Comments on: How An SEC-Big XII Scheduling Alliance Could Doom The ACC

By: JRsec

JRsec — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 01:48:27 +0000

@WarHog38 Sounds like to me we are on the same page with regards to several things, including football. Take care.

By: WarHog38

WarHog38 — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 01:32:53 +0000

@JRsec No I did not write the statements about greed in reference to this expansion. It really has no effect as far as the vast scope of that problem. You have two choices on it in my book, Optimism or just do not worry about it. I chose the latter years ago at the strict instruction of my father. Your certainly correct in hoping for change. Very plausible, but it must occur sooner rather than later. I will not write about that further on this site. Football is an enjoyable outlet for me as well!

By: JRsec

JRsec — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 00:02:13 +0000

@WarHog38 I just brought up the economy to say that there is a much greater force driving realignment other than football. In the case of our schools they have been called greedy. That’s a missed diagnosis. Our schools are driven out of fear. But you are right that greed is bringing about the demise of much we once knew as freedom and blessing. The population issue will take care of itself with either self imposed control or starvation. The drugs and abuse of cheap labor and the destruction of the middle class needs those good old anti-trust laws back in force. But oddly enough I’m optimistic. This has happened many times in history and when the public suffers sufficiently they finally decide to wake up and change things for the better. That’s what I’m hoping for anyway. I love the distraction of SEC football and going to my school’s games. Realignment is fascinating as a social phenomenon. When most folks’ distractions are interrupted or affected they usually wake up and respond. We’ll see.

By: WarHog38

WarHog38 — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 23:09:02 +0000

@JRsec I try to keep politics out of my thinking concerning sports just on account of keeping them enjoyable. The politics of our country are not in the least bit enjoyable to me. However anything is big as college football is in this country would have to very politically connected. So therefore I have no problem with your scenario.

However if we are going to start analyzing this countries’ problems. I really do not see a lot of recourse ever coming. The first major problem in this country is the word “GREED” has become a good word in the world of business. Greed is an ugly word and was despised during the early formation of this country. The word was so hated many laws were enacted to protect the public from it back then. Those laws have been loop holed and stripped away in recent decades. The word ‘GREED” must be made ugly and dirty again. Secondly is the stark fact that we are literally moving the 3rd World into this country. This country was built by European decent individuals who were additionally responsible for all the grandeur of Europe. Look upon the 3rd World and what has been accomplished there? Can you bring the 3rd World into this country and have a European result?. Our cities are literal jungles! The 3rd big problem is population in proportion to resources. The US population is doubling every 40 years. Population can become a big problem in just a few generations. Unless these 3 problems are addressed and controlled within the next few decades, there will be no US as we know for a Saturday afternoon football game of a massive crowd. In 50 years this country will be similar to present day Mexico and only going downhill from there! Sad, but as my long deceased father used to say. WE BROUGHT IT ALL ON OURSELVES!

By: JRsec

JRsec — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 19:18:19 +0000

@WarHog38 I fear this realignment has little to do with football, or conferences, and everything to do with economic lifelines. We appear to be in a recovery right now but it is false. When the FED is no longer able to control inflation the dollar will collapse. Realignment is a symptom of State Government cutting funding do to lack of revenue, due to lack of anything but low paying jobs, due to corporate favoritism and undue burdens of regulations and taxes on small private businesses (once the main employer in our nation) while large international business escape the same regulations and receive tax breaks. Internationally labor is cheaper. If we won’t work for less jobs are moved to where people will.

The solvency of 401K and 403B and Social Security all of which are either invested in those banks that were “too big to fail” are all in great peril of not being there for the Boomers. Hamstring Boomers in retirement and there will be no charitable giving, no inheritance for generation X and Y and the new one coming along. Couple that with the job situation and Higher Education is in for serious downsizing. The largest state schools will be the survivors. Do you think it is coincidence that the three largest conferences are trying to land only large state institutions which might be considered either to be land grant, flagship, or so academically sound that they will be the last schools standing?

If you will notice schools with church affiliations and small private schools are being excluded for the most part. That’s because state governments don’t have to them under their purview.

If we go to three large conferences it is only a vehicle designed to maximize cable television as a revenue stream. The larger the better. Once the fiscal crisis has passed, or when enough smaller schools have either merged or disappeared we might once again see 8 regional conferences of 8 or so schools.

The average fan, indeed most of the nation, never looks for the deeper motivators for such moves. None of these schools who have been content for 80 to 100 years in their conferences would have ever considered this over just football, and hardly over academics. This is the canary in the coal mine for just how sick our economy is.. Good luck to us all!

