Jump to content
The Tower

Realignment talk not going away

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, tonedeaf said:

"Matt Rhule continued to work his witchcraft in pulling a sleaze program from the sludge." 

The rest of the world gets it.  Dump these fuckers.

 

Pedo St making moral judgements? I mean don't get me wrong, Baylor is filthy trash, but I am sure that Pedo St is the most vile, disgusting, perverse piece of sh$% institution the world has ever seen, other than the SS of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will be interesting to see what happens to these revenue numbers next season, especially if the season is delayed, or cancelled due to the 'rona. There are a lot of athletic departments carrying a ton of debt for facilities that could be hurting. Donors are worth a lot less currently, and the universities themselves will be under financial stress as sources if revenue dry up.

I'm sure everybody discounts that the upcoming season could be significantly affected, but not too many people probably expected the NCAA tournament and all spring sports to be cancelled. Lot of departments running pretty close to the ragged edge expecting that the TV money train would last forever. That may not be the case, and the repercussions of that alone could largely drive some realignment activity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SwanderedTalent said:

That's pretty odd. Like, unbelievably odd. 

they probably assign a lot of TV, advertising, donations, "third tier", and sponsorship dollars to womens sports if they are not readily attached to a specific sport 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ButtFumble said:

they probably assign a lot of TV, advertising, donations, "third tier", and sponsorship dollars to womens sports if they are not readily attached to a specific sport 

right, they play games with the number

"our women's sports are hugely profitable!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, hiphopfroggy said:

 

Pedo St making moral judgements? I mean don't get me wrong, Baylor is filthy trash, but I am sure that Pedo St is the most vile, disgusting, perverse piece of sh$% institution the world has ever seen, other than the SS of course.

OK.  But baylor is right up there.  Being private, I'm sure all we know is the tip of the iceberg.  They can tell us what they want then run hide behind the law.  Agree on PSU, but baylor can hold their own.  Fuck'em.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/17/2020 at 4:12 PM, Hurtlocker said:

Doing this would expand media contracts too.   One thing networks hate in inventory isn't playing the Kansas's of the world.   It is the 3-4 games out of conference because they can't plan for them.   And, while some always play at least a good game or two, they are all lower in value because they're not "known"   This is how the Big Ten exploded their contract.    Banning FCS and going from 8 conference games to 9 jumped them from about $44 to $50m a team, and that's with everyone playing Rutgers.   The Big 12 got this as well.   The reason they didn't lose value when they lost 2 teams is they went from 8 to 9 conference games.   In short, conference games are worth way more than non-con games.

So, If the Big Ten went to 9 and made a shit ton more on their schedule, the SEC is looking at it.   That 10-15% jump is nothing to sneeze at.  

If the Big 12 raided the Pac, per the discussion, they could increase their network revenue by keeping it all in house.   

14 = 6 division games, 3-5 crossovers

16 = 7 division, 3-4 crossovers

18 = 8 division, 3 crossovers

The Big 12 currently sells 90 conference games a year in 90/10 split on two time zones   The Big Ten sold around 126 with about a 50/50 split over two time zones.   The Big 16, with some Pac 12 raiding (as long as it included USC), playing most games internally per above, would be selling at least 160 games a year with a split over potentially 4 time zones.  With Texas, USC, and Oklahoma you could practically guarantee two Tier 1 games per week, host eight Tier 2 games per week (two per 12/3/PT/10pm eastern) and still have six to seven games a week to package into a Tier Three offering for streaming.   This allows you to let the biggest brands have their own channel and still run a conference channel for the rest.

That's more than the Big Ten is taking to market, with similar sized brands and population.   If you get UCLA, Oregon, and Washington to boot the numbers could get stupid.

Oh, yeah, and also, attendance could improve in the process due to everyone playing 10 conference games.   Want more money? 

spacer.png

I really wouldn't focus on divisions so much.  There is already a lot of discussion about allowing conferences to do away with divisions and have a single set of standings.  It doesn't hurt that Delaney who helped stop the ACC from being able to do away with divisions now has openly talked about supporting it.  It serves a lot of purposes.   It gives more flexibility scheduling wise and helps get the best 2 or 4 teams later in conference playoffs.

Scheduling flexibility would help any conference expansion also.  Its a lot easier to maximize matchups and reduce travel costs if teams lock in 3-4 annual games, play some on a 50% basis, some on a 25% basis and maybe even some 1/6 or 1/5.  

I think the PAC could be split between the Big 12 & B1G even.  It gives each of those leagues a late night game that they can't fill now.  It gives each league 4 time slots each day for games and the PAC on their own is just not strong enough.  It also would give the PAC more exposure to other parts of the country because they would be conference mates with 2 leagues that have a better fan base.   The only thing that would concern me if the PAC were split between the B1G & Big 12 would be a scenario where the Big 12 doesn't get one of the Southern Cal teams.  

