menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
Ohio Football Topic
Topic: PAC 12 --> BIG 16
Page: 1 of 2
mail
spongeBOB CATpants
6/30/2022 2:51 PM
UCLA + USC coming to the Midwest.
mail
person
GoCats105
6/30/2022 3:14 PM
Really feels like we're headed toward some sort of quasi minor league for the NFL. In which case, take your 32 top college teams and seperate them. Hell, make it 64. Each NFL team gets two farm systems.

Just rip the damn band aid off and do it at this point. Let the rest scrap for an actual National Championship in college football.
mail
spongeBOB CATpants
6/30/2022 3:26 PM
IMO this would erase any shot either school has to make the CFP (not that they had any shot in the PAC12 to begin with). They may be banking on expansion of the CFP but I don't see how they can go unscathed AND win the conference championship game in the big 16.

They won't win the NIL war either.
mail
person
ctb
6/30/2022 4:39 PM
I can’t express enough how much I hate the direction college football is going. We’re going to end up with two super-conferences and then everyone else.
mail
spongeBOB CATpants
6/30/2022 4:55 PM
I like the idea of having a P5 and G5 CFP. At that point I couldn't care less what changes were made at the P5 level.
mail
person
GoCats105
6/30/2022 5:47 PM
The Indianas and Rutgers and Mississippi States of the world will soon be what the MAC, Sun Belt and C-USA represent in scheduling terms. Those smaller conferences will be the new FCS. The SEC and Big Ten pushing towards autonomy so they can govern themselves and keep all the money is going to happen eventually.
mail
person
colobobcat66
6/30/2022 6:16 PM
spongeBOB CATpants wrote:expand_more
IMO this would erase any shot either school has to make the CFP (not that they had any shot in the PAC12 to begin with). They may be banking on expansion of the CFP but I don't see how they can go unscathed AND win the conference championship game in the big 16.

They won't win the NIL war either.
USC has more endowment money than almost anybody else we’re talking about (= rich alumni). They’re also in the number 2 metro area in the US.

They also won an NIL battle with almost every big name to sign the number 1 receiver from last year.

Why wouldn’t they win the NIL war? Just wondering
Last Edited: 7/1/2022 7:54:12 AM by colobobcat66
mail
person
GoCats105
6/30/2022 7:03 PM
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

https://twitter.com/BrianWGR/status/1542609847476260865?s...
mail
person
Pataskala
6/30/2022 9:35 PM
GoCats105 wrote:expand_more
The Indianas and Rutgers and Mississippi States of the world will soon be what the MAC, Sun Belt and C-USA represent in scheduling terms. Those smaller conferences will be the new FCS. The SEC and Big Ten pushing towards autonomy so they can govern themselves and keep all the money is going to happen eventually.
Those B10 and SEC teams, and others, are just along for the money ride now. They don't expect to win in football (maybe b-ball) but just want to cash that media rights paycheck every month.

Eventually they'll just stop pretending that we're all in the same division and have a B10-SEC championship and another for the rest of us. I think the best G5 teams could compete with B12, ACC and what's left of the Pac-12 for a title. In the meantime I wouldn't be surprised if Congress and maybe the DOJ started looking into whether all this consolidation is anticompetitive.
mail
spongeBOB CATpants
7/1/2022 10:44 AM
colobobcat66 wrote:expand_more
IMO this would erase any shot either school has to make the CFP (not that they had any shot in the PAC12 to begin with). They may be banking on expansion of the CFP but I don't see how they can go unscathed AND win the conference championship game in the big 16.

They won't win the NIL war either.
USC has more endowment money than almost anybody else we’re talking about (= rich alumni). They’re also in the number 2 metro area in the US.

They also won an NIL battle with almost every big name to sign the number 1 receiver from last year.

Why wouldn’t they win the NIL war? Just wondering
Don't you think those rich alum are going to get sick and tired of shelling out big checks to lose every year? I don't see how any rich alum is going to be happy about this decision unless they are pumped up to make road trips to Iowa, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Indiana, etc.

The people that I know out west make fun of the midwest at any chance they get.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
7/1/2022 1:23 PM
Pataskala wrote:expand_more
The Indianas and Rutgers and Mississippi States of the world will soon be what the MAC, Sun Belt and C-USA represent in scheduling terms. Those smaller conferences will be the new FCS. The SEC and Big Ten pushing towards autonomy so they can govern themselves and keep all the money is going to happen eventually.
Those B10 and SEC teams, and others, are just along for the money ride now. They don't expect to win in football (maybe b-ball) but just want to cash that media rights paycheck every month.

