More BCS realignment - Page 14 - Basketball Forum : Professional and College Basketball Forums
BasketballForum.com is the premier basketball Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
User Tag List

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-24-2012, 02:42 PM   #196 (permalink)
6th Man
 

Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 266
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Re: More BCS realignment

Everyone seems to think that the big conferences are just going to keep getting bigger. But at some point, don't some of the schools think "You know, we're dividing this money too many ways?"

At what point does expansion turn into contraction where duplicate markets and perceived weaker links are kicked out of these conferences?

We've seen that loyalty and tradition means absolutely nothing for any of these schools or conferences, at least not when money is involved.
TreachX is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 11-24-2012, 03:23 PM   #197 (permalink)
WH
Star
 

Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,503
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Re: More BCS realignment

Treach, 16 just seems to be the magic number for conference alignment and scheduling once a league goes past 12 teams. Numbers between 13-15 don't make sense.

The biggest leagues have also sought to AVOID duplication so far. Look at the Big 10. It's invited Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers, all in areas where the Big 10 did not have a presence. The ACC expansion has also involved new markets.

Someday I could see schools and leagues figuring out that the merger and expansion phase went awry. We've seen it repeatedly in the corporate world. The NCAA almost seems to be mimicking the conglomerate phase in the 1960s. Back then companies bought many other companies in very different business lines. Most of these did not work out and the large conglomerates eventually came unglued in the 1970s and 1980s.

I could see this happening again someday. Heck, I could even see a new Big East forming. But it could take decades to play out.
WH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2012, 03:28 PM   #198 (permalink)
Veteran
 
clark1a's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,193
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 103 Post(s)
Re: More BCS realignment

Quote:
Originally Posted by WH View Post
Treach, 16 just seems to be the magic number for conference alignment and scheduling once a league goes past 12 teams. Numbers between 13-15 don't make sense.

The biggest leagues have also sought to AVOID duplication so far. Look at the Big 10. It's invited Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers, all in areas where the Big 10 did not have a presence. The ACC expansion has also involved new markets.

Someday I could see schools and leagues figuring out that the merger and expansion phase went awry. We've seen it repeatedly in the corporate world. The NCAA almost seems to be mimicking the conglomerate phase in the 1960s. Back then companies bought many other companies in very different business lines. Most of these did not work out and the large conglomerates eventually came unglued in the 1970s and 1980s.

I could see this happening again someday. Heck, I could even see a new Big East forming. But it could take decades to play out.
GE, we bring good things to life!

Ghost of Jack Welch
clark1a is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2012, 04:37 PM   #199 (permalink)
Veteran
 
uz2b-len's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,067
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Re: More BCS realignment

UMass grad.
uz2b-len is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2012, 04:54 PM   #200 (permalink)
Veteran
 

Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,432
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 367 Post(s)
Re: More BCS realignment

Quote:
Originally Posted by Medford View Post
I think you would find that $50mil exit fee getting shot down in court pretty fast. The rest of it is a good idea, and I agree, more likely or something similar
Quote:
Originally Posted by xudash View Post
Creative thinking, but I doubt anyone wants to go into the room to negotiate a deal that would be DOA. The football schools aren't going to share football money with hoops schools.
What's the ACC's exit fee? $50 million. Maryland voted against that by the way. Now they have to pay it (it'll get negotiated down, sure, but it's a good starting point).

XU, what negotiation? Before July 1, 2013, the hoops schools wouldn't need negotiations. They'd have 7 of 9 votes if UConn and Louisville left. They could impose rules on football, who'd have no say in the matter. That's the whole point of the article: There's a small window where basketball has the power.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TreachX View Post
Everyone seems to think that the big conferences are just going to keep getting bigger. But at some point, don't some of the schools think "You know, we're dividing this money too many ways?"

At what point does expansion turn into contraction where duplicate markets and perceived weaker links are kicked out of these conferences?
The problem with "contracting" is that you can't kick people out without lawsuits. The top half can leave (like the Mountain West leaving the WAC, for example).

While it makes total "sense" for the top half to leave and divest themselves of schools like Northwestern, Purdue and Iowa; Mississippi, Miss St, Vanderbilt, South Carolina, etc… to do that, they'd need to leave their conference names behind. The SEC and ACC are powerful brands. The Big Ten would be leaving the Big Ten Network behind and have to start over. So it's not going to happen. But financially, it makes sense.
jpschmack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2012, 06:40 PM   #201 (permalink)
Veteran
 
xudash's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,355
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Re: More BCS realignment

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpschmack View Post
What's the ACC's exit fee? $50 million. Maryland voted against that by the way. Now they have to pay it (it'll get negotiated down, sure, but it's a good starting point).

