Turn Off Ads?
Page 45 of 45 FirstFirst ... 354142434445
Results 661 to 671 of 671

Thread: College Football Realignment

  1. #661
    Charlie Brown All-Star IslandRed's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Melbourne, FL
    Posts
    4,862

    Re: College Football Realignment

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyder View Post
    I really cannot believe that schools like FSU and Clemson are linking themselves to the fifth best conference when they know what their direct competitors are going to be able to make in B1G, SEC, and to a lesser extent Big 12 and PAC. They have already (arguably) sold everything they've got and are scheduled to make at least 7-8 mil less than Big 12 (and that doesn't even include Big 12 Tier 3, which is an additional revenue stream). They are pretty much locking themselves in to a ship made of deadwood that is barely sea worthy.
    I know a lot of FSU fans are disappointed, and while I was lukewarm on a jump to the Big 12, I was hoping there was some fire behind the smoke of FSU and the B1G talking. Still... if/when the ACC Network gets going (and there's no reason it shouldn't succeed what with the league's demographic footprint), they shouldn't be any worse off financially than the Big 12.

    But mostly, FSU and Clemson were stuck. By most reports, the Big 12 wasn't going to invite them unless the ACC broke apart, which wasn't going to happen unless the B1G and SEC raided the ACC first. The linchpin was the B1G and in the end, the schools they wanted didn't want to leave the ACC.
    Not all who wander are lost

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #662
    C-A-T-S CATS! CATS! CATS! WVRed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Almost Heaven
    Posts
    8,445

    Re: College Football Realignment

    Quote Originally Posted by IslandRed View Post
    I know a lot of FSU fans are disappointed, and while I was lukewarm on a jump to the Big 12, I was hoping there was some fire behind the smoke of FSU and the B1G talking. Still... if/when the ACC Network gets going (and there's no reason it shouldn't succeed what with the league's demographic footprint), they shouldn't be any worse off financially than the Big 12.

    But mostly, FSU and Clemson were stuck. By most reports, the Big 12 wasn't going to invite them unless the ACC broke apart, which wasn't going to happen unless the B1G and SEC raided the ACC first. The linchpin was the B1G and in the end, the schools they wanted didn't want to leave the ACC.
    What's really scary is the best conference in terms of money and stability is the one who hasn't taken the media rights from their prospective teams. (SEC) I think a lot of that has to do with the media deal from ESPN keeping the conference locked in for the foreseeable future. It would make sense for the Big 12 to target LSU or Arkansas if that were the case.

    I thought the Big 12 was waiting to see what happened with the Maryland lawsuit. If anything, this move was a precaution to Maryland winning and not having to pay the buyout and the other schools becoming defacto free agents.
    Quote Originally Posted by savafan View Post
    I've read books about sparkling vampires who walk around in the daylight that were written better than a John Fay article.

  4. #663
    GR8NESS WMR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky
    Posts
    16,960

    Re: College Football Realignment

    You know how much the SEC charges/penalizes a school that wants to leave?


    0.

    LOL.
    Quote Originally Posted by Scrap Irony View Post
    Calipari is not, nor has he ever been accused or "caught", cheating. He himself turned in one of his players (Camby) for dealing with an agent to get one Final Four overturned. The other is all on the NCAA and Rose. (IF Rose cheated.)
    "Cheering for Kentucky is like watching Star Wars and hoping Darth Vader chokes an ewok"


  5. #664
    Titanic Struggles Caveat Emperor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    The 513
    Posts
    12,738

    Re: College Football Realignment

    Quote Originally Posted by wolfboy View Post
    Exactly. The notion that UC is somehow going to drop off a cliff in recruiting with guys like TT, Eddie Gran, and Robert Prunty is just looney. The notion that they can't regularly win a conference with the likes of USF, ECU, and Houston is equally as looney.
    They'll drop off a cliff because they'll be facing a financial disparity of, at minimum, 10-1 over every major conference before ticket 1 is even sold. Boise State and TCU never had to compete on that unequal of a playing field when they were fighting the good fight as non-BCS upstarts.

    The money disparity is mind-boggling -- it's the functional equivalent of UC being a Motel 6 at $30 v. EVERY OTHER SCHOOL in the 5 major conferences being the Waldorf-Astoria at $300 per night.

    That's the difference you're selling to recruits. That's the financial imbalance you're facing when trying to retain coaches and assistants. That's the disparity you're competing against that is used to build new buidlings, shiny new weight rooms and locker rooms, invest in new technology to aid training, etc.

