CSNbbs

(11-28-2017 06:25 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-28-2017 05:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-28-2017 03:30 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-28-2017 02:53 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-28-2017 02:33 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]Try this on for size to compliment the SEC listed above:

B1G:

Illinois, Indiana, Northwestern, Ohio State, Purdue

Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Wisconsin

Colorado, Nebraska, Oregon, Utah, Washington

Arizona, California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal, Stanford

ACC:

Maryland, Notre Dame, Penn State, Rutgers, Syracuse

Boston College, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Wake Forest

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, T.C.U.

New P4 Conference:

Army, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Navy, Temple

Central Florida, East Carolina, Memphis, South Florida, Tulane

Baylor, Houston, Kansas State, Southern Methodist, Tulsa

Air Force, Arizona State, Oregon State, San Diego State, Washington State

I think the service academies might stick in the upper tier if these schools made up the bulk of their schedules.

Well, I don't think the B1G will shed any pieces.

Not sure what their solution will be, however, the PAC might be in such a precarious position that the two could benefit from each other.

I don't know they might. The wanted exposure in high density population areas. California is pretty big. Culturally speaking the Big 10 is more tied to the PAC historically than they are to the East Coast. Penn State is an odd fit, Rutgers and Maryland are still too new to count. If it brought balance and those three certainly complete the Northern portion of the ACC, then I could see it, especially with West Virginia joining in. But it would definitely have to be a brokered set up.

What I'm thinking is some sort of looser union.

B1G stays at 14 and the PAC stays at 12. Conduct each league's CCG as a semi final that feeds into a championship game for the union. Essentially the winners of each league play off against each other for the conference championship.

Everybody can keep their current schedule alignment and divisions. The difference is they combine their postseason events and share media rights. Perhaps they also help facilitate more regular season match-ups. No real additional travel costs and no one gets left out.

The problem I see with shedding Penn State, Rutgers, or Maryland is that they still provide value via market exposure. That's especially true for Penn State. I don't see the B1G giving them up and unless ESPN completely controls the media rights for the PAC then I don't see a mechanism to force the B1G's hand.

I think the union of the two would be a simpler solution.

But they provide less value by far than just the 4 California schools and we aren't even talking about Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Washington & Oregon. They gain far far more than they lose. And then there's the map. Those three are way out on the right limb of the Big 10 and are all 3 much more contiguous with the ACC. Strengthening the ACC would be the chief reason for those three to join West Virginia and T.C.U.. It strengthens their football profile, it strengthens their markets, and it strengthens their brands. Plus Penn State's more natural rivals would be in the ACC North. The same is true for WVU. And T.C.U. would be a valuable market and an easy trip hub to hub in their division.

Sure, it would be a coup for the ACC. I just don't know why the B1G would go for it.

Those NE schools are slightly outside the core of the league, yes, but not remotely as far out as any PAC school would be. Really, Colorado is the only current PAC school that's not extremely far away from virtually every B1G member. And CU isn't particularly close to most of them.

For Penn State, they are still one of the top brands in the country...one of the few who average more than 100K in attendance. Their fans dominate Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, and have a strong presence in NY/NJ. I know Rutgers and Maryland wouldn't be huge losses in the strictest sense, but they still added value to the current contract because there are so many people in the region. Most of those people couldn't care less about college football, but the same can be said for the population centers on the West Coast.

I mean, if the B1G shed those 3 in exchange for some PAC schools then they would ultimately gain more than they lost, true, but they'd be better off if they had both. I don't see a mechanism in place to force the B1G to give them up.

(11-28-2017 09:27 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-28-2017 06:25 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-28-2017 05:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-28-2017 03:30 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-28-2017 02:53 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]Well, I don't think the B1G will shed any pieces.

Not sure what their solution will be, however, the PAC might be in such a precarious position that the two could benefit from each other.

