The rich getting richer in the SEC...Which lucky school gets kicked to the East?
Which lucky school gets kicked to the East?Texas A&M as a condition of not blocking it
Texas A&M as a condition of not blocking itDo you really think aggie would dodge us and go to the east
I don't think permanent divisions work with a 16 team league.no law says you have to play everyone in your division every year
The SEC plays eight league games per year. If there are eight teams in a division you'd only have one non-divisional game per year. If you had a fixed crossover you would NEVER play any of the other teams.
Even without a fixed crossover it would take eight years to play each of the non-divisional teams and you'd go 16 years between hosting each non-divisional opponent.
Think about that in lifetime terms with a team that your team hosted when you were in college at age 19, the hosting in your lifetime:
- Toddler 3
- College student 19
- 35
- 51
- 67
- 83
As has been discussed in the before time, a 16-team conference can be split into 4 pods and can be scheduled so that every team plays all the others every other year.What makes more sense to me is to overlay pods and groups. To try to make this work for this hypothetical SEC Expansion I think that each Pod has to be headlined by a Helmet. This expanded version of the SEC would have a lot of candidates so I separated them into four "Helmets" and four "near helmets".
9 game conf schedule of:
the other 3 teams in your pod (every year)
2 from each of the other 3 pods one year, the other 2 from each pod the next
3 + 2 + 2 + 2 = 9
You see everyone else every 2 seasons
You play at your place and their place every 4 seasons
.
I doubt the SEC would do this, as it makes too much sense. Plus, the pods would be all wacky if the original 4 schools held the rest of the conference hostage again (although Tennessee might not want to play Alabama every year anymore).
If those 4 did insist on being in a pod together (AL, AU, UT, UGA), it would leave Florida with Carolina, Vandy, and Kentucky. :)
Texas, OU, A&M, and Arky would be a pod.
That would leave LSU with OM, MSU, and Missou, which would be a casserole, basically.
.
Or people might insist LSU and Florida are in a pod, and you'd be left with some kind of toilet bowl pod remaining.
They could always be completely unscrupulous, and just kick out the sub-mediocre teams.Need at least 8 teams to be a conference. That's the old BE took Temple after they already Pluto'd them once.
The SEC has far many more choices than does the B1G.And fewer requirements to boot, aside from $$$. None of this AAU thing (which pertains to graduate programs mostly).
Did the SEC benefit by adding Mizzou and A&M? I don't know how to measure that.Only if you assume some sort of financial benefit from exposure to the TV sets in two states with a combined 36M TV viewers.
Did the SEC benefit by adding Mizzou and A&M? I don't know how to measure that.Texas, St. Louis and KC TV markets, all while hurting a rival conference.
AAU isn't a thing anymore.It's gone entirely, or no longer a B1G requirement? I know Nebbie lost that status for some bookkeeping reason.
Did the SEC benefit by adding Mizzou and A&M? I don't know how to measure that.I think A&M adds some games that draw good TV ratings, not sure about Mizzou
UGA-Auburn is considered an important rivalry, but so is Tenn-Bama as well.I get it and I did know that for both of those but I could only keep so many.
That is the problem with the current B12, small market teams, too many of them.And I'll add, too many secondary schools even in their own markets:
The SEC has far many more choices than does the B1G.I highly doubt that B1G expansion would be from within the existing footprint. Pitt would add almost nothing in terms of fans/viewers.
In the B1G footprint, there is Pitt, Cuse, KU, KSU, ISU.
Oh boy.
UVA-UNC would be a marquis add for any conference, and would also mean the demise of the ACC.I think the drop to four power conferences has been something that we've all been thinking was a possibility. The question was whether it would be the B12 or the ACC. PAC is safe due to geo and B1G and SEC were safe due to strength.
Both are in solid population and growth states. That said ....
That they are considered, but some, rivalries, doesn't make them so. UGA-Auburn has deep history, UGA-Florida does not, but the latter is more important today.What about UM/OSU? Rivalry still?
Tenn-Bama is the reason they play every year, and it's no a rivalry today but once was. Rivalries change over time of course, and these could go away with some lamentation by old guys. When I was a kid, UGA's biggest rival was Tech, end of story, and now I'd be happy not to play them again at all.
Better to play a decent team like Eastern Michigan.
The B1G doesn't need to expand within its footprint, exactly.I agree with all of this except ND.
Don't need Pitt, Cuse, ISU or KSU. Kansas might be worthwhile for basketball. As much as I hate to say it, Notre Dame would be good if we can sell them on the B1G being a better landing spot than the ACC.
The best option is also outside the footprint, and to try to pry UVA/UNC out of the ACC. But I don't know that they'll try to leave unless the writing is on the wall that the ACC is getting killed, and I don't think the writing would be on the wall that the ACC is getting killed without UVA and UNC jumping ship.
Kansas and Syracuse wouldn't be horrible, though. Kansas shores up our basketball situation and Syracuse isn't all that bad of a fit to add with Rutgers and Maryland out East... But I worry it would be seen as a desperation add.
Notre Dame:I never saw any of that,I just wanted to see someone in either isle recreate the water/wine thingee. Sad to say neither could pull it off so I learned all of my social graces and took direction from the football coaches
I think that Notre Dame would have been a great addition years ago when the league looked at them but not today. My perception is that their fandom is slowly shrinking as the country as a whole becomes less religious and the religious portion becomes less Christian. When my dad was a kid the big religious divide in America was between Catholics and Protestant's. My dad's catholic friends had to get "permission" from their priest to attend friends' weddings in protestant churches. My point is that the catholic/protestant divide was serious business. Catholics saw Protestants as heathen non-Christians while protestants saw Catholics as Papal worshipping idolaters.
It's gone entirely, or no longer a B1G requirement? I know Nebbie lost that status for some bookkeeping reason.Correct.
Would OU leave without the other OSU?Thats the main reason Im skeptical of this
What about UM/OSU? Rivalry still?I think it still is The Game because of the long history and relative competitiveness even of late. You probably noticed theh Bama-Vol scores of late. I think the Vols were hanging in there one game and their QB fumbled on the Bama goal line for a "pickup six". Guarantano.
Rather stand pat than add a bunch of scrub teams like Virginia, UNC, Kansas, Iowa St, etc.I think think of UVA and UNC as "scrub teams" across all athletics. The tend not to be strong in CFB.
I think A&M adds some games that draw good TV ratings, not sure about MizzouI’m no tv ratings guru but several of our games have drawn extremely high ratings through the years. 2013 A&M Bama was one as I recall. I do know that week in and week out we have good ratings, especially when we play a good opponent like LSU or Bama. Remember, we’ve only been in the SEC for ten years so we’ve not had a ton of time for rivalries to develop. I know I’m much more inclined to watch any random sec game Than I did a similar B12 game even when it’s not my team.
of course they can both bring other benefits
perhaps adding A&M will help land the Horns and Sooners
Only if you assume some sort of financial benefit from exposure to the TV sets in two states with a combined 36M TV viewers.
I don't think the conference saw any competitive advantage from either addition.
That said, I don't think anything about either addition harmed the SEC either. Mizzou is the flagship university in Missouri, and Texas A&M is a solid school with a lot of history, even if it's not the state's flagship.
Iowa State doesn't pull 50% in the state, but it's significant. maybe 40% at least 35This surprises me.
Not really. We left the B12 for a reason.poor aggie is bitter
UT should follow through with their PAC dreams.
I agree with all of this except ND.If the SEC is going to 16 teams, and if the Big Ten follows this model, then . . .
Notre Dame:
I think that Notre Dame would have been a great addition years ago when the league looked at them but not today. My perception is that their fandom is slowly shrinking as the country as a whole becomes less religious and the religious portion becomes less Christian. When my dad was a kid the big religious divide in America was between Catholics and Protestant's. My dad's catholic friends had to get "permission" from their priest to attend friends' weddings in protestant churches. My point is that the catholic/protestant divide was serious business. Catholics saw Protestants as heathen non-Christians while protestants saw Catholics as Papal worshipping idolaters. Meanwhile, back then, the entire national population of atheists, Jews, and Muslims would probably have fit in one football stadium.
Today I think that most Catholics and Protestants see each other as sharing a religion just with slightly different customs and the bigger divide is between Christians and everyone else. That, I think, makes Catholics less predisposed to be fans of Notre Dame.
Secondly, Notre Dame's academics simply are not up to B1G standards. Notre Dame fans usually laugh when they hear me say that because Notre Dame's undergrad ranking is very good. Per USNR they are #19 which would be second among B1G athletic members behind only Northwestern and just ahead of Michigan (#24). However, it is also behind Chicago (#6) and John's Hopkins (#9).
The more important issue academically is research. This is slightly dated but here is a list of Research spending by B1G (and quasi B1G) Universities:
- #1 Johns Hopkins $2.6B
- #2 Michigan $1.5B
- #6 Wisconsin $1.2B
- #17 Minnesota $922M
- #22 Ohio State $864M
- #23 Penn State $855M
- #29 Northwestern $752M
- #32 Michigan State $695M
- #33 Rutgers $682M
- #36 Illinois $642M
- #37 Purdue $623M
- #43 Maryland $549M
- #45 Indiana $540M
- #49 Iowa $494M
- #55 Chicago $433M
- #77 Nebraska $302M
Notre Dame is #101 at $213M.
Highly ranked Research Universities that might be plausible additions:
- #8 Dook, $1.1B
- #11 UNC, $1.1B
- #16 Pitt, $940M (I still don't think we'd add them for athletic and footprint reasons but at least they would be a good add academically.
- #24 GaTech, $804M (Probably too far away geographically but great academics and in the fast-growing ATL media market).
- #46 VaTech, $522M (Good athletic fit, decent geographic fit, good academic fit).
- #47 NCST, $500M
- #51 UVA, $470M
The top two there are Dook and UNC but I think we'd be looking to add two states to the footprint not two schools from one state. UNC is a much better addition than Dook because they are more similar to our existing schools (Mostly State Flagship Universities) and while Dook has arguably better Basketball, the rest of UNC's athletic programs would run rings around Dook's.
Thus I think the logical additions are UNC and one of UVA/VaTech. Both NC and VA are populous (#9 and #12 respectively) and fast growing states.
poor aggie is bitterNope. I like the SEC just how it is. Besides, UT is just not a good fit. Go west.
bless your heart
Only if you assume some sort of financial benefit from exposure to the TV sets in two states with a combined 36M TV viewers.Our Orange bowl tilt with UNC drew a 4.3 rating, 2nd highest non-CFP bowl game behind Uga and Cincinnati in the peach bowl.
I don't think the conference saw any competitive advantage from either addition.
That said, I don't think anything about either addition harmed the SEC either. Mizzou is the flagship university in Missouri, and Texas A&M is a solid school with a lot of history, even if it's not the state's flagship.
The programs that should be most worried are Iowa St, Baylor, and Kansas St.I'm not sure this is something to be proud of
I doubt anyone has spent more time than I have actually sitting down and fleshing this kind of thing out.
Rather stand pat than add a bunch of scrub teams like Virginia, UNC, Kansas, Iowa St, etc.Ed Zachery
This surprises me.enrollment ISU 33K, UI 23K
I'm not sure this is something to be proud ofWell....I did take toiling with college football 'stuff' in my leisure time and monetized it, so....maybe that was a good call. Why be a college football nerd for free, right?
Rather stand pat than add a bunch of scrub teams like Virginia, UNC, Kansas, Iowa St, etc.After adding Rutgers, I'm not sure anyone new the B1G added could be looked down upon.
Kansas and the Big Ten are rumored to be talking. Haven't heard of any other Big 12 teams potentially being scavenged by the Big Ten.Why wouldnt the Big10 go after Ok St
Why wouldnt the Big10 go after Ok StBetter question is why would they?
Better question is why would they?really?
really?Sorry, not trying to be snarky.
they field a pretty good football team every year
not sure what your smirky response is based on
Okie St doesn't add enough TV sets or eyeballs for the contract to be interestedare you sure about that
I'm not sure KU does either,,,, but maybe the basketball TV eyeballs would be enuff. Maybe
another elite 8 for March madness would help
I think the B1G needs to view this SEC move as a power grab and have this discussion with the schools at the top of the PAC, then respond accordingly. The Rose Bowl is going to die under the expanded playoff format, maybe add UCLA to the conference and play the CCG there every once in a awhile as an homage to it. If the B1G doesn't think outside the box here I fear that the SEC just leaves the NCAA and becomes it's own division with it's own championship.Interesting... I'll admit it's certainly bold.
The current PAC12 deal ends in 2023, so it's without question the path of least resistance from an expansion standpoint.
the PAC isn't a good CFB partner and has the same problem as the Big 12Not going to pry Mizzou out of the SEC, and depending how strong the ACC GoR is, may not be able to get UNC.
better to approach programs that add value
perhaps Mizzou, Kansas, Notre Dame, and/or UNC
Not going to pry Mizzou out of the SEC, and depending how strong the ACC GoR is, may not be able to get UNC.think B1G, take UNC and Clemson
There are teams of value in the PAC. But as @TamrielsKeeper (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1753) suggests, it's hard to just pick and choose. You can't just take USC and Washington, for example, because now you've got two severe outliers that have nothing in common with the rest of the conference and they're way out of the footprint. If you're going to blow up the footprint and take someone out west, you have to go all out.Precisely, an expansion to 20 would be borderline required for any expansion from the P12 to really function in a way that you end up competing for national titles as a conference against the SEC.
Is UCLA in lockstep with Cal? That could be the answer right there. But, would Cal want to leave Stanford behind?
Of the schools you list, only Oregon is not an AAU member, but I don't think that matters anymore.
Chicago already pulled out of the CIC, so their input and insistence on only AAU members in that group is gone.
Better question is why would they?This is exactly what I was thinking and for exactly the same reasons that you listed in your next post.
While CFB drives the bus, other sports can contribute a good bit, MBB.Colorado left for a reason, what makes you think they would have any interest in going back? Maybe they would be intrigued by the idea of being the big fish in a small pond but that doesn't make much sense from a revenue perspective.
I'm still all astonishment this is more than a rumor apparently.
Could the Big 12 survive by poaching the Arizona teams and Colorado (back)?
Throw in Cincinnati?
I think we're looking at a conference that is really two conferences with some links.
enrollment ISU 33K, UI 23KYou forgot to include graduates students at Iowa.
ISU is the AG and engineering college
many of those graduates return home to farms and Ag businesses in the state
No idea on the politics of the Cali schools, but Oregon is listed on the AAU website as a member?You are correct. I missed that - thanks.
https://www.aau.edu/who-we-are/our-members
I get it probably doesn't matter, but might make it more palatable to the university presidents.
While CFB drives the bus, other sports can contribute a good bit, MBB.
I'm still all astonishment this is more than a rumor apparently.
Could the Big 12 survive by poaching the Arizona teams and Colorado (back)?
Throw in Cincinnati?
Colorado left for a reason, what makes you think they would have any interest in going back? Maybe they would be intrigued by the idea of being the big fish in a small pond but that doesn't make much sense from a revenue perspective.Without UT and OU, the B12 is nothing. No matter if you get the AZ schools and Colorado. You have no helmets. No anchor for the quality of the league.
true, as you know it's not 75% hawkeyes in the stateIt didn't used to be as balanced as now. Up until the early 1970s Iowa State played football in a stadium that seated in the mid-30,000s. Iowa State enrollment, and its fanbase have increased dramatically. The fanbases are about equal in size, and equal in affection for the athletic teams the past 10-years. Iowa State being an AAU school, and in the Big Ten footprint would be a good choice for the Big Ten. If the Big Ten could bring in Notre Dame, Iowa State would be a really good addition.
I disagree with this once you go to divisions and rotate them. If you had two 10 school "divisions", then yeah, that's basically two separate conferences. Playing a schools twice every six years feels like enough regularity that you're connected for me. It's more of an NFL approach for sure, but still fairly regular.
The SEC is looking at four team pods apparently.Four, four-team pods makes sense to me for a 16 team conference but, what is your (TamrielsKeeper) proposal for pods with 20 teams?
It didn't used to be as balanced as now. Up until the early 1970s Iowa State played football in a stadium that seated in the mid-30,000s. Iowa State enrollment, and its fanbase have increased dramatically. The fanbases are about equal in size, and equal in affection for the athletic teams the past 10-years. Iowa State being an AAU school, and in the Big Ten footprint would be a good choice for the Big Ten. If the Big Ten could bring in Notre Dame, Iowa State would be a really good addition.It is about money which is why ISU and OkSU are not even going to be considered by the B1G and are frankly going to be lucky if their future isn't in the MAC.
If it is about dollars the Big Ten will look to North Carolina, or otherwise go beyond its footprint.
