Jump to content

bullet

Full Members
  • Posts

    3184
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by bullet

  1. 53 minutes ago, Saint Austin said:

    Because the MAC sucks and provides less exposure than an independent schedule would? I'm sure they'd take being in the American for football-only, but I don't think that offer has ever been extended.

    Its possible.  Its getting harder to schedule as an Indy.  They've only got 3 or 4 P4 schools on their schedule now.

    WKU was interested a year ago, but couldn't find a partner then.

  2. 15 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

    UMass joining the MAC as a full member. No longer going to be a fb independent.

    A lot of people were expecting them to be #12 in CUSA instead of #13 in the MAC.

    Delaware announced they were joining CUSA in late November.  Sure that's somewhere on this thread.

    With the Atlantic 10 becoming a 1 or 2 bid league, I guess UMass decided it wasn't worth staying for basketball:

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/sources-umass-set-to-become-13th-member-of-mac-for-25-26-season/ar-BB1iVNwr

  3. On 2/20/2024 at 11:49 PM, 'stache said:

    Let's say #3 UGA loses the CCG and is (12-1). And let's say #15 KSU is 9-3 and wins the Big 12, gets a first round bye, and plays UGA in round two. KSU then defeats UGA. 

    I suspect UGA will complain that KSU had an undeserved advantage because of the bye. They'll argue it was undeserved because KSU is lower ranked. 

    Substitute any BIG/SEC team and any XII/ACC team. I suspect it'll happen within the first few years. 

    Let's be real.  #15 KSU would be 11-1 and #3 UGA would be 11-2 because of SOS.

  4. On 2/20/2024 at 5:13 PM, Horn of Gabriel said:

    I predict the SEC/B1G push for a 3+3+3+3 model.  3 auto bids each for the top 3 B1G and SEC teams.  3 auto bids for the next 3 top rated conf champions, typically Big12, ACC, and a G5.  And then 3 at-large bids for the next 3 highest ranked that don't fit one of those first 3 (could be another SEC/B1G, ND, Big12, ACC, G5 whoever).

    That model gives a floor of at least 3 spots to the P2 conferences, with upside to get 4 or even 5 in the playoff in a hot year.  It retains access for the Big12, ACC and G5 to get at least 1 and possibly more, and ND can still enter if they're top 12.  They'll also do a rev split model like the NCAA MBB tournament where the most money goes to the most bids and who goes the furthest into the playoff.  Bottom line, most years the B1G and SEC will walk away with 70% of the revenue from the playoff.

    Does anyone know on the NCAA MBB tournament how the rev split works today exactly?  If Texas makes the final 4 they make more than if they get to the sweet 16 but do they keep all of it or is there a % to the conference?  I assume the conference takes some and the school takes some?

    Kind of a cowards way to do it.  Does the SEC want to look like a bunch of aggys?  Earn your spots.  Get incentive pay based on spots earned.  Maybe average over 2-3 years so it doesn't go way up and down.

    I don't like 3 guaranteed for the Big 10 and SEC at all.  What is even more stupid about that idea is that you have to do all kinds of stupid NFL type tiebreaks to figure out who #3 is.  

    With 12 teams in a 5/7 model, the SEC would average around 4 in the BCS/CFP era.  Big 10 would be about 3.5.  But it goes up and down.

  5. https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39520319/college-football-playoff-board-managers-expected-vote-5-plus-7-format

    WSU/OSU seem to be coming to some sense on 5-7.  If they try to burn down the next two years to get a guarantee later, they are likely on nobody's list for expansion (or scheduling other than in-state schools).

     

    ""...For our two schools in the Pac-12 as it's currently configured, there is no question that five-seven, with seven at-larges, is better than six at-larges," Schulz said. "That's part of the discussion we're having within the conference footprint -- or the two schools -- is that very point. There's no question our football coaches are going to want to compete for one of those seven slots, and seven is going to be better than six."

    Schulz said he views the revenue distribution as a separate conversation from the 5+7 model, and he's not trying to use one to influence the other.

    "We've got to be a good colleague in the college football world," he said. "We asked for the opportunity to have a hearing on [revenue distribution], that was granted. We have to be really careful about saying, 'If you don't give us exactly what we've asked for, we're going to hold up some other things.' The decision has to be one made by us and Oregon State and we're still going through that decision-making process leading up to that meeting next week. There's no assumption to be made that we have to get X to get Y, either way....""

