CSNbbs

(11-18-2017 02:20 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-18-2017 01:00 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:The SEC and Big 10 will push for Texas and Oklahoma. When Texas doesn't want to head to the Big 10 they will head where they can play leverage, the PAC.

Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to the SEC.

Texas, Texas Tech, & T.C.U. to the PAC. #4? I think Kansas. Why? I don't think the Big 10 will expand if their choices are Kansas and Iowa State.

West Virginia to the ACC if they go to a P4 conference. But if Texas heads West and the two Oklahoma's head to the SEC I don't think that the ACC or Big 10 add anyone.

So, Kansas State, Iowa State, Baylor, West Virginia are all likely to the AAC.

If ESPN truly has a say in Texas's whereabouts and they insist on the SEC then the SEC will still only grow to 16 but will likely do so with Texas & Texas Tech.

If ESPN gets a piece of the PACN they it will be the two Oklahoma's to the SEC. This will be especially true if the Oklahomas move first.

I don't think Mizzou has to go anywhere. If they like being in the SEC then that's where they stay. I'm coming to the realization that without an anchor like OU or UT that KU may not pan out for the Big Ten even with Mizzou. Perhaps that's why they weren't picked up when they were last available. So if KU can't entice OU to go with them to the Big Ten then they should attach themselves to UT hoping they're part of the move West.

As you have it figured, yes. Texas, Texas Tech, T.C.U., Kansas to the PAC.

$100 million is a lot of money for an upgrade since $164 million was spent only 5 years ago.
TCU is getting all dressed up to go somewhere.

http://www.star-telegram.com/sports/coll...28853.html


BTW, Kansas is doing a $350 million stadium project, too.

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/college...26821.html

Nobody spends that kind of money on pure speculation........

(11-20-2017 03:35 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-18-2017 02:20 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-18-2017 01:00 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:The SEC and Big 10 will push for Texas and Oklahoma. When Texas doesn't want to head to the Big 10 they will head where they can play leverage, the PAC.

Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to the SEC.

Texas, Texas Tech, & T.C.U. to the PAC. #4? I think Kansas. Why? I don't think the Big 10 will expand if their choices are Kansas and Iowa State.

West Virginia to the ACC if they go to a P4 conference. But if Texas heads West and the two Oklahoma's head to the SEC I don't think that the ACC or Big 10 add anyone.

So, Kansas State, Iowa State, Baylor, West Virginia are all likely to the AAC.

If ESPN truly has a say in Texas's whereabouts and they insist on the SEC then the SEC will still only grow to 16 but will likely do so with Texas & Texas Tech.

If ESPN gets a piece of the PACN they it will be the two Oklahoma's to the SEC. This will be especially true if the Oklahomas move first.

I don't think Mizzou has to go anywhere. If they like being in the SEC then that's where they stay. I'm coming to the realization that without an anchor like OU or UT that KU may not pan out for the Big Ten even with Mizzou. Perhaps that's why they weren't picked up when they were last available. So if KU can't entice OU to go with them to the Big Ten then they should attach themselves to UT hoping they're part of the move West.

As you have it figured, yes. Texas, Texas Tech, T.C.U., Kansas to the PAC.

$100 million is a lot of money for an upgrade since $164 million was spent only 5 years ago.
TCU is getting all dressed up to go somewhere.

http://www.star-telegram.com/sports/coll...28853.html


BTW, Kansas is doing a $350 million stadium project, too.

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/college...26821.html

Nobody spends that kind of money on pure speculation........

Interesting notation at the bottom of that article on TCU:

Quote:BIG 12 STADIUM SPREE
Recent renovations at Big 12 football stadiums:

Baylor: $266 million stadium opened in 2014

Iowa State: $60 million renovation completed in 2014

Kansas: $350 million project announced in September

Kansas State: $185 million renovation completed in 2016

Oklahoma: $160 renovation completed in 2016

Oklahoma State: $282 renovation completed in 2009

TCU: $164 million renovation in 2012, $100 million project announced Tuesday

Texas: $177 million renovation completed in 2009

Texas Tech: $150 million in renovations since 2003

West Virginia: $55 million renovation complete in 2017

A lot of these are very recent. I think each program is trying to keep up in hopes of landing a spot. I'm not sure though how many of these can actually count on a soft landing though. They may be hedging their bets.