If you can't get ND, perhaps taking Kansas and ripping Colorado out of the PAC? UC-Boulder might be a good fit and they're narrowly on the same side of the Rockies as the rest of our conference. They're not a college football powerhouse, but it's a great school in a populous [and quickly growing] state. I think they'd be willing to consider leaving--the B1G can offer more money and I'm not sure they're any better of a cultural fit out West as in the B1G.Re: Colorado:
Did you see my original post two pages ago? Lol, laid it out in great detail.
If you expand to five-team pods then there are ZERO cross-overs so the ONLY every-year games will be those within each pod. Ie, each team will have four every-year games and five that rotate. That makes it a LOT harder to protect rivalries.
Sorry, three pages ago now!May I ask... Are you a former Scout/CFN poster from the distant past?
Did you see my original post two pages ago? Lol, laid it out in great detail.I don't mind a rematch THAT much but I would eliminate or minimize late-season non-divisional games simply because I see a rematch of a game from a month or two earlier as interesting (how has each team improved since then) whereas I see a rematch of a game from last week as just silly.
Yes, zero cross over games and you can do a pretty good job of protecting rivalries with divisions of 5 - in the post I made the only critical one that I sacrificed to the money gods was NW-Illinois as an annual game. I did that because splitting those two up gives all conference members more access to the Chicagoland area, and there was talk of NW going east before because of their alumni in NYC/DC. Also, putting NW in a division w/ ND would make sense with ND's concentration of fans in Chicago.
If you wanted to give a carve back exception to NW/Illinois where they could play a non-conference rivalry game in the 4 years they don't play each other, that would solve the problem. Every other geographical rival in the B1G is protected in my proposed setup - unless I'm missing one.
I like no crossovers, it protects the integrity of the CCG because it's never a rematch.
It is about money which is why ISU and OkSU are not even going to be considered by the B1G and are frankly going to be lucky if their future isn't in the MAC.It is about money, but I don't think it is "all about money."
I was! I don't even remember what my handle was there now, that transition has been so long ago now. I think it might have been BlackNGold or something, I'm an Iowa fan.Welcome back!
I wasn't a super frequent poster, but enjoyed the community. Had a couple of kids and that really changed the amount of free time I had to think/post about college football. I somehow figured out everyone transitioned over here a while back and started an account, but have just been a lurker for the most part.
i'm sure this has been discussed in these 9 pages, but the b1g, pac and acc won't sit idly by for long. they'll make moves and the bigxii will be picked apart.Baylor and TCU are destined to stay in the old NCAA. They are irrelevent in the new league. TX Tech might be attractive to some other conference.
i wouldn't be surprised to see mizz jump to b1g if offered. which would also solve the ou leaving ok st delimma.
sec gets ou, texas and ok st, loses mizz.
b1g gets kansas and mizz, brings 2 rivals and aau schools since that's big for them, as well as good bball programs and overall good ath depts.
pac gets baylor, tt, tcu and... someone else? isu or ksu? boise, byu?
acc takes wvu and nd if they can convince them, if not then cincy.
either way, between this, nil, cfp expansion, and ncaa getting knocked around in court, in 5 years time this is all going to be a completely new game.
I was! I don't even remember what my handle was there now, that transition has been so long ago now. I think it might have been BlackNGold or something, I'm an Iowa fan.Thank you so much for coming back. We are trying to build something special here, so to have guys like you return warms my heart.
I wasn't a super frequent poster, but enjoyed the community. Had a couple of kids and that really changed the amount of free time I had to think/post about college football. I somehow figured out everyone transitioned over here a while back and started an account, but have just been a lurker for the most part.
Now there is an article stating the Big 12/8 has reached out to the PAC-12 about a merger to become the PAC-20.Yeah, desperation move from the B12. Doubt they have a very compelling offer that would make the PAC-12 interested.
Big 12 Reportedly Considering Merger With Another Conference (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/big-12-reportedly-considering-merger-with-another-conference/ar-AAMubf2?ocid=msedgntp)
Now there is an article stating the Big 12/8 has reached out to the PAC-12 about a merger to become the PAC-20.IMHO, the PAC would be nuts to take this, there are too many small-revenue teams in the Big . . .8
Big 12 Reportedly Considering Merger With Another Conference (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/big-12-reportedly-considering-merger-with-another-conference/ar-AAMubf2?ocid=msedgntp)
Yeah, desperation move from the B12. Doubt they have a very compelling offer that would make the PAC-12 interested.PAC is in terrible shape from a financial perspective and adding ANY teams in markets further east would probably be a good move for them. People in California just don't care much about football, compared to almost everywhere else in the country. They've got plenty of other stuff to do. You live there, you know this to be true.
PAC is in terrible shape from a financial perspective and adding ANY teams in markets further east would probably be a good move for them. People in California just don't care much about football, compared to almost everywhere else in the country. They've got plenty of other stuff to do. You live there, you know this to be true.Everything you said about California and college sports is true...
The one school Phillips has publicly courted is Notre Dame, which still clings to its independence, but has a contract with the ACC as a partial member. (The Fighting Irish played last season as part of the ACC due to the coronavirus pandemic.)
Notre Dame also has an agreement with the ACC that, should it choose to join a conference, it has to be the ACC. The agreement is in place throughout the length of the current grant of rights, which runs through 2036, a source confirmed to ESPN.
"They know the ACC's interest," Phillips said this week at the league's media days. "It's been less than bashful. They know where we're at. Who knows where the future's going to go. I love the schools we have, but you always have to be ready to add."
If the ACC and Pac12 are talking about a merger, it's almost certain that's ESPN trying to work against Fox.why in the world would ACC merge with PAC 12 why not ACC and Big 10
That would be the worst case scenario for the B1G. We better hope Warren and Alverez are already trying to land the best of the PAC.
I would like to see that contract to see how tight it is worded.
Liquidated damages Penalty clauses in contracts are not favored under the law.
Ten - Fifteen million dollars would help pave ND's path if it could be convinced that pastures are greener in the Midwest.
Hey Hawkinole, I'm unsure of your background/job, are you involved in some form of entertainment contract law? Country lawyer.If memory serves me right, Maryland paid a fraction of the liquidated damages clause amount it had in its ACC contract upon exiting the ACC.
It makes me wish we still had PiratesRoost around, he was a lawyer in a field that was tangentially related to this type of law, and he basically always said-- there's no contract that's going to actually prevent a school from doing what it wants. It will simply become a negotiation for perceived damages.
The "grant of rights" is really effectively no different than an exit penalty clause, because realistically if Notre Dame had its rights granted to the ACC but decided to join the B1G, there's no police force or anything that's going to stop them from putting cameras in their stadium and broadcasting through whichever medium partner they want. The ACC couldn't stop it from happening, all they could do is sue for damages. And really, it wouldn't get that far, because they'd just negotiate the amount ahead of time. This is correct.
If memory serves me right, Maryland paid a fraction of the liquidated damages clause amount it had in its ACC contract upon exiting the ACC.Same thing for Nebraska and A&M when they left the B12.
why in the world would ACC merge with PAC 12 why not ACC and Big 10
Best guess would be that they realize the B1G is fully in bed with Fox due to the BTN and ESPN wants to control everything except the the B1G content.The ESPN article said this has to do with television, which is what I thought, but I didn't think it all the way through to this extent. The Big Ten may have to claw for more than two teams.
ESPN just destroyed the B12, which Fox has a part of. They fully own the ACC and SEC. If they get the PAC/ACC they fully own the rights to everything but the B1G.
Best guess would be that they realize the B1G is fully in bed with Fox due to the BTN and ESPN wants to control everything except the the B1G content.Ehhh. I think that might be a stretch. ESPN still makes plenty of money off (and pays plenty of money too) the Big 10. And in truth, I wonder how much consolidation helps that four-letter network. You're cutting down the total inventory of useful games, though you might get some better ones on the top end.
ESPN just destroyed the B12, which Fox has a part of. They fully own the ACC and SEC. If they get the PAC/ACC they fully own the rights to everything but the B1G.
Everything you said about California and college sports is true...You say that now, but when you can sell Cal-Iowa State to the networks, watch out.
...but I'm not sure that adding the dregs of the B12 is good for them.
I would suppose that accepting this sort of offer might be a defense against the proposal that the B1G just go raid their best teams for a superconference.
But if the best teams get drawn into some sort of 20-team monstrosity with the dregs of the B12, they may just ditch the PAC for the B1G anyway...
I just don't think the dregs of the B12 save the PAC's financial situation.
You say that now, but when you can sell Cal-Iowa State to the networks, watch out.That's not any worse than Berkley-Oregon State or Berkeley-Washington State or Berkeley-Arizona. Throw in Texas Tech which does actually turn on some TV sets east of the Rockies in Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, and Austin metro areas.
The SEC is looking at four team pods apparently.Thank Christ
It was a weird time when the compromised Big East still had a BCS tie-in.
It's rearranging the deck chairs like the old Big East when they got raided... You had a bunch of second tier and worse schools left, not a sustainable power conference.
i'm sure this has been discussed in these 9 pages, but the b1g, pac and acc won't sit idly by for long. they'll make moves and the bigxii will be picked apart.I halfway think the SEC would be glad if Mizzou left. Hell, thee SEC brass might be urging the OKST brass to have a little conversation with the Mizzou brass.
i wouldn't be surprised to see mizz jump to b1g if offered. which would also solve the ou leaving ok st delimma.
sec gets ou, texas and ok st, loses mizz.
Interesting...Good!
Unless there are some sort of exit clauses that are financially feasible, that suggests they won't be headed our way.
The more I think about it, the more I'm against Iowa State.I appreciate your thoughts on this, and I have somewhat different thoughts. I am not discrediting your well-reasoned thoughts, and mine may seem inconsistent with what else I have said about Iowa enabling Iowa State by scheduling them year-after-year (it was a mistake), and not keeping their thumb down on Iowa State. But, Iowa did what it did, and now we are where were are, with Iowa State's ascendancy. Maybe Oklahoma and Texas can torpedo Iowa State by moving to the SEC.
It's one thing to look at ISU's increase in enrollment, their football success, their fan appreciation, etc.
And if they get a seat at the big conference table, 20 years later we can look back and say "clearly they were power conference material".
But what happens if nobody picks them up? They end up joining a G5 conference, and then the recruiting falters because local Iowa kids want to play in the B1G on television instead of the G5. Iowa gets better because they're no longer splitting the state's top recruits, so they become more competitive in the B1G.
I don't think Iowa State really moves the needle in any way for the conference, and letting them fall to G5 oblivion arguably makes the conference stronger by making Iowa stronger.
RESULTS:
(N) 2018/09/01 Maryland 34 - Texas 29 W
(AWAY) 2017/09/02 Maryland 51 - Texas 41 W
Does anybody think that ND prefers the ACC?No. The Golden Domers gloat over the fact they are "independent" while they contractually play 5-games against ACC teams per year. How will that play if the ACC and PAC-20 are a conference? To Notre Dame, a national schedule is what drove them to the ACC.
Yeah, arguing about Notre Dame and the ACC with an SEC honk in a bright orange clown wig on a Big Ten board sounds EXTRA fun!Ok, this was funny.
as long as NBC is willing to support ND, ND won't be pressured to do anythingIf Texas and OU to the SEC is the harbinger of the 4 superconferences to come, and the subsequent likely breakaway after that, then ND isn't going to have any choice, but to join one of the 4 remaining conferences.
Yeah, arguing about Notre Dame and the ACC with an SEC honk in a bright orange clown wig on a Big Ten board sounds EXTRA fun!I asked the question.
If Texas and OU to the SEC is the harbinger of the 4 superconferences to come, and the subsequent likely breakaway after that, then ND isn't going to have any choice, but to join one of the 4 remaining conferences.why, they've been getting special treatment forever. Why couldn't they have the same exemption?
why, they've been getting special treatment forever. Why couldn't they have the same exemption?A breakaway gives the 4 conferences leverage to create a clean playoff. If Notre Dame is not a member of those 4 conferences then they're not part of that playoff. The conferences would have every single bit of leverage at that point.
Best guess would be that they realize the B1G is fully in bed with Fox due to the BTN and ESPN wants to control everything except the the B1G content.Doesn't Fox ownership of the BTN go away in 2025?
ESPN just destroyed the B12, which Fox has a part of. They fully own the ACC and SEC. If they get the PAC/ACC they fully own the rights to everything but the B1G.
Would OU leave without the other OSU?When Boren was president of OU, he wouldn't hear of it. Current administration seems to have no problem.
Could the AAC reach P5 level, or close to it? Did you know Florida and Vandy are "associate members" of the AAC?Not by adding the dregs of the B12.
I have not yet see four conferences that make any sense, to me, but perhaps someone has something. I suggested the AZ teams and CO could find common ground with the residue of the 12 and form perhaps the Pac 20 East or something like that.This might work, but if you add Colorado to the two Arizonas, the number in each division are 11 and 9. Another possibility to get to 10 in the division is Utah pairing up with Colorado and the Little 8.
WV could get left out somehow.
Would it be better to move teams into the AAC or into the Big 12? The big 12 just needs 4 teams to be whole. UH is one obvious choice. You still have some decent football programs left in Ok State and Tex Tech. The Big 12 would still have better name recognition than the AAC.Doesn't matter. Still no helmets.
ACC loses 2 to the B1G.
ACC takes 3 from the conf formerly known as the Big 12.
PAC takes 3 as well.
ND to the ACC.
BYU to the PAC.
.
You have your 4 superconferences of 16 teams each.
.
Two Big 12 programs are SOL.
Doesn't Fox ownership of the BTN go away in 2025?I seem to remember that the current ownership arrangement (51% Fox/49% B1G) got extended to 2031 or something as a condition of the last TV deal where Fox bought Tier 1 rights.
Would it be better to move teams into the AAC or into the Big 12? The big 12 just needs 4 teams to be whole. UH is one obvious choice. You still have some decent football programs left in Ok State and Tex Tech. The Big 12 would still have better name recognition than the AAC.I think it's the same thing with the name change. If the AAC discarded their weak sisters in football and added Baylor et al., they'd be better than the Big East was at times.
I think it's the same thing with the name change. If the AAC discarded their weak sisters in football and added Baylor et al., they'd be better than the Big East was at times.
At least deeper, lacking helmet teams still, which the BE had to an extent.
I agree other conferences will panic trying to figure this out and they will be "in contact" with other teams to see where they can move, and often that panic incurs "Maryland and Rutgers". It gets to be more about numbers than quality.
I think the Big 12 would survive the departure of Texas and OU. Other teams like Houston and SMU would like to be in the Big 12.I think they CAN survive, no doubt, by just making numbers, and they may well add Cincy and Memphis. But they start to look like an AAC.
An OU fan from another board doesn't want to be in a Conference with Texas because they destroy every conference that they touch. He just wants to play them OOC, like they used to.I can see the upside down Horns sign now
Gang signs aside, the SEC is obviously a better landing spot for Texas than Oklahoma, who would probably be more at home in the Big Ten West.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIrj9KHLrYw&t=259s
So it's not that bad an idea, really.
UGA - TechYes, but none of those have been created in the past 4 decades-- specifically, since the NCAA stranglehold on television rights was broken by YOUR school (and Oklahoma) :).
USCe - Clemson
FSU - UF, though they were never in the same conference.
Those are local rivalries of long standing.
Gang signs aside, the SEC is obviously a better landing spot for Texas than Oklahoma, who would probably be more at home in the Big Ten West.Culturally and academically, Texas is more aligned to the B1G and Oklahoma is much more like an SEC school.
So it's not that bad an idea, really.
Texas is definitely staying with OU.Very reasonable assessment, Utee.
I've said for the past ten years that OU actually has the power in the relationship. Texas was fine to stand pat in the B12, because Texas wanted to keep it more regional and not endure the far-flung travel associated with joining any of the other conferences, especially for the olympic sports.
But OU has had wanderlust ever since 2010, I believe they felt they missed out in those two rounds of realignment and haven't been satisfied staying in the B12 ever since.
So I'd agree with the reports you've heard-- OU was going no matter what, and Texas' hand was forced, because we know we need them and the TX-OU rivalry, to maintain our sports brand. Sure, an OOC rivalry could be set up, indeed the TX-OU rivalry existed as an OOC game for 8 decades before it become an in-conference game. But there's risk to that-- it's not the 1920s anymore, and times are quite different. How many rivalries have survived in the past 3 decades, when one or both teams switched to different conferences?
Anyway, if the B1G really wanted Texas, they'd need to be willing to take OU. There are factions at OU that would have preferred the B1G all along, but the B1G wasn't overly receptive, given their academics. If that has changed, then now would be the time for the B1G to make a push for both teams.
Excellent post, CW. It sums up a lot of my feelings exactly. I was glad the ESPN/Fox tv package got another 10 years for the B12 but I don't think anyone thought it was going to last. I was ready for OU to go anywhere else but this announcement took me completely by surprise. Once I got over the shock, I think this is going to be great.Same here. I was quite shocked, and wasn't sure how I felt about it.
