*** Conference Apocalypse Part 2 ***

[DelMarSooner]

Wojo is just a tad more connected than us lowly posters...just a tad.

Three items in his article are highly resonant to forecasting OU's future conference affiliation:

1. Big 12 is dead as fried chicken. No one with connections (or is a respected journalist covering intercollegiate sports) see the Big 12 surviving beyond a few years. Why isn't the Big 12 mentioned aside from flying apart? Way station.

2. ACC is the next aggressive expansionist conference that will start the cards falling. B1G and PAC are not going to move but ACC expansion will force a chain reaction of B1G, PAC and SEC moves. ACC is the weakest candidate and will be forced to be very aggressive.

3. First time I've heard anyone of any significance mention Notre Dame as possibly a PAC expansion candidate. ND is never going to join B1G. They will leverage ACC and Pac against one another if forced to join a conference in all sports. They maintain long-term rivals/relationships with BC and Pitt in ACC and Stanford and USC in the Pac. The key to where land in a conference is what other marquee members they could build long-term rivalries. Would ND trade BC and Pitt for a possibility of USC, Stanford, Cal, OU, and Texas or vice versa for BC, Pitt, North Carolina, Duke, Georgia Tech and Florida State?

Considering the above, OU, Texas and ND are all sitting pretty to fully leverage $ for an aggressive conference commissioner to market their inclusion. Watch the ACC in coming months...could get very interesting again.

[MeMyself&Me]

Wojo is just a tad more connected than us lowly posters...just a tad.

Three items in his article are highly resonant to forecasting OU's future conference affiliation:

1. Big 12 is dead as fried chicken. No one with connections (or is a respected journalist covering intercollegiate sports) see the Big 12 surviving beyond a few years. Why isn't the Big 12 mentioned aside from flying apart? Way station.

2. ACC is the next aggressive expansionist conference that will start the cards falling. B1G and PAC are not going to move but ACC expansion will force a chain reaction of B1G, PAC and SEC moves. ACC is the weakest candidate and will be forced to be very aggressive.

3. First time I've heard anyone of any significance mention Notre Dame as possibly a PAC expansion candidate. ND is never going to join B1G. They will leverage ACC and Pac against one another if forced to join a conference in all sports. They maintain long-term rivals/relationships with BC and Pitt in ACC and Stanford and USC in the Pac. The key to where land in a conference is what other marquee members they could build long-term rivalries. Would ND trade BC and Pitt for a possibility of USC, Stanford, Cal, OU, and Texas or vice versa for BC, Pitt, North Carolina, Duke, Georgia Tech and Florida State?

Considering the above, OU, Texas and ND are all sitting pretty to fully leverage $ for an aggressive conference commissioner to market their inclusion. Watch the ACC in coming months...could get very interesting again.

You forgot one little detail. OU and Texas don't have any TV rights to take with them.

[DelMarSooner]

You forgot one little detail. OU and Texas don't have any TV rights to take with them.

Contracts are broken every day. Nothing may happen for six years but I think a sea change is coming in 2014.

[MeMyself&Me]

I do agree with you that the ACC needs to be very aggressive at this time but I'm not sure what they could do other than land Notre Dame in football for themselves. There are not any other schools that add enough value compared to what's being bantered about regarding FSU/Clemson and Big 12 rumors. Unless they can find a way to blow up their contract with ESPN and start over. That contract is a real killer for as long as it is set for.

[MeMyself&Me]

Contracts are broken every day. Nothing may happen for six years but I think a sea change is coming in 2014.

They would need a conference that would take them knowing there's going to be an exhaustive legal battle over TV rights. Networks are going to have to tell the said conference they'll pay them in anticipation of winning that battle. OU and Texas have to want to leave enough to deal with that kind of mess. I don't think all three of those things are going to happen and the grant of rights will be extended before it's allowed to run out.

[DelMarSooner]

They would need a conference that would take them knowing there's going to be an exhaustive legal battle over TV rights. Networks are going to have to tell the said conference they'll pay them in anticipation of winning that battle. OU and Texas have to want to leave enough to deal with that kind of mess. I don't think all three of those things are going to happen and the grant of rights will be extended before it's allowed to run out.

