Kansas to Big 10?

[cyIclSoneU]

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.

I imagine it would be 1 a year if anything to leave Ohio State etc. the chance to play an SEC/Clemson/ND neutral site games in years that ESPN wants them to. B1G schedule + Pac-12 alliance would be a fairly predictable 5 home/5 away set-up (although as is, two B1G teams a year wouldn’t participate) and then the schools have flexibility to set up two games a year as they wish. Which I think would end the Cy-Hawk Series, at least as a regular thing (maybe the schools play here and there still).

I think it would be a nice $ boost and also FOX or whoever would be able to claim the rights to all of these games and then be able to schedule them as a network or play a very large role in doing so, which would add even more value. If Ohio State set up a neutral game against Notre Dame or something, and FOX got to send them to USC as well, that’s lots of money for their non-con games.

 

[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.

With only playing the Pac 12 once per year that would be true, and ISU would not be willing to play every game in IC. I would think a lot of EIU fans would love the idea of getting ISU off the schedule, but would the AD really enjoy giving up a sell out every other year and a short day trip when ISU hosts to now scheduling a game with a school that might not sell out and having to travel one or two time zones away every other year.

 

[Cloneon]

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.)

I might add that limiting only conference champions to the playoffs has an inherent built in parity. It will maintain the integrity of multiple conferences, improve the overall viewership, encourage geographical alignment, and sustain the excitement of CFB...everywhere.

 

[cyIclSoneU]

With only playing the Pac 12 once per year that would be true, and ISU would not be willing to play every game in IC. I would think a lot of EIU fans would love the idea of getting ISU off the schedule, but would the AD really enjoy giving up a sell out every other year and a short day trip when ISU hosts to now scheduling a game with a school that might not sell out and having to travel one or two time zones away every other year.

I don’t want it to happen but Iowa would be incentivized to try to make ISU/the Big 12 look like a G5 league and they would make more money by signing on to a Pac-12 alliance TV deal. Their fans would happily laugh if Barta said at a press conference that Iowa would love to continue the series if only ISU would come to Iowa City and Iowa would make ISU into a buy game.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

I imagine it would be 1 a year if anything to leave Ohio State etc. the chance to play an SEC/Clemson/ND neutral site games in years that ESPN wants them to. B1G schedule + Pac-12 alliance would be a fairly predictable 5 home/5 away set-up (although as is, two B1G teams a year wouldn’t participate) and then the schools have flexibility to set up two games a year as they wish. Which I think would end the Cy-Hawk Series, at least as a regular thing (maybe the schools play here and there still).

I think it would be a nice $ boost and also FOX or whoever would be able to claim the rights to all of these games and then be able to schedule them as a network or play a very large role in doing so, which would add even more value. If Ohio State set up a neutral game against Notre Dame or something, and FOX got to send them to USC as well, that’s lots of money for their non-con games.

But also means playing 11 of the 12 games being a P5 opponent. Does anyone other than WV do that in a given year?
This scheduling agreement just locks both leagues into a schedule that does not allow them to play other conferences.
Fox is already getting OSU/Oregon this year to sell, along with Nebraska/OU, so those big names are occurring now, and I really do not think the network is crowing to get a Purdue/Cal game or Iowa/Arizona game on the schedule and I am sure the AD's of the schools do not want it.

 

[cyIclSoneU]

But also means playing 11 of the 12 games being a P5 opponent. Does anyone other than WV do that in a given year?
This scheduling agreement just locks both leagues into a schedule that does not allow them to play other conferences.
Fox is already getting OSU/Oregon this year to sell, along with Nebraska/OU, so those big names are occurring now, and I really do not think the network is crowing to get a Purdue/Cal game or Iowa/Arizona game on the schedule and I am sure the AD's of the schools do not want it.

If FBS got rid of the 6-win bowl requirement, and the CFP was expanded (with conference champion bids reserved), then the whole dynamic around scheduling would be different. Certainly the networks would pay more for Iowa-Arizona than for Iowa-Miami (OH) or Iowa-Wyoming. And the ADs would take their increased money knowing that their team isn’t in any worse position. Also the Iowas would still be playing 10 P5 games. Maybe the huge brands would play 11, and get one tune-up first. But if they win their conference, they’re guaranteed a CFP spot anyway. So the non-con games aren’t viewed the same as now, where taking risks against good teams usually hurts more than it can help. You become free to chase $$$.

 

[MeanDean]

I might add that limiting only conference champions to the playoffs has an inherent built in parity. It will maintain the integrity of multiple conferences, improve the overall viewership, encourage geographical alignment, and sustain the excitement of CFB...everywhere.

Um, nobody wants THAT!

 

[qwerty]

KU could live in an area of 20 million for all I care. When your Conference record over the last decade only has 5 wins and nearly 90 losses, NOBODY is going to watch that. NOBODY.

Holy **** you are right. I just went through the seasons. Since 2011 when North/South divisions went away, KU is 5-84. And they were 1-7 both seasons preceding so last 12 years, KU is 7-98 in football in conference play.

