Smoke your cigars and enjoy the band while you can....

[ksucrcoop]

Hey, I know this has been discussed before . . . but anybody think that less is more? 

Good lawd, look at how watered down these leagues might become, scads of weekends filled with uninteresting match ups and a jaded TV audience not tuning in.   It's one thing to have TV sets, it's another thing to have actual viewers.

No one wants to see a bunch of 2-4 loss teams play "great" football against each other...

Watered down leagues with 3-6 power house teams is the way to go. Not the ACC - with 1, maybe 2 good teams. The whole "strong conference top-to-bottom" argument is so so stupid. Why do you think the Big East was regarded as the best BBall conf? Cause they had 16 teams, of which the top-tier teams could rack up lots of victories over the puds.

WHY IS THIS SO HARD FOR PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND. 10 team leagues suck. 12 teams better. 14 BEST. 16 Idunno. 18 as bad as ten.

[sonofdaxjones]

McMurphy (who I think has broken about every conference change) is pretty adamant about all B12 schools being locked into a 13 year deal.

Interesting . . . I think as of now, the ball is still in the Big 12's court.   Maybe I am luking here, but the ACC did file suit in court yesterday to uphold the $50 million dollar ACC exit fee. 

http://blog.syracuse.com/sports/2012/11/acc_files_lawsuit_against_mary.html

As I said elsewhere, when the ACC said they were sorry to see Maryland go, it was, "we're sorry to see you go and make sure to spell out the entire name 'Atlantic Coast Conference' on that $52 million dollar check.

[sonofdaxjones]

Hey, I know this has been discussed before . . . but anybody think that less is more? 

Good lawd, look at how watered down these leagues might become, scads of weekends filled with uninteresting match ups and a jaded TV audience not tuning in.   It's one thing to have TV sets, it's another thing to have actual viewers.

No one wants to see a bunch of 2-4 loss teams play "great" football against each other...

Watered down leagues with 3-6 power house teams is the way to go. Not the ACC - with 1, maybe 2 good teams. The whole "strong conference top-to-bottom" argument is so so stupid. Why do you think the Big East was regarded as the best BBall conf? Cause they had 16 teams, of which the top-tier teams could rack up lots of victories over the puds.

WHY IS THIS SO HARD FOR PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND. 10 team leagues suck. 12 teams better. 14 BEST. 16 Idunno. 18 as bad as ten.

You're reading way too much into what I said, and my point is extremely valid . . . and . . . you can still have a 10 team conference with 5 $hitty teams. 

You put too many $hitty matchups, and the college sports TV viewing audience becomes disinterested and overwhelmed by the saturation.   

[Rage Against the McKee]

Hey, I know this has been discussed before . . . but anybody think that less is more? 

Good lawd, look at how watered down these leagues might become, scads of weekends filled with uninteresting match ups and a jaded TV audience not tuning in.   It's one thing to have TV sets, it's another thing to have actual viewers.

No one wants to see a bunch of 2-4 loss teams play "great" football against each other...

Watered down leagues with 3-6 power house teams is the way to go. Not the ACC - with 1, maybe 2 good teams. The whole "strong conference top-to-bottom" argument is so so stupid. Why do you think the Big East was regarded as the best BBall conf? Cause they had 16 teams, of which the top-tier teams could rack up lots of victories over the puds.

WHY IS THIS SO HARD FOR PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND. 10 team leagues suck. 12 teams better. 14 BEST. 16 Idunno. 18 as bad as ten.

I like watching it, and I like playing Texas every year. I care about that a whole lot more than I care about public perceptions, rankings, national championships that we just choke away to shitty teams, etc.

[Mr Bread]

KU offers everything the big 10 would want.  Good market (there’s some study where like KC is the highest college watching viewers per capita or something), provides a recognizable brand name, provides a valuable 2nd tier inventory – specifically in basketball, and is an AAU member.  It would also cripple the B12 – if KU gets out of their GOR, then the PAC12 and SEC start Christmas shopping early.

I can't see how that would be relevant let alone appealing for the Big Ten.  Why would they want the test cases for busting the ACC and Big 12?  They went after Maryland in part because they wanted to open the ACC floodgates.  They're going to have to swing and miss on several ACC schools before they fall back on KU as a target.  They don't need another Midwestern basketball power with a shitty football program, they have that.  Delany's manifest destiny is east.