Key metaphor is sea change. The bedrock of college football is going to change so much it will render some contracts null and void. If the ocean rises twenty feet, you don't worry about the mortgage on your property in Hilton Head.

[MeMyself&Me]

Key metaphor is sea change. The bedrock of college football is going to change so much it will render some contracts null and void. If the ocean rises twenty feet, you don't worry about the mortgage on your property in Hilton Head.

OK, tell us what kind of sea of change you're expecting. Given the year, I'm ****uming you're referencing the BCS contract. Care to add to why you think everyone is going to tear up their contracts and put a lighter to 'em?

[lash]

Key metaphor is sea change. The bedrock of college football is going to change so much it will render some contracts null and void. If the ocean rises twenty feet, you don't worry about the mortgage on your property in Hilton Head.

Nothing aside from the Mayans being correct can get us out of the grant of media rights in a legal challenge.


The media rights for OU and UT on Tiers1 and 2 belong to the B12 Conference for the next six years. There's no wriggle room.

Before that end-date arrives, the B12 will renegotiate a new T-1 deal that will outpace the ACC's contract and satisfy everyone's (read: OU/UT) appetite -- either with ten or twelve members. And we'll go on from there.


Also, the details of the Sooner Network should be coming out in the next month or so. That will add another revenue stream for OU and another layer of stability for the B12.


All recent trends point toward the B12 surviving --- with Oklahoma and Texas included.

[Al F***n Swearingen]

Every one of these types of contracts has caveats to them. I'm sure the contracts for the Tier 1 and 2 rights do also.

I don't know what's going to happen and I've just about given up caring at all.

We will have an 8 team playoff within a couple of years and everything that we now know will be remarkably different.

[Camel at Sea]

The escape clause from a grant of rights agreement is the dissolution of the Big 12 itself. Otherwise, OU and Texas aren't leaving unless the Big 12 was willing to sell those rights back to the school. That is not going to happen. Nevermind that neither OU nor Texas want to go anywhere. They run the league.

The journalists have been woefully behind on conference realignment at every turn. Chip frickin Brown was the guy in front of the story in 2010. Did anyone have a clue that Pitt and Syracuse were changing leagues until after it happened? If WoJo had mentioned media rights in his article, I might have taken it seriously. But he didn't. I don't think he intended for us to take it seriously.

WoJo is more connected than any of us, but that article wasn't a journalistic piece on conference realignment. It was a nostalgic column bemoaning the death of old rivalries.

[MeMyself&Me]

The escape clause from a grant of rights agreement is the dissolution of the Big 12 itself.

Now this makes sense. And there have been a few that have tried to explain how the Big 12 will vote to dissolve but none have made a fully logical explanation. Until then, I see the Big 12 surviving with OU and Texas in it.

[Redhawk]

Now this makes sense. And there have been a few that have tried to explain how the Big 12 will vote to dissolve but none have made a fully logical explanation. Until then, I see the Big 12 surviving with OU and Texas in it.

The only way the Big 12 dissolves in the next 6 years now, is for a majority (and that may need to be a 3/4ths majority) to vote to dissolve. Which at this point isn't going to happen as I don't see a majority of the schools having a better paid landing spot, then they have now in the Big12. Iowa State, Kansas St, OSU, Baylor, and TCU being of lessor value, now are the glue (or the prison guards) which hold the conference together.

[xunil]

The only way the Big 12 dissolves in the next 6 years now, is for a majority (and that may need to be a 3/4ths majority) to vote to dissolve. Which at this point isn't going to happen as I don't see a majority of the schools having a better paid landing spot, then they have now in the Big12. Iowa State, Kansas St, OSU, Baylor, and TCU being of lessor value, now are the glue (or the prison guards) which hold the conference together.

+ Tier 1 & 2 media rights as the glue.

[xunil]

Every one of these types of contracts has caveats to them. I'm sure the contracts for the Tier 1 and 2 rights do also.

