|
Grittybeard posted:I've been waiting for an excuse to use this again. I remember being super hyped about the Big East when I first went to campus  Realistically, no way Cinci deserves to be in a major conference. Even people in Cincinnati don't care about UC, but man it would be nice. ACC would be the coolest and best fit since there's lots of fairweather football fans and Louisville in that conference too, but it's not gonna happen. We have tens of people attend our bowl games, it would be so out of place in the B12. Ellipson fucked around with this message at 06:08 on Jan 22, 2016 |
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 08:20 |
|
|
Helloquote:The University of Cincinnati is refusing to release emails, travel records and other public documents regarding the possibility of it gaining membership in the Big 12 Conference, which may consider expansion later this week.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
Goetta posted:Hello Nope
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
I refuse to believe Santa Ono is a real name a person has on this earth
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
Sash! posted:I refuse to believe Santa Ono is a real name a person has on this earth He's married to a woman named Gwendolyn Yip which a downright fun name to say
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
News: Viacom stock is tumbling after their latest earnings report Views: Do you see this David Boren? Do you see this? Shut the gently caress up about thinking a conference network is something worth pursuing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
Thoguh posted:News: Viacom stock is tumbling after their latest earnings report Does Viacom own one of the conference networks?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
Frackie Robinson posted:Does Viacom own one of the conference networks? No. But they own a bunch of cable channels are this reiterates that people are cutting cable and that is causing a drop in revenue across the board, indicating that a conference network that gets their money from people having cable vs. people wanting to watch your matchups is not going to be as viable going forward as it has been in the past.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
kayakyakr posted:The point I am making there is that the Big XII hedged and lost. They declared co-champs in the hopes they could sneak the two in, thinking there was a good chance for Wisconsin and GT to pull the upsets. Neither of those things happened and the commissioner wound up with egg on his face. No. No they did not. That did not happen, and as a B12 fan you of all people should know better. That decision was not made at the end of the season. It could not be made at the end of the season. It had nothing to do with Wisconsin or GT. The rules for the tournament and declaring a winner had been declared long in advance, and agreed upon by all the teams. The commissioner could not just unilaterally take back the hardware from a co-champ who won it fair and square under the rules everyone agreed to. I guess starting this narrative is not as bad as enabling rapists, but I'm still going to add it to the list of reasons I do not like football coach Art Briles. It was asinine of him to demand it, and it is asinine that everyone ran with his insane suggestion that it was possible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
IMO the Group of Five should look into conference networks. But not as like, individual conferences. One Group of Five channel for everybody. Hell bring in Ivy Leagues and FCS teams too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
The fact that the Big 12 rules allow for co-champions to exist and it wasn't just a plot to try to get two teams in the playoff and/or gently caress over Baylor doesn't change the fact that conferences having co-champions is dumb and should not happen in the twenty-first century.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
Pakled posted:The fact that the Big 12 rules allow for co-champions to exist and it wasn't just a plot to try to get two teams in the playoff and/or gently caress over Baylor doesn't change the fact that conferences having co-champions is dumb and should not happen in the twenty-first century. Part of that was due to the fact that they needed to petition the NCAA to allow them to have a championship game, and I think the NCAA denied it at first since they didn't have divisions anymore. Naming 2 teams as co-champs was a pretty silly gamble though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Pakled posted:The fact that the Big 12 rules allow for co-champions to exist and it wasn't just a plot to try to get two teams in the playoff and/or gently caress over Baylor doesn't change the fact that conferences having co-champions is dumb and should not happen in the twenty-first century. What about the fact that the rules allowed for that and they spent an entire season putting "One True Champion" commercials on my television? Who will pay for that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
Pakled posted:The fact that the Big 12 rules allow for co-champions to exist and it wasn't just a plot to try to get two teams in the playoff and/or gently caress over Baylor doesn't change the fact that conferences having co-champions is dumb and should not happen in the twenty-first century. That goes double when you roll out a huge "ONE TRUE CHAMPION" ad campaign after having co-champs in 2012 and a near-miss in 2013.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