Eventually they'll just stop pretending that we're all in the same division and have a B10-SEC championship and another for the rest of us. I think the best G5 teams could compete with B12, ACC and what's left of the Pac-12 for a title. In the meantime I wouldn't be surprised if Congress and maybe the DOJ started looking into whether all this consolidation is anticompetitive.
I'm not sure I follow the anticompetitive component. Isn't this far more competitive than the system that's existed for decades? Prior we had major bowl games with conference tie ins and a huge group of also-rans who weren't eligible for said major bowl games. We've since transitioned to a 4 team playoff in which the same restrictions exist for ~60% of football teams at the FBS level.

I fail to see how one of the conferences getting 4 teams larger changes things. The G5 teams have spent the last several decades willingly participating at a level in which they're not eligible to win anything meaningful, all in exchange for some buy games and a bit of revenue share flow down.

To pretend after decades of lack of competition that competition somehow matters now -- when all along for the G5 teams all that mattered was access to that flow down cash, is pretty disingenuous.
mail
person
colobobcat66
7/1/2022 1:48 PM
spongeBOB CATpants wrote:expand_more
IMO this would erase any shot either school has to make the CFP (not that they had any shot in the PAC12 to begin with). They may be banking on expansion of the CFP but I don't see how they can go unscathed AND win the conference championship game in the big 16.

They won't win the NIL war either.
USC has more endowment money than almost anybody else we’re talking about (= rich alumni). They’re also in the number 2 metro area in the US.

They also won an NIL battle with almost every big name to sign the number 1 receiver from last year.

Why wouldn’t they win the NIL war? Just wondering
Don't you think those rich alum are going to get sick and tired of shelling out big checks to lose every year? I don't see how any rich alum is going to be happy about this decision unless they are pumped up to make road trips to Iowa, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Indiana, etc.

The people that I know out west make fun of the midwest at any chance they get.

We’ll have to see which team runs out of money first , won’t we?
Most alums don’t go to road games, and hey they’ll fly in their private jets if they do go.
mail
person
giacomo
7/3/2022 4:51 PM
Back in the day it was a somewhat level playing field. Of course the bigger conferences had more money and had an advantage, but not like today. Even the bottom half of the P5 will struggle in this environment. They are expected to spend the same as their peers, but really shouldn’t. Things are changing. Even though the players can make money, I’m not sure it’s better for them. I’ll get on my soapbox about coaches salaries again. Their enormous salaries show the world that the money is there and everyone now has their hands out.
mail
person
Victory
7/3/2022 5:19 PM
GoCats105 wrote:expand_more
The Indianas and Rutgers and Mississippi States of the world will soon be what the MAC, Sun Belt and C-USA represent in scheduling terms. Those smaller conferences will be the new FCS. The SEC and Big Ten pushing towards autonomy so they can govern themselves and keep all the money is going to happen eventually.
I saw where Mike Gundy of OkSU said that only about 20 schools can get into the derby of competing for talent using NIL and that, for them, NIL is about getting everyone some spending money. People have been saying for years that the P5 will eventually leave the NCAA. I have always felt that, instead, the 30 or so schools that could actually buy talent would leave the P5. I think this move for USC and UCLA is to make 100% certain that they control their destiny if that happens as much as anything. But you have to figure that the powerful schools will find a way to jettison the lowest revenue schools that are long time members of the Big Ten and SEC.
mail
OhioCatFan
7/3/2022 5:52 PM
This house of cards is about to implode, and not in the way most people think. College athletics are in for a very rough time. Pataskala was on the right track in one of his recent posts. I guess we can say that we are living interesting times.
mail
person
Pataskala
7/4/2022 10:57 AM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
The Indianas and Rutgers and Mississippi States of the world will soon be what the MAC, Sun Belt and C-USA represent in scheduling terms. Those smaller conferences will be the new FCS. The SEC and Big Ten pushing towards autonomy so they can govern themselves and keep all the money is going to happen eventually.
Those B10 and SEC teams, and others, are just along for the money ride now. They don't expect to win in football (maybe b-ball) but just want to cash that media rights paycheck every month.

Eventually they'll just stop pretending that we're all in the same division and have a B10-SEC championship and another for the rest of us. I think the best G5 teams could compete with B12, ACC and what's left of the Pac-12 for a title. In the meantime I wouldn't be surprised if Congress and maybe the DOJ started looking into whether all this consolidation is anticompetitive.
I'm not sure I follow the anticompetitive component. Isn't this far more competitive than the system that's existed for decades? Prior we had major bowl games with conference tie ins and a huge group of also-rans who weren't eligible for said major bowl games. We've since transitioned to a 4 team playoff in which the same restrictions exist for ~60% of football teams at the FBS level.

