Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
XLance Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,830
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 146
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #111
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
(09-18-2017 11:36 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(09-18-2017 09:39 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  "N.C. State & Virginia Tech to the SEC along with T.C.U. and Kansas
Notre Dame joins in full. Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and West Virginia to the ACC."

I'm not one to support "trading" VT or any other university out of the ACC, especially for nonsense like UCONN or Tulane, but I wouldn't oppose the trade mentioned by JR, provided that VT & NC State don't object. Bringing in Texas, Oklahoma & ND would definitely raise the profile of the ACC. I would trade TT for Houston though if possible.

I would prefer the earlier mentioning of placing Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas & Iowa State into the SEC & Texas, TCU, WV & ND into the ACC over the above proposal.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There's plenty of ways to do it.

I just don't think the SEC should facilitate Texas into the ACC unless we're getting something in return.

For us, the OK schools, KU, and ISU isn't really a bad deal. I don't want to take Texas Tech though just so the ACC can have Texas. I don't see that we have any motivation to do that for one.

Don't get too excited, the ACC won't be getting Texas or any team not in the eastern time zone unless ESPN requests it and it's a requirement for the ACCN. If that is the case then the SEC would have known for a long time and any concessions that the SEC needs to make were probably agreed upon before the SECN launch.
Today 11:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,830
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 146
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #112
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
(09-18-2017 01:17 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  
(09-18-2017 12:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-18-2017 11:36 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(09-18-2017 09:39 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  "N.C. State & Virginia Tech to the SEC along with T.C.U. and Kansas
Notre Dame joins in full. Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and West Virginia to the ACC."

I'm not one to support "trading" VT or any other university out of the ACC, especially for nonsense like UCONN or Tulane, but I wouldn't oppose the trade mentioned by JR, provided that VT & NC State don't object. Bringing in Texas, Oklahoma & ND would definitely raise the profile of the ACC. I would trade TT for Houston though if possible.

I would prefer the earlier mentioning of placing Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas & Iowa State into the SEC & Texas, TCU, WV & ND into the ACC over the above proposal.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There's plenty of ways to do it.

I just don't think the SEC should facilitate Texas into the ACC unless we're getting something in return.

For us, the OK schools, KU, and ISU isn't really a bad deal. I don't want to take Texas Tech though just so the ACC can have Texas. I don't see that we have any motivation to do that for one.

IMO, we wind up with one of these three in order of preference: Texas & Oklahoma; Oklahoma & Oklahoma State; Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State; T.C.U. and Kansas.

I think we would prefer to move to just 16 and that the only 18 school scenario we would consider would be one that landed both Texas and Oklahoma.


I didn't think that the SEC or ACC wants TT & Im sure that A&M would prefer to be the lone team from the Lone star state. Oklahoma & Oklahoma State gives the SEC everything they need in penetrating Texas & complements A&M well. Kansas complements Missouri & enhances SEC basketball. Iowa State adds a good athletic team with a passionate fan base in a new market.

I'm still intrigued by Nebraska going to the SEC, they would complement the Oklahoma schools & A&M. I think the Cornhuskers would have a better chance at rejuvenating their brand in an SEC with Oklahoma than they would in the B1G. Let Kansas & Missouri go to the B1G while the SEC picks up Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Nebraska, Iowa State & either Kansas State or another Texas school (TCU, TT or Baylor). Or stop at 16 & leave out Iowa State +1. UCONN can be #16 for the B1G. ACC goes to 18 with Texas, TCU/Houston, WV & ND.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If we move to "very large" conferences that JR is always quoting Slive on, the SEC could very well move to 27 (three divisions of 9).
The SEC could take all of the Big 12 and add Nebraska, Louisville, West Virginia and UCF/USF to boot.
Politically the PAC is toast and nobody really wants their headaches with correctness.
That would leave the B1G and the ACC (w/Notre Dame) also with 27 (three divisions of 9) and then we're ready for an 8 team playoff.
You do recall JR has made the statement several times that the SEC NEEDS another Florida school and UCF seems to be a favorite of Texas.
8 conference games within your region keeps everything......regional even for Nebraska.
This combines most of the old SWC, most of the old Big 8 and the SEC while the other large conference would encompass the ACC, the B1G and the Big East/Eastern independents.
Today 12:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,618
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 68
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #113
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
(Today 11:43 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Lenville in spite of all of the scenarios kicked around, and in spite of all of the theories on how realignment will end, there is only one reality and it really kills discussion when it is absorbed as the truth that it is.

A school will move to a conference that provides it with these things:

1. A proximity convenient enough for their fans to access by driving.

2. A conference that can reconstruct for their fans a schedule that reunites them with old rivals, or affords them enough travel companions, or provides them with access to enough new brands, to be able to recreate a schedule that appeals to their fans.

3. That is close enough to keep expenses low and permit fans of minor sports to affordably attend events and which carries minor sports which matches best those of the entering school.

4. A new conference that enhances the bottom line.

And to compound this effect the conferences will be looking for the same things in the schools they invite.

