(11-07-2015 12:43 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  If Notre Dame makes it into the playoffs, I could see certain schools evaluating independence as solid alternative. If there is a "golden parachute" written into the B12 GOR that Texas can escape from, that might be the route to take if their heads out grow their hats.

I think we are more likely to see the number of independents grow if they can figure out the formula that the selection committee generally uses.

That would be bad news for every school in the Big 12 not named Texas or Oklahoma, because it would create another G5 conference overnight.

(11-08-2015 01:42 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-07-2015 12:43 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  If Notre Dame makes it into the playoffs, I could see certain schools evaluating independence as solid alternative. If there is a "golden parachute" written into the B12 GOR that Texas can escape from, that might be the route to take if their heads out grow their hats.

I think we are more likely to see the number of independents grow if they can figure out the formula that the selection committee generally uses.

That would be bad news for every school in the Big 12 not named Texas or Oklahoma, because it would create another G5 conference overnight.

I have always wondered that if the long rumored escape clause was real how could Texas be assured that they would control it. Then it occurred to me that only an escape clause built around diminished value could permit Texas to have control, as no other school carries the value that Texas does. It is possible that Texas agreed to a GOR which allowed a team to leave if they could prove that their value was diminished beyond a certain percentage if they remained. Once Texas left then Oklahoma could make that same claim and move. That way Texas has its escape clause and may exercise it if they can show that their value is greater by that percentage than it would be by remaining in the Big 12.

Such a clause might not be possible in any other conference, unless it was the ACC and even there where some schools valuations due to basketball approximate the value of others due to football. Really only in the Big 12 would such a clause benefit only 1 school to the point of utilizing it as an escape clause that no one else could use.

Nobody, but nobody wants to kill the goose.

First: can you imagine ANYBODY in Wisconsin or Minnesota watching Maryland v. Rutgers or somebody in Virginia watching Boston College v. Syracuse, or a fan in Georgia really interested in Missouri v. Arkansas?

Second: Regionalism must return to insure FUTURE fan involvement and preserve the game and the revenue stream that it has created.

Third: For that to occur there must be some sort of revenue sharing for all of the P5.

The PAC stays as is.

The Big 12 adds Nebraska and Texas A&M but moves Missouri to the B1G which moves Penn State, Rutgers and Maryland to the New Eastern Conference (Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, Notre Dame, West Virginia, UConn, Cincinnati and Louisville). The ACC accepts 'lil carolina and we are done with the perfect 6! The SEC is still as strong as ever even after giving up three.

(11-08-2015 03:29 PM)XLance Wrote:  Nobody, but nobody wants to kill the goose.

First: can you imagine ANYBODY in Wisconsin or Minnesota watching Maryland v. Rutgers or somebody in Virginia watching Boston College v. Syracuse, or a fan in Georgia really interested in Missouri v. Arkansas?

Second: Regionalism must return to insure FUTURE fan involvement and preserve the game and the revenue stream that it has created.

Third: For that to occur there must be some sort of revenue sharing for all of the P5.

The only way you get regional divisions (not conferences) and revenue sharing is with a league. The problem with that is that those with the most (SEC & Big 10) won't share and why should they. They invested more for their return.

(11-08-2015 04:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-08-2015 03:29 PM)XLance Wrote:  Nobody, but nobody wants to kill the goose.

First: can you imagine ANYBODY in Wisconsin or Minnesota watching Maryland v. Rutgers or somebody in Virginia watching Boston College v. Syracuse, or a fan in Georgia really interested in Missouri v. Arkansas?

Second: Regionalism must return to insure FUTURE fan involvement and preserve the game and the revenue stream that it has created.

Third: For that to occur there must be some sort of revenue sharing for all of the P5.

The only way you get regional divisions (not conferences) and revenue sharing is with a league. The problem with that is that those with the most (SEC & Big 10) won't share and why should they. They invested more for their return.

Nobody, but nobody wants to kill the goose. To insure future fan involvement and the growth of the game there must be some sharing of television revenue.

(11-08-2015 08:52 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-08-2015 04:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-08-2015 03:29 PM)XLance Wrote:  Nobody, but nobody wants to kill the goose.

First: can you imagine ANYBODY in Wisconsin or Minnesota watching Maryland v. Rutgers or somebody in Virginia watching Boston College v. Syracuse, or a fan in Georgia really interested in Missouri v. Arkansas?