I fail to see how one of the conferences getting 4 teams larger changes things. The G5 teams have spent the last several decades willingly participating at a level in which they're not eligible to win anything meaningful, all in exchange for some buy games and a bit of revenue share flow down.

To pretend after decades of lack of competition that competition somehow matters now -- when all along for the G5 teams all that mattered was access to that flow down cash, is pretty disingenuous.
The DOJ at least looks at the effect consolidation has on such things pricing, product output and some other factors. They have a formula they use (the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index) to determine how market concentration affects competitiveness. If the result of the formula falls outside certain parameters, they can challenge the consolidation. As for Congress, all they need is for somebody to complain (or maybe just for a key member of Congress to have a grudge) and they can put pressure on conferences.

I've come to the conclusion that in order to get into the B10 (and maybe the SEC) a school must rebrand itself as a preeminent "research institution." That's the phrase that paid in B10's last two expansions. It has nothing to do with athletics. Instead, it's all about the huge amounts of cash that PBS and The Learning Channel have shelled out to provide live coverage of the schools' research projects.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
7/4/2022 12:01 PM
Pataskala wrote:expand_more
The Indianas and Rutgers and Mississippi States of the world will soon be what the MAC, Sun Belt and C-USA represent in scheduling terms. Those smaller conferences will be the new FCS. The SEC and Big Ten pushing towards autonomy so they can govern themselves and keep all the money is going to happen eventually.
Those B10 and SEC teams, and others, are just along for the money ride now. They don't expect to win in football (maybe b-ball) but just want to cash that media rights paycheck every month.

Eventually they'll just stop pretending that we're all in the same division and have a B10-SEC championship and another for the rest of us. I think the best G5 teams could compete with B12, ACC and what's left of the Pac-12 for a title. In the meantime I wouldn't be surprised if Congress and maybe the DOJ started looking into whether all this consolidation is anticompetitive.
I'm not sure I follow the anticompetitive component. Isn't this far more competitive than the system that's existed for decades? Prior we had major bowl games with conference tie ins and a huge group of also-rans who weren't eligible for said major bowl games. We've since transitioned to a 4 team playoff in which the same restrictions exist for ~60% of football teams at the FBS level.

I fail to see how one of the conferences getting 4 teams larger changes things. The G5 teams have spent the last several decades willingly participating at a level in which they're not eligible to win anything meaningful, all in exchange for some buy games and a bit of revenue share flow down.

To pretend after decades of lack of competition that competition somehow matters now -- when all along for the G5 teams all that mattered was access to that flow down cash, is pretty disingenuous.
The DOJ at least looks at the effect consolidation has on such things pricing, product output and some other factors. They have a formula they use (the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index) to determine how market concentration affects competitiveness. If the result of the formula falls outside certain parameters, they can challenge the consolidation. As for Congress, all they need is for somebody to complain (or maybe just for a key member of Congress to have a grudge) and they can put pressure on conferences.

I've come to the conclusion that in order to get into the B10 (and maybe the SEC) a school must rebrand itself as a preeminent "research institution." That's the phrase that paid in B10's last two expansions. It has nothing to do with athletics. Instead, it's all about the huge amounts of cash that PBS and The Learning Channel have shelled out to provide live coverage of the schools' research projects.
Yeah, I understand that the DOJ examines these things. I'm just curious what it is in particular about the most recent shifts that makes things she less competitive than they already were.

To me, this most recent round of realignment is a direct reaction to the shot across the bow from the Supreme Court. We're headed to a place where the model has to change. The Supreme Court has basically said that they'd rule the current and historical state of college athletics to be anti-competitive, so it's not clear to me how maintenance of that is competitive but shifts away from it would be anti-competitive.
mail
person
Pataskala
7/4/2022 2:27 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
The Indianas and Rutgers and Mississippi States of the world will soon be what the MAC, Sun Belt and C-USA represent in scheduling terms. Those smaller conferences will be the new FCS. The SEC and Big Ten pushing towards autonomy so they can govern themselves and keep all the money is going to happen eventually.
Those B10 and SEC teams, and others, are just along for the money ride now. They don't expect to win in football (maybe b-ball) but just want to cash that media rights paycheck every month.