Hey C-Dub, good to see you back! I was hoping to get your take.I think you are spot on, utee. I've had a perspective shift since the last realignment. It completely bewildered me back when Castiglione was working so closely with Dodds but seeing how OU & UT worked so closely behind the scenes on this made me realize that the things that peeved me as a fan really aren't the big issues facing the universities.
I really do understand what you're saying about Texas as a conference mate, but think about it this way-- in the SEC, Texas won't be able to throw any weight around. It's a well run and secure conference that doesn't need Texas. There's simply no weight to throw around. Adding Texas -- and OU of course-- is beneficial to the SEC. But it's not necessary. And that makes a huge difference.
I won't agree with every accusation leveled at us over the past few decades, but I will say that whatever tendencies might have existed when DeLoss (and then Patterson) were in charge, aren't likely to persist into a relationship with the SEC.
It's definitely going to be a wild ride. I guess we'll see what happens.
Of course!Probably more likely to establish an annual OOC with oSu, no?
Yeah, I wish we could establish an annual OOC game with Nebraska.
But, and I don't mean any disrespect to the Huskers, they would need to get better for that to work.
OU would not benefit much from the game as an inroad into Nebraska HS talent. It would have to be a game that in more years than not had national significance.
Right now, it's for old times' sake, for geezers like me who remember the great games of the '70s and '80s. Young OU fans just remember that Nebraska used to be in the Big 12 (and probably don't even realize that the last CCG of the original Big 12 featured OU and Nebraska).
C'mon, Huskers! Get good again!
Probably more likely to establish an annual OOC with oSu, no?I hope not.
I hope not.On the one hand, I get the big brother thing, but I do hate when the really clean in-state rivalries go away. Like, it's college ball, you play the teams across the state because that's what this sport is built on.
Right now, oSu is throwing a hissy fit and making noises that they will never play OU again.
But the game does more for them than it does for OU.
The only game in which they fill their 60,000-seat stadium is the Bedlam game.
OU wins 80% of the time, but the wins don't matter, because that's how it's supposed to be. When oSu wins, they can celebrate for decades.
Losing yet again doesn't hurt them. There's always next year.
But I suspect that OU will be stuck playing them at least in some years.
If the move to the SEC takes place, and I assume that it will, OU will have some OOC slots to fill in the out years because right now LSU, Georgia, Alabama, and Tennessee are slotted for H&H series. Maybe some of those slots would be filled with oSu.
So, I hope that OU offers to put oSu in those slots, and that oSu refuses.
This makes me chuckle becuase I read a story about an SC politician who hunted for some attention early in his tenure by saying they should enshrine their rivalry in law. It was kinda a sideshow.
P.S. About OU and FoSu splitting up, there's no state law that mandates that they have to be together.
On the one hand, I get the big brother thing, but I do hate when the really clean in-state rivalries go away. Like, it's college ball, you play the teams across the state because that's what this sport is built on.
(By clean I mean flagship vs ag school. Maybe just my Pac-12 roots showing)
After thinking about it, stylistically, is K-State the most Big Ten school suddenly on the market? The feel very Big Ten on the field, even if the academics will stop it.I get your point about in-state rivalries, but this one is historically the most lopsided in all the land. OU has won 81% of the games--90-18-7. 16 of the last 18. 18 of the last 22. Much of the time, Oklahoma State was Oklahoma A&M College playing in the Missouri Valley Conference. Cowboy football in the last 10 years is the best it has ever been. But Boone Pickens--the great benefactor--has died, and his donations have all been spent. Mike Gundy, the Cowboys' most successful coach ever, by far, isn't going to be there forever. So the W-L record seems likely to get even more and more lopsided if the series is continued.
I suppose I meant in terms of that rugged ground-heavy style. Power football and the like.
About which remaining Big 12 team would be the most B1G-like, I nominate Iowa State. They are a little-brother program that doesn't seem to base its entire reason for existence on hating the state's flagship program. Great fans, gritty teams, usually a tough out. Everything to like about a team that does more with less. They have beaten OU 2 out of the last 5 meetings. And ISU has better academics than K-State.
ISU also has earned racial justice points. It is the school that accepted George Washington Carver after a school in Kansas had turned him down once they saw the color of his skin. And ISU's stadium is named for Jack Trice, the first Black athlete there, who died of internal injuries after a "rough" game at Minnesota.
I suppose I meant in terms of that rugged ground-heavy style. Power football and the like.K-State's fine. And they do more with less also. And they've got great fans too.
And despite being a tough out, Iowa State has won 39 percent of its games since 1990.
I get your point about in-state rivalries, but this one is historically the most lopsided in all the land. OU has won 81% of the games--90-18-7. 16 of the last 18. 18 of the last 22. Much of the time, Oklahoma State was Oklahoma A&M College playing in the Missouri Valley Conference. Cowboy football in the last 10 years is the best it has ever been. But Boone Pickens--the great benefactor--has died, and his donations have all been spent. Mike Gundy, the Cowboys' most successful coach ever, by far, isn't going to be there forever. So the W-L record seems likely to get even more and more lopsided if the series is continued.I think oSu has a lot of potential, and I think Gundys time has came and went.
I imagine that there will be occasional, maybe even frequent, home-and-home series. And that would be OK with me. But I don't want to play them every year to the exclusion of better opponents for the marquee OOC game.
About which remaining Big 12 team would be the most B1G-like, I nominate Iowa State. They are a little-brother program that doesn't seem to base its entire reason for existence on hating the state's flagship program. Great fans, gritty teams, usually a tough out. Everything to like about a team that does more with less. They have beaten OU 2 out of the last 5 meetings. And ISU has better academics than K-State.
ISU also has earned racial justice points. It is the school that accepted George Washington Carver after a school in Kansas had turned him down once they saw the color of his skin. And ISU's stadium is named for Jack Trice, the first Black athlete there, who died of internal injuries after a "rough" game at Minnesota.
The Texas and/or OU to the B1G thing is missing something: recruiting.The SEC footprint is a more fertile recruiting area than the Big Ten footprint.
I think we here put too much emphasis on academics, which seems to be a pass/fail thing. It does matter, of course, but if you're a Texas or an OU and you've got some newfangled conference games on the horizon, recruiting-wise, where do you want those to be?
Iowa, Wisconsin, and Ohio?
or
Louisiana, Georgia, and Florida?
.
If you're a program and you'll be benefitting from greater exposure in certain states, that might be higher up the list than academics.
The SEC footprint is a more fertile recruiting area than the Big Ten footprint.It's not just this fact, either. It's about the massive growth in the SEC footprint and the near stagnant numbers in the rust belt. In 5 years, the gap in recruiting will be wider and wider still in 10 years and then in 20.
It's not just this fact, either. It's about the massive growth in the SEC footprint and the near stagnant numbers in the rust belt. In 5 years, the gap in recruiting will be wider and wider still in 10 years and then in 20.You may be correct in the time frame suggested, and the trend the past 40-50 years would suggest you are correct. But, if climate change does not reverse, one might expect an exodus from southern states 20-years from now.
Does anyone know how soon this might happen?
K-State's fine. And they do more with less also. And they've got great fans too.This is true, but I tend to look at the middle range. Could be a bad bet with K-State, as so much was with one coach. That said, ISU is all of four years decent, and that would scare me as an add.
Iowa State is 32-19 over the last four seasons, all under Matt Campbell who started out 3-9 in 2016.
Kansas State is 25-23 over the last four seasons.
Iowa State is 548-658-46 all-time.
Kansas State was once the worst program in Div 1 football, but is 542–642–42 all-time, and has a winning record since 1990.
Of course!Obviously, many are praying the Huskers can get "good" again.
Yeah, I wish we could establish an annual OOC game with Nebraska.
But, and I don't mean any disrespect to the Huskers, they would need to get better for that to work.
OU would not benefit much from the game as an inroad into Nebraska HS talent. It would have to be a game that in more years than not had national significance.
Right now, it's for old times' sake, for geezers like me who remember the great games of the '70s and '80s. Young OU fans just remember that Nebraska used to be in the Big 12 (and probably don't even realize that the last CCG of the original Big 12 featured OU and Nebraska).
C'mon, Huskers! Get good again!
I really do understand what you're saying about Texas as a conference mate, but think about it this way-- in the SEC, Texas won't be able to throw any weight around. It's a well run and secure conference that doesn't need Texas. There's simply no weight to throw around. Adding Texas -- and OU of course-- is beneficial to the SEC. But it's not necessary. And that makes a huge differenceI think this is an important point. Sometimes on here we get fans from current or former conference-mates of Texas who obviously chafe at Texas' perceived (rightly) throwing their weight around in their league.
It's not just this fact, either. It's about the massive growth in the SEC footprint and the near stagnant numbers in the rust belt. In 5 years, the gap in recruiting will be wider and wider still in 10 years and then in 20.I agree wrt recruiting (although I'm not sure how important that is to TX and OU since Texas is a VERY strong recruiting area on their own but I want to point out something that I've pointed out before:
The bar in my marina is solidly Big Ten.Exactly the kind of thing I was thinking of. Guys like you might live in a fast-growing sunbelt state but your team is from where you came from. I would guess that tOSU/M is a bigger deal in a substantial portion of Florida than UF/FSU for the same reason.
I think this is an important point. Sometimes on here we get fans from current or former conference-mates of Texas who obviously chafe at Texas' perceived (rightly) throwing their weight around in their league.Great analysis, Medina!
I think they are right, Texas does, but I also think that any school in Texas' situation would. The B12 has forever had way too many weak links. That left Texas as the 900 lb gorilla in the room. The exact same thing would have happened if the B12 had been those schools with Bama or tOSU instead of Texas.
Assuming Texas joins the SEC or if they had joined the B1G things would have been very different. In the SEC or B1G Texas would still be one of the biggest or possibly even the biggest revenue generator, the gap wouldn't be so large. In the SEC or B1G Texas would have somewhat equal "colleagues" in schools like Bama, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, etc.
In the B12 Texas probably was responsible for at least close to a majority of the revenue not generated by Oklahoma. Ie, after Oklahoma the Longhorns probably generated more revenue than the next 4-6 (or more) schools. That inherently created the situation where the B12 HAD to cater to the Longhorns (and to a somewhat lesser extent, the Sooners). It is like a company whose largest client provides 50% of their revenue. That company will do almost anything for that large client, they have to.
In the SEC or B1G, Texas would be analogous to a large client but not an overpowering client. They'll be in the group of largest clients and maybe even the biggest, but they won't be 50% or even 25%.
Ultimately, I think that this whole thing was due to what happened when the SWC folded. From the mid-1970's up until Arkansas left for the SEC, the SWC was made up of (listed in Medina's order of presumed $value):
- Texas
- aTm
- Arkansas
- TxTech
- Houston
- SMU
- TCU
- Baylor
- Rice
Meanwhile, the old Big8 in the same timeframe was made up of (same order):
- Oklahoma
- Nebraska
- Colorado
- Kansas
- Mizzou
- OkSU
- KSU
- ISU
If the powers then at be would have been able to pull it off, the solution that would likely have led to a successful conference based in that region would have been to take the top four or five from each league then expand the footprint from there. I'm thinking something like (same order):
- Texas
- Oklahoma
- Nebraska
- aTm
- Colorado
- Arkansas
- Kansas
- Mizzou
- TxTech
- Houston
- A New Mexico School (either University of NM or NMST)
- Either a Nevada school (probably UNLV rather than Nevada just due to travel considerations) or Utah or BYU
That would have been a powerful conference not altogether dependent on Texas. That could have survived.
Instead, Texas politics and the old Big8 members not wanting to leave the small-revenue historic members behind led to the B12 which, as originally constituted was:
- Texas
- Oklahoma
- Nebraska
- aTm
- Colorado
- Kansas
- Mizzou
- TxTech
- OkSU
- Baylor
- KSU
- ISU
There are just way too many non-contributors there (financially). There always were. Thus, when #3 (UNL to B1G), #4 (aTm to SEC), #5 (Colo to Pac), and #7 (Mizzou to SEC) left, the conference was a dead man walking.
I think ESPN said they may announce it as early as this, Monday, morning.OU and UT officially notified the Big 12 this morning that they will not be extending the Grant of Rights.
Exactly the kind of thing I was thinking of. Guys like you might live in a fast-growing sunbelt state but your team is from where you came from. I would guess that tOSU/M is a bigger deal in a substantial portion of Florida than UF/FSU for the same reason.Well, on this board, we have (that I know of) UW, UM, OSU represented in Florida alone. UW is in South Carolina, and Maryland (no longer here) was also in SC. I believe we also have PSU in North Carolina.
I think it's gonna be hilarious when Texas and Tennessee argue who is THE UT, while aTm in the background says Texas is "tu".yep but one thing remains constant
Exactly the kind of thing I was thinking of. Guys like you might live in a fast-growing sunbelt state but your team is from where you came from. I would guess that tOSU/M is a bigger deal in a substantial portion of Florida than UF/FSU for the same reason.Someone told me Atlanta has the largest OSU fan club outside of Columbus. I know there are several OSU bars in town, to the point they feature OSU when they are playing on their TVs and you'd better not ask them to change the channel.
yep but one thing remains constant(https://i.imgur.com/DkJIgI1.png)
OU SUCKS
I think it's gonna be hilarious when Texas and Tennessee argue who is THE UT, while aTm in the background says Texas is "tu".I’ve purposely always avoided the “t.u.” thing but it’s pretty ingrained here in Aggieland.
Great analysis, Medina!Thank you for the compliment and for your perspective on it since you were closer to it than I was.
As an old Big 8 geezer, I'd flip your rankings for Colorado and Missouri. Colorado has a better all-time record, and a part of a national championship, due to its best-ever run from the late '80s into the early '00s. But Missouri's significance to college football goes back further than Colorado's. Think Don Faurot and the Split-T offense. Also, Missouri was the flagship school in a state much more populous than Colorado. Missouri's stadium seats 71,000, while Colorado's seats 50,000. Colorado was a relative latecomer to the conference--it joined what had been the Big 6 in 1947 and made it the Big 7. (Oklahoma A&M joining in 1957 was the final brick in the wall.) Before that, it had been in the Skyline Conference. Missouri, by contrast, was a founding member of the Missouri Valley Intercollegiate Athletic Association (MVIAA, a.k.a. the Big Six) in 1928. That became the Big Seven in 1947, then the Big Eight in 1957. Missouri's rivalry with Kansas was the 2nd-longest continuous rivalry in the country (longest west of the Mississippi) until Kansas discontinued it when Missouri joined the SEC.
On the basis of all that, I suspect that Missouri was a bigger financial contributor to the Big 8 than Colorado was.
That doesn't affect the logic of your analysis a bit.
Thank you for the compliment and for your perspective on it since you were closer to it than I was.I see your point about Colorado's growth rate.
Even today (2019 est) Missouri has a larger population than Colorado (6.1M vs 5.8M) but today that is close enough to be pretty much a wash and Colorado is growing MUCH faster. Per the census, Colorado has added ~730k since 2010 (14.5%) while Missouri has added ~150k (2.5%). I was thinking in current terms (ie, which would be a better addition for the B1G right now). On that basis I think Colorado is better largely because the growth trends imply that Colorado's population will surpass that of Missouri within the 2020's.
Colorado was 22nd in the 2010 census and per the census bureau's estimate they have overtaken #21 MN and are the third fastest growing state behind only Utah and Texas. There is a good chance that they will pass all of the following in the 2020's and reach the 2030 census at #18:
- #20 WI, 5.8M and grew 2.4%
- #19 MD, 6.0M, 4.7%
- #18 MO, 6.1M, 2.5%
My thinking is that circa 2040 or 2050 Colorado will be an obviously more valuable property than Mizzou but you bring up a good point, they almost certainly were NOT in 1996.
In the 1990 census Missouri was #15 with 4.9M and Colorado was #26 with 2.9M.
An interesting aside:
Iowa was once a member of what became the B12. They actually have an older history there than ISU. Iowa was a charter member of the MVIAA along with Kansas, Mizzou, Nebraska, and Washington U. ISU (along with Drake) joined in 1908, KSU joined in 1913, Grinnell joined in 1918, Oklahoma in 1919. OkSU joined in 1925 then left then rejoined in 1958 and Colorado joined in 1947. Iowa's membership was interesting because they were ALSO in the what became the B1G, having joined in 1899.
In 1907 Iowa played one MVIAA game (Mizzou) and two Western games (UW, IL). In 1908 and 1909 they appeared to be drifting to the MVIAA with only one Western game each year (IL then MN) and four or five MVIAA games per year. In 1910 they played two Western games (PU and NU) and three MVIAA games (MO, ISU, Drake, Washington).
