*** Conference Apocalypse Part 2 ***

[Redhawk]

I get that it's a conference vote. But no conference is made up of a majority of schools that play ND. From a championship side, and a monetary side for that matter, affording ND an exemption that allows them to take a conference champs spot is adverse to the interest of all those schools that don't get to play them now. I would think from Oregon's perspective, for instance, having ND in the ACC or the Big 12 or the Big 10 is better than them being on their own as an independent.

As to the payout on by appearance, that also favors ND being in a conference from a majority point of view. If there are no independents then it's the conferences that always gets the money. Only way they might see it as OK in this regard is if the exemption is so hard to meet that it's likely to rarely get invoked. But then why would ND want it.

If the exemption was "be higher ranked in a bcs-like formula then then the 4th ranked conference champion" then that's a pretty high level to hit. Given what ND has achieved in the last 30 years....I don't see them crashing the party much.

Another argument why the conferences wouldn't push ND into a conference corner would be that which ever conference ND does join will get a monetary boost. As all the conferences are trying to keep up with one another, I'm not sure conferences will want to give one conference that bonus.

[MeMyself&Me]

Another argument why the conferences wouldn't push ND into a conference corner would be that which ever conference ND does join will get a monetary boost. As all the conferences are trying to keep up with one another, I'm not sure conferences will want to give one conference that bonus.

Now that's a good point. I guess they'd have to balance out the monetary boost of a competitor over the potential of the loss of a tournament appearance, and the money that comes with it, for their conference (or even themselves). A bit of a gamble both sides if there is some kind of exemption.

[Camel at Sea]

ND to the Big 12 (partial membership)? http://www.ndnation.com/boards/showp...=277335;d=this

[MeMyself&Me]

ND to the Big 12 (partial membership)? http://www.ndnation.com/boards/showp...=277335;d=this

I'm not real high on that if any of it is true.

For one, if letting ND park their Olympic sports here is going to happen, I think it should be for the 6 football games a year that had been talked about in the past. 4 is not enough. It makes it too easy for ND to stay indy and puts the Big 12 in a permanent holding pattern.

Second, any conference negotiated rotation of games should be rotated equally throughout the conference. The article implied there would be an annual game with ND and Texas. If the games were rotated equally, there's really no annual game with anyone. I'm sorry, the days of giving Texas preferential treatment should be over. ND isn't worth any dissension that might cause.

Third, why does every expansion scenario have to involve Louisville? Don't get me wrong, I think Louisville is a better program than a lot give them credit for but I see them as a good add ONLY if the Big 12 can't get some of the ACC schools... not with the ACC schools, and certainly not BEFORE the ACC schools. wtf

Fourth, if the Big 12 was going to re-up their contract with ABC/ESPN early, I sure would like to think they'd be getting more than this. If the Big 12 is not getting much, better to wait for open market and look for an NBC or daddy Fox contract so be exclusive tier one on one network like the SEC is on CBS.

[DelMarSooner]

From Kirk Bohls this AM:

File this one away: Heard from a Big 12 source that **** Ebersol, the former chairman of NBC Sports who worked with Olympics and NFL telecasts as well as "Saturday Night Live," could be a candidate to replace Chuck Neinas as Big 12 commissioner this summer.

http://www.statesman.com/sports/nine...s-2201689.html

[MeMyself&Me]

From Kirk Bohls this AM:



http://www.statesman.com/sports/nine...s-2201689.html

I like the NBC connection but this one seems out in left field.

[usaosooner]

NBC would be nice, they'll pay out the **** too cause they are trying to build inventory to compete with ESPN

[Redhawk]

I like the NBC connection but this one seems out in left field.

Not as out of left field as Larry Scott CEO of the Women's Tennis ****ociation to the PAC was. I love the NBC connection as well.

[Redhawk]

ND to the Big 12 (partial membership)? http://www.ndnation.com/boards/showp...=277335;d=this

One scenario that he failed to list, that I know for a fact was thrown out at one point (possibly last fall, so it might be old news) was ND as a partial member, and BYU in football only so BYU can honor their WCC membership and not look like BYU was using the WCC for a short time parking spot.

It was my understanding that many in the Big 12 didn't like this set up for BYU.

[MeMyself&Me]

Not as out of left field as Larry Scott CEO of the Women's Tennis ****ociation to the PAC was. I love the NBC connection as well.

I just meant in terms of no one has been talking about him. In terms of whether his background makes sense, yeah he fits the bill.

[MeMyself&Me]

I'm not real high on that if any of it is true.

For one, if letting ND park their Olympic sports here is going to happen, I think it should be for the 6 football games a year that had been talked about in the past. 4 is not enough. It makes it too easy for ND to stay indy and puts the Big 12 in a permanent holding pattern.

Second, any conference negotiated rotation of games should be rotated equally throughout the conference. The article implied there would be an annual game with ND and Texas. If the games were rotated equally, there's really no annual game with anyone. I'm sorry, the days of giving Texas preferential treatment should be over. ND isn't worth any dissension that might cause.

Third, why does every expansion scenario have to involve Louisville? Don't get me wrong, I think Louisville is a better program than a lot give them credit for but I see them as a good add ONLY if the Big 12 can't get some of the ACC schools... not with the ACC schools, and certainly not BEFORE the ACC schools. wtf

Fourth, if the Big 12 was going to re-up their contract with ABC/ESPN early, I sure would like to think they'd be getting more than this. If the Big 12 is not getting much, better to wait for open market and look for an NBC or daddy Fox contract so be exclusive tier one on one network like the SEC is on CBS.

Quote myself since I thought of something else. The one good advantage I see to ND as a partial member even without a significant football commitment and irregular scheduling is that it keeps ND from saving the ACC from a Big 12 raid. ND joining the ACC was the one thing that I thought could put an end to sound reasons for ACC defections to the Big 12. Still don't like it though.

[silverwheels]

I'd like to see all of the schools and conferences get together and finally stop giving Notre Dame special treatment. **** those ****holes. They don't deserve it any more than anyone else.

[soonerinexile]

One scenario that he failed to list, that I know for a fact was thrown out at one point (possibly last fall, so it might be old news) was ND as a partial member, and BYU in football only so BYU can honor their WCC membership and not look like BYU was using the WCC for a short time parking spot.

It was my understanding that many in the Big 12 didn't like this set up for BYU.

This actually might work. BYU fills in for Notre Dame on the football schedule, plus we get additional games with Notre Dame. We limit our exposure to BYU's shenanigans, and we can still play our Olympic sports on Sunday.

