Jump to content

Zinhead

New Members
  • Posts

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Zinhead

  1. On 9/7/2022 at 7:51 PM, closetojumping said:

    I didn’t argue against any P5 opponent that UF has scheduled. 

    What you did here is a cheap rhetorical tactic that will get you iced pretty quickly on this site for being a fucktard - you introduced a strawman. You moved the goalposts.

    I asked a simple set of requests. Defend UF’s non-con over the last two decades. Defend scheduling FCS teams. You chose to attempt to change the subject. Let me help you answer this:

    ”I cannot defend the scheduling of FCS opponents in the SEC. We started doing it a little over a decade ago because we realized we wouldn’t get punished for it by the media. It boosted our records compared to other conferences playing more difficult schedules. Also, we started scheduling them in November because we realized that this is when other conferences are beating themselves up and it would boost our rankings late in the season artificially. “

    ”UF hasn’t played a real non-con road game in 20+ years outside of the state of Florida because we are dickless coelenterates who like to talk to shit but have no willingness to back our talk up on the field outside of the SEC. But now we see the landscape shifting, so we’re scheduling non-cons in the future so no one will notice our bullshit in the past and we can pound our chest. “

    Strong work. But yeah, happy to play Rice every now and then. They’re not like Vanderbilt though. We don’t strategically keep them in our division so we’re guaranteed another win besides our bitchass FCS game every year. 

    LMAO at you for thinking that Rice is any better than a FCS team. Florida historically not played OOS OOC games for three reasons:

    1 - Florida plays Georgia and LSU annually in the SEC. Collectively, those schools have won national titles in 03, 07, 19 and 21.  

    2 - Florida State is an annual end of season OOC game. They have won a national title in the past 20 years.

    3 - If Florida makes it to the conference championship game, the likely opponent is Alabama who has won seven national titles in the past 20 years. 

    That means in a good season, Florida's schedule will include teams that won more than half the national titles in past 20 years. With the exception of Alabama, that is true of every school in the SEC. Contrast that to Texas's conference and in-state schedule that features zero teams that won national titles in the past 20 years, and skips out on the best in-state OOC competition in favor of Rice.  

    Yeah, go beat your chest about not playing FCS teams. Nobody cares. 

    • Fuck You 13
  2. 1 hour ago, closetojumping said:

    Now defend playing an FCS team every year and the last 20 years of their non-con. Good for them figuring out that they're going to need to play up in the future, along with a cherished FCS match-up, of course. 

    Since 1966 Texas has played Rice 43 times. Rice, enrollment 4,076, has won exactly one of those games. Glad you were able to keep that cherished rivalry going for so long. With an annual rival like Rice, who needs FCS schools?

    • Haha 1
    • Fuck You 44
  3. 1 hour ago, closetojumping said:

    -The other issue across the the conference is the FCS game. Bama and Georgia are happy to have another team pushing back against these games, while almost everyone else, including pussies at UF and ATM, want to keep those games.

    Florida's future OOC schedule includes:

    2023 - Utah, FSU

    2024 - Miami, UCF, FSU

    2025 - USF, Miami, FSU

    2026 - NC State, Cal, FSU

    2027 - Cal, FSU

    2028 - Colorado, ASU, FSU

    2029 - Colorado, FSU

    2030 - Texas, UCF, FSU

    2031 - Texas, ASU, Notre Dame, FSU

    2032 - Notre Dame, NC State, FSU

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 1
    • Drool 1
  4. 2 hours ago, 'stache said:

     Bama is a program that seems open to everyone, which is definitely to their credit. UT is probably similar. On the contrary is Florida which I think I read hasn't (or hadn't) played a true non-conference road game outside the state of Florida although it does look like they'll play @Utah next year. Either way, my preference would be to stop scheduling FCS opponents, but it's not like it's something that only we do regularly.