     

  6. On 2/5/2024 at 10:10 PM, 'stache said:

    Oklahoma State started a hockey team a few years ago and next year will compete in the American Collegiate Hockey League as part of the Texas Collegiate Hockey Conference which includes UT. It’s described as a “club sport” so I think they cover their own costs by fundraising. The OSU team plays in Tulsa and next season will be at a new small practice arena built for our minor league hockey club. I’ll probably watch some games in person because it’s close and they serve beer. 
     

    As far as official NCAA sports I’d be curious to know what P5 schools have added sports in recent years. I only seem to recall schools dropping sports and only smaller schools adding sports. OSU built a soccer stadium but we only have a women’s team. It would make a ton of sense to add men’s soccer and women’s Volleyball since they would use Gallagher Iba Arena. Both sports have gained a lot of popularity in this area. But costs are always mentioned when new sports are mentioned, even for those two sports that already have facilities, so probably won’t happen. 

    I don't remember any school adding a men's sport.  A number of schools have added women's sports.

  7. 2 hours ago, USC_TMB said:

    Holy crap… we all knew that the ncaa’s demise, the forming of a Super Conference/“alliance”, and the reconfiguration of sports broadcasting was coming… at some point down line. The speed of all this happening is mind-boggling. Obviously all of this has been in the works for years, just waiting for the first domino to fall, but damn. This went from zero-to-100 like a rocket.

    https://www.foxsports.com/stories/college-football/heres-what-college-football-will-look-like-in-2026

    Somebody on another board found this article from 2016.  This guy predicted the drivers (TV contracts, paying players, content instead of coverage) and the time frame.  Called the expansion of the playoff.  It could have been written today.  There isn't the 24 team super league he predicts, but people are thinking about it.

     

    "...The next window for mass shuffling will start around 2023, when all five* power conferences’ primary rights deals come up within a three-year span. (The Big Ten has not yet formalized its forthcoming TV deals, but reports indicate they will be for six years, ending in 2023. The SEC’s contract with CBS expires in 2024, but its ESPN/SEC Network deal is in place through 2034.) Perhaps more important, the College Football Playoff's 12-year contract ends with the 2025 season. As I’m about to outline, the next big realignment shift will go hand in hand with the evolution of the playoff.

    Only two years into the four-team system, you can already see what direction the sport is headed. The playoff race now dwarfs all other aspects of the season, including the other bowl games...."

     

    • Hook 'Em 1
  8. https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2024/02/06/espn-fox-and-warner-bros-discovery-to-launch-joint-sports-streaming-platform-this-year.html

     

    This will have a significant impact.  

    "Walt Disney's ESPN, Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery plan to launch a joint sports streaming service this fall, giving consumers a new way to access marquee live sports for the first time, the companies said Tuesday....

     

    From Disney, that includes ESPN and its sister networks, such as ESPN2, ESPNU, SECN, ACCN, ESPNEWS, as well as the ABC broadcast network. Warner Bros. Discovery's networks that showcase sports are TNT, TBS and TruTV. Fox will include the Fox broadcast station along with FS1, FS2 and BTN...."

  9. 5 hours ago, ImissWallyPryor said:

    Yet we don’t have have sports for athletes who have dedicated years of their life playing…wrestling (mostly men), gymnastics (both), soccer (men), rodeo (both), lacrosse (both), etc. Hockey would make more sense from that perspective than rowing. 

    We can afford it.  We probably should add men's soccer and women's gymnastics.  We should be able to shortly be nationally competitive in both.  Don't know that we would ever be regularly competitive in wrestling or lacrosse.  Those sports are just bigger elsewhere.

    • Like 1
  10. 6 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

    The AAU also changed the formula to reduce ag subsidies as no longer dollar for dollars which hurt schools like Nebraska and Iowa State.

    They never counted those as they were not competitively bid.  Its just that medical and engineering research dollars shot through the roof, leaving those schools without medical or engineering schools behind.

  11. 18 hours ago, statsman said:

    I think they do mean something. Ultimately, universities are academic institutions. Presidents will sell out to athletics, because fund raising is a huge part of a president’s job, and athletics brings alums back and lets a president “sell”. Boards have alums serving, and they want to the alma mater win. 
     
