Jump to content

USC Traveler

Full Members
  • Posts

    373
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by USC Traveler

  1. 4 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

    This has become the most boring realignment storyline yet.

    Wait until they actually starting playing each other.  That's when the excitement starts.  

    Cal at BC!!!         SMU at Syracuse!!!!    Wake at Stanford late night!!!   All played in front of dozens of fans!!!

     

    Are you feeling the excitement yet ?  🤣

    • Haha 1
  2. 8 hours ago, Uncle Nate said:

    most of the time, it's a Saddle Tramp who shoots the blanks after a score

    After reading about Tech coeds for 10 years plus on Shaggy and Surly, I thought "Wow- Tech really embraces it and calls their cheerleaders the Saddle Tramps!"

     

    Needless to say I was incredibly disappointed to google it and find out that wasn't the case.

     

    • Like 1
    • Haha 4
  3. 32 minutes ago, Jabberwocky said:

    Again, what is the incentive for the "no votes" to change their votes? 

    Say that CalFord get 10MM per year each for joining the ACC, and SMU gets nothing. How would the conference come to an agreement in spreading the rest of the 52MM per year pro rata revenue, and why would that satisfy all the "no votes"? 

    Would schools like NC, NC State, FSU, Miami, Virginia, Virginia Tech and Clemson also receive a negotiated, clear exit ramp for leaving the conference early?

     

    I agree.  That's the key hurdle.  That's why I said in the previous post: "If the existing ACC schools agree to split the extra tv $ plus playoff $ in a way that would give FSU and Clemson enough extra money to keep them in the ACC, that would be a huge win for ESPN."

    If they have $55m in extra revenue to work with, the existing schools could agree to divide the money based on tv ratings in a way that sent the vast majority of the money to FSU and Clemson.  $20m+/yr each would put Clemson and FSU closer to an even footing with the BIG/SEC.  Combine that with what they've already agreed to on the playoff money, and there would be years with Clemson/FSU in the playoff where they could make more than a BIG/SEC team.

    With the 12 team format starting next year, FSU and Clemson could cash in on playoff money on a regular basis.

    I think this is why FSU has been so vocal in public- to scare the schools that will be left behind into agreeing to something like this.

    It's well worth it if you're BC, Cuse, Wake, etc. to keep Clemson and FSU in the ACC and keep cashing their current checks as long as possible.

     

    • Hook 'Em 1
  4. 31 minutes ago, Jabberwocky said:

    Things getting weird on Twitter. San Fransisco reporter now chirping about CalFord...

     

     

    This smells like BS from Cal to try to put pressure on the ACC.

    ESPN has much greater motivation to put Stanford, Cal, and SMU in the ACC.  If the existing ACC schools agree to split the extra tv $ plus playoff $ in a way that would give FSU and Clemson enough extra money to keep them in the ACC, that would be a huge win for ESPN.

    ESPN has the ACC at a bargain price, and would be smart to do what they need to do to keep the ACC intact as long as possible, even if it means throwing in a little more money for theses extra three teams.  They'll get some more late night inventory for late Friday and Saturday slots, plus the in-market cable rates for ACCNet to help offset the cost, and that cost would be well worth it to keep the ACC intact for as long as possible.

    And when FSU/Clemson/etc eventually leave, ESPN will use the composition clause in the deal to sharply reduce the deal with the remaining teams, so it's all upside with no downside for ESPN.  Phillips probably has no idea of the endgame here.  He seems a lot like Klownkoff- clueless and out of touch.

     

    The only thing adding the PAC4 to the B12 does for ESPN is it gives them more inventory for late night windows.  No ACCNet bump, and more importantly, it doesn't help them with FSU and Clemson.  Outside of ND, those two schools get the highest tv ratings of any 2024 non-BIG/SEC school except ND.  For ESPN, the longer those schools are in the ACC, the better.

    Again, this smells like BS from Cal.  

    Stanford has Condi Rice applying pressure.  SMU has W Bush.  Cal has........ Michael Silver of the SF Chronicle.  🤣

    • Like 1
    • Haha 1
  5. Looks like Stanford and Cal have learned nothing in realignment.  They seem to think nothing will change.

    They thought the PAC (and media money) would always be there because they never thought USC would leave.

    Now they're going to go ACC with a 30% share than won't reach 100% until 2036.  

    What's going to happen when FSU, Clemson, Miami, UNC, etc all leave ?  

