CSNbbs

1. If it happens prior to the end of the GOR's in the ACC and Big 12 then 12 or 8 schools respectively must have new homes. That means that brokering by the networks will likely be the mode of placement.

2. ESPN would not have to work with FOX to place 8 of the Big 12 schools by placing them in the SEC and ACC. But I don't hold that prospect to be likely, just possible.

3. By waiting until 2016 or later to begin the process of notifying the Big 12 of departures and serving the two year notification period prior to leaving the top Big 12 schools could avoid any penalty for leaving and pay only for the last 5 years of the GOR as a buyout. It's still a hefty sum but if they left for an ESPN conference that amount would likely be only about half of the remaining contract value so about 10 million more than Maryland had to pay. Such amounts could be withheld from future conference proceeds and repaid over a 10 year span all while experiencing a bump in pay.

4. There is nothing that says conferences should have the same number of members. There is nothing that says the PAC must expand and nothing that would keep one conference from expanding past 16 to 18 or even 20 schools.

5. If this game is between FOX and ESPN then I look for either to do whatever is necessary to garner for themselves the best slate of schools for a product.

6. Schools may say that their priority is academics, or athletics, or some other reason for favoring one conference over another but in the end it will come down to geography as minor sports are way too costly otherwise and their fan bases want games they can go to without busting the family budget to do so.

7. The sooner it is over with now the better off college football will be going forward. So I expect movement sooner than later with sooner being some kind of formal announcement within a couple of years (unless the brokering occurs first).

8. Expect autonomy and stipends to be a bigger issue than most think. Expect some defections from the ranks of the P5 should all of it get passed in the amounts presently discussed.

9. Don't be ultimately surprised if a few more G5 schools find their way into the new upper tier. Under the right conditions it could even happen in the SEC.

10. Expect your conference (Big10, SEC, PAC, ACC or Big 12) to contend for the top schools before settling for what are simply market additions.

11. Don't expect cooperation between conferences.

12. Count on whatever moves transpire as being moves the networks want and will pay for.

(01-05-2015 03:43 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]8. Expect autonomy and stipends to be a bigger issue than most think. Expect some defections from the ranks of the P5 should all of it get passed in the amounts presently discussed.

9. Don't be ultimately surprised if a few more G5 schools find their way into the new upper tier. Under the right conditions it could even happen in the SEC.

11. Don't expect cooperation between conferences.

12. Count on whatever moves transpire as being moves the networks want and will pay for.

#1-7 are all reasonable and I'm going to contest those.

8. Nope. These schools are not going to to turn aside all of the money and free advertising that being in the P5 awards schools. They will pay coaches less and cut some luxury expenses before they leave the P5.

9. I can see them joining the upper tier as lesser members of a new construct. Outside of 2-3 schools, there is no one else that comes even close to matching TV valuation. Is there room for 1-3 high-major conferences that can play at the top level of football? Sure - but they are not POWER schools.

11. I think there will be secret cooperation between PARTS of conferences. They will never work together in public, however.

12. There are other factors than just TV in realignment - although having a good TV value does help!

(01-08-2015 01:46 PM)oliveandblue Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-05-2015 03:43 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]8. Expect autonomy and stipends to be a bigger issue than most think. Expect some defections from the ranks of the P5 should all of it get passed in the amounts presently discussed.

9. Don't be ultimately surprised if a few more G5 schools find their way into the new upper tier. Under the right conditions it could even happen in the SEC.

11. Don't expect cooperation between conferences.

12. Count on whatever moves transpire as being moves the networks want and will pay for.

#1-7 are all reasonable and I'm going to contest those.

8. Nope. These schools are not going to to turn aside all of the money and free advertising that being in the P5 awards schools. They will pay coaches less and cut some luxury expenses before they leave the P5.

9. I can see them joining the upper tier as lesser members of a new construct. Outside of 2-3 schools, there is no one else that comes even close to match TV valuation. Is there room for 1-3 high-major conferences that can play at the top level of football? Sure - but they are not POWER schools.

11. I think there will be secret cooperation between PARTS of conferences. They will never work together in public, however.

12. There are other factors than just TV in realignment - although having a good TV value does help!

9. Just about any G5 school could become a so-called power school if it had sufficient money and the will to invest in athletics, and there are several chafing at the bit for such an opportunity. Some have very respectable academics, large endowments, enviable research profiles, they're situated in decent TV markets and recruiting areas, and they are reasonably competitive in sports despite their currently limited budgets. Conversely, there are some perennial bottom-feeders in the P5 which have the revenues but apparently lack any will to excel. Tolerating them or shuffling the same old deck of cards by moving them from one P5 conference to the next accomplishes little other than to exclude those that are eager and willing to move up and compete at the highest levels.

Measured in terms of bang-for-the-buck, a lot of G5 schools are already miles ahead of their wealthier P5 counterparts when it comes to fielding successful teams. Given an opportunity to share in those lucrative TV revenues, they'd eventually compete with the best.

(01-08-2015 02:55 PM)colohank Wrote: [ -> ]9. Just about any G5 school could become a so-called power school if it had sufficient money and the will to invest in athletics, and there are several chafing at the bit for such an opportunity. Some have very respectable academics, large endowments, enviable research profiles, they're situated in decent TV markets and recruiting areas, and they are reasonably competitive in sports despite their currently limited budgets. Conversely, there are some perennial bottom-feeders in the P5 which have the revenues but apparently lack any will to excel. Tolerating them or shuffling the same old deck of cards by moving them from one P5 conference to the next accomplishes little other than to exclude those that are eager and willing to move up and compete at the highest levels.

Measured in terms of bang-for-the-buck, a lot of G5 schools are already miles ahead of their wealthier P5 counterparts when it comes to fielding successful teams. Given an opportunity to share in those lucrative TV revenues, they'd eventually compete with the best.

Not really IMO. The G5 schools with the financial means to really do this are pretty limited. Most are heavily subsidized as is, even with their smaller budgets. Getting an extra $20-$25M a year from a conference would help reduce those subsidies, but would probably not result in a huge increase in AD revenue since that money would basically just replace or reduce the subsidy for the most part for all the public schools. Utah is a good example of a school that made the jump from the G5 recently and they have not substantially increased their AD revenue/budget. They just cut their subsidy. They are also one of the 3 schools that needs to increase their AD revenue greatly to match even the bottom of the P5 revenue earners.

