PAC:

North: Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State

South: Arizona, Arizona State, U.C.L.A., U.S.C.

Central: California, Colorado, Stanford, Utah

West: Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas


Big 10:

Northeast: Indiana, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

Southeast: Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia

Southwest: Illinois, Iowa, Northwestern, Ohio State

Northwest: Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Wisconsin


SEC:

North: Kentucky, Missouri, N.C. State, Virginia Tech

East: Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina

South: Alabama, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

West: Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Texas A&M



The New P4 Conference:

Northeast: Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse

Northwest: Iowa State, Kansas State, Louisville, West Virginia

Southeast: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

Southwest: Baylor, Oklahoma State, T.C.U., Texas Tech


Now this line up solves many issues.

1. The Big 10 is truly all AAU and gets into North Carolina and Virginia for markets and ESPN gets to keep T1.

2. The PAC expands with 4 badly needed brands. ESPN unloads the LHN and retains 50% of the PAC lease as does FOX. This move brings balance and an atmosphere less combative in which to resolve realignment. Texas and Oklahoma play annually, Oklahoma and Nebraska renew annually, Nebraska gets both California and Texas recruiting roots reestablished. Bedlam is kept but as OOC.

3. The SEC gets its markets and completes its footprint. The deep South is not threatened by the Big 10 and an annual OOC game alliance is played with the new conference. Texas & A&M resume as OOC.

4. The New Conference has strong schools in each region. Florida State and Notre Dame anchor the branding but keep the regional play they desire. The market is large enough that FOX & ESPN split the overhead and retain 50/50 rights by agreement. FOX gets into the Southeast and ESPN loses nothing throughout the whole realignment. They retain T1 in the Big 10, 50% access in the PAC & New Conference, and they add markets to the SECN adding to their profits while cutting overhead by brokering out the ACC.

The cost of all of this is that N.D. has to go all in.

It's a win for the Big 10. It's a win for the SEC. It's a win for the PAC. And it's a win for the New Conference which now is comprised totally of schools that heretofore have not had network income.

JR, you've got the right string (baby) but the wrong yo-yo!

All I ever see from you is another futile attempt to put the SEC in North Carolina and Virginia, it just isn't going to happen.

If the PAC could somehow snag Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas AND NEBRASKA it would completely change the realignment dynamics and shift tremendious power to the west coast. But beyond that your scenario doesn't dwell in reality. At best the SEC could have their choice of Oklahoma State, Baylor, Kansas State, Iowa State, Texas Tech or TCU. Your best bet would be to gain Oklahoma State and Texas Tech or Baylor.

(11-10-2015 03:33 PM)XLance Wrote:  JR, you've got the right string (baby) but the wrong yo-yo!

All I ever see from you is another futile attempt to put the SEC in North Carolina and Virginia, it just isn't going to happen.

If the PAC could somehow snag Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas AND NEBRASKA it would completely change the realignment dynamics and shift tremendious power to the west coast. But beyond that your scenario doesn't dwell in reality. At best the SEC could have their choice of Oklahoma State, Baylor, Kansas State, Iowa State, Texas Tech or TCU. Your best bet would be to gain Oklahoma State and Texas Tech or Baylor.

Nope. There is always Clemson and Florida State, we would just have to wait a decade to pull that string. Then the yo yo will walk the dog and bring in the states we want. It's just that we have to have the leverage again on ESPN to make it happen. A decade gives us that leverage. Or, should the cable model truly shift we could get it sooner. Your quaint vision of the ACC has already forever been changed by your association with Skipper's boss, our's too.

(11-10-2015 04:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-10-2015 03:33 PM)XLance Wrote:  JR, you've got the right string (baby) but the wrong yo-yo!

All I ever see from you is another futile attempt to put the SEC in North Carolina and Virginia, it just isn't going to happen.

If the PAC could somehow snag Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas AND NEBRASKA it would completely change the realignment dynamics and shift tremendious power to the west coast. But beyond that your scenario doesn't dwell in reality. At best the SEC could have their choice of Oklahoma State, Baylor, Kansas State, Iowa State, Texas Tech or TCU. Your best bet would be to gain Oklahoma State and Texas Tech or Baylor.