We would certainly need to restrict any current members (read UT here) from moving their football program out of the
conference.

I'm still not advocating BYU because they are not a team player and they move the footprint too far west to appeal to the ACC members. A better option would be to create a scheduling alliance with Notre Dame & BYU, so BYU does not become a permanent member. This leaves us free to dance with the pretty girls.

[soonerinexile]

I'm not real high on that if any of it is true.

For one, if letting ND park their Olympic sports here is going to happen, I think it should be for the 6 football games a year that had been talked about in the past. 4 is not enough. It makes it too easy for ND to stay indy and puts the Big 12 in a permanent holding pattern.

Second, any conference negotiated rotation of games should be rotated equally throughout the conference. The article implied there would be an annual game with ND and Texas. If the games were rotated equally, there's really no annual game with anyone. I'm sorry, the days of giving Texas preferential treatment should be over. ND isn't worth any dissension that might cause.

Third, why does every expansion scenario have to involve Louisville? Don't get me wrong, I think Louisville is a better program than a lot give them credit for but I see them as a good add ONLY if the Big 12 can't get some of the ACC schools... not with the ACC schools, and certainly not BEFORE the ACC schools. wtf

Fourth, if the Big 12 was going to re-up their contract with ABC/ESPN early, I sure would like to think they'd be getting more than this. If the Big 12 is not getting much, better to wait for open market and look for an NBC or daddy Fox contract so be exclusive tier one on one network like the SEC is on CBS.

I agree on all your points except #2. We want Notre Dame to play in as many high profile games as possible so we increase our value to the networks. Notre Dame games will be on Tier 1, so the revenue benefits everyone. I don't think Notre Dame vs. ISU/KU/KSU/Baylor/TT/Oklahoma State draws enough interest unless these teams are highly ranked. Notre Dame vs. OU/Texas/FSU/Clemson/Miami will always have national appeal.

[MeMyself&Me]

I agree on all your points except #2. We want Notre Dame to play in as many high profile games as possible so we increase our value to the networks. Notre Dame games will be on Tier 1, so the revenue benefits everyone. I don't think Notre Dame vs. ISU/KU/KSU/Baylor/TT/Oklahoma State draws enough interest unless these teams are highly ranked. Notre Dame vs. OU/Texas/FSU/Clemson/Miami will always have national appeal.

I know what you're saying. However, this looks like Texas is pandering to ND at the conference's expense. Ie, Texas says "We'll play you in football every year and Baylor's women soccer can travel to South Bend every year".

Also, ND didn't seem to hold up its end of the deal in how many Big East teams it played. They probably won't with the Big 12 either.

I hoping the new BCS deal has no ND exemption so as to kill any deal like this quick.

[Redhawk]

I know what you're saying. However, this looks like Texas is pandering to ND at the conference's expense. Ie, Texas says "We'll play you in football every year and Baylor's women soccer can travel to South Bend every year".

Also, ND didn't seem to hold up its end of the deal in how many Big East teams it played. They probably won't with the Big 12 either.

I hoping the new BCS deal has no ND exemption so as to kill any deal like this quick.

To me it was a TV pandering set up. TV will want OU/Texas vs Notre Dame, not Baylor vs Notre Dame. Which sadly is the problem with the current Big 12. Not that much TV interest after OU and Texas....I mean who would have the next biggest draw? KU? Kstate? OSU? Tech? West Virginia? TCU? (I really don't know that answer, but I'm sure the TV execs know in detail)

[byrk75]

Hoping the new BCS agreement says only conference champs in the 4 team playoff. ND would then have to join if they ever wanted to win a NC again. It's real easy but for some reason they bow down to ND.

[MeMyself&Me]

To me it was a TV pandering set up. TV will want OU/Texas vs Notre Dame, not Baylor vs Notre Dame. Which sadly is the problem with the current Big 12. Not that much TV interest after OU and Texas....I mean who would have the next biggest draw? KU? Kstate? OSU? Tech? West Virginia? TCU? (I really don't know that answer, but I'm sure the TV execs know in detail)

I get it, but if ND and the networks want to play OU and Texas only, then that negotiation should go on with those schools without conference affiliation being part of the deal.

For what it's worth, ND will play lesser schools too. They USF just this past year.

Hoping the new BCS agreement says only conference champs in the 4 team playoff. ND would then have to join if they ever wanted to win a NC again. It's real easy but for some reason they bow down to ND.

I somewhat agree. But it's kind of like a bit of a gamble. The Big 12 needs those football schools from the ACC but if you force the issue and ND joins the ACC (perhaps because the ACC made some unexpected concessions) then the ACC schools will stay put.

To me, this is the one good thing about the Big 12 with ND and no football for now: if the BCS forces ND into a conference, it's very likely it will be the Big 12 at that point and in the mean time you keep the ACC raid option open by keeping ND away from the ACC.

[Master Pandemonium]

For what it's worth, ND will play lesser schools too. They USF just this past year.

Yeah, but there are lesser schools and there are lesser schools. South Florida, for all its mediocrity, is a recruiting hotbed. Notre Dame gets something by playing them, whether in Tampa or in South Bend. They would get something by being in the same football conference with South Florida, because then they can promise FL recruits' families that they can watch their Domer sons playing in FL semi-regularly. South Florida would be a more valuable member to the Big 12 than roughly half the teams currently in the Big 12.

No one, and I mean no one, gets anything from playing or sharing a conference with Iowa St, Kansas St, Oklahoma St, and Baylor. There's no recruiting advantage to playing them, they don't have large markets to help bring ratings for individual games, they're not attractive travel destinations for fans, KSU and OSU don't have the academic gravitas to ****uage the pretentious egos of the ND fan base (or any similar minded fanbase...ie, the PAC presidents, apparently)....Tech and TCU you can sell for recruiting--Tech is in the middle of nowhere, but has solid coverage in TX because of its large alumni base (although I don't see Domers excited to see Lubbock or mingle with their fans), and TCU is in DFW metro. Baylor's in the middle of nowhere and does not have the TX coverage or interest, however I can see ND swallowing a game or two against Baylor because of the Catholics vs. Baptists angle.

