sports.

And the Pac 12 takes 4 of: Texas Tech, Oklahoma St, Kansas St, Iowa St, BYU, Houston, Boise St, New Mexico, UNLV, SDSU, Hawaii etc.

(10-22-2013 11:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If you looked at one of Frank the Tank's old articles from before the time that Nebraska joined the Big 10 you would find that he put together a list of targets that were given him by a TV guy who had listed the value of each to the Big 10. #1 was Texas. That's not going to happen. #2, 3, & 4 were Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland.

By that list of the available remaining targets the next two up are Kansas and Connecticut. Oklahoma was not on the list. Certainly they may be looked at now, but they weren't on the list back then and I imagine it was because they didn't add enough value market wise.

I really do love all of the Risk board "take over the world" scenarios whether they have Big 10 origins, or SEC origins, or every now and then ACC origins. The only conference that doesn't seem to have one of these theories is the PAC (other than Texahoma).

The Big 10 isn't going to raid the SEC and the SEC isn't going to raid the Big 10. Those two conferences have much more to gain by working together than they do by pissing each other off. The time will come when both of them can work together more profitably than they can over the Big 12. There are 3 targets worth the effort in the Big 12 and perhaps only two worth it for the Big 10. If there is a parsing of the Big 12 it will be agreed upon tacitly by the SEC and Big 10 before it ever happens. Likely the PAC will be included as well and perhaps the ACC if they have any interest beyond Texas and West Virginia.

There are only two reasons to parse the Big 12: 1. The elimination of the 5th wheel so that a more streamlined playoff structure can emerge (one with guaranteed participation and equal payouts). 2. The absorption of the 5th share of the playoff revenue pile plus the addition of new markets.

The Big 12 GOR simply means that nothing can happen unless at least 8 teams find new homes, but more likely all 10. Since no 1 conference can guarantee 8 spots (except the PAC) cooperation will have to be utilized for this feat to be accomplished. The ACC can't land Texas without the SEC's & Big 10's assistance. The SEC can't land Oklahoma with the ACC's & Big 10's assistance. The Big 10 can't land Kansas or anybody else without the SEC's & ACC's assistance.

The best move on the board would be for the PAC to simply take the 8 they wanted as long as that 8 included Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas.

If that move ever occurs all the heat will be back on the ACC, GOR or not. If their network becomes a reality then the issue dies. If it doesn't the financial disparity that will develop between the ACC and the SEC & Big 10 will ratchet up the heat.

Really the best targets for the PAC are in the Big 12. The best future targets for the Big 10 and SEC are in the ACC. It takes 12 teams to dissolve the GOR in the ACC. If the SEC and Big 10 take any teams from the Big 12 then that possibility dies. If they take no teams from the Big 12 and the PAC expands to 20 then the SEC will need 6 and the Big 10 will need 6 to do the same. That is the only way the ACC is vulnerable and then only if they can't add the revenue that they would derive from a network.

Now having said all of this the best outcome, for the best structure, for the new upper tier, would be a 4 x 16 model. For the sake of teams on the bubble even a 4 x 18 model could work. But the parsing of the Big 12 seems to be the only way for us to get there and until there is enough cooperation from the Big 10, PAC, SEC, and ACC to a lesser extent to get there we will remain stalemated. And when I say cooperation between the conferences what I really mean is the cooperation between the networks (ESPN & FOX) that pay them.

Until the networks know where the Big 12 teams go and who gets which school nothing happens. Delany and Slive and Scott and Swafford don't move without guaranteed funding. Right now ESPN has more of an interest in Texas and Kansas and FOX has more of an interest in Oklahoma. Once the details are worked out the GOR won't be an issue at all. Why? Because if the networks pay each school an amount equal to, or greater than, they would have gotten in the Big 12 there are no damages. And if all 10 schools are placed then there are no damages arising from being left behind.

So until FOX and ESPN agree upon a structure, the total number of properties they desire within that structure, and how the rights to those properties will be divided, don't expect anything to happen. It's really not about Risk board domination. It's more about overhead, maximizing advertising dollars, and the engagement of all sectors of the country's interest. So I'd say look for selected market overlap (blurring of some boundaries to create dual region interest), and the use of the remaining schools to create a little more balance between the regions. This means that the SEC and Big 10 will likely settle for some market additions within their parameters rather than home run additions. Texas may have more say so in where they go, but everyone else will just be happy to be included.