(11-20-2017 03:48 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2017 03:35 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-18-2017 02:20 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-18-2017 01:00 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:The SEC and Big 10 will push for Texas and Oklahoma. When Texas doesn't want to head to the Big 10 they will head where they can play leverage, the PAC.

Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to the SEC.

Texas, Texas Tech, & T.C.U. to the PAC. #4? I think Kansas. Why? I don't think the Big 10 will expand if their choices are Kansas and Iowa State.

West Virginia to the ACC if they go to a P4 conference. But if Texas heads West and the two Oklahoma's head to the SEC I don't think that the ACC or Big 10 add anyone.

So, Kansas State, Iowa State, Baylor, West Virginia are all likely to the AAC.

If ESPN truly has a say in Texas's whereabouts and they insist on the SEC then the SEC will still only grow to 16 but will likely do so with Texas & Texas Tech.

If ESPN gets a piece of the PACN they it will be the two Oklahoma's to the SEC. This will be especially true if the Oklahomas move first.

I don't think Mizzou has to go anywhere. If they like being in the SEC then that's where they stay. I'm coming to the realization that without an anchor like OU or UT that KU may not pan out for the Big Ten even with Mizzou. Perhaps that's why they weren't picked up when they were last available. So if KU can't entice OU to go with them to the Big Ten then they should attach themselves to UT hoping they're part of the move West.

As you have it figured, yes. Texas, Texas Tech, T.C.U., Kansas to the PAC.

$100 million is a lot of money for an upgrade since $164 million was spent only 5 years ago.
TCU is getting all dressed up to go somewhere.

http://www.star-telegram.com/sports/coll...28853.html


BTW, Kansas is doing a $350 million stadium project, too.

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/college...26821.html

Nobody spends that kind of money on pure speculation........

Interesting notation at the bottom of that article on TCU:

Quote:BIG 12 STADIUM SPREE
Recent renovations at Big 12 football stadiums:

Baylor: $266 million stadium opened in 2014

Iowa State: $60 million renovation completed in 2014

Kansas: $350 million project announced in September

Kansas State: $185 million renovation completed in 2016

Oklahoma: $160 renovation completed in 2016

Oklahoma State: $282 renovation completed in 2009

TCU: $164 million renovation in 2012, $100 million project announced Tuesday

Texas: $177 million renovation completed in 2009

Texas Tech: $150 million in renovations since 2003

West Virginia: $55 million renovation complete in 2017

A lot of these are very recent. I think each program is trying to keep up in hopes of landing a spot. I'm not sure though how many of these can actually count on a soft landing though. They may be hedging their bets.

It certainly looks like they are planning to go somewhere doesn't it? And I agree with X that Kansas simply doesn't spend that money if they don't have assurances. The question is where? And given the number of them that are forking over for improvements my next question is how many have assurances?

Capacity / Average Attendance for 2016:

Baylor: 45,140 / 45,838
Iowa State: 61,500 / 52,557
Kansas: 50,041 / 25,828
Kansas State: 53,811 / 51,919
Oklahoma: 86,112 / 86,857
Oklahoma State: 60,000 / 53,814
Texas: 100,119 / 97,881
T.C.U.: 50,000 / 45,168
Texas Tech: 60,454 / 45,168
West Virginia: 60,000 / 57,583

So only these schools met or exceeded their capacities in 2016: Oklahoma and Baylor. So if they are spending all of this money then where are the results?

My point being here that the SEC averages 77,500 in attendance at its home football games. There are only two locations here capable of maintaining or improving that average.

For some perspective Texas would be 5th in the SEC in attendance and Oklahoma would be 8th. Our 11th position in attendance (Miss State) would finish 3rd in the Big 12 in attendance, Kentucky would finish 6th, Missouri would finish 7th, and Vanderbilt 9th.

So unless they are really adding seating I don't see much here that would impress the SEC. We essentially told Missouri that they needed to upgrade and we had hoped they would shoot for 75,000, but that seems to have been dropped (71,004).

(11-20-2017 04:08 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2017 03:48 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2017 03:35 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-18-2017 02:20 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-18-2017 01:00 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think Mizzou has to go anywhere. If they like being in the SEC then that's where they stay. I'm coming to the realization that without an anchor like OU or UT that KU may not pan out for the Big Ten even with Mizzou. Perhaps that's why they weren't picked up when they were last available. So if KU can't entice OU to go with them to the Big Ten then they should attach themselves to UT hoping they're part of the move West.