Exactly the kind of thing I was thinking of. Guys like you might live in a fast-growing sunbelt state but your team is from where you came from. I would guess that tOSU/M is a bigger deal in a substantial portion of Florida than UF/FSU for the same reason.Uhhh, no.
Someone told me Atlanta has the largest OSU fan club outside of Columbus. I know there are several OSU bars in town, to the point they feature OSU when they are playing on their TVs and you'd better not ask them to change the channel.Those bars are in every big city. There's a Nebraska, Oregon, and Florida bar in Phoenix. I'm sure there's a dozen others.
I wonder how many years of being a superconference before the SEC does this. The haves split off from the have-nots.
1996-99
The Wac cleaned out the SWC's closet, adding SMUw, TCU and Rice. Additionally they raided the Big West for the third time, poaching their top two teams/markets in San Jose State and UNLV. On top of all that they also added D1 Independent Tulsa in order to create a 16 team mega conference with four "pods."
Quadrant 1
- Hawaii
- Fresno
- San Diego
- San Jose
Quadrant 2
- UNLV
- Air Force
- Colorado St
- Wyoming
Quadrant 3
- BYU
- Utah
- New Mexico
- UTEP
Quadrant 4
- Tulsa
- TCU
- SMU
- Rice
This bloated alignment was about three decades ahead of its time. So half the members split off in order to form the Mountain West: BYU, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado St, Air Force, San Diego St and UNLV. TCU would depart for a brief stint in CUSA, before joining the Mountain West as well.
The main thing I'm going to be fascinated to see is how each team's fortunes shift and how the fanbases react.Very true. When WVU went to the Big 12 there was a ton of excitement about playing new teams. And it was fun. I’ve went to Morgantown to see Oklahoma twice and Texas once (and KSU once too), but the reality of less wins starts to set in after a few seasons and it knocks some of the luster off. Playing Oklahoma is fun until you find yourself down 21-3 at the end of the first quarter.
I mean, in Oklahoma's case, it's very likely the Sooners will lose more, even if it's marginally more. Texas, who knows, but the disappointing 8-5 might be 1-3 wins worse, which in turn feels very bad. That's the issue with feeling like you're too big for your conference. You step up in competition, the mathematical outcome is more losses. And as much as people hem and haw about all the other stuff, the losses do stick.
I say this as someone whose alma mater is in an easier division, but who lives near a school with a top-10 schedule difficulty of late. And the teams they field that could go 8-4 or 9-3 some years are fighting to go 7-5 or 6-6 (or when things have gone very bad, they can pull an upset and still miss a bowl by a few games). They're a historical have not, and even then, they don't say "A tough 7-5 is worthwhile in its way" they still want it all.
Makes me pretty damn content with my program's lot.
I wonder how many years of being a superconference before the SEC does this. The haves split off from the have-nots.On that note do you think teams like Vanderbilt and such will be left behind? I mean seriously what does Vandy really bring to the conference?
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, LSU, Oklahoma, Texas, and A&M/Tennessee split off......it'd be interesting.
On that note do you think teams like Vanderbilt and such will be left behind? I mean seriously what does Vandy really bring to the conference?Wins for everyone else.
On that note do you think teams like Vanderbilt and such will be left behind? I mean seriously what does Vandy really bring to the conference?Yeah, they'd probably get Riced.
I wonder how many years of being a superconference before the SEC does this. The haves split off from the have-nots.
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, LSU, Oklahoma, Texas, and A&M/Tennessee split off......it'd be interesting.
Uhhh, no.Uhhh, yes. There are clearly more former Ohioans than there are former Floridians.
Uhhh, yes. There are clearly more former Ohioans than there are former Floridians.A few bars have a B1G slant vs all of the rest of the everything.
Florida didn't pass Ohio in population until the 1990 census. There were possibly more births in Ohio (currently 30s) and there were definitely more births in Ohio in the 1970's (currently 40s) and prior (currently 50+). Thus, in the age cohorts of roughly anything over 35 there are more people born in Ohio than born in Florida despite Florida now having almost 2x the population.
Certainly not all, but obviously some of those former Ohioans retain Ohio State Fandom. Same for the rest of the slower growth states.
Florida still has a lot of retirees and in those retirement communities there are bound to be lots more PSU/tOSU/M/UW/MN fans than UF/FSU fans so yes, tOSU/M and the Axe are going to be bigger deals than UF/FSU.
Uhhh, no.You need to come down to visit my area. Uhhh, yes.
Those bars are in every big city. There's a Nebraska, Oregon, and Florida bar in Phoenix. I'm sure there's a dozen others.There are 6 Badger bars in Phoenix/Scottsdale.
Texas, Oklahoma formally ask to join the SEC (hookem.com) (https://www.hookem.com/story/sports/football/2021/07/27/texas-sec-oklahoma-ask-join-southeastern-conference/5384672001/?utm_source=SND&utm_medium=Facebook&utm_campaign=bevobeat&fbclid=IwAR3TXeYw1DgoxoNqfhyeg64mggfuKElrL7Rd9FMz5LZw0HLmWcjaAB6a90Q)There's no way the 2025 date is realistic. It's more like a strategy because they know the Big 12 will long implode before then. They're simply keeping up appearances while they negotiate a better exit penalty and I'm betting they will begin play next season in the SEC. If one Big 12 program gets an invite to another P5 conference then it's over. The B12 formally dissolves and OU/Tex get what they want sooner. Nobody wants to play in a zombie conference for 4 more seasons.
July 1, 2025
Texas has been losing to Kansas, BYU, Maryland, etc, and they have a worse coach now than they did then.we'll be lucky to win even one game
They are far more likely to go 2-10 than 10-2.
There's no way the 2025 date is realistic. It's more like a strategy because they know the Big 12 will long implode before then. They're simply keeping up appearances while they negotiate a better exit penalty and I'm betting they will begin play next season in the SEC. If one Big 12 program gets an invite to another P5 conference then it's over. The B12 formally dissolves and OU/Tex get what they want sooner. Nobody wants to play in a zombie conference for 4 more seasons.I think youre wrong on this one
Texas has been losing to Kansas, BYU, Maryland, etc, and they have a worse coach now than they did then.If they lose to those teams routinely in the future, the whole thing is moot, they would not make playoffs in any conference.
They are far more likely to go 2-10 than 10-2.
What if the Big 10 jumps in and offers any one of ISU, KU?the Big 10 CAN't be that stoopid
the Big 10 CAN't be that stoopidWell, 25% of the head coaches in the SEC are from the Bob Stoops tree (Shane Beamer @ SC, Mike Leach @ MSU, Josh Heupel at Tennessee, Lincoln Riley*) so there is a major influence.
yes, I'm blaming all of this on Bob Stoops
The likelihood of the Rump 12 (trademark CWS) getting a TV deal they can live with is not good. The Athletic did a deep dive on TV numbers and it is very telling. Briefly, OU & Texas averaged about 3.5 million viewers per game. The other 8 averaged about 880,000. They calculated the remaining 8 teams TV value based on the current contract at about $12 mil per each team or less than half of what they are getting now. The shares of bowl money without OU & TX will also be reduced.Didn't Texas and OU take a larger share anyways? So you'd have to calculate the payout based on not having to share more revenue with TX/OU, and maybe calculate how much a UH and Cincinnati would bring to the table. But more importantly you'd have to compare that to how much the AAC would be able to payout. I'm betting that the AAC would still not be able to match what a revised Big 12 would bring.
This doesn't have anything to do with the quality of football these teams play. There are some good teams and very good coaches. Those coaches will be poached. Mike Gundy and Matt Campbell turned down major P5 jobs. They won't be able to if their salaries take major hits.
Bilas suggests huge move for ACC | The Clemson Insider (https://theclemsoninsider.com/2021/07/26/bilas-suggests-huge-move-for-acc/?fbclid=IwAR30PAXUaUBVd7LAlCvA_VXIiBzFBJrACkVBbC4ApQZZan5QKHu7FXidfRw)Then the B1G and PAC have no choice but to do the same.
What if the SEC and ACC basically merge?
Didn't Texas and OU take a larger share anyways? So you'd have to calculate the payout based on not having to share more revenue with TX/OU, and maybe calculate how much a UH and Cincinnati would bring to the table. But more importantly you'd have to compare that to how much the AAC would be able to payout. I'm betting that the AAC would still not be able to match what a revised Big 12 would bring.No, the revenue was shared equally. Each team retained their 2nd & 3rd tier rights and Texas got more for theirs with the LHN. OU didn't get as much as Texas but more than the other 8.
Also I know the regional model for conferences is mostly dead but it still makes a lot of sense for the non-revenue sports (womens sports, olympic sports, etc). I think we will at some point see football and mens BB partitioned out into their own conference with the other sports settling into a different model. Call it a hybrid model. Of course the bigger schools will have more money so they can continue to pony up more travel expenses.
What if the Big 10 jumps in and offers any one of ISU, KU? You telling me that at that point it won't be an abandon ship type scenario? Every man for himself right?As covered above, I think ISU is a non-starter. I wholeheartedly agree with @betarhoalphadelta (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19) that not only do they not bring enough revenue to the table, but also, leaving them to their "non-power conference" fate actually helps the B1G by making Iowa stronger.
They can add programs all they want but once you start losing the state schools it's over. I guess maybe I need to look and see how Cincinnati and others compare in size and other metrics but I just don't see it.I'm not so sure, it depends for each school, on what offers are available. Most would likely be better off staying together and trying to add other decent revenue schools in an effort to become the "Best of the Rest" after the remaining four (or less) "Power" conferences.
The likelihood of the Rump 12 (trademark CWS) getting a TV deal they can live with is not good. The Athletic did a deep dive on TV numbers and it is very telling. Briefly, OU & Texas averaged about 3.5 million viewers per game. The other 8 averaged about 880,000. They calculated the remaining 8 teams TV value based on the current contract at about $12 mil per each team or less than half of what they are getting now. The shares of bowl money without OU & TX will also be reduced.I agree with everything here except the idea that they can't get a TV deal that they "can live with". They are going to have to. Clearly they can't get anything like what they had, but they are going to be able to get something and they'll have to learn to make that work. Best case scenario for them, I think, is to end up being the "Best of the Rest" conference after the remaining four (or less) Power leagues. Assuming that the CFP expansion does happen they'd have a good shot to make it nearly every year especially if they maintain the idea of taking the top six league champs because with only four (or less) power leagues that leaves two spots for non-power conferences so they'd only have to be one of the top two non-Power leagues to snag a CFP slot.
This doesn't have anything to do with the quality of football these teams play. There are some good teams and very good coaches. Those coaches will be poached. Mike Gundy and Matt Campbell turned down major P5 jobs. They won't be able to if their salaries take major hits.
As covered above, I think ISU is a non-starter. I wholeheartedly agree with @betarhoalphadelta (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19) that not only do they not bring enough revenue to the table, but also, leaving them to their "non-power conference" fate actually helps the B1G by making Iowa stronger.Yes...
Kansas is possibly a different story. Their football is abysmal but their basketball brand is one of the best in the nation. Also, as @betarhoalphadelta (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19) also pointed out, taking them and leaving KSU to their "non-power conference" fate helps them in the same way that leaving ISU to their fate helps Iowa.
Also I know the regional model for conferences is mostly dead but it still makes a lot of sense for the non-revenue sports (womens sports, olympic sports, etc). I think we will at some point see football and mens BB partitioned out into their own conference with the other sports settling into a different model. Call it a hybrid model. Of course the bigger schools will have more money so they can continue to pony up more travel expenses.This might happen even for the bigger schools because it still costs money and because there is also the impact on the athletes. If your women's volleyball team has a game against a school 200mi away that is a cheap bus ride there and back and takes a few hours each way. If they have a game against a team 2,000mi away that is an expensive plane ride there and back and takes a LOT longer especially after you add in time and cost for the bus rides to/from the airports and security, etc.
Yes...I'm in the same place. I don't need to do a deep dive on the numbers to figure out whether or not ISU is a good add. They aren't and you can see that from 30,000'.
Note that this isn't me saying that the B1G *should* take Kansas. They're about the only B12 team I'd consider at this point, but that doesn't necessarily make it a good decision.
But the decision matrix for Kansas is COMPLETELY different than the decision matrix for ISU, which I'm 100% against.
No, the revenue was shared equally. Each team retained their 2nd & 3rd tier rights and Texas got more for theirs with the LHN. OU didn't get as much as Texas but more than the other 8.BTW I know they will not be able to make up the lost revenue from TX/OU, I wanted to make that one clear.
The AAC has an unequal pay distribution with UCF being the top earner at around $7 million.
I agree with everything here except the idea that they can't get a TV deal that they "can live with". They are going to have to. Clearly they can't get anything like what they had, but they are going to be able to get something and they'll have to learn to make that work. Best case scenario for them, I think, is to end up being the "Best of the Rest" conference after the remaining four (or less) Power leagues. Assuming that the CFP expansion does happen they'd have a good shot to make it nearly every year especially if they maintain the idea of taking the top six league champs because with only four (or less) power leagues that leaves two spots for non-power conferences so they'd only have to be one of the top two non-Power leagues to snag a CFP slot.There is one thing I mentioned in another thread WRT being able to get "the best of the rest". They could possibly have an extra $20-40 MM in exit penalties from Tex/OU at their disposal.
Didn't Texas and OU take a larger share anyways? So you'd have to calculate the payout based on not having to share more revenue with TX/OU, and maybe calculate how much a UH and Cincinnati would bring to the table. But more importantly you'd have to compare that to how much the AAC would be able to payout. I'm betting that the AAC would still not be able to match what a revised Big 12 would bring.Yes, OU and UT got more money than the rest of the programs. As did A&M and Nebraska when they were in the conference. But it wasn't a huge difference. Maybe 115% of what the other programs got. (My firm belief is that this was a cancer at the heart of the Big 12 from Day 1.) So the amount to be gained by not having to pay extra to two members won't come near making up for what will be lost in the next TV contract.
Also I know the regional model for conferences is mostly dead but it still makes a lot of sense for the non-revenue sports (womens sports, olympic sports, etc). I think we will at some point see football and mens BB partitioned out into their own conference with the other sports settling into a different model. Call it a hybrid model. Of course the bigger schools will have more money so they can continue to pony up more travel expenses.
I maybe wrong but didn't all TV revenue (not first tier) and bowl revenue after expenses go to the conference and split equally?I guess you're right, Thumper.
https://cyclonefanatic.com/2021/05/big-12-announces-2020-21-fiscal-year-revenue-distribution/
The unequal part was the LHN and OU's deal with Learfield for 2nd and 3rd tier rights.
Of course ticket sales, concessions, merchandise, etc. varied among the schools.
Of course I'm talking about the 10 member Big 12. The original 12 member group did have unequal distribution and I agree with you that it was a cancer.
You should never add a program at their peak. It's temporary. Any program being added should be valued at its average. This is why ISU is a bad idea.I agree that you can't just look at how a program did last year.
How long will Campbell be there? How good a HC will he be post-Purdy/Reese? What's ISU's average in the past 30 years? THAT is what you'd be adding.
Same with Cincinnati. Same with Clemson.
Yes, OU and UT got more money than the rest of the programs. As did A&M and Nebraska when they were in the conference. But it wasn't a huge difference. Maybe 115% of what the other programs got. (My firm belief is that this was a cancer at the heart of the Big 12 from Day 1.) So the amount to be gained by not having to pay extra to two members won't come near making up for what will be lost in the next TV contract.This is incorrect. B12 has had equal revenue sharing for all Tier1 and Tier2 since the 2010 contract renegotiations (after Nebraska and Colorado departed). The Tier3 rights were still retained by the individual conference members, but all official conference revenue was split equally.
I think that the Big 12 can survive--and even get somewhat better--if the remaining members behave the way they wish OU and Texas had, by sticking together. They can poach the best two or four mid-majors between the Appalachians and the Rockies and be OK.
I guess you're right, Thumper.
Does the SEC treat 2nd and 3rd-tier rights the same way as the Big 12, or does the conference control them?
I agree that you can't just look at how a program did last year.
But how far back do you go to get that "average"? Does how a program did in 1920 have just as much weight as how it did in 2020?
You should never add a program at their peak. It's temporary. Any program being added should be valued at its average. This is why ISU is a bad idea.Agreed. I mentioned this upthread in regard to Clemson. My big fear in adding them would be that if they go back to pre-Dabo Clemson, are they worth it?
How long will Campbell be there? How good a HC will he be post-Purdy/Reese? What's ISU's average in the past 30 years? THAT is what you'd be adding.
Same with Cincinnati. Same with Clemson.
Seems like a rather exaggerated "problem" to me.No, but Clemson and ISU (two example that @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) used) have been talked about.
