Let's say the SEC takes NC State and Virginia Tech and the Big Ten takes Virginia and Georgia Tech, the ACC then has 10 Teams. They can play a round robin football schedule like the Big 12. The winner of the ACC and the Big 12 are playing a championship game and is a legit contender in the 4 Team playoff. I do not know, if there is a rule change by the NCAA necessary.
Any thoughts?

Plus: No need to expand further, therefore more money for the actual teams teams in the Big12 and ACC.

Minus: All actual members of the Gang of Five are screwed with no chance of an invitation to the ACC and Big12.
Another step of the separation between the haves and the havenots

They'd have to merge, but that's not unthinkable in this climate.

(03-28-2013 03:48 AM)giesing Wrote:  Let's say the SEC takes NC State and Virginia Tech and the Big Ten takes Virginia and Georgia Tech, the ACC then has 10 Teams. They can play a round robin football schedule like the Big 12. The winner of the ACC and the Big 12 are playing a championship game and is a legit contender in the 4 Team playoff. I do not know, if there is a rule change by the NCAA necessary.
Any thoughts?

Plus: No need to expand further, therefore more money for the actual teams teams in the Big12 and ACC.

Minus: All actual members of the Gang of Five are screwed with no chance of an invitation to the ACC and Big12.
Another step of the separation between the haves and the havenots

It could work, it’s a little unwieldy but essentially it would be an east/west 20 team super conference in everything but name and TV rights. Could allow an evolution to a true 20 team conference while maximizing short-term revenue and has the added feature of limiting the raid that you assume will come in the ACC. In a recent post I argued against that basic assumption (see below) concerning ND and the future of the ACC. That said, your plan could work.

“As great as that would be from a ratings standpoint for the Big12, I just don’t see that happening. Much of this thread implies a future around an FBS or follow-on league with 60 -80 or so members. I think this is a false assumption. As a result so is the assumption that these realignment actions will force another school to take any particular specific action.
Couple of thoughts about power conferences in general:
Currently we have about 35 bowl games in FBS requiring 70 teams. Previous posters have pointed out that the math requires a significant number of teams to eliminate enough sub-performers in any given season to get the remaining 70 teams. If you use a reasonable ratio of say 60% make it to a bowl that gets you into to the 115-120 team number (Note: FBS had 120 teams in 2012). Never mind the every changing demography that drives increased enrolment and resources to schools in the southwest such as UTEP, SDSU makes the likelihood of more large schools NOT less a likely scenario.”

I like the idea of a 18-20 team big 12/acc merger. Basically it would be football only setup with 2 divisions having little cross over but football champ game. The same concept works with the big 12 and pac 12 too, shift colorado and utah east and add 8 school's than play a 9-1 football format with title game.

There's a serious cultural disconnect between the east coast and Midwest. It'd be tough to get any type of cooperation between the two because too many differences in opinion. I think everyone knows it is survival of the fittest.

What happens to the Orange Bowl and Sugar Bowl contracts? They would also lose a contract bowl spot in the playoff payout as well, so instead of two conferences getting 20% of the 75% playoff share, you'd have one conference getting 25% of the 75% playoff share (So instead of each conference getting $52M/year, the merged conference would only get $64.5M/year). Merging would not be a boon to revenue in that regard. TV contracts would have to be redone, too. It would be a big mess.

(03-28-2013 08:50 AM)bluesox Wrote:  I like the idea of a 18-20 team big 12/acc merger. Basically it would be football only setup with 2 divisions having little cross over but football champ game. The same concept works with the big 12 and pac 12 too, shift colorado and utah east and add 8 school's than play a 9-1 football format with title game.

If they can't get it together enough to work out a scheduling alliance between the two, how in the world are they going to get it together enough to be in a merged conference?

It would be difficult and need one commish to retire. Also, i'd try to get a waiver somehow and have 2 hoops tourney's with each division getting a bid, that would be hard to get but ideal. Basically, you would have two separate conferences under one banner who have football champ game tie. Another idea, is if the pac 12 could jump to 18 with say texas, texas tech, OU, OSU, KU and KSU to match the big 10 and sec at 18. IF all 3 leagues jump to 18, they could try to get a rule change with a 2 game playoff among the pod winners.

Actually, I did not suggest a merger between the two conferences. They should stay completly autark with their commissioners, their bowl tie ins and their automatic bids in their olympic sports. I only meant, that the two football champions pf the ACC and Big12 conduct a championship game like the other 12 and more member conferences do within their divisions. Just to have a legit playof contender.
The rule change by the NCAA could be: Conference Champions with 11 or less Conference members are allowed to stage a championship game with another conference with 11 or less members. Otherwise a championship game is conducted between the two division champs of conferences with 12 or more members.
Sorry for my Englsih mistakes, but, it's not my native language.

I think this has merit with the right dominoes falling. One being, FSU has to remain in the conference. Along with Clemson/Miami, you need some power football.

The problem is there is simply too much baggage to merge. Too many ways to split the money. A CC game with revenue going to the WF's and the ISU's of the world? It may not be economically viable.

I think if they can somehow eliminate the baggae, maybe have the extra income going towards the participants in the CC game only, without hurting the bowl money, assuming the Orange/Sugar still retain their tie-ins for the losing squad, then it could work.

This would be a ploy to strengthen the schedule for the playoff. If the bowls are affected monetarily, and I can't imagine they wouldn't be for the losing team, everyone balks and the two maintain their separate paths.

Another proposal, the Power 5 force a split, and this becomes a defacto play-in game. Even less likely.

(03-28-2013 09:34 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  The problem is there is simply too much baggage to merge. Too many ways to split the money. A CC game with revenue going to the WF's and the ISU's of the world? It may not be economically viable.

Revenue sharing is the elephant in the room in every top conference and the issue is only going to get bigger when conferences get larger. It took a lot of arm-twisting by Larry Scott for USC to accept getting the same Pac-12 revenue share as Wazzu, and Chuck Neinas did wonders in persuading Texas to divide the Big 12's Fox/ESPN money equally. Ohio State has to be wondering how long they have to take only the same amount of football TV money as Purdue or Minnesota. At what point do the fat cats say "No more"?

They can do it under current NCAA rules by merging or by giving up a regular season game and remaining independent leagues.

If they merge they have to get a waiver from the NCAA because current rules require everyone within the division play everyone else. Waiver is routine. Ask the MAC.

(03-28-2013 01:02 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  They can do it under current NCAA rules by merging or by giving up a regular season game and remaining independent leagues.

If they merge they have to get a waiver from the NCAA because current rules require everyone within the division play everyone else. Waiver is routine. Ask the MAC.

Did the MAC get a waiver for the years when they had 13 teams, or did the NCAA just not enforce the rule?

(03-28-2013 01:14 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-28-2013 01:02 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  They can do it under current NCAA rules by merging or by giving up a regular season game and remaining independent leagues.

If they merge they have to get a waiver from the NCAA because current rules require everyone within the division play everyone else. Waiver is routine. Ask the MAC.

Did the MAC get a waiver for the years when they had 13 teams, or did the NCAA just not enforce the rule?

The MAC has been getting a waiver for years. They'll get another one this year.