As you have it figured, yes. Texas, Texas Tech, T.C.U., Kansas to the PAC.

$100 million is a lot of money for an upgrade since $164 million was spent only 5 years ago.
TCU is getting all dressed up to go somewhere.

http://www.star-telegram.com/sports/coll...28853.html


BTW, Kansas is doing a $350 million stadium project, too.

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/college...26821.html

Nobody spends that kind of money on pure speculation........

Interesting notation at the bottom of that article on TCU:

Quote:BIG 12 STADIUM SPREE
Recent renovations at Big 12 football stadiums:

Baylor: $266 million stadium opened in 2014

Iowa State: $60 million renovation completed in 2014

Kansas: $350 million project announced in September

Kansas State: $185 million renovation completed in 2016

Oklahoma: $160 renovation completed in 2016

Oklahoma State: $282 renovation completed in 2009

TCU: $164 million renovation in 2012, $100 million project announced Tuesday

Texas: $177 million renovation completed in 2009

Texas Tech: $150 million in renovations since 2003

West Virginia: $55 million renovation complete in 2017

A lot of these are very recent. I think each program is trying to keep up in hopes of landing a spot. I'm not sure though how many of these can actually count on a soft landing though. They may be hedging their bets.

It certainly looks like they are planning to go somewhere doesn't it? And I agree with X that Kansas simply doesn't spend that money if they don't have assurances. The question is where? And given the number of them that are forking over for improvements my next question is how many have assurances?

Capacity / Average Attendance for 2016:

Baylor: 45,140 / 45,838
Iowa State: 61,500 / 52,557
Kansas: 50,041 / 25,828
Kansas State: 53,811 / 51,919
Oklahoma: 86,112 / 86,857
Oklahoma State: 60,000 / 53,814
Texas: 100,119 / 97,881
T.C.U.: 50,000 / 45,168
Texas Tech: 60,454 / 45,168
West Virginia: 60,000 / 57,583

So only these schools met or exceeded their capacities in 2016: Oklahoma and Baylor. So if they are spending all of this money then where are the results?

My point being here that the SEC averages 77,500 in attendance at its home football games. There are only two locations here capable of maintaining or improving that average.

For some perspective Texas would be 5th in the SEC in attendance and Oklahoma would be 8th. Our 11th position in attendance (Miss State) would finish 3rd in the Big 12 in attendance, Kentucky would finish 6th, Missouri would finish 7th, and Vanderbilt 9th.

So unless they are really adding seating I don't see much here that would impress the SEC. We essentially told Missouri that they needed to upgrade and we had hoped they would shoot for 75,000, but that seems to have been dropped (71,004).

Comfort is the new upgrade goal as we move forward.
Every University's real competition for Saturday's fans is a well stocked refrigerator, comfortable bathroom with no lines, and that new 65" super HD TV with a curved screen.
Numbers mean less and less. You will notice that almost all of those renovations include luxury seating (suites, premium club seating, etc) which will fetch a premium price.
College football has gone corporate.

(11-20-2017 07:27 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2017 04:08 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2017 03:48 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2017 03:35 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-18-2017 02:20 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]As you have it figured, yes. Texas, Texas Tech, T.C.U., Kansas to the PAC.

$100 million is a lot of money for an upgrade since $164 million was spent only 5 years ago.
TCU is getting all dressed up to go somewhere.

http://www.star-telegram.com/sports/coll...28853.html


BTW, Kansas is doing a $350 million stadium project, too.

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/college...26821.html

Nobody spends that kind of money on pure speculation........

Interesting notation at the bottom of that article on TCU:

Quote:BIG 12 STADIUM SPREE
Recent renovations at Big 12 football stadiums:

Baylor: $266 million stadium opened in 2014

Iowa State: $60 million renovation completed in 2014

Kansas: $350 million project announced in September

Kansas State: $185 million renovation completed in 2016

Oklahoma: $160 renovation completed in 2016

Oklahoma State: $282 renovation completed in 2009

TCU: $164 million renovation in 2012, $100 million project announced Tuesday

Texas: $177 million renovation completed in 2009

Texas Tech: $150 million in renovations since 2003

West Virginia: $55 million renovation complete in 2017

A lot of these are very recent. I think each program is trying to keep up in hopes of landing a spot. I'm not sure though how many of these can actually count on a soft landing though. They may be hedging their bets.