The agreement was created for the expressed purpose of making conference membership sticky. They're not going to have easy outs in the agreement, otherwise there would have been no point in signing it.

[MeMyself&Me]

The only way the Big 12 dissolves in the next 6 years now, is for a majority (and that may need to be a 3/4ths majority) to vote to dissolve. Which at this point isn't going to happen as I don't see a majority of the schools having a better paid landing spot, then they have now in the Big12. Iowa State, Kansas St, OSU, Baylor, and TCU being of lessor value, now are the glue (or the prison guards) which hold the conference together.

Yup. So far, every example I've seen of a vote for dissolution needs at least one vote to come from a school that would be better off in the Big 12 with they way things are now. And that was for a simple majority, not a super majority like what may be required. I don't really know why it's a hard concept.


Still waiting on hearing what this sea of change is going to be in 2014.

[DelMarSooner]

Still waiting on hearing what this sea of change is going to be in 2014.

Playoff system of conference champions
BCS system dissolved
Bowl system radically altered with major bowls handling playoffs
Many minor bowls out of existence
Networks pushing for more marquee matchups
Conference agreements between conferences for out-of-conference matchups (see Pac and B1G)
Possibility of four sixteen-team super conferences
Notre Dame joining a conference
Internet-enabled live broadcasts on-demand in lieu of traditional network broadcasts
New media possible entering the market (CBS, NBC, Google?)

If only a handful of the above happens, it radically changes the foundation of college football and when changes of that magnitude happen, they change the parameters and scope of contracts.

A playoff is coming and everything published in media and elsewhere point to 2014 being the year of a new system. Not a reboot, a new system. In a playoff system - conferences matter.

Who is driving this boat? -- Money and audience
Who has a hand on the oar? (ESPN, Delany, Scott, and Silve)
Which conferences are well positioned for a new paradigm? B1G, SEC, and Pac. No one else.
What conferences are literally on the edge of survival? Big East, ACC, Big 12? Who is the survivor out of those three? I'd bet ACC.
Where is the best home for the University of Oklahoma?
What rivalries really matter?

I do not have the answers and I don't think anyone does. I do know that the Big 12 region is at a severe disadvantage from a geographical/demographic standpoint with Texas being our only population base and now that base is highly fragmented. Also, I do not think OU, much less Texas, would have granted their Tier 1 and Tier 2 media rights without many escape clauses in this very uncertain environment. The devil is in the details.

[xunil]

Yup. So far, every example I've seen of a vote for dissolution needs at least one vote to come from a school that would be better off in the Big 12 with they way things are now. And that was for a simple majority, not a super majority like what may be required. I don't really know why it's a hard concept. Still waiting on hearing what this sea of change is going to be in 2014.

Googling around on the chatter that occurred last fall.. seems Big 12 bylaws require 75% approval for just about all resolutions submitted to the BoD.

[DelMarSooner]

From Big 12 press release pertaining to the Grant of Rights:
http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArtic...CLID=205311928

Specifics of the resolution included an agreement that during the term of the grant of rights: there will be no changes related to current or future primary television rights agreements or Conference bylaws, rules or policies related to member institution branded outlet rights; Conference bylaws will reflect that no member institution branded outlet will show high school games or highlights, noting that it is permissible pursuant to NCAA interpretation to use scores, standings and statistics of high school games; and, that additional games beyond the one member institution retained football game for telecast purposes must be approved by both institutions and both Conference telecast partners.

I'm not an attorney. The bolded portion above is also an abstraction from the actual specifics of the contact but in plain English to me it reads "As long as our TV contract remains the same, we'll all agree to grant our rights to the Big 12 until the term of the contract's duration (6 years)."

If a playoff system is implemented, you can bet your **** that there will be changes to the "current or future primary television rights agreements or Conference bylaws, rules or policies related to member institution branded outlet rights". That seems to be a lot of wiggle room.

[lash]

From Big 12 press release pertaining to the Grant of Rights:
http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArtic...CLID=205311928

I'm not an attorney. The bolded portion above is also an abstraction from the actual specifics of the contact but in plain English to me it reads "As long as our TV contract remains the same, we'll all agree to grant our rights to the Big 12 until the term of the contract's duration (6 years)."

