Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 14,488
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 735
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #21
RE: Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
(11-08-2017 05:45 PM)Transic_nyc 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 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.
I don't give it a high probability, but if Texas and OU are off the market and TTU and OSU with them, and the SEC does want a physical presence in DFW then and only then does that kind of future growth move in another market area where we want a presence make any sense. I think the Gulf would make the better future market for the SEC but UCF as you point out does have a larger fan base and doesn't have an NFL franchise. It is also in Mouse Zone for exposure.
11-08-2017 07:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,121
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 158
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #22
RE: Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
(11-08-2017 07:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(11-08-2017 05:45 PM)Transic_nyc 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 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.
I don't give it a high probability, but if Texas and OU are off the market and TTU and OSU with them, and the SEC does want a physical presence in DFW then and only then does that kind of future growth move in another market area where we want a presence make any sense. I think the Gulf would make the better future market for the SEC but UCF as you point out does have a larger fan base and doesn't have an NFL franchise. It is also in Mouse Zone for exposure.

I find it highly unlikely that the SEC would take either UCF or USF too!
11-09-2017 03:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
vandiver49 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,515
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 157
I Root For: USNA/UTK
Location: West GA
Post: #23
RE: Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
(11-06-2017 01:42 PM)XLance 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.


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

I think its the number of games already being played, thus preventing expansion of the CFP, that will force realignment. It's not like the conference are going to give up the CCG revenue to support going to 8 teams.

I don't think you'll see a champs only model and you would unfortunately end up keeping the committee, but they would be more of a rubber stamp than what they do right now. If an 18 team conference can't provide a one loss champion for the committee to 'pick' then they are the ones that have opened the door for a ND or G5 team.
11-10-2017 04:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,121
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 158
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #24
RE: Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
(11-10-2017 04:07 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  
(11-06-2017 01:42 PM)XLance 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.


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

I think its the number of games already being played, thus preventing expansion of the CFP, that will force realignment. It's not like the conference are going to give up the CCG revenue to support going to 8 teams.

I don't think you'll see a champs only model and you would unfortunately end up keeping the committee, but they would be more of a rubber stamp than what they do right now. If an 18 team conference can't provide a one loss champion for the committee to 'pick' then they are the ones that have opened the door for a ND or G5 team.

I would agree, but I don't think you will see an 18 team conference anytime soon, if ever.
11-10-2017 04:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BePcr07 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 629
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 32
I Root For: Boise St & Zags
Location:
Post: #25
RE: Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
(11-10-2017 04:35 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(11-10-2017 04:07 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  
(11-06-2017 01:42 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(11-06-2017 01:06 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  
(11-06-2017 12:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  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

I think its the number of games already being played, thus preventing expansion of the CFP, that will force realignment. It's not like the conference are going to give up the CCG revenue to support going to 8 teams.

I don't think you'll see a champs only model and you would unfortunately end up keeping the committee, but they would be more of a rubber stamp than what they do right now. If an 18 team conference can't provide a one loss champion for the committee to 'pick' then they are the ones that have opened the door for a ND or G5 team.

I would agree, but I don't think you will see an 18 team conference anytime soon, if ever.

18 is awkward unless you get rid of divisions. Then you could do either: 3 annual rivals playing home-home with every other conference foe every 4 years for 10 conference games OR 5 annual rivals playing 3 other conference foes each year meeting everyone every 4 years.
11-10-2017 04:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 14,488
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 735
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #26
RE: Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
(11-10-2017 04:44 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(11-10-2017 04:35 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(11-10-2017 04:07 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  
(11-06-2017 01:42 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(11-06-2017 01:06 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  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

I think its the number of games already being played, thus preventing expansion of the CFP, that will force realignment. It's not like the conference are going to give up the CCG revenue to support going to 8 teams.

I don't think you'll see a champs only model and you would unfortunately end up keeping the committee, but they would be more of a rubber stamp than what they do right now. If an 18 team conference can't provide a one loss champion for the committee to 'pick' then they are the ones that have opened the door for a ND or G5 team.

I would agree, but I don't think you will see an 18 team conference anytime soon, if ever.