    Florida plays Florida State every year OOC. In the past they have also played Florida directional schools or Miami in OOC games. The current AD is expanding the schedule, and Florida's future OOC schedule includes:

    2023 - Utah, FSU

    2024 - Miami, UCF, FSU

    2025 - USF, Miami, FSU

    2026 - NC State, Cal, FSU

    2027 - Cal, FSU

    2028 - Colorado, ASU, FSU

    2029 - Colorado, FSU

    2030 - Texas, UCF, FSU

    2031 - Texas, ASU, Notre Dame, FSU

    2032 - Notre Dame, NC State, FSU

     

  5. 1 hour ago, Trojan Man said:

    It will be interesting to see how willing the SEC is to add more teams in their backyard just to keep the Big 10 out, as well as how the Big 10's national strategy vs the SEC's regional strategy plays out in terms of competitiveness and ratings and recruiting and media money.  I can see strengths and weaknesses for each approach.  It's very fun to ponder if you're into game theory.

    SEC and BIG expansion into the ACC will really be driven by how much more ESPN or Fox wants the additional schools and inventory circa 2032-2034 when these decisions will be played out. Unless the broadcasters are will to pay up for the new schools, there will be no expansion. 

    Some additional comments:

    1 - There was a survey of UNC fans a few years ago, and the vast majority of fans at the time preferred the SEC to the Big 10. Moreover, UNC has reached out in the past to the SEC about joining. Note that these conversations were on the presidential level, not the AD level. 

    UNC to SEC or Big 10 

     

    2 - How much leverage does Notre Dame have in negotiations with the BIG? We know they want a game in California at the end of each year, as well as regular trips to Florida, Georgia and the southeast for recruiting. If ND joins the BIG, how much will current BIG members give up in terms of scheduling to keep ND happy? 

     

    3 - FSU and Miami are not interconnected like UNC/Duke, UVA/VT or UNC/NCState. Either would ditch the other in a moments notice. The former UNC President talks about this around the 10:00 minute mark.

    Interview with Former UNC President

  6.  

    12 hours ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

    That makes no sense at all. Why wasn't USC able to save the PAC then? Under your own admission, USC must be worthless because they weren't able to get the entire PAC a better contract. That makes no sense at all.

    Comparing Oregon to Illinois just shows you're way too biased for this subject. You can go look at just about any list that rates the value of any program and there's no comparison.

    USC/UCLA didn't increase the value of the B1G. It's the B1GN that made up for it and that's not the future of television. Should the B1G tell USC no? Of course not. That would be stupid.

    There is only one team available in all of college football that increases the pie: Notre Dame. That doesn't mean adding top programs won't increase the pie later down the road. Oregon consistently playing in more competitive games against larger fan bases will increase their ratings. Same goes for all the other top programs. This is the new reality of college football. This is about top programs vs. top programs and eliminating everyone else from the regular season schedule. Why do you think I've been harping about an expansion in conference games on here for months? And Warren just mentioned going to ten conference games at some point? At some point, it's going to be more than ten conference games. That's where we are heading. That's where the money is at.

    The PACs weaknesses had nothing to do with Oregon and Washington and everything to do with the conferences region, the weak programs at the bottom and no fan bases as large as Ohio State, Michigan, Notre Dame to cover up for the weaknesses. Not even USC has a large enough fan base to cover for more than maybe one team, and that team better bring at least something of value. USC's fan base is not Michigan, Ohio State, Texas or Notre Dame. USC's strengths' are recruiting, tradition, and competitiveness. It's a helmet school with the biggest recruiting advantage in the country. Its fan base is the smallest of all the Bluebloods. 

    If all PAC 12 teams were equal to Oregon and Washington, the conference would still be around.

    PAC 12 weaknesses: 

    1. Playing only out West

    2. None of the very largest fan bases to cover for weak teams

    3. You cannot carry Washington State, Oregon State, two uninterested programs in passive NorCal, two programs in Arizona and expect to survive with no Ohio State, Michigan type fan bases to cover up for it.

    Oregon and Washington had nothing to do with the downfall of the PAC or its money issues.