    FSU people like Bud Elliot think FSU is leaving next year.  If not next year, the closer it gets to 2036, the more likely the exodus becomes.

    Once the BIG and SEC take the top ACC teams, ESPN will likely push the 2nd tier teams like UL, Pitt, etc to the B12 and let the conference dissolve completely.  At the very least,  ESPN will use the composition clause (standard in conference tv deals) to drastically reduce payments to the ACC.

    Stanford and Cal are going to take $7-10m/yr to start, and there's a great chance the conference dissolves or gets hammered way down on revenue long before the Bay area schools start getting any real money.

    They are setting themselves up for absolute disaster- Cal especially, given their finances and lack of ND connection/hope for BIG.

    They would have been much better to get over their coastal elitism, academic snobbery and religious bigotry to try to be part of a BIG 18.

    I guess being in a pod with BYU and playing teams in OK, KS, WV, etc was too much for them.

     

    • Hook 'Em 4
    • Haha 1
  6. 1 hour ago, CustersDoctor said:

    August 24th, 2021. The ACC, B1G & ACC try to counter the SEC coup with a piece of paper that loosely defines the meaningless alliance. 

    You're giving Klownkoff and Phillips too much credit.  There was no piece of paper.  

    "There is no contract.  We shook hands as gentlemen and looked each other in the eye."🤣

     

     

    • Haha 4
  7. 8 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

     

     

    Timestamped at BOR chair talking about Texas move to the SEC

     

    Great to see the Chair of the BOT of a state flagship university who understands the CFB fan experience, the SEC and actually knows what the Grove is.

    Contrast that with the UC Regents last year talking about impact of USC and UCLA to the BIG on Cal.

    It was a complete clown show, where they all exposed their ignorance.  It was so clear none of them had any clue.

    He's 100% correct that Horns Down penalties are stupid and that it's a compliment to UT.

    When you're hated, you're relevant.  No one does anti-Rutgers signs because no one cares.

    • Like 2
  8. 25 minutes ago, Vertigo said:

    Wow, not sure that i realized WSU was part of the no camp on expansion both times. One of my favorite things in this world is watching unfounded arrogance end in total disaster.

    It gets better:

    One of the other schools that led the charge to reject UT, OU and the gang over LHN, and then rejected OU/OSU the next year was.............     

    Oregon St.  

    Their President at the time (Ed Rey), along with ASU's Crow, were Larry Scott's two biggest supporters from beginning to end.

    Poetic justice that four of the five schools that were most responsible for killing the PAC16 deal ended up homeless.

    Too bad ASU didn't get stranded also.  It was close.  Crow tried to keep his lips attached to Stanford's ass until the bitter end.

    • Like 1
    • Haha 2
  9. 59 minutes ago, redswingline said:

    Stanford and Cal were minor players at best. The PAC failed because its' most valuable program, USC, had not won an MNC in nearly 2 decades, which devalued the appeal of the PAC. Oregon, while better on the field, is worth far less from a media rights standpoint and they couldn't get it done either.

    Another way to say that, is that since USC has sucked for +14 years, they devalued the PAC and ended up leaving because of it. Kind of like shitting in your own bed and then finding somewhere else to lay down.

     

    USC self-sanctioning the program with idiotic AD and HC hires bathed the program in shame, but it didn't kill the conference.  USC still had plenty of value, as shown by how much the BIG's tv deal grew after the LA schools were added.  Arrogance, incompetence and gross negligence killed the PAC.

    The difference between the BIG/SEC vs the PAC is that there were always multiple top level programs in the BIG/SEC which have won National Titles and have the credibility to to carry the conference when other top level programs are down.  When Bama was down from the late '90s until Saban's arrival, the Vols, LSU and UF all won titles.  Bama, Auburn, LSU and UGA have all won titles since.

    OSU carried the BIG for while UM slumbered, and now UM is back on top, with PSU looking like they might make a leap.

    //

    Due to geography, the only chance for the PAC to have that type of depth at the top was to add UT and OU.  They were the only possible blueblood additions, and they would have made it possible for the PAC to stand on equal footing with the BIG/SEC.

    Stanford is the only school in history to vote against adding UT to a conference on two different occasions.  They were the only "No" vote back in the day.

    Stanford and Cal, along with WSU were three of the ringleaders in rejecting UT, OU, Tech, OSU, etc in 2010 b/c of LHN.  

