Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,114
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 158
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #11
RE: Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
(11-06-2017 01:06 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  
(11-06-2017 12:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(11-06-2017 09:14 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Makes more sense to just go to 8 with some variation of 5+3

The networks, the schools, and the athletic departments are set up to head in that direction even if they had the desire to do so, which they don't. And perhaps more importantly, I don't think the players would be thrilled either. Most dream of the NFL and the last thing they want to do is increase their chance of injury by adding another game they aren't paid to play in.

I don't think the players have much of a voice but if they did I'd imagine they'd relish an expansion of the playoffs. They want to play when it matters; in the Armed Forces Bowl maybe not so much.

As far as administration, I imagine it would be very much like the BCS. Everyone loves and supports it until they don't. A UGA/Clemson/Bama/ND playoff where the Big 12, Big Ten, and Pac 12 all get left out might just be the impetus needed.


Of course, if the playoff ever does expand beyond four teams, most expect the early-round games would move to the participants’ campuses. That’d certainly be easier for fans of the host teams. Not so much the players.

“If we had to do another game after this? God, no,” Clemson linebacker Ben Boulware said last week. “I’d literally die.”

Boulware played his final college game Monday night. But based on the temperature of the sport today, at least nine more years of college players won’t have to worry about yet another playoff game.

Four feels more entrenched than ever before.

https://www.foxsports.com/college-footba...ama-011217
11-06-2017 01:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 14,459
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 728
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #12
RE: Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
(11-06-2017 01:06 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  
(11-06-2017 12:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(11-06-2017 09:14 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Makes more sense to just go to 8 with some variation of 5+3

The networks, the schools, and the athletic departments are set up to head in that direction even if they had the desire to do so, which they don't. And perhaps more importantly, I don't think the players would be thrilled either. Most dream of the NFL and the last thing they want to do is increase their chance of injury by adding another game they aren't paid to play in.

I don't think the players have much of a voice but if they did I'd imagine they'd relish an expansion of the playoffs. They want to play when it matters; in the Armed Forces Bowl maybe not so much.

As far as administration, I imagine it would be very much like the BCS. Everyone loves and supports it until they don't. A UGA/Clemson/Bama/ND playoff where the Big 12, Big Ten, and Pac 12 all get left out might just be the impetus needed.

Gamecock, nothing would be better for the players than a champs only model. It can be handled within the same time frame and more importantly the matters are decided on the field and not stolen from the players by a committee. Expanding the playoff with at large spots means we keep the damned committee.

Then I have to ask, did you play at the high school or college level? 10 games in High School plus playoffs was way too much and I have the joints at my age to prove it. At the college level the toll on the body goes way way up!

Anyone who cares about their athletes would not ask for a further extension of an already brutal season.

Now as for the administrations, there is not only concern for player safety, but a genuine concern about the maintenance of the academic calendar. There's also too much bleed over from an extended season into college basketball which starts way too early anyway. So even A.D.'s have some reticence over extending football season because at football first schools it means no basketball crowd for games still played during football season. Go back and look at the history of college football. 9 games seasons were the norm until 50's and then we played 10 from the 60's on through the 70's. Then it was 11, and quickly 12. Then we got conference championship games so 13 was possible and none of this counted bowls. Now it will take the champion 15 games to win it all (unless Notre Dame wins it and they will have played 14).

We once had two bye weeks. Do you know why? To give players time to heal and rest. That's the biggest reason we play mismatches now. If we are only getting 1 bye week you need to play a rest game.

I'm not trying to be difficult but there is no way I see expansion of the playoffs unless we drop amateur status and pay the players.
11-06-2017 02:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gamecock Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,868
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 73
I Root For: South Carolina
Location:
Post: #13
RE: Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
(11-06-2017 02:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(11-06-2017 01:06 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  
(11-06-2017 12:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(11-06-2017 09:14 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Makes more sense to just go to 8 with some variation of 5+3

The networks, the schools, and the athletic departments are set up to head in that direction even if they had the desire to do so, which they don't. And perhaps more importantly, I don't think the players would be thrilled either. Most dream of the NFL and the last thing they want to do is increase their chance of injury by adding another game they aren't paid to play in.