I don't know they might. The wanted exposure in high density population areas. California is pretty big. Culturally speaking the Big 10 is more tied to the PAC historically than they are to the East Coast. Penn State is an odd fit, Rutgers and Maryland are still too new to count. If it brought balance and those three certainly complete the Northern portion of the ACC, then I could see it, especially with West Virginia joining in. But it would definitely have to be a brokered set up.

What I'm thinking is some sort of looser union.

B1G stays at 14 and the PAC stays at 12. Conduct each league's CCG as a semi final that feeds into a championship game for the union. Essentially the winners of each league play off against each other for the conference championship.

Everybody can keep their current schedule alignment and divisions. The difference is they combine their postseason events and share media rights. Perhaps they also help facilitate more regular season match-ups. No real additional travel costs and no one gets left out.

The problem I see with shedding Penn State, Rutgers, or Maryland is that they still provide value via market exposure. That's especially true for Penn State. I don't see the B1G giving them up and unless ESPN completely controls the media rights for the PAC then I don't see a mechanism to force the B1G's hand.

I think the union of the two would be a simpler solution.

But they provide less value by far than just the 4 California schools and we aren't even talking about Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Washington & Oregon. They gain far far more than they lose. And then there's the map. Those three are way out on the right limb of the Big 10 and are all 3 much more contiguous with the ACC. Strengthening the ACC would be the chief reason for those three to join West Virginia and T.C.U.. It strengthens their football profile, it strengthens their markets, and it strengthens their brands. Plus Penn State's more natural rivals would be in the ACC North. The same is true for WVU. And T.C.U. would be a valuable market and an easy trip hub to hub in their division.

Sure, it would be a coup for the ACC. I just don't know why the B1G would go for it.

Those NE schools are slightly outside the core of the league, yes, but not remotely as far out as any PAC school would be. Really, Colorado is the only current PAC school that's not extremely far away from virtually every B1G member. And CU isn't particularly close to most of them.

For Penn State, they are still one of the top brands in the country...one of the few who average more than 100K in attendance. Their fans dominate Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, and have a strong presence in NY/NJ. I know Rutgers and Maryland wouldn't be huge losses in the strictest sense, but they still added value to the current contract because there are so many people in the region. Most of those people couldn't care less about college football, but the same can be said for the population centers on the West Coast.

I mean, if the B1G shed those 3 in exchange for some PAC schools then they would ultimately gain more than they lost, true, but they'd be better off if they had both. I don't see a mechanism in place to force the B1G to give them up.

20 is about all you can handle and still have an OOC game left on the schedule. The question is what are you willing to sacrifice in order to facilitate the AAU PAC schools? As far as a mechanism if the other 3 wanted to play more neighbors it's just a matter of freeing them from exit fees and that can be done by a vote.

The final phase of realignment is similar to the Gordian Knot, to solve such a problem we might have to call on the wisdom of Alexander and look for an alternate approach.

(11-30-2017 08:49 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]The final phase of realignment is similar to the Gordian Knot, to solve such a problem we might have to call on the wisdom of Alexander and look for an alternate approach.

Well Alexander took his sword and cut it. That's called thinking outside of the scabbard! So should we put Bevo and Sooner to the sword and just cut the loose?

(11-30-2017 09:59 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-30-2017 08:49 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]The final phase of realignment is similar to the Gordian Knot, to solve such a problem we might have to call on the wisdom of Alexander and look for an alternate approach.

Well Alexander took his sword and cut it. That's called thinking outside of the scabbard! So should we put Bevo and Sooner to the sword and just cut the loose?

Hate sells tickets. The tighter and more compact you are the more you can hate each other.

Outside the scabbard:

PAC adds:
Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State and Kansas State
OR Texas, TCU, Oklahoma and Kansas State

SEC cedes Missouri to the B1G
adds: Baylor, TCU and Oklahoma
OR Baylor, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State

B1G adds:
Missouri, Kansas and Iowa State
Loses: Maryland or Rutgers OR both

ACC adds:
from the B1G either Maryland or Rutgers
From the Big 12: West Virginia

Notre Dame stays semi-independent

Of course there is still the dream of trading Louisville for South Carolina
and Pittsburgh to the B1G for either of the remaining Maryland or Rutgers.

