The end of next week marks the beginning of the preliminary talks about the establishment of a new upper division within the NCAA. Let's make some assumptions and talk them through.

1. We stay within the NCAA and move to a P4 set up.

2. The P4 conferences (PAC, ACC, SEC, and B1G must account for all 10 Big 12 teams).

3. Each conference is expected to fill out 18 slots. This means of course that past the Big 12 teams that means 7 additional programs from the remaining schools would have to be added to the aforementioned P4 conferences to bring each to a total of 18 institutions.

4. No teams leave or are traded from existing P4 conferences so additions to 18 must include project schools for the conferences unless the Big 12 schools are used to get to 18.

Given that fact that anywhere from 60 to 80 schools have been discussed as the number for an upper tier, and that only a clear case can be made for the inclusion of 71 based upon either performance, investment, or academics and that a combination of those factors would likely be needed to make or complete a field of 72, which schools would you place in each conference and why? Fill out your 18 team PAC, Big 10, ACC, and SEC and be sure to utilize the frequently discussed alignment preferences of each respective conference.

What I want to see here is if 4 viable conferences can be created out of 72 teams. Have fun.

SEC East: *East Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, West Virginia
SEC South: Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
SEC West: Arkansas, Baylor, Louisiana State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M
* Maybe the SEC goes for a second Florida School (U.C.F. or U.S.F. or Kansas State)

ACC North: Cincinnati, Boston College, Louisville, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse
ACC Central: Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Temple, Virginia, Virginia Tech
ACC South: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, *Tulane, Wake Forest
*Might consider a gulf coast Texas school (Rice, Houston)

Big 10 East: Buffalo, Connecticut, Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers
Big 10 Central: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Purdue
Big 10 West: Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin

PAC 10 West: Arizona, Arizona State, California, California Los Angeles, Southern California, Stanford
PAC 10 North: Brigham Young, Oregon, Oregon State, Utah, Washington, Washington State
PAC 10 East: Colorado, *Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas, *T.C.U., Texas Tech
Could consider Nevada, U.N.L.V. or New Mexico

16 is the absolute cap IMO. I just don't see anything beyond that being feasible

Oh, I do love your games, JR. Let me stew on it a day or two.

Another JR "stick it to the Big Ten" thread? Alright.

Once again though, the Big Ten will never go for this and they have enough to offer that they can stop anything like this from happening.

(10-17-2013 07:43 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  16 is the absolute cap IMO. I just don't see anything beyond that being feasible

It depends on how many the D4 issues as a goal or cap, or whether they try to set a limit at all. The latest rumor was 80 which I simply don't believe so I thought we would try it out at 72 and see. It's just a game, not a prediction.

(10-17-2013 08:13 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Another JR "stick it to the Big Ten" thread? Alright.

Once again though, the Big Ten will never go for this and they have enough to offer that they can stop anything like this from happening.

It's just a game H1 see my post to Gamecock.

I see the SEC forming its own conference.

SEC - Existing 14 plus West Virginia, Cincinnati, Kansas State, Iowa State. The SEC forms a northern pod of Missouri, Kansas State, Iowa State, Cincinnati, Kentucky, West Virginia. Kentucky agrees because of it gives them a chance to compete for an SEC playoff position in football and is a good cultural fit.

PAC - Existing 12 plus Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, New Mexico, BYU. Texas figures out that the PAC is the only way to get both Texas Tech and Oklahoma while avoiding the perception of following TAMU. Accommodations are made for BYU since they are landing the two biggest fish, and New Mexico agrees to step it up as the natural bridge to Texas.

ACC - Existing 13 (minus Maryland) plus Louisville, Notre Dame, Rice, TCU, Tulane. All of the top brass of the ACC are tired of the national coverage being received about their loss of academic "prestige" title from a message board guy named bigblueblindess, so they get into recruiting hotbeds by adding solid academic schools in Dallas, Houston, and New Orleans.