I don't think the players have much of a voice but if they did I'd imagine they'd relish an expansion of the playoffs. They want to play when it matters; in the Armed Forces Bowl maybe not so much.

As far as administration, I imagine it would be very much like the BCS. Everyone loves and supports it until they don't. A UGA/Clemson/Bama/ND playoff where the Big 12, Big Ten, and Pac 12 all get left out might just be the impetus needed.

Gamecock, nothing would be better for the players than a champs only model. It can be handled within the same time frame and more importantly the matters are decided on the field and not stolen from the players by a committee. Expanding the playoff with at large spots means we keep the damned committee.

Then I have to ask, did you play at the high school or college level? 10 games in High School plus playoffs was way too much and I have the joints at my age to prove it. At the college level the toll on the body goes way way up!

Anyone who cares about their athletes would not ask for a further extension of an already brutal season.

Now as for the administrations, there is not only concern for player safety, but a genuine concern about the maintenance of the academic calendar. There's also too much bleed over from an extended season into college basketball which starts way too early anyway. So even A.D.'s have some reticence over extending football season because at football first schools it means no basketball crowd for games still played during football season. Go back and look at the history of college football. 9 games seasons were the norm until 50's and then we played 10 from the 60's on through the 70's. Then it was 11, and quickly 12. Then we got conference championship games so 13 was possible and none of this counted bowls. Now it will take the champion 15 games to win it all (unless Notre Dame wins it and they will have played 14).

We once had two bye weeks. Do you know why? To give players time to heal and rest. That's the biggest reason we play mismatches now. If we are only getting 1 bye week you need to play a rest game.

I'm not trying to be difficult but there is no way I see expansion of the playoffs unless we drop amateur status and pay the players.

I did. We had 11 game schedules and a 16 team playoff. I have some bad joints too.

I'd definitely be happy with a second bye week, not just for the players but as a fan. I think moving the start of the season up a week works well for everyone.

As for the playoffs, it's only 4 more teams that are involved and only two actually play a 3rd extra game. I don't think it's that unreasonable, especially when FCS, D2, and D3 all do 16-20 team playoffs. Simply play the first game at home campuses the week after the Heisman ceremony and then retain the current bowl set up.

Like with the 4 team playoff, I expect everyone to be bitterly against expansion until it reaches a critical mass. If we end up with Alabama/ND and Clemson/Georgia with an Alabama/Georgia title game I think we'll start to see some grumbling from our friends in Park Ridge, San Francisco, and Irving.
11-07-2017 09:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,960
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 79
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #14
RE: Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
What ultimately brought change to the BCS system was the all-SEC championship game a few years back. That's when the powers at be started talking about a playoff. Now that we've got a playoff, I can definitely see this nightmare scenario forcing yet more changes.

If 3 separate conferences are left out then I do think you'll see a push for a champs only event although I wouldn't be shocked to see an expansion either.

How might it speed up realignment? Well, somehow we've got to account for 8 Big 12 schools...maybe even all 10.

The wrinkle in that is if Notre Dame can make the playoff without being a conference champion then we have to see a major shift in order to force them to go full in with the ACC. A champs only event would do it, but can everyone agree?

What I'm getting at is this...if it's champs only then your odds of making the playoff are directly related to how strong your conference competition is. If only one can make it then that's certainly an incentive to choose a weaker conference. The stronger the conference(SEC) then the less likely you are to want to limit it to champs as it could limit your possibilities in a variety of regards.

And since everyone knows the Big 12 is on the way out then whoever is opposed to a champs-only model may have to do some wheeling and dealing with Big 12 members to get a more favorable situation. In essence, if the Big 12 is interested in voting champs only then the SEC might look at that prospect one of two ways....

1) They may find a way to protest the process if the Big 12 votes for a measure that quickens its own death. In other words, why should their vote be allowed to alter the system if they're not even going to be around to participate under the new rules.

