Pac-12 to decide whether to expand within a couple weeks

[cyIclSoneU]

I get the whole it's only an hour extra by plane but it was obviously pretty hard on the kids/players.

I don't think this makes sense. As it stands now you already have Mizzou-Florida, Miami-Boston College, Nebraska-Rutgers, Washington-Arizona, Texas Tech-West Virginia just in the P5 conferences as it is. They just spend an extra hour on a plane like you said. It's not a big deal.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

In the middle of the 2000s the SEC inexplicably went from being a very good conference more or less on par with the other power conferences to being THE premier conference. It still doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me how that happened.

The media wanted a Michigan-Ohio State rematch in 2006 and then both got destroyed in their bowl games by USC and Florida respectively. Since then, every one-loss and two-loss SEC team gets the benefit of the doubt over everybody else. In most of those seven straight title years for the SEC, the BCS gave the SEC team the nod over somebody else.

The SEC does get the benefit of doubt over other conferences, but so does Ohio State and others. No way OSU should have jumped TCU to get into the 2014 playoff, and I don't care that they ended up winning it. Who is to say that TCU would not have done the same thing.

No team has ever made the college football playoff with 2 loses. For the most part the SEC teams have earned the right to be there, it hard to find a year that one of their schools qualified that looks like an inside deal like the OSU 2014 was.
The last year that a team was crowned a champion with 2 losses was 2007 when all three at the top lost 2 games.

College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS - Wikipedia

 

[Cyclones1969]

The issue was speed, kirk had slow, ploddy players and the west schools were running right by them. I think Kkkirk also got confused with the AZ time situation. He couldn't remember if he should be one or two hours behind in AZ and they were late one time and extremely early the next and he just got mad and refused to go back out there.

Nick Foles treated him like he would treat his mentor bellicheck some years later.

 

[BCClone]

The SEC does get the benefit of doubt over other conferences, but so does Ohio State and others. No way OSU should have jumped TCU to get into the 2014 playoff, and I don't care that they ended up winning it. Who is to say that TCU would not have done the same thing.

No team has ever made the college football playoff with 2 loses. For the most part the SEC teams have earned the right to be there, it hard to find a year that one of their schools qualified that looks like an inside deal like the OSU 2014 was.

I would say the year that they had Bama play LSU. There was no reason to have the championship game be a replay

 

[CrossCyed]

I've pitched this before, but if the Pac chose to add 4 teams (let's say ISU, KU, OSU and TT), you can schedule it quite nicely thru a pod system that ensures a schedule that would allow all previous Pac-12 members to only trade in two previous in conference foes for two new ones, allow one game in each region (Northwest, Cali, SW/Rockies, Midwest) ensuring every team gets to play in California every year, while all regional rivalries are protected.

NW Pod (Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State)
Cali Pod (Cal, Stanford, USC, UCLA)
SW/Rockies Pod (Arizona, Arizona St, Utah, Colorado)
Midwest Pod (Iowa St, Kansas, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech)

Play the three in your pod yearly, and two in each other pod, alternating home and away and alternating opponents every two years. Allows you to play every school both home and away within the span of four years.

The other option would be to go straight east/west, play the other seven schools in your division, and alternate thru the other 8, but that would be far less optimal.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

I would say the year that they had Bama play LSU. There was no reason to have the championship game be a replay

Alabama in 2011 went 12-1 that year, only losing to LSU during the regular season. LSU played a 4 loss Georgia team in conference championship game. Oklahoma St was the #3 team that year and they went into overtime to beat #4 Stanford, OSU also lost to ISU on Nov. 18th of that year, which was considered a bad loss for them. Now it was a great win of ISU, but championship worthy teams cannot lose a game to a 6-7 ISU squad late in the season.

 

[BCClone]

Alabama in 2011 went 12-1 that year, only losing to LSU during the regular season. LSU played a 4 loss Georgia team in conference championship game. Oklahoma St was the #3 team that year and they went into overtime to beat #4 Stanford, OSU also lost to ISU on Nov. 18th of that year, which was considered a bad loss for them. Now it was a great win of ISU, but championship worthy teams cannot lose a game to a 6-7 ISU squad late in the season.

And in 2014, TCU loses to #5 Baylor but that wasn't good enough to be in the top 4. No reason to have two teams from the same conference in the championship, IMO. You can't blame the other teams due to the two best teams in the SEC being on the same side.

 

[AppleCornCy]

I would say the year that they had Bama play LSU. There was no reason to have the championship game be a replay

2011 was the beginning of the end for the BCS. At least in 2006 we got a chance to see if everybody was right about Ohio State and Michigan being the two best teams. As it turned out, they weren’t.