If a playoff system is implemented, you can bet your **** that there will be changes to the "current or future primary television rights agreements or Conference bylaws, rules or policies related to member institution branded outlet rights". That seems to be a lot of wiggle room.

That section isn't focused on the grant of rights issue, and it doesn't have anything to do with potential 1/2 Tier changes due to upcoming BCS/playoff scenarios.

The last part of the bolded sentence ---"related to member institution branded outlet rights" is referring to the 3rd tier, university-specific media deals (LHN, OUN, etc).

The unbolded section is basically saying we've all come to an agreement not to show high school highlights, standings, games, or violate NCAA rules, and any deviations from this will have to be approved by the conference. But since the grant of rights has been given, universities lose practically all negotiating power vis-a-vis the conference.

This is why the grant of rights was such an important step. It says, "As long as you're in this conference, these are the rules. And since this conference owns your major TV rights ---as in, it's our property now --you will follow these rules."

The grant of rights is completely separate from the external BCS structure. It only pertains to the conference. If TV arrangements are altered in the near future (and they will be) the grant of rights will be extended throughout the remainder of the new contract. You can bet any network partner will demand that stipulation be included when dealing with the B12 from now.

As for an escape clause, there isn't one. We've voluntarily signed over our property to become the B12's property. It's their legal property for a certain period of time (six years). Our TV value would be worthless to another conference because all revenue generated by our appearances would remain with the B12.

If we desperately and absolutely wanted to leave, we might be able to purchase back from the B12 the rights we signed away. But that's the only way, outside of the conference dissolving. However, this wouldn't be like an exit fee we've seen from any of the other defections; it would be closer to the entire annual budget of the OU Athletic Department. Obviously, that sort of payment isn't feasible for any program in America.

Valued at $15MM/year, we'd be looking at north of $50MM just to get the B12 to listen. And even then, they probably wouldn't sell what is now their property for obvious reasons. No legal challenge on earth could successfully reverse this. They own it. We said so. Now, as time goes by, the grant of rights does become weaker, as the value remaining (downgraded by roughly $15M/year) decreases each year. So, in 2012, we'd be looking at $60-75M. In four years, it would be closer to $25M.

But again, that's extremely unlikely. Landing Notre Dame as full-time member is more likely than one of us shirking the grant of rights issue.

[rudruff]

How's this for a scenario.

4 team playoff of conference champions.

B1G, SEC and PAC ask the ACC to join them as the fourth team, provided the ACC gets the last choice of Big XII teams.

PAC grabs UT, OU, OSU and Tech
B1G gets ND, Kansas and possibly a couple of the new ACC schools in the northeast.
SEC takes who they want from the ACC and Big XII.
ACC takes what Big XII leftovers they need to be the fourth big conference.

Don't know if I would want that to happen, but can see a motive for all of those things to happen from each of those organizations. No one is going to want to be the best school in the 5th conference of a scenario like that.

[DelMarSooner]

That section isn't focused on the grant of rights issue, and it doesn't have anything to do with potential 1/2 Tier changes due to upcoming BCS/playoff scenarios.

Everything pertaining to a grant of rights refers to Tier 1 and 2 rights (revenue stream), and yes, a change in the entire structure of college football would effect the revenue derived from rights OU granted to a conference. In a playoff scenario, the agreements with the Fiesta Bowl or any other negotiated Big 12 bowl destinations are null and void. Those changes effect the value of the revenue stream that the Big 12 has to offer. How hard is that to understand?

The biggest item you fail to grasp is the people who are cutting checks for Tier 1 and 2 rights are likely to be the same entities that force a playoff in the first place. The key actors (ESPN/ABC, Fox, CBS, NBC, Google, who ever) are going to:

A. Agree to a new system that will maximize revenue
B. Slice up the pie

The Big 12 is not in a strong position to be an enduring pie slice.