I mean it isn't as though there are a chorus of posters suggesting Coastal Carolina and Liberty as expansion candidates.
I agree that you can't just look at how a program did last year.This is a balancing act because you are trying to project the future based on the past. Clearly Minnesota's great years and NC's back before WWII are basically irrelevant. OTOH, I'm not completely sure that Michigan's great years under Bo ~50 years ago are irrelevant. Somewhere in there is your projection.
But how far back do you go to get that "average"? Does how a program did in 1920 have just as much weight as how it did in 2020?
This is incorrect. B12 has had equal revenue sharing for all Tier1 and Tier2 since the 2010 contract renegotiations (after Nebraska and Colorado departed). The Tier3 rights were still retained by the individual conference members, but all official conference revenue was split equally.Thanks. I already got corrected on the revenue issue by Thumper, but you are adding some additional info.
In 2010 the B12 offered to give additional shares of the Nebraska/Colorado exit penalty money to UT, OU, and A&M. UT and OU declined. A&M was the only school that accepted the additional share of exit penalty money, and then departed the next year anyway.
You should never add a program at their peak. It's temporary. Any program being added should be valued at its average. This is why ISU is a bad idea.I think ISU is different from Clemson and Cincinnati.
How long will Campbell be there? How good a HC will he be post-Purdy/Reese? What's ISU's average in the past 30 years? THAT is what you'd be adding.
Same with Cincinnati. Same with Clemson.
I agree that you can't just look at how a program did last year.For me, it's coaching changes.
But how far back do you go to get that "average"? Does how a program did in 1920 have just as much weight as how it did in 2020?
In 2010 the B12 offered to give additional shares of the Nebraska/Colorado exit penalty money to UT, OU, and A&M. UT and OU declined. A&M was the only school that accepted the additional share of exit penalty money, and then departed the next year anyway.Thanks, Utee. I had forgotten this. I remember I felt proud when OU and UT declined and really ticked that A&M took it.
Agreed. I mentioned this upthread in regard to Clemson. My big fear in adding them would be that if they go back to pre-Dabo Clemson, are they worth it?No, but Clemson and ISU (two example that @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) used) have been talked about. This is a balancing act because you are trying to project the future based on the past. Clearly Minnesota's great years and NC's back before WWII are basically irrelevant. OTOH, I'm not completely sure that Michigan's great years under Bo ~50 years ago are irrelevant. Somewhere in there is your projection.Win 9. Lose 2. Lose Rose Bowl.
Warren got schooled on this one.And he shattered our dreams of Badger-Longhorn conference games!
Kudos to the SEC. SEC/B1G were duking it out for ratings/money supremacy. They just lapped the B1G with these additions. By A LOT.From all indications the SEC isn't done adding teams. The SEC/ESPN contract allows them to add teams from an "A-list" prorata (https://www.outkick.com/the-secs-master-negotiating-stroke-that-paved-the-way-for-texas-and-oklahoma/). Should any conference feel secure that they won't get Big 12'd? The ACC should feel very vulnerable, maybe the PAC. If that happened the B1G could not catch up.
For me, it's coaching changes.I agree that this is generally the correct way to conduct this analysis. The major potential complication is a situation like FSU or VaTech where you had one guy who did REALLY well and coached for a REALLY long time:
No, do not go back 100 years. There isn't one "right" number of years, it's until you get a trend line.
Iowa State's....let's say last 5 HCs:
Seasons - Name - win%
6 - Campbell - .556
7 - Rhodes - .368
2 - Chizik - .208
12 - McCarney - .397
8 - Walden - .335
Okay, that's five HCs covering 35 years. That's plenty of data. What do we end up with? An average win% of .390.
That's what Iowa State football is. .390. That's what you'd be adding.
The Big Ten already can't catch up.Even if it is USC, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, and Notre Dame (plus one to get to 20) I don't think that actually catches the new SEC, it just stays reasonably close.
USC and Notre Dame is the best scenario outside of the absolutely absurd, and it isn't going to be USC and Notre Dame.
I agree that this is generally the correct way to conduct this analysis. The major potential complication is a situation like FSU or VaTech where you had one guy who did REALLY well and coached for a REALLY long time:
Florida State:
- 1 Norvell .333
- 2 Taggart .429
- 2/3 Haggins .667
- 8 Fisher .783
- 34 Bowden .756
- 2 Murda .182
- 3 Jones .441
- 11 Peterson .587
The problem here is that Murda was almost 50 years ago so basically everyone pre-Bowden is too long ago to be significantly relevant. When Bowden left he had coached the Seminoles for 34 years while their other nine coaches had coached them for 32. Even now Bowden coached the Seminoles for 34 of their last 45 years so you really don't have much data outside of Bowden. Bowden is an all-time great and maybe nobody else will ever get FSU anywhere close to that level or maybe FSU as a program is strong enough that future coaches will get to or at least approach Bowden-level success. It is hard to tell.
VaTech:
- 5 Fuente .704
- 29 Beamer .655
- 9 Dooley .632
- 4 Sharpe .489
- 3 Coffey .379
- 10 Claiborne .608
Similarly, Dooley was about 40 years ago, Sharpe was close to 50 years ago, and the rest were even further back so basically everyone pre-Beamer is probably not relevant. That only leaves you with Beamer and Fuente which isn't much data to go on. Basically the entirety of VaTech's relevant history is with Frank Beamer at the helm so who knows how that should be evaluated. Beamer, like Bowden is an all-time great. Fuente's win% is actually better than Beamer's so far but the Hokies haven't been as relevant under Fuente as we were accustomed to them being under Beamer so . . .
What happens when you stick a bunch of "helmet" teams like Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, LSU, Georgia, Florida, etc. in one "super" conference? Their W-L records are going to take a hit on average. I get that a lot of this is driven by network TV deals but win/loss records are important when it comes to playoff and bowl selection.It's going to render the playoff even more meaningless. Cool, you get a bunch of SEC rematches; with maybe OSU thrown in, then a bloated Big XII and Pac 12 champ? Can't wait.
Bilas suggests huge move for ACC | The Clemson Insider (https://theclemsoninsider.com/2021/07/26/bilas-suggests-huge-move-for-acc/?fbclid=IwAR30PAXUaUBVd7LAlCvA_VXIiBzFBJrACkVBbC4ApQZZan5QKHu7FXidfRw)
What if the SEC and ACC basically merge?
I think ISU is different from Clemson and Cincinnati.So lets apply @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) 's patented(kidding) analysis) to Clemson and Cincy:
Cincy has been some degree of competent for about 25 years and is in a geographically strong spot. Clemson, from the end of the Ford era to when Dabo took off, still won 60 percent of its games (and has a robust payroll)
before Campbell, ISU didn’t have a coach better than 43.2 winning percentage since Earle Bruce
It's going to render the playoff even more meaningless. Cool, you get a bunch of SEC rematches; with maybe OSU thrown in, then a bloated Big XII and Pac 12 champ? Can't wait.If it makes the playoff meaningless, then arguably it's making the regular season more meaningful again. If "win your conference" is harder than "win the national playoff" then that's the thing that matters, right?
I think that the Big 12 can survive--and even get somewhat better--if the remaining members behave the way they wish OU and Texas had, by sticking together. They can poach the best two or four mid-majors between the Appalachians and the Rockies and be OK.This is my thinking. If they stick together and make solid additions they have a very good chance to become the "Best of the Rest" after the four (or less) remaining power leagues.
The flaw in this line of thinking is that the state of the university, state, region, and fan base is static. It's not the case. So for example if you look at FSU they were an all women's college until the 50's and generally did not really resemble what they are today until the 70's and 80's, which is coincidentally when Bowden became coach. As discussed previously the state of Florida did not exceed the population of the state of Ohio until 1990 but now is much more populous and in fact about double that of Ohio. For Ohio, I'm inclined to believe that their university, state, region, and fan base is much more static. In other words, the population of the state probably will not dramatically grow, the attendance of the univeristy probably will not increase, and thus the fan base will not grow or increase either. Now, we all know OSU has a strong fanbase and support throughout the state, their helmet status is safely intact.I don't disagree. I was even thinking about the differences in Florida from when Bowden became HC to now. That just makes it hard to analyze FSU because you are basically guessing.
On the other hand look at Nebraska. Population has increased some, but still small by state standards (less than 2 million). What is the odds they can climb back up the ladder to elite status, espeically now that the Big 10 has so much more competition than the old Big 8/Big 12. Will they be able to get the type of recruits there to put the program back on the map? And how much longer will you regard Nebraska a helmet team but now Florida/FSU and Clemson?
This is my thinking. If they stick together and make solid additions they have a very good chance to become the "Best of the Rest" after the four (or less) remaining power leagues.TCU at least, has proven it can play and win in the postseason against good competition, even while they were still in smaller conferences before they joined the B12.
With an expanded CFP that will probably get them a CFP berth more often than not. Realistically that will probably just mean that their champion will get obliterated in a road game in mid-December against a Helmet team but at least they'll get there.
Win 9. Lose 2. Lose Rose Bowl.You will not see this very often so enjoy it but I, a guy who bleeds Scarlet and Gray am about to defend Schembechler/Michigan:
GREAT!!
The flaw in this line of thinking is that the state of the university, state, region, and fan base is static. It's not the case. So for example if you look at FSU they were an all women's college until the 50's and generally did not really resemble what they are today until the 70's and 80's, which is coincidentally when Bowden became coach. As discussed previously the state of Florida did not exceed the population of the state of Ohio until 1990 but now is much more populous and in fact about double that of Ohio. For Ohio, I'm inclined to believe that their university, state, region, and fan base is much more static. In other words, the population of the state probably will not dramatically grow, the attendance of the univeristy probably will not increase, and thus the fan base will not grow or increase either. Now, we all know OSU has a strong fanbase and support throughout the state, their helmet status is safely intact.Well, I don't think there's a "flaw" in medina's thinking, because his conclusion is simply "when you've had one dominant coach for ~30 seasons, it makes it really hard to analyze what will happen in that coach's absence".
On the other hand look at Nebraska. Population has increased some, but still small by state standards (less than 2 million). What is the odds they can climb back up the ladder to elite status, espeically now that the Big 10 has so much more competition than the old Big 8/Big 12. Will they be able to get the type of recruits there to put the program back on the map? And how much longer will you regard Nebraska a helmet team but now Florida/FSU and Clemson?
https://www.oklahoman.com/story/opinion/2021/07/27/bob-stoops-oklahoma-sec-decision-leave-big-12-southeastern-conference/5390626001/Just to be clear, that statement was from Bob Stoops. Officially, he's just speaking for himself. Unofficially, this is OU's rebuttal to the oSu president who has issued several bitter comments about the betrayal. Actually, some similarities to early angry statements from Texas A&M, but she has kept at it.
There’s been extensive discussion in the state of Oklahoma about OU and Texas moving from the Big 12 to the Southeastern Conference (https://www.oklahoman.com/story/sports/2021/07/27/ou-texas-sec-football-realignment/5385265001/). I believe this is a good and necessary move for the future of our school and football program. I disagree with any claims asserted that OU’s decision (https://www.oklahoman.com/story/sports/2021/07/26/ou-sooners-sec-move-dont-be-angry-22-million-stake/8090735002/) is “to the detriment of the State of Oklahoma,” and that OU made it without “engagement and transparency.”
Let’s set the record straight: OU’s move to the SEC is what’s best for Oklahoma (https://www.oklahoman.com/story/sports/2021/07/24/oklahoma-texas-move-sec-spurred-lost-faith-big-12/8080862002/). The reality is that conferences are now more important than ever and, with limited spots, the strongest conferences would not accept OU if we were to require OSU to join as well (https://www.oklahoman.com/story/sports/2021/07/26/oklahoma-state-football-pros-cons-conferences-cowboys-could-land/5379849001/). By joining the SEC, we ensure the state’s flagship university will be represented nationally while protecting our rich football history for many years to come. To move forward in any other manner would be to the detriment of OU and the state of Oklahoma.
The advantages are many — greater financial opportunities, better exposure, stronger recruiting and increased competition. Playing in front of full, huge stadiums will be attractive to our players, recruits, and our supportive fans. OU will be competing at the highest level of college football, which is exactly where we should be. I can’t wait for SEC programs to face our teams and our fans — I think both are the best in the country.
So lets apply @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) 's patented(kidding) analysis) to Clemson and Cincy:One caveat is that Clemson was doing all of this in a stronger conference than Cincy.
On the opposite side, Wisconsin basketball was equally terrible for a long time. Dick Bennett revived it and set the stage for Bo Ryan, who is probably the best coach Wisconsin has ever had or will ever have. The jury is still out on whether Wisconsin basketball will continue at the sort of high level that Bo Ryan set, but if I had to put money on it I'd say no.Pat Richter revived it when he hired Stu Jackson.
Pat Richter revived it when he hired Stu Jackson.Ok... A guy who only coached there for two years, had <.500 conference records both years, but did well enough to make it to the NIT one year and the NCAAT the second.
I don't disagree. I was even thinking about the differences in Florida from when Bowden became HC to now. That just makes it hard to analyze FSU because you are basically guessing.That is a remarkable run of non-suckitude. Is it more that Ohio State is inherently a place where any competent coach not named Fickell in his first season can drop in and start cranking out winning seasons, or that Ohio State has had preposterously good fortune in choosing head coaches?
Ohio State is easy. There hasn't been much change and among the last six HC's who coached more than one season (leaving Fickell out) the worst win% is .715 by John Cooper. Most tOSU fans despise Cooper because he was flat terrible against Michigan (2-10-1) and almost as bad in bowls (3-8) but he still won three league titles in 13 years and his record in all games except Michigan and bowls was an impressive 106-25-3 (.802), and he is a member of the HoF along with his successor Jim Tressel and his predecessors Earle Bruce and Woody Hayes. Urban Meyer will obviously join them there soon and Ryan Day is off to a great start (23-2, .920) in his quest to join them as well.
Fickell went 6-7 or .462 in one season as Ohio State's HC. Prior to Fickell, the last tOSU HC to finish below .500 was David Farragut Edwards who played at Princeton then coached Ohio State in 1897 and went 1-7-1. The only other sub .500 coach in tOSU history was Alexander Spinning Lilley who also played at Princeton then went 3-5 as HC for the 1890 and 1891 seasons at Ohio State.
That is a remarkable run of non-suckitude. Is it more that Ohio State is inherently a place where any competent coach not named Fickell in his first season can drop in and start cranking out winning seasons, or that Ohio State has had preposterously good fortune in choosing head coaches?First, as we have discussed before, Ohio State is the most consistent of the helmets and by a large margin.
That is a remarkable run of non-suckitude. Is it more that Ohio State is inherently a place where any competent coach not named Fickell in his first season can drop in and start cranking out winning seasons, or that Ohio State has had preposterously good fortune in choosing head coaches?
What's the end game here?ESecPN takes Michigan (maybe), PSU and OSU.
Well, I don't think there's a "flaw" in medina's thinking, because his conclusion is simply "when you've had one dominant coach for ~30 seasons, it makes it really hard to analyze what will happen in that coach's absence".The flaw isn't about how they did under one coach but rather thinking that 40-50 years worth of history is the most relevant factor when clearly things can change a lot in those 40-50 years. There are so many underlying factors that go into success that you can't really create a formula for it but I think we can all agree that the demographics of the state/institution play a large part.
He wasn't (as far as I can tell) saying that FSU or VaTech are bad schools to add to the SEC or B1G--he's saying that it's really tough to determine whether the pre-Bowden/Beamer performance is the rule or whether the Bowden/Beamer performance is the rule.
I look at Wisconsin as an example...
Wisconsin football was TERRIBLE for a long time. Barry came in and built a culture, and then moved into the AD role and was able to sustain that culture over multiple successive coaches afterward. It's now been long enough that I believe that Wisconsin (partly as well due to benefits of being the only P5 school in the state and being in the weaker of the two B1G divisions) can sustain that success. That's how I'd bet anyway.
On the opposite side, Wisconsin basketball was equally terrible for a long time. Dick Bennett revived it and set the stage for Bo Ryan, who is probably the best coach Wisconsin has ever had or will ever have. The jury is still out on whether Wisconsin basketball will continue at the sort of high level that Bo Ryan set, but if I had to put money on it I'd say no.
TCU at least, has proven it can play and win in the postseason against good competition, even while they were still in smaller conferences before they joined the B12.I know I've hammered on this in the past but I disagree WRT TCU. They've been a B12 team now for 9 seasons and counting. 3 seasons were straight up losing seasons ('13, '16, and '19). They had 2 seasons that were basically .500 ('12 and '18). And then 3 decent seasons where they were good ('17, '15, and '14). One mediocre .600 season in '20. Their bowl record is excellent on the other hand, 4-1.
The question for me, is how will their recruiting fare, with Texas and Oklahoma leaving for the SEC?