Thermos H Christ posted:That goes double when you roll out a huge "ONE TRUE CHAMPION" ad campaign after having co-champs in 2012 and a near-miss in 2013. Yeah this was the hilarious part, more than anything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
DJExile posted:Part of that was due to the fact that they needed to petition the NCAA to allow them to have a championship game, and I think the NCAA denied it at first since they didn't have divisions anymore. Is there anything preventing them from having tiebreaker conditions to determine the champion if multiple teams have the same number of wins?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
Pakled posted:Is there anything preventing them from having tiebreaker conditions to determine the champion if multiple teams have the same number of wins? Not to my knowledge, no. TCU and Baylor both had pretty good arguments to make that year.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
Pakled posted:Is there anything preventing them from having tiebreaker conditions to determine the champion if multiple teams have the same number of wins? That exact thing was put in place prior to the 2015 season. No more co-champs. Also it sounds like there is discussion about the possibility of playing a round robin followed by a rematch between the top two teams for the championship. I go back and forth on whether that is awesome or the worst idea I have ever heard.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
Thermos H Christ posted:That exact thing was put in place prior to the 2015 season. No more co-champs. Also it sounds like there is discussion about the possibility of playing a round robin followed by a rematch between the top two teams for the championship. I go back and forth on whether that is awesome or the worst idea I have ever heard. It would be really cool, both because conference championship games own, and because of the shitstorm that would happen the first time a team beat someone in the championship that they lost to in the regular season.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
Pakled posted:It would be really cool, both because conference championship games own, and because of the shitstorm that would happen the first time a team beat someone in the championship that they lost to in the regular season. But I mean it's not like that scenario is so unlikely in a 12-team conference with divisional champions facing off after playing multiple cross-division games.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
Pakled posted:Is there anything preventing them from having tiebreaker conditions to determine the champion if multiple teams have the same number of wins? Why does it matter? If the two top teams have the same record, then everyone (the bowls included) pretty much acknowledges that the one that one the head to head is the de facto champion. Maybe they both get trophies, but who gives a poo poo? The selection committee in 2014 basically said, "gee, we sure wish the Big 12 hadn't forced us to use critical thinking to make a choice between Baylor and TCU", which is their entire job, and is such a colossally stupid stance to take that I wish the conference hadn't even dignified it with a response. Football worked this way for literally 100 years, conferences swapped to having championship games out of necessity (and money), not because everyone suddenly decided it was the superior way to do things. General Dog fucked around with this message at 00:00 on Feb 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
Thermos H Christ posted:No. No they did not. That did not happen, and as a B12 fan you of all people should know better. It would have been easy for them to declare Baylor champion and TCU co-champion. Or even declared Baylor as the Big XII's #1 team (would have gone to Sugar Bowl in Champions Bowl years) without breaking the co-champions thing. They hedged by presenting the teams as proper co-champions, not putting one over the other. They lost.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
14 team conferences are stupid. 10 teams with a round robin format is good. 12 teams with 2 divisions, a conference championship game with teams playing everyone at least once home & away per 4 years is good . 14 teams with convoluted schedule making is stupid. 16 team conferences make way more sense than 14 team conferences but it's baby steps to get there. Big problem for a 4- super conference approach is that 4 teams would have to go to the Pac-12. There really isn't any good options west of the Rockies to bring in new markets or tvs (SDSU, BSU, UNLV, BYU or New Mexico don't cut it). Most people out here think Colorado is WAY out there, so to think of needing to bring in some combination of 4 teams from Oklahoma, Kansas & Texas is far fetched but a necessity for the 16 team mega conference ideas. For TVs (where this is all about), Pac will likely try to take KU, OK, TEX & 1 other Texas team but will some how end up with K St, OK St TT & UTEP. I do like the 4 mega conference ideas where the CCG is the defacto Quarterfinal game to the 4 team playoff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