The only way I can see the PAC improving their tv revenues by significant amounts to stay competitive is if they were willing to put their T1 & T2 games in time slots that networks typically don't get great games, so they are the best game in town.  The easiest slot is 7PM PST/9PM CST but PAC teams don't like that because its late and some of the country goes to bed.  Some would say they already do but those are typically the lower tier games.  I think they need to put their better games on then and see how they do with no other competition from the other P5 leagues at that time slot.  The other thing they could do is try and allocate more T1 and T2 games to Thursday and Friday nights although Friday nights can lose some viewers due to high school products but usually  the best games are not on those nights.   The ACC might do better by willing to allow some of their T1 & T2 games to go to Thurs./Fri. also.       

 If the PAC was divided between the Big 12 & B1G (leaving WSU & OSU out) it would sure be easier to solve the whole playoff thing through expanded playoff conference championships to at least 4 and then producing a final four in football.  We would have no selection committees and politics, it would just play itself out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Win5002 said:

I really wouldn't focus on divisions so much.  There is already a lot of discussion about allowing conferences to do away with divisions and have a single set of standings.  It doesn't hurt that Delaney who helped stop the ACC from being able to do away with divisions now has openly talked about supporting it.  It serves a lot of purposes.   It gives more flexibility scheduling wise and helps get the best 2 or 4 teams later in conference playoffs.

Scheduling flexibility would help any conference expansion also.  Its a lot easier to maximize matchups and reduce travel costs if teams lock in 3-4 annual games, play some on a 50% basis, some on a 25% basis and maybe even some 1/6 or 1/5.  

I think the PAC could be split between the Big 12 & B1G even.  It gives each of those leagues a late night game that they can't fill now.  It gives each league 4 time slots each day for games and the PAC on their own is just not strong enough.  It also would give the PAC more exposure to other parts of the country because they would be conference mates with 2 leagues that have a better fan base.   The only thing that would concern me if the PAC were split between the B1G & Big 12 would be a scenario where the Big 12 doesn't get one of the Southern Cal teams.  

The only way I can see the PAC improving their tv revenues by significant amounts to stay competitive is if they were willing to put their T1 & T2 games in time slots that networks typically don't get great games, so they are the best game in town.  The easiest slot is 7PM PST/9PM CST but PAC teams don't like that because its late and some of the country goes to bed.  Some would say they already do but those are typically the lower tier games.  I think they need to put their better games on then and see how they do with no other competition from the other P5 leagues at that time slot.  The other thing they could do is try and allocate more T1 and T2 games to Thursday and Friday nights although Friday nights can lose some viewers due to high school products but usually  the best games are not on those nights.   The ACC might do better by willing to allow some of their T1 & T2 games to go to Thurs./Fri. also.       

 If the PAC was divided between the Big 12 & B1G (leaving WSU & OSU out) it would sure be easier to solve the whole playoff thing through expanded playoff conference championships to at least 4 and then producing a final four in football.  We would have no selection committees and politics, it would just play itself out. 

Agree with everything here.  I would add that pod scheduling with a neighboring pod would be financially beneficial when considering travel costs.  One would need to do a cost benefit analysis of having bluebloods play every year vs the costs of all schools traveling across the country.  Costs are about to become much larger than they previously were.  I imagine once we get past this period in time that the schools will be moving quickly to secure revenue.

Edited by 2300 Nueces

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, 2300 Nueces said:

Agree with everything here.  I would add that pod scheduling with a neighboring pod would be financially beneficial when considering travel costs.  One would need to do a cost benefit analysis of having bluebloods play every year vs the costs of all schools traveling across the country.  Costs are about to become much larger than they previously were.  I imagine once we get past this period in time that the schools will be moving quickly to secure revenue.

I heart pods 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think I'd rather the GORs to expire so WVU, baylor can get lost once a merger or new conference is formed.  I hate pods.  Rather have two 8 team divisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Thiefery said:

Think I'd rather the GORs to expire so WVU, baylor can get lost once a merger or new conference is formed.  I hate pods.  Rather have two 8 team divisions.

I wonder how season ticket sales are going?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 2300 Nueces said:

I wonder how season ticket sales are going?

slow, but I have it on good authority that they will be sold out by the end of April.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Thiefery said:

Think I'd rather the GORs to expire so WVU, baylor can get lost once a merger or new conference is formed.  I hate pods.  Rather have two 8 team divisions.

The pods could be  scheduling component but you have a single set of standings.  I wouldn't even even rotate evenly through pods, like I mentioned some schools you play 50% of the time some 33% and some 25% in a larger conference.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Thiefery said:

Think I'd rather the GORs to expire so WVU, baylor can get lost once a merger or new conference is formed.  I hate pods.  Rather have two 8 team divisions.