Eventually they'll just stop pretending that we're all in the same division and have a B10-SEC championship and another for the rest of us. I think the best G5 teams could compete with B12, ACC and what's left of the Pac-12 for a title. In the meantime I wouldn't be surprised if Congress and maybe the DOJ started looking into whether all this consolidation is anticompetitive.
I'm not sure I follow the anticompetitive component. Isn't this far more competitive than the system that's existed for decades? Prior we had major bowl games with conference tie ins and a huge group of also-rans who weren't eligible for said major bowl games. We've since transitioned to a 4 team playoff in which the same restrictions exist for ~60% of football teams at the FBS level.

I fail to see how one of the conferences getting 4 teams larger changes things. The G5 teams have spent the last several decades willingly participating at a level in which they're not eligible to win anything meaningful, all in exchange for some buy games and a bit of revenue share flow down.

To pretend after decades of lack of competition that competition somehow matters now -- when all along for the G5 teams all that mattered was access to that flow down cash, is pretty disingenuous.
The DOJ at least looks at the effect consolidation has on such things pricing, product output and some other factors. They have a formula they use (the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index) to determine how market concentration affects competitiveness. If the result of the formula falls outside certain parameters, they can challenge the consolidation. As for Congress, all they need is for somebody to complain (or maybe just for a key member of Congress to have a grudge) and they can put pressure on conferences.

I've come to the conclusion that in order to get into the B10 (and maybe the SEC) a school must rebrand itself as a preeminent "research institution." That's the phrase that paid in B10's last two expansions. It has nothing to do with athletics. Instead, it's all about the huge amounts of cash that PBS and The Learning Channel have shelled out to provide live coverage of the schools' research projects.
Yeah, I understand that the DOJ examines these things. I'm just curious what it is in particular about the most recent shifts that makes things she less competitive than they already were.

To me, this most recent round of realignment is a direct reaction to the shot across the bow from the Supreme Court. We're headed to a place where the model has to change. The Supreme Court has basically said that they'd rule the current and historical state of college athletics to be anti-competitive, so it's not clear to me how maintenance of that is competitive but shifts away from it would be anti-competitive.
SCOTUS was looking at the relationship between schools and athletes, not among schools. Consolidation hurts competition by making it more difficult to compete. It could be argued that the Pac-12-minus-two is now less attractive to students because they won't be playing teams in the #2 media market in the U.S., so getting elite recruits will be more difficult. It might also be more difficult to hire top-level coaches. The conference could also be less attractive to ticket-buying fans -- especially at Cal and Stanford -- because the two most storied programs are now gone. This is especially true if they have to replace them with schools that are less desirable to fans. It sometimes doesn't take much for the DOJ to dig into things. The National Association of Broadcasters used to have a code for advertising and programming. In the late '70s the DOJ looked at it as part of a training exercise and found it to be anticompetitive. The DOJ and an advertiser sued, and in less than ten years the NAB Code was gone. I'm not saying the same thing will happen here, but it's a possibility.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
7/4/2022 5:39 PM
Pataskala wrote:expand_more
SCOTUS was looking at the relationship between schools and athletes, not among schools. [/QUOTE]Yep, and SCOTUS's view was pretty unambiguous that it believes the NCAA's model is anti-competitive in how it limits earning potential of NCAA athletes. Given that context, and the inevitability of the case eventually being heard by SCOTUS, we're going to see a lot of schools doing what they can to find as much TV money as possible.


[QUOTE=Pataskala]
Consolidation hurts competition by making it more difficult to compete. It could be argued that the Pac-12-minus-two is now less attractive to students because they won't be playing teams in the #2 media market in the U.S., so getting elite recruits will be more difficult. It might also be more difficult to hire top-level coaches. The conference could also be less attractive to ticket-buying fans -- especially at Cal and Stanford -- because the two most storied programs are now gone.
Who is making this case? The individual schools -- i.e. the non-for-profit academic institutions whose missions are unrelated to recruiting football players?

For decades the NCAA and member schools have been insisting that college athletics aren't a business and that they're non-profits. The idea that they're now going to appeal to the DOJ because UCLA and USC went to a new conference and they need an anti-trust investigation to save their definitely-not-a-business from losing money feels strange to me.

In the context of the DOJ, competitiveness isn't about on-field parity. It's about businesses can't lessen competition within markets. I've been told by these very schools and their governing body that this isn't a market. So, shouldn't be a problem, no?
mail
person
Pataskala
7/4/2022 6:17 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
SCOTUS was looking at the relationship between schools and athletes, not among schools.
Yep, and SCOTUS's view was pretty unambiguous that it believes the NCAA's model is anti-competitive in how it limits earning potential of NCAA athletes. Given that context, and the inevitability of the case eventually being heard by SCOTUS, we're going to see a lot of schools doing what they can to find as much TV money as possible.


