(06-19-2014 10:47 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Few other thoughts for when realignment occurs (not this decade):

1. Conference aren't moving together. One goes to 16 will not force the others.
2. Teams have to pay for themselves. Iowa State and Pitt add no new markets and no huge national name to the Big Ten. The Big Ten will add neither.
3. Vanderbilt would never agree to leave the SEC. The fans love the conference. Further no school would feel comfortable asking them. They don't want the situation to ever be reversed.
4. The ACC has a more solid core group of schools than most recognize. That said if you ever succeed in breaking it up and have conferences looking to expand, I'd expect North Carolina and Virginia to the Big Ten and North Carolina State and Virgina Tech to the SEC.

Other than the fact that we are currently living in unprecedentedly "rare" times of change globally, politically, and economically, I would agree with you.

One other point about Vanderbilt and the SEC is this. The SEC has never asked anyone to leave and never will. It is part of its code of construction. Georgia Tech had a spat with Alabama over the issue of signing recruits. When that was followed by a Georgia Tech key injury on the field due to what looked like what we now call targeting Bobby Dodds pulled them out of the SEC. Tulane felt it could do better on its own. It hasn't quite worked out that way. Suwanee kept getting smaller and more expensive and dropped major sports. So after you account for those schools, none of whom were asked to leave, the SEC has kept its promise to the member schools and I don't see anything happening that would make them change their stance on this issue. There will be no swaps. We might make additions, but there will be no swaps.

That said I can see advantages to Kansas State over Baylor, but I can also see advantages to Baylor over Kansas State. I think the advantage overall goes to Baylor. It may be private but it helps deliver DFW, is an academic improvement for the SEC, and it delivers a commitment to more sports in a area where sports fans are as rabid as they are in the SEC. I think Kansas State would make a nice addition to the PAC. Besides people in the South consider Kansas to be a Northern State. Either of the Oklahoma's would be workable for the SEC. N.C. State would be nice but I don't see it happening unless the ACC needed a spot for a really key player and the Wolfpack were willing.

If Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Kansas State went to the PAC and Baylor and Oklahoma State to the SEC then I could see West Virginia to the ACC. But, I would think that the Big 10 might prefer a Syracuse to either Pitt or UConn. But either way if another ACC school departs Kansas to the Big 10 then makes sense and accounts for enough Big 12 schools to dissolve the conference and end the GOR. Then the ACC could choose between Connecticut and Cincinnati.

(06-19-2014 02:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Other than the fact that we are currently living in unprecedentedly "rare" times of change globally, politically, and economically, I would agree with you.

I probably overstated my belief in the status quo a little there (I tend to keep my economic beliefs out of conference realignment a little too much). Basically here are my beliefs as they have evolved.

1. I think that right now, the only structural changes that are being discussed are for power 5 autonomy. While the threat is out there, there's not even any real discussion of leaving the NCAA.
2. We will have a major bond/stock market collapse coming (the former the much bigger deal than the latter). Only after that, will we get schools/conferences looking at huge structural changes (that one is coming should be obvious to anyone employing many mathematicians, history shows we're always caught by surprise).
3. We will see major reductions in non-revenue sports (I predict only a fraction of them will survive) and see many colleges close (although probably not many at this level).
4. At that point, the GORs are actually a bigger deal than ever. Buying out of them will be completely impossible. With the grant of rights impossible to get out of, the only way you'll see realignment is if it's by mutual consent.
5. The only way to get mutual consent on the magnitude you need for big realignment at that point requires the conferences to effectively merge into one nation entity. The existing conference might still exist, but there would be one national league commissioner to negotiate TV rights. This could lead to mass redistribution of teams (although wouldn't necessarily have to). Note: The reason you'd need this huge change rather than a simple raid is that the grant of rights protects the other schools in the conference and you'd never find a home for most the schools.

I'm not sure if #5 would increase or decrease the Big Ten/SEC schools power/money and that is the key question. If they think they will make more money on their own than as part of a national league, then realignment with them is done until the grant of rights expire even with a major economic collapse. If they think they can make more in a national league, then everyone else can do too and it would be seriously considered.