Second: Regionalism must return to insure FUTURE fan involvement and preserve the game and the revenue stream that it has created.

Third: For that to occur there must be some sort of revenue sharing for all of the P5.

The only way you get regional divisions (not conferences) and revenue sharing is with a league. The problem with that is that those with the most (SEC & Big 10) won't share and why should they. They invested more for their return.

Nobody, but nobody wants to kill the goose. To insure future fan involvement and the growth of the game there must be some sharing of television revenue.

The SEC collectivized for a larger maximum payout. If forming a league earns us all more it is possible. Otherwise it's just socialism for academic institutions. I'll tell you what. Share your research money and we'll share our athletic revenue.

-Don't see the PAC 12 or Big Ten expanding
-Don't see the ACC either unless Uconn or another random AAC school becomes a power
-SEC I could maybe see moving if they can get UT or
Oklahoma
-Big 12 I can definitely see adding 2 if not four teams in the next ten years or so to provide stability

We are at 64 I believe now, 65 with Notre Dame. I think at most we see that number go to 72, but it'll probably be somewhat smaller

(11-08-2015 11:56 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-08-2015 03:29 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I sincerely hope schools aren't left out.

What I wouldn't mind seeing is the SEC going after 6 Big 12 schools to move to 20 and finish things off.

---Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State

West: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas State
Central: Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, LSU, Texas A&M
South: Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Vanderbilt
East: Kentucky, Tennessee, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida

I think it would be a fun league. It would offer numerous elite match-ups, but would balance them with plenty of lesser match-ups so the schedule wouldn't be too tough.

The PAC 12 might go after TCU and Houston.

The B1G stays put.

The ACC adds Notre Dame, Cincinnati, West Virginia, and UConn

In this scenario, Baylor and Iowa State would be left out of the P5 with 2 new schools being added. I actually think Baylor and ISU could survive as independents. They wouldn't make as much money as they are now, but I think they would get recognition along with BYU.

That's a notion that I kicked around, but I sobered up when I looked at the actual numbers. Texas adds. Oklahoma adds. Kansas adds a little, but doesn't fit the SEC in any real cultural way. Kansas State and Texas Tech detract from our revenue, they are not even revenue neutral. In fact they detract from the revenue that Texas and Kansas might add. Oklahoma State by itself could add a little. With Oklahoma they add nothing, but neither would they take away much either.

Now oddly the studies for teams to the East were slightly different. If we took Virginia and Virginia Tech we actually still add revenue, just not as much as we would with only one Virginia school. So we could take both. The same is true in North Carolina. We could add Duke and North Carolina and add revenue, just not as much as if we added just North Carolina, or North Carolina State.

So if we are going to double down anywhere the state of North Carolina would be the most worthwhile double down, Virginia would be second, and Oklahoma a distant third as states to double down in. Florida State adds, just not much.

Ideally for the SEC the additions of just North Carolina and Virginia would be the best move. If we had to add Duke and Virginia Tech to get it done it would still pay us to do so. In the Big 12 Texas and OU are the moves that add. If we only had the Big 12 as an option we could make do with OU & OSU if necessary, but it wouldn't add much. If we added multiple schools the best scenario of all would be Duke, North Carolina, Virginia and Oklahoma.

Understood, but I don't see any other way to save the little brothers.

If the ACC breaks up then I see even more little brothers being left behind.

By your estimation, I could see UT, OU, OSU, and KU providing value. Or possibly adding UVA, UNC, Duke, FSU, UT, OU, and then one of Clemson or Kansas. You could use that alignment to form a 3x7 league with 21 schools.

Anyway, I don't see the SEC getting everything they want from both the Big 12 and the ACC. That sounds a little too good to be true.

(11-08-2015 08:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-08-2015 08:52 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-08-2015 04:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-08-2015 03:29 PM)XLance Wrote:  Nobody, but nobody wants to kill the goose.

First: can you imagine ANYBODY in Wisconsin or Minnesota watching Maryland v. Rutgers or somebody in Virginia watching Boston College v. Syracuse, or a fan in Georgia really interested in Missouri v. Arkansas?

Second: Regionalism must return to insure FUTURE fan involvement and preserve the game and the revenue stream that it has created.

Third: For that to occur there must be some sort of revenue sharing for all of the P5.

The only way you get regional divisions (not conferences) and revenue sharing is with a league. The problem with that is that those with the most (SEC & Big 10) won't share and why should they. They invested more for their return.

