(01-12-2014 10:41 PM)BaylorFerg Wrote:  

(01-12-2014 09:48 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Let's be honest, in the money sport, football, Baylor has a history of being terrible. A few good years doesn't make up for a history of being atrocious.

How old are you? Not trying to be an ass, but before the Big 12, Baylor was a respectable member of the Southwest Conference. It wasn't until the Big 12 that the school fell apart. While a member of the Southwest Conference Baylor won 7 conference titles. Tech, who most people seem ok with being in a power conference, had 2 SWC football titles and none of them were outright. They have no Big 12 conference football titles. It has taken a decades worth of futility from Baylor just to even the series between the two schools. What Tech has is a large student body and alumni base. Outside of that Baylor is superior in almost every category.

And let's be honest, while football is the biggest money sport, basketball does bring in quite a bit as well. If it didn't Kansas wouldn't be talked about as such a hot commodity. In basketball Baylor has been one of the top 10-15 teams over the last 5 years regarding post season success.

You say a few good years doesn't make up for a history of being atrocious, but before Bowden got to FSU, they weren't world beaters. How about Miami before Jimmy Johnson? Or Oregon before Mike Bellotti?I'm not saying Baylor will definitely reach their level of success, but with Art Briles running things, I think the future is bright. The school is dumping money into the program and Nike certainly feels the need to push the school to Oregon levels which translates well with the young recruits. I think as the grant of rights winds down Baylor will be in a much better position than when realignment started up a couple years ago and it looked like they would be left out.

The way that present P5 schools will fail to make the upper tier is by their own decision. I don't see that happening to Baylor. Nobody wants a lawsuit so what will happen is that minimums will be set for all participants to meet. There will be minimum endowment levels that you either have or are given a preset time limit to obtain, there will be a minimum of required scholarship sports for both men and women, there will be minimum standards set for attendance (or ticket sales), there will be minimums set for stipends paid and for the amount of stipends, minimums for facilities, and minimums for parking and lodging within the community if not within the immediate vicinity of the venue.

Believe me there will be a few schools, probably private ones that will opt out because of expense. I doubt Baylor is one of them. By the way I doubt that 64 will be the high unless we move to 3 conferences. If there are 4 surviving conferences, or 5, then I look for 72 to be about what we can expect to see in the upper tier. I think B.Y.U., Connecticut, Colorado Cincinnati will make it, and possibly U.C.F., Colorado State, or South Florida unless we move to 3 conferences.

Baylor has two options:

Continue to give UT their daily "happy ending" and pray they decide to stay in the Big 12

Or

Pray that whatever terrible amalgamation of leftover B12 and ACC schools that nobody wanted is grandfathered into the new Power Structure.

Because no power conference WANTS Baylor.

Isn't everyone so glad there's no Houston/Tech drama in this thread

(01-12-2014 11:17 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Baylor has two options:

Continue to give UT their daily "happy ending" and pray they decide to stay in the Big 12

Or

Pray that whatever terrible amalgamation of leftover B12 and ACC schools that nobody wanted is grandfathered into the new Power Structure.

Because no power conference WANTS Baylor.

10th I like the Big 12 just fine. We just won a football conference title and have a good shot at another women's basketball conference title and possibly even a men's basketball title this year.

As for your first option, I don't think UT is happy with anything Baylor is giving them. If any school is kissing their feet it is Tech. Right now the Longhorns don't have a sport that can compete with Baylor. That is why they have gotten rid of their football coach, their women's basketball coach, and don't be surprised if Barnes isn't next.

You say no power conference wants Baylor but they are already in one currently with a number of schools that could have gone to other power conferences but chose to stay where they were. Should the Big 12 fall apart, I'm not real worried about Baylor going to another power conference. I just think the SEC is the best fit for Baylor outside of the Big 12 and would prefer to be there if there was no Big 12.

You and about 50 other schools think the SEC is their best fit. The bad news is where you rank compared to them.