Performance is hard to gauge well since the lowest performing P5 schools play much tougher programs week in and week out during their seasons than the G5 schools do. Most G5 schools would struggle greatly if they stepped into a P5 conference due to the increased competition level, financial requirements, and academic standards required of athletes for admission.

There are 2 schools that currently have AD revenue at a P5 level last year ($60M+ IMO): BYU ($60M) and UConn ($71M) according to data reported here (includes privates). UConn has around $20M annual subsidy. If you go by the USA today numbers (public schools only and many are outdated see the previous link for the most up to date numbers) then you could add Cincinnati ($62M, but low 40s on the Dept of Ed site) and UNLV ($64.5M but only mid 30s on USDoE site) to the list. Cincinnati ($20M+) and UNLV ($35M+) are both heavily subsidized and might only have revenue reported that high due to accounting issues (UNLV almost certainly as they have had large variations year to year in the past). The rest of the top G5 schools in the running for a P5 slot are in the 40-49M a year range and have major subsidies as well, with many over 50% subsidized. The USA today numbers really show how heavily subsidized the G5 schools are. The only P5 schools in the G5 level of AD revenue are Wake Forest, Washington State, and Utah. Those three really need to step up their spending as they lag substantially behind even the rest of the bottom P5 revenue earners..

I think the only 3 schools that currently can make the P5 level financial commitment are UConn, BYU, and probably Cincinnati. SMU might be the closest 4th since they are private and are in the Wake Forest range of AD revenue. SMU might be able to jump to the $60M range in a P5 conference. The other G5 public schools are just too heavily subsidized to greatly increase their AD budgets anytime soon. Any additional revenue they receive from joining a P5 conference would largely go to reducing those subsidies. Some might be able to grow to that level over time, but most are a decade or more from being ready. UCF or USF might get the call from the B12 sooner, if it ever wanted to get into the FL market (conference network/FOX wanting some SE presence), but they are not really ready financially yet. If BYU and UConn were closer to the heart of the B12 they would probably be 11 and 12 to the B12. They have the finances for it, but geography makes it difficult.

That said, if for some reason the P5 decided to expand to 72 or so schools, then there is a definite group of schools, mostly from the AAC with 2-3 from the MWC and BYU, that would be fighting for those slots. However, it is extremely unlikely the P5 wants to add that any schools, and might prefer some contraction instead (I'm looking at you WF). The networks would have to pay for it and I doubt they would want to.

(01-08-2015 11:23 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote: [ -> ]That said, if for some reason the P5 decided to expand to 72 or so schools, then there is a definite group of schools, mostly from the AAC with 2-3 from the MWC and BYU, that would be fighting for those slots. However, it is extremely unlikely the P5 wants to add that any schools, and might prefer some contraction instead (I'm looking at you WF). The networks would have to pay for it and I doubt they would want to.

It really could still go either way. The only way I see a contraction playing out is if schools like Wake Forest opt out, or state schools drop down a division should a minimum investment standard be implemented by the P5. In that case perhaps a B.Y.U. finally does replace a Utah, or a Washington State, and a Connecticut replaces Wake and we remain as we are. Or, we consolidate for the sake of conference network markets to 3 conferences of roughly 20 schools each. The Big 12 doesn't have a network and neither does the ACC. The PAC, Big 10 and SEC do however and the added content would be worth more to the moving schools, the surviving conferences, and networks due to much stronger content and what essentially would be un-duplicated markets.

There are some justifications for moving to 72 as well. It would really cut the legs out from under any kind of lawsuits from the lower tier as those included would clearly be the only ones that could legitimately cry foul. The distinctions between the top 71 and the rest are really quite stark. The justification could be niche markets for the existing conferences and the fact that this keeps the David vs Goliath interest in the P5 and boosts overall records at the top without having the obvious body bag games. Too much parity in college football could damage interest, but more parity within a structure that preserves some dominance would spur interest. And since the income boosts to those added would assist their programs the bottom wouldn't necessarily remain static and that's good too.

But overall JayhawkMVP I do agree that all things being equal the networks would prefer fewer mouths to feed without having to duplicate their own overheads by creating in house competing conference channels, but either track taken could have an upside.

Would the PAC be desperate enough (or proud enough to show off it's newly recognized product) to take Texas as a partial (Notre Dame type deal) AND sell off some of the broadcast rights to ESPN? That could account for as many as 5 Big 12 teams. Then it's two to the SEC, two to the B1G and one to the ACC and everybody has a new home.
This would allow Texas to play the majority of their games in Texas, and still give the PAC and anchor tenant in Texas/Great Plains.
Could ESPN make enough of a market for Oregon and Southern Cal in the Big 12 viewing area, or see enough interest to place a game like Texas v. Southern Cal in the late afternoon time slot on the east coast?

(01-14-2015 08:57 AM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]Would the PAC be desperate enough (or proud enough to show off it's newly recognized product) to take Texas as a partial (Notre Dame type deal) AND sell off some of the broadcast rights to ESPN? That could account for as many as 5 Big 12 teams. Then it's two to the SEC, two to the B1G and one to the ACC and everybody has a new home.
This would allow Texas to play the majority of their games in Texas, and still give the PAC and anchor tenant in Texas/Great Plains.
Could ESPN make enough of a market for Oregon and Southern Cal in the Big 12 viewing area, or see enough interest to place a game like Texas v. Southern Cal in the late afternoon time slot on the east coast?

IMO, it's not a matter of desperation; the PAC would be foolish not to do everything it can to eventually land Texas and Oklahoma. The chance to add two football kings and matchups like Texas-USC and Oregon-Oklahoma AND expand the TV network into the Dallas metroplex, Houston, San Antonio, and Oklahoma City markets and at least 8 million new TV households = no brainer and really the only option to improve. The PAC controls California, so it will always be a player; but without expansion, the PAC will likely see the other P5 conference improve matchups, inventory, and TV deals, while the PAC stagnates.

The ideal move for the PAC would be Texas, to add Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Kansas. You could do the 4-team division/pod scheduling - it works perfectly with a 9-game conference season such that you play everyone in conference at least once every other year. And, you can still ensure that the current PAC members play in California once each year and the new members play in Texas once each year.

This move would also force the Big Ten to look to the East and South for further expansion.