(12-01-2017 02:23 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-30-2017 09:59 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-30-2017 08:49 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]The final phase of realignment is similar to the Gordian Knot, to solve such a problem we might have to call on the wisdom of Alexander and look for an alternate approach.

Well Alexander took his sword and cut it. That's called thinking outside of the scabbard! So should we put Bevo and Sooner to the sword and just cut the loose?

Hate sells tickets. The tighter and more compact you are the more you can hate each other.

Outside the scabbard:

PAC adds:
Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State and Kansas State
OR Texas, TCU, Oklahoma and Kansas State

SEC cedes Missouri to the B1G
adds: Baylor, TCU and Oklahoma
OR Baylor, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State

B1G adds:
Missouri, Kansas and Iowa State
Loses: Maryland or Rutgers OR both

ACC adds:
from the B1G either Maryland or Rutgers
From the Big 12: West Virginia

Notre Dame stays semi-independent

Of course there is still the dream of trading Louisville for South Carolina
and Pittsburgh to the B1G for either of the remaining Maryland or Rutgers.

Seriously, if we are going to take in a national brand then we need to preserve as much of their familial relationships as possible.

If Missouri, Arkansas, and A&M are going to thrive then adding Oklahoma, Kansas, and yes even Texas becomes necessary to prevent the withering of programs that were added in isolation of their former ties.

So adding Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State & Kansas make sense. Why? Playing each other keeps their venues full. Playing our top brands multiplies the national content value. Both parts of the equation have to be present for profits to be sustained. If we need a 6th then Iowa State makes sense.

Nebraska, Arkansas, and to a certain extent Penn State have had difficulties making their adjustments.

I would argue that Georgia Tech would have been better off had it stayed in the SEC.

If we are going to go big on conferences then we need to preserve the core of UT & OU's heritage for the sake of their fan bases, and then make them a wing of the SEC instead of uprooting one or two and killing their history.

The market model is dying now. Interest is what will sell games. Brand on Brand will sell games. We need to preserve both and even if it means a bit less of a boost it's time we finished realignment but do so by preserving the essence of what the join fan bases appreciate, while blending them into our larger world.

(12-01-2017 04:51 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-01-2017 02:23 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-30-2017 09:59 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-30-2017 08:49 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]The final phase of realignment is similar to the Gordian Knot, to solve such a problem we might have to call on the wisdom of Alexander and look for an alternate approach.

Well Alexander took his sword and cut it. That's called thinking outside of the scabbard! So should we put Bevo and Sooner to the sword and just cut the loose?

Hate sells tickets. The tighter and more compact you are the more you can hate each other.

Outside the scabbard:

PAC adds:
Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State and Kansas State
OR Texas, TCU, Oklahoma and Kansas State

SEC cedes Missouri to the B1G
adds: Baylor, TCU and Oklahoma
OR Baylor, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State

B1G adds:
Missouri, Kansas and Iowa State
Loses: Maryland or Rutgers OR both

ACC adds:
from the B1G either Maryland or Rutgers
From the Big 12: West Virginia

Notre Dame stays semi-independent

Of course there is still the dream of trading Louisville for South Carolina
and Pittsburgh to the B1G for either of the remaining Maryland or Rutgers.

Seriously, if we are going to take in a national brand then we need to preserve as much of their familial relationships as possible.

If Missouri, Arkansas, and A&M are going to thrive then adding Oklahoma, Kansas, and yes even Texas becomes necessary to prevent the withering of programs that were added in isolation of their former ties.

So adding Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State & Kansas make sense. Why? Playing each other keeps their venues full. Playing our top brands multiplies the national content value. Both parts of the equation have to be present for profits to be sustained. If we need a 6th then Iowa State makes sense.

Nebraska, Arkansas, and to a certain extent Penn State have had difficulties making their adjustments.

I would argue that Georgia Tech would have been better off had it stayed in the SEC.

