LMAO @ "groundswell"... and yes, joking.Originally Posted by SpankyNek
Hope you're joking. There is no substantial "groundswell" to support this ****ertion
|
|
LMAO @ "groundswell"... and yes, joking.Hope you're joking. There is no substantial "groundswell" to support this ****ertion
More realignment fuel...what is truly driving realignment:
Fox to unveil sports channels for ad buys in challenge to ESPN:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...9170D420130208
The main offerings will include Major League baseball, college football, NASCAR races, professional soccer, and ultimate fighting, the person said.
The two new channels are expected to begin broadcasting games in August and would expand its offerings in 2014, the person said.
News Corp's new offerings will likely lose money in the early years, according to analysts, which mirrors the company's money-losing launches over the years of its Fox News and Fox Business channels.
Things that will only hasten the death of cable/satellite television. Advertisers love sports as they are one of the only things that everyone but extremely cheap BYU fans will watch live. That drives major television contracts which then allow the networks to ask for higher carriage fees which are then passed along to the consumer. Another $5 network on all but the most basic of television plans is not what a consumer base that largely doesn't watch sports (more people don't watch sports than do) and is already weary from seeing their bills rise largely due to the rising costs of sports networks wants or needs. If something like $15 of your bill is due to sports networks you don't watch, why wouldn't you consider unplugging and using the money you save to subscribe to alternative sources which will provide you access to your favorite shows while likely still saving you money?
Fox is converting existing channels to Fox 1 and Fox 2, so for now carriage isn't going to be an issue
Yep. Converting the Speed channel to FS1 and Fuel TV to FS2
None of what you posted changes the fact that the top 6-7 of the SEC is much better than the top 6-7 of the B12, or a merged ACC B12. And then you get to the lower half of the conference and there isn't a ton of difference either way (not that the teams at the lower half of the conference make any difference whatsoever). If a conference member loses or wins more games against its opponents, that doesn't mean that they still aren't better/worse than the other conferences.
I hate the fact that the SEC is as good as they are, but find it funny how people continue to contrive scenarios where they aren't as good as they seem. And, as far as trends go, they dont seem to be giving any ground. CFB is cyclical, and the SEC will come down eventually; but it doesn't look to be any time soon.
Agreed that its cyclical. Also agree that a merged B12/ACC would be far better than the crap that is now the B12. Just saying that, if the conferences merged tomorrow, all it would do would cement their place as the 2nd best conference. And, IMO, a distant for the foreseeable future.
Tulsa,Um**** next up for the Big East
The Big East is hoping to resolve its divorce with the seven departing Catholic-based basketball schools within the next few weeks -- in time for a summer 2014 departure -- according to a source who had detailed knowledge of Friday's conference call with the Big East.
The source said there seems to be a consensus the seven will leave and form their own league for fall 2014, exactly what the seven want as well, according to a number of sources from the departing seven.
The source said the conference call didn't focus on expansion but rather on the exit of the seven, as well as a new television contract. The Big East has a football contract for fall 2013 but nothing for men's basketball in 2013-14. ESPN has the right of first refusal, but NBC Sports has been the most aggressive to secure the deal, according to the source.
The source said the remaining Big East schools expect a legal battle with the departing schools for the Big East name, which carries with it branding rights and national recognition.
The departing seven -- Georgetown, Providence, Seton Hall, St. John's, Marquette, DePaul and Villanova -- still must form a league. They also need to decide on a commissioner, bylaws, location, championships, compliance rules and how many schools they will add. The departing seven are expected to initially target Butler and Xavier out of the Atlantic 10, and possibly grow to 10 or 12 teams with candidates among Creighton, Dayton, Saint Louis, Richmond and VCU.
The remaining Big East schools in 2014-15 would consist of UConn, Cincinnati, South Florida, Memphis, Temple, SMU, Houston, Central Florida, Tulane and East Carolina for football, and then Navy in fall 2015.
Pitt and Syracuse are leaving the Big East for the ACC next season, and Louisville and Notre Dame are expected to join in fall 2014, while Rutgers is headed to the Big Ten at the same time.
If the Big East expands again, the two schools mentioned most by sources are UM**** and Tulsa out of the A-10 and Conference USA, respectively.
http://m.espn.go.com/wireless/story?storyId=8931014&wjb
The following users like this post: Redhawk
OUCH
NBC Sports Network verbally offered the Big East between $20 million to $23 million a year for six years to acquire the league's media rights, sources told ESPN.
Meanwhile the Big East's Catholic 7 schools are closing on a deal with Fox Sports according to sources.
NBC Sports Network is expected to submit an official offer to the Big East by next week. Once the Big East receives an official offer from NBC Sports Network, the league must give ESPN, the Big East's current rights holder, the opportunity to match the deal.
