Jump to content

Win5002

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Win5002

  1. On 10/16/2022 at 12:57 AM, wood said:

    I thought he was pretty good when he wasn't going on and on about the targeting that wasn't targeting, but he retracted it, which you hardly ever hear these guys do. He brought some good insights. IMHO he sounds a lot like Ludacris, which is interesting. I'm a Luda fan, so that helps a little.

    Griffin was right it was a penalty.

     

     

     

    • Fuck You 7
  2. There is a real simple way of fixing this whole thing in the current setup that involves no more games and actually would create a 24 team playoff and if you want you can keep the stupid bowl games.  Although I think the whole idea of a post-season exhibition game played many times 4 weeks after the season is one of the dumbest ideas ever thought of. 

    You create a 24 team playoff by having the 5 P5 conference champs and the highest G5 league using conference semi-finals instead of just a CCG.  You also facilitate this to not involve any more games by using the last game of the season probably the week after Thanksgiving as a floating game where you start the conference semi-finals and also every other team in the league is assigned a game to play(hence the last week being a floating game).   I don't know if you could do the last week of the season Thanksgiving weekend instead since there are so many rivalry games that weekend but maybe they could get used to the idea of being the week before Thanksgiving. 

    Each league can do some type of ticket/gate revenue sharing among the league members to make it work.   Each league gets to monetize their own conference semi-final games.  If you can do that over the Thanksgiving weekend you can space those out over Friday/Saturday to have as few games overlap as possible for maximum viewership.   

    Then everyone would play their way in and we would have a true championship without involving any extra games.  

    If leagues were all 16 or more like the new SEC I think 6 teams each league and seeded like the NFL playoffs would work well. This idea wouldn't involve anymore games if we did away with the bowl games.    

     

  3. I hate UT & OU to the SEC for CFB.   I also, didn't like those two to the B1G.  

    BUT if the B1G swooped in at the last moment to get UT, OU, USC, UCLA, UW, OR and one or both of Cal/Stanford with the addition of ND even if its 6 games until their contract is out would UT prefer that situation?  Especially if UT was given the opportunity to choose 1 or maybe even 2 regional rivalries of TEXAS' choosing?  Maybe other regional rivalries is not an issue and they want to cut the other Texas schools off but if it was needed I would do it as the B1G.   Those are 4 huge brands.

    If the SEC secures Texas forever the B1G will regret that loss.  Even if they pick up secondary brands in Ga. Tech & FSU it never works the same.  UT academics and the SEC seems an odd fit.   

    • Hook 'Em 1
  4. CFB would be so much better if we did realignment to 4 leagues that put ALL of the old rivalries back together and a group of 72 teams split off and formed their own division. Lets settle rivalries on the field and not message board insults in place of games or TV revenue pissing matches.  You can essentially put every traditional rivalry game back together and build the sport nationally if you did this below.

     
    B1G: OSU, Mich., ND, MSU, Wisky, Ia., Illinois, NU, Ind., Purdue, Mn., USC, UCLA, UW, Or., Cal, Stanford, AZ.
    **this gives ND all of its big rivalries in conference and a wide footprint and brings back all the old Rose Bowl rivalries. So even though this conference spans the widest area it feels natural in that it brings back a lot of rivalries even if some are not traditional season games.

    ACC: PSU, Maryland, Rutgers, WVU, Clemson, NC, NC ST., Duke, BC, Va Tech, Va., WF, Ga. Tech, Syrcuse, Pitt UCONN, Cincy, UCF or USF,
    brings back old Big East rivalry games and gives them PSU to headline the league for football and PSU is set up as king of the region for recruiting, exposure.

    Big 12: UT, OU, Neb., A&M, Arky, TT, KU, KSU, ISU, Missouri, Col., Baylor, TCU, ASU, Utah, BYU, Boise St., Houston
    Brings back the rivalries mentioned earlier.