kayakyakr posted:It would have been easy for them to declare Baylor champion and TCU co-champion. Or even declared Baylor as the Big XII's #1 team (would have gone to Sugar Bowl in Champions Bowl years) without breaking the co-champions thing. They hedged by presenting the teams as proper co-champions, not putting one over the other. They lost. There was a tiebreaker in place to determine who got the BCS autobid in the event of co-champions during the BCS era. In 2014 there was not a BCS autobid involved, and there was no tiebreaker in place for the situation that arose. You wanted Bowlsby to just declare unilaterally that one of the champions was more champion than the other, and ask the committee to vote for them? That's ridiculous. He wasn't hedging a bet, he was just making the obvious choice not to do something he had no authority to do, which would have almost certainly kicked off litigation against the league and/or him personally.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
Thermos H Christ posted:There was a tiebreaker in place to determine who got the BCS autobid in the event of co-champions during the BCS era. In 2014 there was not a BCS autobid involved, and there was no tiebreaker in place for the situation that arose. You wanted Bowlsby to just declare unilaterally that one of the champions was more champion than the other, and ask the committee to vote for them? That's ridiculous. He wasn't hedging a bet, he was just making the obvious choice not to do something he had no authority to do, which would have almost certainly kicked off litigation against the league and/or him personally. There was a tiebreaker. There had to be a tiebreaker to determine who would represent the Big XII in the Champions Bowl. It was actually a really short tiebreaker, too, since it was just H2H. The rules said they would be declared co-champions but the winner of tiebreakers would represent the Big XII in the top auto-bowl.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
kayakyakr posted:There was a tiebreaker. There had to be a tiebreaker to determine who would represent the Big XII in the Champions Bowl. It was actually a really short tiebreaker, too, since it was just H2H. The rules said they would be declared co-champions but the winner of tiebreakers would represent the Big XII in the top auto-bowl. Yeah, and all the Big 12 did was reiterate what the rules are. It's absurd to think the Big 12 coming out and saying, "we're going to declare Baylor the for real, uncontested champ, contrary to our existing rules" would have made one bit of difference to anyone. If committee members are waiting with baited breath for someone to tell you what you need think about team A's head to head win over team B, then they are literally too stupid to live. General Dog fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Feb 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
Goetta posted:Hello This honestly isn't that surprising to me. They renovated Nippert fairly recently, and the basketball arena is actually pretty nice for the school. Plus they keep pouring money into the school since Ono has proven pretty effective at fundraising and budgeting for UC. I have a decent number of friends who work for the school who have been chattering for the last two years about them trying to jump to Power 5. The timing and cultural fit (all offense and no defense) are too good a fit to not pursue at least.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
Thermos H Christ posted:No. No they did not. That did not happen, and as a B12 fan you of all people should know better. He had a chance to forward Baylor as the team to the top bowl, except he spent hours all night with a dictionary figuring out exactly which loophole he could use to avoid doing that (due to his love of TCU's cheating and a desire to get two teams into the playoffs but mostly getting TCU in first because he felt "TCU was better" due to twitter Media trump bias). The obscure loophole he found was it said "bowl game" instead of "playoffs" and because this was the first playoffs he said there was no precedent for that and refused to forward Baylor, the #1 team in the world, as the #1 team in the conference. This except the first part (he could have and should have put them forward as the #1 team): kayakyakr posted:It would have been easy for them to declare Baylor champion and TCU co-champion. Or even declared Baylor as the Big XII's #1 team (would have gone to Sugar Bowl in Champions Bowl years) without breaking the co-champions thing. They hedged by presenting the teams as proper co-champions, not putting one over the other. They lost. Everyone knew they were co-champions based on the rules but he refused to name Baylor costing them our First Ever Championship except all the other championships we won, mostly AFFman Style.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 05:10
|
|
|
