Since the PAC is having difficulty finding carriage and their revenue is nowhere near that of the Big 10, and since the Big 10 needs football props and further expansion in the East won't get that done. And since the CIC requirements are for AAU schools here is what a recent rumor could lead to if it was ever acted upon by FOX and the Big 10/PAC.

The Big 10 would add 10 schools nine of which would be from the PAC and Notre Dame who would finally have all of the following in their new conference home: U.S.C., Stanford, Michigan, Michigan State, and Purdue and would have more money. They could utilize 1 non conference game for Navy and one for either Oklahoma or Texas and play 10 conference games, all while getting more money.

Since this kind of move would provoke an action by ESPN the SEC is a similarly constructed Mega Conference.

Then the remaining conference could be shared by ESPN and FOX and would provide an interesting regional mix of teams that fit together fairly well.




Big 10:
East:
Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Notre Dame, Ohio St., Penn St., Purdue, Rutgers

Central:
Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan St., Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

West:
Arizona, Arizona St., California, Cal Los Angeles, Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington




SEC:
East:
Clemson, Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Virginia Tech

Central:
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Mississippi St., Vanderbilt

West:
Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana St., Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M




Continental Conference:
East:
Boston College, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Louisville, N.C. State, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

Central:
Baylor, Houston, Miami, Iowa St., Kansas St., Oklahoma St., T.C.U., Texas Tech

West:
Boise St, Brigham Young, Colorado State, Fresno St., Oregon St., San Diego St., Washington St., Utah




Each conference would be guaranteed 2 playoff spots and the remaining 2 spots would be at large and all would be upper tier conferences.

From a simplicity standpoint I love it. But you have some 'made' teams in the Continental Conference that wouldn't be trilled with the new association, money be damned. I think the for the exercise to work, we first need to ID the Kings and Princes of the NCAA CFB that are capable of anchoring a conference, thus making the vassals happy despite being displaced.

West: USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal
North: UM, tOSU, ND
South: Texas, OU, UGA, UF
East: PSU, UNC

While I'm sure we all have our interpretations, I think it's clear is that there aren't enough of these teams to go around and the geographic distribution of such teams is unbalanced. That's why I always figured the PAC would remain, because the Cali 4 represent the best anchors of all the regions mentioned and have proven that can support a conference west of the Rockies.

BK BK

Now JR, I have a proposal for you that's been rolling around in my mind for a while. It actually includes something bullet used to talk about frequently. A straight up trade between the ACC and SEC; that of UT and Auburn for NCSU and VT.

From an academic perspective its just a trade of Engineering schools, but the ACC gains better brands that would placate the remaining ACC football schools. This would be important when the parting of the B12 came about as the Vols and Plainsmen would be able to offset the Texas additions of Baylor, TCU, WVU and even KSU while the Lorghorns get the ND treatment.

The SEC of course gets access to NC and VA, which would be just compensation of the loss of of such stalwarts.

vandiver, I have brought up the ACC doing everything possible to gain Auburn before on here. The problem for them is that Auburn is more valuable than anything they have to offer in basically every category that matters for major athletics. The ACC would have to offer Auburn everything that a full ACC member receives plus agree to cover any difference in compensation compared to the SEC into perpetuity, plus more of something to steal them away from their home, not to mention 3 biggest rivals (Bama, UF, UGA).

Vanderbilt is the only school I can see with an outside possibility of being in the ACC or whatever it is called in future years. By ACC, I really mean Duke, Wake Forest, Boston College, Syracuse, and maybe Miami and Notre Dame. If a full or majority elite private conference ever arose from this realignment end game, then Vanderbilt, and I would think Northwestern, would at least want the free cruise with the sales pitch.

JR, I think that move for the Big 10 to take the PAC schools would hit a lot of the goals that the AAU-centric schools desire. Of course, Arizona State and Notre Dame are the outliers there. I don't think Notre Dame would be a problem. I can really see Kansas wanting to be a part of that Big 10 central division and Colorado wanting to be in the west division. Perhaps the following could work? This would dissolve the PAC GOR, as well:

Big 10:

East: No Changes

Central: Colorado out, Kansas in

West: Arizona State out, Colorado in


SEC:

East - No Changes

Central - No Changes

West - Kansas out, Arizona State in


Yes, Arizona is pretty out west, but their culture is very much in line with the state of Texas. They would be a disaster if pair with the Atlantic coast, but I think Arizona State fits in just fine with that SEC west division.