(01-14-2015 08:57 AM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]Would the PAC be desperate enough (or proud enough to show off it's newly recognized product) to take Texas as a partial (Notre Dame type deal) AND sell off some of the broadcast rights to ESPN? That could account for as many as 5 Big 12 teams. Then it's two to the SEC, two to the B1G and one to the ACC and everybody has a new home.
This would allow Texas to play the majority of their games in Texas, and still give the PAC and anchor tenant in Texas/Great Plains.
Could ESPN make enough of a market for Oregon and Southern Cal in the Big 12 viewing area, or see enough interest to place a game like Texas v. Southern Cal in the late afternoon time slot on the east coast?

The Math works. If they took OU and UT then the SEC and Big 10 would be checked and for the sake of economic and football parity and for the sake of balance between the conferences that might be good. Kansas and Iowa State to the Big 10, Oklahoma State and Baylor to the SEC, West Virginia to the ACC. Texas as an indy to the PAC and T.C.U., Kansas State, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma as full members to the PAC. The ACC reconnects its footprint and gains some football props, the SEC gets a bigger piece of Texas and DFW with Oklahoma for their footprint, the Big 10 gets two AAU schools and a national basketball brand, and neither the SEC or Big 10 gets a big bump for football. But, most importantly, ESPN gets a piece of the PAC. I say important because none of this is possible without that happening.

(01-14-2015 07:45 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-14-2015 08:57 AM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]Would the PAC be desperate enough (or proud enough to show off it's newly recognized product) to take Texas as a partial (Notre Dame type deal) AND sell off some of the broadcast rights to ESPN? That could account for as many as 5 Big 12 teams. Then it's two to the SEC, two to the B1G and one to the ACC and everybody has a new home.
This would allow Texas to play the majority of their games in Texas, and still give the PAC and anchor tenant in Texas/Great Plains.
Could ESPN make enough of a market for Oregon and Southern Cal in the Big 12 viewing area, or see enough interest to place a game like Texas v. Southern Cal in the late afternoon time slot on the east coast?

The Math works. If they took OU and UT then the SEC and Big 10 would be checked and for the sake of economic and football parity and for the sake of balance between the conferences that might be good. Kansas and Iowa State to the Big 10, Oklahoma State and Baylor to the SEC, West Virginia to the ACC. Texas as an indy to the PAC and T.C.U., Kansas State, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma as full members to the PAC. The ACC reconnects its footprint and gains some football props, the SEC gets a bigger piece of Texas and DFW with Oklahoma for their footprint, the Big 10 gets two AAU schools and a national basketball brand, and neither the SEC or Big 10 gets a big bump for football. But, most importantly, ESPN gets a piece of the PAC. I say important because none of this is possible without that happening.

JR, the SEC really does not need a bump in football. You guys already have enough football schools, and the B1G now thinks they do. The PAC now has some hope that somebody will have appreciation for "west coast" football and might want to watch it if it were available at a decent hour against a team the east coast might recognize. Who better than to promote and market your product than ESPN especially if they have a vested interest (and could use the inventory for the LHN).

(01-15-2015 01:22 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-14-2015 07:45 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-14-2015 08:57 AM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]Would the PAC be desperate enough (or proud enough to show off it's newly recognized product) to take Texas as a partial (Notre Dame type deal) AND sell off some of the broadcast rights to ESPN? That could account for as many as 5 Big 12 teams. Then it's two to the SEC, two to the B1G and one to the ACC and everybody has a new home.
This would allow Texas to play the majority of their games in Texas, and still give the PAC and anchor tenant in Texas/Great Plains.
Could ESPN make enough of a market for Oregon and Southern Cal in the Big 12 viewing area, or see enough interest to place a game like Texas v. Southern Cal in the late afternoon time slot on the east coast?

The Math works. If they took OU and UT then the SEC and Big 10 would be checked and for the sake of economic and football parity and for the sake of balance between the conferences that might be good. Kansas and Iowa State to the Big 10, Oklahoma State and Baylor to the SEC, West Virginia to the ACC. Texas as an indy to the PAC and T.C.U., Kansas State, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma as full members to the PAC. The ACC reconnects its footprint and gains some football props, the SEC gets a bigger piece of Texas and DFW with Oklahoma for their footprint, the Big 10 gets two AAU schools and a national basketball brand, and neither the SEC or Big 10 gets a big bump for football. But, most importantly, ESPN gets a piece of the PAC. I say important because none of this is possible without that happening.

JR, the SEC really does not need a bump in football. You guys already have enough football schools, and the B1G now thinks they do. The PAC now has some hope that somebody will have appreciation for "west coast" football and might want to watch it if it were available at a decent hour against a team the east coast might recognize. Who better than to promote and market your product than ESPN especially if they have a vested interest (and could use the inventory for the LHN).

That scenario would bring some balance and it might well be best for the sport, but I doubt anything like it happens. Instead we will wait for 5 or 6 years and the Big 12 will be cherry picked with OU and UT finally getting little brothers in. I wouldn't be surprised to see the SEC under new leadership (and with a full understanding that the ACC would remain un-breached beyond the Maryland loss) decide to take the two Oklahoma's, Texas, and another Texas school (either Tech or Baylor). It's interesting how macro economics could alter this however. If petro products stay deflated the Texas oil fund money won't be as staunch and while that will not dictate their actions it could exert some influence upon their timeline.

I really believe that geography will be the greatest factor in future realignment and that is the only reason that I think the Horns and Sooners eventually look to the SEC. (L.S.U., Arkansas, A&M, the Mississippi's, and Missouri are simply a lot more interesting to their fans, easier to get to, and much more compatible for them to play than traveling mates and Nebraska in the Big 10, or the traveling mates and Arizona schools, and Colorado in the PAC.)

Texas, Notre Dame, West Virginia, and Connecticut/Kansas might make for an interesting 18 for the ACC and if partnered with an SEC that adds Baylor, (Texas Tech/Kansas/Kansas State/T.C.U.), Oklahoma and Oklahoma State that would make for a very interesting 36 schools for ESPN to lock down should Texas not want to move West or the PAC not want to sell any part of their network to Disney.

The greatest the leverage the SEC has would be to create an East and West Division of 9 schools each (or even 3 six school divisions) and to essentially give Texas and Oklahoma their dream schedules with the divisions. They would be kings of the West (at least in their minds) if Alabama and Auburn were in the East.