    Oregon brings another helmet program with speed that the B1G desperately needs in its conference.  B1G's two biggest issues are competitiveness and recruiting territory. They solved some of that with USC/UCLA. It also makes no sense to stop at two teams in that time zone. You really need at least 4 solid teams to make sure there's a competitive game worth watching in the late time slot.

    Washington brings more of its over 4,000,000 Seattle metro and 7,500,000 state pop than Stanford brings the 7.7 San Francisco metro area. There's no difference in the two in size, other than one (Washington) has a much bigger following and has fans that actually care about the team.

    Oregon out-recruits Stanford every year.

    Stanford will get in because of Notre Dame and the fact the B1G still needs more teams in that time zone.

    It's going to be Oregon, Washington, Stanford in the B1G at some point.

     

     

    Here's how football recruiting hotbeds have evolved

    Notice the big empty area in Oregon. From the following map, they get much of their talent by attracting the best players in less competitive states. 

    Recruiting Map

    From reports on some BIG blogs, travel for Olympic sports is a consideration as part of the expansion process, and one advantage that the Stanford/Cal pair-up has for the BIG is scheduling for Olympic sports. Teams can fly into the Bay area, play Cal and Stanford, and then jet down to LA to play USC and UCLA. Four games for three flights is very appealing for an athletic department. 

    As a casual Stanford fan, the best case scenario would be to join the BIG with Washington, Oregon and Cal. That would keep all of the good PAC rivalries in place, and the BIG could play the conference championship game in the Rose Bowl. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  7. 14 hours ago, bullet said:

    If you are talking economic value, LSU drops down to the mid-tier.  And Missouri drops to the low tier.  In football, things I've seen rank Missouri only ahead of UK and Vandy.

    The point of the list was to determine the median SEC school. Putting six schools in the top tier and six in the lower tier leaves four schools to form the SEC median.  In terms of on-field results LSU (three natties in 20 years) is easily superior to the schools ranked below them.  They also carry the entire state by themselves. 

    Missouri has two SEC championship game appearance in the past decade, and brings two major metros in St. Louis and Kansas City. That is better than any of the six schools in the lower tier. 

  8. 10 hours ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

    I agree with the theory that an expanded playoff will widen the pool of teams who benefit from the feedback loop.  I disagree that those teams are going to be ones listed or those like them; it will in fact be a wider collection of blue bloods and near blue bloods: Alabama, Clemson, OSU, Georgia will be joined by Florida, Texas, A&M, Oklahoma, Michigan, etc

    I was not saying that BYU, Baylor, Cincy, or OK State would become playoff regulars because of the feedback loop. The schools that will make regular playoff appearances will be the same 15 schools with high blue chip ratios. 

    Blue-Chip Ratio 2022: The 15 teams who can actually win a national title

    What I am saying is that with an expanded playoff, the concentrated blue chip ratio of the Alabama, OSU and Georgia's will fall, there will likely be several schools in the BYU, Baylor, Cincy, or OK State range that, with a great a coach and a generational recruiting class, can can catch lighting in a bottle and win some playoff games. Here is a list of non-blue chip schools that would have been favored in at least the opening playoff game of an expanded playoffs.

    2014 - Baylor, TCU

    2015 - Iowa, Stanford

    2017 - Wisconsin

    2021 - Cincinnati, Baylor

    • Hook 'Em 2
  9. 1 hour ago, Horn of Gabriel said:
    • There are only about 5-6 programs in any given year that have the ability to actually win the playoff.  They aren't BYU, Baylor, Cincinnati, Ok State or even mid-tier B1G or SEC programs.  It's currently Alabama, OSU, Clemson, Georgia and maybe 1-2 others.  In the 4-team CFP a smaller program might have the "puncher's chance" but it's like 5%.  Cincinnati was the best example of the past 15 years, and they wilted.  So no, those programs currently don't have a chance to win the championship, nor should that be  their measurement of success.  Competing for a conference title, beating their rival, and upsetting a blue blood (and before you say it, YES I'm aware of the irony of this statement considering the relative success of teams like ISU, Baylor, and OkState vs. Texas in the past decade).  It's the illusion of access to the playoff and the dream we're talking about preserving, not the reality.