Also, are you assuming the Wake Forest would still drop out of a 72 team setup like this? I think Miami is the biggest loser in this arrangement, but they have been making their bed for several years now.

(05-14-2014 08:27 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  From a simplicity standpoint I love it. But you have some 'made' teams in the Continental Conference that wouldn't be trilled with the new association, money be damned. I think the for the exercise to work, we first need to ID the Kings and Princes of the NCAA CFB that are capable of anchoring a conference, thus making the vassals happy despite being displaced.

West: USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal
North: UM, tOSU, ND
South: Texas, OU, UGA, UF
East: PSU, UNC

While I'm sure we all have our interpretations, I think it's clear is that there aren't enough of these teams to go around and the geographic distribution of such teams is unbalanced. That's why I always figured the PAC would remain, because the Cali 4 represent the best anchors of all the regions mentioned and have proven that can support a conference west of the Rockies.

BK BK

Now JR, I have a proposal for you that's been rolling around in my mind for a while. It actually includes something bullet used to talk about frequently. A straight up trade between the ACC and SEC; that of UT and Auburn for NCSU and VT.

From an academic perspective its just a trade of Engineering schools, but the ACC gains better brands that would placate the remaining ACC football schools. This would be important when the parting of the B12 came about as the Vols and Plainsmen would be able to offset the Texas additions of Baylor, TCU, WVU and even KSU while the Lorghorns get the ND treatment.

The SEC of course gets access to NC and VA, which would be just compensation of the loss of of such stalwarts.

On Paper that looks great. The issue is the anchor in the South that you left out, Alabama. Do you think for a minute that Alabama would agree to lose their two biggest rivals to the ACC? The Second biggest issue is Auburn. Do you think for a second that Auburn can afford to give up the SEC label for the ACC label and compete in recruiting with their arch rival?, or the second rival Georgia? It truly would be a call to arms on the Plains.

No the issues at play here are money increases, fit, and leverage. Why create the third conference? It's better than leaving those schools out. When you look at a 24 team SEC and Big 10 you have essentially the top 48 programs by all metrics averaged: revenue, attendance, markets, and academics. And, I would argue that the distinctions are fair. The balance is intended to be between the SEC and Big 10, the third conference is the buffer between the haves and have nots. It is the conference that those below the upper tier would hope to enter. None of the schools placed in it belong in the Big 10 or SEC. But they don't belong in the lower tier either.

They get equal access to the playoffs, they get much higher TV contracts than they would get in a lower tier, they get scheduling inclusion, but they aren't going to get paid the same as the Big 10 or SEC. Also what they get is an easier track somewhat to the playoffs. I think that is as good as it gets. But, what everyone gets is a regional 8 team division that essentially functions like the old conferences of 50's did. Sure they cross over to play other conference teams, but the vast majority of their minor sports wind up being majorly contained within their areas.

Now on a different tact of thought there is no reason for any SEC school to leave for the ACC. It is the ACC that needs the boost up in revenue. It is the ACC that doesn't have a network. It is the ACC that spread in a thin line essentially up the Eastern Seaboard therefore making it more vulnerable geographically due to travel and much less culturally tied to one another. It is the ACC that only has two relevant football programs right now. It is the ACC that will need to shelter its content that is tied together culturally to the Southeast. The SEC only has to wait until the ACC comes under enough pressure that ESPN fears losing them and the merger will occur. Now that could be the result of future Big 10 attempts to poach their schools, or it could be the result of the income disparity created by a Big 10 merger with the most viable properties of the PAC.

Everyone overplays the strength of the Big 10. They expand to chase population. The SEC expands for revenue but with schools that they want. The SEC is the leader in revenue generated, attendance, television viewers, and size of travel crowds. We have the recruits and the talent pool from which to recruit. How strong is the SEC? Just look at what A&M is doing in Texas and what has happened to Texas. Will that difference stick? I think so, but right now Texas got hit at the right time so the disparity won't remain as vast as it is now, but there has been a disparity created. The SEC is still nuclear, the Big 10 is already suffering angst on the Prairie as it seems that Ohio State and Michigan are abandoning those schools and are looking to cash in in the East.