2) Strike some sort of deal with Big 12 schools that might very well still result in a champs-only playoff, but somehow gives an edge to the SEC under a new set of rules.

I'm not really proposing a specific plan of action. Just musing how some of these things might be viewed.
11-07-2017 04:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 14,459
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 728
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #15
RE: Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
(11-07-2017 04:22 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  What ultimately brought change to the BCS system was the all-SEC championship game a few years back. That's when the powers at be started talking about a playoff. Now that we've got a playoff, I can definitely see this nightmare scenario forcing yet more changes.

If 3 separate conferences are left out then I do think you'll see a push for a champs only event although I wouldn't be shocked to see an expansion either.

How might it speed up realignment? Well, somehow we've got to account for 8 Big 12 schools...maybe even all 10.

The wrinkle in that is if Notre Dame can make the playoff without being a conference champion then we have to see a major shift in order to force them to go full in with the ACC. A champs only event would do it, but can everyone agree?

What I'm getting at is this...if it's champs only then your odds of making the playoff are directly related to how strong your conference competition is. If only one can make it then that's certainly an incentive to choose a weaker conference. The stronger the conference(SEC) then the less likely you are to want to limit it to champs as it could limit your possibilities in a variety of regards.

And since everyone knows the Big 12 is on the way out then whoever is opposed to a champs-only model may have to do some wheeling and dealing with Big 12 members to get a more favorable situation. In essence, if the Big 12 is interested in voting champs only then the SEC might look at that prospect one of two ways....

1) They may find a way to protest the process if the Big 12 votes for a measure that quickens its own death. In other words, why should their vote be allowed to alter the system if they're not even going to be around to participate under the new rules.

2) Strike some sort of deal with Big 12 schools that might very well still result in a champs-only playoff, but somehow gives an edge to the SEC under a new set of rules.

I'm not really proposing a specific plan of action. Just musing how some of these things might be viewed.

This is a good point to raise. I suspect that the trade off would be ease of access vs payout. Obviously Texas and Oklahoma are worth more in either the Big 10 or SEC, but the easiest path to the final four might well be to the West.

Send Texa-homa to the PAC and they ar at 16.

The SEC could take T.C.U. for the DFW market and look at taking West Virginia/Iowa State/or Kansas. I would lean toward Kansas because it gives the West a breather in conference. If the Big 10 wanted to move to 16 with Iowa State and Kansas then great. The SEC could take WVU and call it a day. That's 8 and it's adios Big 12. The SEC adds two to the middle and upper middle. Neither the SEC or Big 10 gets Texas and Oklahoma so that's a stalemate that would be acceptable.

If however the Big 10 wanted Iowa State and Kansas for whatever reason, and WVU received interest from the ACC then maybe looking at USF or UCF in connection with T.C.U. would be the most natural way to end SEC expansion. Shore up DFW and pick up a Central to South Florida presence.
11-07-2017 05:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,391
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 76
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #16
RE: Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
(11-07-2017 05:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(11-07-2017 04:22 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  What ultimately brought change to the BCS system was the all-SEC championship game a few years back. That's when the powers at be started talking about a playoff. Now that we've got a playoff, I can definitely see this nightmare scenario forcing yet more changes.

If 3 separate conferences are left out then I do think you'll see a push for a champs only event although I wouldn't be shocked to see an expansion either.

How might it speed up realignment? Well, somehow we've got to account for 8 Big 12 schools...maybe even all 10.

The wrinkle in that is if Notre Dame can make the playoff without being a conference champion then we have to see a major shift in order to force them to go full in with the ACC. A champs only event would do it, but can everyone agree?

What I'm getting at is this...if it's champs only then your odds of making the playoff are directly related to how strong your conference competition is. If only one can make it then that's certainly an incentive to choose a weaker conference. The stronger the conference(SEC) then the less likely you are to want to limit it to champs as it could limit your possibilities in a variety of regards.

And since everyone knows the Big 12 is on the way out then whoever is opposed to a champs-only model may have to do some wheeling and dealing with Big 12 members to get a more favorable situation. In essence, if the Big 12 is interested in voting champs only then the SEC might look at that prospect one of two ways....