Lastly, I'll wholeheartedly admit that in my opinion, OU's leadership has been deeply flawed with regard to conference realignment. However, do you honestly believe that the University of Texas leadership would willingly sign away media rights to the conference without some degree of contractual flexibility?

[lash]

Everything pertaining to a grant of rights refers to Tier 1 and 2 rights (revenue stream), and yes, a change in the entire structure of college football would effect the revenue derived from rights OU granted to a conference. In a playoff scenario, the agreements with the Fiesta Bowl or any other negotiated Big 12 bowl destinations are null and void. Those changes effect the value of the revenue stream that the Big 12 has to offer. How hard is that to understand?

Everything you quoted from that language pertains to Tier 3 regulation. It has absolutely nothing to do with Tier 1 or Tier 2 rights, the BCS, or the grant-of-rights issue itself. Read it again.

The key phrase in the language is: "related to member institution branded outlet rights."

That's Tier-3 language. That entire passage is devoted to Tier 3 regulation. Nothing more.

It has nothing to do with anything except the relationship between an individual school, their T3 rights, and the B12 Conference.

The biggest item you fail to grasp is the people who are cutting checks for Tier 1 and 2 rights are likely to be the same entities that force a playoff in the first place. The key actors (ESPN/ABC, Fox, CBS, NBC, Google, who ever) are going to:

A. Agree to a new system that will maximize revenue
B. Slice up the pie

I'm not failing to grasp anything. That has NOTHING TO DO with the language in the contract that you quoted.

The networks can write multi-billion dollar checks until they're blue in the face, but it doesn't change the new, and contractually bound, relationship between OU (or the other nine members) and the Big 12 Conference. That has nothing to do with it.

The Big 12 is not in a strong position to be an enduring pie slice.

That's a completely different subject that, again, has nothing to do with the contractual language you quoted.

But as multiple posters have pointed out, that ****ertion flatly ignores the ACC's current situation. And again, as multiple posters have noted, the B12's revenue streams from its upcoming TV contracts will almost certainly far outpace the ACC's payout. And it will do so by a substantial margin. But again, different topic.

Lastly, I'll wholeheartedly admit that in my opinion, OU's leadership has been deeply flawed with regard to conference realignment.

Again, different topic. I'd disagree here again though. OU is getting everything it wanted, including Texas being held to a more level playing field in the boardroom.....precisely because of the grant of rights agreement.

There's a whole different way we could go with this conversation. It involves a lot of what DB said on the day the BOR granted him the power to move OU out of the B12. And what he hinted at that day was later strongly backed up by Deaton of Missouri, who claimed that DB was bluffing the entire time to reign in Texas and secure a better T-3 deal for OU, but Mizzou was tired of the drama and sought security. But again, different subject.

However, do you honestly believe that the University of Texas leadership would willingly sign away media rights to the conference without some degree of contractual flexibility?

The 6-year limit IS the flexibility. If the money isn't there in the near future with the new Tier-1 contract, then it's deja vu all over again. This is possible because, again, the grant of rights becomes weaker as time goes on because the remaining value of the rights is diminished.

Texas is fine with this in the short term because of the LHN. They desperately need the conference to survive and prosper so the LHN can have time to crawl, and then walk. Right now, they need this conference to survive as much as Iowa State or Baylor. If the LHN fails and/or the new T-1 money isn't as good as we think it will be, then things can open up again.

But there's no reason to think the money won't be there. And there's nothing in that contractual language that pertains to anything except Tier 3 regulation. Nothing.

[xunil]

Lash is right on this one.. Del Mar you got it exactly backwards.

[DelMarSooner]

One last time:

Specifics of the resolution included an agreement that during the term of the grant of rights: there will be no changes related to current or future primary television rights agreementsor Conference bylaws

'Primary' does not refer to third tier rights.