Nope. There is always Clemson and Florida State, we would just have to wait a decade to pull that string. Then the yo yo will walk the dog and bring in the states we want. It's just that we have to have the leverage again on ESPN to make it happen. A decade gives us that leverage. Or, should the cable model truly shift we could get it sooner. Your quaint vision of the ACC has already forever been changed by your association with Skipper's boss, our's too.

JR, you know that the SEC would get absolutely no benefit from adding Clemson. It's a redundant product in a very small market.

(11-10-2015 04:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-10-2015 04:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-10-2015 03:33 PM)XLance Wrote:  JR, you've got the right string (baby) but the wrong yo-yo!

All I ever see from you is another futile attempt to put the SEC in North Carolina and Virginia, it just isn't going to happen.

If the PAC could somehow snag Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas AND NEBRASKA it would completely change the realignment dynamics and shift tremendious power to the west coast. But beyond that your scenario doesn't dwell in reality. At best the SEC could have their choice of Oklahoma State, Baylor, Kansas State, Iowa State, Texas Tech or TCU. Your best bet would be to gain Oklahoma State and Texas Tech or Baylor.

Nope. There is always Clemson and Florida State, we would just have to wait a decade to pull that string. Then the yo yo will walk the dog and bring in the states we want. It's just that we have to have the leverage again on ESPN to make it happen. A decade gives us that leverage. Or, should the cable model truly shift we could get it sooner. Your quaint vision of the ACC has already forever been changed by your association with Skipper's boss, our's too.

JR, you know that the SEC would get absolutely no benefit from adding Clemson. It's a redundant product in a very small market.

my ultimate scenario (that will never happen) is SEC20 with Clemson, GT, FSU, UNC, NCSU, and UVa added. I realize you can't separate the 4 NC schools, but I would love that lineup.

(11-10-2015 04:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-10-2015 03:33 PM)XLance Wrote:  JR, you've got the right string (baby) but the wrong yo-yo!

All I ever see from you is another futile attempt to put the SEC in North Carolina and Virginia, it just isn't going to happen.

If the PAC could somehow snag Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas AND NEBRASKA it would completely change the realignment dynamics and shift tremendious power to the west coast. But beyond that your scenario doesn't dwell in reality. At best the SEC could have their choice of Oklahoma State, Baylor, Kansas State, Iowa State, Texas Tech or TCU. Your best bet would be to gain Oklahoma State and Texas Tech or Baylor.

Nope. There is always Clemson and Florida State, we would just have to wait a decade to pull that string. Then the yo yo will walk the dog and bring in the states we want. It's just that we have to have the leverage again on ESPN to make it happen. A decade gives us that leverage. Or, should the cable model truly shift we could get it sooner. Your quaint vision of the ACC has already forever been changed by your association with Skipper's boss, our's too.

XLance, I hate to disappoint you but Clemson's addition to the SEC would be a NET neutral. They have regional content value, a passionate fan base, and travel very well. Their attendance figures are middle of the pack for the SEC.

So the question is why would we take Clemson? The answer is to destabilize further the value of the ACC and thereby shaking loose Virginia Tech at least and probably more. And understand we don't even have to land the Hokies they could go Big 10 as a result, but the pressure would mount just the same and then, poof, you're gone.

Most SEC fans would respond with an overwhelming yes to expansion by Clemson & F.S.U.. It's just ESPN that is the issue. Waiting a decade puts the pressure on the Mouse, not the SEC. And spare me your crap about ESPN would just push the next product. The SEC has higher market saturation numbers by far than any other conference, the second largest market to exploit, a better product as far as national numbers go, and we would find suitors whether from NBC, FOX, CBS, or ESPN and they know it.

You guys are on the clock to land something that stabilizes you.....and it's ticking.

(11-10-2015 03:33 PM)XLance Wrote:  JR, you've got the right string (baby) but the wrong yo-yo!

All I ever see from you is another futile attempt to put the SEC in North Carolina and Virginia, it just isn't going to happen.

If the PAC could somehow snag Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas AND NEBRASKA it would completely change the realignment dynamics and shift tremendious power to the west coast. But beyond that your scenario doesn't dwell in reality. At best the SEC could have their choice of Oklahoma State, Baylor, Kansas State, Iowa State, Texas Tech or TCU. Your best bet would be to gain Oklahoma State and Texas Tech or Baylor.

Now, wait a second.