(06-19-2014 03:19 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 02:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Other than the fact that we are currently living in unprecedentedly "rare" times of change globally, politically, and economically, I would agree with you.

I probably overstated my belief in the status quo a little there (I tend to keep my economic beliefs out of conference realignment a little too much). Basically here are my beliefs as they have evolved.

1. I think that right now, the only structural changes that are being discussed are for power 5 autonomy. While the threat is out there, there's not even any real discussion of leaving the NCAA.
2. We will have a major bond/stock market collapse coming (the former the much bigger deal than the latter). Only after that, will we get schools/conferences looking at huge structural changes (that one is coming should be obvious to anyone employing many mathematicians, history shows we're always caught by surprise).
3. We will see major reductions in non-revenue sports (I predict only a fraction of them will survive) and see many colleges close (although probably not many at this level).
4. At that point, the GORs are actually a bigger deal than ever. Buying out of them will be completely impossible. With the grant of rights impossible to get out of, the only way you'll see realignment is if it's by mutual consent.
5. The only way to get mutual consent on the magnitude you need for big realignment at that point requires the conferences to effectively merge into one nation entity. The existing conference might still exist, but there would be one national league commissioner to negotiate TV rights. This could lead to mass redistribution of teams (although wouldn't necessarily have to). Note: The reason you'd need this huge change rather than a simple raid is that the grant of rights protects the other schools in the conference and you'd never find a home for most the schools.

I'm not sure if #5 would increase or decrease the Big Ten/SEC schools power/money and that is the key question. If they think they will make more money on their own than as part of a national league, then realignment with them is done until the grant of rights expire even with a major economic collapse. If they think they can make more in a national league, then everyone else can do too and it would be seriously considered.

Even if the economy doesn't collapse anytime soon, simple greed will ruin a century of CFB success...

(06-20-2014 12:19 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Even if the economy doesn't collapse anytime soon, simple greed will ruin a century of CFB success...

Greed works both ways (for and against expansion) and fear is at work too (again both for and against expansion). At the moment, under the current situation, I think both the risk reward factor (greed vs. fear), greatly favors staying put. Only when the current set-up is threatened will there be large amount of realignment (or at least until the leaders feel confident expansion this far isn't going to dilute their products long term).

(06-19-2014 02:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  One other point about Vanderbilt and the SEC is this. The SEC has never asked anyone to leave and never will. It is part of its code of construction. Georgia Tech had a spat with Alabama over the issue of signing recruits. When that was followed by a Georgia Tech key injury on the field due to what looked like what we now call targeting Bobby Dodds pulled them out of the SEC. Tulane felt it could do better on its own. It hasn't quite worked out that way. Suwanee kept getting smaller and more expensive and dropped major sports. So after you account for those schools, none of whom were asked to leave, the SEC has kept its promise to the member schools and I don't see anything happening that would make them change their stance on this issue. There will be no swaps. We might make additions, but there will be no swaps.

That said I can see advantages to Kansas State over Baylor, but I can also see advantages to Baylor over Kansas State. I think the advantage overall goes to Baylor. It may be private but it helps deliver DFW, is an academic improvement for the SEC, and it delivers a commitment to more sports in a area where sports fans are as rabid as they are in the SEC. I think Kansas State would make a nice addition to the PAC. Besides people in the South consider Kansas to be a Northern State. Either of the Oklahoma's would be workable for the SEC. N.C. State would be nice but I don't see it happening unless the ACC needed a spot for a really key player and the Wolfpack were willing.

If Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Kansas State went to the PAC and Baylor and Oklahoma State to the SEC then I could see West Virginia to the ACC. But, I would think that the Big 10 might prefer a Syracuse to either Pitt or UConn. But either way if another ACC school departs Kansas to the Big 10 then makes sense and accounts for enough Big 12 schools to dissolve the conference and end the GOR. Then the ACC could choose between Connecticut and Cincinnati.

