https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...xperiment/

(05-26-2018 02:06 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...xperiment/

That's an interesting piece. That said Texas and Oklahoma bring so much potential value I'm sure there will be plenty of behind the scenes talk to see who can come up with the offer they can't refuse. The piece had it right however in that both of them are more likely to win championships out of the Big 12 than they are by parking in some other conference.

What the article however didn't cover is that since content value is going to be even more important this next go around that Texas and Oklahoma are worth so very much more in either the SEC or Big 10 and to a significant, but lesser extent in the PAC, that movement is not out of the question.

What is perhaps a bit unfair is the association of that potential to the WAC mess.

If Texas, or Oklahoma, or any of the current B12 members head to the SEC or Big 10 they would not be covering any more than 2 time zones, hardly the 4 that was the reason for the prohibitive travel costs of the old WAC. But thanks to the WAC the scheduling arrangements that were used for the WAC (and which produced the insane travel costs) would be much more workable in the more compact footprints of either the SEC or Big 10.

BTW: Slive was asked a year ago, after his retirement but before his death, "how large can conferences grow?" His response was "they could grow as large as they could remain profitable".

so wac 16 did work
CFB hierarcy wouldn't let it grow

(05-26-2018 02:31 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  so wac 16 did work
CFB hierarcy wouldn't let it grow

Probably...it’s ironic that a conference with that solid lineup, Utah, BYU, TCU, Air Force, San Diego St etc wasn’t included in the country club but a conference with Rutgers, Temple, Pitt, BC, Syracuse was.... unfair, let’s be honest: The WAC got hosed.

16 can work as long as your divisions/pods preserve and protect all of the important rivalries.

(05-26-2018 04:10 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-26-2018 02:31 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  so wac 16 did work
CFB hierarcy wouldn't let it grow

Probably...it’s ironic that a conference with that solid lineup, Utah, BYU, TCU, Air Force, San Diego St etc wasn’t included in the country club but a conference with Rutgers, Temple, Pitt, BC, Syracuse was.... unfair, let’s be honest: The WAC got hosed.

A large reason for that was Miami

Don’t see another 16 on the horizon. Best model now is 12 with 8 conference games.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(05-26-2018 04:56 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  16 can work as long as your divisions/pods preserve and protect all of the important rivalries.

I think Slive is right: A 16 team conference is really two eight-team conferences. It's not cohesive.

That might not be a problem for conferences that by their nature are limbo zones, isles of misfit toys all with eyes on higher prizes, but it can't work for terminal, destination conferences. Those have to have long-term cohesion.

My preference on conference sizes the FBS has seen:

1) 12
2) 10
3) 16
4) Under 10
5) 11, 13, 15 (if we've seen those)
6) 14

14 is just such a weird number to me. It seems very incomplete.

(05-26-2018 05:28 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-26-2018 04:56 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  16 can work as long as your divisions/pods preserve and protect all of the important rivalries.

I think Slive is right: A 16 team conference is really two eight-team conferences. It's not cohesive.

That might not be a problem for conferences that by their nature are limbo zones, isles of misfit toys all with eyes on higher prizes, but it can't work for terminal, destination conferences. Those have to have long-term cohesion.

I think an extremely stable conference like the SEC or Big Ten could go 16 without any major issues

True democracy from our senators.

Quote:McConnell, a Republican Senator from Kentucky since 1985, put the situation in perspective during the meetings: "The basic message is, if David wants to slay Goliath, he better do it during the basketball season. College football has no place for Cinderella stories. College football has no room for the underdog."

(05-26-2018 02:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-26-2018 02:06 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...xperiment/

That's an interesting piece. That said Texas and Oklahoma bring so much potential value I'm sure there will be plenty of behind the scenes talk to see who can come up with the offer they can't refuse. The piece had it right however in that both of them are more likely to win championships out of the Big 12 than they are by parking in some other conference.

What the article however didn't cover is that since content value is going to be even more important this next go around that Texas and Oklahoma are worth so very much more in either the SEC or Big 10 and to a significant, but lesser extent in the PAC, that movement is not out of the question.

What is perhaps a bit unfair is the association of that potential to the WAC mess.

If Texas, or Oklahoma, or any of the current B12 members head to the SEC or Big 10 they would not be covering any more than 2 time zones, hardly the 4 that was the reason for the prohibitive travel costs of the old WAC. But thanks to the WAC the scheduling arrangements that were used for the WAC (and which produced the insane travel costs) would be much more workable in the more compact footprints of either the SEC or Big 10.

BTW: Slive was asked a year ago, after his retirement but before his death, "how large can conferences grow?" His response was "they could grow as large as they could remain profitable".

Its interesting that the article harps on the fact that the "money just wasnt there". Then, almost as a throw away line---they reveal at the end of the article that the WAC doubled its paycheck when they went from 10 to 16 teams. That means every existing team in the WAC actually got a raise. I find that fact kind of intriguing. It sounds to me that the key is building two 8 team divisions that function as a nationwide conference for revenue sports (football and basketball)---but largely function as 2 separate conferences for all non-revenue sports (meeting only for championship games when necessary).

The 16 team model can work. You just got to have the divisions right. SEC is pretty close to do it, Big Ten as well. PAC-16 would be close for the most part, the Arizona and Mountain schools would like to be with California but its close enough to work out. CUSA could work as 16 team conference how its set up now.