You think the best the SEC can get is from that group, but you also think ESPN is going to move a couple of SEC schools into the ACC to stabilize that league?

I'm not a math major, but that doesn't add up.

(11-10-2015 09:32 AM)JRsec Wrote:  PAC:

North: Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State

South: Arizona, Arizona State, U.C.L.A., U.S.C.

Central: California, Colorado, Stanford, Utah

West: Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas


Big 10:

Northeast: Indiana, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

Southeast: Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia

Southwest: Illinois, Iowa, Northwestern, Ohio State

Northwest: Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Wisconsin


SEC:

North: Kentucky, Missouri, N.C. State, Virginia Tech

East: Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina

South: Alabama, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

West: Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Texas A&M



The New P4 Conference:

Northeast: Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse

Northwest: Iowa State, Kansas State, Louisville, West Virginia

Southeast: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

Southwest: Baylor, Oklahoma State, T.C.U., Texas Tech

Your idea would fix a lot of problems. I just wish it was possible.

(11-10-2015 11:49 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(11-10-2015 03:33 PM)XLance Wrote:  JR, you've got the right string (baby) but the wrong yo-yo!

All I ever see from you is another futile attempt to put the SEC in North Carolina and Virginia, it just isn't going to happen.

If the PAC could somehow snag Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas AND NEBRASKA it would completely change the realignment dynamics and shift tremendious power to the west coast. But beyond that your scenario doesn't dwell in reality. At best the SEC could have their choice of Oklahoma State, Baylor, Kansas State, Iowa State, Texas Tech or TCU. Your best bet would be to gain Oklahoma State and Texas Tech or Baylor.

Now, wait a second.

You think the best the SEC can get is from that group, but you also think ESPN is going to move a couple of SEC schools into the ACC to stabilize that league?

I'm not a math major, but that doesn't add up.

*Yes!
I believe that in the long run, we will end up with 6 conferences (1 x 12, 5 x11). By breaking up very large conferences into manageable sizes ESPN/FOX can regain control of $$ paid to each, and more effectively market each of the 6 to specific areas of the country.
This will not be done to stabilize the ACC or any other league, but to help stabilize college football as a whole by breaking up into groups that ordinary fans can identify with.

*The group that was identified was a response to JR's suggestion that Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Nebraska join the PAC.

*No conference wants to have schools that have to leapfrog other conferences to get to their league. That is the West Virginia lesson. That's why Texas to the ACC, or any combination of Big 12 and ACC schools together in one conference is a stupid idea.

*We have some schools that are in the wrong league and breaking into smaller groups can go a long way to solving that problem.

(11-11-2015 08:27 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-10-2015 11:49 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(11-10-2015 03:33 PM)XLance Wrote:  JR, you've got the right string (baby) but the wrong yo-yo!

All I ever see from you is another futile attempt to put the SEC in North Carolina and Virginia, it just isn't going to happen.

If the PAC could somehow snag Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas AND NEBRASKA it would completely change the realignment dynamics and shift tremendious power to the west coast. But beyond that your scenario doesn't dwell in reality. At best the SEC could have their choice of Oklahoma State, Baylor, Kansas State, Iowa State, Texas Tech or TCU. Your best bet would be to gain Oklahoma State and Texas Tech or Baylor.

Now, wait a second.

You think the best the SEC can get is from that group, but you also think ESPN is going to move a couple of SEC schools into the ACC to stabilize that league?

I'm not a math major, but that doesn't add up.

*Yes!
I believe that in the long run, we will end up with 6 conferences (1 x 12, 5 x11). By breaking up very large conferences into manageable sizes ESPN/FOX can regain control of $$ paid to each, and more effectively market each of the 6 to specific areas of the country.
This will not be done to stabilize the ACC or any other league, but to help stabilize college football as a whole by breaking up into groups that ordinary fans can identify with.

*The group that was identified was a response to JR's suggestion that Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Nebraska join the PAC.

*No conference wants to have schools that have to leapfrog other conferences to get to their league. That is the West Virginia lesson. That's why Texas to the ACC, or any combination of Big 12 and ACC schools together in one conference is a stupid idea.

*We have some schools that are in the wrong league and breaking into smaller groups can go a long way to solving that problem.

We may one day downsize into more regionally defined conferences again, but that won't be in our lifetimes, and perhaps not in the lifetimes of our children. Our grandchildren could very well be old when something like that happens. We have started toward fulfilling a concept. That concept will be worked to its completion before any alterations are even considered.

