Kansas to Big 10?

[KidSilverhair]

12 team playoff. Merge the Big 12 and Pac so there’s four power conferences. Conference winner for those four gets a bye. Remaining 8 teams will be chosen by top ranked of P4 Conference championship game losers, G5 champions and independents.

Ehh. Why are giving the conference championship losers a spot? Why do they get a do-over? They just lost to a team that made the playoff, they’re obviously not the best team in the country!

I get the opinions of some that the playoff needs to be the best teams of the season, regardless of whether they win their conference or not, but I simply don’t agree. This isn’t basketball, where you can whittle down a field from 68 to 4 in two weeks. I say, prove it on the field by winning games, which includes winning your conference championship. That makes CCGs essentially a first-round playoff game, and wouldn’t that be great? Taking most of the CCG losers automatically really cheapens the whole conference championship, doesn’t it?

Eight playoff teams. We still have a Power 5, shaky as it may seem. Add in the top-ranked G5 champion, that’s six. There’s two spots left, which means yeah, one or two conference losers get in (along with your occasional ND independent), but no … don’t leave spots available for three or four CCG losers. (Although, heck, I’d be okay with a couple more G5 champs. Would they actually have a shot at winning the whole thing? Unlikely, but at least they’d get to prove it in the field instead of getting shut out because the SEC needs 4 teams in every year. Let’s make it the playoff a Tournament of Champions, not a self-proving confirmation of high preseason rankings.)

 

[cyrocksmypants]

Ehh. Why are giving the conference championship losers a spot? Why do they get a do-over? They just lost to a team that made the playoff, they’re obviously not the best team in the country!

I get the opinions of some that the playoff needs to be the best teams of the season, regardless of whether they win their conference or not, but I simply don’t agree. This isn’t basketball, where you can whittle down a field from 68 to 4 in two weeks. I say, prove it on the field by winning games, which includes winning your conference championship. That makes CCGs essentially a first-round playoff game, and wouldn’t that be great? Taking most of the CCG losers automatically really cheapens the whole conference championship, doesn’t it?

Eight playoff teams. We still have a Power 5, shaky as it may seem. Add in the top-ranked G5 champion, that’s six. There’s two spots left, which means yeah, one or two conference losers get in (along with your occasional ND independent), but no … don’t leave spots available for three or four CCG losers. (Although, heck, I’d be okay with a couple more G5 champs. Would they actually have a shot at winning the whole thing? Unlikely, but at least they’d get to prove it in the field instead of getting shut out because the SEC needs 4 teams in every year. Let’s make it the playoff a Tournament of Champions, not a self-proving confirmation of high preseason rankings.)

Because college football is collapsing because big conferences want as many teams in the playoffs as possible.

 

[KidSilverhair]

Because college football is collapsing because big conferences want as many teams in the playoffs as possible.

Well, somebody put me in charge, dammit, and I’ll fix everything but good.

 

[knowlesjam]

Because college football is collapsing because big conferences want as many teams in the playoffs as possible.

In all likelihood true, but what if the expanded CFP falls through? It is one way for the PAC, Big 12 (whatever form it takes), and ACC to thumb the nose at the SEC and BIG. The SEC may have added OuT, but they still only get 1 (and maybe 2) in the four team. And, that too could be leverage that the PAC, Big 12, and ACC dangle to approve the expanded CFP...they all get auto qualifiers for the conference champion...the other 7 slots are at large.

 

[Naddafinga]

25 Days Until Kansas Football: Let’s talk Realignment

Should I stay or should I go now?

www.rockchalktalk.com

 

[Die4Cy]

A good question for the pac12 would be: what do we have to do in order to make b1g money ourselves?? How do we get to 100M per team, and how fast can we do it?

Figure that out and go do it. Seems to me like under larry scott they didnt even do this rudimentary level of strategic thinking and planning. Or if they did, they got all the wrong answers.

Idk much about the splits of the b1g revenue, like how much is fox, how much is btn distribution on cable, etc. But surely the pac12 can work that model and grow their revenue significantly. Hell just getting the pac network distribution un-****ed would probably bring in millions per team. That feels like low hanging fruit.