XU, what negotiation? Before July 1, 2013, the hoops schools wouldn't need negotiations. They'd have 7 of 9 votes if UConn and Louisville left. They could impose rules on football, who'd have no say in the matter. That's the whole point of the article: There's a small window where basketball has the.
I reread your earlier post more carefully. Well done. Absolute voting power would have its advantages!
xudash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2012, 07:16 PM   #202 (permalink)
6th Man
 
spdram's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Re: More BCS realignment

Don't you think these things would be undone as soon as the voting numbers changed?
__________________
University of Richmond 2008 FCS Football National Champions!
spdram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2012, 07:31 PM   #203 (permalink)
Veteran
 
xudash's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,355
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Re: More BCS realignment

Quote:
Originally Posted by spdram View Post
Don't you think these things would be undone as soon as the voting numbers changed?
Yes, assuming the football schools are dumb enough to map into them initially and, if they are that stupid, that the hoops schools are dumb enough to NOT make them binding (i.e. locked provisions that cannot be voted upon) prior to allowing the football schools to vote on the changes
xudash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2012, 12:34 AM   #204 (permalink)
Veteran
 

Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,432
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 367 Post(s)
Re: More BCS realignment

Quote:
Originally Posted by spdram View Post
Don't you think these things would be undone as soon as the voting numbers changed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by xudash View Post
Yes, assuming the football schools are dumb enough to map into them initially and, if they are that stupid, that the hoops schools are dumb enough to NOT make them binding (i.e. locked provisions that cannot be voted upon) prior to allowing the football schools to vote on the changes
Ah, those rules couldn't be changed. Because if they needed a 2/3 majority to change the rules, only five full members would be added (UCF, SMU, Houston, Temple, Memphis) making it a 7-7 (if UConn and Louisville both left) or 8-7 vote (if only UConn was gone).
jpschmack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2012, 05:11 AM   #205 (permalink)
Resident Arachnid of the MPT
 
SpiderInThePastaBowl's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 19,424
Mentioned: 804 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2238 Post(s)
Re: More BCS realignment

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpschmack View Post
Or they could do the really smart thing:
Vote 7-3 to raise exit fees to $50 million.
Vote 7-3 to establish full TV rights revenue sharing regardless of sport sponsorship.
Vote 7-3 to establish a "football scheduling tax" or any other ridiculous measure that forces football to WANT to leave.

If football stayed, they'd share their football money with basketball. And if football wanted to leave, they'd have to pay the basketball schools $400 million combined in exit fees. And basketball keeps the Big East name.
This makes too much sense for it to actually happen. Ghosts of Simpson-Bowles and Comprehensive Immigration Reform.
SpiderInThePastaBowl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2012, 07:43 AM   #206 (permalink)
Player
 
Medford's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 855
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 55 Post(s)
Re: More BCS realignment

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpschmack View Post
What's the ACC's exit fee? $50 million. Maryland voted against that by the way. Now they have to pay it (it'll get negotiated down, sure, but it's a good starting point).

XU, what negotiation? Before July 1, 2013, the hoops schools wouldn't need negotiations. They'd have 7 of 9 votes if UConn and Louisville left. They could impose rules on football, who'd have no say in the matter. That's the whole point of the article: There's a small window where basketball has the power.



The problem with "contracting" is that you can't kick people out without lawsuits. The top half can leave (like the Mountain West leaving the WAC, for example).

While it makes total "sense" for the top half to leave and divest themselves of schools like Northwestern, Purdue and Iowa; Mississippi, Miss St, Vanderbilt, South Carolina, etc… to do that, they'd need to leave their conference names behind. The SEC and ACC are powerful brands. The Big Ten would be leaving the Big Ten Network behind and have to start over. So it's not going to happen. But financially, it makes sense.
The situation you described is apples/oranges to the Maryland situation. Sure there are similarities, but it was done in the ACC to protect the conference as a whole, I'm guessing a judge would look at your $50 mil scenerio and rule that it was not done to protect the conference, but to attact a certain section of the conference for no fault of their own.

I like the idea of them grabbing voting strength, and I think it was something they should have done prior to the latest football expansion w/ Boise, Houston, etc... I just don't think increasing the exit fee in such a clearly punitive manner would fly.
Medford is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2012, 04:13 PM   #207 (permalink)
Veteran
 

Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,432
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 367 Post(s)
Re: More BCS realignment

Quote:
Originally Posted by Medford View Post
The situation you described is apples/oranges to the Maryland situation. Sure there are similarities, but it was done in the ACC to protect the conference as a whole, I'm guessing a judge would look at your $50 mil scenerio and rule that it was not done to protect the conference, but to attact a certain section of the conference for no fault of their own.

I like the idea of them grabbing voting strength, and I think it was something they should have done prior to the latest football expansion w/ Boise, Houston, etc... I just don't think increasing the exit fee in such a clearly punitive manner would fly.
So they negotiate it down with each leaving school.

The point is: They won't dissolve the Big East because there's dozens of options to achieve their goals AND keep the Big East name.
jpschmack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2012, 10:13 AM   #208 (permalink)
Player
 
Bona Wolf for Pope's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 862
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Re: More BCS realignment

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/st...ts-source-said

Tulane to the Big East.
__________________
"Careful reading comprehension is crucial to an online forum discussion."
Bona Wolf for Pope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2012, 10:19 AM   #209 (permalink)
Star
 
Bill Russell's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,918
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 376 Post(s)
Re: More BCS realignment

This has become such a joke.
__________________
www.bonaalumni.com
Bill Russell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2012, 10:22 AM   #210 (permalink)
Benchwarmer
 
BmoreX's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 134
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Re: More BCS realignment

Also, ECU to the Big East in 2014 for football-only.
BmoreX is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:20 PM.



User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.1.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © 2002 — 2013 BasketballBoards.net.

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1