I hate cell phones too! But we aren't headed toward landline dominance again, or for that matter the rotary dial phone. We are headed toward further downsizing in public education. The Tier 1 is a club more for protection rather than for collective bargaining purposes. We are on a corporate model and corporate models are in consolidation mode because of what the future is shaping up to yield.

You better get use to it because if we survive with our institutions still intact, we aren't going to recognize the end product as anything that we loved or relied upon in during our formative years. And I'm not saying this as SEC smack, to provoke posts, or for entertainment purposes. Enjoy what you have now as it's past its prime and fading fast.

If I could be king of college football for a day, I would align things something like this:

PAC 20:

North: Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, Boise State
Central: Stanford, California, UNLV, Utah, BYU
East: Colorado, Colorado State, New Mexico, Texas Tech, TCU
South: UCLA, USC, San Diego State, Arizona, Arizona State

SEC(28):

East: Florida, Florida State, Miami, Georgia, Georgia Tech, South Carolina, Clemson
North: North Carolina, North Carolina State, Duke, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Kentucky, Louisville
South: LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
West: Texas, Texas A&M, Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Missouri, Arkansas

Big Ten(24)

West: Nebraska, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa, Iowa State, Minnesota
Central: Illinois, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Notre Dame, Indiana, Purdue
East: Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Penn State
Atlantic: Syracuse, UConn, Boston College, Rutgers, Maryland, West Virginia


Of course, that could never happen, but it's fun to think about. Only Wake Forest would be left out from the current P5 and several new schools would get a golden ticket. Nothing against Wake, but there just aren't very many good options out there to pair them with.

(11-11-2015 09:23 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-11-2015 08:27 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-10-2015 11:49 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(11-10-2015 03:33 PM)XLance Wrote:  JR, you've got the right string (baby) but the wrong yo-yo!

All I ever see from you is another futile attempt to put the SEC in North Carolina and Virginia, it just isn't going to happen.

If the PAC could somehow snag Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas AND NEBRASKA it would completely change the realignment dynamics and shift tremendious power to the west coast. But beyond that your scenario doesn't dwell in reality. At best the SEC could have their choice of Oklahoma State, Baylor, Kansas State, Iowa State, Texas Tech or TCU. Your best bet would be to gain Oklahoma State and Texas Tech or Baylor.

Now, wait a second.

You think the best the SEC can get is from that group, but you also think ESPN is going to move a couple of SEC schools into the ACC to stabilize that league?

I'm not a math major, but that doesn't add up.

*Yes!
I believe that in the long run, we will end up with 6 conferences (1 x 12, 5 x11). By breaking up very large conferences into manageable sizes ESPN/FOX can regain control of $$ paid to each, and more effectively market each of the 6 to specific areas of the country.
This will not be done to stabilize the ACC or any other league, but to help stabilize college football as a whole by breaking up into groups that ordinary fans can identify with.

*The group that was identified was a response to JR's suggestion that Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Nebraska join the PAC.

*No conference wants to have schools that have to leapfrog other conferences to get to their league. That is the West Virginia lesson. That's why Texas to the ACC, or any combination of Big 12 and ACC schools together in one conference is a stupid idea.

*We have some schools that are in the wrong league and breaking into smaller groups can go a long way to solving that problem.

We may one day downsize into more regionally defined conferences again, but that won't be in our lifetimes, and perhaps not in the lifetimes of our children. Our grandchildren could very well be old when something like that happens. We have started toward fulfilling a concept. That concept will be worked to its completion before any alterations are even considered.

I hate cell phones too! But we aren't headed toward landline dominance again, or for that matter the rotary dial phone. We are headed toward further downsizing in public education. The Tier 1 is a club more for protection rather than for collective bargaining purposes. We are on a corporate model and corporate models are in consolidation mode because of what the future is shaping up to yield.

You better get use to it because if we survive with our institutions still intact, we aren't going to recognize the end product as anything that we loved or relied upon in during our formative years. And I'm not saying this as SEC smack, to provoke posts, or for entertainment purposes. Enjoy what you have now as it's past its prime and fading fast.

You deserve the little guy with the flag for those comments!