If we are going to go big on conferences then we need to preserve the core of UT & OU's heritage for the sake of their fan bases, and then make them a wing of the SEC instead of uprooting one or two and killing their history.

The market model is dying now. Interest is what will sell games. Brand on Brand will sell games. We need to preserve both and even if it means a bit less of a boost it's time we finished realignment but do so by preserving the essence of what the join fan bases appreciate, while blending them into our larger world.

Nobody is going beyond 16. (period).

(12-01-2017 09:47 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-01-2017 04:51 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-01-2017 02:23 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-30-2017 09:59 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-30-2017 08:49 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]The final phase of realignment is similar to the Gordian Knot, to solve such a problem we might have to call on the wisdom of Alexander and look for an alternate approach.

Well Alexander took his sword and cut it. That's called thinking outside of the scabbard! So should we put Bevo and Sooner to the sword and just cut the loose?

Hate sells tickets. The tighter and more compact you are the more you can hate each other.

Outside the scabbard:

PAC adds:
Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State and Kansas State
OR Texas, TCU, Oklahoma and Kansas State

SEC cedes Missouri to the B1G
adds: Baylor, TCU and Oklahoma
OR Baylor, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State

B1G adds:
Missouri, Kansas and Iowa State
Loses: Maryland or Rutgers OR both

ACC adds:
from the B1G either Maryland or Rutgers
From the Big 12: West Virginia

Notre Dame stays semi-independent

Of course there is still the dream of trading Louisville for South Carolina
and Pittsburgh to the B1G for either of the remaining Maryland or Rutgers.

Seriously, if we are going to take in a national brand then we need to preserve as much of their familial relationships as possible.

If Missouri, Arkansas, and A&M are going to thrive then adding Oklahoma, Kansas, and yes even Texas becomes necessary to prevent the withering of programs that were added in isolation of their former ties.

So adding Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State & Kansas make sense. Why? Playing each other keeps their venues full. Playing our top brands multiplies the national content value. Both parts of the equation have to be present for profits to be sustained. If we need a 6th then Iowa State makes sense.

Nebraska, Arkansas, and to a certain extent Penn State have had difficulties making their adjustments.

I would argue that Georgia Tech would have been better off had it stayed in the SEC.

If we are going to go big on conferences then we need to preserve the core of UT & OU's heritage for the sake of their fan bases, and then make them a wing of the SEC instead of uprooting one or two and killing their history.

The market model is dying now. Interest is what will sell games. Brand on Brand will sell games. We need to preserve both and even if it means a bit less of a boost it's time we finished realignment but do so by preserving the essence of what the join fan bases appreciate, while blending them into our larger world.

Nobody is going beyond 16. (period).

I bet they do. And if for no other reason it will happen because the market model dies and content of high regional and national quality will drive the movement. And the added benefit will be the leverage that larger conferences garner. And when networks start getting tight with the cash that will be yet another incentive. Conferences will become the brokers of their own content for streaming and schools will likely use their own announcers which will be an improvement over ESPN & FOX in most cases.

(12-01-2017 09:51 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-01-2017 09:47 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-01-2017 04:51 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-01-2017 02:23 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-30-2017 09:59 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]Well Alexander took his sword and cut it. That's called thinking outside of the scabbard! So should we put Bevo and Sooner to the sword and just cut the loose?

Hate sells tickets. The tighter and more compact you are the more you can hate each other.

Outside the scabbard:

PAC adds:
Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State and Kansas State
OR Texas, TCU, Oklahoma and Kansas State

SEC cedes Missouri to the B1G
adds: Baylor, TCU and Oklahoma
OR Baylor, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State

B1G adds:
Missouri, Kansas and Iowa State
Loses: Maryland or Rutgers OR both

ACC adds:
from the B1G either Maryland or Rutgers
From the Big 12: West Virginia

Notre Dame stays semi-independent

Of course there is still the dream of trading Louisville for South Carolina
and Pittsburgh to the B1G for either of the remaining Maryland or Rutgers.

