It could be that the B12 has discovered something...

ESPiN: Magic number for hoops leagues: 10

Quote:For a basketball-driven conference, the number 10 is perfect.

That lineup allows for a true round-robin schedule of 18 league games. As nonconference games are tough to find, more conference games are a must.

You true round robin play with a 9 game conference football schedule too. Ten is the perfect number in more than just basketball...

(07-13-2013 10:02 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  It could be that the B12 has discovered something...

ESPiN: Magic number for hoops leagues: 10

Quote:For a basketball-driven conference, the number 10 is perfect.

That lineup allows for a true round-robin schedule of 18 league games. As nonconference games are tough to find, more conference games are a must.

You true round robin play with a 9 game conference football schedule too. Ten is the perfect number in more than just basketball...

I understand, but what if the Big 10, ACC, SEC and Pac 12 vote only the winners of a conference championship can play in the 4 game playoff. Where does this leave Notre Dame, BYU and the Big 12, Bit?

(07-13-2013 10:10 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(07-13-2013 10:02 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  It could be that the B12 has discovered something...

ESPiN: Magic number for hoops leagues: 10

Quote:For a basketball-driven conference, the number 10 is perfect.

That lineup allows for a true round-robin schedule of 18 league games. As nonconference games are tough to find, more conference games are a must.

You true round robin play with a 9 game conference football schedule too. Ten is the perfect number in more than just basketball...

I understand, but what if the Big 10, ACC, SEC and Pac 12 vote only the winners of a conference championship can play in the 4 game playoff. Where does this leave Notre Dame, BYU and the Big 12, Bit?

Why would the SEC vote for that?

(07-13-2013 10:17 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-13-2013 10:10 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(07-13-2013 10:02 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  It could be that the B12 has discovered something...

ESPiN: Magic number for hoops leagues: 10

Quote:For a basketball-driven conference, the number 10 is perfect.

That lineup allows for a true round-robin schedule of 18 league games. As nonconference games are tough to find, more conference games are a must.

You true round robin play with a 9 game conference football schedule too. Ten is the perfect number in more than just basketball...

I understand, but what if the Big 10, ACC, SEC and Pac 12 vote only the winners of a conference championship can play in the 4 game playoff. Where does this leave Notre Dame, BYU and the Big 12, Bit?

Why would the SEC vote for that?

The risk of having highly ranked schools play each other in a conference championship game, which makes the rule fair. Most years, the SEC will have the greatest risk...

(07-13-2013 10:10 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(07-13-2013 10:02 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  It could be that the B12 has discovered something...

ESPiN: Magic number for hoops leagues: 10

Quote:For a basketball-driven conference, the number 10 is perfect.

That lineup allows for a true round-robin schedule of 18 league games. As nonconference games are tough to find, more conference games are a must.

You true round robin play with a 9 game conference football schedule too. Ten is the perfect number in more than just basketball...

I understand, but what if the Big 10, ACC, SEC and Pac 12 vote only the winners of a conference championship can play in the 4 game playoff. Where does this leave Notre Dame, BYU and the Big 12, Bit?

If the other conferences dictate that a championship must be played, I'm sure the B12 would add a couple of schools. But I don't see any movement towards any such rule, and I don't expect any such movement to start...

Being as how things seem to be remaining the same, the B12 is sitting pretty at 10 members, and that's where we'll remain...

I'm just being the Devil's Advocate on this. It could happen. And remember the SEC has not dropped its conference playoff game yet.

I'm still not sure what the tipping point is for the BigXii. The conference lost NU, Mizzou, A&M, and CU which was only partially compensated by the additions of WV and TCU. The conference still came out fine. If KU left to be replaced by Cincinnati, I don't think there would be much of an effect. If OU/OSU had gone to the PAC, I figure Boise and BYU could keep the conference afloat. Can UT basically just surround itself with any 9 other schools and call it a conference or is there a tipping point where the BigXii fails?

(07-13-2013 11:25 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  I'm still not sure what the tipping point is for the BigXii. The conference lost NU, Mizzou, A&M, and CU which was only partially compensated by the additions of WV and TCU. The conference still came out fine. If KU left to be replaced by Cincinnati, I don't think there would be much of an effect. If OU/OSU had gone to the PAC, I figure Boise and BYU could keep the conference afloat. Can UT basically just surround itself with any 9 other schools and call it a conference or is there a tipping point where the BigXii fails?

It's up to FOX; however, if the PAC had taken OU and OSU, the B12 would have died. I truly believe that TX would have given in to the demands of the PAC if OU and OSU had been accepted. The PAC should have added KU and Iowa St (both AAU members and new markets) to really pressure TX.

(07-11-2013 08:29 PM)UCbball21 Wrote:  No doubt the Big East would have died and USF would have been absorbed into C-USA most likely.

I'm not sure that C-USA would've accepted USF back into the fold. Maybe yes, maybe no. The Bulls would've had to pay through the nose, that's for sure.

Quote:I also think the entire ACC would have imploded as well because I don't see the UConn satisfying FSU like Louisville did. No doubt the landscape of college football would be much different.