Almost everything about the expansion of the WAC to 16 schools was weird and ill-advised. There might not be any "lesson" to be learned from such a weird situation, but if there is one it would be that none of today's G5 conferences can get to a P5 revenue level by just expanding. 16 teams didn't work for the WAC then, and it wouldn't work for the AAC or MWC or any other G5 conference today, as Craig Thompson said in that article.

(05-26-2018 04:10 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-26-2018 02:31 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  so wac 16 did work
CFB hierarcy wouldn't let it grow

Probably...it’s ironic that a conference with that solid lineup, Utah, BYU, TCU, Air Force, San Diego St etc wasn’t included in the country club but a conference with Rutgers, Temple, Pitt, BC, Syracuse was.... unfair, let’s be honest: The WAC got hosed.

Syracuse had went to 7 bowls in 8 years prior to the WAC-16 forming. Pitt was a national power in the early 80s. Boston College was having success in the early 90s. The Big East/Eastern Indepedents was major college football then and ahead of the WAC.

(05-26-2018 08:03 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Almost everything about the expansion of the WAC to 16 schools was weird and ill-advised. There might not be any "lesson" to be learned from such a weird situation, but if there is one it would be that none of today's G5 conferences can get to a P5 revenue level by just expanding. 16 teams didn't work for the WAC then, and it wouldn't work for the AAC or MWC or any other G5 conference today, as Craig Thompson said in that article.

At least they left us a good rule for moving to 16. Rotating half divisions solve a lot of scheduling issues and would work if the conference footprint is reasonably compact.

2 divisions is 2 cash flows, Olympic sports can remain under 1 umberlla
sch don't have to be round robin sch for money

catalist for splitt was staying with BYU, fans they brought was money
airport 5 & Tulsa, SDST, SJST would be north div

BYU should have played Fla St for title, Fla got beat, next up was BYU
bowl explosion happened right as conf splitt

mich president with no foresight didn' help
rotating div was the prombem

(05-26-2018 07:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-26-2018 02:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-26-2018 02:06 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...xperiment/

That's an interesting piece. That said Texas and Oklahoma bring so much potential value I'm sure there will be plenty of behind the scenes talk to see who can come up with the offer they can't refuse. The piece had it right however in that both of them are more likely to win championships out of the Big 12 than they are by parking in some other conference.

What the article however didn't cover is that since content value is going to be even more important this next go around that Texas and Oklahoma are worth so very much more in either the SEC or Big 10 and to a significant, but lesser extent in the PAC, that movement is not out of the question.

What is perhaps a bit unfair is the association of that potential to the WAC mess.

If Texas, or Oklahoma, or any of the current B12 members head to the SEC or Big 10 they would not be covering any more than 2 time zones, hardly the 4 that was the reason for the prohibitive travel costs of the old WAC. But thanks to the WAC the scheduling arrangements that were used for the WAC (and which produced the insane travel costs) would be much more workable in the more compact footprints of either the SEC or Big 10.

BTW: Slive was asked a year ago, after his retirement but before his death, "how large can conferences grow?" His response was "they could grow as large as they could remain profitable".

Its interesting that the article harps on the fact that the "money just wasnt there". Then, almost as a throw away line---they reveal at the end of the article that the WAC doubled its paycheck when they went from 10 to 16 teams. That means every existing team in the actually WAC got raise. I find that fact kind of intriguing. It sounds to me that the key is building two 8 team divisions that function as a nationwide conference for revenue sports (football and basketball)---but largely function as 2 separate conferences for all non-revenue sports (meeting only for championship games when necessary).

That's not the whole story on money.

When the CFA died, the WAC lost money. The expansion to 16 doubled the post-CFA money but the per team distribution was still not what they were getting. The MWC contract produced more per team than the WAC16 deal.

As long as you iron things out so teams get to keep the games they consider essential there really is no upper limit as long as the money is there.

Two different conferences is right. The WAC was in a tough position to please all of its schools because there was no obvious division alignment. At the time you had this set-up:

Mountain
BYU
Utah
Wyoming
Colorado State
Air Force
New Mexico
UTEP

Pacific
Hawaii
SDSU
Fresno State

Additions: UNLV, SJSU, TCU, SMU, Rice, Tulsa

In retrospect, the WAC could have added UNLV and TCU and survived. Although, in the mid/late 90's I don't know if TCU had separated themselves from the other Texas schools and Tulsa to be a clear-cut favorite, or did the SWC schools vow to stick together?

BYU
Utah
Wyoming
Colorado State
Air Force
TCU*

UTEP
New Mexico
UNLV*
Fresno State
SDSU
Hawaii

I think there would have been enough cross-division games to ensure every school was happy.

(05-26-2018 08:02 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  The 16 team model can work. You just got to have the divisions right. SEC is pretty close to do it, Big Ten as well. PAC-16 would be close for the most part, the Arizona and Mountain schools would like to be with California but its close enough to work out. CUSA could work as 16 team conference how its set up now.

Personally think that would be a recipe for the eastern teams to split off. CUSA gets very little for being a 14 team conference. Rules change and at some point there is a risk that conference USA will continue to change.