But by all means, wait by your mailbox for that invite. I'd take a soda and a magazine because it just might be a while.

(01-13-2014 10:18 AM)BaylorFerg Wrote:  

(01-12-2014 11:17 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Baylor has two options:

Continue to give UT their daily "happy ending" and pray they decide to stay in the Big 12

Or

Pray that whatever terrible amalgamation of leftover B12 and ACC schools that nobody wanted is grandfathered into the new Power Structure.

Because no power conference WANTS Baylor.

10th I like the Big 12 just fine. We just won a football conference title and have a good shot at another women's basketball conference title and possibly even a men's basketball title this year.

As for your first option, I don't think UT is happy with anything Baylor is giving them. If any school is kissing their feet it is Tech. Right now the Longhorns don't have a sport that can compete with Baylor. That is why they have gotten rid of their football coach, their women's basketball coach, and don't be surprised if Barnes isn't next.

You say no power conference wants Baylor but they are already in one currently with a number of schools that could have gone to other power conferences but chose to stay where they were. Should the Big 12 fall apart, I'm not real worried about Baylor going to another power conference. I just think the SEC is the best fit for Baylor outside of the Big 12 and would prefer to be there if there was no Big 12.

Again, there are several variables at play with regard to expansion that ultimately Baylor has little control over. For the SEC, I think the priorities are:

1. Establish presence in NC
2. Protect the SE from B1G incursion
3. Maintain financial parity with B1G

Baylor doesn't help in any of those areas. If fact, Baylor's only advantage to the SEC is the potential of a greater presence in DFW (I concede I have no idea about this) or if the networks decide to adding Baylor is necessary to eliminate the B12 and would compensate the SEC accordingly.

(01-12-2014 10:41 PM)BaylorFerg Wrote:  

(01-12-2014 09:48 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Let's be honest, in the money sport, football, Baylor has a history of being terrible. A few good years doesn't make up for a history of being atrocious.

How old are you? Not trying to be an ass, but before the Big 12, Baylor was a respectable member of the Southwest Conference. It wasn't until the Big 12 that the school fell apart. While a member of the Southwest Conference Baylor won 7 conference titles. Tech, who most people seem ok with being in a power conference, had 2 SWC football titles and none of them were outright. They have no Big 12 conference football titles. It has taken a decades worth of futility from Baylor just to even the series between the two schools. What Tech has is a large student body and alumni base. Outside of that Baylor is superior in almost every category.

And let's be honest, while football is the biggest money sport, basketball does bring in quite a bit as well. If it didn't Kansas wouldn't be talked about as such a hot commodity. In basketball Baylor has been one of the top 10-15 teams over the last 5 years regarding post season success.

You say a few good years doesn't make up for a history of being atrocious, but before Bowden got to FSU, they weren't world beaters. How about Miami before Jimmy Johnson? Or Oregon before Mike Bellotti?I'm not saying Baylor will definitely reach their level of success, but with Art Briles running things, I think the future is bright. The school is dumping money into the program and Nike certainly feels the need to push the school to Oregon levels which translates well with the young recruits. I think as the grant of rights winds down Baylor will be in a much better position than when realignment started up a couple years ago and it looked like they would be left out.

Comparisons with Tech is like claiming you're fast because you can outrun a Downs syndrome kid in the 100m.

Have you had success? Sure, modest success. The thing is schools tend to follow a pattern and Baylor's pattern isn't good.

Other than being a very poor football program I tend to think Baylor is a much better choice for expansion than Tech, which anybody who lives or lived in Texas knows is a school for idiots. It's quite literally terrifying to think they have a medical school.

Anyways, my money is on A&M pushing for Baylor over Texas or Tech should the conference find itself on the warpath for another Texas school. Baylor is easily the lesser of two evils and if Texas were to join then A&M would find itself all back of the bus once again.