If we go to 72 look for some uncharacteristic additions that will represent developmental projects for the respective conferences (e.g. Buffalo to the Big 10 or Nevada to the PAC type of additions). Such additions would be for markets and for schools with a demonstrated growth for both athletics and academics as well as growth in their student body.

I don't think there is much left to realignment for the next 5 decades than this. And, if we don't keep the plastic out of the oceans (and find a way to filter out what is already sublimated in the Oceans) and get a handle on the global population growth (now +7 million per month) nobody will be left who gives a damn about football in a 100 years anyway.

You hit the nail on the head. Each of the two major TV providers will end up with two of the major conferences. ESPN with the SEC and ACC and Fox with the Pac and B1G.

I think the ACC outlasts the Big XII but I wouldn't be shocked if they still lost a team or two.

Given the scenarios you guys describe, I still have a hard time believing anyone else is leaving the ACC. The conference is setting itself up perfectly for the future.

(10-22-2013 06:33 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 06:32 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  There aren't too many flagship universities around open for a move.

How about the University of Louisiana?

Nah...too far South.....

Let me explain all of this again....

4 Conferences of 16+ turns your conference championship games into the defacto "Elite 8" of college football. The conference champions then go on to one of the 4 playoff slots.

Why is this good for college football fans? Because it does away with the need for polls and committees and rankings. It's a streamlined, comprehensive way to get to the playoff system that even the most casual of college football fan can understand. That is a trade up from the system we have now where even the most AVID of fan can't fully explain the system.

Why is this good for TV? Because by placing more emphasis on the conference championship games, more people are going to tune in. It's far more interesting to fans of your conference and of other conferences that may have to play your conference champion in a playoff game. When something other than a "better bowl" is on the line, folks are going to tune in more. It's half the reason the SEC championship game outdraws nearly any other conference championship game on TV...usually the two teams are playing for a chance at a national title. More viewers tuning in = more ad revenue.

Why is this good for conferences? Because it's expands the playoff system in such a manner that allows them to keep more money in their own pockets. If you think the SEC is the only conference that wants to keep as big of a slice of the overall pie to itself, you're nuts. Every conference wants as much $$$ staying in their own pockets as possible. That's just common sense business thinking. By moving to the 4/16+ model, they'll be able to get more of the $$$ from the networks who're getting more $$$ from the increased emphasis on the conference championship games. They also don't have to share with "BCS Busters" like NIU.

Strictly speaking business, the 4/16+ Div4 model makes the absolute best sense for everyone involved with the exception of those that're left out. I'm not going to sit here and try to predict who's going to get left out and I'm certainly not trying to insinuate that anyone will or should. Personally, I'd rather have a school like Houston in the fold than say, Iowa State but that's me personally. I don't know what the final shake out would be in getting to that point, I'm simply pointing out what makes the most business sense for the major players involved.

(10-23-2013 02:24 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 11:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If you looked at one of Frank the Tank's old articles from before the time that Nebraska joined the Big 10 you would find that he put together a list of targets that were given him by a TV guy who had listed the value of each to the Big 10. #1 was Texas. That's not going to happen. #2, 3, & 4 were Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland.

By that list of the available remaining targets the next two up are Kansas and Connecticut. Oklahoma was not on the list. Certainly they may be looked at now, but they weren't on the list back then and I imagine it was because they didn't add enough value market wise.

I really do love all of the Risk board "take over the world" scenarios whether they have Big 10 origins, or SEC origins, or every now and then ACC origins. The only conference that doesn't seem to have one of these theories is the PAC (other than Texahoma).

The Big 10 isn't going to raid the SEC and the SEC isn't going to raid the Big 10. Those two conferences have much more to gain by working together than they do by pissing each other off. The time will come when both of them can work together more profitably than they can over the Big 12. There are 3 targets worth the effort in the Big 12 and perhaps only two worth it for the Big 10. If there is a parsing of the Big 12 it will be agreed upon tacitly by the SEC and Big 10 before it ever happens. Likely the PAC will be included as well and perhaps the ACC if they have any interest beyond Texas and West Virginia.