OSU, ISU, KSU, and Baylor are all coming off of one of their most successful years in the history of their programs...no reason to believe they could possibly sustain that level. OSU could become a regular Top 20 team, they have the most potential....KSU will collapse once Snyder re-retires...Baylor will go back to the 5-7-ish range sans RGIII...ISU can't get above the 7-5 mark...These are the worst type of programs, because they usually do well enough to be a threat to beat you, yet you get nothing by beating them, because there is no gold stored away waiting to be pillaged (recruits, ratings, national esteem). It would be better for these programs to be awful, so that you can have easy wins on the schedule, than in the horrible trade off of competent football play but no rewards.

The Big 12, ACC, Big East, should all dissolve, and create two 16 team conferences from the rubble: one would be the marquee conference, composed of OU, UT, KU, ND, FSU, Miami, Ga Tech, Clemson, ect. The other the next 16 most attractive programs (OSU, KSU, Baylor, Louisville, the inseparable NC schools, ect, which would not necessarily be a bad conference). The remainder, CUSA.

[MeMyself&Me]

Yeah, but there are lesser schools and there are lesser schools. South Florida, for all its mediocrity, is a recruiting hotbed. Notre Dame gets something by playing them, whether in Tampa or in South Bend. They would get something by being in the same football conference with South Florida, because then they can promise FL recruits' families that they can watch their Domer sons playing in FL semi-regularly. South Florida would be a more valuable member to the Big 12 than roughly half the teams currently in the Big 12.

No one, and I mean no one, gets anything from playing or sharing a conference with Iowa St, Kansas St, Oklahoma St, and Baylor. There's no recruiting advantage to playing them, they don't have large markets to help bring ratings for individual games, they're not attractive travel destinations for fans, KSU and OSU don't have the academic gravitas to ****uage the pretentious egos of the ND fan base (or any similar minded fanbase...ie, the PAC presidents, apparently)....Tech and TCU you can sell for recruiting--Tech is in the middle of nowhere, but has solid coverage in TX because of its large alumni base (although I don't see Domers excited to see Lubbock or mingle with their fans), and TCU is in DFW metro. Baylor's in the middle of nowhere and does not have the TX coverage or interest, however I can see ND swallowing a game or two against Baylor because of the Catholics vs. Baptists angle.

OSU, ISU, KSU, and Baylor are all coming off of one of their most successful years in the history of their programs...no reason to believe they could possibly sustain that level. OSU could become a regular Top 20 team, they have the most potential....KSU will collapse once Snyder re-retires...Baylor will go back to the 5-7-ish range sans RGIII...ISU can't get above the 7-5 mark...These are the worst type of programs, because they usually do well enough to be a threat to beat you, yet you get nothing by beating them, because there is no gold stored away waiting to be pillaged (recruits, ratings, national esteem). It would be better for these programs to be awful, so that you can have easy wins on the schedule, than in the horrible trade off of competent football play but no rewards.

The Big 12, ACC, Big East, should all dissolve, and create two 16 team conferences from the rubble: one would be the marquee conference, composed of OU, UT, KU, ND, FSU, Miami, Ga Tech, Clemson, ect. The other the next 16 most attractive programs (OSU, KSU, Baylor, Louisville, the inseparable NC schools, ect, which would not necessarily be a bad conference). The remainder, CUSA.

If ND only want to play OU and Texas, that's fine, schedule annual games with them. But doing so as a condition of partially joining the conference? No thanks. I see what you are saying in them not wanting to play KSU and such. However, KSU is a conference member and should be treated as a conference member. If a conference issue is being negotiated, they should be a part of it. The Big 12 needs to get out of the special treatment business. It was shown to be bad for business before and it will be again.

[Redhawk]

If ND only want to play OU and Texas, that's fine, schedule annual games with them. But doing so as a condition of partially joining the conference? No thanks. I see what you are saying in them not wanting to play KSU and such. However, KSU is a conference member and should be treated as a conference member. If a conference issue is being negotiated, they should be a part of it. The Big 12 needs to get out of the special treatment business. It was shown to be bad for business before and it will be again.

While I agree with you that the B12 should be more of a conference for ALL the members, so far it's been a conference of semi-independents. If we get BYU and or Notre Dame it will be because of that business model, and I would expect the conference to be even more so a confederation of semi-independents than a real conference.

[MeMyself&Me]

While I agree with you that the B12 should be more of a conference for ALL the members, so far it's been a conference of semi-independents. If we get BYU and or Notre Dame it will be because of that business model, and I would expect the conference to be even more so a confederation of semi-independents than a real conference.

I was under the impression that if we got BYU and ND it would be because the Big 12 is the only place where schools control their own Tier 3 rights. Since all schools enjoy that option, I don't see it as special treatment, even if some schools tier 3 is worth more than others.

[Master Pandemonium]

If ND only want to play OU and Texas, that's fine, schedule annual games with them. But doing so as a condition of partially joining the conference? No thanks. I see what you are saying in them not wanting to play KSU and such. However, KSU is a conference member and should be treated as a conference member. If a conference issue is being negotiated, they should be a part of it. The Big 12 needs to get out of the special treatment business. It was shown to be bad for business before and it will be again.

I agree, I'm not a fan of ND joining the conference as a partial member. But my problem isn't with ND. It's with KSU, OSU, ISU, and Baylor. They drag the conference down, and bring nothing. Their existence in the Big 12 hampered the conference from making the money it could, which it turn caused the 3rd through 6th most valuable members to leave for greener pastures. The pie wasn't as big to be divided among all members because the teams that make up half the pie in the Big 12 are black holes--small population (few tv sets), mediocre football tradition, horrible travel destinations, no recruiting value, mediocre academics. They are BCS vampires, living off the excellence and national fervor that OU, UT, and NU bring (or brought). The money KSU receives from the BCS is throwing good money after bad. Nothing can be done to make KSU an attractive conference member (save for winning a national title, or a dramatic increase in academic prestige).

There are 20+ non AQ schools that, if they were in the BCS conference for 15 years, could have capitalized on that "BCS investment" more than KSU, OSU, ISU, Tech, and Baylor did, and in turn, would have helped OU, UT, and NU earn even more money, which in turn, would have kept the best members of the Big 12 together.

[Redhawk]

I was under the impression that if we got BYU and ND it would be because the Big 12 is the only place where schools control their own Tier 3 rights. Since all schools enjoy that option, I don't see it as special treatment, even if some schools tier 3 is worth more than others.

Well, this is true, but it's more about perception. It's also about the conference being willing (or at least appears to be willing) to be flexible on certain demands.