By: WarHog38

WarHog38 — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 18:59:22 +0000

@JRsec As virtually everyone else on these boards, I have no say in what is going to happen is this expansion. I remember those people as Saban you quoted, Gene Stallings talked about those huge conferences as the eventual outcome as well.
I know this much, it will all be 100% cash driven! Those 3 huge conferences will have a big problem right off the bat. Three is an odd number as in making pairing hard to do. College football will need to go back to a BCS type setup to decide it’s NC game. Either that or go to a lengthy NFL type Playoff. All kinds of problems in managing conferences as big as that!

You remember that B12 Championship game between Texas and Nebraska? Time running out and the Texas QB threw the football was out of bounds with several seconds left. The clock obviously expired before the ball ever hit the ground on the QB’s throw. However the B12 refs put a second back on the clock. Texas then set up for about a 60 yard field goal. Texas’ great kicker kicked it and Texas won the B12 Championship.
That one event is probably the biggest single reason that Nebraska is in the B1G right now. I know it is not the only reason, but it is the biggest even over Texas hogging revenue. These Big Conferences have no chance in lasting very long. Too extended with too many variables to control. However I will not mention livefyre as the big transgressor in all this anymore.

By: JRsec

JRsec — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 06:41:24 +0000

@SouthernBoiSB @BruceMcF @AllTideUp @Roggespierre @DanHogan Of course. Maryland in retrospect probably had already made the decision. F.S.U. was probably just keeping options open.

By: SouthernBoiSB

SouthernBoiSB — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 05:13:19 +0000

@JRsec @BruceMcF @AllTideUp @Roggespierre @DanHogan

Does anybody think that Maryland & FSU NOT voting for the ACC’s exit fee was a sign that they’re ready to jump ship & Maryland was the 1st of them to do such? Possibly Maryland already having a foot out the ACC door?

By: JRsec

JRsec — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 05:04:50 +0000

@WarHog38 @DanHogan 1. Ohio State president Gee was quoted last week as saying that the Big 10 could go to 18 or 20 and said that the Atlantic Coast and Midwest were where he expected teams to be added.

2. One year ago Mike Slive said that expansion would only be limited by the number of teams that could add profitability to the conferences.
3. The SEC has a network that every time it gets a team from a densely populated state adds a million or so to each of our teams earnings.
4. We don’t want the Big 10 in Georgia or Florida two of our most recruit rich states and that means defensive additions are possible.
5. If the ACC and Big 12 go away the PAC, SEC, and Big 10 each get an additional $40 million in playoff revenue from what was to be the shares of those two conferences. That’s 2 million more per school in a 20 team conference.
6. Barry Alvarez, Mike Alden, and Nick Saban have all been on record saying that a new upper tier would consist of between 60 to 70 teams.
7. The fewer the number of teams in an upper tier the more everyone will make. 60 is very likely. 3 x 20 = 60 and 40 million more.
8. There is no good way to have 4 x 16 the geography, academic requirements of some conferences, and cultural fit of others cannot be met without eliminating the ACC which leaves no one for the PAC to expand with, and if the Big 12 goes bust there aren’t enough good teams that meet the SEC and Big 10 criteria for both to be satisfied by the demise of that conference. The only way the PAC, Big 10 and SEC acquire new teams for their networks is to raid both the Big 12 and ACC.
9. The scheduling is easy and rivalries will be maintained with 4 half divisions of 5 that rotate and have permanent rivals.
10. I’ve read your posts on other boards (Techsideline for one) and while I understand your sentiment, I don’t think you are going to get your wish for the above stated reasons.

By: BruceMcF

BruceMcF — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 04:02:30 +0000

@AllTideUp @JRsec @Roggespierre @DanHogan You can still do a two division round robin schedule and have number one in each division host number two in the other. The semi-finals gets rid of the situation of the CCG loser being knocked out of the National Playoff by a division runner-up ~ under that lineup, the National Playoff semi-finals would be the SEC champion hosting a #1 or #2 semi-final bowl, and in most years the CCG loser being hosted as the #3 or #4 team.

By: WarHog38

WarHog38 — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 03:53:32 +0000

@DanHogan The only reason I have made reference to livefyre sites is because they are the only sites where I see a 18 and 20 team SEC with Duke and UNC as preferred new members constantly. I do not like any of that! I have stated the reasons all down this thread of my comments. I will be redundant but I will add this. I can not believe that ignorance is coming from our SEC front office. Somebody has to be dreaming it up!