Because you are just plain wrong JR.
The market has shifted and things are changing fast and returning to smaller conferences is a strategy that might help right the ship.
Attendance is down, fan interest is on the wane and ESPN and FOX know it.
In the 80's and 90's golf was like a rocket ship in the US. Club membership was up, equipment sales were through the roof and getting a weekend tee time was next to impossible. And then it just stopped, no reason, it just stopped and has been on the decline ever since.
College football has hit that wall, whether it is realignment, the dominance of Alabama, or stupid rules changes, I don't know, but ESPN knows that it has changed. You don't think that the folks at ESPN aren't smart enough to change direction before it's too late? Why would any corporate entity continue to implement a plan that is no longer working (and do it for generations)?
Hey!, if it were just for the money, Carolina could have moved to the SEC or the B1G and already be cashing bigger checks, but that is not a long term solution for us or anyone else, because the sport has to survive, not just make money.

(11-11-2015 01:23 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-11-2015 09:23 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-11-2015 08:27 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-10-2015 11:49 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(11-10-2015 03:33 PM)XLance Wrote:  JR, you've got the right string (baby) but the wrong yo-yo!

All I ever see from you is another futile attempt to put the SEC in North Carolina and Virginia, it just isn't going to happen.

If the PAC could somehow snag Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas AND NEBRASKA it would completely change the realignment dynamics and shift tremendious power to the west coast. But beyond that your scenario doesn't dwell in reality. At best the SEC could have their choice of Oklahoma State, Baylor, Kansas State, Iowa State, Texas Tech or TCU. Your best bet would be to gain Oklahoma State and Texas Tech or Baylor.

Now, wait a second.

You think the best the SEC can get is from that group, but you also think ESPN is going to move a couple of SEC schools into the ACC to stabilize that league?

I'm not a math major, but that doesn't add up.

*Yes!
I believe that in the long run, we will end up with 6 conferences (1 x 12, 5 x11). By breaking up very large conferences into manageable sizes ESPN/FOX can regain control of $$ paid to each, and more effectively market each of the 6 to specific areas of the country.
This will not be done to stabilize the ACC or any other league, but to help stabilize college football as a whole by breaking up into groups that ordinary fans can identify with.

*The group that was identified was a response to JR's suggestion that Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Nebraska join the PAC.

*No conference wants to have schools that have to leapfrog other conferences to get to their league. That is the West Virginia lesson. That's why Texas to the ACC, or any combination of Big 12 and ACC schools together in one conference is a stupid idea.

*We have some schools that are in the wrong league and breaking into smaller groups can go a long way to solving that problem.

We may one day downsize into more regionally defined conferences again, but that won't be in our lifetimes, and perhaps not in the lifetimes of our children. Our grandchildren could very well be old when something like that happens. We have started toward fulfilling a concept. That concept will be worked to its completion before any alterations are even considered.

I hate cell phones too! But we aren't headed toward landline dominance again, or for that matter the rotary dial phone. We are headed toward further downsizing in public education. The Tier 1 is a club more for protection rather than for collective bargaining purposes. We are on a corporate model and corporate models are in consolidation mode because of what the future is shaping up to yield.

You better get use to it because if we survive with our institutions still intact, we aren't going to recognize the end product as anything that we loved or relied upon in during our formative years. And I'm not saying this as SEC smack, to provoke posts, or for entertainment purposes. Enjoy what you have now as it's past its prime and fading fast.

You deserve the little guy with the flag for those comments!

Because you are just plain wrong JR.
The market has shifted and things are changing fast and returning to smaller conferences is a strategy that might help right the ship.
Attendance is down, fan interest is on the wane and ESPN and FOX know it.
In the 80's and 90's golf was like a rocket ship in the US. Club membership was up, equipment sales were through the roof and getting a weekend tee time was next to impossible. And then it just stopped, no reason, it just stopped and has been on the decline ever since.
College football has hit that wall, whether it is realignment, the dominance of Alabama, or stupid rules changes, I don't know, but ESPN knows that it has changed. You don't think that the folks at ESPN aren't smart enough to change direction before it's too late? Why would any corporate entity continue to implement a plan that is no longer working (and do it for generations)?
Hey!, if it were just for the money, Carolina could have moved to the SEC or the B1G and already be cashing bigger checks, but that is not a long term solution for us or anyone else, because the sport has to survive, not just make money.