    SEC: Bama, Auburn, LSU, Ole Miss, MSU, Fl., Ga., KY, Tn., SC, Vandy, FSU, Miami, Louisville, Cincy Plus 2 more. also, if SEC wanted all of Florida they add UCF & USC and the ACC takes others.
    This gives the SEC two past football schools in FSU & Miami and they pretty much own the state of Florida. Louisville and Cincy fit in the northern footprint well and add basketball.

    You can argue the last team or two in the B12/ACC & SEC but what fan wouldn't enjoy seeing these rivalries come back all within conferences? They are all pretty equal and engage all regions of the country and then division 1 can negotiate their contract as one. The only two real rivalry games might be PSU vs OSU and Clemson vs FSU but PSU is set in a good position again and that leaves FSU vs Clemson but I think consolidating all 3 Florida teams trumps that.

    Each league gets to 18 and conferences have 6-8 teams compete in conference playoffs to determine the CFP. Bowl games are finished. Each league has a single division standings and goes to 10 games. Lock in 3-4 rivals and against other teams play them at a frequency that maximizes content of games. Some may be 2 out of every 3 years, some may be 2 out of 4 years, 1 out of 3 yrs or even 1 out of 4 years. You design the matchups so you get the most desired set of matchups. If 6 or 8 teams make the conference playoffs that gives enough access it doesn't have to be rotated equally and for teams to worry about advantages of playing a team too often.

    Can any college football fans argue what we have is better than this? I dont think so.

     

     

    • Like 1
  5. Your probably not going to need separate divisions in a year or two anyway.  You can have one set of standings and lock in 3-4 rivals and rotate around the rest of the league. 

    Also, depending on the size of the league if it is deregulated you don't have to play the other teams the same frequency.  You could play some 2 out of 3 years, some 1 out of two years and some 2 out of 6 years.  In a 16 or 18 team league this makes a lot of sense.

  6. You have to ask yourself how much more can Arkansas contribute to their fundraising in the athletic department if they were winning again.  How much more is their radio deals worth, how much more in apparel sales do they get?  Does that create a travel savings? 

    Those numbers add up and eat into any tv revenue advantage.   Also, would a Neb./Arkansas addition help bridge some of the revenue gap with the SEC?  You can certainly argue the content of  Arkansas is worth a lot more in the Big 12 than the SEC.

    Finally, when does winning matter?  Does anyone hang banners for being in the league with the highest tv revenue? 

     

     

       

    • Hook 'Em 1
  7. A poster or two mentioned earlier the PAC 12 should sell more of their T3 content on T2 level to get more revenue.  They didn't have very many games falling to T3 and those games won't command T2 increases.  A lot of weeks it was one game and something like OSU vs Az.    

     

  8. On 4/13/2020 at 11:28 AM, hiphopfroggy said:

    Yes, divisions may end up being the preference and the scheduling model could be determined by schools #15 and #16, depending on who those may be.

    Some of the reasons pods may be preferable:

     

    • More central time zone kickoffs for West coast teams. Getting the West coast teams earlier kickoffs one way or another seems to be an important part of maximizing their value, same for any team really, they need good kickoff times. Pods allows the west coast teams to play 4 central teams a year as opposed to 2 w/divisions. That has the West coast teams playing 2 games in central times zones every year as opposed to just once a year in divisions.  
    • Pods allow every team to play each other every other year as opposed to once every 4 years.
    • Minimized travel/optimal travel.  Difference schools may have differing opinions here, but generally speaking each team would travel to each pod location once a year. Which seems optimal. UT for example would still have a large portion of the conference schedule in Texas, then also travel to the Southwest(LA/Phoenix) and Northwest(S.F./Seattle/Portland) once a year, as well as Kansahoma(perhaps every other year w/RRR).
    • Maximize championship game matchups. Allows for potential conference championship games between UT and OU or Oregon USC, while also providing the conference some flexibility in maximizing the matchup. 

     

    TLDR:  For UT pods would mean playing K-State, Kansas, Ok St less and the west coast schools more. 

     

     

     

     

    Perhaps a north and a south division? 