SEC West:
Arkansas, Baylor, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M

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

or

SEC West: Arkansas, Baylor, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas

SEC Central: Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M, Tennessee

SEC East: Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Vanderbilt

Either of those gives their fan bases a guaranteed home schedule of 5 interesting games a year without having to have their minor sports travel to the hinterlands to play. Remember too that if the conference champ automatically enters the 4 team playoff (Big 10, ACC, & PAC champ included) then playing an 11 game conference schedule makes sense. You would play 8 divisional games and 1 permanent crossover rival while rotating the rest. That's a heck of a schedule.

(01-15-2015 01:59 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-15-2015 01:22 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-14-2015 07:45 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-14-2015 08:57 AM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]Would the PAC be desperate enough (or proud enough to show off it's newly recognized product) to take Texas as a partial (Notre Dame type deal) AND sell off some of the broadcast rights to ESPN? That could account for as many as 5 Big 12 teams. Then it's two to the SEC, two to the B1G and one to the ACC and everybody has a new home.
This would allow Texas to play the majority of their games in Texas, and still give the PAC and anchor tenant in Texas/Great Plains.
Could ESPN make enough of a market for Oregon and Southern Cal in the Big 12 viewing area, or see enough interest to place a game like Texas v. Southern Cal in the late afternoon time slot on the east coast?

The Math works. If they took OU and UT then the SEC and Big 10 would be checked and for the sake of economic and football parity and for the sake of balance between the conferences that might be good. Kansas and Iowa State to the Big 10, Oklahoma State and Baylor to the SEC, West Virginia to the ACC. Texas as an indy to the PAC and T.C.U., Kansas State, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma as full members to the PAC. The ACC reconnects its footprint and gains some football props, the SEC gets a bigger piece of Texas and DFW with Oklahoma for their footprint, the Big 10 gets two AAU schools and a national basketball brand, and neither the SEC or Big 10 gets a big bump for football. But, most importantly, ESPN gets a piece of the PAC. I say important because none of this is possible without that happening.

JR, the SEC really does not need a bump in football. You guys already have enough football schools, and the B1G now thinks they do. The PAC now has some hope that somebody will have appreciation for "west coast" football and might want to watch it if it were available at a decent hour against a team the east coast might recognize. Who better than to promote and market your product than ESPN especially if they have a vested interest (and could use the inventory for the LHN).

That scenario would bring some balance and it might well be best for the sport, but I doubt anything like it happens. Instead we will wait for 5 or 6 years and the Big 12 will be cherry picked with OU and UT finally getting little brothers in. I wouldn't be surprised to see the SEC under new leadership (and with a full understanding that the ACC would remain un-breached beyond the Maryland loss) decide to take the two Oklahoma's, Texas, and another Texas school (either Tech or Baylor). It's interesting how macro economics could alter this however. If petro products stay deflated the Texas oil fund money won't be as staunch and while that will not dictate their actions it could exert some influence upon their timeline.

I really believe that geography will be the greatest factor in future realignment and that is the only reason that I think the Horns and Sooners eventually look to the SEC. (L.S.U., Arkansas, A&M, the Mississippi's, and Missouri are simply a lot more interesting to their fans, easier to get to, and much more compatible for them to play than traveling mates and Nebraska in the Big 10, or the traveling mates and Arizona schools, and Colorado in the PAC.)

Texas, Notre Dame, West Virginia, and Connecticut/Kansas might make for an interesting 18 for the ACC and if partnered with an SEC that adds Baylor, (Texas Tech/Kansas/Kansas State/T.C.U.), Oklahoma and Oklahoma State that would make for a very interesting 36 schools for ESPN to lock down should Texas not want to move West or the PAC not want to sell any part of their network to Disney.

The greatest the leverage the SEC has would be to create an East and West Division of 9 schools each (or even 3 six school divisions) and to essentially give Texas and Oklahoma their dream schedules with the divisions. They would be kings of the West (at least in their minds) if Alabama and Auburn were in the East.

SEC West:
Arkansas, Baylor, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M

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

or

SEC West: Arkansas, Baylor, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas

SEC Central: Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M, Tennessee

SEC East: Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Vanderbilt

Either of those gives their fan bases a guaranteed home schedule of 5 interesting games a year without having to have their minor sports travel to the hinterlands to play. Remember too that if the conference champ automatically enters the 4 team playoff (Big 10, ACC, & PAC champ included) then playing an 11 game conference schedule makes sense. You would play 8 divisional games and 1 permanent crossover rival while rotating the rest. That's a heck of a schedule.

I like this concept, except I don't see the SEC ever taking Texas. I think that ship sailed when they took A&M. I don't see a way A&M supports Texas to the SEC, and if we took them so soon after A&M intentionally left them behind, A&M could wind up somewhere else.

(01-15-2015 02:25 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-15-2015 01:59 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-15-2015 01:22 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-14-2015 07:45 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-14-2015 08:57 AM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]Would the PAC be desperate enough (or proud enough to show off it's newly recognized product) to take Texas as a partial (Notre Dame type deal) AND sell off some of the broadcast rights to ESPN? That could account for as many as 5 Big 12 teams. Then it's two to the SEC, two to the B1G and one to the ACC and everybody has a new home.
This would allow Texas to play the majority of their games in Texas, and still give the PAC and anchor tenant in Texas/Great Plains.
Could ESPN make enough of a market for Oregon and Southern Cal in the Big 12 viewing area, or see enough interest to place a game like Texas v. Southern Cal in the late afternoon time slot on the east coast?

The Math works. If they took OU and UT then the SEC and Big 10 would be checked and for the sake of economic and football parity and for the sake of balance between the conferences that might be good. Kansas and Iowa State to the Big 10, Oklahoma State and Baylor to the SEC, West Virginia to the ACC. Texas as an indy to the PAC and T.C.U., Kansas State, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma as full members to the PAC. The ACC reconnects its footprint and gains some football props, the SEC gets a bigger piece of Texas and DFW with Oklahoma for their footprint, the Big 10 gets two AAU schools and a national basketball brand, and neither the SEC or Big 10 gets a big bump for football. But, most importantly, ESPN gets a piece of the PAC. I say important because none of this is possible without that happening.