If Louisville had already joined the B<12, then FSU would've accepted the best overall pick available, which would've been UConn. The ACC would not have imploded. It would be in the exact same position it is today, except UConn would be there and UL would not be. The other 13 teams (+ND, sort of) would all be the same as now.

(07-13-2013 10:25 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(07-13-2013 10:17 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-13-2013 10:10 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(07-13-2013 10:02 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  It could be that the B12 has discovered something...

ESPiN: Magic number for hoops leagues: 10

Quote:For a basketball-driven conference, the number 10 is perfect.

That lineup allows for a true round-robin schedule of 18 league games. As nonconference games are tough to find, more conference games are a must.

You true round robin play with a 9 game conference football schedule too. Ten is the perfect number in more than just basketball...

I understand, but what if the Big 10, ACC, SEC and Pac 12 vote only the winners of a conference championship can play in the 4 game playoff. Where does this leave Notre Dame, BYU and the Big 12, Bit?

Why would the SEC vote for that?

The risk of having highly ranked schools play each other in a conference championship game, which makes the rule fair. Most years, the SEC will have the greatest risk...

The SEC is much more concerned with making sure that they can put a 12-1 Florida that wins the SEC in one semifinal and a 12-1 LSU that loses the SEC title game in another, and a "CCG winners only" rule means that can't happen.

(07-13-2013 10:47 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  I'm just being the Devil's Advocate on this. It could happen. And remember the SEC has not dropped its conference playoff game yet.

What else is new? Haven't you always played the Devil's Advocate?

On occasion

(07-13-2013 02:04 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-13-2013 10:25 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(07-13-2013 10:17 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-13-2013 10:10 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(07-13-2013 10:02 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  It could be that the B12 has discovered something...

ESPiN: Magic number for hoops leagues: 10You true round robin play with a 9 game conference football schedule too. Ten is the perfect number in more than just basketball...

I understand, but what if the Big 10, ACC, SEC and Pac 12 vote only the winners of a conference championship can play in the 4 game playoff. Where does this leave Notre Dame, BYU and the Big 12, Bit?

Why would the SEC vote for that?

The risk of having highly ranked schools play each other in a conference championship game, which makes the rule fair. Most years, the SEC will have the greatest risk...

The SEC is much more concerned with making sure that they can put a 12-1 Florida that wins the SEC in one semifinal and a 12-1 LSU that loses the SEC title game in another, and a "CCG winners only" rule means that can't happen.

Very good point....

If they ever go to a 12-team playoff, I could see a rule where only teams who won their conference championship game get a first round bye.

(07-13-2013 11:37 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(07-13-2013 11:25 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  I'm still not sure what the tipping point is for the BigXii. The conference lost NU, Mizzou, A&M, and CU which was only partially compensated by the additions of WV and TCU. The conference still came out fine. If KU left to be replaced by Cincinnati, I don't think there would be much of an effect. If OU/OSU had gone to the PAC, I figure Boise and BYU could keep the conference afloat. Can UT basically just surround itself with any 9 other schools and call it a conference or is there a tipping point where the BigXii fails?

It's up to FOX; however, if the PAC had taken OU and OSU, the B12 would have died. I truly believe that TX would have given in to the demands of the PAC if OU and OSU had been accepted. The PAC should have added KU and Iowa St (both AAU members and new markets) to really pressure TX.

The PAC should have just accepted Baylor with the rest of the Big 12 South instead of trying to get CU and they could have had a much better conference. They would have solidified their spot in Texas and the SEC wouldn't have had the access to Texas through A&M. I realize at the time Baylor wasn't a top school but since then they have been one of the leagues best programs. Was Colorado really worth losing the Big 12 South?

(07-14-2013 09:22 AM)BaylorFerg Wrote:  

(07-13-2013 11:37 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(07-13-2013 11:25 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  I'm still not sure what the tipping point is for the BigXii. The conference lost NU, Mizzou, A&M, and CU which was only partially compensated by the additions of WV and TCU. The conference still came out fine. If KU left to be replaced by Cincinnati, I don't think there would be much of an effect. If OU/OSU had gone to the PAC, I figure Boise and BYU could keep the conference afloat. Can UT basically just surround itself with any 9 other schools and call it a conference or is there a tipping point where the BigXii fails?

It's up to FOX; however, if the PAC had taken OU and OSU, the B12 would have died. I truly believe that TX would have given in to the demands of the PAC if OU and OSU had been accepted. The PAC should have added KU and Iowa St (both AAU members and new markets) to really pressure TX.

The PAC should have just accepted Baylor with the rest of the Big 12 South instead of trying to get CU and they could have had a much better conference. They would have solidified their spot in Texas and the SEC wouldn't have had the access to Texas through A&M. I realize at the time Baylor wasn't a top school but since then they have been one of the leagues best programs. Was Colorado really worth losing the Big 12 South?