By: JRsec

JRsec — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 02:18:14 +0000

@AllTideUp @BruceMcF @Roggespierre @DanHogan We could certainly use them from Basketball and Baseball tournaments. You could hold two separate baseball tournaments in two different cities and have the top two in each advance to the conference finals. Basketball could be played down to the final four as well. I just see a lot of ways to put those kinds of sports in venues closer to the fans and spread them around. I thought football might work well that way, but there is merit to having a home game.

By: AllTideUp

AllTideUp — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 02:12:55 +0000

@JRsec @BruceMcF @Roggespierre @DanHogan
I don’t really like the idea of neutral sites for all the semi-final games. It would be tough on fans traveling so much week after week especially into the bowl season. I think hosting the first round at the respective home stadiums would be better then have the title game in Atlanta. Or you could rotate the title game around to various cities.

There would probably still be a 4 team national playoff some conglomeration of the Pac 12 and B1G vying for the other spot.

By: JRsec

JRsec — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 02:03:05 +0000

@AllTideUp @BruceMcF @Roggespierre @DanHogan No you wouldn’t have to ask for a rule change, but one sure would be in order. Can you imagine playing the first round in Dallas, Nashville, Kansas City, Charlotte, Jacksonville, or New Orleans. Then the finals in Atlanta. The SOS would be through the roof. And the content would make up the game of week for most of the season. Game Day would have to make Birmingham their headquarters. And I wasn’t kidding when I said that our championship game would be a play in to the NCG. The revenue from that extra round of CCGs would enhance the bottom line nicely as well.

By: AllTideUp

AllTideUp — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 01:48:06 +0000

@JRsec @BruceMcF @Roggespierre @DanHogan
I like a lot of the possibilities of 24. Break everyone up into 4 different 6-team divisions with regional groupings.

West: Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Missouri
South: LSU, Arkansas, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn(same as old West division)
East: Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina(same as old East division)
Atlantic: West Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina, Duke, Clemson, Florida State

Play the other 5 in your own division then rotate the other divisions in and out. You could play everyone once in 3 years or twice every 6 if you wanted to exchange a home and home before switching the alignments.

That’s 11 games. Take the top 2 teams from each pair of divisions and you’ve got a 4 team playoff within the conference and you don’t even have to play any more games than you play right now. That’s 13 games to get a conference champion. Also, with the round robin nature of switching divisions in and out you don’t even have to change NCAA rules to expand to 4 teams in a conference playoff.

By: JRsec

JRsec — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 01:38:19 +0000

@AllTideUp You know if we ever did do anything like what we are speculating on tonight our conference championship would be in essence a play in to the NCG. I can also see the all of the conferences pushing for two rounds of CCGs to keep all of that playoff money in house and to move those first round sites around for exposure to their major cities. That’s just good for business.

By: JRsec

JRsec — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 01:22:46 +0000

@BruceMcF @AllTideUp @Roggespierre @DanHogan Two Divisions of 12 can play 11 game round robin until the rules get changed. Rotate the 1/2 divisions of Six each year and you still play everybody in 3 years.

By: BruceMcF

BruceMcF — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 01:11:57 +0000

@JRsec @AllTideUp @Roggespierre @DanHogan Under current rules you can have two divisions but each division has to play a full round robin. So 20 would be two groups of 10 under those rules, which is why people talk about a group system ~ Year 1: West+Central, East+South, Year2: West+South, East+Central, Year3: West+East, South+Central.

If you can have a two round playoff, you can have three eight team divisions and a wild card or four six team divisions and a semi-final, final conference championship playoff, and 24 would fit.

So definitely have to get the NCAA rules changed before you do that.

Obviously the threat of the SEC doing that is one reason why some other Major conferences might be against that particular rule change.

By: JRsec

JRsec — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 01:07:19 +0000

@BruceMcF @AllTideUp I figure if you are going this big you might just wind up with 12 conference games so more than one non-divisional is impossible, but 1 is very doable.

By: AllTideUp

AllTideUp — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 01:05:08 +0000

@JRsec @BruceMcF @Roggespierre @DanHogan
That would be the undisputed champion of conferences, no doubt. It would be the strongest 24 for decades to come.

By: BruceMcF

BruceMcF — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 01:04:12 +0000

@AllTideUp @JRsec Don’t have too much to complain about, and unable to complain too much are not the same at all. I have full confidence in the ability of LSU fans to find lots to complain about, come hell or high water.