WVU will find a place at the table, I bet--still think the ACC or SEC will take them. But Baylor, TCU, and Iowa State are totally about to get dropped backwards--possibly KSU, too.

Still think the powers that be want the Pac-16/18 to happen--getting the Texoma 4 or the Texomakan 6 would make a lot sense for the networks and bowls. I still see three pods of 6 being setup--Pac 12 North (WSU, Washington, OSU, Oregon, Stanford, Cal) Pac-12 Southwest (USC, UCLA, ASU, Arizona, Tech, UT), and the Pac-12 Midwest (Utah, CU, KSU, KU, OU, and OSU). Play your 5 pod teams, plus 2 from the other pods each, but keep rivalries together annually (UT-OU, USC-Stanford, UCLA-Cal, OSU-Tech, for example). 

Conference championship game is between the two highest rated division winners.

In hoops and baseball, you'd play your pod teams home-and-home every year, then play three teams from the other pods each year, rotating those teams out every two years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get why Cal, utah, oregon st, washington state and even colorado get a pass for a merger.  If we are trimming down from the current conferences, Iowa St on paper is better than those schools in sports generally.

SC, ucla, asu, az, uw, or, stan, utah

UT, TT, ou, okie, Iowa St, kansas, ksu, TCU

If Nebraska really wants back they can take TCUs spot..let UT/SC decide if colorado is a better take than Utah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Thiefery said:

Think I'd rather the GORs to expire so WVU, baylor can get lost once a merger or new conference is formed.  I hate pods.  Rather have two 8 7 team divisions.

Fixed.  Baylor and wvu.... later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Win5002 said:

The pods could be  scheduling component but you have a single set of standings.  I wouldn't even even rotate evenly through pods, like I mentioned some schools you play 50% of the time some 33% and some 25% in a larger conference.  

Don't disagree on pods, could be fun and a great way for schedule.   I went with divisions because that just happens to be the rule as of right now.   Anything over ten requires two divisions and a champ game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who prefer getting rid of BU and WVU, and divisions over pods.

 

 

North


UW
UO
OU
OK St
KU
K-State
ISU


South

USC
UCLA
UA
AZ St
UT
TCU
TT

 


PX4      SEC               B1G

UT       Bama            Ohio St
OU      LSU                UM
USC    Georgia        Penn St
UW     UF                 Wisconsin 
UO     Auburn?        Iowa? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/27/2020 at 2:59 PM, JWinTX said:

WVU will find a place at the table, I bet--still think the ACC or SEC will take them. But Baylor, TCU, and Iowa State are totally about to get dropped backwards--possibly KSU, too.

Still think the powers that be want the Pac-16/18 to happen--getting the Texoma 4 or the Texomakan 6 would make a lot sense for the networks and bowls. I still see three pods of 6 being setup--Pac 12 North (WSU, Washington, OSU, Oregon, Stanford, Cal) Pac-12 Southwest (USC, UCLA, ASU, Arizona, Tech, UT), and the Pac-12 Midwest (Utah, CU, KSU, KU, OU, and OSU). Play your 5 pod teams, plus 2 from the other pods each, but keep rivalries together annually (UT-OU, USC-Stanford, UCLA-Cal, OSU-Tech, for example). 

Conference championship game is between the two highest rated division winners.

In hoops and baseball, you'd play your pod teams home-and-home every year, then play three teams from the other pods each year, rotating those teams out every two years.

Solid format, although BU, TCU, and KSU are solid programs.  I would rather go to 24 with 4 6 team pods.  This gets a bit unwieldy but a 4 team playoff would decide the champion and bring some continuity/stabilty to the big12 and pac.  The champion with a solid SOS would be ensured a final 4 playoff spot.  Could rotate pod play/playoff matchups, etc... for a single conf championship which would jive with current OOC format and conf schedules.  Would ensure that networks get the best match ups by having their choice among all the scheduled games.  Otherwise put the games on an ESPN+ format.  Same with non football sports.

 

Edited by 2300 Nueces

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, 2300 Nueces said:

Solid format, although BU, TCU, and KSU are solid programs.  I would rather go to 24 with 4 6 team pods.  This gets a bit unwieldy but a 4 team playoff would decide the champion and bring some continuity/stabilty to the big12 and pac.  The champion with a solid SOS would be ensured a final 4 playoff spot.  Could rotate pod play/playoff matchups, etc... for a single conf championship which would jive with current OOC format and conf schedules.  Would ensure that networks get the best match ups by having their choice among all the scheduled games.  Otherwise put the games on an ESPN+ format.  Same with non football sports.

 

By solid I assume you are referring to competitive.  That's not the issue with baylor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/27/2020 at 3:55 PM, Thiefery said:

I don't get why Cal, utah, oregon st, washington state and even colorado get a pass for a merger.  If we are trimming down from the current conferences, Iowa St on paper is better than those schools in sports generally.