     

    I see very little reason to do pods.  Instead go with a single set of division standings and play teams at different frequencies.  Pick 3-4 annual rivals, pick some that play at 50% of the time, some that play 33% of the time and maybe some that play as little as 25% of the time.   This allows the league the most flexibility in scheduling and getting the matchups they want. 

    Then you just take the top 2 for the conference championship or if we are down to 4 power leagues probably the top 4 for semi-finals.  As sports fans we could hope for the elimination of bowl games and increase the conference playoffs to 6 and run it similar to the NFL playoffs/seeding.     

  9. 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.  

  10. 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. 

    • Like 1
  11. On 10/24/2019 at 11:23 AM, gmr548 said:


    Agreed. The silver lining is that the ubiquitous nature of streaming has changed the game. TV footprints mean far less than they did a decade ago and will mean even less when companies like Amazon throw their hat in the ring for content without being tied to cable at all.

    What will get the most eyes on the sport is matchups between top programs and the regional rivalries that differentiate the sport from pro football. A move to eight team playoff allows for the majors to play each other OOC and generate those $$$ while getting fans more engaged with the undercard, both in terms of attendance and ratings, by playing more games between regional schools with deep ties.

    Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
     

    I completely disagree streaming doesn't have an effect whatsoever on whether regional rivalries.  Streaming is simply the delivery method.   Amazon may have money to throw at content but that doesn't determine which rivalries and what games are important to the general public.   

    Actually, I think there is a lot of argument that there may be sports revenue peak from a tv standpoint coming if not in 2025 or at least the next tv contract that may allow for consideration of going back to a more regionalized setup.  That may be within a P4 league but they would be smart to put those games back in place.  

    I think the sport overall would be better off if we get a P4 of 64-72 teams that negotiates their tv contract as one entity.  A competition of who makes more between the B1G or SEC is not going to be the best overall situation for the sport of CFB.  

     

    • Like 3
  12. 3 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

    Yeah, I'm definitely not advocating Notre Dame to the Big 12.  They fit the Big 10 perfectly, and if they had joined long ago, I don't think the 2010 realignment happens the way it does.

    I'm just saying if they were every willing to join the Big 10, I think the Big 10 would be happy to swap them for Nebraska who could come back to the Big 12, and then you would swap WVU for Arky with the SEC, which is also a win-win as the SEC is getting the better program over the last two decades, that is natural extension of their footprint, while we get a program that's a better geographic fit, old rivals of half the league, and a close drive for everyone.

    When talking about realignment ideas/fantasies I'm surprised we don't hear more about the B1G trying to add ND along with USC, UCLA, Stanford, CAL, UW & OR.  If we went away from divisions ND could play USC, Stanford, UM, MSU & Purdue every year as conference games in that setup.  Those were all the traditional rivals ND use to play every year on their schedule.   

  13. 3 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

    More media rights conversations:

    Tech giants ramp up the live sports battle royale

     

    Media rights are the biggest sector within the sports industry in North America, according to a new report from PwC. Amid a flurry of increased digital competition for rights, they are expected to be the fastest growing,

    Between the lines: More digital streamers, including Big Tech companies and media conglomerates, are vying to win the rights to lucrative sporting events, many of which are up for renegotiation over the next few years.

    CNBC reported last week that Amazon has tossed a bid into the ring for Disney's 22 regional sports networks. It comes amid a broader push by the tech giant to win live sports rights, like its Thursday night NFL streaming deal.

    John Skipper, who resigned as head of ESPN late last year, is back and looking to build a new global sports media giant in the U.S. called DAZN. Last week DAZN announced a deal with Major League Baseball that will allow it to show live look-ins throughout its prime-time programming in the U.S.

    Yes, but: As Bloomberg's Gerry Smith notes, "Sports is moving to the internet. But the internet still isn’t ready for sports."

    Last week, "AT&T Inc. was forced to make a pay-per-view golf match between Phil Mickelson and Tiger Woods free to watch on Friday after suffering a glitch processing customers’ online purchases."