The SEC doesn't need to work with the ACC. Doing so on the division of Big 12 properties would be beneficial, but dividing our nucleus would be unwise and unneeded. We can get everything we want by waiting, watching, and using influence when necessary.

(05-14-2014 10:34 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  JR, I think that move for the Big 10 to take the PAC schools would hit a lot of the goals that the AAU-centric schools desire. Of course, Arizona State and Notre Dame are the outliers there. I don't think Notre Dame would be a problem. I can really see Kansas wanting to be a part of that Big 10 central division and Colorado wanting to be in the west division. Perhaps the following could work? This would dissolve the PAC GOR, as well:

Big 10:

East: No Changes

Central: Colorado out, Kansas in

West: Arizona State out, Colorado in


SEC:

East - No Changes

Central - No Changes

West - Kansas out, Arizona State in


Yes, Arizona is pretty out west, but their culture is very much in line with the state of Texas. They would be a disaster if pair with the Atlantic coast, but I think Arizona State fits in just fine with that SEC west division.

Also, are you assuming the Wake Forest would still drop out of a 72 team setup like this? I think Miami is the biggest loser in this arrangement, but they have been making their bed for several years now.

BBB, I totally agree but just as with Oklahoma/Oklahoma State there is a political problem with Arizona/Arizona State. And just as you have to account for 8 schools in the Big 12 to dissolve their conference, you have to account for 8 schools in the PAC to dissolve theirs as well. So even if the Big 10 took the 4 California schools, Washington, and Colorado that would be 6 AAU schools. Oregon has the backing of Nike, just like U.S.C. has the backing of George Lucas for such a move. So non AAU Oregon gets inclusion like Nebraska did. Now you have 7 votes. Arizona is AAU. But if they don't come without A.S.U. are you going to throw away a deal over a competitive Sun Devils team? The CIC hits a home run with 7 of those 9 and Notre Dame doesn't hurt it. Their exclusion is due to a lot of issues but most are fairly minor, except to N.D. who refuses on Faith issues to be involved in stem cell research.

Washington State is in worse shape than Wake Forest in attendance and efficacy in competing on the highest level. Oregon State is pretty low academically by Big 10 standards and isn't yet tied to Oregon. Utah was lucky to get into the PAC in the first place. I think the cost of A.S.U. is very minor compared to landing the California 4 and Washington alone.

JR, the Big 10 situation is actually better than you thought. Oregon is indeed an AAU member. The website says they have been a member since 1969 (http://aau.edu/about/default.aspx?id=5476). To break a GOR, Arizona State could go to the SEC, correct? The dissolution by the PAC members would occur first, and then they would be invited to a new conference. Of course, there would be some behind the scenes collusion, but 8 of the PAC schools would go to the Big 10, and Arizona State would go to the SEC. Washington State, Oregon State, and Utah are in the continental conference.

Another positive aspect of these three mega conferences is that the Big 10 and SEC could easily expand in years to come as needed. 2 additions could break the conferences into 4x5, and three additions would just be 3x8. Each of the three pods in the Continental Conference have one or two teams that could conceivably make it worth the Big 10 and SEC's while to add them over the next few decades. The geographic approach also makes it much easier to bring up schools to the Continental Conference over time as required.

(05-14-2014 11:20 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  JR, the Big 10 situation is actually better than you thought. Oregon is indeed an AAU member. The website says they have been a member since 1969 (http://aau.edu/about/default.aspx?id=5476). To break a GOR, Arizona State could go to the SEC, correct? The dissolution by the PAC members would occur first, and then they would be invited to a new conference. Of course, there would be some behind the scenes collusion, but 8 of the PAC schools would go to the Big 10, and Arizona State would go to the SEC. Washington State, Oregon State, and Utah are in the continental conference.