Because of that the following speculations are not likely to ever come to pass:

1. Schools that are outliers geographically will be invited.

It's only happened once in power conferences (West Virginia) and then it was because the Big 12 was desperate to keep their TV contract viable. Because of that these speculations are either not likely or not possible:
Iowa State to the SEC, Texas to the ACC, Texas to the B1G. B.Y.U. to anywhere that is not the PAC (who won't take them). The only reason that the PAC is considered at all is because they are best able to add a division of schools and quite frankly that is also why they aren't likely to add just two. Texas and Oklahoma would not like being in the PAC if they have to traverse half of the continent to play games. They would need an Eastern division of about 4 more of their friends to make it viable.

2. Schools that can't add to the bottom line will be included on their own.
So Texas Tech, T.C.U., Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Iowa State, Baylor and perhaps West Virginia (they are close in revenue earned, behind in venue, academics, # of sports for the SEC & B1G) will not be added on their own steam. Any of them might be considered for a variety of reasons if paired with Oklahoma or Texas. Only Kansas might make it on their own and even then they might not add enough value for the liability of their football earning potential to be added to the B1G or SEC on their own.

3 Schools that don't travel well, and have a poor capacity at their venue will not be added. The SEC averages 77,500 and the Big 10 averages 66,000 in attendance at their venues. Kansas averaged 25,700 last year in attendance. Baylor and T.C.U. are in the 40's below even the ACC's paultry 49,000 averaged in attendance. Iowa State averages in the high 50's as does even Oklahoma State. There are only two schools in the Big 12 that would meet or exceed the mean of the SEC/B1G attendance, Texas and Oklahoma.

4. The best fit for minor sports, geographical proximity, and for old rivals for Oklahoma and Texas is the SEC. I'm not saying we get them, but I am saying if they have to go somewhere else we will get a serious look because of our advantages in the areas mentioned above.

5. People need to keep a map of the United State in front of them when making up their scenarios. There are schools that simply would be too difficult for the fan bases of most conferences schools to be practically considered. And with a map in front of you a more viable package can be seen to assimilate not just one or two schools but perhaps 4 which gives the conference control over a region. The cumulative value then can offset some of the deficits that just an individual school would bring. It is why Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State as a group truly works. The area between them is relatively confined and you get two top 7 brands and two competitive programs and they all love playing one another.

So, if the ACC is going to expand with Texas, they need to think in terms of adding a division. Otherwise I don't think it will work for very long if at all. And as far as Texas and A&M are concerned I know they hate each other passionately, but that passion is profitable for both in many ways. Auburn and Alabama hate each other but without that annual game the passion for either fan base would lessen. I think Texas and A&M have both sagged in part because they don't have each other as an annual catalyst to passion. We'll see.

I think it should be added that some are willing to break the rules of geography if they simply don't have enough options regionally.

I know you mentioned WVU in the context of the Big 12 being a little desperate at the time, but I also look to moves like these:

-Colorado to the PAC...it's a pretty good haul from Denver to most points on the West Coast. It's not unreasonable given CU's alternatives, but it's not ideal.

-The ACC alignment of going from Boston to Miami and then back over to South Bend. I think we tend to view the East Coast as a monolith, but from one end to the other it's not a short trip. The Southern ACC schools aren't that far apart, but certain members being dotted along the East Coast and not necessarily that close to major airports would make travel an adventure in certain situations.

For the most part, the SEC and B1G are pretty concise geographically. I don't think that's totally coincidental as far as the success of both leagues. For one, it's much easier for fans from multiple regions to interact in the economic/job centers and familiarity can breed contempt. Contempt is good for competitiveness.
Today 01:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,618
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 68
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #114
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
I like 20 as a final number better than 18.

1) You can easily divide into 4 divisions and each division can produce a participant for the conference semis. I think it's much easier than creating a system to select a wildcard.

2) If we go to 9 games then 20 is more conducive to balanced scheduling because 2 divisions can have 5 home games while the other 2 can have 5 away games. They would simply switch the following season. There is no advantage of one division mate over another as would have to be the case if the number is 18. I think that sort of imbalance could lead to issues.

I would suggest this...

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

Play each of your division mates annually = 4
Select 2 permanent rivals from any division = 2
Play 1 opponent from each division on a rotational basis = 3

That's 9 games that preserve rivalries and allow plenty of room for non-conference games of note.
Today 01:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 13,300
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 662
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #115
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
(Today 01:16 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I like 20 as a final number better than 18.

1) You can easily divide into 4 divisions and each division can produce a participant for the conference semis. I think it's much easier than creating a system to select a wildcard.

2) If we go to 9 games then 20 is more conducive to balanced scheduling because 2 divisions can have 5 home games while the other 2 can have 5 away games. They would simply switch the following season. There is no advantage of one division mate over another as would have to be the case if the number is 18. I think that sort of imbalance could lead to issues.

I would suggest this...

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

Play each of your division mates annually = 4
Select 2 permanent rivals from any division = 2
Play 1 opponent from each division on a rotational basis = 3

That's 9 games that preserve rivalries and allow plenty of room for non-conference games of note.