1) They may find a way to protest the process if the Big 12 votes for a measure that quickens its own death. In other words, why should their vote be allowed to alter the system if they're not even going to be around to participate under the new rules.

2) Strike some sort of deal with Big 12 schools that might very well still result in a champs-only playoff, but somehow gives an edge to the SEC under a new set of rules.

I'm not really proposing a specific plan of action. Just musing how some of these things might be viewed.

This is a good point to raise. I suspect that the trade off would be ease of access vs payout. Obviously Texas and Oklahoma are worth more in either the Big 10 or SEC, but the easiest path to the final four might well be to the West.

Send Texa-homa to the PAC and they ar at 16.

The SEC could take T.C.U. for the DFW market and look at taking West Virginia/Iowa State/or Kansas. I would lean toward Kansas because it gives the West a breather in conference. If the Big 10 wanted to move to 16 with Iowa State and Kansas then great. The SEC could take WVU and call it a day. That's 8 and it's adios Big 12. The SEC adds two to the middle and upper middle. Neither the SEC or Big 10 gets Texas and Oklahoma so that's a stalemate that would be acceptable.

If however the Big 10 wanted Iowa State and Kansas for whatever reason, and WVU received interest from the ACC then maybe looking at USF or UCF in connection with T.C.U. would be the most natural way to end SEC expansion. Shore up DFW and pick up a Central to South Florida presence.

If those are the options , then let's hope the SEC doesn't expand .
11-08-2017 01:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,960
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 79
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #17
RE: Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
(11-08-2017 01:19 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(11-07-2017 05:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(11-07-2017 04:22 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  What ultimately brought change to the BCS system was the all-SEC championship game a few years back. That's when the powers at be started talking about a playoff. Now that we've got a playoff, I can definitely see this nightmare scenario forcing yet more changes.

If 3 separate conferences are left out then I do think you'll see a push for a champs only event although I wouldn't be shocked to see an expansion either.

How might it speed up realignment? Well, somehow we've got to account for 8 Big 12 schools...maybe even all 10.

The wrinkle in that is if Notre Dame can make the playoff without being a conference champion then we have to see a major shift in order to force them to go full in with the ACC. A champs only event would do it, but can everyone agree?

What I'm getting at is this...if it's champs only then your odds of making the playoff are directly related to how strong your conference competition is. If only one can make it then that's certainly an incentive to choose a weaker conference. The stronger the conference(SEC) then the less likely you are to want to limit it to champs as it could limit your possibilities in a variety of regards.

And since everyone knows the Big 12 is on the way out then whoever is opposed to a champs-only model may have to do some wheeling and dealing with Big 12 members to get a more favorable situation. In essence, if the Big 12 is interested in voting champs only then the SEC might look at that prospect one of two ways....

1) They may find a way to protest the process if the Big 12 votes for a measure that quickens its own death. In other words, why should their vote be allowed to alter the system if they're not even going to be around to participate under the new rules.

2) Strike some sort of deal with Big 12 schools that might very well still result in a champs-only playoff, but somehow gives an edge to the SEC under a new set of rules.

I'm not really proposing a specific plan of action. Just musing how some of these things might be viewed.

This is a good point to raise. I suspect that the trade off would be ease of access vs payout. Obviously Texas and Oklahoma are worth more in either the Big 10 or SEC, but the easiest path to the final four might well be to the West.

Send Texa-homa to the PAC and they ar at 16.

The SEC could take T.C.U. for the DFW market and look at taking West Virginia/Iowa State/or Kansas. I would lean toward Kansas because it gives the West a breather in conference. If the Big 10 wanted to move to 16 with Iowa State and Kansas then great. The SEC could take WVU and call it a day. That's 8 and it's adios Big 12. The SEC adds two to the middle and upper middle. Neither the SEC or Big 10 gets Texas and Oklahoma so that's a stalemate that would be acceptable.

If however the Big 10 wanted Iowa State and Kansas for whatever reason, and WVU received interest from the ACC then maybe looking at USF or UCF in connection with T.C.U. would be the most natural way to end SEC expansion. Shore up DFW and pick up a Central to South Florida presence.

