Big 10 West with 2 Divisions:
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue

Big 10 East with 2 Divisions:
Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse
Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Penn State, Virginia

SEC East with 2 Divisions:
Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Miami
Kentucky, N.C. State, Tennessee, Virginia Tech, (West Virginia / Louisville)

SEC West with 2 Divisions:
Alabama, Florida State, Georgia Tech, South Carolina, Vanderbilt
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M

PAC West with 2 Divisions:
Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State
Arizona, Arizona State, California, U.C.L.A., U.S.C.

PAC East with 2 Divisions:
Colorado, Kansas, Iowa State, Missouri, Nebraska
Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, Utah

With this set up you have some choices. You can play 11 conference games which would be comprised of a round robin among the 9 games of your regional schools with 2 permanent rivals from the other two divisions of the other region, with 1 OOC game annually. The winner and runner up of each Region would then face the winner and runner up of the other other Region in the Conference Semi-finals with the champions squaring off against the other regions runner ups.

Or, 4 divisional games with a rotating division to play for 9 conference games with 1 permanent rival and 2 OOC games annually. In this option the 4 division winners square off in the Conference Semi-finals.

Either way it has many advantage over the present system.

The CFP would consist of the 3 champions and an at large selection.

Missouri is not "western" enough for the PAC 12, Jr. The PAC will not touch us. That star is still on the Rebel flag. Maybe Missouri should just be an independent, or just drop football. Seems like that is where we fit in. If the SEC would take Texas off our hands, the rest of the Big XII would be fine. Maybe Missouri would even consider a return, as this is starting to feel like an epic fail.

(09-26-2017 10:35 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Missouri is not "western" enough for the PAC 12, Jr. The PAC will not touch us. Maybe Missouri should just be an independent, or just drop football. Seems like that is where we fit in.

I just thought that perhaps Nebraska and Missouri would benefit by playing other Big 8 members. It was the only solution that I see to the familiarity problem.

If that doesn't work then maybe the SEC gets lucky and adds Oklahoma and Kansas. At least that would help your fans with contests they are actually interested in seeing. I think a move to the West would help too.

Mizzou doesn't need to drop football. They just need a coach with some know how in staff management and an administration with a firm yet discerning hand.

I also believe that if Slive were still commissioner a more aggressively proactive commitment to help meet Mizzou's needs would have been forthcoming. Sankey let the Florida / LSU thing fester before getting involved and so far seems to me to be way too passive in handling issues.

(09-26-2017 06:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Big 10 West with 2 Divisions:
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue

Big 10 East with 2 Divisions:
Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse
Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Penn State, Virginia

SEC East with 2 Divisions:
Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Miami
Kentucky, N.C. State, Tennessee, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

SEC West with 2 Divisions:
Alabama, Florida State, Georgia Tech, South Carolina, Vanderbilt
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M

PAC West with 2 Divisions:
Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State
Arizona, Arizona State, California, U.C.L.A., U.S.C.

PAC East with 2 Divisions:
Colorado, Kansas, Iowa State, Missouri, Nebraska
Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, Utah

The CFP would consist of the 3 champions and an at large selection.

At this point, it is looking more like West Virginia over Louisville. Kansas St, TCU, Baylor, Louisville, are Wake Forest are left out. B1G and PAC make sense to me. However, I don't understand the SEC. I would think a more geographical split would resolve questions like being with rivals and longtime conference mates. There would obviously be a little overlap.

SEC West
Texas A&M, Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St
Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky

SEC East
Georgia, Georgia Tech, Florida, Florida St, Miami
South Carolina, Clemson, North Carolina St, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Maybe I'm missing something?

I would do this...

West: Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Missouri, Arkansas, LSU, Ole Miss

South: Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina

East: Notre Dame, Kentucky, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, North Carolina, Duke, Virginia Tech

(09-27-2017 09:20 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(09-26-2017 06:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Big 10 West with 2 Divisions:
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue

Big 10 East with 2 Divisions:
Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse
Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Penn State, Virginia

SEC East with 2 Divisions:
Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Miami
Kentucky, N.C. State, Tennessee, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

SEC West with 2 Divisions:
Alabama, Florida State, Georgia Tech, South Carolina, Vanderbilt
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M

PAC West with 2 Divisions:
Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State
Arizona, Arizona State, California, U.C.L.A., U.S.C.