[Camel at Sea]

There are 20+ non AQ schools that, if they were in the BCS conference for 15 years, could have capitalized on that "BCS investment" more than KSU, OSU, ISU, Tech, and Baylor did, and in turn, would have helped OU, UT, and NU earn even more money, which in turn, would have kept the best members of the Big 12 together.

What would have to happen in order for you to believe that these programs have "capitalized" on their BCS investment? OSU and K-State have both won the Big 12 in football, and made deep runs in the NCAA basketball tournament. OSU has several non-revenue national titles in the Big 12 era. Tech was arguably the 3rd best Big 12 football program from 2000-2010. Outside of football, Baylor has one of the best athletic departments in the Big 12. And the Bears just won 10 games and a Heisman trophy in football last season.

It seems like by your standard, the SEC should kick out Ole Miss, Miss State, Arkansas, South Carolina, and shouldn't have invited Missouri or A&M.

[pbr street gang]

Stop! Just stop with the ACC talk. No way any ACC school would ever move to the bevo league. I am sure the ACC has it's problems...but no way it's worse than OUR problem which is being lead around by the nose by TEXAS. The money you guys talk about with TV is short term...ACC is better off staying together long term because in the ACC they dont have a conniving, lying, arrogant "partner" like TEXAS waiting to pull the rug out when it suits TEXAS best. Now you want to add ND for olympic sports? BYU for football only? Why have a league at all? For the BCS $$? Hell, that is possibly dead.

Maybe ND has is right and all these conferences are the problem? So far the Bevo conference has been able to attract 2 big east schools...and lost schools to the PAC 12, The Big 10, and 2 to the SEC. This bevo league is slightly better than the old SWC...heck lets call RAYCOM sports and get a tee vee deal.

[Camel at Sea]

Stop! Just stop with the ACC talk. No way any ACC school would ever move to the bevo league. I am sure the ACC has it's problems...but no way it's worse than OUR problem which is being lead around by the nose by TEXAS. The money you guys talk about with TV is short term...ACC is better off staying together long term because in the ACC they dont have a conniving, lying, arrogant "partner" like TEXAS waiting to pull the rug out when it suits TEXAS best. Now you want to add ND for olympic sports? BYU for football only? Why have a league at all? For the BCS $$? Hell, that is possibly dead.

Maybe ND has is right and all these conferences are the problem? So far the Bevo conference has been able to attract 2 big east schools...and lost schools to the PAC 12, The Big 10, and 2 to the SEC. This bevo league is slightly better than the old SWC...heck lets call RAYCOM sports and get a tee vee deal.

I don't know whether any ACC schools would move or not, but a lot of their fans feel about North Carolina the way Big 12 fans feel about Texas.

[HolaKyle]

for the short term, yes.

Couldn't have said it better

[x97]

Hoping the new BCS agreement says only conference champs in the 4 team playoff. ND would then have to join if they ever wanted to win a NC again. It's real easy but for some reason they bow down to ND.

You don't want this to happen. If such a scenario occurred and ND was "forced" into a conference it wouldn't be the B12. ND values it schedule and its rivalries. They aren't going to have a football schedule that consists yearly of KU, KSU, ISU, OSU, TCU, TT, BU, etc. You would see looting in South Bend and the burning down of Swarbrick's home if that ever happened. ND does value its 3rd tier rights but they don't value them enough to force football into this setup. ND would join the BIG or ACC for all sports. If that happens the chances of luring anyone from the ACC go from 0.000001% to 0.000000%. Basically, you go from a Lloyd Christmas one in a million to chance to no chance. LOL.

[lash]

You don't want this to happen. If such a scenario occurred and ND was "forced" into a conference it wouldn't be the B12. ND values it schedule and its rivalries. They aren't going to have a football schedule that consists yearly of KU, KSU, ISU, OSU, TCU, TT, BU, etc. You would see looting in South Bend and the burning down of Swarbrick's home if that ever happened. ND does value its 3rd tier rights but they don't value them enough to force football into this setup. ND would join the BIG or ACC for all sports. If that happens the chances of luring anyone from the ACC go from 0.000001% to 0.000000%. Basically, you go from a Lloyd Christmas one in a million to chance to no chance. LOL.

And BYU will be on its hands and knees begging for a Big East invite, or they'll be King of the Leftovers in the MW-CUSA merger.

L.

O.

L.

[MeMyself&Me]

Stop! Just stop with the ACC talk. No way any ACC school would ever move to the bevo league. I am sure the ACC has it's problems...but no way it's worse than OUR problem which is being lead around by the nose by TEXAS. The money you guys talk about with TV is short term...ACC is better off staying together long term because in the ACC they dont have a conniving, lying, arrogant "partner" like TEXAS waiting to pull the rug out when it suits TEXAS best. Now you want to add ND for olympic sports? BYU for football only? Why have a league at all? For the BCS $$? Hell, that is possibly dead.

Maybe ND has is right and all these conferences are the problem? So far the Bevo conference has been able to attract 2 big east schools...and lost schools to the PAC 12, The Big 10, and 2 to the SEC. This bevo league is slightly better than the old SWC...heck lets call RAYCOM sports and get a tee vee deal.

We should just quit trying then and give it all up.

[Master Pandemonium]

What would have to happen in order for you to believe that these programs have "capitalized" on their BCS investment? OSU and K-State have both won the Big 12 in football, and made deep runs in the NCAA basketball tournament. OSU has several non-revenue national titles in the Big 12 era. Tech was arguably the 3rd best Big 12 football program from 2000-2010. Outside of football, Baylor has one of the best athletic departments in the Big 12. And the Bears just won 10 games and a Heisman trophy in football last season.

It seems like by your standard, the SEC should kick out Ole Miss, Miss State, Arkansas, South Carolina, and shouldn't have invited Missouri or A&M.

I do not consider the return on investment how many wins a program has, particularly in non-revenue sports, but how much money that university brings to the other universities. Namely, how much money CU helps OU make by sharing the same conference, as opposed to how much money KSU makes OU by sharing the same conference. It's an investment for the benefit of the league.

Pumping money into KSU or OSU is investing in a market that is already covered by KU and OU. OSU winning a golf tournament or going 11-1 does nothing to help OU make money. However, being in the same conference with CU or Mizzou, whatever records those teams have, guarantee Big 12 games are played in sports bars in Denver and St. Louis--whether or not drunks are focusing on the game or not--which does help OU make money. Now those territories are playing less Big 12 games and more PAC/SEC games.