By: JRsec

JRsec — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 01:03:42 +0000

@AllTideUp Touche!

By: BruceMcF

BruceMcF — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 01:02:31 +0000

@AllTideUp @JRsec East: Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina and FSU would be even more fun.

That South is OK, but if a locked cross division game with Florida was possible for the Vols, it would be even better. Would it make sense to lock West/Central and South/East pairwise, as in Bama-Georgia, Auburn-South Carolina, Kentucky-UNC, Vandy-Duke?

By: JRsec

JRsec — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 01:01:03 +0000

@AllTideUp @BruceMcF @Roggespierre @DanHogan I agree that Virginia Tech and F.S.U. could enter together. But just for the sake of argument let’s say the Texa-homa plus U.N.C. and Duke thing happened. Heck, why not just go ahead to 24. Add Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech and West Virginia and stop fat and happy.

By: AllTideUp

AllTideUp — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 01:00:52 +0000

@JRsec
They wouldn’t have near as much to complain about if we hadn’t stolen their coach

By: JRsec

JRsec — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 00:56:00 +0000

@AllTideUp Are you going to tell those Cajuns what they can’t complain about?

By: JRsec

JRsec — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 00:51:40 +0000

@BruceMcF @AllTideUp @Roggespierre @DanHogan Excellent points. Unless a complete wreck of the ACC occurs I imagine most of them will wait. They’ll all work behind the scenes to finalize moves and synchronize announcements and such, but the news won’t likely come until August.

By: AllTideUp

AllTideUp — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 00:49:28 +0000

@JRsec
LOL. In all honesty, I like Bama to have the best competition year in and year out. I don’t know what the future holds with the next round of divisions, but I mostly hope for the maintenance of traditional rivals.

Also, my layout above doesn’t give LSU a terribly tough path overall. They couldn’t complain too much.

By: JRsec

JRsec — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 00:45:56 +0000

@AllTideUp Kentucky and Vanderbilt in same division as Alabama, shameless (but nice) grouping. Had a good laugh when I saw it, because all I could hear were L.S.U., Florida, and Georgia fans raising Cain.

By: AllTideUp

AllTideUp — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 00:45:09 +0000

@BruceMcF @JRsec @Roggespierre @DanHogan
I would agree with that. The end of the Maryland/ACC dispute will tell us where this all is headed. If UVA and GT announce within a fairly short period of time that they are leaving then we know where things stand. If not then FSU is likely the next domino to fall as they also voted against the most recent exit fee increase. I still think more movement is to come either way, but the latter will be less consequential. If UVA moves then we can assume VT will start looking for an exit as well. They won’t want to be on the outside looking in or be disadvantaged compared to their instate rival. They’ll also have options. It wouldn’t totally shock me to see VT and FSU head for the SEC, but VT and NC State is one of the more likely scenarios.

Personally, I think UVA and GT are headed out because the B1G represents everything they want in the new landscape.

By: BruceMcF

BruceMcF — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 00:24:09 +0000

@JRsec @Roggespierre @AllTideUp Now, there’s times I could go with a description of Notre Dame as a Big Dick.

Given their “national profile”, that two of the schools they want to play are in the Pac-12 and the Pac-12 is geographically constrained, there’s a certain sense to Notre Dame to the Pac-12, but the Pac-12 would be unlikely to take a religious school.

By: BruceMcF

BruceMcF — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 00:20:40 +0000

@AllTideUp @JRsec @Roggespierre @DanHogan But suppose UVA was willing to stick with this version of the ACC, but wanted an exit path in place in case there was further destabilization. the actions it would take to sort out that exit path would easily generate exactly the same rumors as if it was in fact just waiting for the Maryland exit fee court case in order to know how much to budget for its exit.

The current rumors are certainly COMPATIBLE with UVA heading out the door, but they are also compatible with UVA staying. They’d be doing much the same one way or the other ~ the difference is the announcement that UVA would be making shortly after the Maryland case is decided ~ or exit fee negotiated.

Remember that there is a 15 August 2013 deadline to give notice for an exit on July 1 2014. Given the way that the ACC has been sitting on Maryland’s conference payout, UVA has no strong incentive to announce early.

By: BruceMcF

BruceMcF — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 00:14:35 +0000

@SouthernBoiSB @JRsec @AllTideUp @Roggespierre @DanHogan Florida could, indeed, support FSU’s entry, which would make any “gentleman’s agreement” a moot point. As already noted, they did before. There is an old saying, after all, “keep your friends close and your enemies closer”. A Florida State lording it over a Big 12 East could grease its path to the twelve Access Bowl spots, and often put it an impressive NCG win away from the National Championship playoff spot. Maybe Florida reckons that if they have to play through the SEC, so should FSU.

