Bio not provided
Methinks you doth protest too much. Sure, you're not the Bleacher Report, congrats. And I do come here to read an interesting (if slightly SEC biased) take on expansion, and mainly for that, I don't care about SEC basketball, for example. So stick to the analysis and leave the comedy to others. And the mocking. And the holier than thou attitude.
So keep up the good work, but don't pretend this was the home of "just the facts, ma'am." There was plenty of speculation and opinion here around expansion, and some of it read, at least to me, more out on a limb than the actual reality of the situation. Still enjoyed reading another take, but this post and really the comment I responded too seemed a bit self-satisfied and a little too much like revisionist history.
2 years ago on Buck Up, Expansion Fans, You Might Be Thankful For This Unanswered Prayer
And? Only football has issues with odd numbers. Thanks to the other sports having more total games, more non-conference games, more scheduling flexibility - 14 vs 15 vs 16 doesn't matter. Same reason why everyone has divisions for football but they often don't for basketball.
Come on, the Big 12 is the loser here, they need to add decent teams. The B1G makes even more than the SEC, they're in the same boat - super profitable conferences that would have taken advantage if the situation changed, but who didn't need further change. The Big 12 does.
True, except it's the pot calling the kettle black - or have we forgotten about the massive 4-part mega expansion piece a few months ago. And this site, while not the worst in terms of guaranteeing the death of the ACC, was pretty hard line. So this post has a whiff of the pot calling the kettle black...
No, because 15 is really only for basketball, where number of teams doesn't matter (and for non-revenue sports). In football, sticking with an 8-game schedule and then ND it's no problem.
@JRsec @Transic You're right, the southeast will continue to grow, but look at where and who. The growth won't be in white frat boy football culture, it's more likely to be Hispanic and northern transplants. It's more in areas like the Research Triangle and Northern Virginia. Or did you not notice Virginia has voted for a democratic president twice in a row and NC is almost a battleground state. The southeast will continue to grow, but it will look more like Northern Virginia or Texas than Tuscaloosa. And the reason you can now get big TV money is the explosion of cable channels. Which is good, but long term means you're going to have options for entertainment that you and your parents never had growing up. So, like I said, these trends have had the positive impact already without time for the negatives to kick in yet.
2 years, 3 months ago on Big Bang Theories: The Countdown To Super-Conferences (Part 4)
@JRsec @Transic hahaha, enjoy it while you can. SEC is at it's probable peak now and for next 10 years. They've been enjoying the immediate benefits of some demographic changes and technology but not yet been subject to the longer, generational negative changes those things will bring. So enjoy the golden age now :)
@edelswick @AllTideUp @JRsec Yeah, it's possible they form a small circle and exclude anyone outside the top 64-80/100. And it's more than possible given the current feeding frenzy. Hopefully they don't, because it would be pretty dumb. For two reasons. First, Congress. Kick out Boise State, maybe UConn, perhaps Iowa State, etc, and there are senators from that state, maybe alums, who suddenly want to push for college football to lose it's unique status of being a non-profit money machine. Right now, by at least giving them a chance, you keep that at bay. Second, if those schools have a chance, their fans stay college football fans in general - stay active in the national "conversation" and this watch other games. Kick them out, and their fans stop caring, and you lose them the way the entire Northeast has been lost to college football. So, yeah, you're "buying their support" - but what you're really doing is renting their fan bases. Because long term otherwise college football becomes a NASCAR or NHL sport - strong regionally but not relevant nationally. Because it's the local ties and traditions that make college football relevant - on the field it's a poor version of the NFL game.
@JRsec @AllTideUp yeah, but that sort of suggests 24 teams per conference max again, and you can either do 9 in conference games or go to 11. As a side note, amusing as a Pac-12 fan that because Saban is saying it you all are now turning onto the idea of not scheduling cupcakes. Coming from a conference where we've had a 9 game in conference schedule and normally strong out of conference match ups every year, it's fun that some folks find this new. Honestly, we've had to have it that way forever in order to sell tickets. If you scheduled a tiny D2 school, nobody would show up. Don't blame the SEC, if you can guarantee 4 wins and 2 extra home games every year and still sell out, why not.