PAC East with 2 Divisions:
Colorado, Kansas, Iowa State, Missouri, Nebraska
Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, Utah

The CFP would consist of the 3 champions and an at large selection.

At this point, it is looking more like West Virginia over Louisville. Kansas St, TCU, Baylor, Louisville, are Wake Forest are left out. B1G and PAC make sense to me. However, I don't understand the SEC. I would think a more geographical split would resolve questions like being with rivals and longtime conference mates. There would obviously be a little overlap.

SEC West
Texas A&M, Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St
Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky

SEC East
Georgia, Georgia Tech, Florida, Florida St, Miami
South Carolina, Clemson, North Carolina St, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Maybe I'm missing something?

Yes. Auburn's natural rivals are Georgia, Florida and Clemson, in addition to Alabama. Buy splitting up Florida/F.S.U., Georgia/Georgia Tech, Clemson/USCe, and Alabama/Auburn they can all end the season with each other as the crossover permanent rival and stay with rivals during the divisional play. Auburn loses Georgia Tech but keeps Clemson, Florida, Georgia and Alabama.

(09-26-2017 10:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-26-2017 10:35 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Missouri is not "western" enough for the PAC 12, Jr. The PAC will not touch us. Maybe Missouri should just be an independent, or just drop football. Seems like that is where we fit in.

I just thought that perhaps Nebraska and Missouri would benefit by playing other Big 8 members. It was the only solution that I see to the familiarity problem.

If that doesn't work then maybe the SEC gets lucky and adds Oklahoma and Kansas. At least that would help your fans with contests they are actually interested in seeing. I think a move to the West would help too.

Mizzou doesn't need to drop football. They just need a coach with some know how in staff management and an administration with a firm yet discerning hand.

I also believe that if Slive were still commissioner a more aggressively proactive commitment to help meet Mizzou's needs would have been forthcoming. Sankey let the Florida / LSU thing fester before getting involved and so far seems to me to be way too passive in handling issues.

I think the Tiger fans love the SEC east games. The fans are mad at the school, the administration, the coach, and the players . They are mad that in their opinion Missouri was singled-out as somehow being a racist university. Nothing is further from the truth. Our attendance increased upon admission to the SEC. It is obvious the fans have an axe to grind. I believe this would be happening even if we were still members of the Big XII. This will pass.

(09-27-2017 11:53 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(09-26-2017 10:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-26-2017 10:35 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Missouri is not "western" enough for the PAC 12, Jr. The PAC will not touch us. Maybe Missouri should just be an independent, or just drop football. Seems like that is where we fit in.

I just thought that perhaps Nebraska and Missouri would benefit by playing other Big 8 members. It was the only solution that I see to the familiarity problem.

If that doesn't work then maybe the SEC gets lucky and adds Oklahoma and Kansas. At least that would help your fans with contests they are actually interested in seeing. I think a move to the West would help too.

Mizzou doesn't need to drop football. They just need a coach with some know how in staff management and an administration with a firm yet discerning hand.

I also believe that if Slive were still commissioner a more aggressively proactive commitment to help meet Mizzou's needs would have been forthcoming. Sankey let the Florida / LSU thing fester before getting involved and so far seems to me to be way too passive in handling issues.

I think the Tiger fans love the SEC east games. The fans are mad at the school, the administration, the coach, and the players . They are mad that in their opinion Missouri was singled-out as somehow being a racist university. Nothing is further from the truth. Our attendance increased upon admission to the SEC. It is obvious the fans have an axe to grind. I believe this would be happening even if we were still members of the Big XII. This will pass.

For competition's sake, I would stick Mizzou in the West where they can play games in TX. Seems like they have an easier time recruiting their old stomping grounds.

I think it was a difficult transition for Mizzou to have to shift their recruiting efforts to a part of the country they really hadn't made any connections in...especially considering there are already so many programs in the SEC, ACC, and B1G that have made inroads into FL and GA for quite some time. It was a crowded field to have to enter all of a sudden.

I know there are ancillary issues with the school politics, but I think the football team would be better off playing regular games in TX.