Seriously, if we are going to take in a national brand then we need to preserve as much of their familial relationships as possible.

If Missouri, Arkansas, and A&M are going to thrive then adding Oklahoma, Kansas, and yes even Texas becomes necessary to prevent the withering of programs that were added in isolation of their former ties.

So adding Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State & Kansas make sense. Why? Playing each other keeps their venues full. Playing our top brands multiplies the national content value. Both parts of the equation have to be present for profits to be sustained. If we need a 6th then Iowa State makes sense.

Nebraska, Arkansas, and to a certain extent Penn State have had difficulties making their adjustments.

I would argue that Georgia Tech would have been better off had it stayed in the SEC.

If we are going to go big on conferences then we need to preserve the core of UT & OU's heritage for the sake of their fan bases, and then make them a wing of the SEC instead of uprooting one or two and killing their history.

The market model is dying now. Interest is what will sell games. Brand on Brand will sell games. We need to preserve both and even if it means a bit less of a boost it's time we finished realignment but do so by preserving the essence of what the join fan bases appreciate, while blending them into our larger world.

Nobody is going beyond 16. (period).

I bet they do. And if for no other reason it will happen because the market model dies and content of high regional and national quality will drive the movement. And the added benefit will be the leverage that larger conferences garner. And when networks start getting tight with the cash that will be yet another incentive. Conferences will become the brokers of their own content for streaming and schools will likely use their own announcers which will be an improvement over ESPN & FOX in most cases.

Market model goes away
Louisville and South Carolina swap places
Pitt and Maryland swap places
Missouri moves to the B1G (this is the single most important move for the future of CR).

(12-01-2017 10:08 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-01-2017 09:51 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-01-2017 09:47 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-01-2017 04:51 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-01-2017 02:23 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]Hate sells tickets. The tighter and more compact you are the more you can hate each other.

Outside the scabbard:

PAC adds:
Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State and Kansas State
OR Texas, TCU, Oklahoma and Kansas State

SEC cedes Missouri to the B1G
adds: Baylor, TCU and Oklahoma
OR Baylor, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State

B1G adds:
Missouri, Kansas and Iowa State
Loses: Maryland or Rutgers OR both

ACC adds:
from the B1G either Maryland or Rutgers
From the Big 12: West Virginia

Notre Dame stays semi-independent

Of course there is still the dream of trading Louisville for South Carolina
and Pittsburgh to the B1G for either of the remaining Maryland or Rutgers.

Seriously, if we are going to take in a national brand then we need to preserve as much of their familial relationships as possible.

If Missouri, Arkansas, and A&M are going to thrive then adding Oklahoma, Kansas, and yes even Texas becomes necessary to prevent the withering of programs that were added in isolation of their former ties.

So adding Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State & Kansas make sense. Why? Playing each other keeps their venues full. Playing our top brands multiplies the national content value. Both parts of the equation have to be present for profits to be sustained. If we need a 6th then Iowa State makes sense.

Nebraska, Arkansas, and to a certain extent Penn State have had difficulties making their adjustments.

I would argue that Georgia Tech would have been better off had it stayed in the SEC.

If we are going to go big on conferences then we need to preserve the core of UT & OU's heritage for the sake of their fan bases, and then make them a wing of the SEC instead of uprooting one or two and killing their history.

The market model is dying now. Interest is what will sell games. Brand on Brand will sell games. We need to preserve both and even if it means a bit less of a boost it's time we finished realignment but do so by preserving the essence of what the join fan bases appreciate, while blending them into our larger world.

Nobody is going beyond 16. (period).

I bet they do. And if for no other reason it will happen because the market model dies and content of high regional and national quality will drive the movement. And the added benefit will be the leverage that larger conferences garner. And when networks start getting tight with the cash that will be yet another incentive. Conferences will become the brokers of their own content for streaming and schools will likely use their own announcers which will be an improvement over ESPN & FOX in most cases.

Market model goes away
Louisville and South Carolina swap places
Pitt and Maryland swap places
Missouri moves to the B1G (this is the single most important move for the future of CR).