(01-13-2014 02:08 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-12-2014 10:41 PM)BaylorFerg Wrote:  

(01-12-2014 09:48 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Let's be honest, in the money sport, football, Baylor has a history of being terrible. A few good years doesn't make up for a history of being atrocious.

How old are you? Not trying to be an ass, but before the Big 12, Baylor was a respectable member of the Southwest Conference. It wasn't until the Big 12 that the school fell apart. While a member of the Southwest Conference Baylor won 7 conference titles. Tech, who most people seem ok with being in a power conference, had 2 SWC football titles and none of them were outright. They have no Big 12 conference football titles. It has taken a decades worth of futility from Baylor just to even the series between the two schools. What Tech has is a large student body and alumni base. Outside of that Baylor is superior in almost every category.

And let's be honest, while football is the biggest money sport, basketball does bring in quite a bit as well. If it didn't Kansas wouldn't be talked about as such a hot commodity. In basketball Baylor has been one of the top 10-15 teams over the last 5 years regarding post season success.

You say a few good years doesn't make up for a history of being atrocious, but before Bowden got to FSU, they weren't world beaters. How about Miami before Jimmy Johnson? Or Oregon before Mike Bellotti?I'm not saying Baylor will definitely reach their level of success, but with Art Briles running things, I think the future is bright. The school is dumping money into the program and Nike certainly feels the need to push the school to Oregon levels which translates well with the young recruits. I think as the grant of rights winds down Baylor will be in a much better position than when realignment started up a couple years ago and it looked like they would be left out.

Comparisons with Tech is like claiming your fast because you can outrun a Downs syndrome kid in the 100m.

Have you had success? Sure, modest success. The thing is schools tend to follow a pattern and Baylor's pattern isn't good.

Other than being a very poor football program I tend to think Baylor is a much better choice for expansion than Tech, which anybody who lives or lived in Texas knows is a school for idiots. It's quite literally terrifying to think they have a medical school.

Anyways, my money is on A&M pushing for Baylor over Texas or Tech should the conference find itself on the warpath for another Texas school. Baylor is easily the lesser of two evils and if Texas were to join then A&M would find itself all back of the bus once again.

Really what Baylor has to do is outrun T.C.U.. The only way Tech beats them out is as part of a Texahoma public school block. Since that is a very low probability for the SEC if the SEC took another Texas school it will be for the DFW market. The germane question is does Baylor outdraw T.C.U. in Dallas/Ft.Worth? If they do they would be in. If it is a wash then it comes down to average attendance, facilities, academics, etc, all of which favor Baylor. If they don't deliver more of the market or as much of the market then the favor swings to T.C.U.. Personally I hope the SEC never has to face such a decision.

(01-13-2014 02:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 02:08 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-12-2014 10:41 PM)BaylorFerg Wrote:  

(01-12-2014 09:48 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Let's be honest, in the money sport, football, Baylor has a history of being terrible. A few good years doesn't make up for a history of being atrocious.

How old are you? Not trying to be an ass, but before the Big 12, Baylor was a respectable member of the Southwest Conference. It wasn't until the Big 12 that the school fell apart. While a member of the Southwest Conference Baylor won 7 conference titles. Tech, who most people seem ok with being in a power conference, had 2 SWC football titles and none of them were outright. They have no Big 12 conference football titles. It has taken a decades worth of futility from Baylor just to even the series between the two schools. What Tech has is a large student body and alumni base. Outside of that Baylor is superior in almost every category.

And let's be honest, while football is the biggest money sport, basketball does bring in quite a bit as well. If it didn't Kansas wouldn't be talked about as such a hot commodity. In basketball Baylor has been one of the top 10-15 teams over the last 5 years regarding post season success.