Nobody, but nobody wants to kill the goose. To insure future fan involvement and the growth of the game there must be some sharing of television revenue.

The SEC collectivized for a larger maximum payout. If forming a league earns us all more it is possible. Otherwise it's just socialism for academic institutions. I'll tell you what. Share your research money and we'll share our athletic revenue.

Socialism works for the NBA, NFL and MLB because it made every team more money (and thus more competitive) and insured that small market teams could compete (almost) with the mega market teams because of shared television revenue.

Something has to be done....the trend is not promising for anybody long term.


http://mweb.cbssports.com/ncaaf/writer/j...n-14-years

(11-09-2015 08:22 AM)XLance Wrote:  Socialism works for the NBA, NFL and MLB because it made every team more money (and thus more competitive) and insured that small market teams could compete (almost) with the mega market teams because of shared television revenue.

Something has to be done....the trend is not promising for anybody long term.


http://mweb.cbssports.com/ncaaf/writer/j...n-14-years

The only way to get more out of consolidation is to merge leagues and force the networks' hands by monopolizing content.

Realignment in itself will not result in a positive outcome. There's a reason that all the major pro sports leagues max out around 30 teams. The market is very inefficient once you go very far beyond that number.

Here's an interesting scenario:

On the eve of the B1G's new media contract, Delany gets crazy with expansion. He convinces UVA-UNC-Duke, Georgia Tech, and Vanderbilt to join the fold in a new South division. He also grabs Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas! In a tremendous turn, Notre Dame joins the South division and gets a special deal that allows for limited B1G cross-division games against a 3-game rotation among Texas, Oklahoma, Penn St., Ohio St., Michigan, Michigan St., Purdue, and Syracuse (who joins the East)! The result is a new Super-Conference of 24 teams!

SOUTH: Virginia, UNC, Duke, Georgia Tech, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame
WEST: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois
EAST: Michigan, Ohio St., Penn St., Rutgers, Maryland, Syracuse
NORTH: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Purdue, Indiana, Michigan St.

The SEC swipes in and grabs Florida St., Clemson, Virginia Tech, NC State, Miami for a new Atlantic Division and Oklahoma St. and Kansas St. for a re-designed West Division. The SEC is now a 20-team Super-Conference with a stranglehold on the Deep South.

EAST: Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, South Carolina
WEST: Texas A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma St., Kansas St.
SOUTH: Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi St.
ATLANTIC: Florida St., Clemson, Virginia Tech, NC State, Miami

The PAC doesn't have many options to grow, but has to do something to keep up with the Super-Conferences. The PAC adds TCU, Baylor, Texas Tech, Houston, BYU, and New Mexico, as a new East Division as part of a 3-division scheduling alignment. At 18 teams, it's the smallest of the new Super-Conferences, but still formidable on the West Coast - and stretching into the two most important markets in Texas.

NORTH: Oregon, Oregon St., Washington, Washington St., Cal, Stanford
SOUTH: UCLA, USC, Arizona, ASU, Utah, Colorado
EAST: TCU, Baylor, Texas Tech, Houston, BYU, New Mexico

The American absorbs the ACC and Big 12 leftovers and adds Rice. The American grows to an 18-team Super-Conference, albeit on a level one notch below the others - it's still part of the club, but with a less significant media contract and payout.

WEST: Iowa St., SMU, Rice, Tulsa, Tulane, Navy
ATLANTIC: Boston College, Pitt, Louisville, WVU, Wake Forest, USF
EAST: UConn, Temple, Cincinnati, Memphis, ECU, UCF

The result is a new P4 that includes 80 teams. The P4 vote to allow only one non-P4 game during the regular season and to allow for 3-game conference championship tournaments. The B1G championship rotates among Indianapolis, DFW, and DC. The SEC championship rotates between Atlanta and Houston. The PAC championship rotates among Santa Clara, DFW, and Phoenix.

In the early '20's, the CFP expands to 8 teams, with auto bids for the 4 champions. The B1G and PAC still share the Rose Bowl. The SEC and B1G share the Sugar and Orange bowls. The AAC gets a guarantee bid to the Cotton Bowl against the PAC, SEC, or B1G. The PAC also has a guaranteed bid to the Fiesta and the Peach is guaranteed either the SEC or B1G. The new CFP contract still calls for a 'Group of Four' bid to either the Fiesta or Peach bowl.

I think in the end, what will stop too much realignment and money grabbing from ruining college football will be the law of diminishing returns.

