Conference Realignment Thread

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,808
New York, NY
There should be a fascinating book coming forward eventually to explain how all this happened. Questions I'd like to see answered:

1. Why wasn't the Big 10 more involved with Texas & Company?

2. Why was this all moving so quickly seemingly? These are super complex decisions being made involving a ton of financials, and projected financials. Why did this all basically happen in a week?

3. Was the Pac 10 always planning on expanding into a 16 team conference, or did it get the idea from the Big 10?

4. Why was the Pac 10 expanding rather than the Big 12? Neither conference had their own TV network, and both made similar amounts of money last year. It's not like the Big 12 is the Big East here - why were they getting cannibalized here?

5. Did Colorado make the jump on the assumption that everyone else would be coming along soon? Did they get screwed here?

But really, the big question for me is speed. As someone not involved in this, I'm thrilled this all happened so fast, but it also seems pretty crazy. Nothing moves this fast. This went down with the speed of Lehman's bankruptcy, but without any discernable force causing the time pressure.
 

Sea Bass Neely

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
2,353
QUOTE (bowiac @ Jun 15 2010, 01:50 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3024565
There should be a fascinating book coming forward eventually to explain how all this happened. Questions I'd like to see answered:

1. Why wasn't the Big 10 more involved with Texas & Company?

2. Why was this all moving so quickly seemingly? These are super complex decisions being made involving a ton of financials, and projected financials. Why did this all basically happen in a week?

3. Was the Pac 10 always planning on expanding into a 16 team conference, or did it get the idea from the Big 10?

4. Why was the Pac 10 expanding rather than the Big 12? Neither conference had their own TV network, and both made similar amounts of money last year. It's not like the Big 12 is the Big East here - why were they getting cannibalized here?

5. Did Colorado make the jump on the assumption that everyone else would be coming along soon? Did they get screwed here?

But really, the big question for me is speed. As someone not involved in this, I'm thrilled this all happened so fast, but it also seems pretty crazy. Nothing moves this fast. This went down with the speed of Lehman's bankruptcy, but without any discernable force causing the time pressure.


Some feedback from myself and a few other sources:

1) They were. They were very interested in UT, the others not so much. They are in a position to be picky. The UT athletic department, specifically the coaches, really wanted to keep the Big XII together as they have a good thing going. There was a little backlash against the Big Ten here as they were seen as the people driving the change. I think there was an effort to disassociate themselves with that, but definitely more on the athletic side vs. the academic side.
2) It's not done. There was a panic when the writing was on the wall though and people made moves to protect themselves.
3) The one I'm the least informed on. I think it was pretty reactionary.
4) There was an obvious lack of unity in the Big XII. They were getting poached from multiple directions and some bad blood existed within the conference. The Texas decision to not give up their TV network was a big deal. The Big XII was relatively new as far as major conferences go, there weren't longstanding relationships between some schools.
5) They got exactly what they wanted and I'm betting are pretty happy.

A couple of posts above someone says something about the new Big XII deal seems like an OK deal in the short term, but in the long run it might be something they regret. I agree. With some exceptions though, you had some desperate people here and desperate people do desperate things.
 

zeraza

lurker
Jul 15, 2005
370
Los Angeles
QUOTE (bowiac @ Jun 14 2010, 11:50 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3024565
There should be a fascinating book coming forward eventually to explain how all this happened. Questions I'd like to see answered:

1. Why wasn't the Big 10 more involved with Texas & Company?

2. Why was this all moving so quickly seemingly? These are super complex decisions being made involving a ton of financials, and projected financials. Why did this all basically happen in a week?

3. Was the Pac 10 always planning on expanding into a 16 team conference, or did it get the idea from the Big 10?

4. Why was the Pac 10 expanding rather than the Big 12? Neither conference had their own TV network, and both made similar amounts of money last year. It's not like the Big 12 is the Big East here - why were they getting cannibalized here?

5. Did Colorado make the jump on the assumption that everyone else would be coming along soon? Did they get screwed here?

But really, the big question for me is speed. As someone not involved in this, I'm thrilled this all happened so fast, but it also seems pretty crazy. Nothing moves this fast. This went down with the speed of Lehman's bankruptcy, but without any discernable force causing the time pressure.


Sea Bass Neely got some of them but being from PAC-10 territory I can answer a few:

1.) The B10 wanted Texas, but had the "Tech Problem." Basically, UT would only come if its less desirable sibling(s) came along, and the B10 prides itself on having all of its schools at certain academic + research levels. UT would have fit right now. The rest? Not so much.

2.) Part of it was also the fact that Mizzou was also touted as being gone from the Big XII. Simply put, had one other team jumped ship last week, we'd be talking about the Pac-16 right now. Not that losing Nebraska and Colorado won't hurt in the long run (the #3 and #4 of the 12 teams that have any national appeal). And while the news was fast, a lot of people were discussing this behind closed doors months if not years ago. After all, talks of Texas wanting to go to the Pac-10 have been around since when the SWC dissolved.