There are only two reasons to parse the Big 12: 1. The elimination of the 5th wheel so that a more streamlined playoff structure can emerge (one with guaranteed participation and equal payouts). 2. The absorption of the 5th share of the playoff revenue pile plus the addition of new markets.

The Big 12 GOR simply means that nothing can happen unless at least 8 teams find new homes, but more likely all 10. Since no 1 conference can guarantee 8 spots (except the PAC) cooperation will have to be utilized for this feat to be accomplished. The ACC can't land Texas without the SEC's & Big 10's assistance. The SEC can't land Oklahoma with the ACC's & Big 10's assistance. The Big 10 can't land Kansas or anybody else without the SEC's & ACC's assistance.

The best move on the board would be for the PAC to simply take the 8 they wanted as long as that 8 included Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas.

If that move ever occurs all the heat will be back on the ACC, GOR or not. If their network becomes a reality then the issue dies. If it doesn't the financial disparity that will develop between the ACC and the SEC & Big 10 will ratchet up the heat.

Really the best targets for the PAC are in the Big 12. The best future targets for the Big 10 and SEC are in the ACC. It takes 12 teams to dissolve the GOR in the ACC. If the SEC and Big 10 take any teams from the Big 12 then that possibility dies. If they take no teams from the Big 12 and the PAC expands to 20 then the SEC will need 6 and the Big 10 will need 6 to do the same. That is the only way the ACC is vulnerable and then only if they can't add the revenue that they would derive from a network.

Now having said all of this the best outcome, for the best structure, for the new upper tier, would be a 4 x 16 model. For the sake of teams on the bubble even a 4 x 18 model could work. But the parsing of the Big 12 seems to be the only way for us to get there and until there is enough cooperation from the Big 10, PAC, SEC, and ACC to a lesser extent to get there we will remain stalemated. And when I say cooperation between the conferences what I really mean is the cooperation between the networks (ESPN & FOX) that pay them.

Until the networks know where the Big 12 teams go and who gets which school nothing happens. Delany and Slive and Scott and Swafford don't move without guaranteed funding. Right now ESPN has more of an interest in Texas and Kansas and FOX has more of an interest in Oklahoma. Once the details are worked out the GOR won't be an issue at all. Why? Because if the networks pay each school an amount equal to, or greater than, they would have gotten in the Big 12 there are no damages. And if all 10 schools are placed then there are no damages arising from being left behind.

So until FOX and ESPN agree upon a structure, the total number of properties they desire within that structure, and how the rights to those properties will be divided, don't expect anything to happen. It's really not about Risk board domination. It's more about overhead, maximizing advertising dollars, and the engagement of all sectors of the country's interest. So I'd say look for selected market overlap (blurring of some boundaries to create dual region interest), and the use of the remaining schools to create a little more balance between the regions. This means that the SEC and Big 10 will likely settle for some market additions within their parameters rather than home run additions. Texas may have more say so in where they go, but everyone else will just be happy to be included.

If we go to 72 look for some uncharacteristic additions that will represent developmental projects for the respective conferences (e.g. Buffalo to the Big 10 or Nevada to the PAC type of additions). Such additions would be for markets and for schools with a demonstrated growth for both athletics and academics as well as growth in their student body.

I don't think there is much left to realignment for the next 5 decades than this. And, if we don't keep the plastic out of the oceans (and find a way to filter out what is already sublimated in the Oceans) and get a handle on the global population growth (now +7 million per month) nobody will be left who gives a damn about football in a 100 years anyway.

You hit the nail on the head. Each of the two major TV providers will end up with two of the major conferences. ESPN with the SEC and ACC and Fox with the Pac and B1G.

I think the ACC outlasts the Big XII but I wouldn't be shocked if they still lost a team or two.

Wrong. It is just too funny how everyone expects The Big Ten to roll over and not have games broadcasted on ABC and ESPN because they want to be on FOX and Fox Sports 1 and their near 0.0 ratings. That makes ZERO sense.

ESPN plays more Big Ten games than they do ACC games. Oh but that means nothing....

(10-22-2013 11:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  So until FOX and ESPN agree upon a structure, the total number of properties they desire within that structure, and how the rights to those properties will be divided, don't expect anything to happen.