    I'm sure UC will be very competitive in the new "AAC" -- but what is the competition level of the AAC going to be? I'm suspecting it'll fall somewhere around the current MWC (better than the MAC, but at least two or three degrees below the PAC 12, Big 12, Big 10, SEC, ACC). You'll have a tough time bringing top-tier opponents on home-home scheduling arrangements, meaning lots of road games if you want a quality OOC schedule.

    Can UC continue to be a force nationally? Sure, anything is possible. But, TCU and Boise State are the outliers here. For every 1 of them, there are 30 other D1 programs at lower levels who simply lack the resources and recruits to win anything more than their conference schedule.
    Championships Matter.
    24 Years and Counting...

  6. #665
    On the brink wolfboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    is everything
    Posts
    2,687

    Re: College Football Realignment

    Quote Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor View Post
    They'll drop off a cliff because they'll be facing a financial disparity of, at minimum, 10-1 over every major conference before ticket 1 is even sold. Boise State and TCU never had to compete on that unequal of a playing field when they were fighting the good fight as non-BCS upstarts.

    The money disparity is mind-boggling -- it's the functional equivalent of UC being a Motel 6 at $30 v. EVERY OTHER SCHOOL in the 5 major conferences being the Waldorf-Astoria at $300 per night.
    Everyone is aware of the financial disparity.


    Quote Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor View Post
    That's the difference you're selling to recruits.
    You sell winning and exposure to recruits. While the AAC t.v. contract is short on cash, it's not short on exposure. In addition, UC still has the ability to capture the access bowl for the playoff. In fact, there's little reason why they can't be in competition for that spot every year with a school like Boise. After a few more years of cellar dwelling, do you honestly think a recruit is going to think they have a better chance of being in the playoff at Indiana, Minnesota, or Pitt than at UC?

    Even still, you suggest that UC will immediately be relegated to MAC level recruits, which is absolutely ridiculous. Perhaps they drop down to MWC level recruits, but in what universe is that equivalent to what the MAC is able to land?

    Quote Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor View Post
    That's the financial imbalance you're facing when trying to retain coaches and assistants. That's the disparity you're competing against that is used to build new buidlings, shiny new weight rooms and locker rooms, invest in new technology to aid training, etc.
    While this is true in part, it's not a death sentence. Time will tell, but I don't see TT leaving because UC can't pay him.

    Quote Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor View Post
    I'm sure UC will be very competitive in the new "AAC" -- but what is the competition level of the AAC going to be? I'm suspecting it'll fall somewhere around the current MWC (better than the MAC, but at least two or three degrees below the PAC 12, Big 12, Big 10, SEC, ACC). You'll have a tough time bringing top-tier opponents on home-home scheduling arrangements, meaning lots of road games if you want a quality OOC schedule.
    It's better than the MWC top to bottom, and there's no reason the conference can't capture the access bowl in the playoff year after year. As to the home-home scheduling agreements, not buying it for a second. Look around at some of the home and home arrangements schools in the AAC have landed just in recent months.

    Quote Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor View Post
    Can UC continue to be a force nationally? Sure, anything is possible. But, TCU and Boise State are the outliers here. For every 1 of them, there are 30 other D1 programs at lower levels who simply lack the resources and recruits to win anything more than their conference schedule.
    According to your post above, UC won't even be able to compete within its own conference once its current recruits are gone. Okay. Spoken like a true Xavier fan.
    How do we know he's not Mel Torme?

  7. #666
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    592

    Re: College Football Realignment

    Quote Originally Posted by wolfboy View Post
    It's better than the MWC top to bottom, and there's no reason the conference can't capture the access bowl in the playoff year after year. As to the home-home scheduling agreements, not buying it for a second. Look around at some of the home and home arrangements schools in the AAC have landed just in recent months.
    Speaking strictly in terms of capturing the access spot into the College Football Playoff, I don't think it would be in UC's best interest for the AAC to be all that good top to bottom. The 'Boise model' is predicated in no small part on annual 8-0 conference records. Having a clean record has proven to go a lot further than winning a deeper league with 2+ total losses in CFB.

    Edit: This is under the current polling and BCS ranking method. If/when an RPI-like device is implemented to rank teams for the playoff, conference strength obviously becomes critical. Should be interesting...
    Last edited by Fil3232; 04-24-2013 at 02:52 PM.