3.) The Pac-10 wasn't going to go to 16 teams initially. In fact, the Pac-10 hasn't changed since 1978 when the Arizona schools were added. All the talk in the last few years centered around getting Colorado + Utah. The 16-team thing probably came around when the opportunity arose, but CU + UU were always on the radar, and it appears to have been their fall-back plan during this entire thing. Plus, it doesn't hurt getting access to two new media markets once negotiations for a new contract roll around in 2012.

4.) Simply put.... location, location, location. First part: The Big 12 happened to be located in no-man's land.

Texas and Texas A&M could all fit in with the SEC location wise. Nebraska and Mizzou with the Big 10. Colorado with the Pac-10 or MWC. It was inevitable that when other conferences looked to expand, the Big-12 happened to be in between every single one of them.

Second: the states that the Big 12 inhabit. The current Big 12-2 is obviously centered around Texas, with presences in Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, and Iowa. The Pac-10+1/2 is obviously centered around with California, with schools in Washington, Oregon, Arizona, and now Colorado and possibly Utah. Needless to say, it's a LOT easier for the conference that dominates Los Angeles, San Francisco Bay Area, Seattle, Phoenix, Denver, Sacramento, Portland, San Diego, etc. to be the one with power in the relationship over the conference that has DFW/Houston.... and then things get quite a bit smaller afterwards.

Also imagine trying to convince people to join a conference to experience the road tripping from LA to Lubbock, TX :rolling:

Third part: just who would the Big 12 pull? The Big 10 schools are reaping the monetary and academic benefits of the Big 10, and aren't going to jump. Notre Dame hasn't blinked at all during this whole ordeal, and probably never would have unless a 16-team super conference was formed. SEC schools aren't about to jump either. Expanding into the MWC areas would just hurt the amount of revenue each school gets, etc.

Basically, the Big 12 was screwed, and IMO, the current new version won't last long either. Texas is just delaying the inevitable, and getting some extra money + their TV channel first.

5.) Colorado has long wanted to get into the Pac-10. Their campus culture / academics are more in line with Pac-10 schools. Also add on that the there are a lot of Pac-10 alums living in Colorado, and a lot of Colorado alums living in the other Pac-10 states, and it was bound to happen.

Either way though, I'd love to see a book on this matter... it's ridiculous how fast things have gone
 

Sea Dog

lurker
Sep 9, 2006
2,140
Portland, Maine
QUOTE (Sea Bass Neely @ Jun 15 2010, 03:12 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3024569
A couple of posts above someone says something about the new Big XII deal seems like an OK deal in the short term, but in the long run it might be something they regret. I agree. With some exceptions though, you had some desperate people here and desperate people do desperate things.

Agreed. It's good for the short term and allows the Big 12 to move forward, without fear of defection. Long-term, more will have to be done. On that end, there are two things that can help:

1. ESPN's deal with the conference runs through 2016, so if the conference proves to be successful in the run up to the contract expires, I can imagine the Big 12 would look to break the bank.

2. I wonder whether the continued unequal distribution of revenue, combined with allowing Texas to explore its own network, might actually be appealing to, say, Notre Dame. not now, mind you, but down the road. If Texas proves to be successful, and if the Big 12 allows a top dog to rake in as much money as it can, I wonder if that's a situation that would finally convince the Irish to commit to a conference down the line.
 

RingoOSU

okie misanthrope
SoSH Member
Jun 2, 2005
16,168
Jerry Adair's home state
Another theory is this setup is a temporary solution to force Nebraska and Colorado to pay the "leave early" penalty, and maybe by the time 2016 rolls around, the Texas Ten has already found new homes for their schools, after grabbing a few mill from NU, CU, and ESPN.
 

RingoOSU

okie misanthrope
SoSH Member
Jun 2, 2005
16,168
Jerry Adair's home state
Excellent take on the situation by Berry Tramel.

QUOTE
Something smells. I think Beebe's TV contracts will be a boon to all Big 12 schools. Every school will make significantly more money.

But Texas knew that six months ago, when the Big Ten started sniffing around for expansion. Knew that in February, when UT athletic director DeLoss Dodds told me the Big 12's ship would come in on television contracts. Knew that Saturday, when Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott flew to the Southwest to issue a group invitation to the Big 12 schools.

And still Texas made the decision to head West and would be announcing it today if not for the politicians.

Baylor's omission got a few legislators worked up, but Texas' arrogance toward Texas A&M started the firestorm. UT produced this plan, then handed it over to A&M for rubber-stamping.

The Aggies don't like being told what to do by the Longhorns.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry is an Aggie. Better yet, a former A&M yell-leader. When A&M revolted by courting the SEC, and the 'Horns started talking about never playing the Aggies again in any sport, why wouldn't a governor step in?

Texas legislators scheduled hearings on Wednesday to discuss the issue, and suddenly the mood changed. State appropriations are no small matter.