[Camel at Sea]

Chuck Neinas was on 610 AM in Kansas City. Among many other things discussed, he said that when the new Big 12 Tier 1 deal is negotiated, the agreement will include an extension of the grant of rights agreement through the end of the Tier 1 contract. The Big 12 is not going away... at least not any time in the remotely near future.

http://media.610sports.com/a/5261182...-ww-hour-4.htm

[Redhawk]

Chuck Neinas was on 610 AM in Kansas City. Among many other things discussed, he said that when the new Big 12 Tier 1 deal is negotiated, the agreement will include an extension of the grant of rights agreement through the end of the Tier 1 contract. The Big 12 is not going away... at least not any time in the remotely near future.

http://media.610sports.com/a/5261182...-ww-hour-4.htm

interesting interview. The interviewer didn't let him dodge or gloss over questions and this guy actually has followed the business of college sports more then many of the "press" have done. Neinas really seemed upset that Missouri left, and more so on such short notice. He was also quite pissed at the Big East Conference.

Playoff: Neinas wants the winner of 4 major conferences, and wanted an RPI-like determination of figuring out which 4 conferences would be "strongest"

[lash]

One last time:



'Primary' does not refer to third tier rights.

Seriously?

Yes it does, as long as you don't omit the next and most important part of the sentence.

[lash]

he said that when the new Big 12 Tier 1 deal is negotiated, the agreement will include an extension of the grant of rights agreement through the end of the Tier 1 contract.

boom

[texanbitch]

interesting interview. The interviewer didn't let him dodge or gloss over questions and this guy actually has followed the business of college sports more then many of the "press" have done. Neinas really seemed upset that Missouri left, and more so on such short notice. He was also quite pissed at the Big East Conference.

Playoff: Neinas wants the winner of 4 major conferences, and wanted an RPI-like determination of figuring out which 4 conferences would be "strongest"

That is three conferences on board with that model now. So it seems that if that comes to p**** ND will have to join a conference.

[DelMarSooner]

Seriously?

Yes it does, as long as you don't omit the next and most important part of the sentence.

Did you notice the semi-colon? There are two separate statements - one pertaining to outs and the other to rules.

[lash]

No, I'm talking about the the important phrase that you omitted in the very same sentence....before the semi-colon.


The entire section pertains to university branded media outlet rights (3rd tier) both before and after the s-c.


In any event, the grant of rights is in place, and it will be extended. The B12 isn't going anywhere, and barring something extraordinary and completely unforeseen, neither is OU.

[Redhawk]

No, I'm talking about the the important phrase that you omitted in the very same sentence....before the semi-colon.


The entire section pertains to university branded media outlet rights (3rd tier) both before and after the s-c.


In any event, the grant of rights is in place, and it will be extended. The B12 isn't going anywhere, and barring something extraordinary and completely unforeseen, neither is OU.

.....Damn it

[usaosooner]

Great article on how the Big East effed itself

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/sp...r=2&ref=sports

[Redhawk]

http://newsok.com/a-four-team-playof...654549/?page=1

Count Chuck Neinas in for supporting a 4 team playoff for Conference Champions. No mention of an exemption for Notre Dame (or BYU, or independents). Which....would be a VERY interesting development. I like the Big12's chances of getting Notre Dame as much as any conference's.

“I like the idea, if you're going to take four, take four champions,” Neinas said. “They're not hard to identify.
“The selection process is one that would concern me. The easiest is taking four conference champions"

[Camel at Sea]

http://newsok.com/a-four-team-playof...654549/?page=1

Count Chuck Neinas in for supporting a 4 team playoff for Conference Champions. No mention of an exemption for Notre Dame (or BYU, or independents). Which....would be a VERY interesting development. I like the Big12's chances of getting Notre Dame as much as any conference's.

He gave an interview last week in Kansas City where he talked about an exemption for Notre Dame, if they were ranked in the Top 5 and ranked ahead of a one of the conference champions.

[MeMyself&Me]

http://newsok.com/a-four-team-playof...654549/?page=1

Count Chuck Neinas in for supporting a 4 team playoff for Conference Champions. No mention of an exemption for Notre Dame (or BYU, or independents). Which....would be a VERY interesting development. I like the Big12's chances of getting Notre Dame as much as any conference's.

Yeah, I saw that linked somewhere else. That's 3 major conferences now in favor of a 4 team model with conference champions. Might also explain BYU's sudden urgency in reopening discussions with the Big 12.