When you know what you are talking about I'll listen. We are flirting with negative interest rates for assets with commodities being suppressed right now by an intentional rise in lending interest rates. That my friend is a wake up call. We have a fiat currency and we owe over 19 Trillion a year in interest and our adversaries are allying economically behind a currency exchange backed by commodities (gas & oil in Russia, precious metals in greater Asia). When you raise interest rates while moving to a negative return on capital you are begging for hyperinflation to cure your ills. You and the other shortsighted pseudo intellectuals with your left leaning social positions and your tunnel vision on short term portfolio moves are headed with the rest of the lemmings for the plunge into the great financial abyss. Right now the Fed leans on the Central banks of Europe and they lean on us, but the rest of the world is fed up with our high living off of a well manipulated Ponzi scheme involving derivatives and etrades which are used to manipulate the commodities by inflating the actual shares.

This crap is coming to an end and the first warning bell for it is a move in the negative direction on interest for investment capital. They need that sideline money to continue as long as they can to prop up an equities market that is not producing on its own. And it isn't and it will only get worse as inflation in food and fuel (which is coming in January due to cuts in production just as Boone Pickens said it would) is going to strap the middle class even more. People will pull their money out of banks alright, but not all of them are going to invest it in equities. But those who do will eventually see that bubble pop and when it does it will be all deflation from there.

So believe what you will but spare me what has truly turned out to be tedious uninformed collective spew. If I'm wrong I'll rep you. If you're wrong do the same. I hope you're right, but I know you're wrong.

Conferences aren't going to do anything but run for financial cover and that is found in further consolidation. Bet on it!

(11-11-2015 07:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-11-2015 01:23 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-11-2015 09:23 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-11-2015 08:27 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-10-2015 11:49 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Now, wait a second.

You think the best the SEC can get is from that group, but you also think ESPN is going to move a couple of SEC schools into the ACC to stabilize that league?

I'm not a math major, but that doesn't add up.

*Yes!
I believe that in the long run, we will end up with 6 conferences (1 x 12, 5 x11). By breaking up very large conferences into manageable sizes ESPN/FOX can regain control of $$ paid to each, and more effectively market each of the 6 to specific areas of the country.
This will not be done to stabilize the ACC or any other league, but to help stabilize college football as a whole by breaking up into groups that ordinary fans can identify with.

*The group that was identified was a response to JR's suggestion that Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Nebraska join the PAC.

*No conference wants to have schools that have to leapfrog other conferences to get to their league. That is the West Virginia lesson. That's why Texas to the ACC, or any combination of Big 12 and ACC schools together in one conference is a stupid idea.

*We have some schools that are in the wrong league and breaking into smaller groups can go a long way to solving that problem.

We may one day downsize into more regionally defined conferences again, but that won't be in our lifetimes, and perhaps not in the lifetimes of our children. Our grandchildren could very well be old when something like that happens. We have started toward fulfilling a concept. That concept will be worked to its completion before any alterations are even considered.

I hate cell phones too! But we aren't headed toward landline dominance again, or for that matter the rotary dial phone. We are headed toward further downsizing in public education. The Tier 1 is a club more for protection rather than for collective bargaining purposes. We are on a corporate model and corporate models are in consolidation mode because of what the future is shaping up to yield.

You better get use to it because if we survive with our institutions still intact, we aren't going to recognize the end product as anything that we loved or relied upon in during our formative years. And I'm not saying this as SEC smack, to provoke posts, or for entertainment purposes. Enjoy what you have now as it's past its prime and fading fast.

You deserve the little guy with the flag for those comments!

Because you are just plain wrong JR.
The market has shifted and things are changing fast and returning to smaller conferences is a strategy that might help right the ship.
Attendance is down, fan interest is on the wane and ESPN and FOX know it.
In the 80's and 90's golf was like a rocket ship in the US. Club membership was up, equipment sales were through the roof and getting a weekend tee time was next to impossible. And then it just stopped, no reason, it just stopped and has been on the decline ever since.
College football has hit that wall, whether it is realignment, the dominance of Alabama, or stupid rules changes, I don't know, but ESPN knows that it has changed. You don't think that the folks at ESPN aren't smart enough to change direction before it's too late? Why would any corporate entity continue to implement a plan that is no longer working (and do it for generations)?
Hey!, if it were just for the money, Carolina could have moved to the SEC or the B1G and already be cashing bigger checks, but that is not a long term solution for us or anyone else, because the sport has to survive, not just make money.