18 is awkward unless you get rid of divisions. Then you could do either: 3 annual rivals playing home-home with every other conference foe every 4 years for 10 conference games OR 5 annual rivals playing 3 other conference foes each year meeting everyone every 4 years.

Maybe we'll see 18 member conferences next time around, or maybe not. I think it really depends upon the schools being solicited for membership and whether or not they have the clout to bring others with them.

As for the set up it is in no way awkward. 3 divisions of 6 sets up very nicely geographically. You play 5 division schools 2 each from the other divisions on a rotational basis and you play 9 conference games and everyone in the conference every three years. If you need a permanent rival make it 10.

The divisions champs and best at large form your conference playoff.

So, there's nothing hard or awkward about it.

The only question is who do we take, and what number can be accommodated profitably. If it's Texas and Oklahoma only then that's a huge economic homerun. If it's Texa-homa it is still profitable, but nowhere near the homerun, more a like a solid double.
11-10-2017 04:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,121
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 158
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #27
RE: Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
(11-10-2017 04:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(11-10-2017 04:44 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(11-10-2017 04:35 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(11-10-2017 04:07 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  
(11-06-2017 01:42 PM)XLance Wrote:  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

I think its the number of games already being played, thus preventing expansion of the CFP, that will force realignment. It's not like the conference are going to give up the CCG revenue to support going to 8 teams.

I don't think you'll see a champs only model and you would unfortunately end up keeping the committee, but they would be more of a rubber stamp than what they do right now. If an 18 team conference can't provide a one loss champion for the committee to 'pick' then they are the ones that have opened the door for a ND or G5 team.

I would agree, but I don't think you will see an 18 team conference anytime soon, if ever.

18 is awkward unless you get rid of divisions. Then you could do either: 3 annual rivals playing home-home with every other conference foe every 4 years for 10 conference games OR 5 annual rivals playing 3 other conference foes each year meeting everyone every 4 years.

Maybe we'll see 18 member conferences next time around, or maybe not. I think it really depends upon the schools being solicited for membership and whether or not they have the clout to bring others with them.

As for the set up it is in no way awkward. 3 divisions of 6 sets up very nicely geographically. You play 5 division schools 2 each from the other divisions on a rotational basis and you play 9 conference games and everyone in the conference every three years. If you need a permanent rival make it 10.

The divisions champs and best at large form your conference playoff.

So, there's nothing hard or awkward about it.

The only question is who do we take, and what number can be accommodated profitably. If it's Texas and Oklahoma only then that's a huge economic homerun. If it's Texa-homa it is still profitable, but nowhere near the homerun, more a like a solid double.

There are great ways to divide up 18. 6 is a really good number for a little division.
The problem is this: It is really hard to integrate more than two teams at a time.
11-10-2017 06:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 14,488
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 735
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #28
RE: Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
(11-10-2017 06:37 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(11-10-2017 04:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(11-10-2017 04:44 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(11-10-2017 04:35 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(11-10-2017 04:07 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I think its the number of games already being played, thus preventing expansion of the CFP, that will force realignment. It's not like the conference are going to give up the CCG revenue to support going to 8 teams.

I don't think you'll see a champs only model and you would unfortunately end up keeping the committee, but they would be more of a rubber stamp than what they do right now. If an 18 team conference can't provide a one loss champion for the committee to 'pick' then they are the ones that have opened the door for a ND or G5 team.

I would agree, but I don't think you will see an 18 team conference anytime soon, if ever.

18 is awkward unless you get rid of divisions. Then you could do either: 3 annual rivals playing home-home with every other conference foe every 4 years for 10 conference games OR 5 annual rivals playing 3 other conference foes each year meeting everyone every 4 years.

Maybe we'll see 18 member conferences next time around, or maybe not. I think it really depends upon the schools being solicited for membership and whether or not they have the clout to bring others with them.

As for the set up it is in no way awkward. 3 divisions of 6 sets up very nicely geographically. You play 5 division schools 2 each from the other divisions on a rotational basis and you play 9 conference games and everyone in the conference every three years. If you need a permanent rival make it 10.

The divisions champs and best at large form your conference playoff.