Consolidation hurts competition by making it more difficult to compete. It could be argued that the Pac-12-minus-two is now less attractive to students because they won't be playing teams in the #2 media market in the U.S., so getting elite recruits will be more difficult. It might also be more difficult to hire top-level coaches. The conference could also be less attractive to ticket-buying fans -- especially at Cal and Stanford -- because the two most storied programs are now gone.
Who is making this case? The individual schools -- i.e. the non-for-profit academic institutions whose missions are unrelated to recruiting football players?

For decades the NCAA and member schools have been insisting that college athletics aren't a business and that they're non-profits. The idea that they're now going to appeal to the DOJ because UCLA and USC went to a new conference and they need an anti-trust investigation to save their definitely-not-a-business from losing money feels strange to me.

In the context of the DOJ, competitiveness isn't about on-field parity. It's about businesses can't lessen competition within markets. I've been told by these very schools and their governing body that this isn't a market. So, shouldn't be a problem, no?
Maybe that's what they said in the past, but SCOTUS pretty much the kabosh on that lie. And once they started pricing tickets based on the nature of the opponent and the number of tickets left, their noses started growing every time they said "we're just a non-profit." Someday, maybe when the vast majority of the "elite" players become concentrated in one or two conferences, somebody's finally going to fess up to reality. Maybe when they start losing season ticketholders in droves.
mail
person
giacomo
7/18/2022 6:07 PM
I read something today that said California will not allow UCLA to make this move. USC is okay, as they are a private institution. The source said they can and will withhold state subsidies.
mail
person
Pataskala
7/18/2022 9:29 PM
giacomo wrote:expand_more
I read something today that said California will not allow UCLA to make this move. USC is okay, as they are a private institution. The source said they can and will withhold state subsidies.
Newsome is throwing a temper tantrum because UCLA didn't consult the Board of Regents first, as it was supposed to. Once they fill in that gap and explain how being in the B10 is a lot better for debt-ridden UCLA, that might mollify him.
mail
person
GoCats105
7/19/2022 10:41 AM
Pataskala wrote:expand_more
I read something today that said California will not allow UCLA to make this move. USC is okay, as they are a private institution. The source said they can and will withhold state subsidies.
Newsome is throwing a temper tantrum because UCLA didn't consult the Board of Regents first, as it was supposed to. Once they fill in that gap and explain how being in the B10 is a lot better for debt-ridden UCLA, that might mollify him.
Yeah you can bet that most of the screaming from the University of California system is coming from the school up in the Bay Area that's in even worse shape financially, partially because they built their football stadium on a damn fault line and it's at risk of crumbling. And as it stands now, Cal is probably going to be left behind in the event a dissolution of the PAC 12 occurs. They don't have the finances or frankly, the support from the Berkeley community to continue as an Independent*.

*If they didn't get invited to a conference, which at this point they aren't on anyone's short list.
Last Edited: 7/19/2022 10:41:44 AM by GoCats105
mail
OhioCatFan
7/19/2022 11:19 AM

GoCats105 wrote:expand_more
Yeah you can bet that most of the screaming from the University of California system is coming from the school up in the Bay Area that's in even worse shape financially, partially because they built their football stadium on a damn fault line and it's at risk of crumbling. And as it stands now, Cal is probably going to be left behind in the event a dissolution of the PAC 12 occurs. They don't have the finances or frankly, the support from the Berkeley community to continue as an Independent*.

*If they didn't get invited to a conference, which at this point they aren't on anyone's short list. 

So, then the MAC adds UCB and former Pac-8 Member Idaho for a national footprint? sad cheeky cool

mail
person
colobobcat66
7/19/2022 11:38 AM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
Yeah you can bet that most of the screaming from the University of California system is coming from the school up in the Bay Area that's in even worse shape financially, partially because they built their football stadium on a damn fault line and it's at risk of crumbling. And as it stands now, Cal is probably going to be left behind in the event a dissolution of the PAC 12 occurs. They don't have the finances or frankly, the support from the Berkeley community to continue as an Independent*.

*If they didn't get invited to a conference, which at this point they aren't on anyone's short list.

So, then the MAC adds UCB and former Pac-8 Member Idaho for a national footprint?
We could probably get Washington state and Oregon state as well and Dixie State from Utah (if they haven’t changed their name yet). Why not think big.
Showing Messages: 1 - 25 of 32
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_forward
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)