When you know what you are talking about I'll listen. We are flirting with negative interest rates for assets with commodities being suppressed right now by an intentional rise in lending interest rates. That my friend is a wake up call. We have a fiat currency and we owe over 19 Trillion a year in interest and our adversaries are allying economically behind a currency exchange backed by commodities (gas & oil in Russia, precious metals in greater Asia). When you raise interest rates while moving to a negative return on capital you are begging for hyperinflation to cure your ills. You and the other shortsighted pseudo intellectuals with your left leaning social positions and your tunnel vision on short term portfolio moves are headed with the rest of the lemmings for the plunge into the great financial abyss. Right now the Fed leans on the Central banks of Europe and they lean on us, but the rest of the world is fed up with our high living off of a well manipulated Ponzi scheme involving derivatives and etrades which are used to manipulate the commodities by inflating the actual shares.

This crap is coming to an end and the first warning bell for it is a move in the negative direction on interest for investment capital. They need that sideline money to continue as long as they can to prop up an equities market that is not producing on its own. And it isn't and it will only get worse as inflation in food and fuel (which is coming in January due to cuts in production just as Boone Pickens said it would) is going to strap the middle class even more. People will pull their money out of banks alright, but not all of them are going to invest it in equities. But those who do will eventually see that bubble pop and when it does it will be all deflation from there.

So believe what you will but spare me what has truly turned out to be tedious uninformed collective spew. If I'm wrong I'll rep you. If you're wrong do the same. I hope you're right, but I know you're wrong.

Conferences aren't going to do anything but run for financial cover and that is found in further consolidation. Bet on it!

Quite a tirade, JR, the only thing left to say is....back at you, slick!

(11-11-2015 10:37 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  If I could be king of college football for a day, I would align things something like this:

PAC 20:

North: Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, Boise State
Central: Stanford, California, UNLV, Utah, BYU
East: Colorado, Colorado State, New Mexico, Texas Tech, TCU
South: UCLA, USC, San Diego State, Arizona, Arizona State

SEC(28):

East: Florida, Florida State, Miami, Georgia, Georgia Tech, South Carolina, Clemson
North: North Carolina, North Carolina State, Duke, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Kentucky, Louisville
South: LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
West: Texas, Texas A&M, Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Missouri, Arkansas

Big Ten(24)

West: Nebraska, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa, Iowa State, Minnesota
Central: Illinois, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Notre Dame, Indiana, Purdue
East: Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Penn State
Atlantic: Syracuse, UConn, Boston College, Rutgers, Maryland, West Virginia


Of course, that could never happen, but it's fun to think about. Only Wake Forest would be left out from the current P5 and several new schools would get a golden ticket. Nothing against Wake, but there just aren't very many good options out there to pair them with.

I like your idea of 72 teams but I can't think of one good reason for us not to finally end up with 4 leagues instead of 3 leagues. College football would be so awesome to have anywhere from 4 to6 teams play for each leagues championship and then the final 4 champions move on to the playoffs.

I don't know how a P4 would finally come about but I do know this: as long as political and economic interests influence universities then alignments will take on characteristics that can look at times strange. It took at least a decade before the Big East finally broke up and that was a league that was rife with dysfunction. Even with the dysfunction, fans didn't think it was going to break up until right before the moment it happened.

College sports fans of various sporting interests hold on to what's most dear to them. Boosters, media, athletic directors and even university presidents worry about future viability of programs. University presidents are, essentially, politicians by necessity, for they to balance the demands of factions that affect the health of the universities as wholes.

The scenario presented by the OP is thought-provoking. Executing a plan similar to the scenario would involve soothing certain egos. Not just the obvious ones like ND and UNC but also programs like Nebraska, who had first expressed interest in the Big Ten back in the early 20th Century. Or Virginia Tech having campaigned to join the ACC for decades until they were finally admitted.

Yes, anything is possible with enough incentives but the political angle is often the potential monkey wrench. I wonder if the power of the networks is a bit overstated, by the way. A network can't really force a program to join a conference it doesn't want as long as that program has options. History can be defied or it can repeat itself. Change within an ecosystem doesn't come without tradeoffs. A tradeoff to an orderly transition within FBS could be something unforeseen when first thought of. That can explain the historical conservative approach to change. Adding or replacing a program isn't done until necessary.