    The four team playoff gives teams that have made it into the playoff a big boost in recruiting, which then improves their chances of getting back into the playoffs. This feedback loop is why we see the same teams in the playoff every year. Unless a draft is instituted or a head coach changes, the feedback loop is difficult to break since talent accumulation (recruiting) is so important to college football. However, expanding the playoff to 12 or 16 schools will also expand the teams that can benefit from this feedback loop. The talent that is currently concentrated in the top 5-6 schools will be diffused to a group of 10 or 15 that will likely be playoff regulars. In this scenario, with talent more spread out than it currently is, it is much more likely that a BYU, Baylor, Cincy, or OK State level school can take advantage of HOF coach and make a deep run into the playoffs.  

    • Hook 'Em 2
  10. 1 hour ago, ChickenNuggets said:

    Wouldn't that dilute the value of the TV contracts were the SEC to expand? Why spread the same market across more schools - I'm not sure they add that much value and likely would lead to diminishing returns. Also, it would seriously complicate scheduling when you consider all the existing rivalry games. I just don't think the school presidents in the existing conferences are eager to bring in more at this time. I haven't looked closely at the economics of it all, but that would be my concern with expansion.

    If you break down the colleges in the SEC into three tiers based on value, you get the following:

    Top Tier – Alabama, Florida, Georgia, LSU, Oklahoma, Texas

    MidTier – Auburn, Mizzou, Tennessee, Texas A&M

    Low Tier – Arkansas, Kentucky, Ole Miss, MSU, South Carolina, Vanderbilt

    In order to add value to the conference, any additions would have to be above the Mid-Tier line, or bring in new markets. Going through the ACC schools, FSU and Clemson meet the SEC mid-tier, but they don’t add new markets. UNC also meets the mid-tier line, while Virginia would be toward the low end of the mid-tier, but both bring in large new markets.

    None of the other ACC schools do much for the SEC as they compare unfavorably to the current mid-tier SEC schools in terms of value and market.  Schools like VT and NCST are similar to OKState, TTU and Iowa State, strong football centric schools that are saddled with below median valuations.

    Also, while the BIG has restricted distributions to new members in order to make them financially viable, the SEC has never done this. All of the recent SEC additions were admitted as full members. The addition of Arkansas and South Carolina allowed for the creation of the new conference championship which paid their way in. Texas A&M and Missouri were mid-Tier schools that brought new markets and were financially additive to the conference, and Texas and Oklahoma both are top tier schools with new markets.

    Given these factors, if the SEC misses on UNC/UVA once the ACC Gore expires, I don’t think they will expand.

  11. 53 minutes ago, 'stache said:

    I think both BIG and SEC will be 24 soon and if the number I saw on ND is true they'll stay independent (no way BIG schools refuse to schedule them if they go that route). I really wish it would just happen now and not another ten years. If both raid the ACC they could probably just have it dissolved.

    BIG adds: UO, UW, Stan, Cal, Duke, UNC, UVA, and one other (Pitt, GT, maybe BC for the TV market to the extent it still matters, possibly KU or CU?).

    SEC adds: Clemson, FSU, Miami, VT, and some combination of OKST (please?), KU (if not BIG), GT (if not BIG), WVU and maybe Pitt?. Maybe SEC sticks with 20 or so. I just hope it gets determined by 2024. 

    Everyone else forms a new coast-to-coast conference.

    The only schools in the ACC that the SEC would take are UNC and Virginia, with FSU and Clemson borderline. The BIG would add GT and maybe Miami to those four schools largely because their financial model is different. The other schools like NC State have media values well below the existing median for the SEC and BIG, they add no additional value to either league.

    After the ACC GOR expires, you will have a 20 to 24 team BIG with or without Notre Dame, a 16 to 20 team SEC, and a 24+/- team Big 12 combined with the best PAC/ACC remnants. There will be an open playoff with the Big 12+ getting multiple teams in every year, but their media revenue will be a fraction of the BIG/SEC.

  12. 50 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

    ASU gets an invite before UoA.  There are just too many people in Phoenix. 

