Jump to content

bullet

Full Members
  • Posts

    3444
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by bullet

  1. 5 minutes ago, Red Five said:

    I guess there are no flex scheduling options, but to not have #1 Texas with a Manning making his first start on actual tv is just amazing.

    I thought all the night games were because we were on TV.  I would have expected afternoon or noon.

  2. On 9/16/2024 at 7:19 AM, hookem2010 said:

    In answer to the new site motto, I don't know what the fuck a warhawk is, but I would suggest ULM to give their name a little tweak to firehawk.

    Imagine, you're on your ranch in the Australian outback, watching a wildfire make its way to your property. Then, by a stroke of luck, it starts to burn out. You're safe! But what's that, a fucking black kite picking  up a burning stick and carrying it past the extinguishing fire line, to start a new fire in order to flush up prey? God damn it...

    They were Indians so they had to make up a stupid new mascot name.

  3. On 9/15/2024 at 8:40 PM, Elmer_Fudd said:

    Any chance this game may get moved to the actual ESPN or SEC Netowrk channel instead of the SECN+ or whatever it's on since this'll be Arch's first start and now being ranked #1?

    Aggy vs. Bowling Green is also relegated to streaming so Mickey can show Ga. Southern vs. Ole Miss on the SECN and Miami at South Florida on ESPN.

    Are they really pushing streaming or does somebody in Connecticut just hate the state of Texas?

  4. https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/pac-12-gutting-mountain-west-sparks-fresh-realignment-stress-at-schools-outside-power-four/ar-AA1qRIQw

     

    "...The first level of those concerns revolves around simple math: Until the Pac-12 lands a media deal, there’s no guarantee of a significant increase from what Memphis makes in the American Athletic (estimated to be in the $8 million-$9 million range). But the valuations being discussed for the new Pac-12 by its media consultants in the $10 million-$12 million range are only theoretical at this point, and may not make a meaningful difference financially when you consider increased travel costs.

    Crucially, though, maximizing the value of the new Pac-12 is also going to depend on selling a true “best of the rest” configuration that Memphis and others would need to commit to with a Grant of Rights agreement that locks them into the league for the length of the contract.

    That illustrates the other reason why patience may win out at Memphis. After an unsuccessful pursuit of Big 12 membership, school officials there are now eyeing the ACC as a potential landing spot in the next handful of years....

    The Pac-12’s resurrection, though, has forced Group of Five administrators to acknowledge the reality that either one of the current leagues will fold or more FCS members are going to be brought up to FBS to backfill amidst the game of musical chairs.

    Both options are bad, but the latter may be worse...."

     

  5. 4 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

    One elephant in the room in the future is the quality gap between the Big 10 and SEC.  The Big 10 just isn't that deep with elite teams.  2/3rds of the league are Big 12/ACC schools with nicer, richer parents.  The SEC is about 25% schools that fit that bill, by comparison.

    Another thing is people keep asking "what's the end game?" like there's a tight cabal that has a specific outcome in mind and is just slow rolling the whole thing.  I think it is FAR more chaotic and random than that, with decisions being made on what's profitable in that moment, with no centralized goal whatsoever.  Over the last 20 years there have been many guarantees in realignment that didn't pan out.  The 4 x 16 superconferences with the champions in the playoffs made up of pods, with the conferences being the Big 10, SEC, Pac 12, and ACC as the Big 12 died was the guarantee.  Now the Pac 12 is dead, and the Big 12 is as well positioned as the ACC if not better.  The current guarantee du jour is that the Big 10 and SEC will break away into somewhere between 32-48 schools into an NFL Lite.

    I have little doubt there will be future brand consolidation (the big ACC brands going to the SEC/Big 10) but I don't think that straight AFC/NFC model unfolds like that.  I think there's some kind of split in D1 with the current G5 in one group and the current P4 in one group.  The Big 10 and SEC will have the bulk of the money and power, but whatever playoff exists will have some token access to the third conference (if we even call them that at that point) that shakes out when the ACC left-behinds that still care about sports merge with the Big 12 into a third conference.  I believe that ultimately walling off access to the roughly 60 schools not in a top 48 would lead to less interest in that level of the sport, and therefore less revenue created.

    Basically, I think it continues on the same path it's kind of on already, just with some more deck reshuffling and brand consolidation.

    There is no end game.  It always changes.

    The conferences are getting so big, there are going to be differences and schools dissatisfied with their number of conference titles.  Every conference that has gotten to 16 or more has eventually split.  Its happened before, it will happen again.

    But I think it will take a while this time, maybe 20-30 years before the Big 10 and SEC crack up.