The Catholic 7 schools -- DePaul, Georgetown, Marquette, Providence, St. John's, Seton Hall and Villanova -- haven't formed a new league yet, but Fox Sports has been the leader for their media rights after approaching the schools before they had even left the Big East, sources said. Fox Sports' offer would be worth $30 million to $40 million a year depending on how many teams are in the league, sources said.
Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner. The SEC presence in Texas has grown substantially with TAMU in the SEC. Then the B12 shot itself in the foot when it expanded back into Texas with TCU. What kind of dumbasses expand with a school in a state you supposedly own that represents your only recruiting hotbed? This is especially true when everyone knew the SEC presence in Texas was going to grow. There are too many mouths at the Texas trough. It's great that Texas produces a lot of blue chippers. The problem for the B12 when is that it's only recruiting "hotbed" has been taken over by the SEC....more or less.
The B12, on average, had the worst recruiting classes of all 5 major conferences. How is that really going to change? TCU is now tougher to recruit against and the SEC is all over the state. The B12 simply cannot recruit anywhere else worth a sh*t. If the B12 dies it will have no one to blame but itself.
False.
What statistical data are you using to support this statement?
Using Rivals team rankings (am sure there could be some difference between different services):
Conference......avg Rank
SEC................15.9
PAC................34.9
B12................37.8
B10................38.2
ACC................39.4
Big East......so far behind I didn't bother tallying.
The following users like this post: nstinson
You forgot to add that BYU is ranked #71 which would put them significantly below average in any major conference. Any reply to x97 must contain an insult to BYU.
The following users like this post: soonerUthenMe
Average star ranking on rivals and scout of all the recruits signed by conference members.
good lord I wish we would have gone to the SEC.
aTm is pretty much making a fool of everyone that said they would slide further into mediocrity by moving.
2 users like ResidentEvil's post: SCV Sooner, TeLeFaWx
Give it time.
**** conference realignment. Lets go back to the Big 8. Dominate our conference and have the marquee games be Texas and Nebraska. Just like it used to be.
Tell you what...why don't you just admit that you were just throwing **** against the wall.
If you stand by your claim, I will happily do the number crunching if you agree to never post in this thread again if you're wrong.
Kolob isn't real.
1 year and Sumlin/Johnny Flatbill had more to do with it than SEC. Texas being down is probably 3rd in line after those 2.
This.
Put that team in the Big 12 and they might be national champs and have an even better national perception.
The average star value of BYU's recruits would put them at the bottom of the Big East.
You're incredibly clueless. I haven't seen the numbers for this year yet, but the state of Texas had TWICE as many FBS signees as 47 other states last year. Read that again.
"Too many mouths at the Texas trough". Laughable.
Shall we talk about all the mouths to feed in the state of Florida?
And if you didn't understand why we added TCU, and you didn't understand why the B1G added Rutgers and Maryland, at what point do you expect us to give you any credibility? I don't hold anything against you because you are BYU fan. I don't care. I only consider the merits of your posts unto themselves.
And while you may be right about FSU not wanting to leave the ACC (and I believe you are), you reveal a general ignorance about a lot of other things.
Texas A&M, year in and year out, almost exclusively signs or has signed Texas HS players. Nothing changed. Read that again.
Their presence couldn't have grown, relatively speaking. They can only take so many and they only ever took so many. And they were always the #2 program in the state of Texas. So now they're #1, even if we accepted that (although it isn't true), they can only do what UT has managed to do over the years. Besides, there are still 350+ HS players that are D1/FBS level in Texas available, even if A&M got the precise 25 they wanted. Last year the state of TX had 371 signees. Twice as many as the states of Georgia and Ohio. THREE times as many as Alabama and Louisiana. Again, you're clueless.
And UT has done that for decades. They've picked and chose the guys they wanted and basically it hasn't helped them beat Oklahoma or even A&M regularly. Talking about the ACC and money and realignment is one thing. But please get a clue before you start talking about our backyard.
I don't "throw **** against the wall". Save that for the WV bloggers, gswaim, and the clowns that cling to their every word.
http://oklahoma.scout.com/a.z?s=146&...view=2&yr=2013
Now, the B12 schools signed more recruits per school than ACC schools and, therefore, generated more "points".....but ACC recruits, overall, had a higher star rating than B12 recruits. The B12 was LAST among the 5 big conferences in average star ranking. In fact, the Big 12 signed classes that were closely ranked with the Big East than the SEC. This was also the case last year. The last time the B12 didn't sign at least the 5th worst cl**** was in 2011 (before A&M and TCU moves). Now stfu.