Read more: http://www.newsok.com/article/3468604#ixzz0qvXFVmlM
 

behindthepen

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
6,236
Section 41
does anybody think this former Big XII conference is permanent? They have to add 2 schools to get back to a championship format, but it could be tough to add legit contenders given how close it was to all falling apart.
 

wibi

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,951
QUOTE (behindthepen @ Jun 15 2010, 08:05 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3024724
does anybody think this former Big XII conference is permanent? They have to add 2 schools to get back to a championship format, but it could be tough to add legit contenders given how close it was to all falling apart.


TCU would jump in a heart beat to get out of the MWC and into a BCS conference. That leaves one team to court and someone like BYU would be willing to jump if Utah leaves for the PAC-10

At least thats the rumors floating around Utah this morning
 

URI

stands for life, liberty and the uturian way of li
Dope
Aug 18, 2001
10,329
QUOTE (WestMassExpat @ Jun 14 2010, 09:03 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3024397
I don't think they need to go beyond 10, they just need to change the name. Whatever the conference would gain by expanding to allow for a championship game would get subtracted in having to split the pie up +2 more ways. Maybe if they would be able to get Arkansas it might be worth it, but adding TCU or Utah or the like won't hold their weight revenue wise.


Well, they would be going from 12 teams and a championship game to 10 teams and no championship game. By picking up two teams, they stay revenue neutral, while picking up the penalty fees for Nebraska and Colorado. Loss of a championship game probably cuts into their TV contract enough to not make it viable.

The only reason they would take that step back is if they made a significant amount of money by not having a championship game. I don't see that.
 

Greg29fan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
20,044
NC
QUOTE (bosockboy @ Jun 15 2010, 12:24 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3024526
New name.....the Mid 10?




As far as NU (or CU) paying the "penalty" for leaving - every interview I've read with NU Chancellor Harvey Perlman says there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that's happening and they will use every legal recourse at their means to ensure that.
 

Sea Dog

lurker
Sep 9, 2006
2,140
Portland, Maine
QUOTE (majorwibi @ Jun 15 2010, 10:21 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3024738
TCU would jump in a heart beat to get out of the MWC and into a BCS conference. That leaves one team to court and someone like BYU would be willing to jump if Utah leaves for the PAC-10

At least thats the rumors floating around Utah this morning

Not happening. The Big 12 said it has no plans to expand and will do a round robin in football with no championship game, and a double round robin in basketball.

EDIT -- Just thought of something with regards to the smaller schools and TV money. I would think the chances of schools like KU and K-State getting on TV during football season just skyrocketed, simply by virtue of the new format. Being guaranteed games against OU and Texas -- KU would go two seasons with both on the schedule, then two without -- will help, not to mention the Pokes and Texas Tech. And with nine conference games as opposed to eight, that ought to help.
 

Greg29fan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
20,044
NC
So it's coming out today that there's no television package even on the table - it's all projections. LOL @ you Big 12 -2.
 

TomRicardo

rusty cohlebone
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2006
19,746
Row 14
QUOTE (Greg29fan @ Jun 15 2010, 01:20 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3024941
So it's coming out today that there's no television package even on the table - it's all projections. LOL @ you Big 12 -2.


I can't understand what Oklahoma and OSU are doing. They have to know Beebe is lying out his teeth trying to save his ass. Letting Texas get their own network is devastating to Oklahoma. Oklahoma doesn't have the markets to pull off themselves and it gives Texas a large recruiting edge. Pac12 is a much better place for Oklahoma. What are they doing? Big12 - 2 isn't going to survive this way.
 

Sea Dog

lurker
Sep 9, 2006
2,140
Portland, Maine
QUOTE (TomRicardo @ Jun 15 2010, 02:47 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3025049
I can't understand what Oklahoma and OSU are doing. They have to know Beebe is lying out his teeth trying to save his ass. Letting Texas get their own network is devastating to Oklahoma. Oklahoma doesn't have the markets to pull off themselves and it gives Texas a large recruiting edge. Pac12 is a much better place for Oklahoma. What are they doing? Big12 - 2 isn't going to survive this way.

The answer is simple: Texas. It's tough enough to pry elite talent from the Longhorns' backyard, but to try and do it in another conference two time zones away, where recruits' families might not be able to travel to watch the games, that would be a tough sell. In this case, it's not about the money so much as recruits. If you don't have the recruits, you're not going to have a successful program.

That's why Oklahoma is tied to the hip with Texas, and why schools like KU and Mizzou, who have been consistent bowl teams the past 5-7 years, are breathing a sigh of relief given all the inroads they have recruiting in Texas.

Besides, I'm not so sure the Pac-10 would want Oklahoma without Texas, which was always the real prize. And Oklahoma State had no chance to make the Pac-10 without being part of package deal with OU and Texas.
 

TomRicardo

rusty cohlebone
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2006
19,746
Row 14
QUOTE (Sea Dog @ Jun 15 2010, 03:08 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3025077
The answer is simple: Texas. It's tough enough to pry elite talent from the Longhorns' backyard, but to try and do it in another conference two time zones away, where recruits' families might not be able to travel to watch the games, that would be a tough sell. In this case, it's not about the money so much as recruits. If you don't have the recruits, you're not going to have a successful program.