By: AllTideUp

AllTideUp — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 23:52:27 +0000

@JRsec
It would be fairly easy to group that sort of conference into 4 divisions:

West: Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
Central: LSU, Arkansas, Missouri, Ole Miss, Mississippi State
South: Alabama, Auburn, Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Kentucky
East: Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Duke

It could make an awfully fun league to watch.

By: AllTideUp

AllTideUp — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 23:44:13 +0000

@JRsec @SouthernBoiSB @BruceMcF @Roggespierre @DanHogan
I think you’ll see those states make sure their programs have a good home much like VA did a few years ago. So I guess there’s still a chance all those schools could end up in the SEC before it’s all said and done…depends on what happens to the Big 12 I think.

I think GT is going to the B1G so they’ll be fine either way, but the others I’m not so sure of.

By: AllTideUp

AllTideUp — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 23:38:32 +0000

@JRsec @BruceMcF @Roggespierre @DanHogan
Maybe Dodds has been trying to carve out a legacy with his power plays the last few years …who knows. I remember a couple of years ago when the rumor was Texas, Texas A&M, OU, and OK State to the SEC to form 16. It would have been a nice move if it had been made.

If Texas is willing to drop their kingly way of looking at things then they would make a nice addition as well although I don’t know how the SEC would feel about adding those 4 schools now that A&M is already in the fold. What sort of sentiment does their Board of Trustees have? If they like the PAC 12 better then it may not matter what the new President wants.

By: JRsec

JRsec — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 22:50:32 +0000

@SouthernBoiSB @BruceMcF @AllTideUp @Roggespierre @DanHogan Remember this. 1. Florida sponsored Florida State for membership in the SEC in 1992. 2. Florida will do what their state representatives tell them to do with regards to F.S.U. because Florida depends upon the appropriations of the Florida House of Representatives to function. And that as they say is the end of the story. Ditto for South Carolina, Georgia, and Texas A&M.

By: JRsec

JRsec — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 22:43:53 +0000

@AllTideUp @BruceMcF @Roggespierre @DanHogan I was reading a Texas site last night and was shocked to see some conversation that indicated a number of their alumni are disgusted with the new Big 12 in which they see themselves as having only one peer, OU and expressing their concern over any kind of move to the PAC. What they were suggesting was Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, North Carolina and Duke to the SEC to make 20. Now I took that with a grain of salt, but they went on to point out how Dodds will be gone by 2014 likely due to retirement, that the current president will leave in two years, and that Mack Brown may not be around past next season and the alumni are pushing for an SEC friendly administration. I thought that was interesting. All of that said, I still don’t want Duke. They’ll be nothing without Coach K and he’s no Spring Chicken either.

By: AllTideUp

AllTideUp — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 21:57:34 +0000

@JRsec @BruceMcF @Roggespierre @DanHogan
I actually think UVA is about ready to make the leap to the B1G and Georgia Tech with them. I know people say UVA is as entrenched in the ACC as UNC, but it’s a matter of economics. UVA is going to be better off academically and athletically in the B1G and that jives with all the rumors of UVA being “this close” to moving.

Maryland was in the same boat albeit with a little tougher situation with their athletic budget. UMD had to leave first though without an ACC partner to test the waters on the exit fee. There was just no reason for the exit fee to ever be that high if there was not already a breach in the hull, if you will. The fact that the league can’t sign a GOR agreement of their own is telling. The money for that sort of agreement to be profitable just isn’t there right now. With that said, it should work much like it did with the Big 12 a couple of years ago…the schools that CAN leave WILL leave. There will be no reason to stick around.

UVA and UNC’s first choice may be for the ACC to stay together, but that ship has sailed. Even if the league sticks together it will be an inferior conference. The money is better elsewhere so these schools will start bailing sooner than later.

By: AllTideUp

AllTideUp — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 21:35:50 +0000

@JRsec @BruceMcF @Roggespierre @DanHogan
Regarding FSU, the SEC taking them may be seen as a defensive move, but it depends on what the future plans are. NC and VA are top priorities right now, but if the SEC is interested in destabilizing the Big 12 long term(not saying they are) then taking FSU effectively turns that league back into a ticking time bomb.