  8. #667
    On the brink wolfboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    is everything
    Posts
    2,687

    Re: College Football Realignment

    Quote Originally Posted by Fil3232 View Post
    Speaking strictly in terms of capturing the access spot into the College Football Playoff, I don't think it would be in UC's best interest for the AAC to be all that good top to bottom. The 'Boise model' is predicated in no small part on annual 8-0 conference records. Having a clean record has proven to go a lot further than winning a deeper league with 2+ total losses in CFB.
    You make a good point; however, I think the top AAC team will have the benefit of a better strength of schedule. If the AAC beats itself up, then Boise likely lands the top spot. If a team from the AAC can separate itself from the rest of the conference, I think it gets the nod over Boise, even if Boise runs the table in the MWC.

    Still, my point stands that you have a better chance of getting that spot as a top team in the AAC than you do on a bottom feeder team from the B1G, SEC, ACC, etc....
    How do we know he's not Mel Torme?

  9. #668
    Titanic Struggles Caveat Emperor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    The 513
    Posts
    12,738

    Re: College Football Realignment

    Quote Originally Posted by wolfboy View Post
    Everyone is aware of the financial disparity.
    Everyone is aware, but not everyone is willing to accept the extreme disadvantage it places on every school not in a major conference.

    You sell winning and exposure to recruits. While the AAC t.v. contract is short on cash, it's not short on exposure. In addition, UC still has the ability to capture the access bowl for the playoff. In fact, there's little reason why they can't be in competition for that spot every year with a school like Boise. After a few more years of cellar dwelling, do you honestly think a recruit is going to think they have a better chance of being in the playoff at Indiana, Minnesota, or Pitt than at UC?
    The ESPN deal provides that the network will broadcast 65 football games from the AAC every season -- but it doesn't specify the manner in which those games will be broadcast, other than to say they'll be on the "ESPN Family of Networks." That can (and I expect will) include internet-only ESPN3 "broadcasts" and regional coverage. Additionally, the contract is said to allow ESPN to farm out coverage of certain games to other local providers (such as FSN).

    In reality, I expect the AAC will have relatively few truly "national" broadcasts -- mostly on weeknights like the MAC currently receives.

    We'll have to see how it actually plays out, but I'm guessing that the "exposure" of the AAC will be somewhere around the level of what C-USA had previously. If that is the case, it'll be an uphill battle convincing recruits that they're better off (for getting noticed and being seen on TV) at an AAC schoo like Cincinnati v. a lower-tier big-conference school like Minn or Indiana.

    Also, it's important to note that the "Access Bowl" that the AAC is fighting for (along with C-USA, MWC & MAC) is not the same as the playoff you're referring to. In reality, the odds of an AAC (or, really, any non-power conference team) getting a playoff slot is fairly remote, as they will only go to the Top 4 teams in college football.

    The other thing to remember about the AAC's shot at an "Access Bowl" is this: It isn't earned on the field, per se. In every other conference, the shot at a major bowl is earned by Ws and Ls. You win the SEC/Pac12/ACC/Big10/SEC, you make a big bowl. In the AAC, you not only have to win the conference, you also have to be ranked ahead of everyone else in the "Group of 5" -- meaning that an undefeated UC team, champion of the AAC, could be bumped by an undefeated Boise State based on rankings alone. Or, worse, a 1-loss UC team (champion of the AAC) could be bumped by an undefeated Akron team that happens to hold a higher ranking.

    You tell me what's easier to sell a recruit on: Come here, win your games, and play in a big bowl OR Come here, win your games, and hope the BCS computers and human pollsters like you better than some other school.

    That's not even getting into the idea of being unable to sell kids on quality of oppositions they'll be facing (Getting to play in an 80% empty Superdome v. Tulane ain't exactly the same as selling a kid on playing against Michigan in the Big House or getting to visit the Swamp in Gainsville).

    It's better than the MWC top to bottom, and there's no reason the conference can't capture the access bowl in the playoff year after year. As to the home-home scheduling agreements, not buying it for a second. Look around at some of the home and home arrangements schools in the AAC have landed just in recent months.
    It's better than the MWC, but not by much. Both have strong flagships that are roughly equal in UC and Boise (advantage Boise, due to BCS success and rankings), sold mid-tier programs in UCONN/USF v. Fresno State / Nevada (clear advantage AAC), a service academy in Navy & Air Force (wash), and a whole lot of awful down at the bottom (wash). It comes down to what bad programs do you like more -- SMU, Tulane, Memphis, UCF, Temple or Colorado State, Wyoming, UNLV, New Mexico, SDSU.