The SEC is smart. They have only 3 redundant universities--Auburn, Miss St, and Vanderbilt. That is 11 states covered by 14 teams. Auburn has enough of a brand name in and of itself to validate its presence. Vanderbilt is of higher academic quality than most teams in the Big 12. The only worthless program is Miss St. 13 out of 14 schools bringing SOMETHING to the SEC is an extremely efficient use of territory and market coverage.

The Big 12, meanwhile, has market overlap for half its league. 10 programs covering 5 states, and 3 of those states are some of the most sparsely populated states in the union (West Virginia, Iowa, Kansas). There's a reason adding Ga Tech and FSU would have been dumb moves for the SEC--because adding Mizzou and A&M, two inferior football programs, bring more money to Alabama than adding Ga Tech and FSU.

You take Arkansas out of the SEC, and the SEC loses territory. Maybe not the best market in the country, obviously, but loses TV sets nonetheless. You take KSU out of the Big 12...Big 12 money making capability from the state of Kansas will remain the same. You replace KSU with just about ANY program not currently covered by the Big 12 (within reason--no Dakotas or similarly rural states), no matter how small and paltry it may be, and that BCS money will build a presence for the Big 12 product in a new market.

[Redhawk]

I do not consider the return on investment how many wins a program has, particularly in non-revenue sports, but how much money that university brings to the other universities. Namely, how much money CU helps OU make by sharing the same conference, as opposed to how much money KSU makes OU by sharing the same conference. It's an investment for the benefit of the league.

Pumping money into KSU or OSU is investing in a market that is already covered by KU and OU. OSU winning a golf tournament or going 11-1 does nothing to help OU make money. However, being in the same conference with CU or Mizzou, whatever records those teams have, guarantee Big 12 games are played in sports bars in Denver and St. Louis--whether or not drunks are focusing on the game or not--which does help OU make money. Now those territories are playing less Big 12 games and more PAC/SEC games.

The SEC is smart. They have only 3 redundant universities--Auburn, Miss St, and Vanderbilt. That is 11 states covered by 14 teams. Auburn has enough of a brand name in and of itself to validate its presence. Vanderbilt is of higher academic quality than most teams in the Big 12. The only worthless program is Miss St. 13 out of 14 schools bringing SOMETHING to the SEC is an extremely efficient use of territory and market coverage.

The Big 12, meanwhile, has market overlap for half its league. 10 programs covering 5 states, and 3 of those states are some of the most sparsely populated states in the union (West Virginia, Iowa, Kansas). There's a reason adding Ga Tech and FSU would have been dumb moves for the SEC--because adding Mizzou and A&M, two inferior football programs, bring more money to Alabama than adding Ga Tech and FSU.

You take Arkansas out of the SEC, and the SEC loses territory. Maybe not the best market in the country, obviously, but loses TV sets nonetheless. You take KSU out of the Big 12...Big 12 money making capability from the state of Kansas will remain the same. You replace KSU with just about ANY program not currently covered by the Big 12 (within reason--no Dakotas or similarly rural states), no matter how small and paltry it may be, and that BCS money will build a presence for the Big 12 product in a new market.

And while most of this is true....in the equation of what makes a school and a conference valuable to TV network, this is #3 behind "National interest" and #2 the % of interest in a local market. Your example of OSU is actually a little off. They bring a lot of interest locally in Oklahoma, where almost 60% of the population claim they are college football fans...OU and OSU deliver the Oklahoma TV sets. (granted, they are still a distant #2 in OK but they do help in keeping the interest high)

But take your example of K-state vs CU. K-state has FAR more interest locally then CU does. CU has more interest/name nationally I would ****ume, but not much. CU local market is much, much bigger then K-state. So yes CU is more valuable, but K-state does have some redeeming value in that they have more local interest, but the Value to a TV network, isn't that huge of a spread (don't get me wrong...CU still wins hands down).

The above formula completely changes when we talk conference network cable subscriptions though. Then it's all most all about the local market size.

[89Oklahoma]

North Carolina anyone?

Stop! Just stop with the ACC talk. No way any ACC school would ever move to the bevo league. I am sure the ACC has it's problems...but no way it's worse than OUR problem which is being lead around by the nose by TEXAS. The money you guys talk about with TV is short term...ACC is better off staying together long term because in the ACC they dont have a conniving, lying, arrogant "partner" like TEXAS waiting to pull the rug out when it suits TEXAS best. Now you want to add ND for olympic sports? BYU for football only? Why have a league at all? For the BCS $$? Hell, that is possibly dead.

Maybe ND has is right and all these conferences are the problem? So far the Bevo conference has been able to attract 2 big east schools...and lost schools to the PAC 12, The Big 10, and 2 to the SEC. This bevo league is slightly better than the old SWC...heck lets call RAYCOM sports and get a tee vee deal.

[soonerinexile]

The Big 12, meanwhile, has market overlap for half its league. 10 programs covering 5 states, and 3 of those states are some of the most sparsely populated states in the union (West Virginia, Iowa, Kansas).

While I agree that we need to move into new territory, our market is not as bad as it seems. You are looking at the number of states, while television contracts are based upon the population of viewers tuning into a conferences games. Texas is a large state with 25.6 million people and they watch each other's games. Texas covers the population of Arkansas (2.9 M), Mississippi (2.9 M), Kentucky (4.3 M), Louisiana (4.5 M), South Carolina (4.6 M) & Alabama (4.8 M). BU, KSU, OSU, and TCU are definitely overlaps, but TCU has gained national attention because their string of successful seasons and BU, KSU, and OSU caught national attention, because everyone likes the underdog (except the Sooners and Horns of course). West Virginia may be small population wise, but they will get our games televised in DC & Pittsburg.

Although we've had a bad couple of years, the Big 12 does have a lot to offer.

[soonerinexile]

Stop! Just stop with the ACC talk. No way any ACC school would ever move to the bevo league.

"Those who think they can and those who think they can't are both right."
-Henry Ford

[lash]

While I agree that we need to move into new territory, our market is not as bad as it seems. You are looking at the number of states, while television contracts are based upon the population of viewers tuning into a conferences games. Texas is a large state with 25.6 million people and they watch each other's games. Texas covers the population of Arkansas (2.9 M), Mississippi (2.9 M), Kentucky (4.3 M), Louisiana (4.5 M), South Carolina (4.6 M) & Alabama (4.8 M). BU, KSU, OSU, and TCU are definitely overlaps, but TCU has gained national attention because their string of successful seasons and BU, KSU, and OSU caught national attention, because everyone likes the underdog (except the Sooners and Horns of course). West Virginia may be small population wise, but they will get our games televised in DC & Pittsburg.