Going to 20 teams is about the max a league can go to and still function. You start going beyond that and everything becomes very unwieldy and I say that as a fan of many 24-team scenarios. There is a limit to how much a league can profit from new markets before there simply aren't any new additions capable of adding revenue.

I think the worst case scenario is that we could head for a P3 with about 20 schools each. It wouldn't be the best thing, but it wouldn't be the worst either.

PAC 12 merges with Big 12...Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State and one of TCU/Baylor

That's a 20 team league and they're certainly done.

The SEC and B1G can split the ACC essentially and you've got 2 more 20 team leagues.

SEC gets UNC, Duke, UVA, Clemson, GT, FSU

B1G gets Notre Dame, VT, NC State, Syracuse, BC, Pitt

Schools left out: TCU or Baylor, WVU, Miami, Wake, Louisville, UConn

I think 20 is the max too, but even that may be too big.

At 20, with 4 divisions of 5 teams, non-division opponents would see each other once every 3 years. 16 seems to feel more like a conference. With 4x4 divisions, and a 9 (or 10 with a permanent rival) game schedule, non-divisional foes play every other year.

Ultimately I think the max size will be driven by economics. At some point adding a new conference member will dilute the payouts to the other conference members because the new member's addition won't bring enough incremental revenue to the conference.

That's why the B1G and SEC will think long and hard before they add two more teams. There simply aren't enough teams that can bring B1G and SEC type revenues with them. The short list is probably Texas, FSU, UNC, UVA, and Notre Dame. Maybe Oklahoma and Kansas from the Big 12 and Duke, Clemson and Georgia Tech from the ACC can do it too, or come close enough to tag along with one or more others.

It's clear that schools in Virginia and North Carolina are at the top of the list for both the SEC and B1G. It would not surprise me at all if the SEC stays at 16 if it can get one of each. The SEC is already in Texas and doesn't need western expansion or more geographic scope.

The B1G, on the other hand, definitely wants geographic expansion. I could also see it staying at 16 if it got UVA and UNC, but it's just as likely to go to 18 or 20 if the right schools were available.

(11-09-2015 08:45 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  I think 20 is the max too, but even that may be too big.

At 20, with 4 divisions of 5 teams, non-division opponents would see each other once every 3 years. 16 seems to feel more like a conference. With 4x4 divisions, and a 9 (or 10 with a permanent rival) game schedule, non-divisional foes play every other year.

Ultimately I think the max size will be driven by economics. At some point adding a new conference member will dilute the payouts to the other conference members because the new member's addition won't bring enough incremental revenue to the conference.

That's why the B1G and SEC will think long and hard before they add two more teams. There simply aren't enough teams that can bring B1G and SEC type revenues with them. The short list is probably Texas, FSU, UNC, UVA, and Notre Dame. Maybe Oklahoma and Kansas from the Big 12 and Duke, Clemson and Georgia Tech from the ACC can do it too, or come close enough to tag along with one or more others.

It's clear that schools in Virginia and North Carolina are at the top of the list for both the SEC and B1G. It would not surprise me at all if the SEC stays at 16 if it can get one of each. The SEC is already in Texas and doesn't need western expansion or more geographic scope.

The B1G, on the other hand, definitely wants geographic expansion. I could also see it staying at 16 if it got UVA and UNC, but it's just as likely to go to 18 or 20 if the right schools were available.

It's pretty much tit for tat. You got the schools right. But don't you think the SEC could find value in 18 or 20 if they landed Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Duke, North Carolina and Virginia? The academic upgrade alone would be worth the total number. Heck even it was Florida State, Oklahoma, N.C. State and Virginia Tech they all add.

But you are absolutely right that neither the Big 10 or SEC will expand with a school that doesn't add value, or tag a long with one who does when they themselves are capable of paying their own way even if they don't add anything.

That's why up in the important thread on this board I have the realignment just by the numbers threads.

(11-11-2015 12:26 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-09-2015 08:45 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  I think 20 is the max too, but even that may be too big.

At 20, with 4 divisions of 5 teams, non-division opponents would see each other once every 3 years. 16 seems to feel more like a conference. With 4x4 divisions, and a 9 (or 10 with a permanent rival) game schedule, non-divisional foes play every other year.

Ultimately I think the max size will be driven by economics. At some point adding a new conference member will dilute the payouts to the other conference members because the new member's addition won't bring enough incremental revenue to the conference.