He gave an interview last week in Kansas City where he talked about an exemption for Notre Dame, if they were ranked in the Top 5 and ranked ahead of a one of the conference champions.

That's a pretty steep standard though. When was the last time that ND finished the regular season in the top 5?

[Camel at Sea]

That's a pretty steep standard though. When was the last time that ND finished the regular season in the top 5?

Yeah, but that's why they haven't been playing for a national title. The standard to do that has always been steep.

[MeMyself&Me]

OK, here's something I posted on another board in a thread about playoffs vs BCS. Notice that Conference champions outside of the top five would have gotten to participate 7 times. One year a 10th ranked team would get in. Look at 2005, ND finished the regular season above Georgia and Georgia would go to the tournament instead of ND because ND has to finish in the top 5. Imagine if that 6th place regular season finish had occurred in 2010 and 10th ranked Wisconsin got in over ND. In essence, they are making it very hard for themselves staying indie if that is the standard.

Since the loudest talking seems to indicate there's going to be a four team model taking the 4 highest ranked conference winners I decided to have a look back at the last 10 years and see who would have been participating. Just for amusement and curiosity, not trying to make any points or anything. For simplicity, I used that year's BCS to rank the conference champs (they're going to have to have some method). Had a hard time remembering who won what conference which doesn't actually line up smoothly with rankings. I went back and looked up when I knew I didn't know but it's still possible I got a few wrong. Things of note that I saw:

1) Non-BCS teams would have participated in 4 of the ten years but never host. However, none of them would have been Boise State which gave me a bit of a chuckle.

2) OU gets to participate the same number of times as they actually did, no change. That surprised me a bit. Thought it would have been more. They lose the 2003 opportunity and gain one in 2007.

3) If you don't count Miami, who is now in the ACC, Louisville (2006) and Cincinnati (2009) are the only Big East schools that participate at all. Hey West Virginia! Where have you been?

4) Oklahoma would have gotten to host 3 of the ten years. Washington in 2000, Auburn in 2004, and USC in 2008.

5) Oklahoma State would have hosted Oregon last year. Alabama doesn't even make the cut for last year.

6) If there's some sort of Notre Dame exception that allows them to continue as indie, then they would likely have made the cut in 2005 (depending on the special rule) and played at USC.

6) And speaking of rematches, I didn't actually go through all the schedules to look for rematches but I do see a few obvious first round ones like that Notre Dame/USC 2005 game. Miami and FSU in 2000 for sure. LSU and Virginia Tech in 2007 I think. That's actually more often than I expected. Would have thought that not having multiple participants from the same conference would have limited that occurrence better.

7) Remember the controversy of 2001? Well, Nebbish doesn't make the cut in this model. Instead, Colorado hosts Oregon for the right to be slaughtered by Miami.


Anyway, here's what I got, feel free to error check it. I didn't:

2000
4 Washington @ 1 Oklahoma
3 Miami @ 2 Florida State

2001
8 Illinois @ 1 Miami
4 Oregon @ 3 Colorado

2002
4 USC @ 1 Miami
3 Georgia @ 2 Ohio State

2003
7 FSU @ 2 LSU
4 Michigan @ 3 USC

2004
6 Utah @ 1 USC
3 Auburn @ 2 Oklahoma

2005
6 Notre Dame or 7 Georgia @ 1 USC
3 Penn State @ 2 Texas

2006
6 Louisville @ 1 Ohio State
5 USC @ 2 Florida

2007
4 Oklahoma @ 1 Ohio State
3 Virginia Tech @ 2 LSU

2008
5 USC @ 1 Oklahoma
6 Utah @ 2 Florida

2009
4 TCU @ 1 Alabama
3 Cincinnati @ 2 Texas

2010
5 Wisconsin @ 1 Auburn
3 TCU @ 2 Oregon

2011
10 Wisconsin @ 1 LSU
5 Oregon @ 3 Oklahoma State

[Redhawk]

WAC announces 2012 football conference schedule....which means there will be a WAC conference this fall.