You say a few good years doesn't make up for a history of being atrocious, but before Bowden got to FSU, they weren't world beaters. How about Miami before Jimmy Johnson? Or Oregon before Mike Bellotti?I'm not saying Baylor will definitely reach their level of success, but with Art Briles running things, I think the future is bright. The school is dumping money into the program and Nike certainly feels the need to push the school to Oregon levels which translates well with the young recruits. I think as the grant of rights winds down Baylor will be in a much better position than when realignment started up a couple years ago and it looked like they would be left out.

Comparisons with Tech is like claiming your fast because you can outrun a Downs syndrome kid in the 100m.

Have you had success? Sure, modest success. The thing is schools tend to follow a pattern and Baylor's pattern isn't good.

Other than being a very poor football program I tend to think Baylor is a much better choice for expansion than Tech, which anybody who lives or lived in Texas knows is a school for idiots. It's quite literally terrifying to think they have a medical school.

Anyways, my money is on A&M pushing for Baylor over Texas or Tech should the conference find itself on the warpath for another Texas school. Baylor is easily the lesser of two evils and if Texas were to join then A&M would find itself all back of the bus once again.

Really what Baylor has to do is outrun T.C.U.. The only way Tech beats them out is as part of a Texahoma public school block. Since that is a very low probability for the SEC if the SEC took another Texas school it will be for the DFW market. The germane question is does Baylor outdraw T.C.U. in Dallas/Ft.Worth? If they do they would be in. If it is a wash then it comes down to average attendance, facilities, academics, etc, all of which favor Baylor. If they don't deliver more of the market or as much of the market then the favor swings to T.C.U.. Personally I hope the SEC never has to face such a decision.

Unfortunately for Baylor I don't think they do. I don't think Baylor fans would argue that they do. In terms of presence they have very little in terms of mass appeal. They do have a lot of wealthier and better off alumni and such but very little in terms of widespread appeal.

Let's bring this back to focus. Based on BBB's formula the SEC's priority list either is, or should be, the following:
1. Texas
2. Florida State
3. Virginia Tech
4. North Carolina
5. Oklahoma
6. N.C. State
7. Clemson
8. Virginia
9. Kansas
10. Georgia Tech
11. Duke
12. Miami
13. Central Florida

Quite Frankly I can't think of anything that would cement the SEC as a brand quite as well as the first two. That gives us total control over Texas and Florida.

If that is not to be then clearly Virginia Tech and F.S.U., or Virginia Tech and North Carolina are the priorities.

Texas and Oklahoma is a nice combo but likely to come wit two tagalongs.

Footprint arguments aside Clemson and Florida State would also cement the SEC brand and one if not both would love to come on board. Besides if they came then Virginia Tech would be more likely to consider the move as well and when N.C. State gets left behind by Duke and U.N.C. heading to the Big 10 then we have what we want. I said it two years ago, again a year ago, and it is still true today, take Clemson and Florida State and the ACC implodes. Their value drops like a rock without those two football programs.

Somewhere in this mix is the SEC future. T.C.U., Baylor, and some of the rest of the ones we are spending time on are a waste of breath. If it comes down to making a decision between those or some other schools the SEC is in a world of hurt.

Like I posted the only way that Baylor comes into the discussion is with some kind of package, or if ESPN wants to keep the ACC whole and Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State have all followed the Grapes of Wrath to the Pacific, West Virginia has been pulled into the ACC, and the Big 10 has taken Kansas and settled on Iowa State as a companion. Then and only then will we be looking at the DFW market as a preference local market addition and or Kansas State as a new market. And I'm sorry to disagree with some here but Baylor offers a lot more than T.C.U. but if they can't deliver DFW then they too are out of the mix at that point. Preferences to deliver Dallas / Ft.Worth are in order: Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State after that you're screwed. And to be blunt if Mike Slive (which I seriously doubt because he is the brightest of the commissioners) slumbers while Texahoma heads West, West Virginia becomes the red headed step child of the ACC, and Delany jumps on Kansas and agrees to Iowa State, and our only options are the DFW market and Kansas then he is derelict in his duties as commissioner and quite frankly if it comes down to that I say the hell with it give me Central Florida and East Carolina for a new state and for a portion of an existing one in which we have no school. In my opinion Central Florida will become the #2 school in the state of Florida over time. Why? Because as the need for educators is stemmed by automation and online classes Florida State's influence will fade a bit. And Central Florida will even more quickly outshine Miami. East Carolina would simply give us a big bad burr to put under the saddles of North Carolina, Duke, and N.C. State. Plus I'm old and finicky and have been to the Triangle many times. I prefer North Carolina Seafood to the cramped sorry hotels of Raleigh / Durham. And, while I don't love Disneyland there are a lot more things to see and do near Orlando than in Dallas/Ft.Worth.