(09-26-2017 06:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Big 10 West with 2 Divisions:
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue

Big 10 East with 2 Divisions:
Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse
Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Penn State, Virginia

SEC East with 2 Divisions:
Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Miami
Kentucky, N.C. State, Tennessee, Virginia Tech, (West Virginia / Louisville)

SEC West with 2 Divisions:
Alabama, Florida State, Georgia Tech, South Carolina, Vanderbilt
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M

PAC West with 2 Divisions:
Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State
Arizona, Arizona State, California, U.C.L.A., U.S.C.

PAC East with 2 Divisions:
Colorado, Kansas, Iowa State, Missouri, Nebraska
Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, Utah

With this set up you have some choices. You can play 11 conference games which would be comprised of a round robin among the 9 games of your regional schools with 2 permanent rivals from the other two divisions of the other region, with 1 OOC game annually. The winner and runner up of each Region would then face the winner and runner up of the other other Region in the Conference Semi-finals with the champions squaring off against the other regions runner ups.

Or, 4 divisional games with a rotating division to play for 9 conference games with 1 permanent rival and 2 OOC games annually. In this option the 4 division winners square off in the Conference Semi-finals.

Either way it has many advantage over the present system.

The CFP would consist of the 3 champions and an at large selection.

It remains to be seen whether the breaking scandals involving several programs and athletic shoe companies would affect how presidents view their current associations but there has to be some rethinking deep within the academic halls over how much they allow athletics the reigns they're allowed to have. We could have a situation where the academic eggheads start agitating for and getting greater control over athletics or perhaps start the process of separating athletics from the educational institutions, thereby privatizing "college" athletics at least in the money sports.

I also wonder if some of the more academically-minded schools are flipping mad at the Clemsons and Florida States of the world for pushing Louisville over other candidates. On the one hand, it helped save their precious conference but perhaps at the cost of diminished reputations. Obviously, this is only the tip of the iceberg and more institutions and coaches might get caught in the probe. So it's too early to know for sure.

(09-27-2017 05:24 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(09-26-2017 06:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Big 10 West with 2 Divisions:
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue

Big 10 East with 2 Divisions:
Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse
Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Penn State, Virginia

SEC East with 2 Divisions:
Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Miami
Kentucky, N.C. State, Tennessee, Virginia Tech, (West Virginia / Louisville)

SEC West with 2 Divisions:
Alabama, Florida State, Georgia Tech, South Carolina, Vanderbilt
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M

PAC West with 2 Divisions:
Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State
Arizona, Arizona State, California, U.C.L.A., U.S.C.

PAC East with 2 Divisions:
Colorado, Kansas, Iowa State, Missouri, Nebraska
Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, Utah

With this set up you have some choices. You can play 11 conference games which would be comprised of a round robin among the 9 games of your regional schools with 2 permanent rivals from the other two divisions of the other region, with 1 OOC game annually. The winner and runner up of each Region would then face the winner and runner up of the other other Region in the Conference Semi-finals with the champions squaring off against the other regions runner ups.

Or, 4 divisional games with a rotating division to play for 9 conference games with 1 permanent rival and 2 OOC games annually. In this option the 4 division winners square off in the Conference Semi-finals.

Either way it has many advantage over the present system.

The CFP would consist of the 3 champions and an at large selection.

It remains to be seen whether the breaking scandals involving several programs and athletic shoe companies would affect how presidents view their current associations but there has to be some rethinking deep within the academic halls over how much they allow athletics the reigns they're allowed to have. We could have a situation where the academic eggheads start agitating for and getting greater control over athletics or perhaps start the process of separating athletics from the educational institutions, thereby privatizing "college" athletics at least in the money sports.

I also wonder if some of the more academically-minded schools are flipping mad at the Clemsons and Florida States of the world for pushing Louisville over other candidates. On the one hand, it helped save their precious conference but perhaps at the cost of diminished reputations. Obviously, this is only the tip of the iceberg and more institutions and coaches might get caught in the probe. So it's too early to know for sure.

Not many options out East at that time. WVU was under B12 GOR While UConn's basketball programs were under postseason tournament bans for poor grades. Louisville was the best football and basketball combination of a school that the ACC had available.