Another positive aspect of these three mega conferences is that the Big 10 and SEC could easily expand in years to come as needed. 2 additions could break the conferences into 4x5, and three additions would just be 3x8. Each of the three pods in the Continental Conference have one or two teams that could conceivably make it worth the Big 10 and SEC's while to add them over the next few decades. The geographic approach also makes it much easier to bring up schools to the Continental Conference over time as required.

I had missed Oregon's inclusion in the AAU. Thanks for that correction. Now on the math we are talking about 3 twenty-four team conferences already. By adding 4 schools to the Big 10 or SEC in the circumstances of growth of the upper tier what you could move to would be 4 seven team divisions although the geography might get a bit trickier it could be done.

But yes, part of the impetus behind the Continental Conference was to have upward flexibility.

Now to Arizona State, the SEC could take them in in the west, but that is a long long haul. Since Oregon is AAU perhaps Arizona would have more of a leg to stand on to get out from under that burden. I'd say just drop A.S.U. down to the Continental but if that doesn't work Utah is closer to AAU status and maybe the Utes get an even bigger boost up to the Big 10 with the other 7. I think if the state of Arizona was confronted with two of their teams living in lesser earning conferences they might relent. How that would affect things is that the Big 10 would have another Central slot and then Kansas would make sense for them, or they might go for Syracuse in the East and move Michigan back to the Central for strength. I think my money would be on Syracuse because of the market share in the Northeast. But, if Kansas gets taken then the SEC could either opt for Miami, Louisville, N.C. State or Baylor.

Oops! I knew they were 24 school conferences but had 18 in my head when I wrote that note. Thanks for the correction. Yes, over 24 becomes more difficult, I suppose 3x9 is doable, but not preferred. 4x7 or eventually 4x8 would be more workable.

I agree with Utah. If their curve continues as it has the last few decades, they will be in the mix for AAU status (or at least AAU levels like Virginia Tech) fairly soon. As long as Colorado wants to be associated with the west, Utah will have every opportunity to be at the table. They are a good bridge for both sides.

(05-13-2014 09:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  An amended set up based upon BBB's information.




Big 10:
East:
Indiana, Maryland, Notre Dame, Ohio St., Penn St., Purdue, Rutgers, Syracuse

Central:
Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan St., Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

West:
Arizona, California, Cal Los Angeles, Colorado, Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington




SEC:
East:
Clemson, Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Virginia Tech

Central:
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Mississippi St., Vanderbilt

West:
Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana St., Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M




Continental Conference:
East:
Boston College, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Louisville, N.C. State, Pittsburgh, Wake Forest, West Virginia

Central:
Baylor, Houston, Miami, Iowa St., Kansas St., Oklahoma St., T.C.U., Texas Tech

West:
Arizona St, Brigham Young, Colorado State, Fresno St., Oregon St., San Diego St., Washington St., Utah




Each conference would be guaranteed 2 playoff spots and the remaining 2 spots would be at large and all would be upper tier conferences.

Also for baseball you would play a 3 game series with everyone in your division and 3 series with each of the other two divisions for 13 conference series or 39 games. Midweek would be with smaller schools in your area. There would be little need for OOC baseball series which also adds to the fun of the regionals and super regionals. In basketball you would play home and home with everyone in your division and play each other school 1 time. That's 30 games. Again there would be no need for OOC games because who you used to play is now in your conference. Smaller schools can be scheduled for mid week games or early season games and OOC rivals can be scheduled in the early season as well. This too will add to the anticipation of the tournament.

For non-revenue sports you would play in your division only and play smaller schools in your area and play other conference schools in playoffs and tournaments. It's not as exciting but is much more affordable and provides easy travel for parents and fans of these sports.

For my 2 cents, this is my ideal 20 team SEC:



Alabama/Arkansas/Auburn/Florida/Florida State/Georgia/Kansas/Kentucky/Louisiana State/Mississippi/Mississippi State/Missouri/North Carolina State/Oklahoma State/South Carolina/Tennessee/Texas A&M/West Virginia/Vanderbilt

An ideal mix of teams and markets all with enough SEC gusto to keep what makes the conference special still there.