(01-12-2014 11:17 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Baylor has two options:

Continue to give UT their daily "happy ending" and pray they decide to stay in the Big 12

Or

Pray that whatever terrible amalgamation of leftover B12 and ACC schools that nobody wanted is grandfathered into the new Power Structure.

Because no power conference WANTS Baylor.

To be fair, some of the existing power conferences have members that no one would want had they declined to be a founding member years ago. Washington State, Wake Forest, and the weaker of Ole Miss/Miss. St (it changes from year to year) come to mind. "Want" is a hard term in this discussion, because Ohio State, Alabama, and Texas probably "want" 48 or fewer schools where the cream of the crop makes obscenely more than even today's obscene amounts.

(01-13-2014 12:22 AM)Phlipper33 Wrote:  Isn't everyone so glad there's no Houston/Tech drama in this thread

I made a huge mistake in OP... I should have said Houston/TAMU/UT/Baylor/Tech/TCU/Rice/UTEP/Texas State/UTSA/Sam Houston/Lamar/North Texas/Stephen F. Austin/Texas Women's drama should be avoided. Did I miss anyone in the Lonestar State? The HBCU's seem to get along, at least.

(01-13-2014 05:03 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(01-12-2014 11:17 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Baylor has two options:

Continue to give UT their daily "happy ending" and pray they decide to stay in the Big 12

Or

Pray that whatever terrible amalgamation of leftover B12 and ACC schools that nobody wanted is grandfathered into the new Power Structure.

Because no power conference WANTS Baylor.

To be fair, some of the existing power conferences have members that no one would want had they declined to be a founding member years ago. Washington State, Wake Forest, and the weaker of Ole Miss/Miss. St (it changes from year to year) come to mind. "Want" is a hard term in this discussion, because Ohio State, Alabama, and Texas probably "want" 48 or fewer schools where the cream of the crop makes obscenely more than even today's obscene amounts.

You do realize that 48 is possible. It was discussed over a couple of decades ago that if the SEC and Big 10 both grew to 24 by taking the schools they wanted from the Big 12, ACC and PAC, that the two of them could essentially become the upper tier at 48 total teams. It is not that far fetched depending on how deep we get into stagflation and how uncooperative the other conferences become. None of these ideas today are really new. Ecclesiastes: "There is nothing new under the sun." I just believe that due to geography 3 x 20 is much more likely than 2 x 24, and that neither of them is likely in the short term. History says we go to 4x16 as a intermediate step before reorganizing more exclusively.

(01-13-2014 03:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Let's bring this back to focus. Based on BBB's formula the SEC's priority list either is, or should be, the following:
1. Texas
2. Florida State
3. Virginia Tech
4. North Carolina
5. Oklahoma
6. N.C. State
7. Clemson
8. Virginia
9. Kansas
10. Georgia Tech
11. Duke
12. Miami
13. Central Florida

Quite Frankly I can't think of anything that would cement the SEC as a brand quite as well as the first two. That gives us total control over Texas and Florida.

If that is not to be then clearly Virginia Tech and F.S.U., or Virginia Tech and North Carolina are the priorities.

Texas and Oklahoma is a nice combo but likely to come wit two tagalongs.