I could see the Pitt / Maryland swap. But South Carolina for Louisville won't happen. Kentucky is the only SEC school that doesn't want its in state rival in the conference.

I could see Florida State for South Carolina if South Carolina wanted to go.

But truly those swaps won't happen. Some conference commissioner will see the future and grab 4-6 from the Big 12 and that will wrap it up. IMO the SEC is best positioned to pull it off.

(12-01-2017 10:16 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-01-2017 10:08 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-01-2017 09:51 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-01-2017 09:47 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-01-2017 04:51 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]Seriously, if we are going to take in a national brand then we need to preserve as much of their familial relationships as possible.

If Missouri, Arkansas, and A&M are going to thrive then adding Oklahoma, Kansas, and yes even Texas becomes necessary to prevent the withering of programs that were added in isolation of their former ties.

So adding Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State & Kansas make sense. Why? Playing each other keeps their venues full. Playing our top brands multiplies the national content value. Both parts of the equation have to be present for profits to be sustained. If we need a 6th then Iowa State makes sense.

Nebraska, Arkansas, and to a certain extent Penn State have had difficulties making their adjustments.

I would argue that Georgia Tech would have been better off had it stayed in the SEC.

If we are going to go big on conferences then we need to preserve the core of UT & OU's heritage for the sake of their fan bases, and then make them a wing of the SEC instead of uprooting one or two and killing their history.

The market model is dying now. Interest is what will sell games. Brand on Brand will sell games. We need to preserve both and even if it means a bit less of a boost it's time we finished realignment but do so by preserving the essence of what the join fan bases appreciate, while blending them into our larger world.

Nobody is going beyond 16. (period).

I bet they do. And if for no other reason it will happen because the market model dies and content of high regional and national quality will drive the movement. And the added benefit will be the leverage that larger conferences garner. And when networks start getting tight with the cash that will be yet another incentive. Conferences will become the brokers of their own content for streaming and schools will likely use their own announcers which will be an improvement over ESPN & FOX in most cases.

Market model goes away
Louisville and South Carolina swap places
Pitt and Maryland swap places
Missouri moves to the B1G (this is the single most important move for the future of CR).

I could see the Pitt / Maryland swap. But South Carolina for Louisville won't happen. Kentucky is the only SEC school that doesn't want its in state rival in the conference.

I could see Florida State for South Carolina if South Carolina wanted to go.

But truly those swaps won't happen. Some conference commissioner will see the future and grab 4-6 from the Big 12 and that will wrap it up. IMO the SEC is best positioned to pull it off.

It's a good thing that CR doesn't function based on your opinion.

BTW Florida State is worth about two of South Carolina and it's the Coots with the wandering eye.

You're still not thinking like Alexander.
I still believe a reduction to 15 would be the most logical.

ACC
adds Rutgers, Maryland and South Carolina
trades Pitt to the B1G, Louisville is out (AAC)

SEC
adds Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Baylor
moves South Carolina t the ACC and Missouri to the B1G

B1G
adds Missouri and West Virginia
moves Rutgers to the ACC

PAC
Adds Texas, TCU and Texas Tech

Kansas State and Iowa State are out (AAC).
Notre Dame can remain the same or do whatever as long as ESPN has access to at least one half of their football.

(12-01-2017 10:08 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]Market model goes away
Louisville and South Carolina swap places
Pitt and Maryland swap places
Missouri moves to the B1G (this is the single most important move for the future of CR).

There aren't going to be any swaps. A school may choose to leave a power conference for another, but there won't be any swaps.

Games that generate high national or regional interest and the schools that comprise them will be the new targets for payday expansion.

Conference size will only be limited by profitability and cohesion, and possibly scheduling.

(12-02-2017 12:57 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]There aren't going to be any swaps. A school may choose to leave a power conference for another, but there won't be any swaps.

Games that generate high national or regional interest and the schools that comprise them will be the new targets for payday expansion.

Conference size will only be limited by profitability and cohesion, and possibly scheduling.