Although we've had a bad couple of years, the Big 12 does have a lot to offer.

Agreed.


This is why the ACC contract sucks despite blanketing all the major urban centers on the entire Eastern Seaboard. The ACC does have significant redundancy in North Carolina, but that's it. And it covers all the geographic territory from Upstate New York and New England all the way down to South Florida.

But they still make less than the B12.

[tenaciOUs b]

I do not consider the return on investment how many wins a program has, particularly in non-revenue sports, but how much money that university brings to the other universities. Namely, how much money CU helps OU make by sharing the same conference, as opposed to how much money KSU makes OU by sharing the same conference. It's an investment for the benefit of the league.

Pumping money into KSU or OSU is investing in a market that is already covered by KU and OU. OSU winning a golf tournament or going 11-1 does nothing to help OU make money. However, being in the same conference with CU or Mizzou, whatever records those teams have, guarantee Big 12 games are played in sports bars in Denver and St. Louis--whether or not drunks are focusing on the game or not--which does help OU make money. Now those territories are playing less Big 12 games and more PAC/SEC games.

The SEC is smart. They have only 3 redundant universities--Auburn, Miss St, and Vanderbilt. That is 11 states covered by 14 teams. Auburn has enough of a brand name in and of itself to validate its presence. Vanderbilt is of higher academic quality than most teams in the Big 12. The only worthless program is Miss St. 13 out of 14 schools bringing SOMETHING to the SEC is an extremely efficient use of territory and market coverage.

The Big 12, meanwhile, has market overlap for half its league. 10 programs covering 5 states, and 3 of those states are some of the most sparsely populated states in the union (West Virginia, Iowa, Kansas). There's a reason adding Ga Tech and FSU would have been dumb moves for the SEC--because adding Mizzou and A&M, two inferior football programs, bring more money to Alabama than adding Ga Tech and FSU.

You take Arkansas out of the SEC, and the SEC loses territory. Maybe not the best market in the country, obviously, but loses TV sets nonetheless. You take KSU out of the Big 12...Big 12 money making capability from the state of Kansas will remain the same. You replace KSU with just about ANY program not currently covered by the Big 12 (within reason--no Dakotas or similarly rural states), no matter how small and paltry it may be, and that BCS money will build a presence for the Big 12 product in a new market.

Up until last year, the Pac-10 had 10 schools covering 4 states, with redundancy in every state. Also, states east of the Mississippi are smaller geographically. Not that there is no merit to your point, but it is like comparing apples to oranges.

As for your issues with OSU and KSU, do you recommend that we kick them out?

[Master Pandemonium]

Up until last year, the Pac-10 had 10 schools covering 4 states, with redundancy in every state. Also, states east of the Mississippi are smaller geographically. Not that there is no merit to your point, but it is like comparing apples to oranges.

As for your issues with OSU and KSU, do you recommend that we kick them out?

The PAC had a horrible contract for years, and I agree, the redundancy in the PAC was terrible. In fact, the redundancy is bad in the ACC as well...4 NC schools, and that's one of the reasons the ACC's contract sucks ****.

But, back to the PAC, there are some differences between the redundancy of the PAC and the Big 12. The states have larger populations, thus easier to justify multiple universities from the same state. Arizona AND Arizona State makes more sense than Kansas AND Kansas State. The states are also wealthier, and thus more valuable to advertisers. The PAC has also expanded, without trading off any territory, going to 12 teams from 6 states. And, the PAC has a visionary commissioner who has found a way to maximize the value of the conference through innovation and cogent planning. Having said that, yeah, the PAC would benefit from expelling Washington State and Oregon State and replacing them with any programs not from current states (it's hard to separate the CA programs and the AZ programs...WSU and OR ST, on the other hand, worthless). Those two programs are deadweights, dragging the PAC down. The problem is, again, the Big 12 has more than 2 programs like Washington State and Oregon State...the Big 12 has about 5 like that, with a smaller overall population base.

If you were to match up every state in the Big 12, with every state in the PAC--CA vs. TX, WA vs. OK, CO vs. KS, AZ vs. IA, OR vs. WV, and Utah vs. no 6th state...PAC wins every population battle.

Local interest comes and goes. That's why how hot a program is now vs. how hot a program is not right now is not as important as potential. Which university will bring more ratings and viewers (and thus revenue) in 2013 if they go 10-2 in 2012: CU, or KSU? CU would. Which is what TV networks care about when they are planning financial packages to conference members. CU could go 0-12 for ten straight years...and they would still have more potential market value than KSU going 11-1 for ten straight years (if a team actually wins a national title, all bets are off...but KSU, OSU, Baylor, Tech, aren't going to ever win a national title). At some point, CU will get its **** together and be semi-respectable (particularly with the avalanche of PAC network money coming in). At some point, Snyder will retire. And then, which football program is more valuable?

So yes, kick out OSU, KSU, ISU, and Baylor. And maybe Tech. Is that realistic? No. But it would have saved the core of the conference. If the Big 12 was OU, UT, NU, A&M, CU, Mizzou, KU + WVU, TCU, Louisville, BYU, and for poops and giggles, South Florida...that conference would stay together. Make a LOT of money, for everyone. Every university provides a novel market that, if removed from the conference, would harm the conference's overall value.

No raid of the ACC, no waiting on Notre Dame to join a conference, no pie in the sky conversion of Arkansas....12 programs from 10 states, including a strong footprint in the 2nd largest state in the Union and a soft footprint in the 3rd largest state in the Union. Maybe, *maybe* if the Big 12 expanded to 16 some years ago, adding BYU, Louisville, WVU, and USF...*maybe* that 16 team conference could have survived, even with the deadweight, and the reprehensible blasphemy known as the break up of OU/NU/CU/Mizzou could have been averted.

[pbr street gang]

You guys want to compare UNC with UT? How many conferences has UNC killed in the last 40 years? How many conference members have left because of UNC greed and arrogance? Answer:Zero. DO you think UNC would have attempted to use a recruiting tool like showing potential recruits games on their own branded channel without telling other members of the league? No way. Texas acts and talks like they are Notre Dame, yet they don't have the balls to go out on their own. At least ND has the stones to do that.