It certainly looks like they are planning to go somewhere doesn't it? And I agree with X that Kansas simply doesn't spend that money if they don't have assurances. The question is where? And given the number of them that are forking over for improvements my next question is how many have assurances?

Capacity / Average Attendance for 2016:

Baylor: 45,140 / 45,838
Iowa State: 61,500 / 52,557
Kansas: 50,041 / 25,828
Kansas State: 53,811 / 51,919
Oklahoma: 86,112 / 86,857
Oklahoma State: 60,000 / 53,814
Texas: 100,119 / 97,881
T.C.U.: 50,000 / 45,168
Texas Tech: 60,454 / 45,168
West Virginia: 60,000 / 57,583

So only these schools met or exceeded their capacities in 2016: Oklahoma and Baylor. So if they are spending all of this money then where are the results?

My point being here that the SEC averages 77,500 in attendance at its home football games. There are only two locations here capable of maintaining or improving that average.

For some perspective Texas would be 5th in the SEC in attendance and Oklahoma would be 8th. Our 11th position in attendance (Miss State) would finish 3rd in the Big 12 in attendance, Kentucky would finish 6th, Missouri would finish 7th, and Vanderbilt 9th.

So unless they are really adding seating I don't see much here that would impress the SEC. We essentially told Missouri that they needed to upgrade and we had hoped they would shoot for 75,000, but that seems to have been dropped (71,004).

Comfort is the new upgrade goal as we move forward.
Every University's real competition for Saturday's fans is a well stocked refrigerator, comfortable bathroom with no lines, and that new 65" super HD TV with a curved screen.
Numbers mean less and less. You will notice that almost all of those renovations include luxury seating (suites, premium club seating, etc) which will fetch a premium price.
College football has gone corporate.

And while it is good that it provides more revenue, it is simultaneously alienating it's middle class roots and distancing itself from those who play, or played the game. So it's a mixed bag at best.

(11-20-2017 08:13 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2017 07:27 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2017 04:08 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2017 03:48 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-20-2017 03:35 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]$100 million is a lot of money for an upgrade since $164 million was spent only 5 years ago.
TCU is getting all dressed up to go somewhere.

http://www.star-telegram.com/sports/coll...28853.html


BTW, Kansas is doing a $350 million stadium project, too.

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/college...26821.html

Nobody spends that kind of money on pure speculation........

Interesting notation at the bottom of that article on TCU:

Quote:BIG 12 STADIUM SPREE
Recent renovations at Big 12 football stadiums:

Baylor: $266 million stadium opened in 2014

Iowa State: $60 million renovation completed in 2014

Kansas: $350 million project announced in September

Kansas State: $185 million renovation completed in 2016

Oklahoma: $160 renovation completed in 2016

Oklahoma State: $282 renovation completed in 2009

TCU: $164 million renovation in 2012, $100 million project announced Tuesday

Texas: $177 million renovation completed in 2009

Texas Tech: $150 million in renovations since 2003

West Virginia: $55 million renovation complete in 2017

A lot of these are very recent. I think each program is trying to keep up in hopes of landing a spot. I'm not sure though how many of these can actually count on a soft landing though. They may be hedging their bets.

It certainly looks like they are planning to go somewhere doesn't it? And I agree with X that Kansas simply doesn't spend that money if they don't have assurances. The question is where? And given the number of them that are forking over for improvements my next question is how many have assurances?

Capacity / Average Attendance for 2016:

Baylor: 45,140 / 45,838
Iowa State: 61,500 / 52,557
Kansas: 50,041 / 25,828
Kansas State: 53,811 / 51,919
Oklahoma: 86,112 / 86,857
Oklahoma State: 60,000 / 53,814
Texas: 100,119 / 97,881
T.C.U.: 50,000 / 45,168
Texas Tech: 60,454 / 45,168
West Virginia: 60,000 / 57,583

So only these schools met or exceeded their capacities in 2016: Oklahoma and Baylor. So if they are spending all of this money then where are the results?

My point being here that the SEC averages 77,500 in attendance at its home football games. There are only two locations here capable of maintaining or improving that average.