As to you last 2 posts, I have no problem with 20 as long as they fit and add. And, the SEC and the Big 10 are the most compact because only the desperate go beyond the natural grasp of their footprint to gain a school. The ACC needed relevance so they get N.D. as a partial. The PAC was dying for market penetration and Denver was attractive. WVU we've covered.

If we want to go to 20 profitably then it needs to be one of these options: Oklahoma, Texas, North Carolina, Duke, Florida State, Clemson; or Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, North Carolina, Duke, Florida State, Clemson; or substitute North Carolina State and Virginia Tech for North Carolina and Duke in either of the first two scenarios. So let's not waste space on the Big 12 until we know absolutely that the ACC is off the menu.
(This post was last modified: Today 01:50 PM by JRsec.)
Today 01:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,618
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 68
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #116
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
(Today 01:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(Today 01:16 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I like 20 as a final number better than 18.

1) You can easily divide into 4 divisions and each division can produce a participant for the conference semis. I think it's much easier than creating a system to select a wildcard.

2) If we go to 9 games then 20 is more conducive to balanced scheduling because 2 divisions can have 5 home games while the other 2 can have 5 away games. They would simply switch the following season. There is no advantage of one division mate over another as would have to be the case if the number is 18. I think that sort of imbalance could lead to issues.

I would suggest this...

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

Play each of your division mates annually = 4
Select 2 permanent rivals from any division = 2
Play 1 opponent from each division on a rotational basis = 3

That's 9 games that preserve rivalries and allow plenty of room for non-conference games of note.

As to you last 2 posts, I have no problem with 20 as long as they fit and add. And, the SEC and the Big 10 are the most compact because only the desperate go beyond the natural grasp of their footprint to gain a school. The ACC needed relevance so they get N.D. as a partial. The PAC was dying for market penetration and Denver was attractive. WVU we've covered.

If we want to go to 20 profitably then it needs to be one of these options: Oklahoma, Texas, North Carolina, Duke, Florida State, Clemson; or Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, North Carolina, Duke, Florida State, Clemson; or substitute North Carolina State and Virginia Tech for North Carolina and Duke in either of the first two scenarios. So let's not waste space on the Big 12 until we know absolutely that the ACC is off the menu.

They may not be solvent long term.

I think if the ACC is ever breached by us though then we might as well go to 24. There are so many strong regional connections that could be re-established or created that I think it would pay dividends.

Personally, I would also like to ensure the inclusion of Texas as well. If we ever break away from ESPN then we may need the extra punch to ensure another network(s) is paying us what we're worth. The extra gravitas to the league will make picking off certain ACC schools that much easier.

Something like this one day maybe...

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State in the short term

Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, North Carolina, Duke, Virginia Tech in the long term
Today 02:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 13,300
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 662
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #117
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
(Today 02:13 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(Today 01:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(Today 01:16 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I like 20 as a final number better than 18.

1) You can easily divide into 4 divisions and each division can produce a participant for the conference semis. I think it's much easier than creating a system to select a wildcard.

2) If we go to 9 games then 20 is more conducive to balanced scheduling because 2 divisions can have 5 home games while the other 2 can have 5 away games. They would simply switch the following season. There is no advantage of one division mate over another as would have to be the case if the number is 18. I think that sort of imbalance could lead to issues.

I would suggest this...

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

Play each of your division mates annually = 4
Select 2 permanent rivals from any division = 2
Play 1 opponent from each division on a rotational basis = 3

That's 9 games that preserve rivalries and allow plenty of room for non-conference games of note.

As to you last 2 posts, I have no problem with 20 as long as they fit and add. And, the SEC and the Big 10 are the most compact because only the desperate go beyond the natural grasp of their footprint to gain a school. The ACC needed relevance so they get N.D. as a partial. The PAC was dying for market penetration and Denver was attractive. WVU we've covered.

If we want to go to 20 profitably then it needs to be one of these options: Oklahoma, Texas, North Carolina, Duke, Florida State, Clemson; or Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, North Carolina, Duke, Florida State, Clemson; or substitute North Carolina State and Virginia Tech for North Carolina and Duke in either of the first two scenarios. So let's not waste space on the Big 12 until we know absolutely that the ACC is off the menu.

They may not be solvent long term.

I think if the ACC is ever breached by us though then we might as well go to 24. There are so many strong regional connections that could be re-established or created that I think it would pay dividends.

Personally, I would also like to ensure the inclusion of Texas as well. If we ever break away from ESPN then we may need the extra punch to ensure another network(s) is paying us what we're worth. The extra gravitas to the league will make picking off certain ACC schools that much easier.

Something like this one day maybe...

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State in the short term

Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, North Carolina, Duke, Virginia Tech in the long term

'the problem at 24 is that you can't play everyone every 4 years and have any OOC games to speak of. Also finding 6 that make you more money is danged tough. Finding 10 is probably impossible.

As to the SEC's future value to another network, we don't need to do anything but win. Our value is based on the extremely high % of our households that tune into SEC games each week. If we are winning it is too valuable to pass up. Having A&M puts us into Texas, but I agree if we had the Horns it gets even stronger.
Today 02:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: XLance, 2 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2017 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2017 MyBB Group.