Footprint arguments aside Clemson and Florida State would also cement the SEC brand and one if not both would love to come on board. Besides if they came then Virginia Tech would be more likely to consider the move as well and when N.C. State gets left behind by Duke and U.N.C. heading to the Big 10 then we have what we want. I said it two years ago, again a year ago, and it is still true today, take Clemson and Florida State and the ACC implodes. Their value drops like a rock without those two football programs.

Somewhere in this mix is the SEC future. T.C.U., Baylor, and some of the rest of the ones we are spending time on are a waste of breath. If it comes down to making a decision between those or some other schools the SEC is in a world of hurt.

Like I posted the only way that Baylor comes into the discussion is with some kind of package, or if ESPN wants to keep the ACC whole and Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State have all followed the Grapes of Wrath to the Pacific, West Virginia has been pulled into the ACC, and the Big 10 has taken Kansas and settled on Iowa State as a companion. Then and only then will we be looking at the DFW market as a preference local market addition and or Kansas State as a new market. And I'm sorry to disagree with some here but Baylor offers a lot more than T.C.U. but if they can't deliver DFW then they too are out of the mix at that point. Preferences to deliver Dallas / Ft.Worth are in order: Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State after that you're screwed. And to be blunt if Mike Slive (which I seriously doubt because he is the brightest of the commissioners) slumbers while Texahoma heads West, West Virginia becomes the red headed step child of the ACC, and Delany jumps on Kansas and agrees to Iowa State, and our only options are the DFW market and Kansas then he is derelict in his duties as commissioner and quite frankly if it comes down to that I say the hell with it give me Central Florida and East Carolina for a new state and for a portion of an existing one in which we have no school. In my opinion Central Florida will become the #2 school in the state of Florida over time. Why? Because as the need for educators is stemmed by automation and online classes Florida State's influence will fade a bit. And Central Florida will even more quickly outshine Miami. East Carolina would simply give us a big bad burr to put under the saddles of North Carolina, Duke, and N.C. State. Plus I'm old and finicky and have been to the Triangle many times. I prefer North Carolina Seafood to the cramped sorry hotels of Raleigh / Durham. And, while I don't love Disneyland there are a lot more things to see and do near Orlando than in Dallas/Ft.Worth.

Yes, Yes, and when it comes to what is happening in the central portion of Florida, I don't count anything out.

I just posted these numbers on the Big Board with slight modification. Let's hope the state of Texas can behave!

(01-13-2014 05:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 05:03 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(01-12-2014 11:17 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Baylor has two options:

Continue to give UT their daily "happy ending" and pray they decide to stay in the Big 12

Or

Pray that whatever terrible amalgamation of leftover B12 and ACC schools that nobody wanted is grandfathered into the new Power Structure.

Because no power conference WANTS Baylor.

To be fair, some of the existing power conferences have members that no one would want had they declined to be a founding member years ago. Washington State, Wake Forest, and the weaker of Ole Miss/Miss. St (it changes from year to year) come to mind. "Want" is a hard term in this discussion, because Ohio State, Alabama, and Texas probably "want" 48 or fewer schools where the cream of the crop makes obscenely more than even today's obscene amounts.

You do realize that 48 is possible. It was discussed over a couple of decades ago that if the SEC and Big 10 both grew to 24 by taking the schools they wanted from the Big 12, ACC and PAC, that the two of them could essentially become the upper tier at 48 total teams. It is not that far fetched depending on how deep we get into stagflation and how uncooperative the other conferences become. None of these ideas today are really new. Ecclesiastes: "There is nothing new under the sun." I just believe that due to geography 3 x 20 is much more likely than 2 x 24, and that neither of them is likely in the short term. History says we go to 4x16 as a intermediate step before reorganizing more exclusively.