SC, ucla, asu, az, uw, or, stan, utah

UT, TT, ou, okie, Iowa St, kansas, ksu, TCU

If Nebraska really wants back they can take TCUs spot..let UT/SC decide if colorado is a better take than Utah.

We are more worthy of P5 inclusion than half the Pac 12.

If that guy thinks Oregon State and their 30,000 fans keep a seat at the table, while Iowa State, an AAU school, that made more money than USC last year, and averaged better football attendance than all but one Pac 12 school is getting the boot, he's absolutely ignorant of the reality of modern college athletics.  This isn't 1994.

Edited by Al_4_ISU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

We are more worthy of P5 inclusion than half the Pac 12.

If that guy thinks Oregon State and their 30,000 fans keep a seat at the table, while Iowa State, an AAU school, that made more money than USC last year, and averaged better football attendance than all but one Pac 12 school is getting the boot, he's absolutely ignorant of the reality of modern college athletics.  This isn't 1994.

The more I think of it, I hope the Big 12 continues to be the outlier and stick at 10 unless there is no-brainer schools wanting in that would help the conference (AZ, Pig, Neb, etc)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The more I think of it, I hope the Big 12 continues to be the outlier and stick at 10 unless there is no-brainer schools wanting in that would help the conference (AZ, Pig, Neb, etc)

The only reason I want to raid the Pac is to fuck Larry Scott after he tried to fuck the ISU’s of the world 10 years ago.

I like everyone playing everyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the Big12 as is and playing everyone else as well. However, when a once in a lifetime golden opportunity comes along I think you have to take it. In this case, not taking it could come back to bite the Big12 in the rear. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, hiphopfroggy said:

I like the Big12 as is and playing everyone else as well. However, when a once in a lifetime golden opportunity comes along I think you have to take it. In this case, not taking it could come back to bite the Big12 in the rear. 

This.  Yeah if you can pry USC loose, you do it, then you make it make sense.   They're the only potential program out there that will rival Texas and Oklahoma at the box office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

This.  Yeah if you can pry USC loose, you do it, then you make it make sense.   They're the only potential program out there that will rival Texas and Oklahoma at the box office.

Yup.  Like I said earlier, if USC wants to leave the PAC, you listen. At that point it depends on how much PAC deadweight they want to bring.  If it's one school, then it probably makes sense.  If it's more than that, it probably doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, utee94 said:

Yup.  Like I said earlier, if USC wants to leave the PAC, you listen. At that point it depends on how much PAC deadweight they want to bring.  If it's one school, then it probably makes sense.  If it's more than that, it probably doesn't.

We probably have to at least go to 14 if we bring in SC.  As long as UCLA or Stanford comes with them, I'd guess we can add any two others and the group would be additive.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Between the 2 conferences there are 22 teams.  14 to make up the Big Pac.  We all know the players, the margins are tbd.

The remaining 8 - call 'em the Big Leftovers - along with the likes of cougar high make another new conference that still has pull.  This would be the perfect time to go to 6 or 8 teams for football playoff.  

Big pac, big 10,  acc, sec and big leftovers all get autobid + 1-3 at large spots.  

None of this is happening without espn et al.  But the timing looks like a tectonic shift could happen.

Hell, I would love to shift the center of gravity west of the sec.  Make a big enough play and all of a sudden piggy and lsu may want to join the party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the ones you want in order are:

USC, Washington, and Oregon first, because they actually generate eyeballs.   They've won nattys or played for nattys and are known names.   If you need WSU and OSU for Washington and Oregon, I'm not sure its worth it.   If you have to take all the Cali schools for USC, I think it is.  

If you still need to do divisions, due to the current rules not changing, it allows you to do 8 division games, and 2 cross overs, netting 5 home games with two left to schedule.   You could give away to home and homes and be at six.    

Or, if you could do pods, 16 would give you four of four.   The in between gets a little messy though.   Two from each other pod nets you nine games, three fills the schedule.  

The SEC sells about 115 football games for around $45M a year per team

The B1G sells about 128 football games, for around $55m a year per team

Eighteen teams listed above, would allow you to take nearly 200 football games to market, over four time zones if Colorado or the Arizonas were involved.   You could build a conference network AND allow Oklahoma and USC to start their own along with LHN, and have enough content to power them all.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hurtlocker said:

I think the ones you want in order are:

USC, Washington, and Oregon first, because they actually generate eyeballs.   They've won nattys or played for nattys and are known names.   If you need WSU and OSU for Washington and Oregon, I'm not sure its worth it.   If you have to take all the Cali schools for USC, I think it is.  

If you still need to do divisions, due to the current rules not changing, it allows you to do 8 division games, and 2 cross overs, netting 5 home games with two left to schedule.   You could give away to home and homes and be at six.    