    In this world, academic stature still means something. Fans may want their school to win like Michigan, but faculties and deans want the academic rep of Michigan. Texas can have discussions with Michigan, about common goals and viewpoints, that it can’t have with Clemson. 
     
    I don’t know how long it will take before public universities regular funding is used to pay NIL, but the schools that care about academic reputation will be the ones working to forestall it. 

    If so, why did Nebraska lose their AAU membership after joining the Big 10?  And South Florida got admitted while in the AAC?

    Sure, it means Stanford and Cal get consideration for the ACC.  But it still took SMU's boosters to buy Stanford and Cal in.  Texas, Florida, Georgia, Vanderbilt, Rice and others have all done fine academically without being in the Ivy League or Big 10 or even the Pac 12 or ACC.  The academic alliances have nothing to do with conference affiliation.  Texas is working on the Giant Magellan Telescope in Chile with (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_Magellan_Telescope

  12. 18 hours ago, YGIFS said:

    Yeah, point taken.  with the realignment...things will be markedly different.  I was speaking from a historical perspective where the SEC's administrative leadership was absolute garbage and the Big 10 was the model of public higher ed research for a half century or more.  To be fair though, don't lump in Georgia or A&M with Texas and Vandy next time though ;)  Apples and shit Oranges to be honest.  But yep. this massive reshuffle is gonna change everything from research alliances to athletics to intercollegiate club sports and all else in between.  This was always gonna happen eventually, but it is just plain weird seeing it play out so fast and so vast.  Not at all what I thought would happen 10 years ago.  But probably for the best...

    Its not going to make any difference on academic alliances.  That is not impacted by sports conferences.

  13. On 2/3/2024 at 7:32 AM, ButtFumble said:

    yea I don't think this will work out how people think it will

    Charter and ESPN just went through a long negotiation about cramming channels on lower tier cable packages like the ACCn and the SEC SEC SECn and there have been other pushes against it before.....several systems took the BTN off their lower tiers several years back

    the ACC is sitting there thinking they are going to get $1.23 per sub per month for all of California, and Texas based on Cal, Stanford, and SMU now being "in state" and there is no chance that cable companies are going to let that go on forever even if current contracts call for it

    now I am seeing a lot of reports that all the magical "streaming" is going to shit too because companies are doing the exact same shit....putting 400 channels no one wants and no one gives a fuck about in their packages and streaming charges are getting as high or higher than cable bills.....and ESPN still sucks complete cocks at streaming they are probably the worst of the worst and they think they are just going to bypass cable companies, cram all their shit in a package and either offer it themselves for $20+ a month or make streaming companies take all of their shit

    people are dropping streaming left and right already and even more are going with the periodic sign up when there are sports seasons they are interested on or others are signing up and binge watching the good shows and then dropping it a couple of months later and doing other shit with their money

    if you cut out 88 plus D1-A teams from D1-A you can count on a very high % of people just not signing up for anything ESPN at all and their revenues will go to shit....of course some will say "well those 40 in the highest division will just take the bulk of the money", but as it is now with "cramming" of channels the bulk of the money for ESPN is people that do not give a fuck about sports at all....start losing rabid fans from 88 teams and it is going to be an issue

    college sports is not like major leagues and really a lot of things about major league sports are pretty shitty and getting shittier....not really something to emulate especially with ESPN in the lead of making it happen

    With UVerse we've had one of the 4 local network channels off the air for several weeks.  Just yesterday another one was off.  The cable companies are not rolling over for anyone.

  14. 6 hours ago, ButtFumble said:

    yea I don't think this will work out how people think it will

    Charter and ESPN just went through a long negotiation about cramming channels on lower tier cable packages like the ACCn and the SEC SEC SECn and there have been other pushes against it before.....several systems took the BTN off their lower tiers several years back

    the ACC is sitting there thinking they are going to get $1.23 per sub per month for all of California, and Texas based on Cal, Stanford, and SMU now being "in state" and there is no chance that cable companies are going to let that go on forever even if current contracts call for it

    now I am seeing a lot of reports that all the magical "streaming" is going to shit too because companies are doing the exact same shit....putting 400 channels no one wants and no one gives a fuck about in their packages and streaming charges are getting as high or higher than cable bills.....and ESPN still sucks complete cocks at streaming they are probably the worst of the worst and they think they are just going to bypass cable companies, cram all their shit in a package and either offer it themselves for $20+ a month or make streaming companies take all of their shit

