|
|
Post by bbg95 on Oct 19, 2021 17:45:38 GMT -5
My understanding is that the ~$20-25m Big 12 projections don't include the tier-3 rights because the Big 12 doesn't have a TV network unlike the SEC, Big Ten, ACC and Pac-12. So I'm not sure what the actual number will be (if the Big 12 continues to let schools retain their tier-3 rights, then some schools stand to make significantly more from those rights than others), though it will of course still be less than with Texas and Oklahoma. I agree that Utah and Colorado (and Arizona and Arizona State) wouldn't move as long as USC (the Pac-12 version of Texas) stays. But if they leave? Those are the TV numbers I have heard discussed. Not sure they really mean much untill they are market tested. They are about halfway between the AAC and ACC/P12. The real issue happens when the College Football Playoff is reconfigured. When that conversation happens what does everyone want: SEC - they want as many teams in the playoff from the SEC as possible each year. This means limiting the number of automatic invites to conference champions and making the playoff big enough to have 3-4 potential SEC teams. Alliance (B10/P12/ACC) - they are all going to want a guaranteed playoff spot. Group of 5 - they are going to want a spot to the best Group of 5 team so at least they have something to play for. B12 - they are going to want a guaranteed playoff spot like the Alliance. It is pretty easy to see how this ends. The SEC trades what it wants for spots to the Alliance. After that, they might reserve a single spot for everyone else or just say the other spots go to the best teams. No one is going to be on the B12's side to give them a guaranteed spot. They can refuse to agree and join but who really cares? Once the B12 is essentially a group of 5 team then what are their TV rights worth?  ? If I was the Pac-12, I would worry more about keeping USC happy than what the Big 12 is doing. I'm very skeptical that the "alliance" will amount to much in the long run. If USC leaves (and they should really be thinking about it), then the rest of the Pac-12 will likely be worse off than the Big 12 is now. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 19, 2021 20:01:25 GMT -5
Well, there are a number of different rankings, but I was talking about the USNWR rankings. FWIW, the main three university academic rankings are the QS rankings, the THE rankings, and the ARWU rankings. ARWU is what used to be known as the Shanghai rankings, and QS-THE used to be a partnership before they split up into being competitors. US News has always been focused on some rather questionable metrics, like "selectivity". It also includes elements of economic value (like tuition and average debt of the students) rather than just academics. This approach makes some sense when you look at ranking schools based on their value to people who want to select an undergraduate program, but it doesn't really reflect the overall academic performance and reputation of the schools, especially in professional, academic, and governmental circles. |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Oct 19, 2021 20:37:48 GMT -5
Well, there are a number of different rankings, but I was talking about the USNWR rankings. FWIW, the main three university academic rankings are the QS rankings, the THE rankings, and the ARWU rankings. ARWU is what used to be known as the Shanghai rankings, and QS-THE used to be a partnership before they split up into being competitors. US News has always been focused on some rather questionable metrics, like "selectivity". It also includes elements of economic value (like tuition and average debt of the students) rather than just academics. This approach makes some sense when you look at ranking schools based on their value to people who want to select an undergraduate program, but it doesn't really reflect the overall academic performance and reputation of the schools, especially in professional, academic, and governmental circles. A quick look into the three rankings you mentioned show that they all have plenty of detractors, so I don't know. Nevertheless, thanks for pointing them out. When I have some time, I'll try to do some research into their methodology. Oh, that reminds me. My sister has a PhD in chemistry and is a college professor and researcher. I asked her if being in the AAU was as important as some sports fans suggest...she didn't even know what it was. She said that being an R1 institution was important, but "nobody cares" about the AAU. To be fair, her university is not in the AAU, and I'm sure she's exaggerating because the AAU schools themselves seem to care, but still. With the way some sports fans talk about it, I thought everyone in academia would hold it in high regard. |
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Oct 19, 2021 21:09:21 GMT -5