[BoulderSooner]

we were the bcs #1 in 2004 and in 2008 it woudl be OU vs UTah in the semi .. 1v6 2v5 ..

[Camel at Sea]

OK, here's something I posted on another board in a thread about playoffs vs BCS. Notice that Conference champions outside of the top five would have gotten to participate 6 times. One year a 10th ranked team would get in. Look at 2005, ND finished the regular season above Georgia and Georgia would go to the tournament instead of ND because ND has to finish in the top 5. Imagine if that 6th place regular season finish had occurred in 2010 and 10th ranked Wisconsin got in over ND. In essence, they are making it very hard for themselves staying indie if that is the standard.

Wouldn't have had two Big 10 teams in '03. /nitpick

[MeMyself&Me]

Wouldn't have had two Big 10 teams in '03. /nitpick

lol, messed up there. Will have to go back and see who it should have been.


Edit: OK, fixed that for reference.

[Camel at Sea]

OK, here's something I posted on another board in a thread about playoffs vs BCS. Notice that Conference champions outside of the top five would have gotten to participate 7 times. One year a 10th ranked team would get in. Look at 2005, ND finished the regular season above Georgia and Georgia would go to the tournament instead of ND because ND has to finish in the top 5. Imagine if that 6th place regular season finish had occurred in 2010 and 10th ranked Wisconsin got in over ND. In essence, they are making it very hard for themselves staying indie if that is the standard.

I have no problem with this set-up. In the NCAA tourney, some draws are harder than others. Same would be true for conferences. And it makes the regular season and the conference championship games bigger.

[MeMyself&Me]

I have no problem with this set-up. In the NCAA tourney, some draws are harder than others. Same would be true for conferences. And it makes the regular season and the conference championship games bigger.

How would you feel about it if you were a ND fan?

[Camel at Sea]

How would you feel about it if you were a ND fan?

Well, if the new set-up lets my school remain independent, then I'm happy with it as an Irish fan. Notre Dame could consider needing to finish in the Top 5 a trade-off for getting to remain independent. And it's not like the new set-up wouldn't still give ND more opportunity to play for a title than the current set-up does.

But as an OU fan, if the rules change forced the Irish into the Big 12, I'd be happy with that, too (obviously).

[texanbitch]

How would you feel about it if you were a ND fan?

I think they will be happy with it till the get passed over(I believe they will get it right on of these times in South Bend)...

[MeMyself&Me]

Another way to look at the effect on realignment of a 4 team conference champ model going forward...

How often do you think the ACC champ is going to be one of the top four conference champs? How often do you think the Big 12 champ is going to be one of the top four conference champs? The distribution of money for this little tournament will likely be by appearance. You know the payout for appearance will be huge and will go to the conference. How often your conference gets left out is going to matter.

[Camel at Sea]

Another way to look at the effect on realignment of a 4 team conference champ model going forward...

How often do you think the ACC champ is going to be one of the top four conference champs? How often do you think the Big 12 champ is going to be one of the top four conference champs? The distribution of money for this little tournament will likely be by appearance. You know the payout for appearance will be huge and will go to the conference. How often your conference gets left out is going to matter.

The ACC has teams that the Big 10 and SEC both want. The ACC doesn't have a grant of rights keeping its teams in place. The ACC exit fee is high, but not prohibitive. And the ACC is locked into a bad TV contract until 2026. It's only a matter of time before the ACC gets the same treatment the Big 12 has received for the last two years.

[Camel at Sea]

Here's a Big 10 raids the ACC rumor floating on a Georgia Tech board: http://www.fromtherumbleseat.com/201...didnt-see-this

[MeMyself&Me]

Here's a Big 10 raids the ACC rumor floating on a Georgia Tech board: http://www.fromtherumbleseat.com/201...didnt-see-this

Doesn't surprise me at all. I've thought all along that if the Big 12 could crack the ACC nut, then other conferences would join in too. It wouldn't suprise me to see another conference take the first shot though. There's enough there to make the Big 10, Big 12, and the SEC very happy given their expansion targets would likely be different for the most part anyway.