    Stanford, Cal and WSU were three of the ringleaders again in rejecting OU and OSU the following year.

    They didn't want the added competition, they didn't want to have unequal Tier 3 revenue, and they didn't want to be associated with Tech, OSU, or aggy.

    Think about that- Stanford passed on UT as a conference member twice!!!  Cal passed on UT once, and both Stanford and Cal passed on OU twice.

    And you want to say they were "minor players" in the PAC's demise ?  🤣  

    USC shitting the bed for a decade was like someone in hospice with terminal cancer getting psoriasis- the damage was done long before.

    Cal and Stanford were the tip of the spear that inflicted the fatal wound on the PAC16 deal- the PAC's last chance to be a true peer of the SEC/BIG.

    //

    You can spin whatever fairytale you want, but the PAC was dead the day every school not named USC or UCLA rejected UT, OU and the gang over LHN/equal revenue sharing.  We talked about it in detail over on the old Shaggy realignment thread.  Once it was no longer possible to add bluebloods, it was just a matter of time before the revenue gap caused the top programs to leave.  Like Thanos, it was inevitable. 

     

    PS- To double down on their previous realignment 5D chess moves, Stanford and Cal were part of the decision-making team that turned the PAC into a pile of ash.  The PAC could have been a stable conference making B12 money, but the schools thought they were worth $50m/yr, when ESPN offered $30m.

    Can't blame that on USC, as the LA schools weren't part of those decisions.  That's all on Klownkoff and the 10 idiots who listened to him.

     

     

     

    • Hook 'Em 3
    • Like 1
  10. 1 hour ago, Hurtlocker said:

    They could be on Prime, they couldn't be on ABC counter CBS's afternoon slot.  The new deal for the SEC the mouse is allowed to put the biggest game in any slot and any channel, as long as they pay, they're not bound to the afternoon.

    They should be counting ESPN though, its basically a T1 channel at this point.  ESPN2/U is even to FS1, those are clearly T2.

    This graph is also a good indicator of how many games have hit conference networks and who doesn't play on them.  But, at the end of the day, win and you get on the good channels.

     

    https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/30492065/sec-espn-strike-10-year-deal-college-football-basketball-starting-2024

    From the ESPN press release announcing the deal:

    Quote

    Beginning in 2024, ABC will air an SEC game every week, including a regular late-afternoon kickoff, and will have the option to feature an SEC game on ABC's Saturday Night Football for the first time.

     

    Since they weren't allowed to put SEC games on ABC in primetime before, that's one of the reasons this was such a big deal for ESPN/ABC and the SEC.

    It was also important for the other reasons you listed.  I agree with all of those, as well as the fact that ESPN is basically equivalent to a broadcast network.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  11. 1 hour ago, notre dame joe said:

    Even Disney doesn't put a boring matchup on primetime ABC and the real game on ESPN too often. The times I remember are like ABC shows Rutgers @anOSU (#3) while two ranked SEC teams play on ESPN.

     

    1 hour ago, Texas Wahoo said:

    I wasn’t suggesting that ESPN would put the better game on ESPN, I was suggesting that ESPN would have better games because they own a lot more inventory, so they are much more likely to have two good games at the same time than Fox or CBS, and thus conferences with deals with mostly ESPN will have more games on cable. 

    The numbers for the existing SEC are artificially deflated because of the CBS deal.  

    As a part of that deal, Disney can't show any SEC games in primetime on ABC.

    That's why SEC games in primetime are always on ESPN (except for one CBS primetime game per season), while ABC shows a BIG, ACC, B12 or PAC game.

    Bama and UGA have big numbers on that chart because 90% of the time they are one of the teams playing in the 3:30 CBS game.

     

    //

     

    The other thing that jumps out on that chart is how many times UT and USC were on OTA, despite the fact that both programs had at least 3 losses every year from 2016-2021, and neither one was a national title contender.  The fans still watch, and the haters tune in to hate-watch.

    I'll take "What drives realignment for $1,000, please Alex."

    • Hook 'Em 1
  12. 6 hours ago, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

    I really don't see why you are assigning as many teams from the Big 10 as the SEC. The conferences aren't remotely equal, outside of revenue.

    The polls disagree with you.  AP had 8 future BIG and SEC teams in top 25.  Coaches had SEC 8 and BIG 7, with Iowa as #26.