Understood your point. I wasn't arguing that the SEC would be willing to ask a school to leave but that, if push came to shove, they'd value most the schools would bring them gravitas in sports. I have no idea if the ACC would be able to bring a school from the SEC to their side. However, if I'm wearing the SEC hat, I might be able to accept losing Vanderbilt. It would be a loss in terms of academic prestige, that's for sure. However, Kentucky and Tennessee would hurt even more from a power standpoint. Realignment has been essentially a power shift and consolidation at the same time. The political angle can't be dismissed here.

All things being equal, the B1G would prefer Kansas over Iowa State. By the time actual realignment can happen again, the conditions may have changed so much that the B1G may end up losing the first-mover advantage. In my scenario, I'm assuming that the PAC achieves first-mover advantage based on how well the PAC Network does and what they'd be able to offer Texas in years' time. What might not change is the PAC's academic elitism. They might hold their nose on Texas Tech to get Texas but they might not with Oklahoma State. That gives Kansas the way out of realignment purgatory and continuing to play in the state of Texas. From Kansas' standpoint, the PAC would then become preferable to the B1G. Only if Kansas is left behind that they'd then work hard for B1G admission.

Meanwhile, there may be a lot of political pressure in Iowa if it seems that Iowa State may get left behind. Recently, there was a story about the Illinois legislative contemplating not only upgrading a university to high research standards but they wanted that university to become a 2nd public university in the B1G. Of course, the idea seems ludicrous to outsiders but in the Midwest the conference has had to take a very diplomatic stance if for fear of offending key legislators they might need later on. Iowa State is already not only a high research school but AAU as well. One can imagine the reaction would be if ISU becomes a casualty. I'm not saying that they would be admitted but I wouldn't be surprised, either. Politics have a way of affecting realignment. It did with Virginia Tech and the ACC.

Finally, if we are going to add either Kansas or Iowa State then the other one has to be in the East. There may not be two western or two eastern adds, so as to not favor either side. If Virginia suddenly wants to join then I wouldn't mind. But I'm assuming that UVA and UNC are so tight that they won't leave. Then it becomes a question of how to best secure the eastern moves and make sure the ACC doesn't regain enough strength to threaten to cut off that access. That's where I think Pitt would be most useful. It gets the Keystone State essentially in the B1G's orbit. Also a school that best connects the Midwest with the East. The ACC would have to bring in West Virginia to get back to even numbers.

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com...-happened/

Could have, might......you just never know.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketba...of-the-acc


Kentucky an ACC school in the SEC and FSU a SEC school in the ACC..........

It is really broken down to one reason why we are not done. Network control and the LOSS of coverage they have of the NFL due to the NFL more and more pushing their content onto their own Network. College football is now the Networks long term controllable football product. They know the NFL product is superior so it should be expected they will dole out the big money when, and only when, college conferences are willing to move in that direction. All these moves have been part of that. The ACC won the battle with the Big 12. The Big 12 is not expanding for a reason. The specifics need to be worked out but the days of that conference are numbered. It was never really cohesive so breaking it apart isn't really all that big of a deal for these schools so long as a few valued relations between specific schools can be maintained.

The contracts handed out to some conferences for going along with the plan are going to be astounding and it will be well worth it for these Networks to do so in order to protect themselves for the future as it seems the NFL hoards more and more of its own content for itself.

Four major conferences, one mid major, an extended national tournament and conference tournaments that create more regional rivalries within these conferences due to smaller divisions of regional viability. It is all following in the mold that the NFL has shown matches up with the demographical culture of this country as a whole.

Realignment is not over but small time realignment raids ARE.

(06-20-2014 08:19 PM)XLance Wrote:  http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com...-happened/

Could have, might......you just never know.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketba...of-the-acc


Kentucky an ACC school in the SEC and FSU a SEC school in the ACC..........

XLance, If C.M. Newton says it it is so. I hate Alabama, but he once tried to recruit me to Alabama, and that was for academics. He is a totally authentic guy and perhaps the most credible I have ever met in academia. That move at that time would have made a good deal of sense both ways.