For some perspective Texas would be 5th in the SEC in attendance and Oklahoma would be 8th. Our 11th position in attendance (Miss State) would finish 3rd in the Big 12 in attendance, Kentucky would finish 6th, Missouri would finish 7th, and Vanderbilt 9th.

So unless they are really adding seating I don't see much here that would impress the SEC. We essentially told Missouri that they needed to upgrade and we had hoped they would shoot for 75,000, but that seems to have been dropped (71,004).

Comfort is the new upgrade goal as we move forward.
Every University's real competition for Saturday's fans is a well stocked refrigerator, comfortable bathroom with no lines, and that new 65" super HD TV with a curved screen.
Numbers mean less and less. You will notice that almost all of those renovations include luxury seating (suites, premium club seating, etc) which will fetch a premium price.
College football has gone corporate.

And while it is good that it provides more revenue, it is simultaneously alienating it's middle class roots and distancing itself from those who play, or played the game. So it's a mixed bag at best.

Yep! College is following NASCAR's formula for failure by alienating core fans.

Just a musing while thinking about how to end this thing:

Iowa State, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Vanderbilt

Arkansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee


or,

Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, West Virginia

Arkansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Vanderbilt


Would either of these provide a grouping that would be appealing to the Big 12 schools involved?

In either case you would play 10 conference games. Four in your division, and 2 from each of the other 3 divisions for a total of 10. You would have 1 OOC P game, and 1 against a G5 (homecoming).

The 4 division champs would play it off.

(11-27-2017 08:15 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]The 4 division champs would play it off.

Yes please.

The first option looked more appealing to me. Either way, something needs to be done with the scraps of the Big 12.

(11-27-2017 09:12 PM)Guardian Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-27-2017 08:15 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]The 4 division champs would play it off.

Yes please.

The first option looked more appealing to me. Either way, something needs to be done with the scraps of the Big 12.

I did the math on Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State. They are profitable, but just not as profitable of course as the two blue chips alone. The problem is landing Texas and Oklahoma cements the SEC in the most favorable position of any conference but the only way that is likely obtainable is if we give them access to two divisions that accommodate the familiar faces their fan bases want.

I favor option 1 because of Iowa State's AAU status and because their fans are quite affable and unfailing in their support of their school and there's twice as many of them as there is for West Virginia. I also like the division of schools a bit more with regards to geographical proximity.

It's just that I figure that if you land Kansas and Iowa State for a division with Missouri you increase the synergy they get from playing one another. Ditto for placing Arkansas back with Texa-homa. A&M can stick with L.S.U. and the Mississippi Schools and continue to share their Bryant and Stallings heritage.

Meanwhile back in the East Auburn is reunited with it's traditional foes and all is well.

Having two OOC slots left open gives OU the chance to reschedule Nebraska annually and still keep the Pokes and Longhorns. For the present Big 12 schools that might join a sprinkling of their old Big 8 & Big 12 foes not in their division mixed annually with a couple of brands from the Old SEC keeps their schedule interesting enough to keep the fans enchanted. They don't really lose the key schools they want to play, but replace the privates and WVU with more appealing, yet reasonably nearby contests.

The only conference right now that could play to that need would be the PAC should they invite 6 or 8 schools. But if the SEC took 6 with the money, and some reunions with old rivals and foes I think it might swing the deal.

(11-27-2017 08:15 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]Iowa State, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Vanderbilt

Arkansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee

100-year decision if it were to happen and one that would certainly usher in radical changes in CFB in the near-to-medium term. Also interesting that the two programs from the "old SEC" that might be inconvenienced for the greater good would be Kentucky and Vandy, one basketball program and a private school.

(11-28-2017 12:33 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-27-2017 08:15 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]Iowa State, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Vanderbilt

Arkansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee

100-year decision if it were to happen and one that would certainly usher in radical changes in CFB in the near-to-medium term. Also interesting that the two programs from the "old SEC" that might be inconvenienced for the greater good would be Kentucky and Vandy, one basketball program and a private school.

True, but I placed them there because it would be the only division in which any of those schools could compete. Plus, geographically they share similar cultures and proximity. You'll also note that 4 of them are AAU. I think they would find a lot in common.

But you are correct. It would usher in some radical changes. Maybe even a 3 x 20. Let's assume the original 10 of the Big 10 plus Nebraska join with 9 from the current PAC 12 and the ACC pick up Maryland, Rutgers, and Penn State from the Big 10. If they added T.C.U. and West Virginia they stop at 20.