I guess my point is with any kind of competent leadership and strategic plan, pac12 should be able to close that revenue gap significantly. I dont see significant structural challenges for the pac12, i see executional challenges. Due to population and interest, it may never be equal to b1g money, but it ought to be possible to get close enough to keep your big brands, be competitive, and keep your league together.

The key is to have millions watch the product on TV across the country. PAC cannot do much about being in the farthest west time zone. Even if the product was equal, it would be valued less.

 

[madguy30]

The key is to have millions watch the product on TV across the country. PAC cannot do much about being in the farthest west time zone. Even if the product was equal, it would be valued less.

Oddly imo it's why B1G fans tend to play the 'they just played bad' when the Pac 10 teams beat them in the Rose Bowl.

They simply didn't watch those teams and are surprised that they play football too.

 

[CascadeClone]

In all likelihood true, but what if the expanded CFP falls through? It is one way for the PAC, Big 12 (whatever form it takes), and ACC to thumb the nose at the SEC and BIG. The SEC may have added OuT, but they still only get 1 (and maybe 2) in the four team. And, that too could be leverage that the PAC, Big 12, and ACC dangle to approve the expanded CFP...they all get auto qualifiers for the conference champion...the other 7 slots are at large.

Yeahbut... the SEC will get 4 of those 7 at-larges and reap 65% of the CFP contract money. That's the whole damn plan, Wang.

 

[cyIclSoneU]

The key is to have millions watch the product on TV across the country. PAC cannot do much about being in the farthest west time zone. Even if the product was equal, it would be valued less.

If I was a fan of a Pac-12 school not named USC, I’d feel like the best short term move is a scheduling alliance with the Big Ten, but that could be a long term problem. USC and other big brands (UCLA, Oregon) could make more money in another conference. Setting up a scheduling alliance where those programs alternate playing Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State (while the Iowa/Purdue types play the Colorado/Oregon State ones) would be worth $$$ but also could get them interested in dropping pretense and joining the B1G.

Unfortunately it seems everyone in CFB is making decisions to maximize short term $$$, which is why I kind of expect the Pac-12/B1G to form a scheduling alliance, and the SEC/ACC to follow soon after, which would really be bad news for the Big 12.

 

[CascadeClone]

The key is to have millions watch the product on TV across the country. PAC cannot do much about being in the farthest west time zone. Even if the product was equal, it would be valued less.

Wouldn't it be handy if they had more content in earlier time slots? Maybe something in the Central time zone?
If I am Kliavkoff, that's the appeal to me for my league, pull in a ton more viewers and have games from 11am to midnight, but with less hassle to my members. Plus a chance to really push broader distribution of the Pac12 network. That's the strategy, or at least it would be if it was me running the joint.

 

[Pope]

Oddly imo it's why B1G fans tend to play the 'they just played bad' when the Pac 10 teams beat them in the Rose Bowl.

They simply didn't watch those teams and are surprised that they play football too.

Iowa fans always play the "we just played bad" card when they lose. That's all you're gonna hear on Saturday evening, Sept. 11.

 

[madguy30]

Wouldn't it be handy if they had more content in earlier time slots? Maybe something in the Central time zone?
If I am Kliavkoff, that's the appeal to me for my league, pull in a ton more viewers and have games from 11am to midnight, but with less hassle to my members. Plus a chance to really push broader distribution of the Pac12 network. That's the strategy, or at least it would be if it was me running the joint.

Too simple and needs committees, subcommittees, and acronyms to sound like lots of work is being done.

Think of how many people hardly ever saw Christian McCaffery play.

 

[madguy30]

Iowa fans always play the "we just played bad" card when they lose. That's all you're gonna hear on Saturday evening, Sept. 11.

I live out of state so wouldn't have to worry about it if ISU wins.

But it's not just an Iowa fan thing. The insularity of conference strength is fairly broad.

 

[brett108]

Ehh. Why are giving the conference championship losers a spot? Why do they get a do-over? They just lost to a team that made the playoff, they’re obviously not the best team in the country!