I agree, they're going to have to swing and miss on a couple targets, but the reality is that they're probably going to. 

I get Virginia, to an extent.  They fit the Big 10 academic pedigree and would bring a pretty big media footprint.  But, the major sports are both marginal and do nothing to elevate the league's athletics profile, however.

What does UCONN bring?  Hell, they're like 10 years removed from D-1AA in football.  North Carolina, Duke?  Lol.  None of the schools from the Tobacco Road Mafia are leaving as long as they have a legit basketball league to compete in.

I don't think UConn is a target.  I think Delany has a huge hardon for UNC and then Virginia or GT or even Duke get to tag along.  I agree it's unlikely UNC bolts unless the Big 12 and SEC help destroy the ACC.  I think the Maryland move was to spring the first leak and now Delany is hoping the SEC and Big 12 will take some shots at ACC teams once the buyout issue is resolved.  If VT, Miami, Clemson, FSU, etc. start leaving, then UNC will be begging to go to the Big Ten.  Huge "if" of course.  Delany thought he could do this to ND, but then this season happened (i.e., football success/ACC switch).  So now he's trying to pull the chair out from under tobacco aggie's ass. 

I also think Delany would be happy with Virginia and GT if UNC can't be had for the reasons Dax pointed out.

[Panjandrum]

KU offers everything the big 10 would want.  Good market (there’s some study where like KC is the highest college watching viewers per capita or something), provides a recognizable brand name, provides a valuable 2nd tier inventory – specifically in basketball, and is an AAU member.  It would also cripple the B12 – if KU gets out of their GOR, then the PAC12 and SEC start Christmas shopping early.

I can't see how that would be relevant let alone appealing for the Big Ten.  Why would they want the test cases for busting the ACC and Big 12?  They went after Maryland in part because they wanted to open the ACC floodgates.  They're going to have to swing and miss on several ACC schools before they fall back on KU as a target.  They don't need another Midwestern basketball power with a shitty football program, they have that.  Delany's manifest destiny is east.

I agree, they're going to have to swing and miss on a couple targets, but the reality is that they're probably going to. 

I get Virginia, to an extent.  They fit the Big 10 academic pedigree and would bring a pretty big media footprint.  But, the major sports are both marginal and do nothing to elevate the league's athletics profile, however.

What does UCONN bring?  Hell, they're like 10 years removed from D-1AA in football.  North Carolina, Duke?  Lol.  None of the schools from the Tobacco Road Mafia are leaving as long as they have a legit basketball league to compete in.

In a recent interview with Swarbick, he admitted that the Big Ten is going east.  They aren't going west again because of demographics and trying to get a bigger chunk of the mid-Atlantic.

I really can't tell you how difficult it would be for Kansas to get away from the Big 12.  Between the GOR and having to deal with the KBOR (and by extension, Brownback and Pat Roberts), Kansas is high risk, low reward.

Our state political structure leans heavily towards KSU.  They have put in a significant effort into elevating KSU and getting the NBAF here.  They aren't going to risk throwing all of that away by letting KU just waltz into the Big Ten.

KU is sitting in a castle tower, with the window barred, on an island surrounded by a moat.  If Delany wants to come get them, it's gonna be rough.  He probably would rather get better schools in better markets without a GOR and all of the political baggage.

[ksucrcoop]

Hey, I know this has been discussed before . . . but anybody think that less is more? 

Good lawd, look at how watered down these leagues might become, scads of weekends filled with uninteresting match ups and a jaded TV audience not tuning in.   It's one thing to have TV sets, it's another thing to have actual viewers.

No one wants to see a bunch of 2-4 loss teams play "great" football against each other...

Watered down leagues with 3-6 power house teams is the way to go. Not the ACC - with 1, maybe 2 good teams. The whole "strong conference top-to-bottom" argument is so so stupid. Why do you think the Big East was regarded as the best BBall conf? Cause they had 16 teams, of which the top-tier teams could rack up lots of victories over the puds.

WHY IS THIS SO HARD FOR PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND. 10 team leagues suck. 12 teams better. 14 BEST. 16 Idunno. 18 as bad as ten.

You're reading way too much into what I said, and my point is extremely valid . . . and . . . you can still have a 10 team conference with 5 $hitty teams. 