OSU/Missouri/Arkansas/Kansas bring in the KC-SL mid west

OSU/Arkansas/A&M bring in DFW

A&M/LSU brings in greater Houston

FSU/UF combo locks pretty much all of up Florida

NCSU and VT bring in NC and VA with another 18 million people (ie adding a second Florida)

VT/WVU gets us into the D.C. market

WVU gets us into the Pittsburgh market

10th, I think your 20 team conference would make most SEC fans happy. Disregarding reality (GOR's, revenue, hard feelings, elitism, etc.), I think the additions below would be the majority of the SEC's (Slive, presidents, AD's) excitement levels:

Ecstatic - Texas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Virginia

Giddy - Florida State, Clemson, North Carolina State (no UNC), Virginia Tech (no UNC), Kansas, Duke (no UNC)

Happy - Oklahoma State (no Oklahoma), Duke (no UNC)

Fine, but there better be a big ecstatic or giddy fish attached - Kansas State (no Kansas), Iowa State, Baylor, Georgia Tech, West Virginia (no Pitt), Louisville, Pittsburgh (no WVU), North Carolina State (with UVA), Virginia Tech (with UVA), Texas Tech

Somebody's getting fired or leaving - TCU, Wake Forest, Miami, Cincinnati

(05-14-2014 10:52 AM)JRsec Wrote:  On Paper that looks great. The issue is the anchor in the South that you left out, Alabama. Do you think for a minute that Alabama would agree to lose their two biggest rivals to the ACC? The Second biggest issue is Auburn. Do you think for a second that Auburn can afford to give up the SEC label for the ACC label and compete in recruiting with their arch rival?, or the second rival Georgia? It truly would be a call to arms on the Plains.

I'm somewhat counter to the conventional POV that 'Bama is a King. Based on their CFB history, sure they are. But could they anchor a conference w/o UGA and UF and draw others schools to them? I'm dubious of that. And of course both Auburn and Knoxville would be burnt to the ground for suggesting such a thing, but this was simply a suggestion for ESPN to strengthen both of its properties.

Quote: No the issues at play here are money increases, fit, and leverage. Why create the third conference? It's better than leaving those schools out. When you look at a 24 team SEC and Big 10 you have essentially the top 48 programs by all metrics averaged: revenue, attendance, markets, and academics. And, I would argue that the distinctions are fair. The balance is intended to be between the SEC and Big 10, the third conference is the buffer between the haves and have nots. It is the conference that those below the upper tier would hope to enter. None of the schools placed in it belong in the Big 10 or SEC. But they don't belong in the lower tier either.

OK, I see your point there.

Quote:Now on a different tact of thought there is no reason for any SEC school to leave for the ACC. It is the ACC that needs the boost up in revenue. It is the ACC that doesn't have a network. It is the ACC that spread in a thin line essentially up the Eastern Seaboard therefore making it more vulnerable geographically due to travel and much less culturally tied to one another. It is the ACC that only has two relevant football programs right now. It is the ACC that will need to shelter its content that is tied together culturally to the Southeast. The SEC only has to wait until the ACC comes under enough pressure that ESPN fears losing them and the merger will occur. Now that could be the result of future Big 10 attempts to poach their schools, or it could be the result of the income disparity created by a Big 10 merger with the most viable properties of the PAC.

For ESPN the bolstering of the ACC I think has to be a priority for them. Even with the additions of UL and ND, the ACC footprint simply lacks the demand and the brands to justify contract parity with the SEC. Yet this lack of parity is what makes the ACC vulnerable to the B1G. Texas alone would help, but if the Longhorns demand friends then the ACC is right back in the same position.

(05-14-2014 11:53 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 09:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

Also for baseball you would play a 3 game series with everyone in your division and 3 series with each of the other two divisions for 13 conference series or 39 games. Midweek would be with smaller schools in your area. There would be little need for OOC baseball series which also adds to the fun of the regionals and super regionals. In basketball you would play home and home with everyone in your division and play each other school 1 time. That's 30 games. Again there would be no need for OOC games because who you used to play is now in your conference. Smaller schools can be scheduled for mid week games or early season games and OOC rivals can be scheduled in the early season as well. This too will add to the anticipation of the tournament.

For non-revenue sports you would play in your division only and play smaller schools in your area and play other conference schools in playoffs and tournaments. It's not as exciting but is much more affordable and provides easy travel for parents and fans of these sports.