That's why the B1G and SEC will think long and hard before they add two more teams. There simply aren't enough teams that can bring B1G and SEC type revenues with them. The short list is probably Texas, FSU, UNC, UVA, and Notre Dame. Maybe Oklahoma and Kansas from the Big 12 and Duke, Clemson and Georgia Tech from the ACC can do it too, or come close enough to tag along with one or more others.

It's clear that schools in Virginia and North Carolina are at the top of the list for both the SEC and B1G. It would not surprise me at all if the SEC stays at 16 if it can get one of each. The SEC is already in Texas and doesn't need western expansion or more geographic scope.

The B1G, on the other hand, definitely wants geographic expansion. I could also see it staying at 16 if it got UVA and UNC, but it's just as likely to go to 18 or 20 if the right schools were available.

It's pretty much tit for tat. You got the schools right. But don't you think the SEC could find value in 18 or 20 if they landed Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Duke, North Carolina and Virginia? The academic upgrade alone would be worth the total number. Heck even it was Florida State, Oklahoma, N.C. State and Virginia Tech they all add.

But you are absolutely right that neither the Big 10 or SEC will expand with a school that doesn't add value, or tag a long with one who does when they themselves are capable of paying their own way even if they don't add anything.

That's why up in the important thread on this board I have the realignment just by the numbers threads.

Regarding the SEC, you certainly know it better than me, but if the SEC and B1G each added a team from Va and NC, then on your list we'd be looking at only Texas, Oklahoma, Duke and Kansas.

Maybe the SEC would add some for academic reasons, but the SEC would be competing with the B1G for those schools and the B1G would be a better academic fit for Texas, Kansas and Duke. I think Oklahoma might be the best opportunity for the SEC, but they seem to want to stay with Texas. That make me think the B1G gets them all if it wants them, not the SEC.

I also see the SEC as responsive to realignment moves and not the initiator - i.e. the SEC might move to 18-20 if the B1G moves there but is not likely to go beyond 16 if the B1G stops at that number.

(11-11-2015 10:50 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  

(11-11-2015 12:26 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-09-2015 08:45 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  I think 20 is the max too, but even that may be too big.

At 20, with 4 divisions of 5 teams, non-division opponents would see each other once every 3 years. 16 seems to feel more like a conference. With 4x4 divisions, and a 9 (or 10 with a permanent rival) game schedule, non-divisional foes play every other year.

Ultimately I think the max size will be driven by economics. At some point adding a new conference member will dilute the payouts to the other conference members because the new member's addition won't bring enough incremental revenue to the conference.

That's why the B1G and SEC will think long and hard before they add two more teams. There simply aren't enough teams that can bring B1G and SEC type revenues with them. The short list is probably Texas, FSU, UNC, UVA, and Notre Dame. Maybe Oklahoma and Kansas from the Big 12 and Duke, Clemson and Georgia Tech from the ACC can do it too, or come close enough to tag along with one or more others.

It's clear that schools in Virginia and North Carolina are at the top of the list for both the SEC and B1G. It would not surprise me at all if the SEC stays at 16 if it can get one of each. The SEC is already in Texas and doesn't need western expansion or more geographic scope.

The B1G, on the other hand, definitely wants geographic expansion. I could also see it staying at 16 if it got UVA and UNC, but it's just as likely to go to 18 or 20 if the right schools were available.

It's pretty much tit for tat. You got the schools right. But don't you think the SEC could find value in 18 or 20 if they landed Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Duke, North Carolina and Virginia? The academic upgrade alone would be worth the total number. Heck even it was Florida State, Oklahoma, N.C. State and Virginia Tech they all add.

But you are absolutely right that neither the Big 10 or SEC will expand with a school that doesn't add value, or tag a long with one who does when they themselves are capable of paying their own way even if they don't add anything.

That's why up in the important thread on this board I have the realignment just by the numbers threads.

Regarding the SEC, you certainly know it better than me, but if the SEC and B1G each added a team from Va and NC, then on your list we'd be looking at only Texas, Oklahoma, Duke and Kansas.

Maybe the SEC would add some for academic reasons, but the SEC would be competing with the B1G for those schools and the B1G would be a better academic fit for Texas, Kansas and Duke. I think Oklahoma might be the best opportunity for the SEC, but they seem to want to stay with Texas. That make me think the B1G gets them all if it wants them, not the SEC.