That's why Oklahoma is tied to the hip with Texas, and why schools like KU and Mizzou, who have been consistent bowl teams the past 5-7 years, are breathing a sigh of relief given all the inroads they have recruiting in Texas.

Besides, I'm not so sure the Pac-10 would want Oklahoma without Texas, which was always the real prize. And Oklahoma State had no chance to make the Pac-10 without being part of package deal with OU and Texas.


If the Oklahoma moved the to SEC or Pac12 they would be getting more talent coming in than Texas. Why wouldn't SEC or Pac12 want Oklahoma and Oklahoma St packaged together. That is the 2 and 3/4 team in Big 12. You might not get the markets but you get a couple must see football games out of it. USC/Oklahoma or Oklahoma/Alabama would be big draw games.

Edit - Also there is not a chance Texas would back out of the Red River if Oklahoma bounced. That would beyond stupid. If anything the game becomes more valuable to Texas.
 

Sea Dog

lurker
Sep 9, 2006
2,140
Portland, Maine
QUOTE (TomRicardo @ Jun 15 2010, 03:18 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3025098
If the Oklahoma moved the to SEC or Pac12 they would be getting more talent coming in than Texas. Why wouldn't SEC or Pac12 want Oklahoma and Oklahoma St packaged together. That is the 2 and 3/4 team in Big 12. You might not get the markets but you get a couple must see football games out of it. USC/Oklahoma or Oklahoma/Alabama would be big draw games.

Edit - Also there is not a chance Texas would back out of the Red River if Oklahoma bounced. That would beyond stupid. If anything the game becomes more valuable to Texas.

The Pac-10 wanted the Dallas-Forth Worth and Houston markets and was willing to accept Texas' friends to make it work. That included Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. If the football itself were all that mattered, Colorado wouldn't be in the Pac-10 by itself, without five other Big 12 schools. It's all about TV markets and a potential conference network, and OKC (No. 45) by itself isn't attractive enough without those Texas markets. Heck, the Pac-10 has yet to invite Utah to get the Salt Lake City market (No. 31), so who knows what it does next. Denver's market, BTW, ranks 16th.

As for the SEC, I think we've seen how important Texas is with A&M's flirtation. Right now, the Aggies aren't a great program, but getting into Texas markets, with newfound access to Texas recruits who would view LSU, Arkansas, Alabama, etc., as games in a "home" conference, would be worth it to the SEC. Getting the Sooners and Pokes doesn't give the SEC those same benefits, which means it's not worth it without Texas or Texas A&M.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
12,927
Santa Monica, CA
It must be nice to be Boise State right now. They jumped at the Mountain West invite thinking they were joining a conference that definitely had solid programs Utah and TCU, and might even be adding Kansas and K-State, possibly ending up with a BCS bid.

Now Utah is likely headed to the Pac-10, TCU possibly to the Big Whatever, and Kansas and K-State are staying put.

So Boise is paying the WAC a presumably pretty large buyout...to play in a league that may end up being worse than the WAC.
 

Sea Dog

lurker
Sep 9, 2006
2,140
Portland, Maine
Interesting read by Chip Brown on Orangebloods.com tonight. (Where have you heard that before?)

http://www.texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1094753

QUOTE
And Scott and Weiberg made one critical mistake in the courtship of the Big 12. Other than its somewhat foggy math that a 16-team Pac-10 could readily get to $20 million in TV revenue per school, they wanted to substitute Kansas for Oklahoma State late in the process, according to multiple sources in the Big 12.

Texas was really starting to feel queasy now, sources said. UT officials knew deep down Texas A&M wasn't coming to the Pac-10, despite Bill Byrne's assurances, according to sources. And now Scott and Weiberg were looking to dump Oklahoma State in favor of Kansas. If A&M was a no-show, the Pac-10 would add Utah. Scott was looking to add new TV markets, not stick to the deal that was agreed upon a few days earlier.
 
QUOTE (majorwibi @ Jun 15 2010, 10:21 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3024738
TCU would jump in a heart beat to get out of the MWC and into a BCS conference. That leaves one team to court and someone like BYU would be willing to jump if Utah leaves for the PAC-10

At least thats the rumors floating around Utah this morning


I'd have to think somewhere like Memphis would be the more natural fit.
 

RingoOSU

okie misanthrope
SoSH Member
Jun 2, 2005
16,168
Jerry Adair's home state
QUOTE (Sea Dog @ Jun 16 2010, 01:56 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3026689
Interesting read by Chip Brown on Orangebloods.com tonight. (Where have you heard that before?)

http://www.texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1094753

Fuck the Pac 10. Kansas? Why the fuck would the Pac 10 give a shit about basketball all of a sudden. Hey, Oklahoma State would have an Orange Bowl appearance too if they could skip playing OU AND Texas.
 
QUOTE (RingoOSU @ Jun 16 2010, 09:03 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3026765
Fuck the Pac 10. Kansas? Why the fuck would the Pac 10 give a shit about basketball all of a sudden. Hey, Oklahoma State would have an Orange Bowl appearance too if they could skip playing OU AND Texas.