If those are the options , then let's hope the SEC doesn't expand .

I still like 16 better than 14.

TCU is a pretty good option in my opinion regardless of the circumstances so I don't mind that one bit. I would like the 2nd school to be a little more compelling, but as long as it's someone we can grow with then I don't think it would be a bad idea.
11-08-2017 02:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,960
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 79
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #18
RE: Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
(11-07-2017 05:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(11-07-2017 04:22 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  What ultimately brought change to the BCS system was the all-SEC championship game a few years back. That's when the powers at be started talking about a playoff. Now that we've got a playoff, I can definitely see this nightmare scenario forcing yet more changes.

If 3 separate conferences are left out then I do think you'll see a push for a champs only event although I wouldn't be shocked to see an expansion either.

How might it speed up realignment? Well, somehow we've got to account for 8 Big 12 schools...maybe even all 10.

The wrinkle in that is if Notre Dame can make the playoff without being a conference champion then we have to see a major shift in order to force them to go full in with the ACC. A champs only event would do it, but can everyone agree?

What I'm getting at is this...if it's champs only then your odds of making the playoff are directly related to how strong your conference competition is. If only one can make it then that's certainly an incentive to choose a weaker conference. The stronger the conference(SEC) then the less likely you are to want to limit it to champs as it could limit your possibilities in a variety of regards.

And since everyone knows the Big 12 is on the way out then whoever is opposed to a champs-only model may have to do some wheeling and dealing with Big 12 members to get a more favorable situation. In essence, if the Big 12 is interested in voting champs only then the SEC might look at that prospect one of two ways....

1) They may find a way to protest the process if the Big 12 votes for a measure that quickens its own death. In other words, why should their vote be allowed to alter the system if they're not even going to be around to participate under the new rules.

2) Strike some sort of deal with Big 12 schools that might very well still result in a champs-only playoff, but somehow gives an edge to the SEC under a new set of rules.

I'm not really proposing a specific plan of action. Just musing how some of these things might be viewed.

This is a good point to raise. I suspect that the trade off would be ease of access vs payout. Obviously Texas and Oklahoma are worth more in either the Big 10 or SEC, but the easiest path to the final four might well be to the West.

Send Texa-homa to the PAC and they ar at 16.

The SEC could take T.C.U. for the DFW market and look at taking West Virginia/Iowa State/or Kansas. I would lean toward Kansas because it gives the West a breather in conference. If the Big 10 wanted to move to 16 with Iowa State and Kansas then great. The SEC could take WVU and call it a day. That's 8 and it's adios Big 12. The SEC adds two to the middle and upper middle. Neither the SEC or Big 10 gets Texas and Oklahoma so that's a stalemate that would be acceptable.

If however the Big 10 wanted Iowa State and Kansas for whatever reason, and WVU received interest from the ACC then maybe looking at USF or UCF in connection with T.C.U. would be the most natural way to end SEC expansion. Shore up DFW and pick up a Central to South Florida presence.

If ESPN can strike a deal to buy the PAC Network while sending Texahoma that direction then that could be beneficial on a lot of different fronts.

If Disney ends up buying a good chunk of 21st Century FOX then one thing that's going to do is reduce FOX's ability to cross market content. That's not so relevant with regard to the loss of the movie studios, but losing market share in the TV world if they sell off FX and NatGeo limits the exposure of their brands in various demographics. That might not necessarily be paradigm shifting, but it could make a difference to the bottom line.

In other words, if Disney is growing not only their content offerings for a streaming service, but their number of platforms on TV then it's easier for them to cross market. It also means more revenue from cable subs. It also means that a general content channel like FX could be used to show sports periodically assuming there's enough content to go around. FOX did that exact thing before they launched FS1.

Which brings me back around to the original point...if ESPN buys into the PAC then they're going to need more platforms to offer games in reasonable time slots.

