(11-29-2017 02:05 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(11-29-2017 01:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-29-2017 08:18 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-29-2017 07:10 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  At this point I don't think this will accelerate any process, which will happen anyway, only that I have no idea what the next moves will be.

Well, the ONLY question to answer is: will the Big 12 survive?

FIFY

Maybe until 2023. What this year will do, especially if any conference gets two in, or if the Big 10 gets left out, is accelerate the process leading to 4 P conferences. Commissioners don't like to be put in the spotlight having to defend their programs. Presidents don't like acrimony from the alums. And top brands don't like having to be judged.

If we had a champs only model then Ohio State wouldn't have to be weighed and found wanting before a national audience. Ditto for Alabama. If they miss the CFP because they didn't win their own championship game the alums get it. But if they are weighed and judged before the public court by a stilted panel of jurors it's infuriating because it brings the A.D. under scrutiny for the schedule, the coach under scrutiny for a bad loss in an otherwise good year, and it brings their conference under scrutiny if they have just a couple at the top and a lot at the bottom. It also turns off the sets of whole states, if not regions for the playoffs so ultimately, and in spite of the public controversy which usually drives ratings, it is ultimately bad for the networks.

So, if it does anything it might mean that the PAC / Big 10 / SEC / and ACC all finally realize that it is in their self interest to come to an understanding about how to divide the Big 12. The biggest issue however would be say the SEC's interest in cooperating if somehow the system this year landed us two CFP slots.

But that's how I see it.

Bolded point #1

An understanding between the 4 remaining power conferences might be a good thing. There might be shuffling among those schools. I could see this:

PAC: Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Kansas St, TCU
B1G: Kansas, Iowa St
SEC: Texas, Texas Tech
ACC: Notre Dame, West Virginia

*Baylor left out*

Bolded point #2

There's always a chance of getting zero (just as the XII and PAC). I'm not saying the SEC would be left out but in the case the PAC, B1G, XII, and ACC have undefeated or 1-loss champions and the SEC champion has 3 losses then the SEC would be on the outside looking in. In your proposed format, the champion wouldn't necessarily need to worry about that.

Ultimately the networks want all regions involved. It's just good for ratings. The fans want fairness and they understand that they winner of their conference should get in. The conference semis and finals should be the play in and it should all be decided on the field. And by doing it that way you don't make the regular season less meaningful, you make it more meaningful because you have to win your division to get into the conference semis. If we stick with just two divisions it still works.

I thought you division was interesting. But, I think the Big 10 would crave another football brand for the weak West division. Dividing the Big 12 is not going to be an easy matter. I do think everyone will need at least 1 brand from the Big 12 to make the move. West Virginia is the third highest revenue producer in the Big 12 and they should be able to translate that into being very competitive in the ACC. So I like that placement and agree N.D. would have to go all in.

I think what you might see is something odd between the SEC and Big 10. As I don't see the Big 10 adding Kansas and Iowa State. For the major sport that would seem like a further weakening of the B1G West. And I don't see the SEC moving without a brand and Texas and Texas Tech would be fine with us as far as branding and control of a really major state. And would Texas head west to get their buddies a landing spot? Would they be willing to move anywhere without OU?

If Texas heads to the PAC or Big 10 they will want the assurance of OU traveling with them. They simply won't risk OU heading to the SEC while they head West or North. If the SEC gains Oklahoma to go with A&M and Arkansas all of the sudden Texas is odd man out in their own region. They simply won't put themselves in that position.

That's the kind of stuff that makes this so tough.

It's also why I've talked so often about moving to 18. Lots of things open up if we look at 18 or even 20. At that number it is possible for B1G, PAC, SEC or even the ACC to make an offer that Texas might actually entertain.

I could see Texas, Tech, T.C.U. and Kansas to the PAC.

I could see Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Kansas to the SEC.

I could see Texas, Tech, Oklahoma and Kansas to the Big 10.


But what I don't see is a rational and easy division of the Big 12 in a move to 16 everywhere.

But I do applaud your interesting offering on the division as it will take something out of the box to pull it off.

So West Virginia and N.D. for the ACC I can see.
I can see the SEC reluctantly agreeing to Oklahoma and O.S.U. so that OU can keep the RRR out of conference.
I can see Texas maybe feeling confident enough if they can take their Texas buddies with them to the PAC. Texas, Texas Tech, T.C.U. and Kansas State.
But that still leaves the Big 10 with a very blah addition of Iowa State and Kansas.

I think Delany balks at that and the Big 10 stays at 14.