(09-27-2017 05:24 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(09-26-2017 06:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Big 10 West with 2 Divisions:
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue

Big 10 East with 2 Divisions:
Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse
Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Penn State, Virginia

SEC East with 2 Divisions:
Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Miami
Kentucky, N.C. State, Tennessee, Virginia Tech, (West Virginia / Louisville)

SEC West with 2 Divisions:
Alabama, Florida State, Georgia Tech, South Carolina, Vanderbilt
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M

PAC West with 2 Divisions:
Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State
Arizona, Arizona State, California, U.C.L.A., U.S.C.

PAC East with 2 Divisions:
Colorado, Kansas, Iowa State, Missouri, Nebraska
Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, Utah

With this set up you have some choices. You can play 11 conference games which would be comprised of a round robin among the 9 games of your regional schools with 2 permanent rivals from the other two divisions of the other region, with 1 OOC game annually. The winner and runner up of each Region would then face the winner and runner up of the other other Region in the Conference Semi-finals with the champions squaring off against the other regions runner ups.

Or, 4 divisional games with a rotating division to play for 9 conference games with 1 permanent rival and 2 OOC games annually. In this option the 4 division winners square off in the Conference Semi-finals.

Either way it has many advantage over the present system.

The CFP would consist of the 3 champions and an at large selection.

It remains to be seen whether the breaking scandals involving several programs and athletic shoe companies would affect how presidents view their current associations but there has to be some rethinking deep within the academic halls over how much they allow athletics the reigns they're allowed to have. We could have a situation where the academic eggheads start agitating for and getting greater control over athletics or perhaps start the process of separating athletics from the educational institutions, thereby privatizing "college" athletics at least in the money sports.

I also wonder if some of the more academically-minded schools are flipping mad at the Clemsons and Florida States of the world for pushing Louisville over other candidates. On the one hand, it helped save their precious conference but perhaps at the cost of diminished reputations. Obviously, this is only the tip of the iceberg and more institutions and coaches might get caught in the probe. So it's too early to know for sure.

This is where it is headed not only for the reason you stated but also for the reason the FBI is so interested. Privatize the sports of major colleges and you can tax the remuneration and perks.

That keeps the academic side clean and allows the Federal (and State) government to grow a new revenue stream of their own via taxation.

(09-27-2017 11:53 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(09-26-2017 10:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-26-2017 10:35 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Missouri is not "western" enough for the PAC 12, Jr. The PAC will not touch us. Maybe Missouri should just be an independent, or just drop football. Seems like that is where we fit in.

I just thought that perhaps Nebraska and Missouri would benefit by playing other Big 8 members. It was the only solution that I see to the familiarity problem.

If that doesn't work then maybe the SEC gets lucky and adds Oklahoma and Kansas. At least that would help your fans with contests they are actually interested in seeing. I think a move to the West would help too.

Mizzou doesn't need to drop football. They just need a coach with some know how in staff management and an administration with a firm yet discerning hand.

I also believe that if Slive were still commissioner a more aggressively proactive commitment to help meet Mizzou's needs would have been forthcoming. Sankey let the Florida / LSU thing fester before getting involved and so far seems to me to be way too passive in handling issues.

I think the Tiger fans love the SEC east games. The fans are mad at the school, the administration, the coach, and the players . They are mad that in their opinion Missouri was singled-out as somehow being a racist university. Nothing is further from the truth. Our attendance increased upon admission to the SEC. It is obvious the fans have an axe to grind. I believe this would be happening even if we were still members of the Big XII. This will pass.

Would adding Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas give Missouri an SEC division that would help them?

(09-27-2017 05:24 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  It remains to be seen whether the breaking scandals involving several programs and athletic shoe companies would affect how presidents view their current associations but there has to be some rethinking deep within the academic halls over how much they allow athletics the reigns they're allowed to have. We could have a situation where the academic eggheads start agitating for and getting greater control over athletics or perhaps start the process of separating athletics from the educational institutions, thereby privatizing "college" athletics at least in the money sports.

I also wonder if some of the more academically-minded schools are flipping mad at the Clemsons and Florida States of the world for pushing Louisville over other candidates. On the one hand, it helped save their precious conference but perhaps at the cost of diminished reputations. Obviously, this is only the tip of the iceberg and more institutions and coaches might get caught in the probe. So it's too early to know for sure.