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Drool 1
  6. 44 minutes ago, Evil Bill Obrien said:

    Gonna be interesting to see how things evolve for the new-PAC, they willing take a flyer on UTSA and either Texas State or UNT (or maybe Rice?) to get a couple Texas schools in the footprint even if as they currently stand viewership support doesn't really add up financially but might pan out in the future? 

    Would love for Texas State to get together in a conference with UTSA again and whatever form new-PAC takes does seem like an optimal way for that to happen, 2nd to AAC getting raided for Tulane and Memphis but leaving UTSA behind and Texas State getting the call to fill in there. 

    Feels good possibly having multiple decent possibilities open in realignment for once, last time it was "here is your Sunbelt spot, take or get left for dead on the side of the road somewhere"

     

    https://sports.yahoo.com/go-west-the-next-wave-of-realignment-is-in-memphis-hands-135625431.html

    Article today.  Apparently its all on Memphis.  PAC wants Memphis, Tulane, USF and UTSA.  Projecting $12-$15 million total conference distributions (TV, NCAA bb, etc.).  Memphis isn't thrilled and worried about the validity of the projections.

  7. 14 minutes ago, 'stache said:

    This. You don't even have to be mean about it, they're the newbs and have history with UCF and Cincy. WVU is the one that would be upset but they really don't have an argument for any other pod because of they're location. And to your earlier point, OSU should be with the Texas schools.

    West: UU, BYU, AU, ASU

    South: OSU, TT, TCU, BU

    North: CU, KU, KSU, ISU

    East: WVU, UC, UCF, UH

    Play your pod every year plus two from the other pods. This is for scheduling only, still divisionless for standings and CCG purposes.

    It makes too much sense, so of course it didn't happen, because college football has lost its fucking mind. 

    UH has barely played UCF.  They don't really care about Cincinnati.

  8. On 9/18/2024 at 2:59 PM, TKthunder2 said:

    I personally don’t think you’ll see a true super league, ironically I think we’ll see the 12 team playoff as a turning point going back to the old bowl system (hear me out).

    SEC and Big Ten see the bulk of the 12 team playoff selections and the other games against the B12/ACC/G5 are mostly non competitive (Cincy) or they win the first round and fail the second round (TCU/UGA) which damages the product overall. At the same time more pressure will be placed on CCGs and especially the loser (or winner if they go to 16).

    The best solution would be to bring the majority of the playoffs in house. CCG weekend becomes round one of a 4 team conference playoff. The 1&2 seed host home games, then round two on NYD becomes the new CCG (SEC at Atlanta, Big Ten in the Rose which solves 2 major issues for them). Then two weeks later the winners of these games play against each other in a BigTen/SEC challenge (not an official national championship, but it is defacto).

    After this we go back to the old bowl/poll system. The round 1 playoff losers can play in the bowls versus Big 12/ACC/G5 teams just like they always have. They can still do a NY6 type bowl arrangement and have contractual bowl games so this avoids many of the pitfalls of antitrust because it’s just going back to a previous system.

    SEC and Big Ten keep what they kill. Early OOC games and bowl games can still be played. I think this is a more likely future especially since it came out that the networks considered the first round playoff games to less than desirable. The expansion to 12 was to satisfy the B12/ACC/G5/ND but if the Big Ten/SEC can do their own thing and each get 4 spots where their games are more valued, this seems like the most obvious solution especially if they add in ND/FSU/Clemson and a few others into the mix.

    There's a political factor in that scenario they really don't want to get into.  I think it was Sankey who talked about when they tried to get more exclusive, they always ran into legal and political problems.  Most likely, I think they just spend a lot of schools into irrelevance.

  9. On 9/15/2024 at 9:10 AM, Underdog said:

    Didn't see that one, there was a play in the UK/UGa game where you UK was called for facemask,correct call, but on that same play a UK ballcarrier had his facemask grabbed and helmet eventually came off... No flag on that.  So what should've been offsetting penalties was the penalty on UK alone.  It wouldn't have changed the outcome of the game most likely but bullshit is bullshit. 

    Well there was the unsportsmanlike on Kentucky where he drove the guy down and tackled him blocking.  It could have been both ways, but probably should have been just on UK.  But after that was over a different Georgia player comes over and shoves the UK player down right by the refs.  That should definitely been unsportsmanlike, but they didn't call it.

    6 hours ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

    More annoying is really starting to see a concerted effort by broadcasters/commentators to back the refs and paint whatever picture is needed to support the ref calls even in cases where it seems obvious they got it wrong.