You put too many $hitty matchups, and the college sports TV viewing audience becomes disinterested and overwhelmed by the saturation.

I look to the most successful conference in country for a road map, while you speculate on what is best for our school based on whether you would want to watch KSU vs a crap team and what you think other people want to watch. Ignorance like this will make us Colorado State someday...

[Rage Against the McKee]

I look to the most successful conference in country for a road map, while you speculate on what is best for our school based on whether you would want to watch KSU vs a crap team and what you think other people want to watch. Ignorance like this will make us Colorado State someday...

The most successful conference is a bastion of racism and bigotry, though. At some point, good will win out.

[Mr Bread]

KU is sitting in a castle tower, with the window barred, on an island surrounded by a moat an outdoor track.

[Panjandrum]

KU is sitting in a castle tower, with the window barred, on an island surrounded by a moat an outdoor track.

 

[sonofdaxjones]

Hey, I know this has been discussed before . . . but anybody think that less is more? 

Good lawd, look at how watered down these leagues might become, scads of weekends filled with uninteresting match ups and a jaded TV audience not tuning in.   It's one thing to have TV sets, it's another thing to have actual viewers.

No one wants to see a bunch of 2-4 loss teams play "great" football against each other...

Watered down leagues with 3-6 power house teams is the way to go. Not the ACC - with 1, maybe 2 good teams. The whole "strong conference top-to-bottom" argument is so so stupid. Why do you think the Big East was regarded as the best BBall conf? Cause they had 16 teams, of which the top-tier teams could rack up lots of victories over the puds.

WHY IS THIS SO HARD FOR PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND. 10 team leagues suck. 12 teams better. 14 BEST. 16 Idunno. 18 as bad as ten.

You're reading way too much into what I said, and my point is extremely valid . . . and . . . you can still have a 10 team conference with 5 $hitty teams. 

You put too many $hitty matchups, and the college sports TV viewing audience becomes disinterested and overwhelmed by the saturation.

I look to the most successful conference in country for a road map, while you speculate on what is best for our school based on whether you would want to watch KSU vs a crap team and what you think other people want to watch. Ignorance like this will make us Colorado State someday...

Oh bull$hit, I have never said expansion was bad, unless it's done just for the sake of expansion.   In addition, there are constant reminders in media all across the board about the ultimate outcomes of saturation within a market or segment.   Also, I have never mentioned "our school" once in this string of posts you keep responding to . . . you are denied on every level.

[michigancat]

I don't think what the SEC has done really helped them.

[Cartierfor3]

I don't think what the SEC has done really helped them.

Being in Texas can't hurt.

[Panjandrum]

I don't think what the SEC has done really helped them.

It's too early to make a definitive judgement, but in the current model, they're killing it.

But it's hard to say what it will look like in 5 years.

[BWebbs0]

KU is sitting in a castle tower, with the window barred, on an island surrounded by a moat.  If Delany wants to come get them, it's gonna be rough.  He probably would rather get better schools in better markets without a GOR and all of the political baggage.


Yeah, and we are swimming in the moat filled with crap hoping for a piece of the pie. This realignment crap is really putting a dent in my ego with no talk of KSU ending up anywhere in a worst case scenario. Perhaps we go independent?

[Panjandrum]

For those concerned about the Louisville development...

If history has shown us anything, it's that realignment flows upward to where the money is.  It's almost as consistent as gravity.

There is a reason that the ACC now has 6 former Big East schools, the Big East now has 9 former CUSA schools, and CUSA now has three former teams from the Sun Belt.  They all go orbit the schools that have greater value and can inflate their payouts.

At some point, Florida State is going to look around and say, "Man, all of these Big East schools are leeching off of me," and they'll go to another conference where they aren't holding that burden.

There are about 4-5 schools in the NCAA (guesstimate) that are strong enough to build a conference around.  We have one of the top two (Notre Dame is the other).  As long as Texas is in this conference, everyone is just fine.  And other schools are going to want to share their orbit.

Just give it time.

[michigancat]

I don't think what the SEC has done really helped them.

It's too early to make a definitive judgement, but in the current model, they're killing it.

But it's hard to say what it will look like in 5 years.

They were killing it with 12. And this year they really played a lot of shitty football, and it will be interesting to see how that plays out. Like you said, too early to make a definitive judgement.