B1G - Existing 12 plus Rutgers, Maryland, Kansas, UConn, Buffalo, and ???. As I've said before, the B1G should be doing some series vetting of the University of Toronto. Just google it... yeah, I know. That school has the potential to be every bit as powerful as Ohio State and Michigan. If they just kept the top basketball recruits coming out of Toronto, they are immediately a top 10 program. They are an international powerhouse in academics. They have immediate football facilities by sharing with the CFL team. In the scenario that JR laid out above, who else can they possibly add if not Iowa State?

(10-19-2013 09:44 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  SEC - Existing 14 plus West Virginia, Cincinnati, Kansas State, Iowa State. The SEC forms a northern pod of Missouri, Kansas State, Iowa State, Cincinnati, Kentucky, West Virginia. Kentucky agrees because of it gives them a chance to compete for an SEC playoff position in football and is a good cultural fit.

PAC - Existing 12 plus Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, New Mexico, BYU. Texas figures out that the PAC is the only way to get both Texas Tech and Oklahoma while avoiding the perception of following TAMU. Accommodations are made for BYU since they are landing the two biggest fish, and New Mexico agrees to step it up as the natural bridge to Texas.

ACC - Existing 13 (minus Maryland) plus Louisville, Notre Dame, Rice, TCU, Tulane. All of the top brass of the ACC are tired of the national coverage being received about their loss of academic "prestige" title from a message board guy named bigblueblindess, so they get into recruiting hotbeds by adding solid academic schools in Dallas, Houston, and New Orleans.

B1G - Existing 12 plus Rutgers, Maryland, Kansas, UConn, Buffalo, and ???. As I've said before, the B1G should be doing some series vetting of the University of Toronto. Just google it... yeah, I know. That school has the potential to be every bit as powerful as Ohio State and Michigan. If they just kept the top basketball recruits coming out of Toronto, they are immediately a top 10 program. They are an international powerhouse in academics. They have immediate football facilities by sharing with the CFL team. In the scenario that JR laid out above, who else can they possibly add if not Iowa State?

BBB, I've played around with that Northern division thing a bunch and can only find one way to make it strong enough to balance out the other two. I don't mind Kansas State to the SEC as I see them as a market addition, compatible with our many Vet schools and Farm Science programs. They would be another good middle level SEC school. Unlike some I would not be opposed to Iowa State except for distance. They are getting a bit far north for most programs. But they are AAU and with Kansas State they would add almost 5 million viewers to the network. Cincinnati has value in getting into a slither of Ohio but doesn't add much in Kentucky that the SEC doesn't already have. West Virginia is okay with a brand like Oklahoma or even Kansas or Texas, but when placed in with the mix of Cincinnati and Kansas State who are both ranked about where the Mississippi Schools are the package of them would kill the SEC's academic ratings all together. Even Iowa State as AAU only comes in right at our average in standing.

I don't think there is a great way to do a Northern division without Virginia Tech, North Carolina and Virginia. Then if you add a West Virginia to that mix you've more than covered the academic side.

I'm not knocking your selections as it would definitely carry the SECN into a new region with enough interest to make it marketable.

That's one reason I pushed this exercise and I appreciate the spirit of adventure that you put into your selections. It is also why I went first. If there is no further shuffling or trading within the existing P4 conferences then dividing the Big 12 between the P4 and adding to get to 72 isn't a logical thing to do. It weakens the SEC, forces the Big 10 to expand within their current footprint with Iowa State, and vastly rewards a PAC which neither pleases nor displeases ESPN & FOX as they are self owned and one of the lesser viewed conferences.

I hope more participate in this exercise because I think more than any other it shows how unlikely anyone is to be satisfied with 4 major conferences if they aren't involved with trading and sharing the burden of the lesser schools. It is why Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas are all likely to go to different conferences no matter what if the Big 12 is subdivided. I can see the PAC taking Texas, Texas Tech, Kansas State, and Oklahoma State to get into 3 states and claim an equal share of Texas. Kansas is definitely Big 10 in culture. Connecticut is on the Big 10 target list. If they can't get Syracuse I think Buffalo can happen. The price of these for the Big 10 is to take Iowa State. If you have to take one to help out it may as well be AAU. If the SEC gets Oklahoma we could take a DFW team from Texas to help out. If you have to take a hit on academics why not take ECU? They can move up with the proper help and they travel better than any North Carolina team. West Virginia then makes some sense to fill in part of that Virginia / D.C. market. Let the ACC take Cincinnati. Anyway that's my thinking and it is far from ideal. I still like 64, and love 60.