    I posted the below yesterday, as part of the SOS debate.  SOS is driven by perception:

     

    2023 Preseason AP Top 25 sorted by 2024 conference:

    BIG -- 8 teams (Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 15, 19, 25).

    SEC -- 8 teams (Nos. 1, 4, 5, 11, 12, 20, 22, 23).

    Big 12 -- 3 teams (Nos. 14, 16, 17).

    ACC -- 3 teams (Nos. 8, 9, 21).

    PAC/MWC -- 1 team (No. 18 -Oregon State).

    AAC -- 1 team (No. 24)

    ND-- (No. 13)

     

    //

    Once the ACC is divided up, if ND goes BIG we could easily be looking at a top 25 of:

    BIG -- 10 teams

    SEC -- 10 teams

     Big 12 -- 3

    PAC/MWC -- 1

    AAC -- 1 

    • Haha 1
  13. 7 hours ago, bullet said:

    Its a hollow threat.  it would cost the SEC and Big 10 massive dollars.  Probably more than it would cost the rest (just not on a % basis).

    It's not a hollow threat.  Just like the regular season, those two conferences would get the vast majority of the media money for the postseason.

    BIG/SEC would make massive $$$ from each having their own 4 team playoffs: first 2 games in each conference on campus, with CCGs in Rose and Sugar on NYD.  They wouldn't have to share that with anyone.  Then add in a "Super College Bowl" that they split 50/50.  That would be seven games total, and they would get the same guaranteed money every year.   The 12 team playoff will have 11 games to sell, but BIG/SEC have to share the money with the ACC, B12 and G5, so the money could easily be similar, or even greater, by doing their own thing.

    Personally, I want to see 4-5 champs qualify, with 7-8 at larges, as a full breakaway would suck for fans and it would be be a disaster in the long run financially, when people like the folks in this thread check out once their teams no longer have access.  

    But the threat is credible because CFB history has few very examples where schools/conferences prioritized the long-term good of the game over short term financial benefits, and the BIG/SEC would dominate the money and suck up most of the CFB oxygen if they did this.

    If you're in the ACC, B12 or G5, that's going to scare you.  I think BIG/SEC will use that threat to get the revenue splits they want and to make sure SOS is factored into the equation in the way that they want.  They'll push for 12 at-large bids, but hopefully BIG/SEC will compromise with 5 champs for now, dropping to 4 once the ACC melts away like we just saw with the PAC.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  14. 8 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

    I don’t oppose them for political reasons, I oppose them because they don’t care about sports.

    ASU fans seem pretty happy with the move, and even Utah fans have quickly changed their tune.

    Cal and Stanford would have all of administrative snobbery of ASU/Utah, with absolutely nothing to bring to revenue sports.

     

    ASU and Utah are trying their best, but no one does academic snobbery like Cal and Stanford- they're orders of magnitude higher than anyone else.  

    ASU and Utah are like the little brothers trying to imitate Cal and Stanford so they can be just like them.

    Michael Crow almost kept them aligned in a conference.  

    He has a similar level of cluelessness about sports as the Bay Area schools and was close to relegating ASU to the PAC5.

    Larry Scott's biggest enabler.  ASU was one of the schools (along with Kolownkoff) saying we should get $50m/yr in media rights!!!

    What a fucking moron.  😂

    //

     

    PSA for all 2024 B12 Surlyites who are single: ASU roadtrips are a must- especially for night games.  You'll make some great memories interacting with the local talent after the games- amazing concentration of talent that is not be missed.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  15. 3 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

    That's sort of an every year thing though.   How many times has A&M started in the top ten only to struggle to get 7 or 8 wins?   It won't look like this in October once loses start showing up.

    That's true of every conference, though.  Teams will drop out, and others will cycle up into the top 25.  But the drops and rises aren't equal.

    We already see how SEC teams (and some BIG teams) are treated differently: they drop less after a loss or rise more after a win than other conferences.

    That's going to become even more pronounced in 2024.  What determines rankings ?  Perception.

    And the perception from 2024 on is going to be that most of the strength in CFB will be concentrated in the BIG/SEC.

    And once the ACC gets carved up, it will get even worse, with 20 of the top 25 every year being in the BIG/SEC.  

    So I agree with Tk that SOS is going to be a much bigger factor in the 12 team model than it has up till now because of the concentration of brands.