Think of FX as you might think of TBS or TNT. Turner never had a national network of TV stations, but they still built a good brand worth a lot on the cable market by offering general content including sports. Obviously, ABC occupies that role more or less for Disney, but it offers less flexibility because there are a lot of local stations with local owners and local content. That and FCC rules prohibit certain types of content on broadcast networks. FOX didn't really have enough content to turn a channel like FX into something more than a place to show movies and reruns although they did start to dabble in original TV shows in recent years. Point being, if Disney could use a channel like FX to show a mixture of sports, movies, original and syndicated TV shows then that's potentially a big win in the marketplace. I don't know that that's what they're thinking, but it did occur to me as a possibility.

As it stands, Disney has ABC, the ESPN family, the children's networks, and Freeform. It's a nice package, but it could be better and make cross marketing easier and more effective.
11-08-2017 03:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,114
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 158
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #19
RE: Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
I could see a scenario where the Big 12 survives:
The PAC stays a 12
The Big 12 adds Missouri and Louisville
The SEC stays at 14 by adding another Florida School
The ACC adds Notre Dame for 14 (again)
The B1G remains the same at 14

[Image: 450px-U.S._states%27_population_change_f...13.svg.png]
11-08-2017 03:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Transic_nyc Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 877
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 34
I Root For: Not ESEACCPN
Location:
Post: #20
RE: Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
(11-07-2017 05:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(11-07-2017 04:22 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  What ultimately brought change to the BCS system was the all-SEC championship game a few years back. That's when the powers at be started talking about a playoff. Now that we've got a playoff, I can definitely see this nightmare scenario forcing yet more changes.

If 3 separate conferences are left out then I do think you'll see a push for a champs only event although I wouldn't be shocked to see an expansion either.

How might it speed up realignment? Well, somehow we've got to account for 8 Big 12 schools...maybe even all 10.

The wrinkle in that is if Notre Dame can make the playoff without being a conference champion then we have to see a major shift in order to force them to go full in with the ACC. A champs only event would do it, but can everyone agree?

What I'm getting at is this...if it's champs only then your odds of making the playoff are directly related to how strong your conference competition is. If only one can make it then that's certainly an incentive to choose a weaker conference. The stronger the conference(SEC) then the less likely you are to want to limit it to champs as it could limit your possibilities in a variety of regards.

And since everyone knows the Big 12 is on the way out then whoever is opposed to a champs-only model may have to do some wheeling and dealing with Big 12 members to get a more favorable situation. In essence, if the Big 12 is interested in voting champs only then the SEC might look at that prospect one of two ways....

1) They may find a way to protest the process if the Big 12 votes for a measure that quickens its own death. In other words, why should their vote be allowed to alter the system if they're not even going to be around to participate under the new rules.

2) Strike some sort of deal with Big 12 schools that might very well still result in a champs-only playoff, but somehow gives an edge to the SEC under a new set of rules.

I'm not really proposing a specific plan of action. Just musing how some of these things might be viewed.

This is a good point to raise. I suspect that the trade off would be ease of access vs payout. Obviously Texas and Oklahoma are worth more in either the Big 10 or SEC, but the easiest path to the final four might well be to the West.

Send Texa-homa to the PAC and they ar at 16.

The SEC could take T.C.U. for the DFW market and look at taking West Virginia/Iowa State/or Kansas. I would lean toward Kansas because it gives the West a breather in conference. If the Big 10 wanted to move to 16 with Iowa State and Kansas then great. The SEC could take WVU and call it a day. That's 8 and it's adios Big 12. The SEC adds two to the middle and upper middle. Neither the SEC or Big 10 gets Texas and Oklahoma so that's a stalemate that would be acceptable.

If however the Big 10 wanted Iowa State and Kansas for whatever reason, and WVU received interest from the ACC then maybe looking at USF or UCF in connection with T.C.U. would be the most natural way to end SEC expansion. Shore up DFW and pick up a Central to South Florida presence.

If it's between UCF and USF for you guys then I think UCF may be better in the long run, especially since Orlando is not as encumbered by pro sports teams as Tampa. Also, the P4 settles in the central Florida market in a big way.
11-08-2017 05:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 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, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.