TV will insist on regional balance by conference.
Before all of the television money came into the market, the largest successful conference was 10. We will end up with 4 leagues with either 14, 15 or 16 members.

(12-02-2017 02:40 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-02-2017 12:57 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]There aren't going to be any swaps. A school may choose to leave a power conference for another, but there won't be any swaps.

Games that generate high national or regional interest and the schools that comprise them will be the new targets for payday expansion.

Conference size will only be limited by profitability and cohesion, and possibly scheduling.

TV will insist on regional balance by conference.
Before all of the television money came into the market, the largest successful conference was 10. We will end up with 4 leagues with either 14, 15 or 16 members.

Depends on what era you're referring to.

The Southern Conference was huge and lasted for quite a while before the SEC schools broke off. The SEC itself was at 13 for a long time before Sewanee de-emphasized athletics and Tulane/Georgia Tech broke off.

Stability doesn't last long in college athletics. Change is the only constant.

(12-02-2017 04:02 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-02-2017 02:40 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-02-2017 12:57 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]There aren't going to be any swaps. A school may choose to leave a power conference for another, but there won't be any swaps.

Games that generate high national or regional interest and the schools that comprise them will be the new targets for payday expansion.

Conference size will only be limited by profitability and cohesion, and possibly scheduling.

TV will insist on regional balance by conference.
Before all of the television money came into the market, the largest successful conference was 10. We will end up with 4 leagues with either 14, 15 or 16 members.

Depends on what era you're referring to.

The Southern Conference was huge and lasted for quite a while before the SEC schools broke off. The SEC itself was at 13 for a long time before Sewanee de-emphasized athletics and Tulane/Georgia Tech broke off.

Stability doesn't last long in college athletics. Change is the only constant.

Agreed JR. I used to somewhat follow Delaware in football when I lived up there and the Colonial Athletic Association they played in changed all the time. Biggest surprise to me was watching Hofstra just shutdown their football program almost completely out of the blue. The P5 is quite stable compared to those types of schools and leagues.

(12-02-2017 08:18 AM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]It's a good thing that CR doesn't function based on your opinion.

BTW Florida State is worth about two of South Carolina and it's the Coots with the wandering eye.

You're still not thinking like Alexander.
I still believe a reduction to 15 would be the most logical.

ACC
adds Rutgers, Maryland and South Carolina
trades Pitt to the B1G, Louisville is out (AAC)

SEC
adds Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Baylor
moves South Carolina t the ACC and Missouri to the B1G

B1G
adds Missouri and West Virginia
moves Rutgers to the ACC

PAC
Adds Texas, TCU and Texas Tech

Kansas State and Iowa State are out (AAC).
Notre Dame can remain the same or do whatever as long as ESPN has access to at least one half of their football.

Rutgers for Pitt
Maryland for Missouri
Kansas to Big Ten

Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Iowa, Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue, Indiana
Michigan State, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Pitt

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Georgia Tech to SEC

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M, Arkansas, LSU
Mississippi State, Mississippi, Alabama, Auburn, Kentucky
Florida, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Georgia, Georgia Tech

South Carolina, Rutgers, Maryland to ACC

Boston College, Syracuse, Rutgers, Virginia Tech, Maryland
North Carolina, Virginia, North Carolina State, Duke, Wake Forest
Clemson, South Carolina, Florida State, Miami, Louisville

(12-03-2017 03:17 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-02-2017 08:18 AM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]It's a good thing that CR doesn't function based on your opinion.

BTW Florida State is worth about two of South Carolina and it's the Coots with the wandering eye.

You're still not thinking like Alexander.
I still believe a reduction to 15 would be the most logical.

ACC
adds Rutgers, Maryland and South Carolina
trades Pitt to the B1G, Louisville is out (AAC)

SEC
adds Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Baylor
moves South Carolina t the ACC and Missouri to the B1G

B1G
adds Missouri and West Virginia
moves Rutgers to the ACC

PAC
Adds Texas, TCU and Texas Tech

Kansas State and Iowa State are out (AAC).
Notre Dame can remain the same or do whatever as long as ESPN has access to at least one half of their football.