I think that is a great setup, JR. They may have to allow for a single OOC matchup against another power conference to settle Oklahoma/Oklahoma State and Kentucky/Louisville type situations, but I think just one such arrangement would be satisfactory. It would be awesome for conferences to just meet in the national tournament. Talk about suspense and jawing all season!

(05-14-2014 01:13 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 10:52 AM)JRsec Wrote:  On Paper that looks great. The issue is the anchor in the South that you left out, Alabama. Do you think for a minute that Alabama would agree to lose their two biggest rivals to the ACC? The Second biggest issue is Auburn. Do you think for a second that Auburn can afford to give up the SEC label for the ACC label and compete in recruiting with their arch rival?, or the second rival Georgia? It truly would be a call to arms on the Plains.

I'm somewhat counter to the conventional POV that 'Bama is a King. Based on their CFB history, sure they are. But could they anchor a conference w/o UGA and UF and draw others schools to them? I'm dubious of that. And of course both Auburn and Knoxville would be burnt to the ground for suggesting such a thing, but this was simply a suggestion for ESPN to strengthen both of its properties.

Quote: No the issues at play here are money increases, fit, and leverage. Why create the third conference? It's better than leaving those schools out. When you look at a 24 team SEC and Big 10 you have essentially the top 48 programs by all metrics averaged: revenue, attendance, markets, and academics. And, I would argue that the distinctions are fair. The balance is intended to be between the SEC and Big 10, the third conference is the buffer between the haves and have nots. It is the conference that those below the upper tier would hope to enter. None of the schools placed in it belong in the Big 10 or SEC. But they don't belong in the lower tier either.

OK, I see your point there.

Quote:Now on a different tact of thought there is no reason for any SEC school to leave for the ACC. It is the ACC that needs the boost up in revenue. It is the ACC that doesn't have a network. It is the ACC that spread in a thin line essentially up the Eastern Seaboard therefore making it more vulnerable geographically due to travel and much less culturally tied to one another. It is the ACC that only has two relevant football programs right now. It is the ACC that will need to shelter its content that is tied together culturally to the Southeast. The SEC only has to wait until the ACC comes under enough pressure that ESPN fears losing them and the merger will occur. Now that could be the result of future Big 10 attempts to poach their schools, or it could be the result of the income disparity created by a Big 10 merger with the most viable properties of the PAC.

For ESPN the bolstering of the ACC I think has to be a priority for them. Even with the additions of UL and ND, the ACC footprint simply lacks the demand and the brands to justify contract parity with the SEC. Yet this lack of parity is what makes the ACC vulnerable to the B1G. Texas alone would help, but if the Longhorns demand friends then the ACC is right back in the same position.

Hey Vandiver we still pretty much see things similarly even if we interpret them differently sometimes. I just think eventually 7 properties from the ACC would be the most likely sheltered in the SEC and would attain parity that way. The others relegated to a new conference would probably be boosted up to 21 million and that is more than they are making now. It's the cheapest way to protect those schools that generate the most revenue and the cheapest way to attain the split with regards to the others, especially if ESPN and FOX split the obligation to the third conference while both glean huge content increases and market increases for the SEC and Big 10.

(05-14-2014 10:22 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  vandiver, I have brought up the ACC doing everything possible to gain Auburn before on here. The problem for them is that Auburn is more valuable than anything they have to offer in basically every category that matters for major athletics. The ACC would have to offer Auburn everything that a full ACC member receives plus agree to cover any difference in compensation compared to the SEC into perpetuity, plus more of something to steal them away from their home, not to mention 3 biggest rivals (Bama, UF, UGA).

Vanderbilt is the only school I can see with an outside possibility of being in the ACC or whatever it is called in future years. By ACC, I really mean Duke, Wake Forest, Boston College, Syracuse, and maybe Miami and Notre Dame. If a full or majority elite private conference ever arose from this realignment end game, then Vanderbilt, and I would think Northwestern, would at least want the free cruise with the sales pitch.