The Big 12 needs a major brand like FSU in order to expansion profitable and stabilize their league beyond the length of the GOR agreement. If the Big 12 can’t get them then we’ll see even more movement in about a decade. That means the Oklahoma and Kansas markets could come open for the SEC. Taking FSU in this environment is not really the defensive move it has been made out to be. It would hamstring any real growth plans that the Big 12 needs to survive in the long haul.

I’m already on the record saying FSU should be a target given their elite status and this scenario just puts more meat on those bones.

By: AllTideUp

AllTideUp — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 21:24:45 +0000

@Roggespierre
The ACC is a sinking ship. In this sort of climate, its weaknesses are glaring. It’s been run poorly for some time now and there is just no way to recover under the current circumstances. Any league that starts losing schools to other conferences in this day and age is in trouble. Maryland’s bailing on the ACC has busted the door wide open.

I’m interested in following the lawsuit to see what happens next.

By: SouthernBoiSB

SouthernBoiSB — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 21:09:15 +0000

@JRsec @BruceMcF @AllTideUp @Roggespierre @DanHogan
You seriously think FL will stand by & accept FSU? I’m not too sure how the “Gentleman’s Agreement” will factor out.

However, it would be interesting to see if that actually is true or a well historied SEC rumor.

By: BruceMcF

BruceMcF — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 18:56:29 +0000

@JRsec Sure, the model had potential, but it requires winning a fight, and so it requires convincing the conferences in question that its worthwhile having the fight. If they have higher priorities, such as a higher share of NCAA tourney revenue for participating teams ~ paying 1/3 of GROSS revenues as unit income would be millions more per team for some conferences ~ they may want to keep their powder dry for that fight.

By: JRsec

JRsec — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 02:33:16 +0000

@BruceMcF You have to admit the model has potential.

By: JRsec

JRsec — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 02:31:56 +0000

@BruceMcF It will really be that easy. If the Big 10 and SEC make the move the NCAA isn’t going to stand in our way, I can assure you. All their income depends on keeping the most prosperous schools happy which is another reason they need a complete overhaul. By the way Cincinnati would be fun to build up just to see what they could do in Ohio with SEC money.

But seriously, there are many other 18 team scenarios for the SEC in which Pitt could be replaced with a Clemson, or Georgia Tech, or perhaps a western team that work just fine too. It doesn’t have to be Pitt, but having a piece of Pennsylvania is quid pro quo if the B1G wants into the South.

By: BruceMcF

BruceMcF — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 02:26:29 +0000

@JRsec And, BTW, on the lineup there with the Vols being in a division with Bama, Florida, Georgia, with Vandy as the division mascot, I’m fine with that. No real strong feelings about Auburn either way but its certainly worth it to have Bama in the division.

You just get the rule change sorted out for reals instead of just on the chalkboard, and we’re good to go.

By: BruceMcF

BruceMcF — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 02:15:50 +0000

@JRsec Yes, when I say that, I am indeed refraining from casually assuming away the current rules. Waving the current rules away is easier said than done, otherwise they’d already be gone. If the changes in the rules are presumed in resolving the problem of maintaining rivalries, then the change in the rules will come about first, and the increase to 18 schools after, so time enough to look at how the changes in rules affect things when the changes are actually enacted.

As far as the Penn State sanctions ~ Penn State having a down decade is not going to deliver Philadelphia for Pitt. It might allow Pitt to improve on its standing in Western PA, but even then you’ve still got a contested stake in the less populous part of the state.

By: JRsec

JRsec — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 01:59:00 +0000

@Roggespierre @BruceMcF @AllTideUp @DanHogan It’s more about how money is like nectar and superfluous attorneys are like scout bees. The kids won’t get that much but the lawyers sure will. We should put $100 bills inside large glass chambers with easy access entry holes that discourage exit by the same means. Then each Spring we could reduce the swarm of lawyers back to healthier limits.

By: Roggespierre

Roggespierre — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 01:53:38 +0000

@JRsec @BruceMcF @AllTideUp @DanHogan Yes it does, but we should be careful about what we wish. If O’Bannon wins, then the whole idea of amateurism will need to be reworked. Ironically, it’s the increased television money that seems to be driving the plaintiff’s argument. If much of that money is deemed to belong to the “student-athletes”, and if Title IX isn’t reformed, then we might be looking at a post-scholarship world.

I truly can’t imagine.

By: JRsec

JRsec — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 01:43:04 +0000

@Roggespierre @BruceMcF @AllTideUp @DanHogan Good. It needs reforming.