You're trying to make hay on the basis of a star differential of 0.01? Recruiting in the Big 12 is fine. The Big 12's star rating was down b/c OU and Texas both had slightly substandard classes. 1) Texas signed a very small cl****, and 2) OU recruited a couple more jucos (to fill roster spots created by injuries) and a punter. That took the conference's average star rating down b/c it meant fewer higher rated guys. If Texas A&M starts out-recruiting the Longhorns and Sooners on a yearly basis over the next decade, you might be on to something. Or if SEC teams start signing a bunch more Texas players than they have historically. But so far, you don't have the data to support your conclusions.
The Big 12 ended up with half the conference close to a Top 25 recruiting ranking. KU and K-State were too juco heavy to have any prayer of finishing that high, but jucos often don't have a star rating that corresponds to their talent level. Tech's cl**** was down b/c of a coaching transition.
If you want to come back in five years after we have some better data to look at, I'm sure most of the people on this board will be willing to have a conversation with you then.
I hope Oklahoma isn't dismissive of this fact an is proactive in mitigating its effects. To sit around and act like nothing has changed could be a bad idea.
Texas A&M - 1997, 1998, 2010, 2012 Big 12 Champs*
I agreed that Texas is fertile grounds for recruiting. That being said, there are 12 FBS programs in the state of Texas now and 5 of those programs are in BCS conferences. There are only 7 FBS programs in Florida and only 3 in BCS conferences. Plus, there are many programs in surrounding states who need a Texas pipeline for recruiting (OU is one). There aren't many schools outside Florida who have a Florida recruiting dependency like OU and others have with Texas.
So while there were more athletes offered scholarships from Texas that was heavily influenced by the fact so many schools are recruiting Texas as a "need". If you want to sign the 350th best player in the state of Texas and end up like UTSA then so be it. I'm sure the SEC won't intervene.
I understand completely why Rutgers and Maryland were added. I've reiterated over and over that move is very big gamble because of potential carriage snags for the BTN in those markets. Those are professional sports markets. Those markets don't care about Maryland or Rutgers. Look at all the carriage snags other specialty networks have run into in markets that care MUCH more about collegiate sports than Washington or New York. The BTN struggled for a while getting basic tier coverage in Michigan and Ohio. The Pac 12 networks is still not available in much of the Pac 12 footprint with cable providers. The LHN has been a terrible flop and has desperately been trying to get high school and more Texas football content in order to enhance carriage in the state of Texas.
Cable networks very well could tell the BTN tough luck. It's been happening in markets that care a lot more. You are the one whose argument doesn't hold water. Precedent has been set in other markets that actually care about college sports.
As for TCU? LOL. Adding a school inside your footprint that only made recruiting more difficult. There's a reason every other conference in the country is looking to EXPAND its FOOTPRINT. Doubling down into states and markets you already own is basically a suicide move. Keep defending it, though. Your leaders have defended similar moves and have now lost 4 charter members in the last 2 and a half years. LOL.
Of course they have, dummy. The difference is they can now approach these kids and say "hey, come play for us and you will not only get to stay close to home but you will also get to play in the premier college football conference in America, the SEC". Some kids....hell, MANY of these high school kids fall for this stuff. Previously, there wasn't an SEC team in their home state. Other SEC schools can increase their sales pitch to Texas kids as well. They tell them they can return to Texas and play and also tell them they will have a lot of publicity back home in Texas because the state is in the SEC footprint.
What I find somewhat amusing is the spin on this board. First, you say the Big 12 must get into Florida for recruiting purposes (despite the fact Florida is owned by the SEC and non-contiguous to the current Big 12 footprint) but then flip and say Texas A&M's presence in the SEC won't help other SEC schools recruit Texas.....even though Texas is a contiguous state to the previous SEC footprint (more geographically friendly for recruits). You can't talk out of both sides of your mouth but you do. Why?
A 4 or 5 star kid with 20 offers from Miami is probably not going to OU whether there is a Big 12 school or not in Florida. It is just too remote. The same kid would latch onto to Florida, Florida State, Georgia, or another SEC team in heartbeat. The same type of recruit from Houston, on the hand, has a very solid chance of going SEC, however. Keep talking out of both sides of your mouth. It makes you look pathetic.
Once again, I am talking about the top high school players......not the players signed by UTSA. The SEC will let the B12 have all those players it wants. They won't even challenge
The bottom line is that Texas is fertile recruiting grounds (why you keep arguing it when I already told you I agree is pretty silly). And Texas and OU will always sign good classes (I never argued this point either so I don't know why you keep arguing it also silly). We already AGREE on these points.
Where we don't agree is where I said the SEC presence in Texas has grown (therefore, hurting B12 recruiting) and TCU's recruiting prowess in Texas has grown (also hurting the rest of the B12 in recruiting). You seem to think this is meaningless or non-existant(or close to it). The last 2 years the Big 12's average star ranking has been the worst among the 5 largest conferences (on the other hand, it was 2nd to only the SEC in 2011). The most recent recruiting cl**** saw only 14 of the top 50 players in the state of Texas signed with Big 12 teams not named TCU. In the past 70-80% of these kids signed with B12 schools.