JR, the SEC really does not need a bump in football. You guys already have enough football schools, and the B1G now thinks they do. The PAC now has some hope that somebody will have appreciation for "west coast" football and might want to watch it if it were available at a decent hour against a team the east coast might recognize. Who better than to promote and market your product than ESPN especially if they have a vested interest (and could use the inventory for the LHN).

That scenario would bring some balance and it might well be best for the sport, but I doubt anything like it happens. Instead we will wait for 5 or 6 years and the Big 12 will be cherry picked with OU and UT finally getting little brothers in. I wouldn't be surprised to see the SEC under new leadership (and with a full understanding that the ACC would remain un-breached beyond the Maryland loss) decide to take the two Oklahoma's, Texas, and another Texas school (either Tech or Baylor). It's interesting how macro economics could alter this however. If petro products stay deflated the Texas oil fund money won't be as staunch and while that will not dictate their actions it could exert some influence upon their timeline.

I really believe that geography will be the greatest factor in future realignment and that is the only reason that I think the Horns and Sooners eventually look to the SEC. (L.S.U., Arkansas, A&M, the Mississippi's, and Missouri are simply a lot more interesting to their fans, easier to get to, and much more compatible for them to play than traveling mates and Nebraska in the Big 10, or the traveling mates and Arizona schools, and Colorado in the PAC.)

Texas, Notre Dame, West Virginia, and Connecticut/Kansas might make for an interesting 18 for the ACC and if partnered with an SEC that adds Baylor, (Texas Tech/Kansas/Kansas State/T.C.U.), Oklahoma and Oklahoma State that would make for a very interesting 36 schools for ESPN to lock down should Texas not want to move West or the PAC not want to sell any part of their network to Disney.

The greatest the leverage the SEC has would be to create an East and West Division of 9 schools each (or even 3 six school divisions) and to essentially give Texas and Oklahoma their dream schedules with the divisions. They would be kings of the West (at least in their minds) if Alabama and Auburn were in the East.

SEC West:
Arkansas, Baylor, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M

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

or

SEC West: Arkansas, Baylor, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas

SEC Central: Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M, Tennessee

SEC East: Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Vanderbilt

Either of those gives their fan bases a guaranteed home schedule of 5 interesting games a year without having to have their minor sports travel to the hinterlands to play. Remember too that if the conference champ automatically enters the 4 team playoff (Big 10, ACC, & PAC champ included) then playing an 11 game conference schedule makes sense. You would play 8 divisional games and 1 permanent crossover rival while rotating the rest. That's a heck of a schedule.

I like this concept, except I don't see the SEC ever taking Texas. I think that ship sailed when they took A&M. I don't see a way A&M supports Texas to the SEC, and if we took them so soon after A&M intentionally left them behind, A&M could wind up somewhere else.

I don't think it really matters at the administrative level. It was a good selling point for the move and a fan issue extraordinaire. Besides, Texas in the SEC wouldn't have the same pull as Texas heading their own conference a la SWC/Big 12.

The whole scenario works just as well with OU/OSU/Baylor or T.C.U. or TTU/ and a Kansas school. I just really think in the end Texas will choose to stay close to their traditions and roots and close enough to keep their fans happy. If they ever want to join the SEC I don't see us turning them down, or A&M leaving because of it. It will be sold as renewing longstanding rivalries with A&M and Arkansas and reintroducing Texas fans to L.S.U..

For the record I picked Texas and Baylor simply because I think TTU and TCU would still have appeal to the PAC and TTU is more Western.

(01-15-2015 01:59 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-15-2015 01:22 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-14-2015 07:45 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-14-2015 08:57 AM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]Would the PAC be desperate enough (or proud enough to show off it's newly recognized product) to take Texas as a partial (Notre Dame type deal) AND sell off some of the broadcast rights to ESPN? That could account for as many as 5 Big 12 teams. Then it's two to the SEC, two to the B1G and one to the ACC and everybody has a new home.
This would allow Texas to play the majority of their games in Texas, and still give the PAC and anchor tenant in Texas/Great Plains.
Could ESPN make enough of a market for Oregon and Southern Cal in the Big 12 viewing area, or see enough interest to place a game like Texas v. Southern Cal in the late afternoon time slot on the east coast?

The Math works. If they took OU and UT then the SEC and Big 10 would be checked and for the sake of economic and football parity and for the sake of balance between the conferences that might be good. Kansas and Iowa State to the Big 10, Oklahoma State and Baylor to the SEC, West Virginia to the ACC. Texas as an indy to the PAC and T.C.U., Kansas State, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma as full members to the PAC. The ACC reconnects its footprint and gains some football props, the SEC gets a bigger piece of Texas and DFW with Oklahoma for their footprint, the Big 10 gets two AAU schools and a national basketball brand, and neither the SEC or Big 10 gets a big bump for football. But, most importantly, ESPN gets a piece of the PAC. I say important because none of this is possible without that happening.

JR, the SEC really does not need a bump in football. You guys already have enough football schools, and the B1G now thinks they do. The PAC now has some hope that somebody will have appreciation for "west coast" football and might want to watch it if it were available at a decent hour against a team the east coast might recognize. Who better than to promote and market your product than ESPN especially if they have a vested interest (and could use the inventory for the LHN).

That scenario would bring some balance and it might well be best for the sport, but I doubt anything like it happens. Instead we will wait for 5 or 6 years and the Big 12 will be cherry picked with OU and UT finally getting little brothers in. I wouldn't be surprised to see the SEC under new leadership (and with a full understanding that the ACC would remain un-breached beyond the Maryland loss) decide to take the two Oklahoma's, Texas, and another Texas school (either Tech or Baylor). It's interesting how macro economics could alter this however. If petro products stay deflated the Texas oil fund money won't be as staunch and while that will not dictate their actions it could exert some influence upon their timeline.

I really believe that geography will be the greatest factor in future realignment and that is the only reason that I think the Horns and Sooners eventually look to the SEC. (L.S.U., Arkansas, A&M, the Mississippi's, and Missouri are simply a lot more interesting to their fans, easier to get to, and much more compatible for them to play than traveling mates and Nebraska in the Big 10, or the traveling mates and Arizona schools, and Colorado in the PAC.)