Never say never, though.

(11-11-2015 07:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  When you know what you are talking about I'll listen. We are flirting with negative interest rates for assets with commodities being suppressed right now by an intentional rise in lending interest rates. That my friend is a wake up call. We have a fiat currency and we owe over 19 Trillion a year in interest and our adversaries are allying economically behind a currency exchange backed by commodities (gas & oil in Russia, precious metals in greater Asia). When you raise interest rates while moving to a negative return on capital you are begging for hyperinflation to cure your ills. You and the other shortsighted pseudo intellectuals with your left leaning social positions and your tunnel vision on short term portfolio moves are headed with the rest of the lemmings for the plunge into the great financial abyss. Right now the Fed leans on the Central banks of Europe and they lean on us, but the rest of the world is fed up with our high living off of a well manipulated Ponzi scheme involving derivatives and etrades which are used to manipulate the commodities by inflating the actual shares.

This crap is coming to an end and the first warning bell for it is a move in the negative direction on interest for investment capital. They need that sideline money to continue as long as they can to prop up an equities market that is not producing on its own. And it isn't and it will only get worse as inflation in food and fuel (which is coming in January due to cuts in production just as Boone Pickens said it would) is going to strap the middle class even more. People will pull their money out of banks alright, but not all of them are going to invest it in equities. But those who do will eventually see that bubble pop and when it does it will be all deflation from there.

So believe what you will but spare me what has truly turned out to be tedious uninformed collective spew. If I'm wrong I'll rep you. If you're wrong do the same. I hope you're right, but I know you're wrong.

Conferences aren't going to do anything but run for financial cover and that is found in further consolidation. Bet on it!

Meanwhile, we're stripping away our own ability to utilize natural resources and our leaders tell us our greatest threat to survival is man-made climate change.

I'm not an expert on economics, but I do understand the basic principles. What I do understand about our economy makes me want to refrain from having any children. I don't see their potential future as very enviable for various reasons.

(11-10-2015 09:32 AM)JRsec Wrote:  PAC:

North: Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State

South: Arizona, Arizona State, U.C.L.A., U.S.C.

Central: California, Colorado, Stanford, Utah

West: Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas


Big 10:

Northeast: Indiana, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

Southeast: Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia

Southwest: Illinois, Iowa, Northwestern, Ohio State

Northwest: Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Wisconsin


SEC:

North: Kentucky, Missouri, N.C. State, Virginia Tech

East: Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina

South: Alabama, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

West: Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Texas A&M



The New P4 Conference:

Northeast: Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse

Northwest: Iowa State, Kansas State, Louisville, West Virginia

Southeast: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

Southwest: Baylor, Oklahoma State, T.C.U., Texas Tech


Now this line up solves many issues.

1. The Big 10 is truly all AAU and gets into North Carolina and Virginia for markets and ESPN gets to keep T1.

2. The PAC expands with 4 badly needed brands. ESPN unloads the LHN and retains 50% of the PAC lease as does FOX. This move brings balance and an atmosphere less combative in which to resolve realignment. Texas and Oklahoma play annually, Oklahoma and Nebraska renew annually, Nebraska gets both California and Texas recruiting roots reestablished. Bedlam is kept but as OOC.

3. The SEC gets its markets and completes its footprint. The deep South is not threatened by the Big 10 and an annual OOC game alliance is played with the new conference. Texas & A&M resume as OOC.

4. The New Conference has strong schools in each region. Florida State and Notre Dame anchor the branding but keep the regional play they desire. The market is large enough that FOX & ESPN split the overhead and retain 50/50 rights by agreement. FOX gets into the Southeast and ESPN loses nothing throughout the whole realignment. They retain T1 in the Big 10, 50% access in the PAC & New Conference, and they add markets to the SECN adding to their profits while cutting overhead by brokering out the ACC.

The cost of all of this is that N.D. has to go all in.

It's a win for the Big 10. It's a win for the SEC. It's a win for the PAC. And it's a win for the New Conference which now is comprised totally of schools that heretofore have not had network income.

Looks pretty good to me. Adding the Big XII schools to PAC is the PAC's only viable option. Should have already done it.