I get what you're saying, but if we're talking about the ACC then they should be more upset over what UNC did than what Louisville has involved themselves in. At least they should be...I don't know if they see it that way or not.

If I'm a professor, I'm much more concerned about academic fraud than shenanigans involving recruits.

Then again, it never surprises me to see academicians practice hypocrisy.

(09-27-2017 07:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-27-2017 11:53 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(09-26-2017 10:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-26-2017 10:35 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Missouri is not "western" enough for the PAC 12, Jr. The PAC will not touch us. Maybe Missouri should just be an independent, or just drop football. Seems like that is where we fit in.

I just thought that perhaps Nebraska and Missouri would benefit by playing other Big 8 members. It was the only solution that I see to the familiarity problem.

If that doesn't work then maybe the SEC gets lucky and adds Oklahoma and Kansas. At least that would help your fans with contests they are actually interested in seeing. I think a move to the West would help too.

Mizzou doesn't need to drop football. They just need a coach with some know how in staff management and an administration with a firm yet discerning hand.

I also believe that if Slive were still commissioner a more aggressively proactive commitment to help meet Mizzou's needs would have been forthcoming. Sankey let the Florida / LSU thing fester before getting involved and so far seems to me to be way too passive in handling issues.

I think the Tiger fans love the SEC east games. The fans are mad at the school, the administration, the coach, and the players . They are mad that in their opinion Missouri was singled-out as somehow being a racist university. Nothing is further from the truth. Our attendance increased upon admission to the SEC. It is obvious the fans have an axe to grind. I believe this would be happening even if we were still members of the Big XII. This will pass.

Would adding Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas give Missouri an SEC division that would help them?

If we're picking 4 from the Big 12 then I think it's got to be those 4 and this is one of the reasons. It should help Mizzou blend in. And I'm not sure that KU's taking football more seriously isn't an effort to market itself to the SEC specifically.

I don't have a problem with Texas Tech, but UT and A&M will give us full control of TX. I think ESPN would rather work it that way as well so we should have them on our side.

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

-5 division games
-2 permanent rivals...1 from each division
-2 rotating games...1 from each division

(09-27-2017 07:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-27-2017 11:53 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(09-26-2017 10:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-26-2017 10:35 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Missouri is not "western" enough for the PAC 12, Jr. The PAC will not touch us. Maybe Missouri should just be an independent, or just drop football. Seems like that is where we fit in.

I just thought that perhaps Nebraska and Missouri would benefit by playing other Big 8 members. It was the only solution that I see to the familiarity problem.

If that doesn't work then maybe the SEC gets lucky and adds Oklahoma and Kansas. At least that would help your fans with contests they are actually interested in seeing. I think a move to the West would help too.

Mizzou doesn't need to drop football. They just need a coach with some know how in staff management and an administration with a firm yet discerning hand.

I also believe that if Slive were still commissioner a more aggressively proactive commitment to help meet Mizzou's needs would have been forthcoming. Sankey let the Florida / LSU thing fester before getting involved and so far seems to me to be way too passive in handling issues.

I think the Tiger fans love the SEC east games. The fans are mad at the school, the administration, the coach, and the players . They are mad that in their opinion Missouri was singled-out as somehow being a racist university. Nothing is further from the truth. Our attendance increased upon admission to the SEC. It is obvious the fans have an axe to grind. I believe this would be happening even if we were still members of the Big XII. This will pass.

Would adding Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas give Missouri an SEC division that would help them?

That depends upon whether the SEC can reign in Texas. They are used to having their own way. The minute they joined the Big 8, they decided to be the boss. I would rather have OU/OSU or OU/Kansas.

3x20 has potential. What I would propose is a 3x20 + 1x25. Should there be a split, any anti-trust matters could be resolved by including a large, inclusive lesser power conference.

For scheduling a 20-school conference, I like the idea of 7 annual rivals + 3 other conference games. This gets a schedule to 10 conference games and you see everyone every 4 years.

For scheduling a 25-school conference, I like the idea of 4 annual rivals + 5 other conference games. This gets a schedule to 9 conference games and you see everyone every 4 years.