LSU made the title game in 2007 with two losses but they were probably the most deserving team.

In 2008, USC and Texas were just as deserving as Florida and Oklahoma. USC might have been the best of the bunch.

The 2009 championship game was decided when Colt McCoy got hurt in the first quarter.

2010 and 2012 got it right. Oregon had a case in 2012 though.

 

[cyIclSoneU]

I've pitched this before, but if the Pac chose to add 4 teams (let's say ISU, KU, OSU and TT), you can schedule it quite nicely thru a pod system that ensures a schedule that would allow all previous Pac-12 members to only trade in two previous in conference foes for two new ones, allow one game in each region (Northwest, Cali, SW/Rockies, Midwest) ensuring every team gets to play in California every year, while all regional rivalries are protected.

NW Pod (Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State)
Cali Pod (Cal, Stanford, USC, UCLA)
SW/Rockies Pod (Arizona, Arizona St, Utah, Colorado)
Midwest Pod (Iowa St, Kansas, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech)

Play the three in your pod yearly, and two in each other pod, alternating home and away and alternating opponents every two years. Allows you to play every school both home and away within the span of four years.

The other option would be to go straight east/west, play the other seven schools in your division, and alternate thru the other 8, but that would be far less optimal.

Another option is to pair the pods to form divisions that change on a regular cycle. Name the pods North (WA/OR), South (AZ/UT/CO), East (IA/KS/OK/TX), and West (CA). Then pair North/West to form a division when South/East form the other. The next year, divisions are North/East and South/West. Then they're North/South vs. East/West. You play the 7 schools in your division plus 2 of the 8 in the opposite division. You can set it up so that the division without the West (Cali) pod gets 1 of their 2 cross-division games against a California school each time that happens. Most schools would play in California in any given year.

Since Cal and UCLA have state law issues with spending state funds to travel to the new states, and since the existing members surely want to keep playing in CA as much as possible, you also could set the division rotation as North/West vs. South/East and North/East vs. South/West (which the conference could call West vs. East and North vs. South respectively every other year), never pairing the East and West. We would still play the California schools in cross-division games but we'd get less of them, and the existing schools would get more.

There are multiple ways to make this work and they all seem pretty reasonable to me; I hope the Pac-12 office feels the same.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

And in 2014, TCU loses to #5 Baylor but that wasn't good enough to be in the top 4. No reason to have two teams from the same conference in the championship, IMO. You can't blame the other teams due to the two best teams in the SEC being on the same side.

We were in a totally different system, the year you are talking about was the BCS era, not in the playoff. If 2011 we had the playoff then OSU and Stanford would have made the playoff and got a chance to play LSU and Alabama.

2014 TCU did get screwed, the famous 13 data point year, never to be used again. But to say that the playoff is the same setup as the BSC is incorrect.

 

[AuH2O]

This. Saying OU dwarfs LSU is delusion. That Joe Burrow LSU team might've been the best college football team I've seen in my lifetime.

That was Joe Burrow and Joe Brady. Orgeron is 46-41 as a head coach the rest of his career outside of that crazy season. Even with that season he’s sub-.500 in the SEC between his Ole Miss and LSU days. They are always going to have high level talent. Whether he can win without an NFL franchise QB, an NFL OC and a top 5 NFL WR is yet to be seen.

 

[AppleCornCy]

That was Joe Burrow and Joe Brady. Orgeron is 46-41 as a head coach the rest of his career outside of that crazy season. Even with that season he’s sub-.500 in the SEC between his Ole Miss and LSU days. They are always going to have high level talent. Whether he can win without an NFL franchise QB, an NFL OC and a top 5 NFL WR is yet to be seen.

I’ve kind of wondered if 2019 was Orgeron’s “Cam Newton” year.

 

[cyIclSoneU]

That was Joe Burrow and Joe Brady. Orgeron is 46-41 as a head coach the rest of his career outside of that crazy season. Even with that season he’s sub-.500 in the SEC between his Ole Miss and LSU days. They are always going to have high level talent. Whether he can win without an NFL franchise QB, an NFL OC and a top 5 NFL WR is yet to be seen.

Don't forget about Clyde Edwards-Helaire and Ja'Marr Chase in addition to Brady, Burrow, and Jefferson. I think I agree that this may end up being the best CFB team of my lifetime.

 

[cayin]

Maybe, but in that time line 2005 through 2012, the only team from the Big 12 to win the national title was the Vince Young UT team, while the SEC won the other 7 titles, 2 by Florida, 1 by LSU, 1 by Auburn and 3 by Alabama.