    Yeah.  I've seen a lot of that this year.

  10. Don't remember the exact numbers, but there was one year, the top Texas player we got was something like #15 in the state and I think A&M got only 1 of the top 11 and OU 1 of the top 11.  The next year, Texas, Texas A&M and OU got something like 8 of the top 11, dominating in a way I don't remember happening.  UT hasn't done quite as well since then, but its not as bad as it got before.  And we are in the running for 5 star players around the country.  I think we just picked up the #1 safety in the country for 2026.  He plays in Georgia.

  11. 4 hours ago, 'stache said:

     

    You never struggled in recruiting, just got burned with some coaching hires that didn't work out. OU is currently in that situation I think. It's all about the money.

    You weren't watching the Texas recruiting closely.  The difference makers were going out of state.  We got plenty of good players, but the great players started to elude us.  A lot of that had to do with the 4 team playoff.  But a lot had to do with network's focusing on the Big 10 and SEC while paying limited attention to the Big 12 and ACC and ignoring the Pac 12.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  12. 4 hours ago, WelfareBuysMyWeed said:

    Sounds like you are missing chromosomes. We moved to the SEC for money.

    Actually we moved because Alabama, Georgia, Ohio St. and Clemson were coming into Texas and taking the blue chips.  The money was the least of our concerns.  As DeLoss said, "We are the Joneses."  and "We have money." to the Pac 10.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  13. 5 hours ago, TrashMaster G said:

    What a load of crap. This is a totally false narrative.

    And why is he so pissed? Exactly what are OSU and WSU supposed to do given their current situation?

    Using the war chest to create a new conference makes all the sense in the world.

    Well he's wrong about Texas, OU, USC and UCLA and their motivations and how logical it was.  But as far as the MWC schools, he's spot on.  They're trading getting 3 peanuts and a pecan for 3 peanuts and an almond.

    • Like 1
  14. 38 minutes ago, petscii said:

    R E L E G A T I O N  is the next logical step.

    the second one looks better in binary for 2.   

    Just get rid of the stupid number!!!!

    Why look stupid like the Big 12, Big 10 and Atlantic 10?

    SEC and ACC are good enough without numbers.

    Fact is that if this deal doesn't blow up like the Boise St./SDSU to AAC deal, the numbers will change over time.

    Its not like the number has a lot of history.  13 years as Pac 12.  33 years as Pac 10.  14 years as Pac 8.

  15. 5 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

    I think there's certainly a chance.  I'm just not sure those do any more for you than schools like UNLV or Air Force. 

    I would be curious to get the Texan perspective, but from the outside it seems like Texas State and UTSA are the G5 Texas schools with the biggest upside in terms of actually drawing a following.  I might have put UNT there at one point, but it seems like those places have more of a base for whatever reason.

    I don't think Texas St. has any upside potential.   The students all go to Austin on weekends.  Its only 30 miles form Austin.

  16. 5 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

    I think it's funny that the MWC formally said "nah" to the merger proposal and is now getting raided by those they rejected.

    It's like they learned nothing from the Pac 12 rejecting the Irate 8.  It's the exact same scenario playing out the next rung down the ladder.

    No.  Its WSU/OSU who didn't want to merge.  MWC was all for it.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  17. 6 hours ago, LTbear said:

    WSU and OSU have all the PAC settlement money (several tens of millions) to help with that. 

    Its going to cost $111 million just for those 4 schools.  $17 each exit fees and $43 million as part of the contract with the MWC.

    I just don't see how its worth it to dump a few schools.  There really isn't much difference in the MWC after Boise St.

     

  18. On 8/31/2024 at 11:49 AM, statsman said:

    There is a lot of bs in this post. 
     
    Who are the blue bloods? Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, USC, for sure. That’s over 20% of the conference.  
     
    The middle class is Nebraska, Wisconsin, Oregon, Washington, Iowa, Illinois, Michigan State. Any one of these would be the tent pole program in the B12. They have bigger stadiums, and a lot more alums and fans tuning into games. There are very good reasons the B1G makes twice the TV revenue as the B12. 
     
    The B1G lower class looks like B12 teams, except for Rutgers, which looks like a Sunbelt program. 

    Illinois???   And while they have bigger fan bases, KSU, Okie St., TCU, Baylor and Colorado have had seasons better than Wisconsin, Iowa and Michigan St. can claim in the last 50 years.  Oregon, Washington and Nebraska, are of course, different stories.  The Big 10 lower class looks like Kansas in football.  Its just that the Big 12 has nothing to match the top 7 or 8.

×
×
  • Create New...