    "In August, Amazon had problems live streaming the U.S. Open for U.K. viewers, with fans complaining about poor picture quality and functionality.

    "In July, YouTube’s TV service crashed while England and Croatia played in the World Cup semifinals."

    "In February, some Hulu viewers got error messages during the final moments of the Super Bowl.

    The bottom line: Digital streamers want to win sports rights to lure customers, but they're going to have to prove that their service will be a better live experience than linear television.

     

    I wonder if 5G speeds will be the catalyst for speed, reliability and capacity for sports streaming to become king over satellite/cable. 

    • Like 1
  14. The B12 needs to try and get Arkansas and Nebraska to rejoin the league.  I'm not saying it would happen but its a better fit for both schools and when you win your donations are a lot higher to the school and probably merchandise sales, etc. 

    To the networks the matchups between those two teams and B12 teams should be worth more than their current leagues inventory of games.  Those two additions would be strong enough to go to a 12 team league or maybe WVU takes Arkansas place in the SEC and kick Baylor out for 10.     

    • Fuck You 1
  15. 1 hour ago, Gaffords said:

    Why add anyone.  Just sit here quietly doing our thing. 

    There is a cancer slowly eating away at the PAC 12.  It's the same cancer we watched eat away at Nebraska. 

    And unless they can pull an extra 10 to 15 million per school out of their asses "over night" to close the gap on the SEC, BIG10, B12, this cancer is the deadly kind

    Wait until after the ACC Network launches next year and the numbers come in at year end...  It will be the death blow..

    USC and UCLA have had their foot out the door since the mid '70 when they almost lost it over the addition of the 'zona schools.  

    They were not happy when equal distribution was shoved down their throats. 

    They were not happy turning over their left but to the fail PAC-Network.

    They haven't been happy in awhile.

    I have shared before on other boards I think the best thing for viewership of current PAC schools football is for the league to be divided between two other league fan bases in other time zones that watch the sport at higher levels.  There is NOTHING they can do to fix fan viewership on the west coast but yet college football can write a whole section of the country off like that.   If they were divided between the B12 & B1G those schools would get more exposure because fans tend to watch other teams in their league play when their team is not on. 

    It would be nice if each league got 1 southern California and 1 northern California school(but I'm afraid the B1G might gobble up all 4 California schools Oregon and Washington but if at least Nebraska switched to the B12 to allow another spot for a cohesive PAC addition to the B1G it would be something for the B12).  When rivals were separated play the game OOC like the SEC & ACC do.  

    What I would like to see and I think would be best for CFB as a whole: 

    B1G: USC, Stanford, Az., Oregon, Wash., drops Nebraska (18 teams)

    B12: adds UCLA, Cal, ASU, Col., Utah & Neb (16 teams)

    What would probably happen:

    B1G: USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Wash., Oregon

    B12: Az., ASU, Col., Utah - If this happened it would be at least a consolation prize if Neb. came back but the B12 gaining some real estate in California would really help Nebraska recruiting wise I think.  

    ***I think either of those additions would really give the B1G a recruiting pitch for ND.  A league that had USC, Stanford, Mich., MSU & Purdue already would be a league that allowed for the Irish biggest rivals over the years as conference games. 

     

     

  16. 23 hours ago, torre said:

    Stephen Ross,  solid writer at Barking Carnival,  discusses the B12 TV viewership dilemma.

     

    It’s been a crummy week – somebody broke into my car and stole my golf clubs – a capital offense if there every was one, and to fit my lousy mood I think it is time to once again beat a dead horse, AKA the Big 12’s long-term viability.

    On the field the Big 12 is solid – two teams in the Top Ten (OU & W. Virginia) with #15 Texas and #16 Iowa State playing this week. That’s not the issue. The national perception of the league as a draw is. This is a top-heavy league with almost no middle-class when it comes to drawing viewer interest.

    Take West Virginia. We know first hand how good they are. They play an exciting brand of offense, one that averages 41 points a game. And outside the league hardly anyone is watching. The Mountaineers have played on TV 9 times this season and the total viewership for all 9 games is 12,736,000.

