U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > College Football
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-24-2011, 08:44 AM
 
Location: Round Rock, Texas
8,380 posts, read 8,371,514 times
Reputation: 6970

Advertisements

edsg - your spin on the B12 realignment events is totally incorrect. You have bought into the media/fan version which is nowhere near what went down.

True, it's all about greed, but UT is NOT the villan in this case.

I do not like college football chasing the megabucks, as television has ruined the game. But then again I detest socialist football - particulary the 85 scholarship limit.

This blogger got the timeline & events correct:

http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/2...lignmentality/

(a very long read)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-24-2011, 09:30 AM
 
21,188 posts, read 30,366,193 times
Reputation: 19627
Quote:
Originally Posted by edsg25 View Post
The MLB assures us that not only will the Kansas City Royals and Pittsburgh Pirates never play each other in a world series, but that neither of them will ever even get there.
This point doesn't fly while I do agree with much of what you said. The Florida Marlins won the World Series twice with one of the lowest (if not lowest) payrolls in MLB. The Tampa Bay Rays have had considerable success in the AL East of all places with teams like the Yankees and Red Sox outspending them many times over. The Brewers (#17 in payroll) and Diamondbacks (#25 in payroll) won their divisions this year.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2011, 10:45 AM
 
Location: Chicago
5,882 posts, read 6,531,601 times
Reputation: 5342
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScoPro View Post
edsg - your spin on the B12 realignment events is totally incorrect. You have bought into the media/fan version which is nowhere near what went down.

True, it's all about greed, but UT is NOT the villan in this case.

I do not like college football chasing the megabucks, as television has ruined the game. But then again I detest socialist football - particulary the 85 scholarship limit.

This blogger got the timeline & events correct:

Realignmentality | Barking Carnival

(a very long read)
i certainly accept your point on "socialist" football, sco. Nobody is served by the notion that competition is so flattened that at season's end everybody is at .500.

and i must admit that i did not mention that the NFL's revenue sharing, at least how it carried today, has pretty much killed off those great franchises (I'm thinking Cowboys, 49ers, Steelers, Packers) who really gave you a team to focus on you want to beat and you want to measure up to.

All I'm asking is to get rid of the artificial factors, often based on demographics and fan base that give unfair advantages.

my contention is that with the revenue sharing I'm suggesting, those so called "progams".....Bama, OU, Ohio State, the rest....still go on and shine, but still on a more competitive playing field where the gaps between the haves and have nots is not nearly so great.

Gotta love the name Realignmentality; reminds me of Bill Maher's Religiosity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2011, 08:42 PM
 
48,516 posts, read 83,922,814 times
Reputation: 18050
Its kind of strenge that revnue sharing was never a issue until Texas got the longhorn network in the Big 8012. All revenue sharing at third tier would do is make for more independents in the future like ND. That would amke many teams really suffer as the do not have the numbers in their states to make enough without it i the second and thrid tier payments without sharting .Its just the natural progression. A&M leaving is really because they could not recruit enogh top players in Texas at 20%.They hope to get more attracked to playing in the SEC.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2011, 06:11 AM
 
Location: Chicago
5,882 posts, read 6,531,601 times
Reputation: 5342
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyle19125 View Post
This point doesn't fly while I do agree with much of what you said. The Florida Marlins won the World Series twice with one of the lowest (if not lowest) payrolls in MLB. The Tampa Bay Rays have had considerable success in the AL East of all places with teams like the Yankees and Red Sox outspending them many times over. The Brewers (#17 in payroll) and Diamondbacks (#25 in payroll) won their divisions this year.
kyle, i recognize the exception to the rule. but i think the point really does fly. overall, you just can't compare the top-to-bottom competition in the NFL with that in MLB. look, you mentioned the brewers but you are talking about a very short period centered around the present when Milwaukee has been competitive. most years it has not.

No, you can't necessarily buy yourself a pennant or a world championship. But you are still far more likely to do well in a major market where you are drawing large sums of broadcasting revenue than in a smaller market.

Kansas City and Pittsburgh remain dead zones in MLB. But we know that there is absolutely nothing dead about Pittsburgh in the NFL. You will never see the type of dominance in the Giants and Jets in football as the Yankees have in baseball.

Broadcast revenue sharing is hardly the only thing that determines how successful you will be on the field in MLB, but it is a major one; and one you can hardly ignore.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2011, 07:20 AM
 
1,056 posts, read 2,328,559 times
Reputation: 837
No way to expect full revenue sharing when you have long-established elite programs like Texas and Alabama, who make money hand over fist, having to share with new programs like Western Kentucky or University of Texas-San Antonio.

Conference revenue sharing is an existing paradigm, and one you'll see established in all conferences very soon.

Not much to do beyond that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2011, 07:26 AM
 
Location: Round Rock, Texas
8,380 posts, read 8,371,514 times
Reputation: 6970
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav View Post
Its kind of strenge that revnue sharing was never a issue until Texas got the longhorn network in the Big 8012. All revenue sharing at third tier would do is make for more independents in the future like ND. That would amke many teams really suffer as the do not have the numbers in their states to make enough without it i the second and thrid tier payments without sharting .Its just the natural progression. A&M leaving is really because they could not recruit enogh top players in Texas at 20%.They hope to get more attracked to playing in the SEC.
All A&M is is doing (by moving to the SEC) is allowing the SEC to come recruit in Texas and take players away from the aggys (and Tech, SMU, TCU, Baylor, etc.).

UT & OU are going to cherry pick the best players as usual.

Plus A&M made it much harder to win a conference championship, not to mention ggetting to a BCS game.