    I won't fault you for picking the AAC, but it's not like we're comparing a Bugatti to Yugo here.

    As for scheduling -- it's all recent. A lot of these negotiations have been weeks/months in the making. Check back with me in 2-3 years and see how many home-home deals the AAC is getting with major college opponents.

    According to your post above, UC won't even be able to compete within its own conference once its current recruits are gone. Okay. Spoken like a true Xavier fan.
    I said they wouldn't be able to dominate, not that they wouldn't be able to compete.

    And yeah, I'm a Xavier hoops fan, but I've been a (paying, attending) UC football fan for a long time too. I like college football and want UC to be part of the landscape, but I'm also not delusional.
    Last edited by Caveat Emperor; 04-24-2013 at 03:08 PM.
    Championships Matter.
    24 Years and Counting...

  10. #669
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    592

    Re: College Football Realignment

    Quote Originally Posted by wolfboy View Post
    Still, my point stands that you have a better chance of getting that spot as a top team in the AAC than you do on a bottom feeder team from the B1G, SEC, ACC, etc....
    No doubt about that.

    The rub (to Caveat's earlier point) is those perenial bottom feeders from power conferences are assured to be in a position to hire away top coaching talent from the lower ranks largely because of their annual TV revenue advantages.

    UC was ultimately chasing revenue equality with upper-tier CFB programs through ACC/B12 membership. That ship has seemingly sailed, all but ensuring UC will be a stepping stone program over the long haul. It's impossible to consistently compete on a national level when a school can't afford to keep elite coaches.

  11. #670
    On the brink wolfboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    is everything
    Posts
    2,687

    Re: College Football Realignment

    Quote Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor View Post
    Everyone is aware, but not everyone is willing to accept the extreme disadvantage it places on every school not in a major conference.
    Again, you'll get no disagreement that the deal is abysmal on the financial side for UC.


    Quote Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor View Post
    The ESPN deal provides that the network will broadcast 65 football games from the AAC every season -- but it doesn't specify the manner in which those games will be broadcast, other than to say they'll be on the "ESPN Family of Networks." That can (and I expect will) include internet-only ESPN3 "broadcasts" and regional coverage. Additionally, the contract is said to allow ESPN to farm out coverage of certain games to other local providers (such as FSN).

    In reality, I expect the AAC will have relatively few truly "national" broadcasts -- mostly on weeknights like the MAC currently receives.

    We'll have to see how it actually plays out, but I'm guessing that the "exposure" of the AAC will be somewhere around the level of what C-USA had previously. If that is the case, it'll be an uphill battle convincing recruits that they're better off (for getting noticed and being seen on TV) at an AAC schoo like Cincinnati v. a lower-tier big-conference school like Minn or Indiana.
    You're right about the t.v. deal, but this is hardly any worse than what the Big East had previously. Not only that, but Cincinnati is poised to be the marquee team out of the AAC, so they can expect to get many if not most of the prime slots out of that deal. You make it sound like UC can expect to have every game on FSN or ESPN3. Simply not going to happen. Also, the deal will give the conference a lot of spots during the week, with some scattered throughout the weekend. Again, how is that worse than the exposure they had under the prior Big East t.v. deal? (at least in football)


    Quote Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor View Post
    Also, it's important to note that the "Access Bowl" that the AAC is fighting for (along with C-USA, MWC & MAC) is not the same as the playoff you're referring to. In reality, the odds of an AAC (or, really, any non-power conference team) getting a playoff slot is fairly remote, as they will only go to the Top 4 teams in college football.

    The other thing to remember about the AAC's shot at an "Access Bowl" is this: It isn't earned on the field, per se. In every other conference, the shot at a major bowl is earned by Ws and Ls. You win the SEC/Pac12/ACC/Big10/SEC, you make a big bowl. In the AAC, you not only have to win the conference, you also have to be ranked ahead of everyone else in the "Group of 5" -- meaning that an undefeated UC team, champion of the AAC, could be bumped by an undefeated Boise State based on rankings alone. Or, worse, a 1-loss UC team (champion of the AAC) could be bumped by an undefeated Akron team that happens to hold a higher ranking.

    You tell me what's easier to sell a recruit on: Come here, win your games, and play in a big bowl OR Come here, win your games, and hope the BCS computers and human pollsters like you better than some other school.