ESecPN takes Michigan (maybe), PSU and OSU.And 64 random bowl games to play in the background in late December
Minnie, UW, NU, Purdue and IL (and maybe UM) to the Ivy.
I know I've hammered on this in the past but I disagree WRT TCU. They've been a B12 team now for 9 seasons and counting. 3 seasons were straight up losing seasons ('13, '16, and '19). They had 2 seasons that were basically .500 ('12 and '18). And then 3 decent seasons where they were good ('17, '15, and '14). One mediocre .600 season in '20. Their bowl record is excellent on the other hand, 4-1.
So 6 seasons out of 9 they've simply been bad to mediocre. And remember this is in the new Big 12. No Nebraska on the schedule, no A&M and Missouri, and no CU. Plus, UT has just finished their worst decade practically ever. No Leach at TT, and Kansas has been a continual suckathon for 10-15 years. Hard to remember now but KU won the Orange Bowl with Mangino in the mid 2000's. So even in a weakened B12 they're really not that great.
Now I'll be the first to admit that I don't follow recruiting that closely. I'm glad when we pick up highly rated players and sad when we lose them, but other than that I don't really pay close attention. But in that light TCU from what I know and recall almost never has a good to great recruiting class. They mostly pickup 2-3 * players with a few transfers mixed in and then develop the talent to fit their system. I know A&M hasn't lost many, if any recruits to them and I'm betting the same for UT.
I think you're opinion of TCU is skewed by the fact that TCU has made Texas it's whipping boy in the Big 12 (7-2) even in seasons where UT wasn't even that bad. They made hay as an G5, won the rose bowl during that time sure. But I think we've seen enough of their on the field play now to realize that they are what some thought they were: just another middle of the pack school that didn't really do much for the conference outside of win a few minor bowl games and keep things interesting for a bit. They did enough to get in, and just enough to not be an embarrassment, but not really much else.
It amazes me how critical coaching is in CFB. I think a "reasonably competent" coach can do well at some places and keep the program "at level", but consistent elite performance means the coaching staff is elite. I don't know of an exception. And it goes beyond recruiting.The situation at Oklahoma made us realize how important the AD and President are as well. Head coaches can really struggle if they are at odds with the other 2. Bob Stoops often said he would leave if the other two left. Bob was allowed to hand pick his successor with full approval from the AD and President. There has been some turmoil at the President position but the current president seems to understand the importance of football. OU makes the president's job easier as the athletic department is completely self sustaining and takes no money from the university, rather contributes millions to the academic side.
It would be interesting to hear perspective from players who have portaled out about how things are different.
What's the end game here?That is a possibility. I think the actual goal of Sankey is to create an upper division of CFB that operates outside the NCAA and the old bowl system.
Are we going to have a SEC/ACC conglomerate owned by ESPN/Disney, and a Big Ten/Pac 12 conglomerate owned by Fox? Are they going to have two separate playoffs, where maybe the champion of each play one another for the NC?
How long until the conferences go the route of addition by subtraction.In my opinion, that's probably long overdue. Especially if the TV wonks are gonna call the shots.
How long until the conferences go the route of addition by subtraction.That's an intriguing question.
Non-AAU member Notre Dame and 1500-miles-WSW-of-Lincoln USC would seem to be the best programs that might be added. But they are not sure things, to say the least. Is the Big Ten ready to expel members to have a shinier, if smaller, roster of teams?For purely objective reasons and not accounting at all for the fact that my team might be one on the chopping block...
From afar, it seems like probably not.
For purely objective reasons and not accounting at all for the fact that my team might be one on the chopping block...So am I. For the same reason I don't like the growing reality of mega-conferences made up by adding helmet teams.
...I'm against expelling members.
So many weird things about this.
As utee says, this is not the kind of thing to go public with, calling out your biggest source of revenue. Unless it was intended to be confidential and ESPN leaked it to SI.
Two, it's hard to believe ESPN would be dumb enough to ever directly contact a school. Their contract is with the conference and to get involved with an individual member would be tortious interference. Maybe Bowlsby got wind of some backchannel communication?
Whiskey, did you find somewhere it was the AAC? I know the AAC has been spouting off about being proactive and aggressive.
I wouldn't be surprised if ESPN may have told the AAC that adding some of the Big 12 members would increase their value.
That is a remarkable run of non-suckitude. Is it more that Ohio State is inherently a place where any competent coach not named Fickell in his first season can drop in and start cranking out winning seasons, or that Ohio State has had preposterously good fortune in choosing head coaches?OSU is the only P5 program in a populous, fertile state. It may be as simple as that.
One caveat is that Clemson was doing all of this in a stronger conference than Cincy.Well yeah, you're looking at the context in which it was done. Whether by strength of conference concurrently or by era (ACC in the 80s vs ACC in the 2010s), context matters.
So although some of Cincy's win% look pretty good, it's partly the result of being a moderately dangerous fish in a small pond full of minnows.
For purely objective reasons and not accounting at all for the fact that my team might be one on the chopping block...I am as well, but upthread or in one of the other threads someone asked about how things would be different if you were making the conference today.
...I'm against expelling members.
Whiskey, did you find somewhere it was the AAC? I know the AAC has been spouting off about being proactive and aggressive.
I wouldn't be surprised if ESPN may have told the AAC that adding some of the Big 12 members would increase their value.
And at this point, Bowlsby is actively sabotaging his member schools' ability to find a soft landing spot should the worst happen to the B12. How does he think that benefits them? And how does he think that will go over when he attempts to court new members to his conference?
I get it, that it's his job to act on behalf of the conference. But doing it publicly, through the media, is absolutely the wrong way to do it.
I think Bowlsby is just fed up. The guy has been made fun of and mocked for being ineffective for much of his time as B12 commish. Right or wrong.
Then he gets blind sided by this. And the way he finds out is by media reports as he's attending to B12 business.
At this point he's just going out guns blazing. F it. It's actually kind of heroic.
Hell just froze over. The A&M BoR voted in favor of Tex/OU to join the SEC 8-1.I have 3rd-hand insider info, so, FWIW, you may rejoice in not being podded with UT.
Got to say I have a lot of mixed emotions about this. I wanted a little more time away from UT in order for A&M to mature and grow. I’ve always thought we should be more pro-A&M and not so much anti-t.u.
On the other hand we have a chance to have some really good football, and maybe even get a little payback. Certainly I think we missed out on at least winning 7 of the last 9 or so. Hard to say because both teams had so many ups and downs but for sure A&M is head and shoulders a better program over UT after 9 years. Maybe we can snatch the conference title away from Bama in this last year as a 14 team league.
Either way it will be a fun ride.
Has there ever been a team expelled from a conference? Seems like Temple was kicked out or at least threatened to. And there are lots of non-competitive football teams that are sterling in other sports like Kansas and Syracuse.Didn’t Idaho and New Mexico State get shoved off from the MW a couple years back.
Hell just froze over. The A&M BoR voted in favor of Tex/OU to join the SEC 8-1.The biggest beneficiary here: Jimmy Sexton.
Got to say I have a lot of mixed emotions about this. I wanted a little more time away from UT in order for A&M to mature and grow. I’ve always thought we should be more pro-A&M and not so much anti-t.u.
On the other hand we have a chance to have some really good football, and maybe even get a little payback. Certainly I think we missed out on at least winning 7 of the last 9 or so. Hard to say because both teams had so many ups and downs but for sure A&M is head and shoulders a better program over UT after 9 years. Maybe we can snatch the conference title away from Bama in this last year as a 14 team league.
Either way it will be a fun ride.
He can tell Silve but it probably wouldn't do much good. He hasn't been commissioner since 2015.Yeah, I meant Skanky.
Now the question of which IN school it would be is interesting. Purdue was a charter member but Indiana joined in 1899 so it is not like they are some Johnny-come-lately. Also, Purdue has a larger enrollment but the difference is not significant and the two schools' endowments are also similar in size.Purdue over IU for sure.
The obvious advantage of not having two schools each in IL, IN, and MI is that you could replace them with three schools from other states and thus increase the footprint of the league (ie, increase the size of the pie without cutting it into more slices).
Why Texas and Oklahoma want to move to the SEC? Follow the money (cnbc.com) (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/29/why-texas-and-oklahoma-want-to-move-to-the-sec-follow-the-money.html)Good article. It doesn't state what the projected rights for the rump12 will be but that will obviously be a LOT lower. If you are one of them, adjusting from receiving $34M/year to something probably less than half of that is going to be a struggle.
Duh. Some figures, estimates anyway.
Texas and OU each reportedly received about $34 million from the Big 12 over the last year. That figure could jump to over $60 million annually if they move to the SEC.
I wonder what the CFB universe will be like in a decade. Thinking back to 2011, it has changed rather a lot.Hopefully we'll have flying cars by then!
Purdue over IU for sure.Well, we all know football drives these decisions. Purdue has been bad, historically, at football. IU has been atrociously bad, historically, at football.
Purdue has engineering. IU does not. IU is out.
Well, we all know football drives these decisions. Purdue has been bad, historically, at football. IU has been atrociously bad, historically, at football.
Academically, IU ranks 76th in USN&WR, whereas Purdue ranks 53rd. So even beyond having engineering, Purdue is the more prestigious academic school.
All IU has going for it is some dusty old banners in their basketball gym from decades before their current students were born.
I could see a two conference outcome where the B1G and SEC carve up the remaining conferences.
The B1G would get "the West" and SEC would get the ACC perhaps less BC/Wake/Duke?
I guess that would mean 6-8 "divisions".
That gets you to 23, all AAU except Notre Dame, who they'd make the exception for anyway. I have no clue who you put in that Great Lakes division that is AAU and makes geographical sensePitt?
Just picking nits here, but Nebraska is no longer AAU.
That gets you to 23, all AAU except Notre Dame, who they'd make the exception for anyway.
Didn’t Idaho and New Mexico State get shoved off from the MW a couple years back.That happened in the Sunbelt after the 2017 season. Ostensibly, it was because those two schools were too far outside the conference footprint. I think that they had only been "associate members."
Never count out SoS when it comes to throwing out zingers.
[img width=499.988 height=468.993]https://i.imgur.com/mYlgrB9.png[/img]
The "Bama does something and the SEC claims credit" thing doesn't work well when OSU and OU treat the B1G and Big XII like escaped slaves year after year.
The SEC has had 4 different teams win the NC in the past 13 years.
You have to go back to 1990 just to find 3 for the ACC.
Back to 1965 to find 3 for the B1G.
To find 3 for the Big 12, you have to go back to the 1997 season.....but the SEC has had 5 different NC programs since then.
.
It's a joke, I know, and it's not a big deal, but it's literally the opposite of the reality of the thing.
The "Bama does something and the SEC claims credit" thing doesn't work well when OSU and OU treat the B1G and Big XII like escaped slaves year after year.
The SEC has had 4 different teams win the NC in the past 13 years.
You have to go back to 1990 just to find 3 for the ACC.
Back to 1965 to find 3 for the B1G.
To find 3 for the Big 12, you have to go back to the 1997 season.....but the SEC has had 5 different NC programs since then.
.
It's a joke, I know, and it's not a big deal, but it's literally the opposite of the reality of the thing.
not to mention the programs that played in the championship and lost. Georgia ( to Bama) and Auburn ( to FSU).I'm not saying the SEC isn't strong, but I think this argument overstates their strength because it isn't like those five NC winning programs since 1997 have all been consistent NC contenders.
30 years of NC's by current league:This, BTW, is why I'm not sure that any possible combination of moves by the B1G would actually enable us to keep up with this new SEC. If you rearrange the above chart by putting OU and TX in the SEC it changes to this:
- 15 SEC, 5 schools
- 7 ACC, 3 schools
- 6 B1G, 3 schools (3 NC's were by UNL before they were in the B1G)
- 3 PAC, 2 schools
- 2 B12, 2 schools
if ESPN and FOX really want to hurt NBC, they simply exclude ND playing games with their teamsTo date, the networks have (mostly) avoided meddling with the OOC scheduling of teams in conferences where they hold broadcasting rights.
Bowlsby is the captain of the Titanic. Does it matter at this point if he publicly yells at the iceberg?I’m wondering if the Sooners or Longhorns will have 17 penalties rung up in one game by Big 12 officials.
I’m wondering if the Sooners or Longhorns will have 17 penalties rung up in one game by Big 12 officials.not with what we are paying them
As has been pointed out, Notre Dame and USC are really the only schools the B1G could add that would move the needle. Because they're the only two helmet schools left, that are not already in either the SEC or the B1G.Well, you're talking about moving the needle when it comes to helmets.
I know a lot of B1G fans are tired of hearing about Notre Dame, but my #1 priority would be to get the domers into the fold.
Moreseo now than even a week ago, the idea of a mega-conference playoff is very much in the cards. And if the B1G and the SEC decide to split and form their own playoff, there is no reason at all they would need to include a provision for independents. There's way more pressure on ND to join a conference now than there ever has been before.
Pulling in PAC schools like USC seems weird, but these are strange times. I have no doubt that conversations between the B1G and those two, plus probably others, are currently underway.
Well, you're talking about moving the needle when it comes to helmets.
There's another needle, and it's called TV screens.
We act like that's not important any more, because of cord-cutting and the decrease in traditional pay-TV subscribers. And yes, traditional pay-TV, which was 100M a few years back, is down to 75M households.
But I'd highlight a few things:
- 75M households is still a GIGANTIC number.
- About half of that decline, a little less than 12M, has been made up by streaming live TV services. They're not geography-dependent like cable, but that means TV rights are still valuable.
- The group least likely to cut the cord completely (as opposed to cord switching, which is what streaming live TV is) are sports fans. I'd venture to say that the difference between that original 100M households and the current ~87M households subscribing to a live TV service is mostly fans who didn't care about sportsball and weren't watching it anyway.
So while the importance of cable subscribers is diminished, it's not destroyed.
So look at the options:
USC/UCLA: Gets you in front of 18.8M, not even counting San Diego (which I'd argue may end up being included, and is another 3.3M).
Stanford: Gets you another 7.8M in the Bay Area
Oregon: Probably gets you in front of the entire state of 4.8M
Washington: Probably gets you in front of the entire state of 7.6M, but even if it just got you Sea-Tac it would be almost 5M.
Colorado: Would certainly get you the Denver area which is 3.6M, but possibly all of Colorado which is 5.8M
Go big and you get a combined area with a population of up to 48M people depending on how you slice it up...
That's $$$, and you don't need to limit to legitimate "helmets" to do it.
not with what we are paying themThis is funny.
no law says you have to play everyone in your division every yearNope. There is a "law". NCAA Bylaw 31.3.4.1.(c)
you could play 5 division games per a prearranged schedule and 4 other division games per a prearranged schedule
still leaving 3 ooc games
As has been discussed in the before time, a 16-team conference can be split into 4 pods and can be scheduled so that every team plays all the others every other year.Pods of 4 must play double round-robin schedules within the pod.
9 game conf schedule of:
the other 3 teams in your pod (every year)
2 from each of the other 3 pods one year, the other 2 from each pod the next
3 + 2 + 2 + 2 = 9
You see everyone else every 2 seasons
You play at your place and their place every 4 seasons
.
I doubt the SEC would do this, as it makes too much sense. Plus, the pods would be all wacky if the original 4 schools held the rest of the conference hostage again (although Tennessee might not want to play Alabama every year anymore).
If those 4 did insist on being in a pod together (AL, AU, UT, UGA), it would leave Florida with Carolina, Vandy, and Kentucky. :)
Texas, OU, A&M, and Arky would be a pod.
That would leave LSU with OM, MSU, and Missou, which would be a casserole, basically.
.
Or people might insist LSU and Florida are in a pod, and you'd be left with some kind of toilet bowl pod remaining.
another reason to put the Aggies and Horns in the same pod :)It would be great fun to get to beat them twice per year, and make up for lost time!
Nope. There is a "law". NCAA Bylaw 31.3.4.1.(c)
https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/bylaw?ruleId=9206
Does not apply to FBS football. FBS championship is determined by the CFP, not NCAA.sounds good to me
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/AMA/Division%20I%20Forms/2010-11%20FBS%20Forms/Football%20Bowl%20Subqa%2012%208%2010.pdf
Pods of 4 must play double round-robin schedules within the pod.The rule either has basketball/baseball in mind or was constructed by people who couldn't wrap their heads around a 16-team conference. The SEC would apply for a waiver and get it.
"A conference with subdivisions of four members must conduct double round-robin competition within each subdivision, plus a postseason tournament, to determine its champion."
https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/bylaw?ruleId=9206
The rule either has basketball/baseball in mind or was constructed by people who couldn't wrap their heads around a 16-team conference. The SEC would apply for a waiver and get it.if you will read up thread your questions might be answered
Does not apply to FBS football. FBS championship is determined by the CFP, not NCAA.Wrong. The only thing the CFP controls is the playoff.