But good luck to them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2011, 10:16 AM
 
1,056 posts, read 2,328,559 times
Reputation: 837
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScoPro View Post
All A&M is is doing (by moving to the SEC) is allowing the SEC to come recruit in Texas and take players away from the aggys (and Tech, SMU, TCU, Baylor, etc.).

UT & OU are going to cherry pick the best players as usual.

Plus A&M made it much harder to win a conference championship, not to mention ggetting to a BCS game.

But good luck to them.
SEC has always recruited Texas; A&M isn't going to let the SEC "in" any more than they're already there. Recruiting isn't as local as it once was with the proliferation of the internet, ease-of-communication, better video, and the number of camps.

That said, I'm not sure moving to the SEC helps A&M with anything but money. They're not going to be more visible; they're already more visible than Ole Miss, Miss State, Vandy, Kentucky, and (arguably) South Carolina. They'll be much like Arkansas and South Carolina in the SEC - a perpetual 7-5 team with an occasional 8-4 season.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2011, 10:34 AM
 
Location: Chicago
5,882 posts, read 6,531,601 times
Reputation: 5342
Quote:
Originally Posted by boisefan88 View Post
No way to expect full revenue sharing when you have long-established elite programs like Texas and Alabama, who make money hand over fist, having to share with new programs like Western Kentucky or University of Texas-San Antonio.

Conference revenue sharing is an existing paradigm, and one you'll see established in all conferences very soon.

Not much to do beyond that.
when i said full revenue sharing, i didn't mean to include WKU or UTSA. In fact, I wasn't even talking about mid-majors.

What I was thinking about were the group of colleges that now take part in the BCS. Using those as a nucleus, I thought about what would be the best group of schools that would be playing at that level of competition.

Here's what I might envision:

a group of power conferences that play at that level of competition. I said eight for divisibility reasons and because eight conferences could play successfully with twelve teams each. No, there wouldn't be a problem if all conferences weren't the same size.

This type of grouping could work regionally and work nationally (coast to coast for maximum appeal) and could easily keep the traditional end of the game going.

Who would those eight conferences by (and again, I'm thinking of what ever realignment...or even return to old alignments...might be used to generate this).

They would include:

(1) a conference that covers the Northeast (Mid Atlantic and New England). It could be the Big East if restructured. And if this conference could be strong enough and attractive enough, it could pull Penn State out of the Big Ten and back into its own back yard.

(2) The Southeast coast: the ACC would handle this role admirably, minus its additions north of the Mason-Dixon line. I would hope that BC, Pitt, and Syracuse would be in the Northeast grouping.

(3) Mid-South: again, the SEC takes on this role quite well already

(4) Mid-west/Great Lakes: and here we already have the Big Ten in place; a swtich of Penn State out and Notre Dame in would work well.

(5) Great Plains: a resurrected Big Eight (this time unhurt by lack of major markets outside of StL, KC, Den). I would hope that both Nebraska and Colorado would return to their routes.

(6) Southwest: Like the Big 8 above, this one would be another pull out from the current Big 12 in the form of the old Southwest Conference which was a delight for so many in college football due to the fraternal (and fratrecidial) nature of that mass of Texas schools. Arkansas might well be convinced to go back into the fold under the broadcast revenue plan.

(7) The Rocky Mountains: this would be the only part of the nation not really covered by a BCS conference. Certainly the MWC would be likely for this role.

(8) Pacific Coast: again, this is another one well set in place with the Pac 12. If Utah and Colorado went elsewhere, it would allow for a step up for one of the larger Cal States (SDSU? Fresno? both?) to join the fold. Or maybe UNLV.

Again I want to state that I have no desire to set strict parameters to the above, either to that number of schools (96), conferences (8), schools per conference (12). But the set up could work very well. You could take those 8 conferences, place each in a New Year's bowl, cutting the number down to four which would be handled over the next two rounds of the play off.

Mid-majors could, in fact, should be encouraged to come up with a plan like this for themselves, as well.

You know, you have to constantly circle back to what revenue and profit means in an amateur sport like college football. There are no shareholders, nobody making money off the success of the program (short of salaries of people like head coaches, but that's not an issue).

Why do universities want successful big time football programs. Principally these fall into the following reasons:

(1) visibility; the keep the university name out there. This one has down through the history of the game been one that attracted students (often very good students) to apply for admission.

(2) alumni and other supporters: often these programs can help gain financial support with money often earmarked for non-athletic purposes.

(3) and most importantly: football revenue (and b'ball, to a less degree) finance non-revenue (in fact revenue losing) sports programs.

I would profess no major school...Bama, Texas, Michigan, USC, Oklahoma, etc......would suffer on any of the grounds above with revenue sharing among conferences. First of all, their relationship with their own conference is unchanged...they already split these revenues equally.

All that revenue sharing would do would be to boost those regions of the nation least likely to generate the most broadcast revenue (I'd say those would be the great plains, the southwest, and the Rockies) and allows them to be part of a fair playing field. All schools...even the powers....will benefit from a strong game with a true coast-to-coast set up. A rising tide raises all ships and such a national coast-to-coast program would be just such a tide, rising all member conferences and universities with it.

Last edited by edsg25; 09-25-2011 at 10:53 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2011, 11:31 AM
 
Location: Round Rock, Texas
8,380 posts, read 8,371,514 times
Reputation: 6970
Quote:
Originally Posted by boisefan88 View Post
They'll be much like Arkansas and South Carolina in the SEC - a perpetual 7-5 team with an occasional 8-4 season.
They'll be lucky to accomplish that much.

Have you seen their last 10 years in the B12?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > College Football
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top