Thoguh posted:News: Viacom stock is tumbling after their latest earnings report Long term yes, but you can just as easily argue that they should get the money now because it's not going to exist soon. I have some inside info here in that I know for a fact that traditional cable companies as they exist now will be dead in five years, it will all be over the top ala Netflix. There will only be ISPs and no content providers. I know that everyone sees this as inevitable but hamstrung for now due to rights issues. However, one of the bigger players in cable is planning to flip the switch a lot sooner than you think. The reason is that internet is pure profit for them, while they make nothing off television because the rights are so expensive. Basically - I would be shocked if companies like Disney, Discovery, Viacom, Comcast, Fox, Time Warner, etc.. don't crater hard. The vhannels that will be well positioned will be the ones that can adapt to the new world. E.g., HBO will be fine because they never depended on mass coverage and can make money off content resale. Kim Jong Il fucked around with this message at 05:31 on Feb 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 05:20
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:Long term yes, but you can just as easily argue that they should get the money now because it's not going to exist soon. Dropping Truth Bombs that Cable TV Companies May Adjust their Business Plans Soon
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 05:24
|
|
|
I work in the industry and have literally seen the plans for this stuff starting to roll out in Q3 of this year and that's not publicly known. Of course it's well known that this is going to happen as a long term trend, it's just going to happen a lot sooner than people think.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 05:27
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:I work in the industry and have literally seen the plans for this stuff starting to roll out in Q3 of this year and that's not publicly known. Of course it's well known that this is going to happen as a long term trend, it's just going to happen a lot sooner than people think. How much are our internet rates going to increase for the same or less service?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
Big 12 should have went all in and just took FSU, Miami, Georgia Tech, and Clemson.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 13:13
|
|
|
kayakyakr posted:There was a tiebreaker. There had to be a tiebreaker to determine who would represent the Big XII in the Champions Bowl. It was actually a really short tiebreaker, too, since it was just H2H. The rules said they would be declared co-champions but the winner of tiebreakers would represent the Big XII in the top auto-bowl. OK, now point out where an auto-bid was at issue and the B12 failed to apply the tiebreaker.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:Long term yes, but you can just as easily argue that they should get the money now because it's not going to exist soon. To start a conference network they have to buy out the existing deals that all 10 schools have though. That would eat up a good chunk of any immediate profits since it would take a couple years of revenue to pay for that (especially since that includes making up for the insane amount Texas is making). Plus it would take a couple of years to get the network set up and actually on to cable network lineups. By then any window would probably be closed. Basically every school already has some form of digital network though. If they just want to band those together under a Big XII network banner then whatever. Only thing you'd have to do in that case is agree to a common subscription rate among schools and grant everybody access to all the content. Thoguh fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Feb 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
whiteyfats posted:Big 12 should have went all in and just took FSU, Miami, Georgia Tech, and Clemson. This is my dream scenario in the event of an ACC breakup. Maybe VT instead of Miami, but everyone seems to say they're more likely to end up in the SEC.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
Tank44 posted:Big problem for a 4- super conference approach is that 4 teams would have to go to the Pac-12. There really isn't any good options west of the Rockies to bring in new markets or tvs (SDSU, BSU, UNLV, BYU or New Mexico don't cut it). Most people out here think Colorado is WAY out there, so to think of needing to bring in some combination of 4 teams from Oklahoma, Kansas & Texas is far fetched but a necessity for the 16 team mega conference ideas. For TVs (where this is all about), Pac will likely try to take KU, OK, TEX & 1 other Texas team but will some how end up with K St, OK St TT & UTEP. This is the big point in my opinion. Pac-12 is at the size it can be and will be for quite a few years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
Iowa State could never survive with the I assume like $0.25 a year they get from mediacom to air THE CLONE ZONE on the cable channel that usually shows high school sports.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
MourningView posted:Iowa State could never survive with the I assume like $0.25 a year they get from mediacom to air THE CLONE ZONE on the cable channel that usually shows high school sports. Ya'll just jealous there's no Hawkeyes.TV
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 08:20 |
|
|
Actually didn't Iowa get legit mad about that cable channel and declare they were going to start their own even though the Big Ten Network owns all their rights? Did that ever get off the ground?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:32
|
|