    That's not even getting into the idea of being unable to sell kids on quality of oppositions they'll be facing (Getting to play in an 80% empty Superdome v. Tulane ain't exactly the same as selling a kid on playing against Michigan in the Big House or getting to visit the Swamp in Gainsville).
    Do you think kids were sold on Boise because games against UNLV were the epitome of excitement? No. Boise's pitch to recruits was that they'd get them to a BCS Bowl. That's the exact same pitch UC can offer here. No, the access bowl isn't a guaranteed playoff spot, but if the playoff had been in place in '09, UC would have been in it. Not to mention that the access bowl is the equivalent of the non-NC BCS bowls under the existing system. Do you think kids shrug off the idea of playing in a BCS bowl?

    I also completely disagree with the notion that it's easier to reach an access/playoff bowl in a power conference. Is it easier for Ohio State, Alabama, Oregon, Florida State, or Oklahoma? Sure, but your chances of reaching any noteworthy bowl at schools like Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern, Boston College, etc... are next to none. UC is not and will never recruit against the first group of schools, but has always recruited against the second. UC can still offer a better chance at a playoff or a big time bowl than any of those programs.



    Quote Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor View Post
    It's better than the MWC, but not by much. Both have strong flagships that are roughly equal in UC and Boise (advantage Boise, due to BCS success and rankings), sold mid-tier programs in UCONN/USF v. Fresno State / Nevada (clear advantage AAC), a service academy in Navy & Air Force (wash), and a whole lot of awful down at the bottom (wash). It comes down to what bad programs do you like more -- SMU, Tulane, Memphis, UCF, Temple or Colorado State, Wyoming, UNLV, New Mexico, SDSU.

    I won't fault you for picking the AAC, but it's not like we're comparing a Bugatti to Yugo here.
    I agree that the AAC is pretty close to the MWC, but only because Boise is a solid flagship program. Programs like Fresno State and Nevada are much more comparable to programs like UCF and SMU, but the AAC also has USF, UConn, ECU, and Tulsa.

    In either event, there's really no question that in most years, that access bowl will go to either the AAC or the MWC. I like the chances there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor View Post
    As for scheduling -- it's all recent. A lot of these negotiations have been weeks/months in the making. Check back with me in 2-3 years and see how many home-home deals the AAC is getting with major college opponents.
    Remains to be seen. There's nothing even in the last few months to indicate that home and home matchups with power conference teams won't be possible going forward.

    Quote Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor View Post
    I said they wouldn't be able to dominate, not that they wouldn't be able to compete.
    I don't think I read your post wrong. You referenced an immediate retreat to MAC level recruits and a complete inability to dominate the AAC. I disagree entirely.

    Quote Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor View Post
    And yeah, I'm a Xavier hoops fan, but I've been a (paying, attending) UC football fan for a long time too. I like college football and want UC to be part of the landscape, but I'm also not delusional.
    Errrr....uhhh....so you're one of those. I'll defer to the Rules of Evidence...
    RULE 616. Methods of impeachment

    In addition to other methods, a witness may be impeached by any of the following
    methods:

    (A)Bias.
    Bias, prejudice, interest, or any motive to misrepresent may be shown to
    impeach the witness either by examination of the witness or by extrinsic evidence.
    How do we know he's not Mel Torme?

  12. #671
    Charlie Brown All-Star IslandRed's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Melbourne, FL
    Posts
    4,862

    Re: College Football Realignment

    Quote Originally Posted by WVRed View Post
    I thought the Big 12 was waiting to see what happened with the Maryland lawsuit. If anything, this move was a precaution to Maryland winning and not having to pay the buyout and the other schools becoming defacto free agents.
    That was what I thought last summer. The recent speculation, though, said the Big 12 wasn't going to move unless the other leagues gutted the ACC first.

    But yes, I fully understand why the ACC wanted the GoR, and why ESPN was insisting on it before getting serious about discussions for more money/ACC Network etc. From what I've read, most every other school would have signed the GoR long ago. FSU has been the holdout. FSU giving in to the GoR tells me it either loves the potential of the ACC Network enough to bet on it, or they just didn't have anywhere else to go. (Or both.) And since the league will make considerably more going forward with the GoR-based deal than without it, there was a substantial cost to continuing the holdout.

    Having said that, I would love to have been a fly on the wall to know how far those FSU/B1G discussions actually went.
    Not all who wander are lost


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25