I didn't know about the "48" discussions years ago, JR. We need to find funding to put you, Frank, and a couple other guys from here on a College Sports History recording assignment. 48 sure makes things interesting... the cut is between schools like Kansas or Georgia Tech rather than Cincinnati or UCF. Interestingly, BYU would easily be a top 48 with the numbers put together, and UCF is in that 3.4 range of schools ranked 46-53 overall. Here is how I think that Big 24/SEC 24 league would look. Existing members get to stay (you're welcome, both Mississippi schools):

Big 10 - Existing plus Cal, Washington, UCLA, USC, Arizona, Stanford, Colorado, Oregon, Kansas, Notre Dame

SEC - Existing plus Texas, Oklahoma, FSU, Clemson, UNC, Duke, NC State, Virginia Tech, UVA, Georgia Tech (lucky location compared to Pitt)

Tough break for Arizona State, Pittsburgh, and Iowa State.

(01-15-2014 11:55 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 05:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 05:03 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(01-12-2014 11:17 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Baylor has two options:

Continue to give UT their daily "happy ending" and pray they decide to stay in the Big 12

Or

Pray that whatever terrible amalgamation of leftover B12 and ACC schools that nobody wanted is grandfathered into the new Power Structure.

Because no power conference WANTS Baylor.

To be fair, some of the existing power conferences have members that no one would want had they declined to be a founding member years ago. Washington State, Wake Forest, and the weaker of Ole Miss/Miss. St (it changes from year to year) come to mind. "Want" is a hard term in this discussion, because Ohio State, Alabama, and Texas probably "want" 48 or fewer schools where the cream of the crop makes obscenely more than even today's obscene amounts.

You do realize that 48 is possible. It was discussed over a couple of decades ago that if the SEC and Big 10 both grew to 24 by taking the schools they wanted from the Big 12, ACC and PAC, that the two of them could essentially become the upper tier at 48 total teams. It is not that far fetched depending on how deep we get into stagflation and how uncooperative the other conferences become. None of these ideas today are really new. Ecclesiastes: "There is nothing new under the sun." I just believe that due to geography 3 x 20 is much more likely than 2 x 24, and that neither of them is likely in the short term. History says we go to 4x16 as a intermediate step before reorganizing more exclusively.

I didn't know about the "48" discussions years ago, JR. We need to find funding to put you, Frank, and a couple other guys from here on a College Sports History recording assignment. 48 sure makes things interesting... the cut is between schools like Kansas or Georgia Tech rather than Cincinnati or UCF. Interestingly, BYU would easily be a top 48 with the numbers put together, and UCF is in that 3.4 range of schools ranked 46-53 overall. Here is how I think that Big 24/SEC 24 league would look. Existing members get to stay (you're welcome, both Mississippi schools):

Big 10 - Existing plus Cal, Washington, UCLA, USC, Arizona, Stanford, Colorado, Oregon, Kansas, Notre Dame

SEC - Existing plus Texas, Oklahoma, FSU, Clemson, UNC, Duke, NC State, Virginia Tech, UVA, Georgia Tech (lucky location compared to Pitt)

Tough break for Arizona State, Pittsburgh, and Iowa State.

I tell you what BBB if we go to 3 conferences it will be 60 and some folks will get left out. If we manage to keep 4 conferences, or 3 conferences with a newly rebuilt one for a 4th then I think we will be looking at 72. Personally in the end that may be best. But what I think will happen with 4 conferences is that in the first year there will be 64 teams. The criteria for membership will be set and within 1 or 2 years we will be at 72.

Making that kind of move will lessen the chance of any kind of lawsuit. The acceptance of more schools once the set criteria is in place will demonstrate upward mobility by compliance. I think at 72 we've included 1 spot past the investment break and have eliminated anyone who would have a legitimate beef about not being included. At 64 the conferences make their best selections. At 72 the networks pay the difference for the final 8 which will add some market niches, represent decent those with decent attendance, and will provide better competitive balance.