 

[knowlesjam]

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.

Obviously that is the ESPN - SEC plan. And, why the network is likely pissed that the whole OuT thing happened before the CFP was approved for expansion. Now OuT is moving to the SEC and the CFP expansion may not happen, dooming the SEC to only 1 or 2 teams in. Will the CFP still expand...likely, but the other conferences hold the power to do this...not the SEC.

 

[Clonedogg]

Obviously that is the ESPN - SEC plan. And, why the network is likely pissed that the whole OuT thing happened before the CFP was approved for expansion. Now OuT is moving to the SEC and the CFP expansion may not happen, dooming the SEC to only 1 or 2 teams in. Will the CFP still expand...likely, but the other conferences hold the power to do this...not the SEC.

They were probably planning on rebranding it to the "SEC Invitational Hosted by ESPN".

 

[Cyched]

 

[Cyfan1965]

We gave them the red headed step child Nebraska to beat up on now they want Kansas?

 

[jdoggivjc]

Trev Alberts really needs to STFU about the “worth” Nebraska brings to the Big 10.

 

[Naddafinga]

Trev Alberts is an arrogant ***hole!

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

If FBS got rid of the 6-win bowl requirement, and the CFP was expanded (with conference champion bids reserved), then the whole dynamic around scheduling would be different. Certainly the networks would pay more for Iowa-Arizona than for Iowa-Miami (OH) or Iowa-Wyoming. And the ADs would take their increased money knowing that their team isn’t in any worse position. Also the Iowas would still be playing 10 P5 games. Maybe the huge brands would play 11, and get one tune-up first. But if they win their conference, they’re guaranteed a CFP spot anyway. So the non-con games aren’t viewed the same as now, where taking risks against good teams usually hurts more than it can help. You become free to chase $$$.

But would the networks really pay more is the question. The contract is locked up year by year, of how much money the network it going to pay any conference, and really does Iowa/Arizona bring in any more money than Iowa/ISU? If they only play one of these games a year, you still get Iowa/Miami (OH) and the rest of these cupcakes. Does Nebraska/OU bring in few dollars than Nebraska/UCLA or any combination of teams teams other than BIG 12/Pac 12 games?

I really have no clue, but if both league are going to do yearly scheduled games between the two conferences, and keep it at one per year, I just don't see the extra benefit of doing it over what each school is currently now doing. Two games a year, I get it, but not with just one.

 

[Triggermv]

Kansas State AD Gene Taylor believes college football realignment will not affect Big 12 this year

...

247sports.com

 

[cyIclSoneU]

But would the networks really pay more is the question. The contract is locked up year by year, of how much money the network it going to pay any conference, and really does Iowa/Arizona bring in any more money than Iowa/ISU? If they only play one of these games a year, you still get Iowa/Miami (OH) and the rest of these cupcakes. Does Nebraska/OU bring in few dollars than Nebraska/UCLA or any combination of teams teams other than BIG 12/Pac 12 games?

I really have no clue, but if both league are going to do yearly scheduled games between the two conferences, and keep it at one per year, I just don't see the extra benefit of doing it over what each school is currently now doing. Two games a year, I get it, but not with just one.

The big added value in a scheduling alliance is TV flexibility. I imagine it would look something like this: the B1G and Pac-12 agree to twelve Rose Alliance games every year, televised by FOX or FS1. Those games are not scheduled until the spring before they’re played - like six months in advance. All the schools know until then is the date of the game - the week kept open for a Rose Alliance game.

FOX plays a very large role in arranging the matchups. The network is guaranteed to get to broadcast games between teams that it really wants to have play each other. So Ohio State and Michigan would play USC and Oregon a lot, but also in years where a middle-of-the-pack team is really good - like Stanford or Michigan State have been - the network can cash in on that, too. FOX would pay a premium for this. It’s a bit like the B1G-ACC or Big 12-SEC basketball series, in which ESPN does exactly that.

 

[Sigmapolis]

I wonder if the Big Ten would add Nebraska again if they knew how it would turn out.

 

[CascadeClone]

Kansas State AD Gene Taylor believes college football realignment will not affect Big 12 this year

...

247sports.com

What I HOPE this means:

The Big12 AD's and presidents are all in lockstep to play it cool to maximize the payout from OuT when they inevitably try to leave after this season. And they are having different members subtly spread the message at different times thru different channels. All the while knowing they have plans in place to move to B1G, P12, etc.

I HOPE.

 

[isutrevman]

You are completely wrong, it did exactly what it was supposed to do.

Big Ten Network hits the NYC jackpot worth tens of millions of dollars

When the Big Ten added Rutgers and Maryland, the college sports world scratched their collective heads. Here were two schools that had little to no previous connection to the conference, a mediocre athletic resume (especially where it counts in football), and a distant geographic relationship...

awfulannouncing.com

Isn't that out of date as well? 2014. Everything has changed in how people watch sports since then.