Which is why I believe we should be talking about the Big Ten since the networks, Delany, and a very big pile of cash will all be together sitting around a table.

(10-22-2013 07:38 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  NEW YORK aka Buffalo. they could use all that cash to upgrade their athletics (are they really that much worse than rutgers? they did beat uconn as we know)
you heard it here 1st

If absolutely no school is leaving a P5 conference, the B1G could not do any better than Buffalo and UConn unless they were willing to make a deal with Toronto.

(10-22-2013 07:28 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Plan A: UVA & UNC
Plan B: UConn & Kansas

I think OU is hitched to Texas. I still don't understand why they passed on Mizzou (academics? overall mediocrity?).

Even with the worst season since the Eisenhower Administration, UConn FB is averaging 38K (capacity 40K). A good coach will be found. And if there was a chance of B1G membership, the stadium would expand to 50K or 55K overnight. And UConn would be placed (by US News) in the top half of the B1G academically.

UConn in the B1G would hurt the ACC:

Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, UConn = Syracuse, Pitt, BC and ND (affiliated)

Fixed it for you.

I'll believe the Big Ten is the first to move to 16 all-sport members when I see it. They resisted the CCG for so long and only moved to 14 after the ACC and SEC did first. I know they prefer 16+ to 14, but they'll be pulled to it, not push for it.

And I think they're still nursing a grudge over B1G-PAC falling apart.

(10-22-2013 07:57 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  4 Conferences of 16+ is what's best for college Div1 football. It's good for the fans, TV, and schools. It'll be all or none, and right now the BigXII is the weakest link.

I believe 5 "top" 16 team conferences, with 3 lower 16 team conferences. This way there are 8 16 team conferences that can compete for 1 or more spots in a 16 team playoff.

(10-22-2013 09:49 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  When looking at expansion, we often focus on the positives schools bring, but I think it's just as important to look at the factors against adding teams (or as many of these are, reasons against expansion in the next decade or so).

General Reasons:
1. The conference has already expanded from 11 to 14 in 3 years. This is a huge change already. ADs have to be looking at their schedules and wondering how many more teams they want on it who fans are not used to playing. I can tell you there is no excitement for playing Rutgers and Maryland in Ohio and those replace games that were at least familiar (have heard more than one comment about those game not feeling "Big Ten"). This doesn't mean new feelings can't develop, but we haven't even started integrating the last two yet.
2. The money must be split more and more ways and total attention a conference gets is limited. A lot fewer people are usually interested in middle of the pack teams than top teams and the number of top spots are limited and do not expand in relation to the number of teams added.
3. Related to #2, if you want a team to compete for the conference title, getting bigger is taking away years you'll do it.
4. All major conferences but the SEC have grant of rights and the cost of getting them out is probably going to make a move impossible for now. In 10 years that will be different, but for now, conference probably can only realistically look to long term options.

Specific teams:
Texas, Notre Dame, North Carolina: All would probably be accepted, but none seem interested.
Oklahoma: Big name and decent chance would be accepted (although remember the PAC-12 turned them down), but would probably have to bring Oklahoma State which the Big Ten would not accept. Also, not AAU
Kansas: Great basketball, but small added market.
Virginia: Likely would have been in last round over Rutgers if interested. Getting them into a northern conference over alumni and big donor reaction likely extremely difficult for foreseeable future.
UConn: Not AAU, little football tradition
All Southern teams: Regionalism is still big for conference pride. The Big Ten by going east is already trying to go from a Midwestern conference to a northern one. Go to one with no regional identity and conference loyalty will decline.

I know there are benefits to teams as well and will be the first to admit, I didn't think Maryland and Rutgers would have been invited. That said, I think most factors currently push against expansion for the reasons above.

This is part of the benefit of going to 16. In that setup, you can create 4 pods of 4 teams, which means Rutgers, Maryland, Penn State and probably one of the expansion adds in the Northeast form a pod. Ohio State can then be in a pod with Michigan, Indiana, and Michigan State. Ohio State gets Penn State as a permanent cross rival, Indiana gets Purdue, etc. It can be done. Things will never go back to the ideal 10 team scenario that the B1G, PAC, and SEC had for so many years, but such is the nature of the beast. As with most powerhouse schools, Ohio State has to prioritize. An addition of Buffalo or UConn puts them in a position to pod with their familiar rivals. I'm sure they see that and will act accordingly, assuming they pod in a regional manner.

