(12-13-2016 02:37 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  

(12-13-2016 01:53 PM)Rube Dali Wrote:  The $EC absorbs every other DI conference(hockey included), and wins every DI title forevermore. :=)

It's bad enough you fight the hypothetical, but you're an ass to boot!

Your sarcam detection device got turned off, huh.

(12-13-2016 12:28 PM)lance99 Wrote:  

(12-12-2016 11:57 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(12-12-2016 12:26 PM)lance99 Wrote:  I will play along

Drop AAC, SBC, MWC and CUSA, then create Two New Conferences that somewhat geographically makes sense.

Please explain your choices. SBC makes geographic sense when Idaho and NM St are gone. MWC makes geographic sense right now. AAC and CUSA don't make geographic sense but that was never their intentions. Both stated from the get go they were looking at the "best of the rest" from big markets.
Cheers!

The idea of the thread is to get down to 8 Conferences. Lets just go the Scorched Earth route and blow up 40% of FBS and just be silly with it

One way would be to force down the Sun Belt and CUSA. Then you have a G3 with one in the west, one in the Midwest and one in the east and south.

(12-13-2016 10:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-13-2016 12:28 PM)lance99 Wrote:  

(12-12-2016 11:57 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(12-12-2016 12:26 PM)lance99 Wrote:  I will play along

Drop AAC, SBC, MWC and CUSA, then create Two New Conferences that somewhat geographically makes sense.

Please explain your choices. SBC makes geographic sense when Idaho and NM St are gone. MWC makes geographic sense right now. AAC and CUSA don't make geographic sense but that was never their intentions. Both stated from the get go they were looking at the "best of the rest" from big markets.
Cheers!

The idea of the thread is to get down to 8 Conferences. Lets just go the Scorched Earth route and blow up 40% of FBS and just be silly with it

One way would be to force down the Sun Belt and CUSA. Then you have a G3 with one in the west, one in the Midwest and one in the east and south.

But on what basis do you force them down? You could more rigorously enforce the attendance standard, but both conferences have plenty of schools that meet that, and the threat of downgrade was an immediate danger, laggard schools would get wealthy alumni and partner companies to buy enough tickets to get to the magic mark, which they do anyway.

Other than that, what do you go by? The Potter Stewart Standard?

The only reasonable way we're getting to eight conferences (and even this entails a bunch of moving parts) is if a) the core of the Big 12 leaves and the other conferences snap up enough of the remnants before they can reorganize under the B12 banner, and b) a number of schools in one of the G5s (we'll say the Sun Belt because they're the smallest at 10 football programs) elect for whatever reason to drop to FCS, prompting CUSA and the MAC to pick off the stronger programs and leaving the Belt with too few schools to sponsor the sport. But even that's pretty far-fetched.

Let's assume that Idaho, New Mexico State, ULM & UMass all go back to being FCS. At that point you could split up the two conferences in C-USA & Sun Belt easily and move from there. But until the Power 5 becomes the Power 4, nothing will really happen with the G5

(12-14-2016 02:05 AM)Realignment Wrote:  Let's assume that Idaho, New Mexico State, ULM & UMass all go back to being FCS. At that point you could split up the two conferences in C-USA & Sun Belt easily and move from there. But until the Power 5 becomes the Power 4, nothing will really happen with the G5

Eastern Michigan and San Jose State does not get that many fans either. Ball State went down as well. I do not think this would work.

The P5s expand the conferences for geographic reasons for Conference $$ via TV. Getting to the point of turning a conference in it's own League would just backfire in terms of CFB interest. I think the NCAA should step in when it comes to that and limit the teams when it comes to Football, since there's limited games.

Quote:But I can't imagine that any of them would be happy with the result. The ten 9 team conferences include pretty much all of the P5 plus the MWC and AAC.

9-team conferences = 8 Conf Games + 4 OOC. Yeah, you play everyone in your conference. There's that benefit, but I think it's over cooking the soup. There's nothing wrong, IMO, with having two relatively Equal divisions in a conference where you play everyone in your division + about half in the other division.

That's why I'd top it at 12 (6 each division). 5 in-division + 3 other-division = 8 games. +4 OOC.

You could go 5 in-division + 4 of 6 other-division = 9 games + 3 OOC. That would More than cover it, playing a majority of your other-division opponents. There can be a little mystery & separation when going for a Conf Championship game. But overcooking it with 16 teams where you barely play any is overkill in that direction.

If Each Conf was Forced to Have 12-max *and* you wanted better conference setups:

P12
ACC (-Wake Forest, Boston College)
B1G (-Rutgers, Maryland)
SEC (-Vanderbilt, South Carolina)
B12 (+ South Carolina, Houston)

MAC
MWEST
AAC (+ Maryland)
CUSA (-FLAtlantic)
SUNB (+FLAtlantic)

All have 12, but 4 Leftover Teams: (Wake Forest, Boston College, Rutgers, Vanderbilt) + 4 Independents Forced into a Conference (ND, Army, UMass, BYU)
= 8. Too few, so I think they'd steal a few new from G5s, and the G5s may shift around.

If they banned Independents, it would be ND joining the ACC -- and would probably shift another ACC team out to join those no-conf-turned-new-conf. But wouldn't be a bad conference. Other G5s would want to join to make a new one. :)

Basically, at the end of the day, Maxing conferences at 12, we'd have 11 conferences, not 10. Which I'm fine with. No sense in having over 12 a conference.

I think we could split the schools up by regions instead, and do away with conferences. Everybody would be independent and can play with anybody who they want to.