I do think the article raises some great "what ifs". Where would Virginia Tech have landed if Kentucky had gone to the ACC and F.S.U. to the SEC? We've discussed the SEC's objectives at that time. Would Clemson have stayed in the ACC if Kentucky had come on board and F.S.U. had moved to the SEC? If the SEC had landed Clemson also where would South Carolina be? Would those additions have changed anything for Texas, A&M, and Oklahoma if Arkansas had still come on board? If they still weren't interested would our additions have become Arkansas and Miami to get to 16? In 1992 16 and 20 were in the discussion. I believe that decision probably did alter the face of college football today.

(06-21-2014 02:41 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  It is really broken down to one reason why we are not done. Network control and the LOSS of coverage they have of the NFL due to the NFL more and more pushing their content onto their own Network. College football is now the Networks long term controllable football product. They know the NFL product is superior so it should be expected they will dole out the big money when, and only when, college conferences are willing to move in that direction. All these moves have been part of that. The ACC won the battle with the Big 12. The Big 12 is not expanding for a reason. The specifics need to be worked out but the days of that conference are numbered. It was never really cohesive so breaking it apart isn't really all that big of a deal for these schools so long as a few valued relations between specific schools can be maintained.

The contracts handed out to some conferences for going along with the plan are going to be astounding and it will be well worth it for these Networks to do so in order to protect themselves for the future as it seems the NFL hoards more and more of its own content for itself.

Four major conferences, one mid major, an extended national tournament and conference tournaments that create more regional rivalries within these conferences due to smaller divisions of regional viability. It is all following in the mold that the NFL has shown matches up with the demographical culture of this country as a whole.

Realignment is not over but small time realignment raids ARE.

H1, I agree with most of your assessment. There are two contingencies that I could foresee that would slightly change it. One is that there might not be a mid major conference associated with it. And the second is that if there is a mid major conference associated with it, I think there would be two of them instead of one. I really feel that the P4 would have a champions only model for the National Championship, and for many reasons which we have discussed before. If mid majors do play some P4 schools I think they will have their own championship and that would require at least 2 conferences.

(06-21-2014 03:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-21-2014 02:41 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  It is really broken down to one reason why we are not done. Network control and the LOSS of coverage they have of the NFL due to the NFL more and more pushing their content onto their own Network. College football is now the Networks long term controllable football product. They know the NFL product is superior so it should be expected they will dole out the big money when, and only when, college conferences are willing to move in that direction. All these moves have been part of that. The ACC won the battle with the Big 12. The Big 12 is not expanding for a reason. The specifics need to be worked out but the days of that conference are numbered. It was never really cohesive so breaking it apart isn't really all that big of a deal for these schools so long as a few valued relations between specific schools can be maintained.

The contracts handed out to some conferences for going along with the plan are going to be astounding and it will be well worth it for these Networks to do so in order to protect themselves for the future as it seems the NFL hoards more and more of its own content for itself.

Four major conferences, one mid major, an extended national tournament and conference tournaments that create more regional rivalries within these conferences due to smaller divisions of regional viability. It is all following in the mold that the NFL has shown matches up with the demographical culture of this country as a whole.

Realignment is not over but small time realignment raids ARE.

H1, I agree with most of your assessment. There are two contingencies that I could foresee that would slightly change it. One is that there might not be a mid major conference associated with it. And the second is that if there is a mid major conference associated with it, I think there would be two of them instead of one. I really feel that the P4 would have a champions only model for the National Championship, and for many reasons which we have discussed before. If mid majors do play some P4 schools I think they will have their own championship and that would require at least 2 conferences.

Well if there is two mid majors of quality then the Majors might have to give both conferences an auto bid into the expanded future tournament. Why not set the new standards so that there has to be a merging at the mid major level to create one larger mid major so that only one autobid has to be handed out to them? It is a situation that can be manipulated.

The other mid major and lower conferences wont go away. What would be left in the MWC would just pull up from the other schools out West that have been left homeless or have had to really stretch themselves by joining conferences based in the East.

There has to be a mid major though in order to be a shield for the Majors when it comes to litigations and legal claims.

(06-16-2014 11:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-16-2014 08:15 PM)XLance Wrote:  I am beginning to think that we are done for a while...................unless the networks want to rebuild the Big 12 into a 12 team conference.
Take one school from column A (nebraska) and one school from column B (arkansas) and Fox/ESPN could make a fortune, plus have much more Class A inventory than if those same schools stayed in their respective conferences.
Texas isn't going to the PAC so we aren't going to have 4 x 16, maybe 5 good conferences is the solution if we can't divide into four great ones.