Kansas payed out the third most in the Big XII when it came to revenue sharing.

2008-2009
1. Oklahoma, $12.2 million
2. Texas, $11.8 million
3. Kansas, $11.5 million
4. Missouri, $10.4 million
5. Texas A&M, $10.2 million
6. Oklahoma State, $10.0 million
7. Colorado, $9.77 million
8. Nebraska, $9.73 million
9. Texas Tech, $9.2 million
10. Baylor, $9.1 million
11. Iowa State, $8.9 million
12. Kansas State, $8.4 million
 

wibi

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,951
QUOTE (RingoOSU @ Jun 16 2010, 07:03 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3026765
Fuck the Pac 10. Kansas? Why the fuck would the Pac 10 give a shit about basketball all of a sudden. Hey, Oklahoma State would have an Orange Bowl appearance too if they could skip playing OU AND Texas.


Why wouldnt the Pac-10 give a shit about basketball? They havent been strong recently but one good cycle like Arizona had a few years back and things change.

And fuck the Big12 for not doing a good enough job to keep their shit together and create all this drama.
 

RingoOSU

okie misanthrope
SoSH Member
Jun 2, 2005
16,168
Jerry Adair's home state
QUOTE (majorwibi @ Jun 16 2010, 10:52 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3026951
And fuck the Big12 for not doing a good enough job to keep their shit together and create all this drama.

Oh believe me, they're getting the biggest fuck you from me. We're heading to Big East levels of respectability or worse. We're the big 10 with 6 schools no one really wants. Hell, maybe 7.

Edit: Yes, I'm including Oklahoma State in the 6.
 

Sea Dog

lurker
Sep 9, 2006
2,140
Portland, Maine
QUOTE (RingoOSU @ Jun 16 2010, 09:03 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3026765
Fuck the Pac 10. Kansas? Why the fuck would the Pac 10 give a shit about basketball all of a sudden. Hey, Oklahoma State would have an Orange Bowl appearance too if they could skip playing OU AND Texas.

Well, figuring Texas and Oklahoma both have a national championship in the past decade, and Utah has two undefeated seasons in the past decade, and maybe they figured it wouldn't be a bad thing to get a basketball heavyweight with a football program that still provides depth.

Re: Big 12, I don't think it's heading toward Big East levels of respectability or worse. The Big East would have to have teams compete for (and win) national championships, for starters. And Big 12 teams will still play nine games, it will just be in the regular season as opposed to eight plus the title game. No chance of being like 2006 Ohio State, playing Florida for the championship after not having to play a Wisconsin team that finished 12-1.
 

jk333

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 26, 2009
3,609
Boston
QUOTE (Sea Dog @ Jun 16 2010, 12:43 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3027033
Well, figuring Texas and Oklahoma both have a national championship in the past decade, and Utah has two undefeated seasons in the past decade, and maybe they figured it wouldn't be a bad thing to get a basketball heavyweight with a football program that still provides depth.

Re: Big 12, I don't think it's heading toward Big East levels of respectability or worse. The Big East would have to have teams compete for (and win) national championships, for starters. And Big 12 teams will still play nine games, it will just be in the regular season as opposed to eight plus the title game. No chance of being like 2006 Ohio State, playing Florida for the championship after not having to play a Wisconsin team that finished 12-1.


Conferences without championship games should not be allowed in the BCS. The NCAA has to do something about the Boise St. and Utah and TCU: undefeated teams not being given a shot at the national title.

tOSU never should have gotten a shot at that title game. The best two teams in a conference, or at least the two division winners should have to play one final time for the the voters if a conference wants to have its team considered for the national championship game.

With realignment falling to pieces I'm left realizing that a playoff is still years and years away. Rather than a few years. One of the upcoming years Texas is going to play 1 or 2 real teams all year and make it to the national championship game. A title game gives at least one more competitive game and a stage for all the voters to watch each team on.
 

jk333

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 26, 2009
3,609
Boston
QUOTE (RingoOSU @ Jun 16 2010, 12:56 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3027044
If they play EVERYONE in the conference, what does it matter?


I kind of expanded above... but... getting an invite to the BCS is presumably because a conference is considered to have a certain amount of talent; generally speaking there will be a least a few good teams from the major conferences and thus a few games to assess each team on.

A championship game gives the viewer/voter/coach (whoever) another guaranteed game where they can assess a given team, not only based on their record but on who they're playing against AND at the end of the year. In a championship game if a team has only played one really good team all year and then they play a team who has been hot at the end of the year it gives the voter another opportunity to make an assessment on that team.

Without a conference championship game a team can conceivably play as few as 1 tough game in a year; and that game could have been in Week 1, 3 or 4. The championship game gives a final game that should be somewhat difficult AND is at the end of the season to allow a more clear assessment of where a team is at compared to its competitors.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
51,112
deep inside Guido territory
QUOTE (jk333 @ Jun 16 2010, 01:09 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3027059
I kind of expanded above... but... getting an invite to the BCS is presumably because a conference is considered to have a certain amount of talent; generally speaking there will be a least a few good teams from the major conferences and thus a few games to assess each team on.