Texas, Notre Dame, West Virginia, and Connecticut/Kansas might make for an interesting 18 for the ACC and if partnered with an SEC that adds Baylor, (Texas Tech/Kansas/Kansas State/T.C.U.), Oklahoma and Oklahoma State that would make for a very interesting 36 schools for ESPN to lock down should Texas not want to move West or the PAC not want to sell any part of their network to Disney.

The greatest the leverage the SEC has would be to create an East and West Division of 9 schools each (or even 3 six school divisions) and to essentially give Texas and Oklahoma their dream schedules with the divisions. They would be kings of the West (at least in their minds) if Alabama and Auburn were in the East.

SEC West:
Arkansas, Baylor, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M

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

or

SEC West: Arkansas, Baylor, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas

SEC Central: Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M, Tennessee

SEC East: Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Vanderbilt

Either of those gives their fan bases a guaranteed home schedule of 5 interesting games a year without having to have their minor sports travel to the hinterlands to play. Remember too that if the conference champ automatically enters the 4 team playoff (Big 10, ACC, & PAC champ included) then playing an 11 game conference schedule makes sense. You would play 8 divisional games and 1 permanent crossover rival while rotating the rest. That's a heck of a schedule.

JR don't you think the three division set-up would make the LSU people feel a little more comfortable? They might get lost west of the Red River.

Texas Tech is hoping to join the AAU ranks as soon as 2017. I very much believe that Texas Tech will be near the top of the list for both the PAC and the B1G.

(01-15-2015 03:47 PM)YNot Wrote: [ -> ]Texas Tech is hoping to join the AAU ranks as soon as 2017. I very much believe that Texas Tech will be near the top of the list for both the PAC and the B1G.

Since the AAU is limited in membership to 62 institutions, which school is leaving to make room for Texas Tech?

(01-15-2015 03:32 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-15-2015 01:59 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-15-2015 01:22 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-14-2015 07:45 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-14-2015 08:57 AM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]Would the PAC be desperate enough (or proud enough to show off it's newly recognized product) to take Texas as a partial (Notre Dame type deal) AND sell off some of the broadcast rights to ESPN? That could account for as many as 5 Big 12 teams. Then it's two to the SEC, two to the B1G and one to the ACC and everybody has a new home.
This would allow Texas to play the majority of their games in Texas, and still give the PAC and anchor tenant in Texas/Great Plains.
Could ESPN make enough of a market for Oregon and Southern Cal in the Big 12 viewing area, or see enough interest to place a game like Texas v. Southern Cal in the late afternoon time slot on the east coast?

The Math works. If they took OU and UT then the SEC and Big 10 would be checked and for the sake of economic and football parity and for the sake of balance between the conferences that might be good. Kansas and Iowa State to the Big 10, Oklahoma State and Baylor to the SEC, West Virginia to the ACC. Texas as an indy to the PAC and T.C.U., Kansas State, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma as full members to the PAC. The ACC reconnects its footprint and gains some football props, the SEC gets a bigger piece of Texas and DFW with Oklahoma for their footprint, the Big 10 gets two AAU schools and a national basketball brand, and neither the SEC or Big 10 gets a big bump for football. But, most importantly, ESPN gets a piece of the PAC. I say important because none of this is possible without that happening.

JR, the SEC really does not need a bump in football. You guys already have enough football schools, and the B1G now thinks they do. The PAC now has some hope that somebody will have appreciation for "west coast" football and might want to watch it if it were available at a decent hour against a team the east coast might recognize. Who better than to promote and market your product than ESPN especially if they have a vested interest (and could use the inventory for the LHN).

That scenario would bring some balance and it might well be best for the sport, but I doubt anything like it happens. Instead we will wait for 5 or 6 years and the Big 12 will be cherry picked with OU and UT finally getting little brothers in. I wouldn't be surprised to see the SEC under new leadership (and with a full understanding that the ACC would remain un-breached beyond the Maryland loss) decide to take the two Oklahoma's, Texas, and another Texas school (either Tech or Baylor). It's interesting how macro economics could alter this however. If petro products stay deflated the Texas oil fund money won't be as staunch and while that will not dictate their actions it could exert some influence upon their timeline.

I really believe that geography will be the greatest factor in future realignment and that is the only reason that I think the Horns and Sooners eventually look to the SEC. (L.S.U., Arkansas, A&M, the Mississippi's, and Missouri are simply a lot more interesting to their fans, easier to get to, and much more compatible for them to play than traveling mates and Nebraska in the Big 10, or the traveling mates and Arizona schools, and Colorado in the PAC.)

Texas, Notre Dame, West Virginia, and Connecticut/Kansas might make for an interesting 18 for the ACC and if partnered with an SEC that adds Baylor, (Texas Tech/Kansas/Kansas State/T.C.U.), Oklahoma and Oklahoma State that would make for a very interesting 36 schools for ESPN to lock down should Texas not want to move West or the PAC not want to sell any part of their network to Disney.

The greatest the leverage the SEC has would be to create an East and West Division of 9 schools each (or even 3 six school divisions) and to essentially give Texas and Oklahoma their dream schedules with the divisions. They would be kings of the West (at least in their minds) if Alabama and Auburn were in the East.

SEC West:
Arkansas, Baylor, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M

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

or

SEC West: Arkansas, Baylor, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas

SEC Central: Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M, Tennessee

SEC East: Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Vanderbilt

Either of those gives their fan bases a guaranteed home schedule of 5 interesting games a year without having to have their minor sports travel to the hinterlands to play. Remember too that if the conference champ automatically enters the 4 team playoff (Big 10, ACC, & PAC champ included) then playing an 11 game conference schedule makes sense. You would play 8 divisional games and 1 permanent crossover rival while rotating the rest. That's a heck of a schedule.

JR don't you think the three division set-up would make the LSU people feel a little more comfortable? They might get lost west of the Red River.

Yeah, I do. It would likely please the Aggies as well. They both would have the chance of winning their divisions and that might be enough separation to keep them happy. Plus that allows the conference to select the best of the remaining schools for the conference playoff which helps balance good divisions with bad divisions by giving the strong division a chance to land a second school into the playoffs each year. That will keep interest up much longer into the season among a greater number of fan bases improving viewing and attendance. It's why I still like that model for the ACC as well.

(01-15-2015 03:47 PM)YNot Wrote: [ -> ]Texas Tech is hoping to join the AAU ranks as soon as 2017. I very much believe that Texas Tech will be near the top of the list for both the PAC and the B1G.