    Over 11,500,000 watched Alabama vs. LSU.

    That 12,700,000 includes the 4,400,000 who watched the game against Texas a couple of weeks ago. That is at the heart of the problem for the league.

    We are through 11 weeks of the season and eight of those have pretty much been dominated by intra-conference play. A look at the weekly ratings will quickly point out basic weakness or lack of depth in the Big 12.

    Through these eight weeks only one time was a Big 12 game the most-watched contest of the week.

    Can you guess what game it is? I bet you can.

    Texas-OU had 5.6 million viewers week 6, with LSU-Florida next at 4.7 million. For the rest of the season the SEC has had the top-rated game four times, the Big 10 three.

    But again the roots of the problem go deeper. Here is a look at the Big 12 games that drew the highest audiences each week and where they ranked. In week 4 TCU @ Texas was the most-watched Big 12 game at 2.9 million and it was 5th on the list.

    In week 5 Baylor @ Oklahoma had 2.8 million viewers and it was 5th on the list for the week.

    In week 7 Baylor @ Texas was seen by 1.8 million viewers and it was 9th on the weekly list.

    In week 8 Oklahoma @ TCU (2.5 million) was 7th.

    In week 9 Texas @ Oklahoma St. was 2nd with 3.5 million viewers. Next was Kansas St. @ Oklahoma at 10th.

    In week 10 West Virginia @ Texas was third with Oklahoma @ Texas Tech at #7 with 3.1 million viewers.

    Last week Oklahoma St. @ Oklahoma had 3.9 million (#4) while Texas @ Texas Tech drew 2.7 million (7th).

    Notice a pattern anywhere? The most-watched Big 12 game not involving Texas or OU was the October 13th West Virginia @ Iowa St game. It drew 1.3 million viewers. That same day Nebraska @ Northwestern had 2.4 million watching.

    The fact that Texas and Oklahoma are carrying the league when it comes to national exposure is no surprise. The idea of stealing teams from other Power 5 leagues is absurd and merely rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. I do believe that things will get better because I have full faith in Chris Del Conte and others to find the best long-term home for our program.

    Now if I can only find the SOB who stole my clubs.

    https://www.barkingcarnival.com/2018/11/14/18095134/tv-ratings-the-canary-in-the-big-12-coal-mine

    This is why it was important for the league to stay at 10 teams, so games involving UT & OU are a higher % of league games.  If we compare the B12 against the B1G & SEC they lose, if we compare the B12 against PAC 12 & ACC it probably looks good. 

    Honestly, what you point out above is why this league holds out for a Neb/Ark. combo or stays at 10 until we know there is no hope of getting them or make 2 additions that would still give the league a shot at them in the future.  Why?  Do you really think adding Az & ASU do that much for the ratings?  nope  Colorado,  Utah or even Missouri? nope.  The PERCEPTION would be its a win if the league picked up any of those 5 P5's I said nope to but the reality is it wouldn't help the ratings like regional rivals Neb. & Arkansas would unless something crazy happened involving USC/UCLA.  

    I can argue Houston & BYU would help ratings every bit as much as Az/ASU, Col., Utah or Missouri(although Missouri would be  nice game for Ks/KSU & ISU and if we could only get Neb or Ark & Missouri as the 2nd I would pull the trigger).  Some of Houston's games against B12 schools have done very well ratings wise the last few years.  

    Could OU & UT go to the SEC?  Sure.  Would it be good for college football as a national sport? absolutely not.   

    My hope if networks look at this from an economic stand point of a teams worth in each league from an eyeball perspective.  IMO, Arkansas isn't really anymore valuable to the SEC than WVU would be but would be a lot more valuable in the B12. Nebraska is definitely undervalued in the current B1G setup but again could be a huge value to the B12 broadcasts.  Maybe the networks will think in terms of maximizing the broadcast potential rather than just stacking 2 leagues in the future.   

     

        

     

×
×
  • Create New...