I also see the SEC as responsive to realignment moves and not the initiator - i.e. the SEC might move to 18-20 if the B1G moves there but is not likely to go beyond 16 if the B1G stops at that number.

There are a few things you need to check out.

1. The SEC was the first to expand to 12.
2. The SEC was the first to have a CCG.
3. The Big 10 added Penn State and Nebraska to get to 12 after the SEC.
4. The ACC was the first to go beyond 12, but it was closely coordinated with the SEC in preparation for an even larger move that didn't transpire.
5. For a conference that you say was reactive we got the best additions in realignment both in 92 and in the 2012. We likely could be the first to move to 16 with the right parties being interested.
6. The CIC doesn't add a dime of grant money to a joining AAU or non AAU school. What it does that is effective is coordinate bids for grant money by using the specialties of its member schools to meet specific criteria in sharing projects. Schools like North Carolina, Virginia, Duke and Georgia Tech don't need that as they already have a sharing initiative.
7. No matter what people think alumni don't want their school to be on an island to a larger conference or to be on the extremities of a conference. It costs to much to attend away events and they don't have natural or regional rivalries with those schools.

So you see a great many of the assumptions about realignment and what a conference can get and why certain schools would join this one or that one is simply hooey. Texas has no interest outside of due diligence in learning of Big 10 income or SEC income in joining either one of our conferences. But if they had to pick one, I think geography, fan desires (it is a business), rivalries, and costs will determine where they go more than most other reasons.

I have no doubt that Kansas would love the Big 10 or that some from Missouri would love it. I can see Virginia Tech making that selection as well. But the rest will go regional if forced. Oklahoma is a legitimate possibility for the SEC but their second choice would probably be to go to the PAC with Texas and friends in tow.

So we'll wait and see. But as I said above unless they add to the bottom line they aren't going anywhere, especially not the Big 10 and SEC.

The problem with a lot of these final form scenarios is that it implies some sort of end point of stability. I don't really see that, you end up getting a lot of square peg in round hole scenarios. I don't think there is a "perfect" option and as markets change and how television money changes you'll always see moves in different directions. The top level of football has always expanded and contracted for decades and probably will continue to do so.

(11-15-2015 12:24 PM)ECBrad Wrote:  The problem with a lot of these final form scenarios is that it implies some sort of end point of stability. I don't really see that, you end up getting a lot of square peg in round hole scenarios. I don't think there is a "perfect" option and as markets change and how television money changes you'll always see moves in different directions. The top level of football has always expanded and contracted for decades and probably will continue to do so.

I don't disagree with you. There is a lot of truth in what you say. The difference is corporate influence. Until the OU and UGA won the right for the individual schools to negotiate, or contract the negotiations of their TV rights to conferences, the Networks had never really considered the value of the product from a rights perspective. Once that lawsuit was settled and the results employed things changed as never before.

All of the sudden the whole college football world became an undervalued and disorganized product that could be cheaply produced and through long term rights contracts sewed up. So they acquired a cheap product and then sought a means to organize it. Media contracts with negotiation clauses for additions offered the bait and here we are round pegs in square holes and everything that goes along with it. Now that the networks see a Super Bowl like opportunity with the CFP the next moves will be about structuring the delivery of the product into a format that yields your participants in that event.

We are where we are as we wean ourselves from some bowl money,and come up with a process that keeps the bowl revenue relatively static and grows the CFP money. It will take a few years but that is why I'm confident we will go to 4 power conferences at some point.

So I would say that a malleable product that over a century of history had relatively frequent, but somewhat minor change, is being overhauled because of the corporate interest in the product. In other words we are in the midst of a paradigm shift and it is still far from being over.

I'd like to throw out another scenario for 4.

I think the SEC will pick apart the Big 12. To what degree I don't know, but this would work:

Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, West Virginia to SEC

West: Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Arkansas, Missouri
Central: LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Vanderbilt
East: Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina

Strong league.

---------------------------

Texas Tech, TCU, Houston, Iowa State to the PAC

North: Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State
Central: California, Stanford, Utah, Colorado
South: USC, UCLA, Arizona, Arizona State
East: Texas Tech, TCU, Houston, Iowa State

---------------------------

Kansas, UConn to the Big Ten

West: Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Minnesota
Midwest: Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue
Central: Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Ohio State
East: Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, UConn

-----------------------------

ACC adds Cincinnati if Notre Dame joins in full

-----------------------------


SEC: 18
PAC: 16
Big Ten: 16
ACC: 14 + ND