    ASU is not AAU, Arizona is. Remember that these are college presidents making the decision, not football fans. If they would not take Oklahoma over AAU status and lose their chance at Texas because of that, why would they even consider ASU? At least Oklahoma pays the sports bills, ASU does not.  

  13. 13 hours ago, Gidnik said:

    Because they’re not going to stop at 20

    The end game for the BIG, which is 10 years out, is to absorb three or four PAC schools, three or four ACC schools, and ND. This will give them 24 to 25 schools that will include the best football brands outside the SEC. It won't be a conference, but more of a league to maximize the value of television rights. This is the model that will bring the highest return to their existing members. 

    Since ND seems to want to stay independent for the next cycle, taking several PAC teams would make sense.  At this point, there are couple of things going on:

    • None of the remaining PAC members merit a full share of revenue from the new BIG contract.
    • The PAC schools are trying to maximize their collective media value, as well as protect it's high earners. This why you see feelers to SMU and SDSU about potential memberships, and talk of non-equal revenue sharing. 
    • The BIG is waiting to see what the remaining collective media value of the PAC schools is, and how much each is worth individually.  
    • Once there is some consensus as to their media value, the BIG will know how much of a discount to revenue each PAC member would need to make their admission to the conference financially feasible. 

    The only schools the BIG would be looking at would be the remaining AAU schools in the PAC. This would include Arizona, Cal, Colorado, Oregon, Stanford, Utah and Washington.   If I were the President of a BIG school, I would see which schools would be most willing to accept discounted financial distributions based on market value over the next cycle, and add the schools that bring the most academic and athletic prestige to the league.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  14. 3 hours ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

    Stanford.  Vandy.  Perennial middling and lower ranked programs who don't see much of an upside of staying the course.

     

     

     

    Stanford has won their conference three times in the past decade.  That is pretty good for a perennial middling and lower ranked program. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  15. 16 minutes ago, Texas Wahoo said:

    The difference is that in a pod, all four teams have the same group of rivals, whereas in the proposal, each team could have their own three rivals.  For example, Texas could have OU, A&M, Arkansas; and A&M could have Texas, LSU, Mizzou.

    Here is an article that described one of the podless schedules that has been proposed. 

    SEC Podless Schedule

     

    The problems with this proposal are that the quality of the permanent opponents will always be uneven. 

  16. 2 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

    I don’t think the Big Ten desperately wants more Western schools but FOX needs them.  Also this is the end game.  If they let the PAC school like Cal/Washington rot out West then they have only themselves to blame when they don’t have AAU level schools that fit the mold of what the Big Ten is looking for.

    I don’t think the Big Ten is interested in diluting their payout by just expanding to expand, which is why they won’t without ND unless the noobs agree to a reduced revenue share throughout the terms of the current contract.  If the 16 team Big Ten pulls in $100 million per member per year but Oregon/Washington/Stanford/Cal only pull in $40 million then they’d make them a deal that they’ll only get 40 until the next renegotiation since the other members were unwilling to take pay cuts, and the new members really will have no choice but to accept.  I don’t see much of the ACC as a good value add for the Big Ten.  If they can get ND they’d still have 3 more spots for Miami, GT, UNC, UVA or whoever.

    There was some scuttlebutt on a Stanford message board that the school had approached the BIG and offered to take a reduced payout tied to their market value. One can assume that UW, OU and Cal have done the same thing. 

  17. 3 hours ago, Texzilla58 said:


    Regardless of legislation and exemptions, the folks running the coastal schools, with the exception of maybe Stanford, regard Texas and Florida as the great Satan, and would not be in a conference with Baylor or schools in Texas. XII needs to just grab the four corners and move on.

    I was in Palo Alto recently. Texas and Florida are definitely considered part of the great satan. 