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/AMA/Division%20I%20Forms/2010-11%20FBS%20Forms/Football%20Bowl%20Subqa%2012%208%2010.pdf
Wrong. The only thing the CFP controls is the playoff.if the pods of 4 will be required to play every team twice in their pod then Im sure the sec will pick another qrouping
It doesn't matter, they'd apply to waive the rule and it would happen.Thats what will have to happen or no pods
Wrong. The only thing the CFP controls is the playoff.As I said, FBS football championship is determined by the CFP, not the NCAA. It is not an NCAA championship as covered by the bylaw as listed below,
As I said, FBS football championship is determined by the CFP, not the NCAA. It is not an NCAA championship as covered by the bylaw as listed below,And the Bylaw you give is an NCAA Bylaw. Has nothing to do with the CFP.
31.3.4.1 Requirements -- Division I Championship. To be eligible for automatic qualification in a Division I Championship, a member conference must meet the following requirements: (Revised: 12/9/91, 8/13/93, 12/5/94, 10/18/95, 10/27/98, 4/20/99, 1/9/06 effective 8/1/06, 12/15/06)
(a) Conference competition must be conducted in the applicable sport and the conference champion in that sport must be determined not later than the date on which participants are selected for the NCAA championship, either by regular in-season conference competition or a conference meet or tournament, as indicated at the time of application. If a conference's competition to determine its automatic qualifier is unexpectedly terminated (e.g., due to inclement weather), the conference may designate its qualifier, provided it has established objective criteria for making that designation and has communicated that information to the appropriate sports committee by a specified deadline.
(b) In the event of a tie for the conference championship, the conference shall have the responsibility of determining which team or individual shall represent the conference in NCAA competition. If a play-off is held, such competition shall be considered conference competition, not NCAA competition.
(c) In sports other than championship subdivision football, a conference may establish subdivisions and conduct competition within each subdivision to determine a conference champion, as long as each subdivision consists of at least four members. A conference with subdivisions of four members must conduct double round-robin competition within each subdivision, plus a postseason tournament, to determine its champion. A conference with subdivisions of five or more members may conduct either single or double round-robin competition within each subdivision, plus a postseason tournament to determine its champion. (Note: This regulation does not apply to Division I men's or women's basketball. In those sports, a conference may conduct either double round-robin, in-season competition, or a minimum of 14 conference games in order to determine its champion.)
(d) In championship subdivision football, football-playing conferences that subdivide into five or more teams are required to conduct a single round-robin competition within each division and develop a formula for determination of the conference champion, which must be approved by the Football Championship Committee prior to the start of the season. A postseason championship game is not required.
Paragraph (b) is for sports other than FCS football that play for an NCCA championship.
It doesn't matter, they'd apply to waive the rule and it would happen.Waiver? No. Revision as was done to accommodate the Big 12? Perhaps. Perhaps not. This Bylaw is a sticky subject with the NCAA and as long as there is an NCAA it is going to be strictly enforced. This was shown with the Big 12. Even after the revision they wanted a waiver. They wanted to continue without divisions and without round-robin play which was denied.
duhok mr sarcastic man tell the guy quoting all the rules which say we have to play double round robins with 4 team pods but if 4 team pods actually happen there will be no double round robin
not worth the typing, never gonna happenWhat's wrong with pods? You get to play a home-and-home series with everyone in the conference over the course of four years.
silly to even think about
besides, pods suck!
I heard the SEC is going to 7 conference games anyway with the new schools, because strength of schedule or something...
Looks interesting to me. Teams would always play every team in their pod + every team in the pod they are paired with for their division. That's 7 conference games. Then play 2-4 teams from a pod in the other division, depending on how many conference games are mandated.
I'm still not certain the pods are capable of preserving all of the annual rivalries that SEC schools value.This won't matter, because unlike now where a former annual rivals may only play twice in 12 years, in a pod system, they'd play every other year regardless.
Pods suck.that sounded easy
That wasn't hard at all.
I'm still not certain the pods are capable of preserving all of the annual rivalries that SEC schools value.
And if you start putting in an extra x-pod rivalry game, then you're diminishing the scheduling flexibility that the pods are supposed to create.
Yea when it goes to a 16 team conference sacrifices have to be made.I imagine that the SEC and the B1G will go to 11-game conference schedules at the same time.
Make the pods with the most important rivals so they play every year. I would hope Texas, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M + 1 are in a pod.
Go to an 11 game conference schedule and you only miss a potential non-pod rival for 1 year.
Of course the SEC won't do that, gotta pad those records for the playoff 😎
No one can say "pods suck' because they haven't even been tried yet. Sheesh.Ive never been kicked by a horse but Im pretty sure that sucks
.
Ive never been kicked by a horse but Im pretty sure that sucksPlease. Try it.
This is also true with only a 9-game conference schedule.
Go to an 11 game conference schedule and you only miss a potential non-pod rival for 1 year.
This won't matter, because unlike now where a former annual rivals may only play twice in 12 years, in a pod system, they'd play every other year regardless.But it could end up killing some games that have remained annual. Going from annual, to 2/4 years, is exactly what happened to the NU-OU rivalry, and that ended up having a lot to do with Nebraska's dissatisfaction with the B12 and ultimate defection.
That's the point.
But it could end up killing some games that have remained annual. Going from annual, to 2/4 years, is exactly what happened to the NU-OU rivalry, and that ended up having a lot to do with Nebraska's dissatisfaction with the B12 and ultimate defection.And who drove that decision? Amusingly can you imagine that it was OU that preferred it this way since NU was an absolute power house at the time ? But within 5 years the tables were turned? Didn’t the fans think as well that it would be OU and NU in the ccg every year as well? I can’t recall that happening. Maybe it did but I don’t remember it.
And who drove that decision? Amusingly can you imagine that it was OU that preferred it this way since NU was an absolute power house at the time ? But within 5 years the tables were turned? Didn’t the fans think as well that it would be OU and NU in the ccg every year as well? I can’t recall that happening. Maybe it did but I don’t remember it.I don't think OU drove that decision, but it sure didn't protest. Bad decision in retrospect. The Big 12 made many 11-1 decisions early on that sowed the seeds of the eventual breakup, and several of them were aimed at taking Nebraska down a peg or two.
just the name "pod" sucksWould you dislike it less if there were four divisions?
if you're thinking about pods your conference is too large
But it could end up killing some games that have remained annual. Going from annual, to 2/4 years, is exactly what happened to the NU-OU rivalry, and that ended up having a lot to do with Nebraska's dissatisfaction with the B12 and ultimate defection.Well let's just go by Nebraska's decision-making then. How's it worked out for them? Where were they then compared to now?
Well let's just go by Nebraska's decision-making then. How's it worked out for them? Where were they then compared to now?Nebraska has more money now, but less-good football.
They have a few years to sort it out.
I imagine "they" will consider a variety of options, and by then perhaps even more teams will have joined. I saw something somewhere about Ohio State joining the SEC, I didn't read the blurb because I thought it was click bait.
I suppose one could form a massive "conference" including most of the P5 teams of note and carry on from there.
I'm amazed any school joined the 12, given the unequal footing. That's absurd.other then the earlier arrangement concerning dist of TV revenue which was discontinued 11 years ago Im not sure what you are speaking of
other then the earlier arrangement concerning dist of TV revenue which was discontinued 11 years ago Im not sure what you are speaking ofI imagine that Texas and OU both voted against the conference network.
yes the Horns had their own network but this was after the league voted against establishing one
so are there other reasons for your statement
I imagine that Texas and OU both voted against the conference network.I was under the impression that UT was the one that was pushing it and was out voted but Id have to get on my google scooter to make sure
Do you know one way or the other, 320?
Well I just looked it up. Apparently I don’t know that much about the Big 10 because Nebraska is not in the same division as Ohio State. They are clearly in the weaker division, the West division. They have played 7 times in the past ten years but I’m not familiar with how the B10 schedules work. Are they some sort of semi permanent rival?NU is a charter member of the Big Ten.
At any rate I can see why NU wanted to go to the B10.
But it could end up killing some games that have remained annual. Going from annual, to 2/4 years, is exactly what happened to the NU-OU rivalry, and that ended up having a lot to do with Nebraska's dissatisfaction with the B12 and ultimate defection.I mean, isn’t that kind of or for the course these days? Games are rivalries until they’re not. And the point of the pod setup is to retain a few good rivalries and rotate the rest.
I mean, isn’t that kind of or for the course these days? Games are rivalries until they’re not. And the point of the pod setup is to retain a few good rivalries and rotate the rest.why only have 3 annual games? WTF?
Folks have gamed out sample versions for the SEC and a few other leagues. Usually you keep three annual games. If a team is your No. 4 annual rival, is it that worth holding onto?
(the wonky part is that schedules are unbalanced and the standings for a title game don’t look so clean. Ironically, the projection I saw didn’t include the Big 12 because there was no need with a true round robin)
why only have 3 annual games? WTF?Agreed. A 16 team conference is more like two 8 team conferences. View games with the other division as you would OOC games. Win your division and play one of them every year. :)
why not play the same 6 or 7 or 8 teams annually? develop rivalries and history with those 8 teams. why try to play all the teams in a 16 team conference and there fore only play 3 annually?
Two Divisions. Nine or ten conference games. One permanent cross-over and one or two rotating. Forget the four subdivisions. And they are called subdivisions and not pods.thank you!
And the NCAA Bylaw with four teams in a subdivision was obviously written to cover a conference reducing down to 8 teams and not a conference expanding to 16 teams. But it is what it is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIOCPXao6aYyep I saw this and thought it was pretty funny
Do you and the other 7 people with that knowledge proud of yourselves? Cool. Let's alter 'invent' to 'introduce' to the American fan. Now you can get over the semantics and address the IDEA.Orange are you off your meds again?
Are you and the other 7 people with that knowledge proud of yourselves? Cool. Let's alter 'invent' to 'introduce' to the American fan. Now you can get over the semantics and address the IDEA.
Yup, made me laugh for sure. She made an absolute fool of herself and the honorable gentleman from Houston just kept egging her on to dig herself deeper and deeper. It was cute.Heh!
Heh!
It was uncomfortable to watch her trolling.
But she did give UT a break on the UT vs. TCU won-loss stat.
What I found most amusing was watching all of the reps shitting all over The University of Texas, in an attempt to... get Texas to stay? That's a bold move Cotton, let's see how it plays out...Exactly! 😂😂😂
Are you and the other 7 people with that knowledge proud of yourselves? Cool. Let's alter 'invent' to 'introduce' to the American fan. Now you can get over the semantics and address the IDEA.That is pretty amusing to me.
That is pretty amusing to me.Folks on this board don't seem keen to adapting to much of anything.
Maybe "adapt" would be a useful term.
If the Pac 12 absorbs the Big 12, then the Big Ten and Pac 12 could withdraw from the CFB Playoffs, and bring back the Rose Bowl.Don't forget about the west coast apathy of college football: for every pasty white 60 year old jerking it to the sunset over the San Gabriel Mtns, there's someone in CA that doesn't even know it exists.
Then the Playoff would no longer be for the "National Championship" as it would be reduced to some goofy, ridiculous regional thing that the hillbillies do in the Southeast when they aren't kissing their cousins, while the rest of the Nation is all in on the Rose Bowl.
If the Pac 12 absorbs the Big 12, then the Big Ten and Pac 12 could withdraw from the CFB Playoffs, and bring back the Rose Bowl.I like this suggestion. It would blow up the idea of a centralized, run-by-ESPN, conferences-aligned-by-ESPN college football championship.
Then the Playoff would no longer be for the "National Championship" as it would be reduced to some goofy, ridiculous regional thing that the hillbillies do in the Southeast when they aren't kissing their cousins, while the rest of the Nation is all in on the Rose Bowl.
Yeah, the Big Ten and Pac 12 could then each have four pods. At the end of the season each Conference would then hold a Conference Playoff with the 4 pod winners. Then the two Conference Playoff winners would square off in the Rose Bowl....and national championships.
Meanwhile the SEC and ACC would be doing their little CFB Playoff with all the G5 winners. It would be the NIT.
If the Southeast champion wanted to be considered the National Champion outside of the Southeast, they'd have to take on the Rose Bowl winner.Why?
Why?I think the point is that the SEC, or a combo of the SEC and ACC, can't establish a playoff system and announce that any conferences that don't join it are removing themselves from contention.
.
Baseball teams don't have to play the Japanese champ to declare themselves "World Champions," do they? All they have to do is be the best in the US and plus a city 10 miles across the border and they can claim it.
.
If the B1G removes themselves from contention, then that's on them. Maybe Ohio State could borrow UCF's banner every year.
...and national championships.CSA National Champions, perhaps.
If the Southeast champion wanted to be considered the National Champion outside of the Southeast, they'd have to take on the Rose Bowl winner.
Why?
Yup that one looks more correct.Some interesting quirks there. U-Dub owns Alaska. Stanford owns Hawaii. Texas Tech owns most of New Mexico. Colorado's territory goes almost to Canada.
Here's an interesting one, of the "Closest P5 stadium to every county in the USA."
(https://i.imgur.com/DbfsrCH.jpg)
Some interesting quirks there. U-Dub owns Alaska. Stanford owns Hawaii. Texas Tech owns most of New Mexico. Colorado's territory goes almost to Canada.Yeah I thought there were some fun surprises in there, too.
Some interesting quirks there. U-Dub owns Alaska. Stanford owns Hawaii. Texas Tech owns most of New Mexico. Colorado's territory goes almost to Canada.
Yeah I thought there were some fun surprises in there, too.Y'all are reading this correctly, right?
Also, it makes it kind of obvious which current remaining B12 teams would make the most sense in the PAC, from a purely geographical standpoint.
Yeah I thought there were some fun surprises in there, too.From purely that standpoint, Texas Tech (the school that own most of New Mexico) and TCU.
Also, it makes it kind of obvious which current remaining B12 teams would make the most sense in the PAC, from a purely geographical standpoint.
Y'all are reading this correctly, right?Sure! If we were talking about fandom, we'd be talking about the NYT map.
This is PURELY based on proximity. I.e. Washington is the most geographically northwest stadium in the country, so Alaska is closer to UW than anyone else. Has nothing to do with fandom. Same with Stanford and Hawaii.
So these teams don't "own" those areas from a fan standpoint, only from a proximity standpoint. Do we really think Alaskans are rabid Huskie fans? Do we think Montanans are rabid Cougar fans?
And I don't think it says anything about which B12 teams make the most sense in the PAC, because even though Texas Tech is the closest P5 stadium to a LOT of counties in West Texas and New Mexico, it doesn't mean they dominate the fans in those areas. Or, quite frankly, that anything other than steers and #&$@# live in those counties.
Y'all are reading this correctly, right?
This is PURELY based on proximity. I.e. Washington is the most geographically northwest stadium in the country, so Alaska is closer to UW than anyone else. Has nothing to do with fandom. Same with Stanford and Hawaii.
So these teams don't "own" those areas from a fan standpoint, only from a proximity standpoint. Do we really think Alaskans are rabid Huskie fans? Do we think Montanans are rabid Cougar fans?
And I don't think it says anything about which B12 teams make the most sense in the PAC, because even though Texas Tech is the closest P5 stadium to a LOT of counties in West Texas and New Mexico, it doesn't mean they dominate the fans in those areas. Or, quite frankly, that anything other than steers and #&$@# live in those counties.
Got it, guys... I thought y'all were taking the map seriously.No, you must apologize for such an egregious error!
My mistake ;-)
How could USC possibly not be the closest school to their own county? Does their stadium hoover above the ground?Tie-breaker goes to the bigger school?
Tie-breaker goes to the bigger school?UCLA maybe is closer to the geographic center of the county?
Yup that one looks more correct.
Here's an interesting one, of the "Closest P5 stadium to every county in the USA."
(https://i.imgur.com/DbfsrCH.jpg)
FtR the population density rankings were statewide, not by county.Understood...
Understood...
I was responding more to the prior post about the largest counties by land area often being the least populated. That's usually true, but San Bernardino as a county would slot in at 37th in the US between Kansas at 2.9M and New Mexico at 2.1M if it were a state.
That said, SB county IS incredibly sparsely populated for the bulk of its land area, so in one way your statement still holds regarding largest counties and population density.
It's a county that both proves and disproves the rule lol...
I'm surprised that the densely populated corner hasn't withdrawn in order to form a new county.They don't need to. They have almost the entire population of the county so they'll make gov't decisions based on the needs of that tiny densely populated corner. They can [and do] ignore the sparsely populated area.