    //

    The playoff is a tv product, and the networks that land the playoffs are going to be the same networks hyping their respective conferences all year, reinforcing the idea that these two conferences are on a different level in terms of SOS.  And while the networks will want a couple of cinderella teams in the playoff field, they'll mostly want to include the big brands that will bring in the highest ratings, which are the BIG/SEC brands, where the networks have invested the most money.

    The networks, via the BIG/SEC, will make it clear to the CFP how they want to see SOS factored in.  And the BIG/SEC hold all the power from 2026 on.

    Their ultimate leverage is the threat to "Go back to the old days, with the bowl system.  They can each have a four team internal playoff to determine their conference champs, with the SEC CCG in the Sugar and BIG CCG in the Rose- both on NYD.  They'll meet in the "Super College Bowl" two weeks later.  They'll say they're not excluding anyone, because they will no longer be positioning it as a playoff, and that the other conferences can set up their own bowl arrangements.  BIG/SEC will say it's a return to the old way of doing things, with poll voters deciding the best team.  

    But everyone knows that in reality, that would mean the winner of the BIG-SEC bowl would be voted #1 every year.  

    That threat is going to scare the living shit out of every other conference, so BIG/SEC will get what they want on the 2026 and beyond format.

    I hope it's 5 champs until the ACC gets carved up, and then top 4 champs afterwards.

    Assuming it becomes 5 champ format, from 2024 until ACC breakup:

    BIG: 3-4

    SEC: 3-4

    ACC: 1-2

    B12: 1-2

    G5: 1

     

    If we have a 4 champ format after the ACC gets carved up by the BIG, SEC and B12:

    BIG: 4-5

    SEC: 4-5

    B12: 1-2

    G5: 1

  16. 42 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

    If Cal and Stanford were smart...

    The problem is they're not smart when it comes to the business of CFB.  They're clueless and arrogant, though, which is a deadly combo.

    Stanford is the only school in history to vote against adding UT to a conference on two different occasions.  They were the only "No" vote the first time.

    Stanford and Cal, along with WSU were three of the ringleaders in rejecting UT, OU and the gang in 2010 b/c of LHN.

    They could have brought in the remaining B12 schools and/or BYU in 2021, but look down on those schools and didn't want them in the PAC.

    There's a reason they want to play in the ACC and have never talked to the B12.  B12 is better off without them.

    //

    On top of that, Cal admin has kneecapped their football team for the last 12 years or so, making them completely irrelevant. 

    Stanford kept Shaw on way too long, making them mostly irrelevant. 

    Neither school has invested in football.   Like the rest of the PAC, they thought they could leech off USC's media value forever via revenue-sharing.

    It never occurred to them that USC would actually leave, even though USC had been talking about it for years- sometimes publicly.

    Stanford and Cal were huge factors in the PAC failing.  They helped sow the seeds of its destruction and are reaping what they sowed.

    • Hook 'Em 5
    • Like 1
  17. 20 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

    You don’t consolidate this many brands/powers together to continue business as usual, because business as usual had bluebloods in every power conference. With the consolidation of power in the P2 the expectations around just stack ranking by record is going to be wildly outdated.

    2023 Preseason AP Top 25 sorted by 2024 conference:

    BIG -- 8 teams (Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 15, 19, 25).

    SEC -- 8 teams (Nos. 1, 4, 5, 11, 12, 20, 22, 23).

    Big 12 -- 3 teams (Nos. 14, 16, 17).

    ACC -- 3 teams (Nos. 8, 9, 21).

    PAC/MWC -- 1 team (No. 18 -Oregon State).

    AAC -- 1 team (No. 24)

    ND-- (No. 13)

     

    //

    Once the ACC is divided up, we could easily be looking at a top 25 of:

    BIG -- 10 teams

    SEC -- 10 teams

     Big 12 -- 3

    PAC/MWC -- 1

    AAC -- 1 

     

    If this year's rankings are any indication, it's going to be harder than I was originally thinking for the B12 to get two teams in.

     

    • Hook 'Em 1
  18. 44 minutes ago, 'stache said:

    Two west coast schools in the Atlantic Coast Conference would be peak realignment. Rename it the Whatever Coast Conference or Coasty McCoastface.

     

    How about the Pacific Atlantic Conference ?

    They could even abbreviate it to make it sound cool!