64 would work best, if your looking for D4 composed of 4 conferences of 16 teams each, with 4 pods, semi-finals, and the winners advancing to a championship playoff in an NFL type setup...

(10-19-2013 10:41 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  64 would work best, if your looking for D4 composed of 4 conferences of 16 teams each, with 4 pods, semi-finals, and the winners advancing to a championship playoff in an NFL type setup...

For me personally, I am not hoping for an NFL Lite type of situation. We don't need it to be so exact. I just think that College Football needs to take the most obvious improvements from the NFL that it can manage without completely losing the College identity.

The thing that College has that you absolutely cannot really get in the NFL is the Cinderella possibility. Even when the Giants won the Super Bowl, they were comprised of Professional players the same as every other team. The differences between teams at that level are much more slim. That isn't the case with College Football and I think it would be a mistake for the Major Conferences to not allow for atleast one mid major conference to be in the mix.

The problem now with Cinderella's is that they come from conferences that are Too watered down. If we had one single Mid Major Conference that competed at the top level then their watered down status is lessened.

The idea of only having 4 conferences and only 64 teams sounds very boring for me considering what we will have gone from. The NFL has expanded. College Football will have drastically slimmed down if it goes that route. I don't think that would be a healthy choice at all.

(10-19-2013 11:24 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-19-2013 10:41 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  64 would work best, if your looking for D4 composed of 4 conferences of 16 teams each, with 4 pods, semi-finals, and the winners advancing to a championship playoff in an NFL type setup...

For me personally, I am not hoping for an NFL Lite type of situation. We don't need it to be so exact. I just think that College Football needs to take the most obvious improvements from the NFL that it can manage without completely losing the College identity.

The thing that College has that you absolutely cannot really get in the NFL is the Cinderella possibility. Even when the Giants won the Super Bowl, they were comprised of Professional players the same as every other team. The differences between teams at that level are much more slim. That isn't the case with College Football and I think it would be a mistake for the Major Conferences to not allow for atleast one mid major conference to be in the mix.

The problem now with Cinderella's is that they come from conferences that are Too watered down. If we had one single Mid Major Conference that competed at the top level then their watered down status is lessened.

The idea of only having 4 conferences and only 64 teams sounds very boring for me considering what we will have gone from. The NFL has expanded. College Football will have drastically slimmed down if it goes that route. I don't think that would be a healthy choice at all.

That's what everyone else seems to be pushing towards. So what you or I want is irrelevant to their agenda...

(10-19-2013 12:06 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(10-19-2013 11:24 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-19-2013 10:41 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  64 would work best, if your looking for D4 composed of 4 conferences of 16 teams each, with 4 pods, semi-finals, and the winners advancing to a championship playoff in an NFL type setup...

For me personally, I am not hoping for an NFL Lite type of situation. We don't need it to be so exact. I just think that College Football needs to take the most obvious improvements from the NFL that it can manage without completely losing the College identity.

The thing that College has that you absolutely cannot really get in the NFL is the Cinderella possibility. Even when the Giants won the Super Bowl, they were comprised of Professional players the same as every other team. The differences between teams at that level are much more slim. That isn't the case with College Football and I think it would be a mistake for the Major Conferences to not allow for atleast one mid major conference to be in the mix.

The problem now with Cinderella's is that they come from conferences that are Too watered down. If we had one single Mid Major Conference that competed at the top level then their watered down status is lessened.

The idea of only having 4 conferences and only 64 teams sounds very boring for me considering what we will have gone from. The NFL has expanded. College Football will have drastically slimmed down if it goes that route. I don't think that would be a healthy choice at all.