While Auburn and Tennessee would lose LSU/Bama/UGA/UF they would gain GT/FSU/Clemson/ND. Both schools would still have access to the states of Georgia and Florida and Could pick a permanent SEC school for rivalry Saturday and schedule SEC OOC if they desire.

vandiver, I would put Alabama as at least an equal with Georgia and Oklahoma. I would agree that Florida and Texas are slightly bigger fish. This is where being completely independent would financially benefit the upper crust of schools and demolish the bottom quarter of the existing P5. In a completely independent scheduling arrangement, a Texas program that isn't completely yellow belly (I know, it is hard to imagine) could conceivably have the 10 school annual schedule below for football and any other sports that wish:

UCLA, USC, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, LSU, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Ohio State, Michigan

They play in southern California, in their immediate region (TAMU or OU), and the fertile areas of the Midwest once a year, and they play in the Southeast twice a year. Talk about recruiting connections, elite competition, and $$$ that would be NFL level generation on an individual team basis.

Anybody that doesn't put Texas in an 8 team playoff after going 8-2, maybe 7-3, against that schedule is just a win-loss column ignoramus.

(05-14-2014 01:15 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 11:53 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 09:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

Also for baseball you would play a 3 game series with everyone in your division and 3 series with each of the other two divisions for 13 conference series or 39 games. Midweek would be with smaller schools in your area. There would be little need for OOC baseball series which also adds to the fun of the regionals and super regionals. In basketball you would play home and home with everyone in your division and play each other school 1 time. That's 30 games. Again there would be no need for OOC games because who you used to play is now in your conference. Smaller schools can be scheduled for mid week games or early season games and OOC rivals can be scheduled in the early season as well. This too will add to the anticipation of the tournament.

For non-revenue sports you would play in your division only and play smaller schools in your area and play other conference schools in playoffs and tournaments. It's not as exciting but is much more affordable and provides easy travel for parents and fans of these sports.

I think that is a great setup, JR. They may have to allow for a single OOC matchup against another power conference to settle Oklahoma/Oklahoma State and Kentucky/Louisville type situations, but I think just one such arrangement would be satisfactory. It would be awesome for conferences to just meet in the national tournament. Talk about suspense and jawing all season!

I was thinking for football we would have an 10 conference game schedule. 7 divisional games and 3 rotating games with other conference members. We'd have two games for OOC play. And I still think we have a preseason game against a local FCS or lower tier FBS program in lieu of a Spring Game. That guarantees the 7th home game we all need.

BTW how do like Kentucky's division now?

(05-14-2014 01:28 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 10:22 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  vandiver, I have brought up the ACC doing everything possible to gain Auburn before on here. The problem for them is that Auburn is more valuable than anything they have to offer in basically every category that matters for major athletics. The ACC would have to offer Auburn everything that a full ACC member receives plus agree to cover any difference in compensation compared to the SEC into perpetuity, plus more of something to steal them away from their home, not to mention 3 biggest rivals (Bama, UF, UGA).

Vanderbilt is the only school I can see with an outside possibility of being in the ACC or whatever it is called in future years. By ACC, I really mean Duke, Wake Forest, Boston College, Syracuse, and maybe Miami and Notre Dame. If a full or majority elite private conference ever arose from this realignment end game, then Vanderbilt, and I would think Northwestern, would at least want the free cruise with the sales pitch.

While Auburn and Tennessee would lose LSU/Bama/UGA/UF they would gain GT/FSU/Clemson/ND. Both schools would still have access to the states of Georgia and Florida and Could pick a permanent SEC school for rivalry Saturday and schedule SEC OOC if they desire.

It is not the top schools of each conference as much as the bottom. Where Auburn and Tennessee would have an impossible challenge with their fans is substituting Kentucky, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Vanderbilt with Boston College, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, and Wake Forest. There is just zero crossover or relevance for most SEC schools other than Vanderbilt with the northern schools of the ACC.

I love the UK division, JR! You could actually put Kentucky in either the SEC or the Continental east, and they would fit just fine. If I were to make the perfect Kentucky pod of 8 schools, it would be below in order of preference (all sports). Some of these are assumptions based on school profile and general culture:

Kentucky

Louisville
Tennessee
West Virginia
Ohio State (if they would go for it in football)
Indiana
Virginia Tech
North Carolina (very good comparisons across all intersecting sports)