A championship game gives the viewer/voter/coach (whoever) another guaranteed game where they can assess a given team, not only based on their record but on who they're playing against AND at the end of the year. In a championship game if a team has only played one really good team all year and then they play a team who has been hot at the end of the year it gives the voter another opportunity to make an assessment on that team.

Without a conference championship game a team can conceivably play as few as 1 tough game in a year; and that game could have been in Week 1, 3 or 4. The championship game gives a final game that should be somewhat difficult AND is at the end of the season to allow a more clear assessment of where a team is at compared to its competitors.

Cheating or no cheating, I'm pretty sure USC deserved to win that national title without playing in a conference title game.
 

jk333

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 26, 2009
3,609
Boston
QUOTE (RedOctober3829 @ Jun 16 2010, 01:21 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3027072
Cheating or no cheating, I'm pretty sure USC deserved to win that national title without playing in a conference title game.


Well... I probably agree but its still at least debatable; if we're stuck with the BCS, do you have a problem with making it a requirement that to make it to the national championship game, a team must have won their conference's championship game?

Do you disagree that a conference championship game is beneficial to assessing the teams? and that the championship game is helpful to assessing who the best teams are to play for the national championship?

The games are so beneficial because the opponent is going to be the other conference champion (or runner up) and occuring at the end of the year. If the games are helpful in assessing who should play the in the National Championship and most major conferences have them, then other conferences that wish to be evaluated for consideration to the national championship game should institute them as well.

Note: Big12 get 11th and 12th teams and re-institute a conference championship game.
 

Sea Dog

lurker
Sep 9, 2006
2,140
Portland, Maine
QUOTE (jk333 @ Jun 16 2010, 01:09 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3027059
Without a conference championship game a team can conceivably play as few as 1 tough game in a year; and that game could have been in Week 1, 3 or 4. The championship game gives a final game that should be somewhat difficult AND is at the end of the season to allow a more clear assessment of where a team is at compared to its competitors.

Even with a conference championship game, a team could conceivably play as few as one tough game in a year. Let's take my beloved Jayhawks in 2007. KU missed Oklahoma (11-3), Texas (10-3) and Texas Tech (9-4) in the Big 12 South, drawing Oklahoma State (7-6), Texas A&M (7-6) and Baylor (3-9) instead. And in the North, only Mizzou (12-2) was above .500. So had KU won the conference, it would've played two tough games.

In the revived Big 12, KU would've had to play all three teams it missed in 2007. Suddenly, the Jayhawks would've had four tough games as opposed to two, so no, I don't believe conferences need a championship game to be a BCS conference. If anything, the revived Big 12, like the Pac-10 in its present form, will give you a clear indication as to who's the best team in the conference. No imbalanced schedule, no ducking anyone.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
51,112
deep inside Guido territory
QUOTE (jk333 @ Jun 16 2010, 01:37 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3027095
Well... I probably agree but its still at least debatable; if we're stuck with the BCS, do you have a problem with making it a requirement that to make it to the national championship game, a team must have won their conference's championship game?

Do you disagree that a conference championship game is beneficial to assessing the teams? and that the championship game is helpful to assessing who the best teams are to play for the national championship?

The games are so beneficial because the opponent is going to be the other conference champion (or runner up) and occuring at the end of the year. If the games are helpful in assessing who should play the in the National Championship and most major conferences have them, then other conferences that wish to be evaluated for consideration to the national championship game should institute them as well.

Note: Big12 get 11th and 12th teams and re-institute a conference championship game.


I think the conference championship games are a waste of time. It's only purpose is a revenue generator for the conference offices. No coaches want to play in them. The body of work over an entire season is worth a lot more than one game. In the Big 12, it has usually been the South winner who is near the top of the national rankings and an also-ran from the North. It was a no-win situation because if you won you were supposed to and if you lost your national title chances were done.
 

Sea Dog

lurker
Sep 9, 2006
2,140
Portland, Maine
QUOTE (jk333 @ Jun 16 2010, 01:37 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3027095
Note: Big12 get 11th and 12th teams and re-institute a conference championship game.

In time for the 2017 season, after it receives a new ESPN/ABC contract. Until then, Notre Dame will have more than enough time to evaluate the Texas blueprint to see how much money it could make in the Big 12 with its own TV network (NBC) and unequal revenue sharing (all road games would likely be in TV).

At this point, it's obvious money matters most to Notre Dame. It's why they continue to turn down the Big Ten -- they don't want to share equally with anyone.
 

wibi

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,951
QUOTE (Sea Dog @ Jun 16 2010, 11:54 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3027124
In time for the 2017 season, after it receives a new ESPN/ABC contract. Until then, Notre Dame will have more than enough time to evaluate the Texas blueprint to see how much money it could make in the Big 12 with its own TV network (NBC) and unequal revenue sharing (all road games would likely be in TV).

At this point, it's obvious money matters most to Notre Dame. It's why they continue to turn down the Big Ten -- they don't want to share equally with anyone.