    • Haha 1
  19. 5 minutes ago, Zhorn96 said:

    Roachian update from Wilner.  He might as well put a 4 confidence CB pick in

    Is that the same "momentum" that was "trending" for the PAC staying together the same day that UW, UO, UA, ASU and Utah all left the conference ? 😂

     

    Wilner's sources: Klownkoff, Cal admin, Stanford admin

    The same sources that told him for 12 months that the PAC had a great tv deal lined up that was going to be better than the B12 and that the conference was going to stay together.🤣

     

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Haha 1
  20. 58 minutes ago, bullet said:

    Reads like something Wilner would write.  Source must be out of Kliavcoff's office, blaming the presidents, not the conference office.  We have heard it from enough sources to know ESPN offered $24-25 million at first.  That $30 million has come out lately, but it could be all from the same source.  The source seems to think they could have gotten upper $30s from ESPN, but at least $35.  Assuming the $30 really happened, I suspect $30 was ESPN's final offer, looking at the meager TV ratings of the Pac 10.  I think ESPN would have done both Big 12 and Pac 10, but with neither above $32 million.  With the market getting difficult and the Pac 10 difficult, ESPN decided not to do $30 million or even $25 million and walked away.  The Pac's exclusive window closed October 7th.  Doesn't say exactly when they got that offer.  Big 12 signed on October 30th and had already been talking since August.

    The source also doesn't seem to understand how wrong it was for Kliavcoff to conspire with regents to try to force UCLA to stay.  Or getting schools to sign a GOR without even having any idea what the deal would be.

    The three sources cited in the article are Klownkoff, Klownkoff's law school buddy who worked on the media deal, and Clownzano.

    I'm surprised the LAT remembered to take Klownkoff's email header off this piece before they published it.

    I'm not surprised at a shit article in the LAT, though.  The LAT is trash, and has been for years.

    • Hook 'Em 3
  21. 2 hours ago, LTbear said:

    Personally, no, I wouldn't watch a top 16 league. My college football fandom is tied to regionality, rivalries, and the craziness and pageantry that is unique to the college game. 

     

    1 hour ago, 'stache said:

    I personally would not watch much, if any, of a 16 team prestige worldwide conference. My viewing patterns are tied almost exclusively to teams I follow, including most notably my alma mater. Occasionally I'll tune in to other games, but it usually has something to do with OSU, either affect on the standings, rankings

     

    2 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

    Yes, I would watch the 1-16 league.  If there was a 40 team league my school was out of, I wouldn’t watch it much.

     

    Thanks for the responses gentlemen.  Forgot to add @Uncle Nate- would also be interested in your take on whether you'd watch a "super league".

     

    Based on the 66% decline in viewership that would result from this small sample size of responses, that lines up with the idea that the networks/BIG/SEC would be setting themselves up to fail if they try to set up a breakaway league with its own playoff, or a BIG-SEC only playoff.  It would be a huge mistake.

    We'll have to keep living with polls and committees, but at least if they keep 4-5 auto-bids (depending on the ACC's status over time), every team in the top 4-5 conferences will have a direct path to the playoffs based off on-field results, and the beauty pageant aspect will only apply to at-large teams.

    I'd like to see them keep something similar to the current playoff structure from 2026 onwards, but start the season earlier, do the early rounds on campus, then play the semis on NYD in the Rose and Sugar.  That would preserve some great CFB traditions even as the sport changes dramatically.  It would also keep CFB from having to compete with the NFL playoffs into January.

     

  22. On 8/14/2023 at 12:53 PM, Al_4_ISU said:

    It wouldn’t even bother me if the Top 16 revenue generators got together and made their own super league and left 17-70 with our own division.

    I realize that Texas and Iowa State are very different things.  

     

    On 8/14/2023 at 2:27 PM, Al_4_ISU said:

    If the TV networks force there to be 40 schools with playoff access, based on current Big 10 and SEC membership, the bulk of the Big 12 and ACC would be relegated, and those fanbases would heavily punch out.

     @Al_4_ISU, @'stache, @oSuJeff97 @LTbear- would you guys watch the top 16 league in the first scenario ?  Or only watch the 17-70 league ?

    Does 17-70 feel inclusive because all similarly-resourced current "P5" teams would be in it, with only the top 16 being in a different league, whereas a 41-70 league would feel like relegation because 24 schools with similar to worse profiles than ISU, OSU, etc got in the top league simply because of historic ties ?