Or, if you could do pods, 16 would give you four of four.   The in between gets a little messy though.   Two from each other pod nets you nine games, three fills the schedule.  

The SEC sells about 115 football games for around $45M a year per team

The B1G sells about 128 football games, for around $55m a year per team

Eighteen teams listed above, would allow you to take nearly 200 football games to market, over four time zones if Colorado or the Arizonas were involved.   You could build a conference network AND allow Oklahoma and USC to start their own along with LHN, and have enough content to power them all.  

Of top 300 cities in America, a merger of best of XII & PAC brands could hold 164 of the top cities, (or 54.6% of the nation) the league would dominate media:

Dgl2_ekUEAAKeyH?format=jpg&name=small

Edited by kopp0e

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

I think the ones you want in order are:

USC, Washington, and Oregon first, because they actually generate eyeballs.   They've won nattys or played for nattys and are known names.   If you need WSU and OSU for Washington and Oregon, I'm not sure its worth it.   If you have to take all the Cali schools for USC, I think it is.  

If you still need to do divisions, due to the current rules not changing, it allows you to do 8 division games, and 2 cross overs, netting 5 home games with two left to schedule.   You could give away to home and homes and be at six.    

Or, if you could do pods, 16 would give you four of four.   The in between gets a little messy though.   Two from each other pod nets you nine games, three fills the schedule.  

The SEC sells about 115 football games for around $45M a year per team

The B1G sells about 128 football games, for around $55m a year per team

Eighteen teams listed above, would allow you to take nearly 200 football games to market, over four time zones if Colorado or the Arizonas were involved.   You could build a conference network AND allow Oklahoma and USC to start their own along with LHN, and have enough content to power them all.  

This is what seems to be the most ideal.  However, the current Big 12 and Pac 12 as we know it must disolve in order to make this work.  From listening to realignment message boards, to get SC, you have to get all 4 CA schools on board or it's DOA.  Not sure how truthful that is but it seems to be the consensus on boards.  Choosing which schools come along among the CA schools out west and the UT/Tech/ou/okie light schools is going to be interesting to see. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/27/2020 at 11:12 AM, hiphopfroggy said:

Big16


Pac

UW
UO
USC
UCLA



West

UA
ASU
TCU
TT



Red River

UT
OU
OSU
BU



North

WVU
ISU
KU
K St

That's not bad, frog. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/27/2020 at 2:59 PM, JWinTX said:

WVU will find a place at the table, I bet--still think the ACC or SEC will take them. But Baylor, TCU, and Iowa State are totally about to get dropped backwards--possibly KSU, too.

Internet wisdom among the 'Eers is the ACC will never take them on the account of historical hurt feelings and academics, and that this has more or less been expressed to WVU.

If ISU ever gets left out that's a complete joke. Rabid fans, solid attendance, AAU, etc. They're more worthwhile than about 3/4 of the ACC and PAC. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kopp0e said:

Of top 300 cities in America, a merger of best of XII & PAC brands could hold 164 of the top cities, (or 54.6% of the nation) the league would dominate media:

Dgl2_ekUEAAKeyH?format=jpg&name=small

I think this has been discussed, but AL, MS, KY, SC and all the SEC states (less UF)  all have very small markets and they are the biggest needle-movers with TV ratings.  I dont think this next round will be as tied to TV markets as in the past.  Throw in the cord cutting and i think the above graphic is a very dated way to approach realignment partners.  If you play great football, the TV viewers will find you, something the B12 and Pac have failed to do the last decade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not form a new conference with 10 members instead of a big merger? Something like:
USC, UCLA, CAL, Stanford, CU +
Texas, OU, TT, OSU, Kansas

Have everybody play everybody just like the current system. Would have great matchups every game. No dead weight, easy road trips with a lot of direct flights.

Great football, great hoops, great academics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A first step might be to schedule games between the Big 12 and Pac 12.  The goal would be to have a team or 2 (pipe dream) that would qualify continually for the 4 team playoff at the end of the season due to the strength of schedule.

1.  Schedule Pac champion vs Big 12 Champion.

2. Begin to integrate schedules.

3. Look for 2 teams to add.  Preferably a team or 2 closer to WVU. Cincinnati, Memphis, Pitt, Missouri, BYU would be a no brainer.

4. Come up with an incentive laden contract that rewards teams for "eyeballs"/winning.  Allow tier 3 to be a wild west.  Allow teams to have their own network.

5. An incentive laden contract would be optimal.  Tell the lesser schools to take it or leave it.  To leave it would mean they join Cougar High.  I prefer the pay for performance over the equal share deal.  This will allow the larger schools to compete with the SEC and B1G contracts without having to join those leagues.  Over time it will force the lesser schools to have to perform and survive on less.  They will become competitive while the lesser in the SEC and B1G become lazy.