[MeMyself&Me]

The PAC had a horrible contract for years, and I agree, the redundancy in the PAC was terrible. In fact, the redundancy is bad in the ACC as well...4 NC schools, and that's one of the reasons the ACC's contract sucks ****.

But, back to the PAC, there are some differences between the redundancy of the PAC and the Big 12. The states have larger populations, thus easier to justify multiple universities from the same state. Arizona AND Arizona State makes more sense than Kansas AND Kansas State. The states are also wealthier, and thus more valuable to advertisers. The PAC has also expanded, without trading off any territory, going to 12 teams from 6 states. And, the PAC has a visionary commissioner who has found a way to maximize the value of the conference through innovation and cogent planning. Having said that, yeah, the PAC would benefit from expelling Washington State and Oregon State and replacing them with any programs not from current states (it's hard to separate the CA programs and the AZ programs...WSU and OR ST, on the other hand, worthless). Those two programs are deadweights, dragging the PAC down. The problem is, again, the Big 12 has more than 2 programs like Washington State and Oregon State...the Big 12 has about 5 like that, with a smaller overall population base.

If you were to match up every state in the Big 12, with every state in the PAC--CA vs. TX, WA vs. OK, CO vs. KS, AZ vs. IA, OR vs. WV, and Utah vs. no 6th state...PAC wins every population battle.

Local interest comes and goes. That's why how hot a program is now vs. how hot a program is not right now is not as important as potential. Which university will bring more ratings and viewers (and thus revenue) in 2013 if they go 10-2 in 2012: CU, or KSU? CU would. Which is what TV networks care about when they are planning financial packages to conference members. CU could go 0-12 for ten straight years...and they would still have more potential market value than KSU going 11-1 for ten straight years (if a team actually wins a national title, all bets are off...but KSU, OSU, Baylor, Tech, aren't going to ever win a national title). At some point, CU will get its **** together and be semi-respectable (particularly with the avalanche of PAC network money coming in). At some point, Snyder will retire. And then, which football program is more valuable?

So yes, kick out OSU, KSU, ISU, and Baylor. And maybe Tech. Is that realistic? No. But it would have saved the core of the conference. If the Big 12 was OU, UT, NU, A&M, CU, Mizzou, KU + WVU, TCU, Louisville, BYU, and for poops and giggles, South Florida...that conference would stay together. Make a LOT of money, for everyone. Every university provides a novel market that, if removed from the conference, would harm the conference's overall value.

No raid of the ACC, no waiting on Notre Dame to join a conference, no pie in the sky conversion of Arkansas....12 programs from 10 states, including a strong footprint in the 2nd largest state in the Union and a soft footprint in the 3rd largest state in the Union. Maybe, *maybe* if the Big 12 expanded to 16 some years ago, adding BYU, Louisville, WVU, and USF...*maybe* that 16 team conference could have survived, even with the deadweight, and the reprehensible blasphemy known as the break up of OU/NU/CU/Mizzou could have been averted.

Of course this can't be done until the grant of rights expires and probably won't ever be done but I mentioned last year that OU and Texas should both back out of the Big 12 and form a new conference... it's doable if someone wanted to do it. That would solve that problem. You start with OU and Texas and take what else you can get that's valuable and intentionally do a small league. 6 is the minimum per NCAA rules but you may have to go to 8 to ensure you don't have too many OOC game issues. Think something like this OU, Texas, Notre Dame, BYU, FSU, and Clemson seem to be primed to jump for something like this and this would make a **** load of money per team... I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to find 2 more if they decided that 8 was necessary. Sell the conference games only to one major network contingent that all conference games are nationally televised. No tiers. Each school keeps the rights to it's own non-con home games to sell as they like. Since each school has at least one NC, you can call it the Conference of Champions. There's enough room for all the schools to maintain their traditional rivals or schedule for recruiting areas and such as well.

I know it would never happen but, man, that would be cool. I know it's pointless to think about but it's no more pointless than talking about kicking out conference members. :\

[Redhawk]

Of course this can't be done until the grant of rights expires and probably won't ever be done but I mentioned last year that OU and Texas should both back out of the Big 12 and form a new conference... it's doable if someone wanted to do it. That would solve that problem. You start with OU and Texas and take what else you can get that's valuable and intentionally do a small league. 6 is the minimum per NCAA rules but you may have to go to 8 to ensure you don't have too many OOC game issues. Think something like this OU, Texas, Notre Dame, BYU, FSU, and Clemson seem to be primed to jump for something like this and this would make a **** load of money per team... I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to find 2 more if they decided that 8 was necessary. Sell the conference games only to one major network contingent that all conference games are nationally televised. No tiers. Each school keeps the rights to it's own non-con home games to sell as they like. Since each school has at least one NC, you can call it the Conference of Champions. There's enough room for all the schools to maintain their traditional rivals or schedule for recruiting areas and such as well.

I know it would never happen but, man, that would be cool. I know it's pointless to think about but it's no more pointless than talking about kicking out conference members. :\

the problem with that is....who's going to take the losses? To have a team go 7-0 in your 8 team conference, some team or teams has to take 7 losses. A conference needs cannon fodder. it needs teams to take the losses and be used to it. Otherwise you end up with a powerful teams and programs all going .500 in your conference. While they may be the best teams in the nation, they won't be talked about...cuase they are .500.

[MeMyself&Me]

the problem with that is....who's going to take the losses? To have a team go 7-0 in your 8 team conference, some team or teams has to take 7 losses. A conference needs cannon fodder. it needs teams to take the losses and be used to it. Otherwise you end up with a powerful teams and programs all going .500 in your conference. While they may be the best teams in the nation, they won't be talked about...cuase they are .500.

So we need these teams that add no value then.

[Redhawk]

So we need these teams that add no value then.

well, it's nice if they are like CU or Missouri, and they take the losses while adding value too. But Iowa State has some value as a body bag game. A super-conference can't be ALL big time football programs, as some of those programs will eventually go down. You have to have top programs in a conference and bottom programs...you have to have a loss for every win.

[Master Pandemonium]

So we need these teams that add no value then.

Value not in terms of football quality, but the other qualities of population coverage, academics, recruiting grounds, and travel destinations. You want to strike the balance between a handful of great, tradition rich programs and a handful of bad programs that are great in those other areas, and thus bring something to the conference other than bowl eligibility.

Mediocre programs are the banes of college football. At least a bad team sacrifices itself on the altar for the great team to go to a major bowl. If a bad team helps an FSU stay in the Top 10 by losing, that bad team has done more for the conference than if an average team pulled off an upset and kicked FSU out of the national title hunt or BCS bowl eligibility.

