|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 4, 2021 14:51:59 GMT -6
Okay as a single example, does Baylor really need forty-one ... It’s absurd to have that many athletic directors. At least 30 of those positions should be converted to diversity and inclusion roles. That's in each job description anyway.
|
|
|
Post by villagepub on Aug 4, 2021 17:17:44 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Aug 4, 2021 18:58:33 GMT -6
Yeah and I think the Big Ten is more likely to take Oklahoma State than K-State.
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Aug 5, 2021 7:26:54 GMT -6
Yeah and I think the Big Ten is more likely to take Oklahoma State than K-State. Agreed, although K-State fits their footprint better. Iowa State fits their academics better, being a member of the Association of American Universities (all B1G schools but Nebraska are members). But OK State gives them a new market. If they get Kansas, they don't need K State.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 5, 2021 8:46:10 GMT -6
Yeah and I think the Big Ten is more likely to take Oklahoma State than K-State. Agreed, although K-State fits their footprint better. Iowa State fits their academics better, being a member of the Association of American Universities (all B1G schools but Nebraska are members). But OK State gives them a new market. If they get Kansas, they don't need K State. Kansas for basketball and the bigger name has always looked logical. Has a pretty big alumni base, some prestige. If the B10 is just continuing to stretch its boundaries and be primarily a Midwest conference ISU, OSU, KU are all good, better than KState. That is one scenario, its East coast adventure with Md and Rutgers aside. The pieces of the B12 might still make some sense, even KState I suppose.
The B10 does have that strategic option to try to go coast to coast and maybe stick with AAU universities by adding PAC10 teams in some kind of partnership/breakup/merger. Then the little pieces in the B12 don't make as much sense for sure.
|
|
|
Post by villagepub on Aug 5, 2021 11:31:19 GMT -6
Yeah and I think the Big Ten is more likely to take Oklahoma State than K-State. Agreed, although K-State fits their footprint better. Iowa State fits their academics better, being a member of the Association of American Universities (all B1G schools but Nebraska are members). But OK State gives them a new market. If they get Kansas, they don't need K State. The K-State brand is very weak.
|
|
|
Post by villagepub on Aug 5, 2021 11:33:23 GMT -6
The Big10 takes Kansas due to basketball tradition. They relegate Jim Harbaugh to Kansas to rebuild the football program, If he can't, he must retire.
Allow Michigan to hire someone who will reinstitute the UM-OSU rivalry and save some face.
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Aug 7, 2021 9:53:56 GMT -6
Kansas football is one of those baffling cases where it's not clear how they can remain so consistently weak for so long. I understand they have no tradition due to not ever winning, but what stops them from ever winning? Traditions have to start somewhere. They have a nearby huge media market. The school has great general fan support state wide. They've had a favorable conference affiliation. Good coaches create winning programs out of MUCH less favorable potential all the time.
|
|
|
Post by villagepub on Aug 7, 2021 12:31:42 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 7, 2021 12:56:43 GMT -6
Not much consequence in this case. But why give them any status as representing the conference under the circumstances.
Texas wasn't going to win much advantage if any on that selection committee, though. Not even sure they could do harm there. Might help the SEC I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by villagepub on Aug 14, 2021 10:58:07 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 14, 2021 11:40:42 GMT -6
Sure does.
This looks like a really good idea, something short of breaking up the conferences or recombining them, but giving many of the benefits.
Gives the alliance coast to coast inter-sectional FB (maybe BB) scheduling advantage over the SEC. Big games with big ratings money where the wins and losses don't count in conference standings but are great non-conference results, probably good win or lose.
They don't have to try to reinvent the wheel on other sports and introduce travel nightmares for the entire conference even, just the marquee for the well compensated games they can choose.
I would assume the inter-conference scheduling would have it's own TV pact separate from the existing conference pacts. Sharing the wealth could be different, but the whole conference benefits from not countering the SEC.
The conference teams NOT in the games made for TV may or may not want to schedule "non-conference" games with other alliance partner schools as well. Or maybe just go for the old fashioned money game with BSU. Get their cheaper wins for bowl purposes.
|
|
|
Post by villagepub on Aug 16, 2021 18:25:13 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Aug 16, 2021 19:08:39 GMT -6
Yeah right. Over half of the power conference teams will see themselves as something less than totally safe from relegation....so their response and voting on this will be something along the lines of "absolutely no f------ way".
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 16, 2021 19:55:57 GMT -6
A pipe dream for numerous reasons.
Maybe foremost is that reorganizing the B10 to add a couple of MAC teams, even if hypothetically they THIS year are a bit stronger than the teams relegated, just doesn't seem to me to make anyone except the MAC teams any more money. It could be a windfall for that team! Well unless the rule is that every team just keeps their own gate and not share it...
The hypothesis is that tOSU playing the MAC champ is better than playing a cellar dweller. Maybe. But that cellar game is never on TV. And when TOSU goes on the road to the current cellar dweller they play in a big stadium. Will that B10 TV network be thrilled to add the Muncie market to replace ANY existing B10 teams alumni base and local draw?
Plus there is the nagging question of how well this years MAC champ does NEXT year. Quite a leap to assume they are again as strong. They could well be very near that cellar team they replaced. So you play musical chairs again?
TV revenue will go up? Why? Total conference gate revenue is not going up, if for no other reason than all the B10 teams on the MAC team schedule have to play e games on the MAC home field. A 17000 sellout at the Shoe...replacing that attendance at the current cellar team, at least twice as much at multiple times the ticket price. God help the B10 revenue with 2 or 3 MAC teams on their schedule.
As far as relegation at the lower conferences in 3 tiers, that is just all expense with negligible gain to anybody.
I just don't see the economics here, and it assumes a myriad of contract issues could be worked out to make it happen. And all that is not the only problem..
|
|