I am positive that Texas Tech is working on their AAU credentials and they have the money to do so. I am equally certain that they will not make it by 2017, and it will be extremely difficult to make it by 2027 for that matter. I don't see them ever being a part of the Big 10. I could see them in the PAC.

Were the Big 10 to pursue 4 schools from the Big 12 three of them would be Kansas, Texas, and the only one that would be non AAU would be Oklahoma, and they aren't even close to Nebraska's research metrics and the Huskers lost their status. If those three wanted in and nobody else was available then maybe Iowa State gets a look, but before that happens I would bet on the Big 10 looking at Rice to solidify a hold in Texas and give the Horns a travel mate from their home state.

That said I don't ever see Texas choosing the Big 10.

(01-15-2015 06:28 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-15-2015 03:32 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-15-2015 01:59 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-15-2015 01:22 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-14-2015 07:45 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]The Math works. If they took OU and UT then the SEC and Big 10 would be checked and for the sake of economic and football parity and for the sake of balance between the conferences that might be good. Kansas and Iowa State to the Big 10, Oklahoma State and Baylor to the SEC, West Virginia to the ACC. Texas as an indy to the PAC and T.C.U., Kansas State, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma as full members to the PAC. The ACC reconnects its footprint and gains some football props, the SEC gets a bigger piece of Texas and DFW with Oklahoma for their footprint, the Big 10 gets two AAU schools and a national basketball brand, and neither the SEC or Big 10 gets a big bump for football. But, most importantly, ESPN gets a piece of the PAC. I say important because none of this is possible without that happening.

JR, the SEC really does not need a bump in football. You guys already have enough football schools, and the B1G now thinks they do. The PAC now has some hope that somebody will have appreciation for "west coast" football and might want to watch it if it were available at a decent hour against a team the east coast might recognize. Who better than to promote and market your product than ESPN especially if they have a vested interest (and could use the inventory for the LHN).

That scenario would bring some balance and it might well be best for the sport, but I doubt anything like it happens. Instead we will wait for 5 or 6 years and the Big 12 will be cherry picked with OU and UT finally getting little brothers in. I wouldn't be surprised to see the SEC under new leadership (and with a full understanding that the ACC would remain un-breached beyond the Maryland loss) decide to take the two Oklahoma's, Texas, and another Texas school (either Tech or Baylor). It's interesting how macro economics could alter this however. If petro products stay deflated the Texas oil fund money won't be as staunch and while that will not dictate their actions it could exert some influence upon their timeline.

I really believe that geography will be the greatest factor in future realignment and that is the only reason that I think the Horns and Sooners eventually look to the SEC. (L.S.U., Arkansas, A&M, the Mississippi's, and Missouri are simply a lot more interesting to their fans, easier to get to, and much more compatible for them to play than traveling mates and Nebraska in the Big 10, or the traveling mates and Arizona schools, and Colorado in the PAC.)

Texas, Notre Dame, West Virginia, and Connecticut/Kansas might make for an interesting 18 for the ACC and if partnered with an SEC that adds Baylor, (Texas Tech/Kansas/Kansas State/T.C.U.), Oklahoma and Oklahoma State that would make for a very interesting 36 schools for ESPN to lock down should Texas not want to move West or the PAC not want to sell any part of their network to Disney.

The greatest the leverage the SEC has would be to create an East and West Division of 9 schools each (or even 3 six school divisions) and to essentially give Texas and Oklahoma their dream schedules with the divisions. They would be kings of the West (at least in their minds) if Alabama and Auburn were in the East.

SEC West:
Arkansas, Baylor, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M

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

or

SEC West: Arkansas, Baylor, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas

SEC Central: Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M, Tennessee

SEC East: Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Vanderbilt

Either of those gives their fan bases a guaranteed home schedule of 5 interesting games a year without having to have their minor sports travel to the hinterlands to play. Remember too that if the conference champ automatically enters the 4 team playoff (Big 10, ACC, & PAC champ included) then playing an 11 game conference schedule makes sense. You would play 8 divisional games and 1 permanent crossover rival while rotating the rest. That's a heck of a schedule.

JR don't you think the three division set-up would make the LSU people feel a little more comfortable? They might get lost west of the Red River.

Yeah, I do. It would likely please the Aggies as well. They both would have the chance of winning their divisions and that might be enough separation to keep them happy. Plus that allows the conference to select the best of the remaining schools for the conference playoff which helps balance good divisions with bad divisions by giving the strong division a chance to land a second school into the playoffs each year. That will keep interest up much longer into the season among a greater number of fan bases improving viewing and attendance. It's why I still like that model for the ACC as well.

If the 4 P5 conferences (can you say that) adopt the three pod system then:
The B1G could go to 18 by adding Iowa State, Kansas and Kansas State. The PAC would need to get to 15 to be able to divide by three. Not an easy task with only two Texas schools left out of the Big 12 (with West Virginia not really a candidate for the PAC and necessary for the ACC to get to 15). So how about the PAC taking TCU, Texas Tech AND BYU as a football only member?

(01-15-2015 08:57 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-15-2015 06:28 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-15-2015 03:32 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-15-2015 01:59 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-15-2015 01:22 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]JR, the SEC really does not need a bump in football. You guys already have enough football schools, and the B1G now thinks they do. The PAC now has some hope that somebody will have appreciation for "west coast" football and might want to watch it if it were available at a decent hour against a team the east coast might recognize. Who better than to promote and market your product than ESPN especially if they have a vested interest (and could use the inventory for the LHN).

That scenario would bring some balance and it might well be best for the sport, but I doubt anything like it happens. Instead we will wait for 5 or 6 years and the Big 12 will be cherry picked with OU and UT finally getting little brothers in. I wouldn't be surprised to see the SEC under new leadership (and with a full understanding that the ACC would remain un-breached beyond the Maryland loss) decide to take the two Oklahoma's, Texas, and another Texas school (either Tech or Baylor). It's interesting how macro economics could alter this however. If petro products stay deflated the Texas oil fund money won't be as staunch and while that will not dictate their actions it could exert some influence upon their timeline.