Recruiting is of prime importance to ND and their AD basically came out and said as such in an article on ESPN Insider

http://insider.espn.go.com/ncf/blog?name=f...&id=5291771
QUOTE
"What scared me more than anything else about conference realignment is [that] I don't want to be marginalized," Kelly said. "I don't want to be in a Big Ten footprint for recruiting. I worry about that. I know if we can recruit coast to coast as an independent, I have a better chance of getting the kinds of guys that we need to get here to succeed and still beat Alabama. That's the key here -- still beat Alabama or whoever is the national champion."
 

Sea Dog

lurker
Sep 9, 2006
2,140
Portland, Maine
QUOTE (majorwibi @ Jun 16 2010, 02:10 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3027152
Recruiting is of prime importance to ND and their AD basically came out and said as such in an article on ESPN Insider

"I don't want to be in a Big Ten footprint for recruiting. I worry about that."

That's the key sentence right there. Notre Dame doesn't want to simply be marginalized as a regional school, lumped in with a bunch of other Midwest schools, competing for all the same athletes. But going to the Big 12 would provide two positives ...

1. It's not Big Ten country, it's reaching to another part of the country, which Notre Dame wants.
2. If recruiting is of prime importance, better access to prized Texas recruits shouldn't be.
 

RingoOSU

okie misanthrope
SoSH Member
Jun 2, 2005
16,168
Jerry Adair's home state
QUOTE (Sea Dog @ Jun 16 2010, 12:48 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3027115
Even with a conference championship game, a team could conceivably play as few as one tough game in a year. Let's take my beloved Jayhawks in 2007. KU missed Oklahoma (11-3), Texas (10-3) and Texas Tech (9-4) in the Big 12 South, drawing Oklahoma State (7-6), Texas A&M (7-6) and Baylor (3-9) instead. And in the North, only Mizzou (12-2) was above .500. So had KU won the conference, it would've played two tough games.

In the revived Big 12, KU would've had to play all three teams it missed in 2007. Suddenly, the Jayhawks would've had four tough games as opposed to two, so no, I don't believe conferences need a championship game to be a BCS conference. If anything, the revived Big 12, like the Pac-10 in its present form, will give you a clear indication as to who's the best team in the conference. No imbalanced schedule, no ducking anyone.

Right, for the big 12 North Four it gets tougher. For the south, they're playing 4 big 12 north teams instead of the 3 they played before, so they're replacing that title game with a 4th north team, that may be weaker or as strong as the title game. It's still 9 games in conference, just like before.

Edit: Also, the best team will be in a BCS bowl, instead of 2 teams in BCS bowls, one getting an autobid after going 5-3 in conference and pulling off an upset, and the other an at large 8-0 conference team who's one f-up was when it counted the most.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
51,112
deep inside Guido territory
QUOTE (Sea Dog @ Jun 16 2010, 02:21 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3027169
"I don't want to be in a Big Ten footprint for recruiting. I worry about that."

That's the key sentence right there. Notre Dame doesn't want to simply be marginalized as a regional school, lumped in with a bunch of other Midwest schools, competing for all the same athletes. But going to the Big 12 would provide two positives ...

1. It's not Big Ten country, it's reaching to another part of the country, which Notre Dame wants.
2. If recruiting is of prime importance, better access to prized Texas recruits shouldn't be.

All that doesn't matter. ND is going to be ND no matter if they are independent or in a conference. They will have a national footprint no matter what.
 

wibi

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,951
QUOTE (RedOctober3829 @ Jun 16 2010, 12:45 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3027197
All that doesn't matter. ND is going to be ND no matter if they are independent or in a conference. They will have a national footprint no matter what.


Yes and No. ND will have a national footprint but they will also be required to play the lions share of their games against Big-12 schools which limits (in their eyes) their potential exposure to folks outside of the conference. This argument has a ton more weight if ND was an 10-2 team than the 6-6 team they were last year.
 

TomRicardo

rusty cohlebone
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2006
19,746
Row 14
QUOTE (majorwibi @ Jun 16 2010, 03:55 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3027302
Yes and No. ND will have a national footprint but they will also be required to play the lions share of their games against Big-12 schools which limits (in their eyes) their potential exposure to folks outside of the conference. This argument has a ton more weight if ND was an 10-2 team than the 6-6 team they were last year.


Not particularly, they are far worse off going 6-6 in the Big 10 then 6-6 as an independent. There is not a shit ton that is appealing about the Big 10 to ND most of all that the last administration that even flirted with them all got shit canned when the alumni threw a massive shit fit. Still would. The Church wants nothing to do with Big 10 and as long as Swarbrick continues to answer to only the alumni and a priest, Notre Dame is not going anywhere.
 

Sea Bass Neely

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
2,353
QUOTE (jk333 @ Jun 16 2010, 11:54 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3027041
tOSU never should have gotten a shot at that title game. The best two teams in a conference, or at least the two division winners should have to play one final time for the the voters if a conference wants to have its team considered for the national championship game.