I could still happen but I think the lure would have to be an addition of the right six. With three divisions of 6 you would play two teams from each of the other divisions every year and rotate annually. That way you play all 18 teams in 3 years while maintaining a 9 game conference schedule. And for an outlier division like the teams from the Big 12 would be to the PAC, or really any other conference, that would mean that annually 5 games would be played within relatively reasonable driving distance for fans and that of the 4 more remote games only two would be away. By placing the four California Teams and the Arizona's in the same division you could guarantee that a California team would be played every year by everyone. This would come the closest to satisfying complaints by the Oregon and Washington teams, guarantee that all of the California schools would play each other annually, and cut down on everyone's travel. If Texas did this they wouldn't have to take all of the Texas schools with them and likely that would be more satisfying to the PAC. Either Baylor or TCU would be acceptable to the SEC for additional market push. A moving block of Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor or TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas State would make for a solid block and deliver three central time zone states for the PAC to add another slot in which to sell games. Kansas could go Big 10 and under those circumstances West Virginia would be attractive to the SEC as well. Iowa State could pair up with Kansas as two western AAU entries into the Big 10 or fend for themselves but in the end game for these conferences a school like Iowa State should be attractive as a companion somewhere.

(07-14-2013 09:22 AM)BaylorFerg Wrote:  

(07-13-2013 11:37 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(07-13-2013 11:25 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  I'm still not sure what the tipping point is for the BigXii. The conference lost NU, Mizzou, A&M, and CU which was only partially compensated by the additions of WV and TCU. The conference still came out fine. If KU left to be replaced by Cincinnati, I don't think there would be much of an effect. If OU/OSU had gone to the PAC, I figure Boise and BYU could keep the conference afloat. Can UT basically just surround itself with any 9 other schools and call it a conference or is there a tipping point where the BigXii fails?

It's up to FOX; however, if the PAC had taken OU and OSU, the B12 would have died. I truly believe that TX would have given in to the demands of the PAC if OU and OSU had been accepted. The PAC should have added KU and Iowa St (both AAU members and new markets) to really pressure TX.

The PAC should have just accepted Baylor with the rest of the Big 12 South instead of trying to get CU and they could have had a much better conference. They would have solidified their spot in Texas and the SEC wouldn't have had the access to Texas through A&M. I realize at the time Baylor wasn't a top school but since then they have been one of the leagues best programs. Was Colorado really worth losing the Big 12 South?

I agree with you.... However, when the B12 subsequently became unstable, Baylor wasn't the issue: it was the LHN. All the PAC 12 had to do was take OU and OSU; TX would have given in to the demands of the PAC. The PAC is similar to the B10 in that it prefers AAU members. Consequently, if TX would have remained firm, adding KU and Iowa St (both AAU members and new markets) would have all but killed the B12. I would have suggested K St (a better add with KU), but I don’t think the PAC schools would have voted to add it. That would have left the B12 with TX, TT, Baylor, K St and a coffin conference….

(07-14-2013 04:20 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(07-14-2013 09:22 AM)BaylorFerg Wrote:  

(07-13-2013 11:37 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(07-13-2013 11:25 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  I'm still not sure what the tipping point is for the BigXii. The conference lost NU, Mizzou, A&M, and CU which was only partially compensated by the additions of WV and TCU. The conference still came out fine. If KU left to be replaced by Cincinnati, I don't think there would be much of an effect. If OU/OSU had gone to the PAC, I figure Boise and BYU could keep the conference afloat. Can UT basically just surround itself with any 9 other schools and call it a conference or is there a tipping point where the BigXii fails?

It's up to FOX; however, if the PAC had taken OU and OSU, the B12 would have died. I truly believe that TX would have given in to the demands of the PAC if OU and OSU had been accepted. The PAC should have added KU and Iowa St (both AAU members and new markets) to really pressure TX.

The PAC should have just accepted Baylor with the rest of the Big 12 South instead of trying to get CU and they could have had a much better conference. They would have solidified their spot in Texas and the SEC wouldn't have had the access to Texas through A&M. I realize at the time Baylor wasn't a top school but since then they have been one of the leagues best programs. Was Colorado really worth losing the Big 12 South?

I agree with you.... However, when the B12 subsequently became unstable, Baylor wasn't the issue: it was the LHN. All the PAC 12 had to do was take OU and OSU; TX would have given in to the demands of the PAC. The PAC is similar to the B10 in that it prefers AAU members. Consequently, if TX would have remained firm, adding KU and Iowa St (both AAU members and new markets) would have all but killed the B12. I would have suggested K St (a better add with KU), but I don’t think the PAC schools would have voted to add it. That would have left the B12 with TX, TT, Baylor, K St and a coffin conference….

I think Texas played realignment really, really well. One thing that this board doesn't seem to get (which is likely due to not many people having a West Coast perspective) is how integral Texas was in getting BYU to go independent. BYU would NOT have gone indy without the long term symetrical scheduling agreement from Texas. One thing to ask is why would UT, with all their scheduling clout, agree to long term H:H scheduling with BYU while most P5 schools are scheduling 2:1 or asymmetric H:H:N with BYU. The answer is that BYU's independence, which Texas facilitated, was a warning to the PAC and other conferences of what Texas would do if anyone tried to bring them in under less than optimal terms. Texas made very clear to the PAC that any attemp to strong arm them into the conference by destroying the B12 could always be countered with independence. That posture worked.