(10-22-2013 11:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If you looked at one of Frank the Tank's old articles from before the time that Nebraska joined the Big 10 you would find that he put together a list of targets that were given him by a TV guy who had listed the value of each to the Big 10. #1 was Texas. That's not going to happen. #2, 3, & 4 were Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland.

By that list of the available remaining targets the next two up are Kansas and Connecticut. Oklahoma was not on the list. Certainly they may be looked at now, but they weren't on the list back then and I imagine it was because they didn't add enough value market wise.

We actually didn't run the numbers for Oklahoma at the time. My educated case is that they're actually pretty valuable by itself - they have as much or more national TV value as Nebraska while bringing a larger immediate market (plus some peripheral exposure in North Texas). So, OU would have likely ranked above Nebraska in our calculations. On a pure dollar basis, I don't think the Big Ten would hesitate adding OU. Now, the main marks against OU for the Big Ten are (1) academics and (2) Oklahoma State. The former could possibly be explained away in that OU's academic rankings are essentially on the same tier as Kansas, Missouri and Nebraska. The latter might be much tougher - I don't think Oklahoma State is going to let OU go anywhere without some massive upheaval. A&M had a bit more political authority to leave the Big 12 as the perceived "little brother". It's much more difficult for "big brother" to leave on its own.

(10-22-2013 11:17 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 09:26 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I just don't believe UNC or UVA want to join the big 10. For it to happen, the big 10 would need to get very large and basically carve out eastern division for acc school's under the big 10 banner. Getting large could work but it much more difficult. IF the big 10 is sticking with the sweet spot of 16 according to IU AD, i agree with his take 16 is a sweet spot, than the big 10 should look west for 2 teams. I'd be surprised if texas fits into a 16 team big 10 setup, so your looking at 2 from KU, OU and missouri. I'd throw in arkansas since i think they pair well with missouri, a clean 2 team swipe from the sec and you don't deal with the GOR. Further down the road, the big 10 can target texas, than if they ever got them into the fold go for the expanded version and create and eastern flank of acc school's.

Why wouldn't they? A division with Rutgers, Maryland, Penn St. Ohio St., Michigan and Michigan St. would be great for them! That division would be optimal for the alumni of those two schools who are more likely to work with alumni from those other schools than the alumni from the rest of the ACC. UVA and UNC alum live in the big north eastern cities like NYC, DC and Philly which would then be squarely in the B1Gs possession. It would also be a geographically continuous division.

UNC and UVA in a division with Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Kentucky, and/or Tennessee is not too shabby, either. UVA and UNC are in a great position. They hold the cards, and they know it.

(10-23-2013 09:12 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 11:17 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 09:26 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I just don't believe UNC or UVA want to join the big 10. For it to happen, the big 10 would need to get very large and basically carve out eastern division for acc school's under the big 10 banner. Getting large could work but it much more difficult. IF the big 10 is sticking with the sweet spot of 16 according to IU AD, i agree with his take 16 is a sweet spot, than the big 10 should look west for 2 teams. I'd be surprised if texas fits into a 16 team big 10 setup, so your looking at 2 from KU, OU and missouri. I'd throw in arkansas since i think they pair well with missouri, a clean 2 team swipe from the sec and you don't deal with the GOR. Further down the road, the big 10 can target texas, than if they ever got them into the fold go for the expanded version and create and eastern flank of acc school's.

Why wouldn't they? A division with Rutgers, Maryland, Penn St. Ohio St., Michigan and Michigan St. would be great for them! That division would be optimal for the alumni of those two schools who are more likely to work with alumni from those other schools than the alumni from the rest of the ACC. UVA and UNC alum live in the big north eastern cities like NYC, DC and Philly which would then be squarely in the B1Gs possession. It would also be a geographically continuous division.

UNC and UVA in a division with Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Kentucky, and/or Tennessee is not too shabby, either. UVA and UNC are in a great position. They hold the cards, and they know it.

That's great news unless you're Virginia Tech or NC State.