Add Arizona, Utah, the four California's, Colorado, Washington, and Oregon and you have a pretty solid Big 10.

Kansas State, Arizona State, Oregon State and Washington State join the best of the other conferences to form a new 20 school conference and voila. We have a new P4 in which the new conference becomes our buffer against the rest.

(11-27-2017 08:15 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]Just a musing while thinking about how to end this thing:

Iowa State, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Vanderbilt

Arkansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee

I also like Option 1 better.

That Northern division is fairly weak, but a guaranteed spot in the conference semis might be enough to give them the shot in the arm they need.

(11-28-2017 12:54 AM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-27-2017 08:15 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]Just a musing while thinking about how to end this thing:

Iowa State, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Vanderbilt

Arkansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee

I also like Option 1 better.

That Northern division is fairly weak, but a guaranteed spot in the conference semis might be enough to give them the shot in the arm they need.

Try this on for size to compliment the SEC listed above:

B1G:

Illinois, Indiana, Northwestern, Ohio State, Purdue

Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Wisconsin

Colorado, Nebraska, Oregon, Utah, Washington

Arizona, California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal, Stanford

ACC:

Maryland, Notre Dame, Penn State, Rutgers, Syracuse

Boston College, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Wake Forest

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, T.C.U.

New P4 Conference:

Army, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Navy, Temple

Central Florida, East Carolina, Memphis, South Florida, Tulane

Baylor, Houston, Kansas State, Southern Methodist, Tulsa

Air Force, Arizona State, Oregon State, San Diego State, Washington State

I think the service academies might stick in the upper tier if these schools made up the bulk of their schedules.

B1G:

Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, Indiana

Iowa, Northwestern, Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin

Colorado, Nebraska, Oregon, Utah, Washington

Arizona, California, UCLA, USC, Stanford

I cannot see Ohio State and Michigan in separate divisions again after Leaders and Legends. Otherwise, merging the PAC and Big Ten makes all kinds of sense. The PACN would be taken under the BTN wing. CIC and BTAA would gain tremendously with the likes of UDub and Stanford. The big drawback is travel, of course but: 1) Schools already have a decades-long relationship; and 2) I have always sensed that they'd get together under an "In Case of Emergency" scenario, which is what a SEC with the big programs from the Big 12 would trigger.

ACC:

Notre Dame, Boston College, Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville

Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia Tech

Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Wake Forest

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, T.C.U.

Crossover games between Pitt-WVU and VT-UVa would solve a lot of issues. The Pitt-PSU rivalry is the obvious issue that I can't resolve without messing up too many potential synergies. ND-Pitt and ND-BC have Catholic connections. Louisville also has a sizable Catholic population. Hence, I put those programs together.

This ACC would be a bit more comfortable of a home but there needs to be a leadership change at the conference level. Swofford has done pretty well considering the cards he was dealt with but as time goes by fresh leadership will be sorely needed that isn't more of the old boy Carolina network. Good parts include new network coming online, more East Coast focus than Midwest and stronger Olympic sports strength. A good suggestion would be playing up the Yankee vs Rebel hype. Right now the ACC looks a bit incomplete even with 15 programs. So bringing those three from the Big Ten would unlock much of that potential. Oh, and get control of the corruption at many of the programs going on right now.

(11-28-2017 02:33 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]Try this on for size to compliment the SEC listed above:

B1G:

Illinois, Indiana, Northwestern, Ohio State, Purdue

Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Wisconsin

Colorado, Nebraska, Oregon, Utah, Washington

Arizona, California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal, Stanford

ACC:

Maryland, Notre Dame, Penn State, Rutgers, Syracuse

Boston College, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Wake Forest

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, T.C.U.

New P4 Conference:

Army, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Navy, Temple

Central Florida, East Carolina, Memphis, South Florida, Tulane

Baylor, Houston, Kansas State, Southern Methodist, Tulsa

Air Force, Arizona State, Oregon State, San Diego State, Washington State

I think the service academies might stick in the upper tier if these schools made up the bulk of their schedules.

Well, I don't think the B1G will shed any pieces.

Not sure what their solution will be, however, the PAC might be in such a precarious position that the two could benefit from each other.