With the new recruiting reality the Big 12 faces it will no longer be able to keep up with the SEC at all. And it looks to be struggling to just to keep up with the ACC.
You need to go out in your "backyard" and look around. Times a changing, son. It's a whole new world.
Oh brother. Will someone please take out the trash.
4 users like OU812's post: MadMex, Mephistopheles, Redhawk, SoonerChef
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The following users like this post: oubozfan44
A&M success is 99% due to Sumlin soon as the NFL snatches Sumlin up they will be back to the Slo****/Franchione days again
Either the NFL, or post-sanctions USC.
He did a good job but having an upperclassman laden roster with solid recruits (Sherman did well on the recruiting trail) off of a good 2011 team (7-6 that would have been 9-3 if single score games broke evenly) gave him a great starting point.
right with 2 upperclassmen superstar OT's ... now that is down to 1 superstar OT ..
Did anyone else notice there's a little kid in a 22 jersey dancing in front of the girls...^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The following users like this post: Cowboy1964adam
I'm not sure how much A&M's move to the SEC affected OU. It seems like A&M and Texas have switched places on the recruiting trail. LSU got no recruits from Texas this year. None. Arky got 3 but I don't think any of them were guys that OU or A&M were looking at.
That tells me that the kids in TX who want to play in the SEC will go to A&M instead of LSU or Arky. The kids who want to represent their home state on a national stage will go to A&M instead of Texas. If OU can get back to winning some big games (and, unfortunately, no one else considers Texas a big game) then OU will be back in the hunt. OU lost some head-to-heads against A&M this year and will probably continue to do so as long as A&M is winning. But the same was true with Texas a few years back and OU was able to win a lot more B12 championships than Texas (and that was wehn teh B12 was much stronger). A&M beating OU soundly in the Cotton Bowl definitely hurt OU on the recruiting trail. But any time a team is beaten soundly in a bowl game, it will hurt their recruiting.
I'm not saying it's good for OU to stay in the Big12 as it is. I'm just saying OU isn't as hurt by A&M's move as some other schools.
It won't matter. By then there will be a taste or elite SEC relevant games in the state. Kids growing up wanting to walk in to Tuscaloosa and Baton Rouge and carry the banner for the Lone Star State. Much more appealing than the underwhelming venues(Norman aside) north of the Red River.
Texas A&M - 1997, 1998, 2010, 2012 Big 12 Champs*
It's only been one year.
The following users like this post: OSULadyCowboy
Yeah I would pay attention to what this one season is going to do for 2014 recruiting. It is going to be unreal.
Texas A&M - 1997, 1998, 2010, 2012 Big 12 Champs*
How many National Titles does ATM have again? Oh wait.........
Just wait until they pull an Alabama and retroactively claim a national championship every year they ended the season with a winning record. Then they'll show you!
Didn't they already do this? They landed at 3.
*
The following users like this post: The
@TeddyGreenstein B1G's Delany: Status quo of 8 conf games "not even on the table" now. It'll be either 9 or 10. Decision in spring.
That statement basically tells me the B1G is going to 18-20. Look out.
EDIT....more:
@TeddyGreenstein Delany: “We like to play each other, and those not hollow words. We are getting larger and want to bind the conference together.”
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports...,2192689.story
Also of significance: More night games are likely for November, and conference play will begin earlier. In 2012, no Big Ten games were staged until week 5.
Probably a good idea.
Here we go. I hope. Please, God, let the Big 12 collapse this Spring.
2 users like Al F***n Swearingen's post: DelMarSooner, IndySooner
So in a 18-20 team B1G scenario, do they seriously consider OU?
In my dreams.....
UVa
UNC
GaTech
Notre Dame
OU
Texas
My guess is 18 would be: UVA, UNC, Duke, GT. Then the B1G makes a serious play for ND + 1 to get to 20. If that fails, then the B1G looks at FSU, Miami, and Pitt.
I think ND would be hard-pressed to turn down that invite, btw. At 20 members, the B1G would lock most of their league into a 9 or 10 game conference schedule, and that would basically shut the Irish out of scheduling Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, etc., with any frequency. The Irish can't fulfill their mission to be a "national" football program without meaningful games in the midwest, northeast, and mid-Atlantic.
This is the reason for Delaney's quotes, in my opinion.
I think ND ends up in the Big 10 if Delany goes to 20. Maybe they work out a deal for the Irish to keep their own NBC deal initially, as a sweetener.
I'm ready for re-alignment to be over. Funny how it wasn't a term we thought of even three years ago, now it invokes fear and loose stool anytime i hear it. Conference stability sounds so...........Serene.
Posting Permissions
