Conference realignment "Rumors" "tweets" "etc"

[Who'sYourData?]

3 minutes ago, NewEnglandBull said:

The Big10 commissioner is the one who has always said that you need two divisions with a champion from each to play a championship game.  This was in response to the AAC  commissioner who wanted to have the two highest ranked teams play each other regardless of division. You can look that up.

The Big12 could increase the size of their conference WITHOUT decreasing revenue (according to their tv contract). However, they would not make any extra cash by staging a championship game  because the networks did not take money away from them when they ceased their championship game.

In terms of more schools equaling more competition, this HAS NOT been brought up as an issue by any of the P5 conferences. Again, the vote in Jan will be to determine if 10 schools can have a championship game. If the answer is yes, then the Big12 will play with 10 teams. If the answer is no, they will have to add teams to the conference. 

 

Nevermind.  The SEC and Big 10 will be very happy with Big 12 getting more money per school than them just because they have less schools.  Makes sense to me, you are right.  The schools are solely concerned about competitive balance, none of this has anything to do with money.

 

[NewEnglandBull]

5 minutes ago, DataBull said:

 

Nevermind.  The SEC and Big 10 will be very happy with Big 12 getting more money per school than them just because they have less schools.  Makes sense to me, you are right.  The schools are solely concerned about competitive balance, none of this has anything to do with money.

 

Well, show me where this financial point has been brought up? I have yet to see it. My issue with competitive balance is correct. Financially, P5 conferences don't all make the same already...to think there is some great equality between P5 conferences is simply not true. Further, within each P5conference the teams don't even make the same amount. If there is any advantage that the Big12 may make it will be chump change compared to the revenue generated by all of the P5 conferences.

[Who'sYourData?]

17 minutes ago, NewEnglandBull said:

Well, show me where this financial point has been brought up? I have yet to see it. 

It is always about the money.  But it is nice to see one person in the world that is an idealist.

[NewEnglandBull]

1 hour ago, DataBull said:

It is always about the money.  But it is nice to see one person in the world that is an idealist.

Oh please, of course I know it is about the money. Why else is our university sitting in the AAC. But money is NOT the ONLY factor (tradition, timeliness, etc). Regardless, you have not convinced me that there is an actual relationship between the number of universities in a conference and the fairness of the dollars. We will simply disagree but I will admit I was wrong if at the Jan conference meetings the verdict (or end game) is the Big12 must have at least two additional members to stage a conference championship game. However, I am very comfortable believing that will not be the case. Time will tell who was right. 

Edited December 29, 2015 by NewEnglandBull

[Who'sYourData?]

2 hours ago, NewEnglandBull said:

Oh please, of course I know it is about the money. Why else is our university sitting in the AAC. But money is NOT the ONLY factor (tradition, timeliness, etc). Regardless, you have not convinced me that there is an actual relationship between the number of universities in a conference and the fairness of the dollars. We will simply disagree but I will admit I was wrong if at the Jan conference meetings the verdict (or end game) is the Big12 must have at least two additional members to stage a conference championship game. However, I am very comfortable believing that will not be the case. Time will tell who was right. 

 

The entire reason the Big 12 hasn't added teams is because they don't want to lower their per team payout.  This has been stated like 500 times.  

[GaUSFBull]

You guys do realize you're basically in agreement with each other, right?

NE Bull: Data wants you to actually come out and say "the Big 12 only wants to keep it at 10 teams because they don't want to lower their per school payout," not really realizing that you've, in all likelihood, understood this already and didn't need to be lectured on it.  

Data:. Everyone knows that the Big 12 won't expand unless they have to, and while you're right about that, EVERYONE KNOWS IT ALREADY.  NE Bull was talking about current events, saying that if they are allowed, the B12 will stay at ten and add a "significant G5" team.  Yet somehow it all got twisted Data-style into an argument about $$$ everyone is aware of.  

We don't know if the SEC or Big 10 will allow this.  That's why we actually have to wait for a decision from the powers-that-be on it.  Which was all NE Bull was saying.  Whether the other P5 conferences will agree to it is a far more worthy argument than something everyone understands.

Awesome job.  Keep being you, Data.  

[NewEnglandBull]

15 minutes ago, GaUSFBull said:

You guys do realize you're basically in agreement with each other, right?

NE Bull: Data wants you to actually come out and say "the Big 12 only wants to keep it at 10 teams because they don't want to lower their per school payout," not really realizing that you've, in all likelihood, understood this already and didn't need to be lectured on it.  

Data:. Everyone knows that the Big 12 won't expand unless they have to, and while you're right about that, EVERYONE KNOWS IT ALREADY.  NE Bull was talking about current events, saying that if they are allowed, the B12 will stay at ten and add a "significant G5" team.  Yet somehow it all got twisted Data-style into an argument about $$$ everyone is aware of.  

We don't know if the SEC or Big 10 will allow this.  That's why we actually have to wait for a decision from the powers-that-be on it.  Which was all NE Bull was saying.  Whether the other P5 conferences will agree to it is a far more worthy argument than something everyone understands.

Awesome job.  Keep being you, Data.  

You're hired. I am putting you in charge of the Penski file. Can you start tomorrow? 

Edited December 29, 2015 by NewEnglandBull

[Sellular1]

19 minutes ago, NewEnglandBull said:

You're hired. I am putting you in charge of the Penski file. Can you start tomorrow? 

I've met GABull, he's no George Costanza

[Triple B]

8 hours ago, DataBull said:

So if you are the SEC, B10, PAC12 or ACC, why would you want the Big 12 to only have 10 teams and have an easier path to a NC?  Why should the four other conferences bend to the will of Texas?  That would be pretty stupid.  The Big 12 has known the rules for a couple of years and they have been trying to find a loophole.  The remainder of the P5 has no reason to make things more difficult on themselves by making it easier for the Big 12.  But it is typical of Texas to want the world to revolve around Texas.

 

8 hours ago, NewEnglandBull said:

It is one less conference game. The big 12 teams will have to schedule an extra out of conference game against a legitimate team. I don't see how they are gaining an advantage. If they schedule week, they will not make the playoffs. It is pretty simple.

I guess I'm missing something. Does this vote in January also mandate the number of conference games played? If it doesn't, why couldn't the Big 12 keep playing 9 conference games even if it does have to split into 2 divisions of 5 teams?

[BDYZR]

16 hours ago, Sellular1 said:

So if the highest ranked G5 conference champion is ranked #31, you think they deserve to make the playoff over the team ranked  #8 who misses the playoff?  I just don't ever see that happening, but it would be great if it did.

What if undefeated USF is rated #9?