Rutgers for Pitt
Maryland for Missouri
Kansas to Big Ten

Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Iowa, Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue, Indiana
Michigan State, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Pitt

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Georgia Tech to SEC

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M, Arkansas, LSU
Mississippi State, Mississippi, Alabama, Auburn, Kentucky
Florida, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Georgia, Georgia Tech

South Carolina, Rutgers, Maryland to ACC

Boston College, Syracuse, Rutgers, Virginia Tech, Maryland
North Carolina, Virginia, North Carolina State, Duke, Wake Forest
Clemson, South Carolina, Florida State, Miami, Louisville

That's pretty solid for a 3x15. I suppose the Big Issue is that the money would have to be about equal for that kind of shift to occur.

ESPN hinting at keeping the Big 12.
Looks like they can pick up all of the tier 3 content out of the FOX merger

6 team playoff with each of the 5 conference champions plus a wild card.

PAC
Arizona, ASU, USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, OSU, Washington, WSU, Utah, and BYU (football only)

Big 12
Nebraska, Colorado, ISU, KSU, Kansas, Oklahoma, OSU, Texas, TTU, Baylor, TCU, Louisville

SEC
Missouri, Arkansas, LSU, A&M, Ole Miss, MSU, Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Tenn, Vandy, Kentucky, South Carolina

ACC
BC, Syracuse, West Virginia, Maryland, UVa, VT, NCSU, Wake Forest, Duke, Carolina, Clemson Georgia Tech, Miami, Florida State

B1G
Rutgers, Penn State, Pitt, OSU, MSU, Michigan, Notre Dame, Purdue, Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Minn., Iowa

(12-05-2017 03:14 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]ESPN hinting at keeping the Big 12.
Looks like they can pick up all of the tier 3 content out of the FOX merger

6 team playoff with each of the 5 conference champions plus a wild card.

PAC
Arizona, ASU, USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, OSU, Washington, WSU, Utah, and BYU (football only)

Big 12
Nebraska, Colorado, ISU, KSU, Kansas, Oklahoma, OSU, Texas, TTU, Baylor, TCU, Louisville

SEC
Missouri, Arkansas, LSU, A&M, Ole Miss, MSU, Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Tenn, Vandy, Kentucky, South Carolina

ACC
BC, Syracuse, West Virginia, Maryland, UVa, VT, NCSU, Wake Forest, Duke, Carolina, Clemson Georgia Tech, Miami, Florida State

B1G
Rutgers, Penn State, Pitt, OSU, MSU, Michigan, Notre Dame, Purdue, Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Minn., Iowa

I don't think that happens, but if it did why in the heck would the Big 12 want Louisville if they have given up W.V.U.? With that lineup B.Y.U. makes a lot more sense. Especially since I don't see the Cali schools changing their position on the Cougars.

Why not just regionalize:

ACC/SEC

Kentucky, Maryland, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia, Virginia Tech

Clemson, Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, South Carolina, Wake Forest

Auburn, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Miami

Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M



B1G

Boston College, Notre Dame, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Rutgers

Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Purdue, Ohio State

Iowa, Iowa State, Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin



PAC

Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas

Arizona, Arizona State, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal, Texas Tech, Utah

California, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State



G5 Promotion to P5 Conference

Baylor, Houston, Kansas State, T.C.U., S.M.U.

Central Florida, East Carolina, Memphis, South Florida, Tulane

Cincinnati, Connecticut, Louisville, Temple, West Virginia

Boise State, Brigham Young, Colorado State, Fresno State, San Diego State


This way nobody really violates their conference standards, the regions are emphasized while increasing the PAC's market. The Big 10 gets the Northeast / New England area. The ACC & SEC keep their cores together and tighten the regions together, and a new conference is promoted giving us the extra games we need to help keep the win/loss bell curve in order.

That's 80 schools which accounts for most of those who might have a beef about being left out.