Here's an updated fan map... allegedly.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E8SmoFnWUAA4M39?format=jpg&name=small)
San Bernardino County is absolutely gigantic.I actually knew this only because years ago when driving from Vegas to LA I was shocked at the NV/CA line to see a sign for San Bernardino County.
It actually has high population, too... 2.18M according to the wiki.
Average population density would be low... But very lumpy. Most of those 2.18M live in a tiny corner of the county where it's near LA.
[img width=273.429 height=303]https://i.imgur.com/rfwPZIi.png[/img]
Entering Texas from Louisiana on I-10, in the town of Orange, Texas, there's a sign with mileage to El Paso, which is also on I-10.Ive driven that once on my way to Las Vegas
[img width=500 height=351.989]https://i.imgur.com/3CyCc0m.png[/img]
Entering Texas from Louisiana on I-10, in the town of Orange, Texas, there's a sign with mileage to El Paso, which is also on I-10.As a comparison, at the eastern border of what many people (including me) consider to be a very long (E-W) state, one might see a sign like this on I-40.
(https://i.imgur.com/mqM2tAW.png)
Knoxville 67
Memphis 456
I've driven from Austin to Miami, and from Austin to Los Angeles.Naturally. You don't live in Miami nor Los Angeles...
But I've never driven from Miami to Los Angeles.
12 hours will get you from Los Angeles to El Paso. 12 more will get you to... Houston.if youre the Bandit
12 hours will get you from Los Angeles to El Paso. 12 more will get you to... Houston.The Google machine says only like 10 1/2? People must be driving more like you. (Or you’re counting meals).
Speedometers in older cars were inaccurate above about 85 mph and would inflate speeds by quite a bit.I can remember the 85 mph speedometers of the '70s and '80s. They were supposed to deter young drivers from seeing how fast they could go.
I'd guess they are better in newer cars, have not seen data on that.
I can remember the 85 mph speedometers of the '70s and '80s. They were supposed to deter young drivers from seeing how fast they could go.well, if it's off one MPH at 65 and 2 mph off at 75, then over 85 it could get worse and worser
Speedometers are mechanical devices. How would the relationship between rear-axle rotations and the speedometer reading start changing at some high-ish speed? I'm not arguing that speedometers were accurate above 85, but I am saying that I don't see how that would have worked
An airspeed indicator becoming increasingly inaccurate under various conditions I get. A speedometer going buggy above 85 I don't get.
Entering Texas from Louisiana on I-10, in the town of Orange, Texas, there's a sign with mileage to El Paso, which is also on I-10.That is the longest interstate run through one state. There are actually 881 miles of I10 in Texas. The mileage numbers run W->E and the last exit before the TX/LA line is Exit #878. That is a LONG freaking drive.
(https://i.imgur.com/mqM2tAW.png)
I drive fast. Especially in west Texas where there's nothing for 100 miles in any direction.I saw some 85 MPH Speed Limit signs out in West Texas and the patrol didn't even look up when I went by with the cruise set at 95.
I don't think speedometers are simple gear-driven devices where the axle rotation is directly proportional to the output.Thanks for the info!
https://www.explainthatstuff.com/how-speedometer-works.html
My first car (85 1/2 Ford Escort with a 4-speed manual) had a speedo that would basically peg at about 85 regardless of how fast you went beyond that. So I had no clue what the car's max speed was--although I didn't think it was much beyond 85. I was on a road trip and because I wasn't feeling well, my buddy was driving. We were going through St Joseph MI which I've later learned is NOT someplace you want to speed... He had it in 4th with the pedal to the floor and, predictably, gets pulled over.
He got a ticket for 93 mph, and that was the day I learned my car's maximum speed lol...
Like they say in Alaska - Texas - it's cute
Speedometer Scandal! (caranddriver.com) (https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a15136801/speedometer-scandal/)and changing to improper diameter tires can really thrown things off
In the good old days, plastic gears in the transmission spun a cable that turned a magnet, which imparted a rotational force to a metal cup attached to the needle. A return spring countered this force. Worn gears, kinked or improperly lubed cables, tired springs, vibrations, and countless other variables could affect these mechanical units.
But today, nearly all speedometers are controlled electronically. Typically, they are driven by either the vehicle's wheel-speed sensors or, more commonly, by a "variable reluctance magnetic sensor" reading the speed of the passing teeth on a gear in the transmission. The sine-wave signal generated is converted to speed by a computer, and a stepper motor moves the needle with digital accuracy.
Thanks for the info!Yeah, and when you think about how they work, it's basically electromagnetic forces balanced against a spring. The electromagnetic forces may not be perfectly proportional to actual speed, and the resistance of the spring is going to be non-linear as well (as much as they want it to be linear). I'll bet that inaccurate readings are probably found both at the low speed and the high speed ends, due to the spring resistance nonlinearity. But we only care about the high end because that's where we get in trouble with the law...
The description of the mechanical (eddy-current) speedometer sounds like what my Datsun 2000 had. I had to pull the engine-transmission unit on that car, and one of the things I had to disconnect was the speedometer cable. I didn't realize that it was electro-magnetic at the speedometer end.
But, come to think of it, that would explain why there is a lag in the speedo indication when you change speeds.
and changing to improper diameter tires can really thrown things offThat reminds me, I'll need to get the speedo recalibrated in the Jeep when I throw the 35s on.
Yeah, and when you think about how they work, it's basically electromagnetic forces balanced against a spring. The electromagnetic forces may not be perfectly proportional to actual speed, and the resistance of the spring is going to be non-linear as well (as much as they want it to be linear). I'll bet that inaccurate readings are probably found both at the low speed and the high speed ends, due to the spring resistance nonlinearity. But we only care about the high end because that's where we get in trouble with the law...
That reminds me, I'll need to get the speedo recalibrated in the Jeep when I throw the 35s on.
You can mitigate this somewhat by designing the system such that the relevant measurements are taken in the middle of the spring's travel, where it is the most closely approximate to linear. When I worked at Eaton doing final test engineering for ion implanters (particle accelerators), we had similar instrumentation, and it was designed that way. Of course, each ion implanter sold for several million dollars, so...Yes, which frankly is how that type of speedometers work. They'd be calibrated such that their optimal accuracy is going to be in perhaps the 35-65 mph range, and the springs used will be most linear there. Accuracy below or above those ranges are less important.
Yeah, and when you think about how they work, it's basically electromagnetic forces balanced against a spring. The electromagnetic forces may not be perfectly proportional to actual speed, and the resistance of the spring is going to be non-linear as well (as much as they want it to be linear). I'll bet that inaccurate readings are probably found both at the low speed and the high speed ends, due to the spring resistance nonlinearity. But we only care about the high end because that's where we get in trouble with the law...What are 35s? Are you talking profile ratio or overall diameter?
That reminds me, I'll need to get the speedo recalibrated in the Jeep when I throw the 35s on.
What are 35s? Are you talking profile ratio or overall diameter?Diameter. 35" tires on a 17" rim.
If the former, why would you do that on a Jeep?
Yup, they do say that. All five of them.They only need 5 the Canadians or Russians aren't hopping the fence
I used to hear folks bragging about doing 130 mph in a Dodge Dart with a 6 in it. Not a chance, it's speedo error and hyperbole.Heh! You asked for it!
And those old cars were not designed for such speeds of course and could turn briefly into aeroplanes as air gets underneath them. CWS knows about this.
I have read that airplane pilots have difficulty learning to operate rotary wings because the controls are so different. I am only vaguely familiar with terms like "collective" except as applied to The Borg.
An airplane gives you three basic controls, throttle, stick/yoke, and pedals. The pedals turn the rear of the plane, and oddly enough steer it when on the ground. I and others found it challenging to hit and maintain a specific altitude, it takes a lot of work to do that.
Principles of flight for helicopters are really interesting... I learned a fair bit about it from my brother who was a CH-53E pilot before he became a fixed-wing flight instructor and now airline pilot.Heh! As you know, a CH-53 is a monster of a helicopter.
I found it interesting, and rather complicated. But that stands to reason. I suppose every helo in the world has standardized on those control parameters.French helicopters have the main rotor going clockwise, so anything I said above about left and right should be reversed for a discussion of them.
I'd guess even an ultralight AC has the same basic control features as a Cessna, as does a 747.
I watch videos at times of a commercial heavy landing at some airport, apparently today they enter the desired altitude digitally on the panel and the plane goes there.
And you apparently can land an F-18 on a carrier deck hands off.
The next gen of military AC likely will not have a human pilot, or you might have one piloted AC in a group of say 8 drones he controls.
Automation is really amazing today. That could be the barrier to having flying cars. There are others of course.
Heh! As you know, a CH-53 is a monster of a helicopter.What I found interesting is that the CH-53 is one of the fastest helicopters in existence as well, because it's a 7-blade rotor.
Most of my time was at the opposite end of the spectrum--OH-58 Scouts (very similar to a Bell Jet Ranger), UH-1 Hueys (in flight school and during my year as a "staff aviator" in Korea, and AH-64 Apaches. The Apache was the biggest, and IIRC, we usually flew it weighing about 16,000 lbs at takeoff. The CH-53E has a max gross weight of 73,500 lbs. Going from an OH-58 to that would be like going from an Mazda Miata to a Kenworth hauling two trailers.
Automation is really amazing today. That could be the barrier to having flying cars. There are others of course.
One problem with flying cars simply is air space management and deconfliction, automation solves that potentially. I still think you're better off today with a true airplane and a true car. Imagine designing an airplace/car to meet crash test requirements.All valid, and I do agree that automation could potentially solve some of the airspace management issues that would assuredly arise.
I was piloting a Cessna when the single engine failed, you have pretty decent glide time even at 900 feet up where I was.
The other problem with a 172 is that while it has four seats, it you put 4 200 pounders in them, you probably are over the weight limit, not to mention luggage. You can compensate by loading less fuel if you wish. Now, those engines are archaic, magnetos, two spark plugs per cylinder, ours were carbureated, the newer ones have FI and electronic ignition at least. They are also large boxer 4 cylinder engines with two valves per cylinder burning rather expensive 100 LL av gas. One can get better more efficient engines.Thanks for giving me an example of something newer. I know throwing out specs of 40 year old aircraft may not be the best...
BUT, the purpose of the wing is to convert drag into lift, which is to your point. You have to have lift, and it comes from drag, in a piston engined plane.
A Mooney is a nicer plane, but far more expensive. A car-plane duo will always be more effective I think.
What I found interesting is that the CH-53 is one of the fastest helicopters in existence as well, because it's a 7-blade rotor.It's B.S. I'll get back later; gotta leave the 'puter right now.
In forward flight, the faster you go the closer you get to rotors on the trailing side (moving opposite direction of travel) stalling out while the rotors on the leading side being the only ones that can continue producing lift. The 53, with 7 blades, can mitigate that at a high airspeed better than perhaps an Apache with only two rotor blades.
At least that's how I understand it--feel free to correct me if it's bullsh!t ;-)
No, but wikipedia did lol...
Do you know why they use knots for ships and planes?
What I found interesting is that the CH-53 is one of the fastest helicopters in existence as well, because it's a 7-blade rotor.OK, here we go.
In forward flight, the faster you go the closer you get to rotors on the trailing side (moving opposite direction of travel) stalling out while the rotors on the leading side being the only ones that can continue producing lift. The 53, with 7 blades, can mitigate that at a high airspeed better than perhaps an Apache with only two rotor blades.
At least that's how I understand it--feel free to correct me if it's bullsh!t ;-)
The flying Delorean could never happen in the post 911 era.Yeah, I don't trust other drivers on a 2-dimensional plane, much less in 3-D. We'd be cubing the potential number of deaths by a DUI. Not a great call.
Probably for the better, as a mere fender bender could result it two cars just dropping down into the city.
OK, here we go.Betarho:
"B.S." is not quite right, as I will try to explain.
Retreating blade stall is the limiting factor on airspeed for a helicopter.
As you noted, the blade as it retreats has less airspeed. In fact, as soon as you start directional flight, the root of the retreating blade stops producing lift. The compensation is that the flight controls are rigged to increase the pitch of the retreating blade as the cyclic is pushed away from neutral. (I'll use "forward" as the example, but the same thing happens to the rotor disc if you are flying sideways or rearward. BTW, I left out the term "feathering" in my lengthy post on this subject. That refers to the rotor blades changing pitch.)
So, the faster you go, the further out on the retreating blade there is no lift being produced, requiring ever more pitch increase to produce the same amount of the lift that the advancing blade produces, and eventually there will not be enough and the helicopter will go out of control. The highest airspeed that the helicopter can fly without this happening (minus a bit for a safety cushion) is Vne, Velocity Not to Exceed.
So, you know all that, more or less.
But that happens whether you have 1 blade (plus a counterweight), 2 blades (like a Huey), 3 blades (like Sikorskys of the 1950s), 4 blades (like an Apache) 5 blades (like the pre-"E" model CH-53s, or the 7 blades of a CH-53E. The retreating side of the rotor disc is still working with high blade angles of attack to produce enough lift to balance the lift being produced by the advancing side.
What I think the advantage of having lots of blades is that they smooth out the felt impulses of each blade going from high airspeed/low AoA to low airspeed/high AOA. I suspect also is that the blades on the CH-53 are designed to function well at high AoA.
The real fix is to have co-axial, counter-rotating rotors on the same rotor shaft. That way you have advancing sides and retreating sides cancelling each other out.
So Bell has the better cockpit layout and Sikorsky has everything else better. Disappointing that neither could get it completely right.I misstated that. What I meant to say is that Sikorsky has the better propulsion and control technology.
Yep. When you've got a transport that can go 3 times the speed of any (submerged) attackers, you don't need escorts.
The majority of Navy transports are slower than escorts of course, the exception being ships like the Queen Mary pressed into service, and she wasn't escorted, she just made a dash using speed to get by any but a very lucky U Boat.
The B10 needs to start thinking outside the box at this point. Geography no longer matters and expansion has to come outside it's own footprint into growing states with a lot of football talent. To me that leaves only three options - Texas, Florida, or California. Texas is likely out - UT to the SEC looks like a done deal. Florida is possible, but you have the gut the ACC for that to work. They have a GOR secured through 2035 and you're directly competing in the SEC's back yard if you expand going SE.
This move by the SEC, IMO, is all about preparing to depart from the NCAA. Total power grab and the B10 needs to respond or you eventually risk the SEC departing and being viewed as its own elite football division - something needs to be formed to compete with it. To me, the only logical way to achieve that at this point is an aggressive PAC/B1G "Merger" of the top schools in the P12 in a B10 move to 20.
20 actually works really well for the B1G in terms of preserving geographic rivalries through a divisional format. You have 9 conference games, 4 in your own division, 5 from a sister division that rotates every year. End of season you end up with a CCG that is never a rematch cuz it's essentially two separate 10 team conferences that change each year. This allows you to play everyone twice ever six years in the opposite divisions.
The PAC12 already has abysmal revenue from it's media rights deal. it was rumored that USC/UCLA refused to extend the GOR last fall and it is set to expire in 2023. If they want a seat at the final table of "NCAA football", they need to improve their revenue and they need to have inventory in some better time slots - blending the best of the P12 with the B1G would provide that opportunity. Something like this could be an option:
Great Plains Division
Wisconsin
Nebraska
Iowa
Minnesota
Illinois
Great Lakes Division
Ohio State
Michigan
Michigan State
Indiana
Purdue
Atlantic Division (name subject to change here, I get it's not a perfect fit)
Penn State
Notre Dame
Maryland
Rutgers
Northwestern
Pacific Division
USC
UCLA
Oregon
Washington
(pick your 5th - Stanford, Utah, Cal, Colorado seem most logical)
The above solves a lot of problems:
- B1G needs more national exposure and football recruiting hotbeds to compete with this new SEC
- The top dogs of the PAC12 need more revenue to compete in the new CFB climate with the NIL and can't get it due to the lower half of their conference not giving a hoot about CFB.
- The four proposed schools are all AAU schools, and the footprint adds 3 new states. Plenty of good options for #5 depending on what you value.
- Notre Dame might finally see the writing on the wall if there's going to be an NCAA breakaway for major college football, plus there's talk the top few playoff spots will be reserved for conference champs only. You could even slide ND into the Pacific division if they wanted to avoid the "midwestern" image of the B1G.
- The B1G gutting the top of the P12 would create a safe landing spot for the B12 leftovers to merge with, albeit at a much lower revenue number then all of them are getting now.
I think the B1G needs to view this SEC move as a power grab and have this discussion with the schools at the top of the PAC, then respond accordingly. The Rose Bowl is going to die under the expanded playoff format, maybe add UCLA to the conference and play the CCG there every once in a awhile as an homage to it. If the B1G doesn't think outside the box here I fear that the SEC just leaves the NCAA and becomes it's own division with it's own championship.
The current PAC12 deal ends in 2023, so it's without question the path of least resistance from an expansion standpoint.