But agree with above, ideal as a fan would be 20 max. Play all of you in division (9 games) 2 cross division and then have one left for cross conference games like USC-Notre Dame
@AllTideUp @JRsec @KFL1965 it's interesting that you all talk about 24 and 32 team conferences. Doesn't that seem somewhat unlikely with a 12 game schedule? I mean, the SEC has resisted going to even 9 conference games, which seems like a requirement if you go to a 20 team league. Having a conference split in divisions should mean playing each team in division at least once, and there will be need in most conferences for one cross division rivalry game. A 32 team conference could be set up like the NFL, sure, except they have a 4 game playoff system, and I don't see college football going to a 16 or 17 game year. Seems like there are upper bounds just based on the fact it's a 12 game schedule. Plus, each group has to add to per school payouts...
@AllTideUp @NCarolina09 people were really excited at the possibility of adding Texas before and would be so again. But if you're talking more like Oklahoma and Kansas, there would be no excitement. I guess people I know here are still more thinking 16 team max conferences - maybe because we saw what happened when the WAC expanded. Small beer compared to money in a 20 team SEC or B1G, but still educational. But, yeah, can absolutely see if the B1G gets to 20 grabbing the 4 better academic ACC schools (Duke, UNC, UVa and GT) plus 2 others (ND, Pitt, BC, Syracuse?) and SEC gets to 20 focusing on southeast (grab a few ACC, WVU maybe), a semi-merger where Pac-12 gets the 4 schools it talked to before (UT, Tx Tech, OU, OKSt) and 4 others, either Big 12 or other makes sense. But maybe it's just the core 4. That depends in my mind on whether NCAA adds a rule where you can get semi-final games if you get to 20. Same way the money helped convince the better schools of the Pac-10 to hold their nose to go to 12, imagine same would be true for 20 in that case. Obvious in all that is that to get Texas, the league would go to 16 or 18 in a heartbeat. The fact they're willing to take OKSt to do it, no issues, shows how much they want Texas, because otherwise they REALLY don't want OKSt.
@NCarolina09 fair point. Although I'll split the difference with you and say it's like Cal - UC Irvine. But not the same drop off as Colorado-CSU, the UC system to CSU system or Idaho to BSU. But so many schools in the UC system that most outside California aren't even aware of, so could fine tune it for hours - hahaha!
@NCarolina09 Yep, BYU fits, except for the religious part, which is obviously pretty big. Not the no Sundays for BYU and the fact the Pac doesn't want religious institutions. As for SDSU, not going to happen. They're part of the CSU system, which is the tier below UC system. Another thing many don't realize, neither UNLV or BSU are the flagship schools for each state. Those would be UN-Reno and U of Idaho - so letting in UNLV or BSU would be like letting in CSU instead of Colorado. Long story short, highly unlikely Pac-12 expands unless it can really bust out of it's geography.
One last major point, maybe the most major. You ding the Pac for lacking major football powers, and that's why it can't get as significant TV contracts. I might argue (USC isn't a major program?), but either way it overlooks a more important difference. The media markets of the Pac aren't like those of the other main conferences, they're like that of the Northeast: more urbanized, more affluent and very much pro sport driven. Doesn't matter who we add, LA, SF and Seattle will be 3 of our biggest markets and will remain pro sports driven. So it makes no sense to play the same game as more rural, college-sports oriented media conferences. Thus, don't assume we'll be driven by the same mechanics. Again, the analysis of the other stuff seems very thoughtful, but the Pac-12 stuff is betrayed by a lack of equivalent insight (and probably time spent thinking about it). Keep the good stuff coming!
Interesting stuff. But as a West Coaster and Pac-12 alum, you betray the east of the Mississippi bias you mention. First, how is it you understand that the B1G and SEC have certain cultures, but think the Pac-12 culture is just based on a map? If anything, the attempt to grab Texas and Oklahoma should have taught you the opposite, the map means less than the culture. Second, didn't you learn anything from Scott's attempt to get to 14 with OU and OKSt - the commish will push for almost any expansion, the universities will push back. So, don't take Scott's will as the eventual determinant. Third, you question whether the Big XII adding people can be accretive (even with a championship game to sell), but you think adding BSU and Hawaii will increase the per school payout?
Your stuff is good, but don't think because you all are biased to think our football is small time that we agree. The Pac will expand if it makes sense culturally, academically and financially, just like the other major conferences. Not because you all think the conference isn't interesting enough for you to stay up past bedtime for.