So 4 different teams out of the SEC won the national championship a total of 7 times while the Big 12 had a team win it once. Looking at the data, this is not even debatable. No matter how much we love the Big 12 and ISU, we are far behind the SEC along with everyone else.

If you want to go back another 10 years to 1995, the Big 12 had 3 national champs, 1 by OU and 2 by Nebraska, while the SEC also had 3, 1 by Florida, 1 by Tennessee and 1 by LSU. Both conferences had teams during that 10 year span that shared the national championship.

FBS Football Championship History | NCAA.com

And there it is, equaling NT with how strong the whole league is. I don't want to get into this, but the SEC has been rigging and manipulation things to their advantage of a long time, this just didn't start recently.

 

[ribsnwhiskey]

Holy **** this thread more than doubled since Friday. Did I miss anything? Didnt think so.

 

[AuH2O]

This is why the other conferences are looking at more than the last few years when considering ISU.

True, but that’s flawed logic. There are a small handful teams that are recession proof. Outside those few everybody else is simply as good as their coach. Everybody’s got crazy facilities and can shell out big bucks for coaches. Can some pay more? Sure. Are some facilities better than others? Yes. But the idea that there are systematic features of schools that are going to prop up a bad coach or hold back a good one has consistently been proven false.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

And there it is, equaling NT with how strong the whole league is. I don't want to get into this, but the SEC has been rigging and manipulation things to their advantage of a long time, this just didn't start recently.

Oh come on, this is not Clemson and the ACC, when you have a league that is winning titles by multiple teams over a couple of decades you cannot say its not a strong league. Alabama is going through the greatest stretch of any team in the history of the sport, but then when you throw in titles by LSU, Auburn, Florida before that, you can tell its been a great conference for football.

I will agree they do game the system, still only playing 8 conference games, during the BSC era they would take a buy week the week before their rival games, but anyone else could have done the same thing.

We can hate the league all we want, but they have twice as many draft picks as any other league in a given year, and are winning championships. Does anyone here think that OU and UT will be going into the SEC and dominating it? Because I sure don't, UT will be lucky to come out with a 500% and OU will be like Georgia or LSU, very good, but not quite Alabama level until Saban leaves.

 

[Pope]

I hope I am wrong and you are right. It’s not just my opinion, but article after article document industry sources stating how none of the schools in the big 12 do anything. I personally think ISU/OSU/Tech/KU add value to the Pac12. I see the added inventory along with potential B1G/ACC matchups if we are added as a plus. Iowa vs ISU being one. However, the scheduling alliance solves that for the Pac12. If that is the case, why would they expand?

The restructured Big 12 will be a good conference, but also a pay cut. I have stated repeatedly that I don’t know anything. I understand data and statistical forecasting. The numbers I have seen definitely makes ISU to the B1G highly unlikely (Let’s say 3% with a 1% margin of error). ISU in the Pac12…different story. I just don’t know that it is enough, thus making it also unlikely (Let’s say 20% with a 5% margin of error). I would put the probability of getting in to another conference at 30% on the high end, but more around 25%. That leaves the lion share of probability remaining in the current Big 12 or heading to the AAC at around 70%.

I am glad you are looking forward to my responses and am okay with you calling out my negativity. Maybe I post as a coping mechanism for dealing with the uncertainty surrounding the program I love? I don’t know. However, the staying in a reconstructed Big 12 is the most likely of outcomes and I have to let go of my biases (which I believe we should be in a Power Conference). You can say I am beating a dead horse, but all evidence is pointing to this outcome as the most likely.

Mr. ImperialCyclone,

I shake my head and smile at your attempts to quantify such a nebulous process as conference realignment. While we all like to predict the likelihood of various outcomes, the audacity you have to assign probability percentages based on your algorithms is amusing to me.

Tell me, do you consider the AD at Penn State University (one of the premier Big 10 institutions) to be as credible as the "industry sources" you referred to above? I'm just asking because this Big 10 AD's comments seem to suggest that AAU status would be factored heavily into the Big 10's expansion considerations. Your statement that "none of the schools in the big 12 do anything" seems incorrect.

If you still insist on assigning probability percentages to various outcomes, I'd suggest you revise your 3% likelihood for Iowa State landing in the Big 10. Actually, if I were you, I'd quit pretending I know which outcomes are realistic or unrealistic, period.



Penn State AD says the Big Ten has more than money on its mind while exploring alliance with Pac-12, ACC

Penn State athletic director Sandy Barbour on Saturday said "the Big Ten feels like it's in a really good place" as the conference explores an alliance with the ACC and Pac-12, but that it continues to pay attention to what brings value beyond money.