    Would you rather compete in a 12 team playoff where B12 teams will usually get 2 slots, but will rarely get the benefit of the doubt from the committee and be unlikely to win it all ?  Or better to compete on an equal footing financially in the 17-70 league and have a very good chance to win it all ?

     

    I've been thinking that the best way for the networks to retain viewership in the long run is to keep something similar to the current playoff structure, so that B12 fans and others will still be invested in games in the BIG and SEC, as the outcome of those games will affect at-large bids.  And then everyone would obviously watch the playoffs.  

    But the one thing I've always disliked about CFB is the reliance on polls and rankings to determine a champ instead of direct, on-field results.

    Al's post about the top 16 league has me wondering if the networks would get the best of both worlds with a top 16/20/24 league and a 17/21/25-80 league.

    The 16/20/24 league would play an NFL type of schedule and playoff.  The 17-80 league would look like CFB used to, with regional divisions, but with a playoff featuring the top two teams from each division.  

    No more polls, committees, rankings, etc.  There's a lot to like there.  I'd watch both leagues.    Curious what other people think.

     

  23. 22 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

    But it's interesting that their premier slot is a no go for home games at the 4 schools they just brought in. They're not really going to kick off at 9am are they?

     

    22 hours ago, mdmost said:

    No but that's 4 more options for away game teams for Big Noon. Ohio State-Oregon or Penn State-Washington is certainly going to get Big Noon. You also have USC and UCLA when they travel to any number of Big 10 away games. Not all the Big Noon games were great matchups. Home games on the West Coast will now be in the 2:30-6 Central time frame. Fox will also get some night games I believe. The problem I see is CBS and NBC are also going to get some first cracks and now Fox loses some evening content. I'm not sure who gets what first in those time frames. I know NBC has a prime time slot for the Big 10 and CBS now has a 2:30 Big 10 game of the week. Then you have Peacock getting the lesser games. Notre Dame will always be a 2:30 kickoff for their home games on NBC. 

     

    Yeah- it's all about maximizing the number of top tier matchups for Fox, CBS and NBC.  Each one has the first pick sometimes.

    I don't know how many times each one has the first pick, but there are definitely weekends where CBS and NBC get it.

    If you look at the schedule this year, there are definitely some duds in there.  Adding the former PAC schools next year helps a lot.

    BIG will have OSU, UM, USC, PSU on the top tier, with a strong second tier (for tv ratings) of UW, UO, UCLA, Wisc, IA, NU, MSU.

    That's a lot of good games.  Spread out between the three networks, they'll plug most, if not all, of the holes in this year's schedule.

    //

    If they stay at 9 games and do a 1-8-8 rotation, based off what they already have, then 2024would look something like this:

    UM-OSU, USC-UCLA, PSU-MSU, UW-UO, IA-NU, UM-UW, UM-USC, OSU-UO, OSU- UCLA, USC-PSU, PSU-UW, USC-UW, UCLA-UO

    UM- Wisc, OSU-IA, USC- IA, PSU- Wisc, UO-Wisc, UW-IA, OSU-NU, UM-MSU, UCLA- NU, UCLA-MSU, etc, etc

    Throw in games like OSU-MD, UM-RU that will still do solid numbers b/c of OSU and UM, and that's a lot of games doing good/solid ratings.

    If they go to 10 games and a 3-7-7, then it's that many more good games every year.

    //

    The other factor is that existing BIG schools don't want to play night games at home in November because of weather issues.  Adding UW and UO doubles the amount of schools that will happily host games in the Prime time window (Eastern/Central time).  

    I love 4-5pm Pacific time starts.  My favorite game time.  Big games and Primetime exposure in most of the country.

    I'm hoping the need to supply good games for all three tv partners means there won't be a lot of USC "BIG After Dark" games.

     

    • Like 1
  24. 2 minutes ago, gatormarc said:

    Well, I'm convinced. The B1G should definitely take them. 

    What do you think about FSU and Clemson to the SEC ?  

    Seems like Sankey would want them as a defensive play, but would UF, UGA, Bama, AU, etc vote to add them ?

    It's the reverse of the aggy-UT situation.  SEC already has UF.  FSU isn't bringing UT-level benefits.

    Would SEC schools rather recruit against Clemson and FSU as BIG members ?  

    "Mr five star FL HS player, do you really want to play in MN, IN and Iowa instead of the South ?"

×
×
  • Create New...