That's what everyone else seems to be pushing towards. So what you or I want is irrelevant to their agenda...

We don't really know that is their true goal. For all we know that is their Negotiation point. That is what you push for. All the while you know that will not actually happen but by using that as the negotiation point you then actually achieve what it is you realistically desire to happen.

Then again, you could be right. Who knows.

I totally agree, JR. Trying to squeeze 72 teams into the existing P4 is impossible unless the ACC were to be split up instead of/along with the Big 12. The latter just does not have enough quality pieces to make it work. As I wrote a few months ago, though, new markets and quality institutions are readily available if the PAC and B1G are willing to cross the border to Vancouver and Toronto. Both cities are extraordinarily close in proximity to existing states (Vancouver to Washingtion and Toronto to Michigan, not to mention New York if Buffalo were to be added).

Having said that, 72 would be possible if there was further movement within the P4. Culturally, 18 in the SEC is only possible with the addition of North Carolina and Virginia unless we agree to double down in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, or Texas. Additionally, 18 is only possible for the PAC with the addition of Texas or at least Oklahoma and Kansas. The ACC would need to agree to scoop up at least 2 programs from Texas, but, in turn, the B1G would need to steal from the ACC since Kansas is really the only Big 12 school that would makes sense for them on all levels.

(10-19-2013 04:06 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  I totally agree, JR. Trying to squeeze 72 teams into the existing P4 is impossible unless the ACC were to be split up instead of/along with the Big 12. The latter just does not have enough quality pieces to make it work. As I wrote a few months ago, though, new markets and quality institutions are readily available if the PAC and B1G are willing to cross the border to Vancouver and Toronto. Both cities are extraordinarily close in proximity to existing states (Vancouver to Washingtion and Toronto to Michigan, not to mention New York if Buffalo were to be added).

Having said that, 72 would be possible if there was further movement within the P4. Culturally, 18 in the SEC is only possible with the addition of North Carolina and Virginia unless we agree to double down in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, or Texas. Additionally, 18 is only possible for the PAC with the addition of Texas or at least Oklahoma and Kansas. The ACC would need to agree to scoop up at least 2 programs from Texas, but, in turn, the B1G would need to steal from the ACC since Kansas is really the only Big 12 school that would makes sense for them on all levels.

How would cross border conferences be able to hash out legal issues? Canadian laws are different than our laws. It could be done I guess, but it would be a constant pain. All attorneys please help me out here...

(10-21-2013 12:32 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(10-19-2013 04:06 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  I totally agree, JR. Trying to squeeze 72 teams into the existing P4 is impossible unless the ACC were to be split up instead of/along with the Big 12. The latter just does not have enough quality pieces to make it work. As I wrote a few months ago, though, new markets and quality institutions are readily available if the PAC and B1G are willing to cross the border to Vancouver and Toronto. Both cities are extraordinarily close in proximity to existing states (Vancouver to Washingtion and Toronto to Michigan, not to mention New York if Buffalo were to be added).

Having said that, 72 would be possible if there was further movement within the P4. Culturally, 18 in the SEC is only possible with the addition of North Carolina and Virginia unless we agree to double down in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, or Texas. Additionally, 18 is only possible for the PAC with the addition of Texas or at least Oklahoma and Kansas. The ACC would need to agree to scoop up at least 2 programs from Texas, but, in turn, the B1G would need to steal from the ACC since Kansas is really the only Big 12 school that would makes sense for them on all levels.

How would cross border conferences be able to hash out legal issues? Canadian laws are different than our laws. It could be done I guess, but it would be a constant pain. All attorneys please help me out here...

What legal issues could there be? All of our major sports are in both the U.S. and Canada. The only potential issue could be keeping up with academic consistency, but Toronto would enter as a top academic school in the B1G and Vancouver would enter as an average team in the PAC. These are not academic lightweights. Athletes just need a passport. Other than that, there is no problems that I can see.