Hey, I will concede that what you suggest is possible (the being done for a while part), but I don't think that scenario is very likely at all. I'll give you a 10% chance of being right. I believe that there are still too many stressors for things to be over with for more than 2 to 3 years.

Actually, I think that the BYU story might have some legs. If BYU does join the Big 12, I would look for West Virginia to make a move too, to end their travel dilemma.

(06-24-2014 06:10 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-16-2014 11:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-16-2014 08:15 PM)XLance Wrote:  I am beginning to think that we are done for a while...................unless the networks want to rebuild the Big 12 into a 12 team conference.
Take one school from column A (nebraska) and one school from column B (arkansas) and Fox/ESPN could make a fortune, plus have much more Class A inventory than if those same schools stayed in their respective conferences.
Texas isn't going to the PAC so we aren't going to have 4 x 16, maybe 5 good conferences is the solution if we can't divide into four great ones.

Hey, I will concede that what you suggest is possible (the being done for a while part), but I don't think that scenario is very likely at all. I'll give you a 10% chance of being right. I believe that there are still too many stressors for things to be over with for more than 2 to 3 years.

Actually, I think that the BYU story might have some legs. If BYU does join the Big 12, I would look for West Virginia to make a move too, to end their travel dilemma.

Maybe if there is a breakaway B.Y.U. joins the exodus from the NCAA. But, whether that translates into conference membership remains to be seen. I would expect that with a breakaway realignment will end in one final move into 4 regional conferences of between 16 to 18 schools each.

Are you saying that WVU would join the ACC at that point? Because I just don't see them moving, as much as they might like to move, unless it's to the ACC.

Oh, WVU is gonna move alright but not to the ACC.....

(06-25-2014 04:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-24-2014 06:10 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-16-2014 11:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-16-2014 08:15 PM)XLance Wrote:  I am beginning to think that we are done for a while...................unless the networks want to rebuild the Big 12 into a 12 team conference.
Take one school from column A (nebraska) and one school from column B (arkansas) and Fox/ESPN could make a fortune, plus have much more Class A inventory than if those same schools stayed in their respective conferences.
Texas isn't going to the PAC so we aren't going to have 4 x 16, maybe 5 good conferences is the solution if we can't divide into four great ones.

Hey, I will concede that what you suggest is possible (the being done for a while part), but I don't think that scenario is very likely at all. I'll give you a 10% chance of being right. I believe that there are still too many stressors for things to be over with for more than 2 to 3 years.

Actually, I think that the BYU story might have some legs. If BYU does join the Big 12, I would look for West Virginia to make a move too, to end their travel dilemma.

Maybe if there is a breakaway B.Y.U. joins the exodus from the NCAA. But, whether that translates into conference membership remains to be seen. I would expect that with a breakaway realignment will end in one final move into 4 regional conferences of between 16 to 18 schools each.

Are you saying that WVU would join the ACC at that point? Because I just don't see them moving, as much as they might like to move, unless it's to the ACC.

1-I don't think that there will be a breakaway
2-I am beginning to believe that the Big 12 will stay a conference for the foreseeable future.
3-West Virginia will end up in the ACC.

(06-25-2014 08:39 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 04:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-24-2014 06:10 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-16-2014 11:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-16-2014 08:15 PM)XLance Wrote:  I am beginning to think that we are done for a while...................unless the networks want to rebuild the Big 12 into a 12 team conference.
Take one school from column A (nebraska) and one school from column B (arkansas) and Fox/ESPN could make a fortune, plus have much more Class A inventory than if those same schools stayed in their respective conferences.
Texas isn't going to the PAC so we aren't going to have 4 x 16, maybe 5 good conferences is the solution if we can't divide into four great ones.

Hey, I will concede that what you suggest is possible (the being done for a while part), but I don't think that scenario is very likely at all. I'll give you a 10% chance of being right. I believe that there are still too many stressors for things to be over with for more than 2 to 3 years.