  18. 3 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

    So as far as the PAC10 is concerned, they and their media mouthpieces are now openly admitting that the Big 12 will likely  pull in more TV revenue and openly discussing giving Oregon and others a “bigger piece of the pie” aka unequal revenue sharing, while the Big Ten is saying no further raiding today (without ND) but maybe soon…

    So Arizona and Colorado are sitting here hearing that they’ll make less money than the Big 12 with equal revenue sharing…

    and even less than that when they go to unequal revenue sharing…

    and that the league could still collapse during the next Big Ten raid and there is a real possibility they lose their spot at the big boy table when the music stops and they are stuck in a Frankenstein version of a conference that is half PAC12 leftovers and half MWC wannabes.

    Or they can join the Big 12, make more money, and secure their spot in what will quickly become the #3 or at minimum #4 conference. This doesn’t sounds like a very difficult choice especially if I’m Zona and you think you or ASU will be left behind.

    That is what makes the current situation an interesting application of game theory. If you are Arizona or any of the other "quarters" schools, you know that Stanford/Cal/OU/UW will bolt to the BIG at the first opportunity. You also know that you have a spot in the Big 12 right now. However, if the BIG only takes two or three of the remaining Pac 12, that leaves another school or two in a bigger media market available for the Big 12. 

    If you are the Big 12, and you are taking four, who is left out among the following after BIG takes their top two or three choices?

    Arizona / ASU / Cal / Colorado / Oregon / Stanford / Utah / Washington 

    I have to think that Arizona is the least attractive school on that list, and the most likely to be left out, and the most likely to take the safety option.  They just need one more school to jump with. 

     

     

    • Hook 'Em 3
  19. 1 hour ago, hawkfan said:

     

    You realize that everyone in the B1G is equal equity owners of the BTN right?  I don't see them ever forfeiting that or voting themselves into less revenue.  The Detroit Lions get paid the same as the New England Patriots to promote stability.

    What's created instability in college sports is the revenue gap between leagues.  The only way that could conceivably happen would be if tOSU/UM/USC/PSU/Etc. have an opportunity to leave for more money, they don't have any leverage to get a bigger share of the pie unless that is a realistic possibility.

    If the SEC & B1G remain on equal revenue footing, they'll never go to unequal revenue sharing because I don't see Alabama/Georgia/Florida/Etc. wanting to go north or tOSU/UM/PSU/USC/etc. wanting to go south.

    The only way to get rid of the BIG dead weight is to blow up the conference and start over. That will never happen. What many people forget is that the schools see themselves as universities first, and football programs second. 

    The SEC will not expand until the ACC GOR is up. When they do, the only two schools they will definitely target are UNC and UVA. Clemson and FSU would be borderline, but none of the other ACC schools would hold any interest for the SEC. 

    • Fuck You 1
  20. The following link is to study that attempts to measure fan support. Y’all should like it since Texas does very well.

     

    Altimore Collins Fanbase Survey

     

    Here is what I think the BIG’s immediate plan is.

     

    Step 1 – Take USC and UCLA as they are the only two school combination that meets the minimum valuation requirements for BIG.

    Step 2 – Tell Stanford/Cal/UW/UO that they will be under consideration for BIG membership, but will have to take a haircut on distributions since they don’t pull their own weight.

    Step 3 – Tell the other PAC schools they are not under consideration for BIG membership, and never will be.

    Step 4 – Say you are “waiting on Godot/Notre Dame” while you sit back and let the four remaining target schools go through the motions of figuring out how much they are worth on the open market without USC/UCLA. We are at this stage right now, with talk of uneven distributions within the PAC or PACC mergers to bolster some more TV money.

    Step 5 - Cross your fingers that the Big 12 tries to raid the PAC, and one or more of the four corner schools breaks and further destabilizes the conference.

    Step 6 – Once Stanford/Cal/UW/UO figure out how much they are worth on the open market, come in with the BIG offer that is slightly higher than that.  There is plenty of time to wait them out because they don’t have any good choices.

    Step 7 – Profit.

    The end game is that Stanford/Cal/UW/UO will be in the BIG in a few years. They only thing that will derail this is if the state governments come and try to tie UW with WSU and OU with OSE, but I don’t think they will.

    • Hook 'Em 1
×
×
  • Create New...