(10-19-2013 04:06 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  I totally agree, JR. Trying to squeeze 72 teams into the existing P4 is impossible unless the ACC were to be split up instead of/along with the Big 12. The latter just does not have enough quality pieces to make it work. As I wrote a few months ago, though, new markets and quality institutions are readily available if the PAC and B1G are willing to cross the border to Vancouver and Toronto. Both cities are extraordinarily close in proximity to existing states (Vancouver to Washingtion and Toronto to Michigan, not to mention New York if Buffalo were to be added).

Having said that, 72 would be possible if there was further movement within the P4. Culturally, 18 in the SEC is only possible with the addition of North Carolina and Virginia unless we agree to double down in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, or Texas. Additionally, 18 is only possible for the PAC with the addition of Texas or at least Oklahoma and Kansas. The ACC would need to agree to scoop up at least 2 programs from Texas, but, in turn, the B1G would need to steal from the ACC since Kansas is really the only Big 12 school that would makes sense for them on all levels.

BBB, it can be done but there are some stringent caveats for it to be able to happen. And it is easier at 64 than at 72.

1. Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas must all wind up in different conferences.

2. As we move to a P4 set up all conferences must play 9 conference games, and must play 1 school from each of the three remaining P4 conferences to round out their 12 game schedule. There will be no FCS or lower division FBS games.

3. All Spring games are moved to mid August and become a true preseason game and more importantly the 7th home game for each P4 school. These games may be scheduled against FCS or lower division FBS schools.

4. This is a model but gives you an indication of how it might be done:
SEC 16:
East: Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina
North: Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
South: L.S.U., Ole Miss, Miss State, Texas A&M
West: Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

At 18 we add Kansas State and Baylor/U.C.F./E.C.U.?

ACC 16:
North: Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse
East: Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Wake Forest
West: Louisville, Virginia, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
South: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

At 18 the ACC adds Cincinnati and Tulane

Big 1G:
East: Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers
North: Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue
South: Illinois, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin
West: Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Nebraska

At 18 the B1G adds Buffalo and Connecticut

PAC 16:
East: Colorado, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech
South: Arizona, Arizona State, California Los Angeles, Southern California
West: California, Nevada/U.N.L.V., Stanford, Utah
North: Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State

At 18 the PAC adds New Mexico and B.Y.U.

It's not perfect by any means but it gives each conference a regional or national brand, and either a top earner (Oklahoma State) or a new market.

At 18 it's just new markets and nothing to write home about except if the upper tier is set at 72 it gets us there.

Please do not put WVU in the ACC. I'd prefer the SEC, since they are of like mind...

With the rules you've stipulated JR, I think 18 is too many. But before I take a shot at it anyway, I'd like to ask H1 and Bit, if you are looking for a Championship that is determined on the field, then how can you be opposed to an NFL style playoff system? I'm a firm believer that playoffs are just as arbitrary a system as the college approach for determining a champ, but its the method that all fans seem to want. But to get to such a place, some concessions have to be made, one of those being that all 120+ will not be eligible for the postseason. Anyway JR, here we go:

ACC: current 14 plus ND, Temple, Texas, Baylor
PAC: current 12 plus TT, OU, UNM, UNLV, OU, OSST
SEC: current 14 plus TCU, WVU, ECU, Cincy
B1G: current 14 plus KU, ISU, UConn, SUNY - Buffalo

(10-21-2013 03:48 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Please do not put WVU in the ACC. I'd prefer the SEC, since they are of like mind...

It's just a long shot model with enough variables for that not to happen. But the variables aren't many. Oklahoma, Texas and Oklahoma state will have to be positioned so that within the set parameters Oklahoma can still play Oklahoma State and Texas in the same year. And one would have to think so that Texas can eventually play Oklahoma and Texas A&M in the Same year. So even the set up I gave still needs tweaking. Ideally it works best with Oklahoma State & West Virginia in the SEC, Oklahoma in the PAC, and Texas in the ACC. It's just with that model the reason for PAC inclusion of more Texas teams is tougher to justify.