(11-28-2017 02:53 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-28-2017 02:33 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]Try this on for size to compliment the SEC listed above:

B1G:

Illinois, Indiana, Northwestern, Ohio State, Purdue

Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Wisconsin

Colorado, Nebraska, Oregon, Utah, Washington

Arizona, California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal, Stanford

ACC:

Maryland, Notre Dame, Penn State, Rutgers, Syracuse

Boston College, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Wake Forest

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, T.C.U.

New P4 Conference:

Army, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Navy, Temple

Central Florida, East Carolina, Memphis, South Florida, Tulane

Baylor, Houston, Kansas State, Southern Methodist, Tulsa

Air Force, Arizona State, Oregon State, San Diego State, Washington State

I think the service academies might stick in the upper tier if these schools made up the bulk of their schedules.

Well, I don't think the B1G will shed any pieces.

Not sure what their solution will be, however, the PAC might be in such a precarious position that the two could benefit from each other.

I don't know they might. The wanted exposure in high density population areas. California is pretty big. Culturally speaking the Big 10 is more tied to the PAC historically than they are to the East Coast. Penn State is an odd fit, Rutgers and Maryland are still too new to count. If it brought balance and those three certainly complete the Northern portion of the ACC, then I could see it, especially with West Virginia joining in. But it would definitely have to be a brokered set up.

(11-28-2017 03:30 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-28-2017 02:53 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-28-2017 02:33 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]Try this on for size to compliment the SEC listed above:

B1G:

Illinois, Indiana, Northwestern, Ohio State, Purdue

Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Wisconsin

Colorado, Nebraska, Oregon, Utah, Washington

Arizona, California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal, Stanford

ACC:

Maryland, Notre Dame, Penn State, Rutgers, Syracuse

Boston College, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Wake Forest

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, T.C.U.

New P4 Conference:

Army, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Navy, Temple

Central Florida, East Carolina, Memphis, South Florida, Tulane

Baylor, Houston, Kansas State, Southern Methodist, Tulsa

Air Force, Arizona State, Oregon State, San Diego State, Washington State

I think the service academies might stick in the upper tier if these schools made up the bulk of their schedules.

Well, I don't think the B1G will shed any pieces.

Not sure what their solution will be, however, the PAC might be in such a precarious position that the two could benefit from each other.

I don't know they might. The wanted exposure in high density population areas. California is pretty big. Culturally speaking the Big 10 is more tied to the PAC historically than they are to the East Coast. Penn State is an odd fit, Rutgers and Maryland are still too new to count. If it brought balance and those three certainly complete the Northern portion of the ACC, then I could see it, especially with West Virginia joining in. But it would definitely have to be a brokered set up.

What I'm thinking is some sort of looser union.

B1G stays at 14 and the PAC stays at 12. Conduct each league's CCG as a semi final that feeds into a championship game for the union. Essentially the winners of each league play off against each other for the conference championship.

Everybody can keep their current schedule alignment and divisions. The difference is they combine their postseason events and share media rights. Perhaps they also help facilitate more regular season match-ups. No real additional travel costs and no one gets left out.

The problem I see with shedding Penn State, Rutgers, or Maryland is that they still provide value via market exposure. That's especially true for Penn State. I don't see the B1G giving them up and unless ESPN completely controls the media rights for the PAC then I don't see a mechanism to force the B1G's hand.

I think the union of the two would be a simpler solution.

(11-28-2017 05:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-28-2017 03:30 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-28-2017 02:53 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-28-2017 02:33 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]Try this on for size to compliment the SEC listed above:

B1G:

Illinois, Indiana, Northwestern, Ohio State, Purdue

Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Wisconsin

Colorado, Nebraska, Oregon, Utah, Washington

Arizona, California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal, Stanford

ACC:

Maryland, Notre Dame, Penn State, Rutgers, Syracuse

Boston College, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Wake Forest

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, T.C.U.

New P4 Conference:

Army, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Navy, Temple

Central Florida, East Carolina, Memphis, South Florida, Tulane

Baylor, Houston, Kansas State, Southern Methodist, Tulsa

Air Force, Arizona State, Oregon State, San Diego State, Washington State

I think the service academies might stick in the upper tier if these schools made up the bulk of their schedules.

Well, I don't think the B1G will shed any pieces.

Not sure what their solution will be, however, the PAC might be in such a precarious position that the two could benefit from each other.