[catzacker]

I don't think what the SEC has done really helped them.

It's too early to make a definitive judgement, but in the current model, they're killing it.

But it's hard to say what it will look like in 5 years.

They were killing it with 12. And this year they really played a lot of shitty football, and it will be interesting to see how that plays out. Like you said, too early to make a definitive judgement.

I believe they will always kill it at 14 and especially at 16 because they will have balance in their divisions.  This is what Nebraska really provided (and KSU and CU when we and they were good).  But their balance is both “traditional” and “newcomers”.  And, in a 14 or 16 model (and certainly in a 12 model) there is a greater probability that more teams will have a “good” record, regardless of the % of those teams relative to the conference (i.e. the Big 12 has 90% > .500, I think the SEC has 58%, but that doesn’t matter because they have more artificially created “good” teams).  The Big 12 NEEDS FSU and to a certain extent Clemson in some division with KSU, KU, and ISU in order to create that balance and artificially create “good” teams.

[MadCat]

There are about 4-5 schools in the NCAA (guesstimate) that are strong enough to build a conference around.

Is Oklahoma one of them?

[Panjandrum]

I don't think what the SEC has done really helped them.

It's too early to make a definitive judgement, but in the current model, they're killing it.

But it's hard to say what it will look like in 5 years.

They were killing it with 12. And this year they really played a lot of shitty football, and it will be interesting to see how that plays out. Like you said, too early to make a definitive judgement.

I believe they will always kill it at 14 and especially at 16 because they will have balance in their divisions.  This is what Nebraska really provided (and KSU and CU when we and they were good).  But their balance is both “traditional” and “newcomers”.  And, in a 14 or 16 model (and certainly in a 12 model) there is a greater probability that more teams will have a “good” record, regardless of the % of those teams relative to the conference (i.e. the Big 12 has 90% > .500, I think the SEC has 58%, but that doesn’t matter because they have more artificially created “good” teams).  The Big 12 NEEDS FSU and to a certain extent Clemson in some division with KSU, KU, and ISU in order to create that balance and artificially create “good” teams.

Well, if the NCAA is placated by Miami's "pay now, please don't destroy us later" self-penalties, Miami should unquestionably be back on the table, and maybe more so than Clemson.

[Panjandrum]

There are about 4-5 schools in the NCAA (guesstimate) that are strong enough to build a conference around.

Is Oklahoma one of them?

No.  I don't think so.  I'm going off of old T3 deals and the like.

Texas, Notre Dame, and Florida are three that command a lot of juice.  I think Ohio State is another.   You could make an argument for USC.

Bama has an incredible amount of tradition, but Texas and Florida are the flagship universities of football crazy states with very high population and growth.  Ohio State is the same way.  USC is the de facto LA NFL franchise.  Notre Dame is Notre Dame.

OU makes a great sidekick though.

[Panjandrum]

A good point was made regarding the tweet that got everyone all fired up about KU...

@JeffRabjohns Reports that big 10 is sending feelers to UNC, Virginia, Ga Tech, Notre Dame, Kansas and will take 2 of the 4.

If you throw in a couple of other non-ACC schools, it doesn't look like you're actually targeting the ACC, which means that it could help with potential lawsuits down the line.

If it's clear that you're targeting the weak ACC, they may get legal.  If you say that you reached out to members from multiple conferences, you're probably in a better spot, legally.

[Panjandrum]

Per Brett McMurphy, FAU is now joining C-USA with MTSU.

So, per my previous post, there are now four schools in C-USA from the former Sun Belt.

[ksucrcoop]

There are about 4-5 schools in the NCAA (guesstimate) that are strong enough to build a conference around.

Is Oklahoma one of them?

No.  I don't think so.  I'm going off of old T3 deals and the like.

Texas, Notre Dame, and Florida are three that command a lot of juice.  I think Ohio State Michigan is another.   You could make an argument for USC.

Bama has an incredible amount of tradition, but Texas and Florida are the flagship universities of football crazy states with very high population and growth.  Ohio State Michigan is the same way.  USC is the de facto LA NFL franchise.  Notre Dame is Notre Dame.

OU and Ohio State makes a great sidekicks though.

FYP

[Panjandrum]

Michigan is not Ohio State.

However, together, they are very powerful.