I really believe that geography will be the greatest factor in future realignment and that is the only reason that I think the Horns and Sooners eventually look to the SEC. (L.S.U., Arkansas, A&M, the Mississippi's, and Missouri are simply a lot more interesting to their fans, easier to get to, and much more compatible for them to play than traveling mates and Nebraska in the Big 10, or the traveling mates and Arizona schools, and Colorado in the PAC.)

Texas, Notre Dame, West Virginia, and Connecticut/Kansas might make for an interesting 18 for the ACC and if partnered with an SEC that adds Baylor, (Texas Tech/Kansas/Kansas State/T.C.U.), Oklahoma and Oklahoma State that would make for a very interesting 36 schools for ESPN to lock down should Texas not want to move West or the PAC not want to sell any part of their network to Disney.

The greatest the leverage the SEC has would be to create an East and West Division of 9 schools each (or even 3 six school divisions) and to essentially give Texas and Oklahoma their dream schedules with the divisions. They would be kings of the West (at least in their minds) if Alabama and Auburn were in the East.

SEC West:
Arkansas, Baylor, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M

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

or

SEC West: Arkansas, Baylor, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas

SEC Central: Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M, Tennessee

SEC East: Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Vanderbilt

Either of those gives their fan bases a guaranteed home schedule of 5 interesting games a year without having to have their minor sports travel to the hinterlands to play. Remember too that if the conference champ automatically enters the 4 team playoff (Big 10, ACC, & PAC champ included) then playing an 11 game conference schedule makes sense. You would play 8 divisional games and 1 permanent crossover rival while rotating the rest. That's a heck of a schedule.

JR don't you think the three division set-up would make the LSU people feel a little more comfortable? They might get lost west of the Red River.

Yeah, I do. It would likely please the Aggies as well. They both would have the chance of winning their divisions and that might be enough separation to keep them happy. Plus that allows the conference to select the best of the remaining schools for the conference playoff which helps balance good divisions with bad divisions by giving the strong division a chance to land a second school into the playoffs each year. That will keep interest up much longer into the season among a greater number of fan bases improving viewing and attendance. It's why I still like that model for the ACC as well.

If the 4 P5 conferences (can you say that) adopt the three pod system then:
The B1G could go to 18 by adding Iowa State, Kansas and Kansas State. The PAC would need to get to 15 to be able to divide by three. Not an easy task with only two Texas schools left out of the Big 12 (with West Virginia not really a candidate for the PAC and necessary for the ACC to get to 15). So how about the PAC taking TCU, Texas Tech AND BYU as a football only member?

If they wouldn't discriminate against Mormons they would already have them. B.Y.U. has much better numbers than Utah.

I would see something more along the lines of the ACC at 18 with West Virginia, Cincinnati, Notre Dame, and Connecticut. The Big 10 goes to 16 with Kansas and Iowa State. The SEC to 18 with some version of Texahoma. The PAC picks up T.C.U., Texas Tech, and Kansas State (which is contiguous with Colorado) and moves to 16 with either Nevada or New Mexico or both with B.Y.U. in a move to 18.

Now you have 70 schools in the upper tier.

Cincinnati, Boston College, Connecticut, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse

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

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Miami, West Virginia

Now you have a Northern Big East Basketball division that Notre Dame can progress through, your core of the Old ACC division which one of the Virginia or Carolina schools can progress through, and a football first division which likely will supply not only your division champion for the conference playoffs but likely your wild card too.

So on any given year the ACC is likely to have Notre Dame, U.N.C. or Virginia Tech, Florida State, and a Clemson, Louisville, Miami, Georgia Tech, or West Virginia in their 4 team conference football championship playoff and that my friend is a formula for fantastic ratings. The South division carries the content during football season, the North and Atlantic carry the content during hoops season.

I don't see how the Big 10 gets to 18 without raiding the ACC so I think they move to 16 and stop. Since their TV contracts will remain near the top then 16 gives their schools all a bit more money than 18 and they keeps their AAU state university thing going. Plus with OSU winning this year they are feeling better about their football, especially with the Harbaugh hire and PSU coming off of probation.

The PAC at 18 solves a lot of their own issues in that it groups them geographically and segregates them from the Eastern schools to give an Old PAC 10 feel to it.:
California, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State

Arizona, Arizona State, Nevada, New Mexico, Southern Cal, and U.C.L.A. (this keeps this division from beating up on itself)

Brigham Young, Colorado, Kansas State, T.C.U., Texas Tech, Utah (The travel isn't so severe here and it keeps the B.Y.U. issue from being such a part of the California school objections.)

Now the PAC will produce champions from Oregon/Stanford/ and Washington in the North, a Los Angeles School or Arizona school in the South, and either Brigham Young, a Texas school, or Kansas State in the East. Either the North or South is likely to produce their wild card so their ratings go up as well. Well it's just a thought.

(01-15-2015 09:34 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]The PAC at 18 solves a lot of their own issues in that it groups them geographically and segregates them from the Eastern schools to give an Old PAC 10 feel to it.:
California, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State

Arizona, Arizona State, Nevada, New Mexico, Southern Cal, and U.C.L.A. (this keeps this division from beating up on itself)

Brigham Young, Colorado, Kansas State, T.C.U., Texas Tech, Utah (The travel isn't so severe here and it keeps the B.Y.U. issue from being such a part of the California school objections.)

Now the PAC will produce champions from Oregon/Stanford/ and Washington in the North, a Los Angeles School or Arizona school in the South, and either Brigham Young, a Texas school, or Kansas State in the East. Either the North or South is likely to produce their wild card so their ratings go up as well. Well it's just a thought.

IMO, the PAC takes Iowa St. instead of Nevada and puts the Cyclones with New Mexico in the East division. Colorado and Utah stay in the South division with the Arizona and SoCal schools, so BYU goes to the East. It would actually make the expansion nice and clean, simply placing all the new schools into a new division:

NORTH DIVISION
Cal
Stanford
Oregon
OSU
Washington
WSU

SOUTH DIVISION
Arizona
ASU
UCLA
USC
Colorado
Utah

EAST DIVISION
BYU
New Mexico
Texas Tech
TCU
Kansas St.
Iowa St.

The scheduling hiccups would be:
- the California schools in separate divisions would likely have locked cross-over games with each other - which means the California schools would only each have 2 games available for rotation for inter-division play.
- BYU v. Utah would be a locked cross-over game; Colorado and New Mexico could do the same.