I get the opinions of some that the playoff needs to be the best teams of the season, regardless of whether they win their conference or not, but I simply don’t agree. This isn’t basketball, where you can whittle down a field from 68 to 4 in two weeks. I say, prove it on the field by winning games, which includes winning your conference championship. That makes CCGs essentially a first-round playoff game, and wouldn’t that be great? Taking most of the CCG losers automatically really cheapens the whole conference championship, doesn’t it?

Eight playoff teams. We still have a Power 5, shaky as it may seem. Add in the top-ranked G5 champion, that’s six. There’s two spots left, which means yeah, one or two conference losers get in (along with your occasional ND independent), but no … don’t leave spots available for three or four CCG losers. (Although, heck, I’d be okay with a couple more G5 champs. Would they actually have a shot at winning the whole thing? Unlikely, but at least they’d get to prove it in the field instead of getting shut out because the SEC needs 4 teams in every year. Let’s make it the playoff a Tournament of Champions, not a self-proving confirmation of high preseason rankings.)

I've seen an Alabama team lose to an LSU squad, get in the playoffs and bury that same LSU team. ISU had the same thing happen last year when we beat OU early in the season but were unable to do it in the title game. In the end it is just one game and better teams lose to worse teams quite often. Losing a title game shouldn't keep you out if you are letting in 12 teams.

 

[cymonw1980]

Having the network and WATCHING the network to me are 2 different things. The more viewers, the More $ the B1G network can charge their advertisers. Having the network means having access to it... not necessarily watching it.

For the record, I do not have it at this moment. If ISU gets in, I will most certainly open up the checkbook.

Again, in the new world this is correct... and I believe is being discussed more than most realize by the powers that are pulling the strings. That is why ISU has an outside chance at the b10.

HOWEVER, if you look at how these decisions were made in the past it had very little to do with people watching the b10 network... the majoriy of the money was from the cable companies paying the b10 to include the channel in the cable package. So, they really don't care if subscribers watch, just that it is included in the subscriptoin. That is why rutgers and md were so important to the b10. They provide the ny/nj/dc cable boxes... This model is slowly changing. Still has value but as more and more people cut the cord, the value will move to the content and the viewers. Rutgers is a large school... but very few watch rutgers football. They could win the b10 and it still would not be a big deal... The market is saturated with pro sports... i lived there no one cares.

So, old way of thinking... does not matter if people watch the games or not, we get paid by number of cable boxes in the school's foot print. New model, how many subscribers are going to buy a package to watch the team play? Rutgers wins the first round, ISU wins the second. I would say the timing is a bit unfortunate... if this had happened in 3-4 yrs or so, we would be in better position. Fewer cable subscribers, moves the focus back on the content and not the number of cable boxes. Market is still in transition.

 

[KidSilverhair]

I've seen an Alabama team lose to an LSU squad, get in the playoffs and bury that same LSU team. ISU had the same thing happen last year when we beat OU early in the season but were unable to do it in the title game. In the end it is just one game and better teams lose to worse teams quite often. Losing a title game shouldn't keep you out if you are letting in 12 teams.

I know that can happen, it’s the nature of single-elimination tournaments. But for me it’s *how* you choose the participants. CCGs can be a first-round play-in game, which adds excitement and interest. Might you have the “best” team in the country and still not win your division? It depends on how you define “best.” My stance is you win your conference before you get a shot at winning the national championship.

”Better teams lose to worse teams quite often” doesn’t really prove your point - the “best” team could still lose a first-round playoff game to a “worse” team, does that make the title game illegitimate? That’s the reason why I’m focusing on only “winners” even being selected in the first place.

(Just what I’d like to see. I know the tide of CFB is against me, them‘s the breaks. Just seems so obvious to me that a team unable to win its division should not get a golden ticket into a national championship playoff, especially if you’re going to leave out some other conference champion - which is what we have *now.* The SEC should *never* get 2 teams into a 4-team playoff when other conferences can’t get their champion in. I don’t care if that 2nd entrant ends up winning … like you said, “better teams lose to worse teams quite often.”)

(Also obviously, a 12-team playoff will have to include non-conference champions, but then we damn sure need to limit conferences to a max of two. Maybe three, but you know that just means 3 SEC teams every. Stinking. Year.)