"I do think that there are conferences out there that could bring value from a monetary standpoint, particularly, speaking about our television contract and our television revenues," Barbour said. "... The Big 10 really prides itself on being more than just an athletics conference, in terms of our provosts get together, we share some library resources, some other academic resources."

Barbour said that 40% of the Association of American Universities -- a group of leading research schools -- lies within the Pac-12, Big Ten and ACC conferences.

"I'm not trying to downplay the importance of value as it relates to upsizing our revenues -- that certainly is important -- but that's not the only reason," Barbour said. "And I think that there are some reasons around like-mindedness that would be very valuable to the conference."

After Texas and Oklahoma announced their intent to leave the Big 12 for the SEC last month, the Big Ten, ACC and Pac-12 formed an "alliance committee" that includes athletic directors from each conference, along with the three commissioners, to determine how they could work together moving forward.

Sources told ESPN they are expected to soon have a call, but there is still a lot of uncertainty within the group about what specifics an alliance would entail beyond the abstract academic commonalities. Scheduling will be a part of the discussion, but sources told ESPN the motivations and timetables of each league are different.

The discussions are taking place as the entire NCAA is in the midst of a self-evaluation regarding its structure and governance. Barbour is one of 23 members appointed to the NCAA's constitution committee.

She said they had their first virtual meeting Tuesday, as the group begins its task of proposing a new governance model.

"I don't think this is going to be nibbling at the edges," Barbour said. "I think it's going to be bold. I hope I don't have to retract that statement."

 

[Cydkar]

Mr. ImperialCyclone,

I shake my head and smile at your attempts to quantify such a nebulous process as conference realignment. While we all like to predict the likelihood of various outcomes, the audacity you have to assign probability percentages based on your algorithms is amusing to me.

Tell me, do you consider the AD at Penn State University (one of the premier Big 10 institutions) to be as credible as the "industry sources" you referred to above? I'm just asking because this Big 10 AD's comments seem to suggest that AAU status would be factored heavily into the Big 10's expansion considerations. Your statement that "none of the schools in the big 12 do anything" seems incorrect.

If you still insist on assigning probability percentages to various outcomes, I'd suggest you revise your 3% likelihood for Iowa State landing in the Big 10. Actually, if I were you, I'd quit pretending I know which outcomes are realistic or unrealistic, period.



Penn State AD says the Big Ten has more than money on its mind while exploring alliance with Pac-12, ACC

Agree. Any probability prediction is folly.

 

[Cloneon]

I don't have a crystal ball.

Ideally, all the current P5 schools are realigned into four 16 team conferences. But I think that is unlikely as some elite schools would have to settle for less.

The Pac12 media rights drivers are the next key. I haven't heard USC, Oregon or Washington's AD's commit to being in the Pac12 beyond their current contract expiration in 2023/24. So I assume they are in play with with the Big10 or SEC until we hear a statement confirming they are in the Pac12 beyond 2023/24 FY.

If there is a big shake-up in the P5. I don't really see that happening for about 10 years. The main thing that could speed that up, is a break-up of the ACC. If Clemson, Florida State and UNC can somehow break their ACC GOR. The template for that could be shown if OU & UT can figure a way out of their Big12 agreement prior to the end of the Big12 GOR.

If there is shift in CFB to a mini-NFL, it seems like 36-40 schools would be the sweet spot. That is based on a 12 team playoff. And we see an elimination of CCG's when that happens. I think there has to be around 40 teams, because people aren't going to want to see 7-5 or 6-6 teams make the playoff.

IMO the networks are willing to sacrifice some interest by going from 65 to 40 schools, if that means better matchups and higher viewership (hence higher ad rates). The reality is ESPN or FOX would rather not have Ohio State vs. Purdue if they can have Ohio State v Nebraska.

The curve ball is a media player like Amazon. With the current media rights model, the big players like FOX and ESPN make their money from carriage fees, advertising time and to a much lesser degree subscription fees. And go forward, those platforms seem limited to those revenue streams.

But a platform like Amazon is different. It can charge customers subscription fees and earns advertising revenue. But where Amazon can be different is direct purchase of products they make margin on. So if customers watching football buy groceries, electronics, bet on games through the Amazon portal- that is a game changer. Fox and ESPN may be able to easily replicate certain aspects of the Amazon model like sports betting, but other merchandise might be harder. If Amazon gets involved that may mean conferences like AAC, Mountain West, etc. have value because they bring consumers who might spend $500 a month to the platform.

Great response. And though I think 40 might be slightly low, you're spot on on everything else. Thanks!!