Actually, I think that the BYU story might have some legs. If BYU does join the Big 12, I would look for West Virginia to make a move too, to end their travel dilemma.

Maybe if there is a breakaway B.Y.U. joins the exodus from the NCAA. But, whether that translates into conference membership remains to be seen. I would expect that with a breakaway realignment will end in one final move into 4 regional conferences of between 16 to 18 schools each.

Are you saying that WVU would join the ACC at that point? Because I just don't see them moving, as much as they might like to move, unless it's to the ACC.

1-I don't think that there will be a breakaway
2-I am beginning to believe that the Big 12 will stay a conference for the foreseeable future.
3-West Virginia will end up in the ACC.

1. The Breakaway, if it happens we move to 4 conferences. If it doesn't I agree we likely stay at 5 for awhile.
2. So I agree with you on #2 if there is not a breakaway.
3. I agree with you here as well.
4. How about those Commodores!

There are probably many in the Big Twelve fanbase who would like to switch out WVU for BYU. If the ACC is willing to take in the 'Neers then it should be a matter of the lawyers hammering out the details.

(06-26-2014 02:18 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 08:39 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 04:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-24-2014 06:10 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-16-2014 11:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Hey, I will concede that what you suggest is possible (the being done for a while part), but I don't think that scenario is very likely at all. I'll give you a 10% chance of being right. I believe that there are still too many stressors for things to be over with for more than 2 to 3 years.

Actually, I think that the BYU story might have some legs. If BYU does join the Big 12, I would look for West Virginia to make a move too, to end their travel dilemma.

Maybe if there is a breakaway B.Y.U. joins the exodus from the NCAA. But, whether that translates into conference membership remains to be seen. I would expect that with a breakaway realignment will end in one final move into 4 regional conferences of between 16 to 18 schools each.

Are you saying that WVU would join the ACC at that point? Because I just don't see them moving, as much as they might like to move, unless it's to the ACC.

1-I don't think that there will be a breakaway
2-I am beginning to believe that the Big 12 will stay a conference for the foreseeable future.
3-West Virginia will end up in the ACC.

1. The Breakaway, if it happens we move to 4 conferences. If it doesn't I agree we likely stay at 5 for awhile.
2. So I agree with you on #2 if there is not a breakaway.
3. I agree with you here as well.
4. How about those Commodores!

4-They played a great tournament.
College baseball is a growing sport and it plays well into ESPN's "southern strategy".

(06-26-2014 03:07 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  There are probably many in the Big Twelve fanbase who would like to switch out WVU for BYU. If the ACC is willing to take in the 'Neers then it should be a matter of the lawyers hammering out the details.

I could see that being a happy ending for both schools involved.

I don't see why BYU is a gain for the Big 12 in regards to trading WVU away for. There is no positive in it. The Big 12 really just helps the ACC with that move because WVU in the ACC is absolutely going to gain strength in both football and basketball. BYU doesn't help with travel distance, in fact they make it worse because of having to travel back an hour in time zone rather than ahead.

If folks think DeLoss was alone in his thoughts about preferring Eastern travel in comparison to Western travel, then to me that is just being naïve. People like Deloss do not gather the amount of power that he had and still has by going it alone on such things. He makes sure He is speaking for other people in power as well, that keeps him in power.

(06-26-2014 10:06 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I don't see why BYU is a gain for the Big 12 in regards to trading WVU away for. There is no positive in it. The Big 12 really just helps the ACC with that move because WVU in the ACC is absolutely going to gain strength in both football and basketball. BYU doesn't help with travel distance, in fact they make it worse because of having to travel back an hour in time zone rather than ahead.

If folks think DeLoss was alone in his thoughts about preferring Eastern travel in comparison to Western travel, then to me that is just being naïve. People like Deloss do not gather the amount of power that he had and still has by going it alone on such things. He makes sure He is speaking for other people in power as well, that keeps him in power.

I understand your reasoning here. We'll see soon enough. I do think B.Y.U. should make the P5 somewhere, and I feel the same way about Connecticut, Central Florida and South Florida. But if 65 is truly it, I don't see a P5, I see a P4.