The average teams pull off upsets and forces an 11-1 OU team to go 9-3, due to losses to Tech and Baylor, whereas if we played Rice and Rutgers, we would A) have gone 11-1 and played in a BCS bowl B) mingled with better universities and C) had better ratings and revenue, with broadcast rights in New Jersey/NYC. The 8-4, 7-5 teams are the most vile types of teams. You don't get any credit for beating them (don't deserve any credit for beating them), but they're competent enough to pull off an upset and prevent a blue blood from playing in a BCS bowl. 80,000+ seat stadiums, or 40,000- seat stadiums...no 60,000 seat stadiums. You want haves and have nots, not have somes. It's a way to offset the negative impact of scholarship limitations on the great programs, by mitigating the exposure of the OUs, UTs, and FSUs to programs that gobble up the "also ran" recruits who, in a previous era, would have just signed with OU, UT, and FSU.

If a new 16 team conference was formed from the wreckage of the Big 12, Big East, ACC, and remaining independents, of course you'd want OU, UT, ND, Miami, FSU. Then you'd want 11 other programs that help those 5 programs get to 10 wins regularly, recruit the best athletes, and provide max coverage cable network revenue. You could throw in a BYU or Ga Tech, no harm no foul, but for the most part, you want universities that provide value to the conference in areas other than threatening OU's hypothetical undefeated season. Protecting the records of the Big 5 makes the games among the Big 5 all that much more intriguing and epic, as opposed to seeing a 6-3 OU play a 5-4 Notre Dame because a bunch of noxious "medium" programs pulled off some self destructive (for the conference) upsets.

You want big matchups in the conference between two great historic programs ranked in the Top 10. Matchups between a great historic program ranked in the Top 10 and a mediocre "never won a damn thing worth winning" program competing for a spot in the Top 25...overrated and potentially counterproductive for the good of the conference.

[MeMyself&Me]

Value not in terms of football quality, but the other qualities of population coverage, academics, recruiting grounds, and travel destinations. You want to strike the balance between a handful of great, tradition rich programs and a handful of bad programs that are great in those other areas, and thus bring something to the conference other than bowl eligibility.

Mediocre programs are the banes of college football. At least a bad team sacrifices itself on the altar for the great team to go to a major bowl. If a bad team helps an FSU stay in the Top 10 by losing, that bad team has done more for the conference than if an average team pulled off an upset and kicked FSU out of the national title hunt or BCS bowl eligibility.

The average teams pull off upsets and forces an 11-1 OU team to go 9-3, due to losses to Tech and Baylor, whereas if we played Rice and Rutgers, we would A) have gone 11-1 and played in a BCS bowl B) mingled with better universities and C) had better ratings and revenue, with broadcast rights in New Jersey/NYC. The 8-4, 7-5 teams are the most vile types of teams. You don't get any credit for beating them (don't deserve any credit for beating them), but they're competent enough to pull off an upset and prevent a blue blood from playing in a BCS bowl. 80,000+ seat stadiums, or 40,000- seat stadiums...no 60,000 seat stadiums. You want haves and have nots, not have somes. It's a way to offset the negative impact of scholarship limitations on the great programs, by mitigating the exposure of the OUs, UTs, and FSUs to programs that gobble up the "also ran" recruits who, in a previous era, would have just signed with OU, UT, and FSU.

If a new 16 team conference was formed from the wreckage of the Big 12, Big East, ACC, and remaining independents, of course you'd want OU, UT, ND, Miami, FSU. Then you'd want 11 other programs that help those 5 programs get to 10 wins regularly, recruit the best athletes, and provide max coverage cable network revenue. You could throw in a BYU or Ga Tech, no harm no foul, but for the most part, you want universities that provide value to the conference in areas other than threatening OU's hypothetical undefeated season. Protecting the records of the Big 5 makes the games among the Big 5 all that much more intriguing and epic, as opposed to seeing a 6-3 OU play a 5-4 Notre Dame because a bunch of noxious "medium" programs pulled off some self destructive (for the conference) upsets.

You want big matchups in the conference between two great historic programs ranked in the Top 10. Matchups between a great historic program ranked in the Top 10 and a mediocre "never won a damn thing worth winning" program competing for a spot in the Top 25...overrated and potentially counterproductive for the good of the conference.

I think you're looking at what I proposed as too much like a modern traditional conference. These teams would have many more out of conference games than what we've become accustomed too to pull off what you say is necessary on their own. That was the purpose of keeping the conference itself small. So that each school would have the ability to schedule what they thought they needed for their own goals. For instance, OU would still play OSU (who would be in a world of hurt in this scenario) for tradition, a couple Texas mid tiers like TCU and now Tech (also in a world of hurt in this scenario) for recruiting, probably one national non-threatening team that's worthy of a home and home, and the rest would be patsies used to fill out the home schedule and build the Sooner Network. Other conference members would schedule similarly, with perhaps the exception of ND which would try to keep USC and the Michigan schools in it's lineup. Only the very worst of this lineup would actually have a losing record at the end of the season. Also, such a league would likely carry a better reputation for a given conference record. It would simply be seen as different and better than the rest. An elite of the elite.

Again, it's not going to happen though.

[Redhawk]

Want a little dose of stupid from and ESPN.com writer to make you think you are an expert on Conference Realignment? http://espn.go.com/college-sports/st...enew-rivalries

It's another, what-if fantasy piece of multiple moving universities and conferences. It starts with the ACC taking Rutgers and UConn, and ends up with Kansas and Missouri in the B1G. smh

[MeMyself&Me]

Want a little dose of stupid from and ESPN.com writer to make you think you are an expert on Conference Realignment? http://espn.go.com/college-sports/st...enew-rivalries

It's another, what-if fantasy piece of multiple moving universities and conferences. It starts with the ACC taking Rutgers and UConn, and ends up with Kansas and Missouri in the B1G. smh

Man, you mean we can get paid to play out silly what if scenarios? Man, I got to stop posting my stupid ideas here and call ESPN!

[Redhawk]

Man, you mean we can get paid to play out silly what if scenarios? Man, I got to stop posting my stupid ideas here and call ESPN!

yep you/we are giving it away here....it's the difference between a **** and a ****.

[MeMyself&Me]

yep you/we are giving it away here....it's the difference between a **** and a ****.

Damn, Now you have me wishing I was a ****!