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

If I was a fan of a Pac-12 school not named USC, I’d feel like the best short term move is a scheduling alliance with the Big Ten, but that could be a long term problem. USC and other big brands (UCLA, Oregon) could make more money in another conference. Setting up a scheduling alliance where those programs alternate playing Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State (while the Iowa/Purdue types play the Colorado/Oregon State ones) would be worth $$$ but also could get them interested in dropping pretense and joining the B1G.

Unfortunately it seems everyone in CFB is making decisions to maximize short term $$$, which is why I kind of expect the Pac-12/B1G to form a scheduling alliance, and the SEC/ACC to follow soon after, which would really be bad news for the Big 12.

But do those blue blood schools really want to play 2 more blue blood schools each year out of conference? To do this requires each school to give up one home game every other year.
The big 10 schedule allows for 5 home, then 4 home games each year in conference, this puts the numbers at 6 and 5 plus one cupcake game at home. Would they be losing money in long run and wins by not having that yearly 7th home game?

Iowa has made it very clear they want at least 7 home games a year, playing the Pac 12 two games a year non conference only allows them to do that every other year. That could be reason enough for some of these schools to not want to go along with such an arrangement?

 

[cyIclSoneU]

But do those blue blood schools really want to play 2 more blue blood schools each year out of conference? To do this requires each school to give up one home game every other year.
The big 10 schedule allows for 5 home, then 4 home games each year in conference, this puts the numbers at 6 and 5 plus one cupcake game at home. Would they be losing money in long run and wins by not having that yearly 7th home game?

Iowa has made it very clear they want at least 7 home games a year, playing the Pac 12 two games a year non conference only allows them to do that every other year. That could be reason enough for some of these schools to not want to go along with such an arrangement?

I wouldn’t be surprised, if the Big 12 sticks together with 2-4 G5 additions and the B1G/Pac have a scheduling alliance, that Iowa says the Cy-Hawk Game can only continue if played at Kinnick annually. Which is just as good as ending the series. Then the Pac-12 home and home series essentially takes the place of Cy-Hawk and Iowa continues having 7 home games every year.

 

[cymonw1980]

If I was a fan of a Pac-12 school not named USC, I’d feel like the best short term move is a scheduling alliance with the Big Ten, but that could be a long term problem. USC and other big brands (UCLA, Oregon) could make more money in another conference. Setting up a scheduling alliance where those programs alternate playing Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State (while the Iowa/Purdue types play the Colorado/Oregon State ones) would be worth $$$ but also could get them interested in dropping pretense and joining the B1G.

Unfortunately it seems everyone in CFB is making decisions to maximize short term $$$, which is why I kind of expect the Pac-12/B1G to form a scheduling alliance, and the SEC/ACC to follow soon after, which would really be bad news for the Big 12.

Yes.. to me, one simple solution to slow down realignment is to move to a scheduling alliance. If the B12 were more creative they would have reached out to the ACC or PAC sooner to get this done and increase their media value. Plus, they could have partnered with the PAC network instead of espn+...

the issue for the b10 if they want to take the top brands out of the pac is that their would be a lot of travel for other sports. A scheduling alliance in football would be ideal... benefits of playing pac12 in football and guaranteed content they can 'sell' to their broadcast partners... instead of 3 "non-conf" games, its 9 conf + 1 pac + 2 non-conf. Other option is to partner with the ACC.. or if you are the PAC, maybe both. You need to find a way to increase your value. ACC does too.

I think scheduling alliances should be evaluated by both the ACC and the PAC even if they expand.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

I wouldn’t be surprised, if the Big 12 sticks together with 2-4 G5 additions and the B1G/Pac have a scheduling alliance, that Iowa says the Cy-Hawk Game can only continue if played at Kinnick annually. Which is just as good as ending the series. Then the Pac-12 home and home series essentially takes the place of Cy-Hawk and Iowa continues having 7 home games every year.

So the league are only going to play one game against the other each year, everything I have read it was TWO games, one home and one on the road verses the other conference. Most of the blue bloods are playing one non conference game against another blue blood already. So only doing one really doesn't push the content and $$$$ up that much. This coming year we already have Oregon/OSU and Penn. St/ Auburn and Nebraska/OU.

So really you have to schedule 2 of these games a year, or you are not any better off than before, and to do so means giving up one home game every other year.