I know there are some out there with some angst over this but in the end I think Baylor, Cincinnati, Connecticut, B.Y.U., Central Florida/ or South Florida, and a couple of the rest make the field. And in spite of the wrangling if we move to 18 and haven't taken another Texas team Baylor would be fine. They have good academics, will have a nice venue, will compliment Vanderbilt, and we don't have any Bears or any Green teams. But that's only if we move to 16 first and then to 18. If we can jump straight to 18 I think there are some picks for which we could outbid the others for a better 18.

Agreed on the 72, JR. While I would have loved to see 4x16, I just don't know that the top dogs will have the guts or power to create an environment where existing P5 members would feel that opting out is in their best long term interest. At 72, everyone stays (65), BYU, UConn, Cincy, and I think both UCF and USF find homes. That leaves two spots. I would not want to be a part of the backroom madness that will take place to fill those two. I imagine it will come down to convenience of fit. Using my handy-dandy scores, those last two spots should go to Colorado State, UMass, or Temple, with Buffalo, Houston, and San Diego State knocking on the door. You have to think that Colorado State is in the best shape among those 6 schools because of their flexibility to fit well with the leftovers from the Big 12 or make it into a surviving Big 12. Whether the Big 12 survives or not, Colorado State finds a way to beneficially fit.

For the record, a school is worth what I say it is.

(01-16-2014 02:01 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Agreed on the 72, JR. While I would have loved to see 4x16, I just don't know that the top dogs will have the guts or power to create an environment where existing P5 members would feel that opting out is in their best long term interest. At 72, everyone stays (65), BYU, UConn, Cincy, and I think both UCF and USF find homes. That leaves two spots. I would not want to be a part of the backroom madness that will take place to fill those two. I imagine it will come down to convenience of fit. Using my handy-dandy scores, those last two spots should go to Colorado State, UMass, or Temple, with Buffalo, Houston, and San Diego State knocking on the door. You have to think that Colorado State is in the best shape among those 6 schools because of their flexibility to fit well with the leftovers from the Big 12 or make it into a surviving Big 12. Whether the Big 12 survives or not, Colorado State finds a way to beneficially fit.

I still think that 72 will be substantially lower than the number we will end up seeing, at least initially. I believe that all of the existing members of the American and the Mountain West would make the investments that will be required for inclusion in the new upper classification. Then some of the remaining schools will also seek inclusion and will make the necessary commitments, but these schools will almost exclusively be east of the Mississippi and could possibly form a new conference or meld with the remnants of the American that aren't snatched up by the Big XII.

I just don't think it's all going to be as tidy as most of the scenarios I see proposed here. There will be lawsuits and threats of more if schools that have invested in their NCAA Division I athletics programs are arbitrarily ousted from the top level. The only way I see it working for the Power 5 conferences in such a way as to avoid the bulk of the issues that would be raised is if they created a meaningful set of cutoffs based on football attendance plus athletic budgets. That way there would be a method for excluding schools that placed the burden of worthiness on the schools and not the NCAA. Of course, they would have to make the attendance low enough to include schools that they want included, like Duke, but high enough to prevent those they don't want. Just find the lowest five-year average attendance for a Power five school and that is likely to be the cutoff. Same goes for athletic budgets. But exclusion from the top layer would have to be something that could be overcome by a commitment to an acceptable level of athletic expenditures, assuming attendance passed muster.

For example, say the average football attendance cutoff is 30,000 per home game and the minimum athletic budget is $40 million. Southern Miss might meet the attendance threshold, but would have to double their athletic budget for automatic admission into the top group. I would assume USM would decide that they didn't have the resource base for such an increase and would accept its assignment to the lower classification. However, if the budget cutoff was $25-30 million, they might consider making the commitment to remain in the top group. The point is, as long as the split isn't arbitrary and allows a pathway for inclusion for member schools, the upper classification could be created without a huge fallout. But if the Power 5 simply dictate an arbitrary number based on who is currently in the club, plus a few add-ons, then I believe all Hades would break loose and college sports would be all about courtrooms, not playing fields.