 

**** The baseline TV money is going to have to be close to the SEC and B1G.  This will be the deciding factor on whether is this possible.

Edited by 2300 Nueces

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, 2300 Nueces said:

A first step might be to schedule games between the Big 12 and Pac 12.  The goal would be to have a team or 2 (pipe dream) that would qualify continually for the 4 team playoff at the end of the season due to the strength of schedule.

1.  Schedule Pac champion vs Big 12 Champion.

2. Begin to integrate schedules.

3. Look for 2 teams to add.  Preferably a team or 2 closer to WVU. Cincinnati, Memphis, Pitt, Missouri, BYU would be a no brainer.

4. Come up with an incentive laden contract that rewards teams for "eyeballs"/winning.  Allow tier 3 to be a wild west.  Allow teams to have their own network.

5. An incentive laden contract would be optimal.  Tell the lesser schools to take it or leave it.  To leave it would mean they join Cougar High.  I prefer the pay for performance over the equal share deal.  This will allow the larger schools to compete with the SEC and B1G contracts without having to join those leagues.  Over time it will force the lesser schools to have to perform and survive on less.  They will become competitive while the lesser in the SEC and B1G become lazy.

 

**** The baseline TV money is going to have to be close to the SEC and B1G.  This will be the deciding factor on whether is this possible.

They were actually discussing this prior to the last round of realignment.   A joint rights deal between the two conferences was going to be worth bank.   And that was like 2012.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

They were actually discussing this prior to the last round of realignment.   A joint rights deal between the two conferences was going to be worth bank.   And that was like 2012.

Looks like they are down the road.  I wonder what the snags are?  I recall hearing that Stanford was not happy with some of our "proposals" or some such.  Personally, I don't care for Stanford.  Sounds like a decent rivalry in the making.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 2300 Nueces said:

Looks like they are down the road.  I wonder what the snags are?  I recall hearing that Stanford was not happy with some of our "proposals" or some such.  Personally, I don't care for Stanford.  Sounds like a decent rivalry in the making.

I can't find the old article on this, but I believe this was even back in the Bebee days.   The idea was go to market together, package two conference races like normal, then add in a beefed up schedule with a scheduling alliance.   I think it ended up failing for a couple reasons, first was that there wasn't the stomach for a harder schedule in the BCS days, the Pac and B1G didn't pull the trigger on a scheduling alliance either.   The SEC schedule today is still the way to game that system.  The second was, at the time, the idea of conference channels were just picking up with the Big Ten showing how to do it (ironically with the plan pitched to the Big 12 and turned down by them first).   With the Big 12 having no appetite for a conference channel and the Pac wanting one, they needed more content.  That led to the Pac trying to jump to 16, to get more content, and to also try and snag the Big 12's guaranteed BCS bid, giving the larger conference two of them.

Obviously it all fell apart, but it was all about the same few years and interrelated. 

Edited by Hurtlocker
spellz bad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Reply to:  posted by BruinSpud on March 26, 2020 at 18:28:09

Their athletic-specific endowment was around $500MM in 2013, and assuredly has grown since then.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-odd-economics-of-stanford-football-1383796720

Relevant graf for this discussion: "The normal revenues Stanford receives from football are so low, in fact, that its 36 varsity sports teams depend on something no other school has, or would dare rely so heavily on: an athletics-only endowment worth between $450 million and $500 million that pays out at 5.5% each year, people familiar with the matter said."

As the full article is behind a subscriber paywall, please see it below:

Fifth-ranked Stanford, once again in the mix for the Pac-12 title and maybe even more, pounded No. 3 Oregon, 26-20, on Thursday in one of this college-football season's biggest games, making the Cardinal the only team to slow down the Ducks the last two years. That makes this as good a time as any to ponder one of this sport's great mysteries: How is Stanford doing it?

There is no single reason for Stanford's rise from a pushover—one that supposedly couldn't compete because of its tough academic standards—to a powerhouse that wins because of them. The transformational 2007-to-2010 tenure of coach Jim Harbaugh, who has since gone on to the San Francisco 49ers, was clearly pivotal. So is the program's growing ability to convince elite high-school recruits of a Stanford degree's value.

But there is another critical factor behind the Cardinal's ascent: the way Stanford finances its football program.

Stanford isn't like other football powers. It can't generate as much cash from its fans, since it doesn't have nearly as many. Stanford Stadium seats about 50,000—half the size of some venues in the Southeastern and Big Ten conferences.

The school accounted for $9.7 million in football ticket sales on its 2012 annual report. The four teams ranked above Stanford in the latest Bowl Championship Series standings averaged $27 million, with Ohio State topping the list at $41 million. In merchandise sales, Stanford ranked 42nd this year on the Collegiate Licensing Company's list of top-selling schools, well behind not just Texas but also Texas Tech.