FWIW, the main three university academic rankings are the QS rankings, the THE rankings, and the ARWU rankings. ARWU is what used to be known as the Shanghai rankings, and QS-THE used to be a partnership before they split up into being competitors. US News has always been focused on some rather questionable metrics, like "selectivity". It also includes elements of economic value (like tuition and average debt of the students) rather than just academics. This approach makes some sense when you look at ranking schools based on their value to people who want to select an undergraduate program, but it doesn't really reflect the overall academic performance and reputation of the schools, especially in professional, academic, and governmental circles. A quick look into the three rankings you mentioned show that they all have plenty of detractors, so I don't know. Nevertheless, thanks for pointing them out. When I have some time, I'll try to do some research into their methodology. Oh, that reminds me. My sister has a PhD in chemistry and is a college professor and researcher. I asked her if being in the AAU was as important as some sports fans suggest...she didn't even know what it was. She said that being an R1 institution was important, but "nobody cares" about the AAU. To be fair, her university is not in the AAU, and I'm sure she's exaggerating because the AAU schools themselves seem to care, but still. With the way some sports fans talk about it, I thought everyone in academia would hold it in high regard. Realistically the only times I've heard about the AAU is when the Big 10 and conference realignment is discussed. |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohn043 on Oct 19, 2021 23:42:00 GMT -5
Those are the TV numbers I have heard discussed. Not sure they really mean much untill they are market tested. They are about halfway between the AAC and ACC/P12. The real issue happens when the College Football Playoff is reconfigured. When that conversation happens what does everyone want: SEC - they want as many teams in the playoff from the SEC as possible each year. This means limiting the number of automatic invites to conference champions and making the playoff big enough to have 3-4 potential SEC teams. Alliance (B10/P12/ACC) - they are all going to want a guaranteed playoff spot. Group of 5 - they are going to want a spot to the best Group of 5 team so at least they have something to play for. B12 - they are going to want a guaranteed playoff spot like the Alliance. It is pretty easy to see how this ends. The SEC trades what it wants for spots to the Alliance. After that, they might reserve a single spot for everyone else or just say the other spots go to the best teams. No one is going to be on the B12's side to give them a guaranteed spot. They can refuse to agree and join but who really cares? Once the B12 is essentially a group of 5 team then what are their TV rights worth? ? If I was the Pac-12, I would worry more about keeping USC happy than what the Big 12 is doing. I'm very skeptical that the "alliance" will amount to much in the long run. If USC leaves (and they should really be thinking about it), then the rest of the Pac-12 will likely be worse off than the Big 12 is now. It is important to realize that most of the conference re-alignment has been the SWC and B8 breaking apart. The SEC hasn't lost anyone. The B10 hasn't lost anyone. The P10 hasn't lost anyone. Only the ACC has lost someone and that was Maryland. USC could get more money from the B10, but the logistical challenges are pretty significant. Particularly for sports other than Football. I think this is pretty unlikely.... |
|
|
|
Post by vbcoltrane on Oct 19, 2021 23:45:01 GMT -5
Temple really needs a better conference option. As long as it plays 1-A football I guess those options are limited. But there's got to be something closer.
|
|
|
|
Post by vbcoltrane on Oct 19, 2021 23:51:56 GMT -5
What’s your definition of “thematic fit” that makes Hawaii not a good fit for the PAC? We have covered this ground a million times now, but Hawaii would be really marginal as a PAC school. All the other schools are bigger except Stanford. All the other schools have a "travel partner" (although Utah and Colorado kind of push that). The least "researchy" schools in the PAC are Oregon and WSU, and Hawaii falls in with them in that regard. It would have the smallest endowment of all the PAC schools by a large gap. It's just not a good fit. Hawaii fits MUCH better with the smaller schools in the Big West. It's not at all clear why the PAC would want to take Hawaii. And it's also not clear that it would be a good move for Hawaii to try to spend the money to compete in the PAC. They don't have the economic base. Just look at how Rutgers is struggling in the Big Ten. Rutgers was super-excited to join the Big Ten, but now they are running a massive debt. www.northjersey.com/story/news/2021/09/15/rutgers-athletics-debt-investigation-takeaways-report-big-ten/8324221002/I'd think the main reason has nothing to do with institutional fit. The PAC simply has NO reason to include a school that is a pain to travel to when they already have a good set of "mainland" schools. Also, football and to a much lesser degree basketball is really the only consideration. That Hawaii is a legacy VB program doesn't matter. Boise St. or San Diego State would be PAC members before Hawaii. |
|
|
|
Post by vbcoltrane on Oct 20, 2021 0:01:11 GMT -5
BYU is going to Big 12? Any link to this announcement? Here you go. BYU is joining, along with Cincinnati, Houston and UCF. It's likely that this will happen for the 2023-2024 season. Honestly, not a bad conference at all
Cincy BYU Houston UCF
Kansas Kansas St. Okla St. Iowa St.