It's easier to argue Florida deserved to be in that game less than OSU. I just feel I need to remind you that they were the only undefeated regular season team that year, beat a #2 on the road, beat a #2 at home, and beat a #13 on the road. You're grasping at straws with that one. The top two teams in the conference did meet. OSU won 42-39. As far as I'm concerned the Big Ten has always had a championship game, but the last few years michigan hasn't been able to hold up their end of the bargain.

As far as realignment goes, I don't think the Big XII will look like the Big East because the Big East will not exist as a football conference in 2-3 years. This realignment stuff is far from done.

And Kelley is so full of shit with that comment, and I'd guess he knows it, I don't know where to begin.
 

Average Reds

Dope
Staff member
Dope
V&N Mod
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
33,062
Southwestern CT
QUOTE (Sea Bass Neely @ Jun 16 2010, 06:42 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3027505
It's easier to argue Florida deserved to be in that game less than OSU. I just feel I need to remind you that they were the only undefeated regular season team that year, beat a #2 on the road, beat a #2 at home, and beat a #13 on the road. You're grasping at straws with that one. The top two teams in the conference did meet. OSU won 42-39. As far as I'm concerned the Big Ten has always had a championship game, but the last few years michigan has (not) been able to hold up their end of the bargain.

As far as realignment goes, I don't think the Big XII will look like the Big East because the Big East will not exist as a football conference in 2-3 years. This realignment stuff is far from done.

And Kelley is so full of shit with that comment, and I'm guess he knows it, I don't know where to begin.


I have had my issues with you surrounding the Big 10 over the years, but other than the one clarifying point I added, this post could not be more correct.

Only other comment I'll make is that your opinion about Kelley is, if anything, an understatement.
 

JMDurron

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,952
QUOTE (Sea Bass Neely @ Jun 16 2010, 05:42 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=3027505
It's easier to argue Florida deserved to be in that game less than OSU. I just feel I need to remind you that they were the only undefeated regular season team that year, beat a #2 on the road, beat a #2 at home, and beat a #13 on the road. You're grasping at straws with that one. The top two teams in the conference did meet. OSU won 42-39. As far as I'm concerned the Big Ten has always had a championship game, but the last few years michigan has been able to hold up their end of the bargain.

As far as realignment goes, I don't think the Big XII will look like the Big East because the Big East will not exist as a football conference in 2-3 years. This realignment stuff is far from done.

And Kelley is so full of shit with that comment, and I'm guess he knows it, I don't know where to begin.


Some of the articles about the Big 12 remnants staying together seemed to imply a sense of relief from various unnamed anti-Super Conference interests, but your bolded point keeps coming to mind. The Big 10 can keep expanding East just as the Pac-10 tried to, and then you have the potential dominoes falling in the Big East/ACC and SEC. I agree with you, and am a little surprised at the tone of some of the articles being written right now. It's not over yet. Do you have any idea what kind of timetable the Big 10 is on for making decisions about Eastward expansion?
 

JMDurron

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,952
More Arkansas to the Big12 Rumors.

Big 12 Sources Say Arkansas Has Put Out Feelers

QUOTE
Just when it looked like realignment in college athletics might be winding down, multiple sources in the Big 12 told Orangebloods.com Arkansas has put out feelers about a possible move to the Big 12 to reconnect with former Southwest Conference rivals like Texas and Texas A&M.

Those sources said Arkansas currently doesn't have the votes among the Big 12 schools to join the league. But those sources said they would need to see how the television money would work if adding a school or two to know if they'd vote for expansion.

Orangebloods.com had heard from two sources in the Big 12 about interest from Arkansas over the weekend. But Orangebloods.com decided not to report it because it was too volatile and could have been used as a bluff by other Big 12 schools as a way to try and drive Texas A&M back to the Big 12 and away from its discussions with the Southeastern Conference.


Since no Conference Realignment rumor mongering is truly complete without mentioning ND:

QUOTE
That executive went on to lay out the only scenario he thought it might work for the Big 12: if the money can be adjusted by the Big 12 TV partners - ABC/ESPN and Fox Sports Net - to accommodate Arkansas (possibly with the help of Jerry Jones), then adding Arkansas could make sense, the source said.

That source went on to say if Arkansas joined the Big 12 and realignment started back up with the SEC having to replace a school and possibly looking to get to 14 or even 16, Notre Dame could be back in play.

Several sources, including a source close to the discussions that took place between Notre Dame and the Big Ten over the past month, indicated Notre Dame would remain independent unless it appeared super conferences were forming.

And now that the Big Ten is at 12 schools already, Notre Dame might be more interested in joining the Big 12, where it might be the 12th school added to the league (along with Arkansas).

Notre Dame could also explore having its own TV network inside the Big 12, whereas that would not be an option in the Big Ten, which has a conference network that requires everyone to share their inventory.

A source close to Texas said athletic director DeLoss Dodds and Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick have "a very close" relationship. The source said Dodds has helped serve as a mentor to Swarbrick since Swarbrick took over as Notre Dame's AD in June of 2008.