The normal revenues Stanford receives from football are so low, in fact, that its 36 varsity sports teams depend on something no other school has, or would dare rely so heavily on: an athletics-only endowment worth between $450 million and $500 million that pays out at 5.5% each year, people familiar with the matter said.

The way Stanford keeps up in the college-football arms race is to lean on private donations. As a result, almost everything the football program touches is endowed, from each of the school's 85 football scholarships to David Shaw's head-coaching position. Stanford's offensive coordinator is even known as the Andrew Luck Director of Offense in honor of an anonymous gift in 2012.

"Many have looked at Stanford to say: 'How can we make that happen at our place?'" said Stanford athletic director Bernard Muir.

Given that Stanford sits in the heart of Silicon Valley, and many of its graduates are making untold millions, it seems like fundraising should be easy. But most football donors are well past 50, and younger donors can be hard to find, since football was mostly an afterthought on campus until recently.

In its attempt to build a football program this way, though, Stanford does benefit from a specialized network of benefactors most schools can only dream about.

Among the young Stanford alumni crowding into a New York sports bar on a recent Saturday night was Salman Al-Rashid, 26, who attended Stanford just as the Cardinal football team was becoming relevant again. As that night's Stanford game against Oregon State played on televisions around him, Al-Rashid sat at a table in the back, wearing a Rose Bowl sweatshirt and eating chicken wings.

Earlier this year, Al-Rashid pledged a $500,000 donation to Stanford's football program, a highly unexpected gift given his age and background. He grew up in Saudi Arabia, where his only access to football was an American Forces Network feed. He moved to New Jersey when he was 12 and had his first experience playing the game in a prep-school intramural league.

When Al-Rashid was at Stanford, the team's success produced some formative experiences. He recalls rushing the field after Stanford beat rival California in 2007, for instance, and he has a photo on his phone commemorating an improbable win that season over 41-point-favorite Southern California, a game that ranks as one of the biggest upsets in college-football history.

But what was most unusual about Al-Rashid's donation to the football program is that nobody at Stanford saw it coming.

"He was on no one's radar," said Joe Karlgaard, Rice's athletic director, who led athletic fundraising at Stanford until October. "No one at the university knew who he was."

Football philanthropy runs in Al-Rashid's family. He is the son of Saudi businessman Nasser Al-Rashid, who fell in love with the game as an undergraduate at Texas. Despite never seeing a snap before moving to the U.S. for college, he ended up giving funds for the Texas weight room in the 1980s. He has since invested in several renovations, most recently a few months ago, to the Dr. Nasser Al-Rashid Strength Complex, considered one of the finest in the game.

But the younger Al-Rashid was never identified as a potential donor by Stanford's athletic department. His gift was only the result of Al-Rashid introducing himself to a member of Stanford's athletic board at an alumni gathering last year to hear Muir speak in a private setting. Al-Rashid hadn't even been invited to the event.

Al-Rashid and Karlgaard, Stanford's former development director, discussed the athletics endowment as one option for his donation. But others beat him to their checkbooks before Al-Rashid could fund the defensive-coordinator or strength-coach positions.

As it turns out, Al-Rashid came along as the football team was raising funds for a 27,000-square-foot addition to a building named for the family of John Arrillaga, a 76-year-old Stanford benefactor whose $151 million gift to the university this year was its largest from a living donor. The facility includes new player lockers, coaching offices, a study lounge and a meeting room with theater-style seating.

Al-Rashid, who manages an investment fund that focuses on the Mongolian and Southeast Asian markets, decided to earmark his gift for this football building, which opened this month. The meeting room for the defensive line and defensive coaching staff—which dominated Oregon on Thursday—carries Al-Rashid's name and graduation class. He is also listed on a plaque with other backers, such as former Stanford quarterbacks Jim Plunkett and John Elway, who had his No. 7 jersey retired at halftime of this week's Stanford win.

While it may seem like an anomaly, Al-Rashid's experience suggests that Stanford's football economic model, which depends on passion more than anything else, could work long into the future. In fact, Al-Rashid cares so deeply about the Cardinal that he watched Stanford's overtime upset of Oregon last season from Beijing, celebrating with dumplings and baijiu.

"I just want to support the program and make sure it has long-term, sustained success," said Al-Rashid, who watched Thursday's game from the stadium. "The athletics at Stanford epitomize what the university is all about." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

I can't find the old article on this, but I believe this was even back in the Bebee days.   The idea was go to market together, package two conference races like normal, then add in a beefed up schedule with a scheduling alliance.   I think it ended up failing for a couple reasons, first was that there wasn't the stomach for a harder schedule in the BCS days, the Pac and B1G didn't pull the trigger on a scheduling alliance either.   The SEC schedule today is still the way to game that system.  The second was, at the time, the idea of conference channels were just picking up with the Big Ten showing how to do it (ironically with the plan pitched to the Big 12 and turned down by them first).   With the Big 12 having no appetite for a conference channel and the Pac wanting one, they needed more content.  That led to the Pac trying to jump to 16, to get more content, and to also try and snag the Big 12's guaranteed BCS bid, giving the larger conference two of them.