Baylor Texas Tech West Virgina TCU
Not bad at all. Maybe it won't be the revenue generator of the BIG 10, ACC, SEC, and lesser extent PAC 12, but that's a solid conference. This is assuming it all holds together until this setup is actually in place - i.e., no more current members leave.
|
|
|
|
Post by geddyleeridesagain on Oct 20, 2021 0:12:21 GMT -5
Here you go. BYU is joining, along with Cincinnati, Houston and UCF. It's likely that this will happen for the 2023-2024 season. Honestly, not a bad conference at all Cincy BYU Houston UCF Kansas Kansas St. Okla St. Iowa St. Baylor Texas Tech West Virgina TCU Not bad at all. Maybe it won't be the revenue generator of the BIG 10, ACC, SEC, and lesser extent PAC 12, but that's a solid conference. This is assuming it all holds together until this setup is actually in place - i.e., no more current members leave.
It’s a very serviceable football conference and one hell of a MBB conference. |
|
|
|
Post by azvolleydad on Oct 20, 2021 0:22:53 GMT -5
NCAA = deck chairs on the titanic
|
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Oct 20, 2021 0:24:33 GMT -5
This was a good read.
|
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017), All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2016), 2021, 2019 Fantasy League Champion, 2020 Fantasy League Runner Up, 2022 2nd Runner Up
Posts: 31,517 
|
Post by trojansc on Oct 20, 2021 1:27:52 GMT -5
East x Charlotte (140) East Carolina (193) x FAU (239) Memphis (208) South Florida (218) Temple (244) x UAB (155) West x North Texas (114) x Rice (30) SMU (100) Tulane (122) Tulsa (172) x UTSA (186) Wichita (95) I wonder what the AAC will do in this format if this all ends up happening. A conference tournament should be had. I don't like the route the C-USA has gone though with 'only' playing divisional opponents. I wish there was one less team in each division so they could go the route of 2019 AAC. Play your division twice, other division once, and meet for a conference tournament with six teams. Less conference games than this year, plus a conference tournament which is RPI beneficial by limiting it to only 6 teams. The West Division would be clearly superior. Though, some in the east have had success with their foreign recruits and could get hot a season or two. |
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 13,300
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 20, 2021 6:31:21 GMT -5
Honestly, not a bad conference at all Cincy BYU Houston UCF Kansas Kansas St. Okla St. Iowa St. Baylor Texas Tech West Virgina TCU Not bad at all. Maybe it won't be the revenue generator of the BIG 10, ACC, SEC, and lesser extent PAC 12, but that's a solid conference. This is assuming it all holds together until this setup is actually in place - i.e., no more current members leave.
It’s a very serviceable football conference and one hell of a MBB conference. And a slightly better volleyball conference. |
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 13,300
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 20, 2021 6:38:47 GMT -5
My understanding is that the ~$20-25m Big 12 projections don't include the tier-3 rights because the Big 12 doesn't have a TV network unlike the SEC, Big Ten, ACC and Pac-12. So I'm not sure what the actual number will be (if the Big 12 continues to let schools retain their tier-3 rights, then some schools stand to make significantly more from those rights than others), though it will of course still be less than with Texas and Oklahoma. I agree that Utah and Colorado (and Arizona and Arizona State) wouldn't move as long as USC (the Pac-12 version of Texas) stays. But if they leave? Those are the TV numbers I have heard discussed. Not sure they really mean much untill they are market tested. They are about halfway between the AAC and ACC/P12. The real issue happens when the College Football Playoff is reconfigured. When that conversation happens what does everyone want: SEC - they want as many teams in the playoff from the SEC as possible each year. This means limiting the number of automatic invites to conference champions and making the playoff big enough to have 3-4 potential SEC teams. Alliance (B10/P12/ACC) - they are all going to want a guaranteed playoff spot. Group of 5 - they are going to want a spot to the best Group of 5 team so at least they have something to play for. B12 - they are going to want a guaranteed playoff spot like the Alliance. It is pretty easy to see how this ends. The SEC trades what it wants for spots to the Alliance. After that, they might reserve a single spot for everyone else or just say the other spots go to the best teams. No one is going to be on the B12's side to give them a guaranteed spot. They can refuse to agree and join but who really cares? Once the B12 is essentially a group of 5 team then what are their TV rights worth? ? The alliance will want the B12 around to dilute the # of SEC teams in the new CPS. If the B12 is football relevant at the time the CPS is being finalized, then they will be treated more like a P5 conference than a G5 conference. Timing is important - there is a reason they want/need Cincinnati. Why BYU, UCF and Houston make sense. It is essential to the B12 that they are treated like a P5 conference - and that is to be determined. |
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 13,300
|
Post by bluepenquin on Oct 20, 2021 6:52:44 GMT -5
No, it was the Big 10 for Kansas. I remember being specifically told Kansas was the single most attractive remaining property outside the ACC/SEC/PAC12/B1G It is possible this could be true; and they are still not worth being added to any of those conferences. Assuming Notre Dame is among the above 4 conferences. |
|
?