I don't know they might. The wanted exposure in high density population areas. California is pretty big. Culturally speaking the Big 10 is more tied to the PAC historically than they are to the East Coast. Penn State is an odd fit, Rutgers and Maryland are still too new to count. If it brought balance and those three certainly complete the Northern portion of the ACC, then I could see it, especially with West Virginia joining in. But it would definitely have to be a brokered set up.

What I'm thinking is some sort of looser union.

B1G stays at 14 and the PAC stays at 12. Conduct each league's CCG as a semi final that feeds into a championship game for the union. Essentially the winners of each league play off against each other for the conference championship.

Everybody can keep their current schedule alignment and divisions. The difference is they combine their postseason events and share media rights. Perhaps they also help facilitate more regular season match-ups. No real additional travel costs and no one gets left out.

The problem I see with shedding Penn State, Rutgers, or Maryland is that they still provide value via market exposure. That's especially true for Penn State. I don't see the B1G giving them up and unless ESPN completely controls the media rights for the PAC then I don't see a mechanism to force the B1G's hand.

I think the union of the two would be a simpler solution.

But they provide less value by far than just the 4 California schools and we aren't even talking about Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Washington & Oregon. They gain far far more than they lose. And then there's the map. Those three are way out on the right limb of the Big 10 and are all 3 much more contiguous with the ACC. Strengthening the ACC would be the chief reason for those three to join West Virginia and T.C.U.. It strengthens their football profile, it strengthens their markets, and it strengthens their brands. Plus Penn State's more natural rivals would be in the ACC North. The same is true for WVU. And T.C.U. would be a valuable market and an easy trip hub to hub in their division.

(11-28-2017 12:49 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-28-2017 12:33 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-27-2017 08:15 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]Iowa State, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Vanderbilt

Arkansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee

100-year decision if it were to happen and one that would certainly usher in radical changes in CFB in the near-to-medium term. Also interesting that the two programs from the "old SEC" that might be inconvenienced for the greater good would be Kentucky and Vandy, one basketball program and a private school.

True, but I placed them there because it would be the only division in which any of those schools could compete. Plus, geographically they share similar cultures and proximity. You'll also note that 4 of them are AAU. I think they would find a lot in common.

But you are correct. It would usher in some radical changes. Maybe even a 3 x 20. Let's assume the original 10 of the Big 10 plus Nebraska join with 9 from the current PAC 12 and the ACC pick up Maryland, Rutgers, and Penn State from the Big 10. If they added T.C.U. and West Virginia they stop at 20.

Add Arizona, Utah, the four California's, Colorado, Washington, and Oregon and you have a pretty solid Big 10.

Kansas State, Arizona State, Oregon State and Washington State join the best of the other conferences to form a new 20 school conference and voila. We have a new P4 in which the new conference becomes our buffer against the rest.

Maps:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid...000001&z=6

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid...000001&z=5

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid...000001&z=5

I haven't bothered filling in the new P4 conference.

(11-28-2017 08:08 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-28-2017 12:49 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-28-2017 12:33 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-27-2017 08:15 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]Iowa State, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Vanderbilt

Arkansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee

100-year decision if it were to happen and one that would certainly usher in radical changes in CFB in the near-to-medium term. Also interesting that the two programs from the "old SEC" that might be inconvenienced for the greater good would be Kentucky and Vandy, one basketball program and a private school.

True, but I placed them there because it would be the only division in which any of those schools could compete. Plus, geographically they share similar cultures and proximity. You'll also note that 4 of them are AAU. I think they would find a lot in common.

But you are correct. It would usher in some radical changes. Maybe even a 3 x 20. Let's assume the original 10 of the Big 10 plus Nebraska join with 9 from the current PAC 12 and the ACC pick up Maryland, Rutgers, and Penn State from the Big 10. If they added T.C.U. and West Virginia they stop at 20.

Add Arizona, Utah, the four California's, Colorado, Washington, and Oregon and you have a pretty solid Big 10.

Kansas State, Arizona State, Oregon State and Washington State join the best of the other conferences to form a new 20 school conference and voila. We have a new P4 in which the new conference becomes our buffer against the rest.

Maps:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid...000001&z=6

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid...000001&z=5

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid...000001&z=5

I haven't bothered filling in the new P4 conference.

I like the "Super B1G" name.