Obviously it all fell apart, but it was all about the same few years and interrelated. 

At this point the Big12 may be looking at the PAC as a bad investment.  Unforturnaley adding Pac teams may decrease the TV payout per school. The Big 12 needs to move when the Pac is at "fire sale" lows.  That may be during the next season, if we have a season.  Then push the incentive agreement to get some of these programs to appeal to the millions of people in their states.  Maybe trucking in some okie inbreds talking a lot of crap will be just what the doctor ordered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted this on an Oregon site discussing realignment.

 

 

Would it be possible to join all the teams in the Big 12 and pac 12 for a total of 22 teams and add BYU, Cincinatti, or Memphis? That would total 24 teams.... Would it be feasible to allow for an incentive payout system in tiers? More eyeballs=more TV money, etc.... The teams in smaller markets would not turn down the opportunity to stay in this conference while the teams with more eyeballs would make a larger %. Allow for a wild west tier 3 which would allow for team channels, etc... like ESPN+.

Set the structure as 4 6 team pods that would play regional conference schedules with 2-3 out of pod conference games. There could be a conference playoff of the 4 pod winners which would greatly increase the SOS of the overall winner which would ensure at least one team into the final 4 team playoff. This would also bring in considerably more eyeballs on the conference playoff. I would hate to dump some of these proven programs and rivalries. I am a Texas fan btw.

Pods:

NW: Wash, Wash St, Oregon, Or St, Utah, BYU
SW: USC, UCLA, Az, Az St, Cal, Stanford
SE: Tex, Tex Tech, BU, TCU, OK St, Oklahoma
NE: KU, K st, Colo, Iowa St, Cincinnati, WVU

These pods would retain natural rivalries while mixing in 2-3 new (or old) conference match ups each year.

Play: Rotate pods by scheduling a different pod each year. Playoff would be against a pod that was not that year's matched pod ensuring that the playoff would not be a rematch of any game from regular season. Chance of championship being a rematch would be relatively low.

  •  
  • Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Big16


    Northwest

    UW
    UO
    UU
    CU


    Southwest

    USC
    UCLA
    UA
    Az St


    Lone Star

    UT
    TCU
    TT
    BU


    Big

    OU
    Ok St
    KU
    K-St



    B1G

    Legends

    UNL
    UMN
    UI
    ISU

    Leaders

    UW-Madison
    Illinois
    Northwestern
    Purdue

    Heroes

    tOSU
    UM
    MSU
    UI


    Gods

    PSU
    UMD
    UC
    RU



    ACC


    ND
    Pitt
    Cuse
    BC

    UV
    VaTech
    UofL
    WVU

    UNC
    NC St
    Duke
    Wake

    Clemson
    Florida St
    Miami
    Ga Tech



    SEC

    West

    LSU
    AR
    aTm
    SMU

    North

    MU
    UK
    Tennessee
    Vanderbilt


    South

    Bama
    AU
    Ole Miss
    Miss St

    East

    UGA
    UF
    SC
    UCF
     

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    If we're just giving college football a makeover:

    1) Big 12 adds:  SC, UCLA, Colorado, Arizona
    2) PAC back-fills with SDSU + 1 (BYU, Boise, Colorado State... whoever the TV side requires)
    3) At some point down the road after that, Nebraska re-joins a Big 12 that now has a footprint in both Texas and CA.  Big Ten gives WVU an "athletics only" invite.  

    First two are pretty realistic, and the 3rd is realistic once the first one happens.

    Big 12 Plains: OU, OSU, Kansas, KSU, CU, NU, ISU
    Big 12 Border:  UT, TTU, Zona, TCU, UCLA, USC, Baylor

    PAC 10:  UW, WSU, UO, OSU, Stanford, Cal, SDSU, ASU, Utah, BYU 

    B1G West:  Mich, Mich St, Wisky, Iowa, Minny, Illinois, Northwestern
    B1G East:  tOSU, Penn St, WVU, Indiana, Purdue, Maryland, Rutgers

    SEC, ACC, AAC all stay status quo.  MWC has to replace 1 or 2 (options include NMSU, UTEP, maybe a UC Davis joins FBS)

     

    This basically makes the Big 12 the western U.S. version of the SEC.  And it makes the PAC a smaller version of the ACC.  Seems like a more stable balance to me.  

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

    Guest
    Reply to this topic...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


    mpu


    Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
    ×
    ×
    • Create New...