So, there's nothing hard or awkward about it.

The only question is who do we take, and what number can be accommodated profitably. If it's Texas and Oklahoma only then that's a huge economic homerun. If it's Texa-homa it is still profitable, but nowhere near the homerun, more a like a solid double.

There are great ways to divide up 18. 6 is a really good number for a little division.
The problem is this: It is really hard to integrate more than two teams at a time.

Not if the 4 are Texa-homa and thy join Missouri and Arkansas in a division. That's not an integration. It's a reunion!
(This post was last modified: 11-10-2017 06:58 PM by JRsec.)
11-10-2017 06:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,121
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 158
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #29
RE: Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
(11-10-2017 06:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(11-10-2017 06:37 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(11-10-2017 04:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(11-10-2017 04:44 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(11-10-2017 04:35 PM)XLance Wrote:  I would agree, but I don't think you will see an 18 team conference anytime soon, if ever.

18 is awkward unless you get rid of divisions. Then you could do either: 3 annual rivals playing home-home with every other conference foe every 4 years for 10 conference games OR 5 annual rivals playing 3 other conference foes each year meeting everyone every 4 years.

Maybe we'll see 18 member conferences next time around, or maybe not. I think it really depends upon the schools being solicited for membership and whether or not they have the clout to bring others with them.

As for the set up it is in no way awkward. 3 divisions of 6 sets up very nicely geographically. You play 5 division schools 2 each from the other divisions on a rotational basis and you play 9 conference games and everyone in the conference every three years. If you need a permanent rival make it 10.

The divisions champs and best at large form your conference playoff.

So, there's nothing hard or awkward about it.

The only question is who do we take, and what number can be accommodated profitably. If it's Texas and Oklahoma only then that's a huge economic homerun. If it's Texa-homa it is still profitable, but nowhere near the homerun, more a like a solid double.

There are great ways to divide up 18. 6 is a really good number for a little division.
The problem is this: It is really hard to integrate more than two teams at a time.

Not if the 4 are Texa-homa and thy join Missouri and Arkansas in a division. That's not an integration. It's a reunion!

It's been hard enough for Florida and South Carolina to understand that Missouri is not an OOC game. If sub divisions grow to six, Alabama and Tennessee will never know that Oklahoma is in the SEC.
11-10-2017 07:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 14,488
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 735
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #30
RE: Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
(11-10-2017 07:25 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(11-10-2017 06:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(11-10-2017 06:37 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(11-10-2017 04:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(11-10-2017 04:44 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  18 is awkward unless you get rid of divisions. Then you could do either: 3 annual rivals playing home-home with every other conference foe every 4 years for 10 conference games OR 5 annual rivals playing 3 other conference foes each year meeting everyone every 4 years.

Maybe we'll see 18 member conferences next time around, or maybe not. I think it really depends upon the schools being solicited for membership and whether or not they have the clout to bring others with them.

As for the set up it is in no way awkward. 3 divisions of 6 sets up very nicely geographically. You play 5 division schools 2 each from the other divisions on a rotational basis and you play 9 conference games and everyone in the conference every three years. If you need a permanent rival make it 10.

The divisions champs and best at large form your conference playoff.

So, there's nothing hard or awkward about it.

The only question is who do we take, and what number can be accommodated profitably. If it's Texas and Oklahoma only then that's a huge economic homerun. If it's Texa-homa it is still profitable, but nowhere near the homerun, more a like a solid double.

There are great ways to divide up 18. 6 is a really good number for a little division.
The problem is this: It is really hard to integrate more than two teams at a time.

Not if the 4 are Texa-homa and thy join Missouri and Arkansas in a division. That's not an integration. It's a reunion!

It's been hard enough for Florida and South Carolina to understand that Missouri is not an OOC game. If sub divisions grow to six, Alabama and Tennessee will never know that Oklahoma is in the SEC.

Of course they will! It's just that they don't have to play but 1 every three years, which is a big game to add into the rotation of both schools. What Missouri has had to suffer is being out of their own division of friendly faces. If we added 4 and created a Southwest division that just returns us to natural divisions.
11-10-2017 07:46 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.