Conferences (splits are alphabetical, not divisional)

SEC
Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Clemson, Florida
Florida St, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Kentucky, LSU
Miami, Mississippi, Mississippi St, North Carolina St, South Carolina
Tennessee, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

B1G
Boston College, Duke, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa
Maryland, Michigan, Michigan St, Minnesota, North Carolina
Northwestern, Notre Dame, Ohio St, Penn St, Pittsburgh
Purdue, Rutgers, Syracuse, Virginia, Wisconsin

PAC
Arizona, Arizona St, California, Colorado, Kansas
Kansas St, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St
Oregon, Oregon St, Stanford, Texas, Texas Tech
UCLA, USC, Utah, Washington, Washington St

AAC
Air Force, Army, Baylor, Boise St, BYU
Central Florida, Cincinnati, Colorado St, Connecticut, East Carolina
Houston, Iowa St, Louisville, Memphis, Navy
New Mexico, San Diego St, SMU, South Florida, TCU
Temple, Tulane, Tulsa, UNLV, Wake Forest

Interesting exercise JR, you have the right string, but the wrong yo-yo.

I think you are more likely to see: 12-18-18-12.

In the west the PAC will remain the same.
In the east you will find a conference of privates and small publics:
Northwestern, Notre Dame, Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College and UConn
Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Wake Forest, Duke and UVa.

The SEC will have 18....your 13 plus Florida State, Texas, Oklahoma and 2 more (West Virginia, Louisville, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech)
The B1G will have their 13 plus Carolina, NC State, Virginia Tech, Missouri and Kansas

(09-28-2017 12:51 PM)XLance Wrote:  Interesting exercise JR, you have the right string, but the wrong yo-yo.

I think you are more likely to see: 12-18-18-12.

In the west the PAC will remain the same.
In the east you will find a conference of privates and small publics:
Northwestern, Notre Dame, Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College and UConn
Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Wake Forest, Duke and UVa.

The SEC will have 18....your 13 plus Florida State, Texas, Oklahoma and 2 more (West Virginia, Louisville, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech)
The B1G will have their 13 plus Carolina, NC State, Virginia Tech, Missouri and Kansas

We'll take Clemson too, and then one of those from the bracket grouping. Besides maybe Rice or Vanderbilt joins that private grouping.

Our ideal 18 would Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State and Clemson, and if w should be minus Vanderbilt then we would consider one of the others.

(09-27-2017 09:16 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  If we're picking 4 from the Big 12 then I think it's got to be those 4 and this is one of the reasons. It should help Mizzou blend in. And I'm not sure that KU's taking football more seriously isn't an effort to market itself to the SEC specifically.

With three SEC additions to the west, adding more schools from that region almost feels like a requirement. With Boren stepping down , OU might be more willing to move without OSU. Assuming that happens, it would be really fun to see how the presidents and the conference decide who should be added between Kansas and West Virginia. I'm guessing the academics of Kansas would push that vote right through. TV partners will push the other way.

(09-28-2017 02:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 12:51 PM)XLance Wrote:  Interesting exercise JR, you have the right string, but the wrong yo-yo.

I think you are more likely to see: 12-18-18-12.

In the west the PAC will remain the same.
In the east you will find a conference of privates and small publics:
Northwestern, Notre Dame, Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College and UConn
Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Wake Forest, Duke and UVa.

The SEC will have 18....your 13 plus Florida State, Texas, Oklahoma and 2 more (West Virginia, Louisville, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech)
The B1G will have their 13 plus Carolina, NC State, Virginia Tech, Missouri and Kansas

We'll take Clemson too, and then one of those from the bracket grouping. Besides maybe Rice or Vanderbilt joins that private grouping.

Our ideal 18 would Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State and Clemson, and if w should be minus Vanderbilt then we would consider one of the others.

I'll bet you a dollar vs. a doughnut you're wrong.
The folks at Clemson aren't that stupid. There is enough good football in that 12 conference league to have good SOS and a few premier games, plus they would still get South Carolina every year and Auburn every two or three, throw in Georgia every 5 years and they are good to go. The rest of their athletic department sans baseball couldn't stand up vs top SEC competition.