    people are dropping streaming left and right already and even more are going with the periodic sign up when there are sports seasons they are interested on or others are signing up and binge watching the good shows and then dropping it a couple of months later and doing other shit with their money

    if you cut out 88 plus D1-A teams from D1-A you can count on a very high % of people just not signing up for anything ESPN at all and their revenues will go to shit....of course some will say "well those 40 in the highest division will just take the bulk of the money", but as it is now with "cramming" of channels the bulk of the money for ESPN is people that do not give a fuck about sports at all....start losing rabid fans from 88 teams and it is going to be an issue

    college sports is not like major leagues and really a lot of things about major league sports are pretty shitty and getting shittier....not really something to emulate especially with ESPN in the lead of making it happen

    28 members of FBS were FCS or not even playing football 30 years ago.  19 of those weren't FBS or weren't playing football only 20 years ago.  16 of those moved up 2012 or later.  There is a lot of FBS that wouldn't be missed.  As for Division I, 40 years ago over 100 of the 364 were Division II, III, NAIA or not playing sports.  You could lop the bottom 10 conferences out of NCAA basketball and nobody would notice as they hardly have any fans.

  15. 2 minutes ago, bullet said:

    Well the current Alabama president IS an aggy.

    And the Tennessee president got his bachelor's at Tennessee, but his master's at OU!

    I thought when I looked it up I would find a bunch of UNC, Cal and Michigan degrees.

  16. 4 hours ago, YGIFS said:

    This has got to be an awkward moment for some of them.  Actual, credentialed academic leaders from Wisconsin, Northwestern, Michigan, et. al. having to sit with dipshits from Tennessee, South Carolina, and Alabama.  Some of those SEC schools have leadership that can barely read.  Meantime, the leading research public Ivies have to make nice with them to achieve some monetary gains?  Whew...

    Well the current Alabama president IS an aggy.

  17. 1 hour ago, mdmost said:

    I guess going hard at Tennessee was a bad choice for the NCAA. 

    Interview with the two commissioners

    https://sports.yahoo.com/sec-big-ten-uniting-to-tackle-pervasive-issues-in-college-athletics--pressures-are-mounting-172832810.html

    Two key quotes from that article:

     

    "The joint advisory board is tasked with tackling the most pressing challenges before the industry in what Big Ten and SEC commissioners describe as an “urgent” mission to find solutions for issues such as ongoing antitrust lawsuits, most notably the multi-billion dollar House case; disagreements over the NCAA’s new governance proposal, Project DI; and the unsettled landscape of athlete transfer movement, tampering charges and name, image and likeness (NIL) inducements....

     

    Settling on an acceptable athlete compensation model is perhaps the most pressing issue before the Big Ten and SEC’s advisory group, as well as the other FBS leagues. A new model could rectify both the House v. NCAA antitrust case and the current landscape of college football and basketball recruiting — a space which coaches and administrators describe as a pay-for-play, unregulated free agent marketplace...."

  18. https://www.on3.com/teams/florida-state-seminoles/news/fsu-takes-aim-at-former-acc-commissioner-john-swofford-in-amended-complaint/

    FSU amends their lawsuit.

    "In a 59-page amended complaint for declaratory judgment — 21 pages longer than the original complaint Florida State filed in December — the university took sharp aim at former ACC Commissioner John Swofford for a number of allegedly self-serving actions it says cost member schools millions upon millions of dollars. FSU’s attorneys also rebutted several claims from, and questioned the legality of, the ACC’s complaint...."

  19. On 1/17/2024 at 10:42 PM, Biff Tannen said:

    Gotta have a meeting about having a meeting. 

    WSU and OSU didn't have all their legal ducks in a row so they asked for more time.  They did approve the 8 team minimum to qualify as a conference.

    When you look at the whole BCS/CFP era, in 26 years the current G5 would only have gotten 17 bids in a 6/6 model.  Most of those #5 and #6 champs are schools now in the P4, either BE schools or the Big 12 newbies (UL, TCU, Cincy, UH, UCF).  So a 5/7 gives the current G5 teams better access than they would have had in the past with a 6/6 when the Pac 12 was still around.  And 8 of those 17 would have been Boise when they had their great streak.

×
×
  • Create New...