CSNbbs

(05-07-2015 09:51 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-06-2015 05:16 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-06-2015 08:17 AM)ren.hoek Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-05-2015 11:50 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-05-2015 11:34 PM)Marge Schott Wrote: [ -> ]I have no idea what you're saying.

If Texas were willing to join the ACC in all sports but football, but with a 5-game football agreement, there would be zero reason to keep the Big 12 alive. For one, there's no way their tv partners would continue their current payments without Texas. Even if it did manage to survive in the short-term, it'd be greatly destabilized. So if the ACC is going to take Texas in that type of deal, then there's no reason not to also lure OU and a few other schools that would secure that western front. Once you pilfer the linchpin of the conference, you may as well go and pluck up the rest of the schools you're interested in, too.

I agreed with your view of N.D.'s relationship. And I was merely stating that should Texas or Oklahoma choose to leave it would be better for the remainder of the schools if they did it sooner and used their weight to leverage some of them a new home as well. The irony is that the closer they get to the end of the GOR the more precarious it becomes for the non brands. So essentially we assess their situation similarly. If one of the top two brands leaves, particularly Texas, it's over. I merely added that sooner would actually be better for the rest than later would be.

here's how it could work...

The ACC takes 6 from the Big12: Texas, TCU, Baylor, OSU, KState and WVU. ND keeps its 5 game deal with the ACC. The 5 team pods work out very neatly and logically. The ACC's footprint is monstrous and the ACCN will be a rou$ing success.

The SEC takes OU and KU, two highly desirable schools in two new states to the SEC. Basketball improves a good bit with this move.

New ACC-SEC matchups - Texas - aTm, KU-KSU, OU-OSU.

That is 8 schools, enough to dissolve the conference. Sorry TTech and ISU.

I could live with that.

Another way to get 8 schools for dissolution:

Texas, Oklahoma, Baylor and TCU to the ACC for a total of 18 teams.

Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Kansas and West Virginia to the SEC (18 also).

Now there are no schools left that the Big Ten would be interested in. The ACC has shored up its football cred, while the SEC significantly improves in hoops. Combined they have all the major programs in Texas, while the SEC adds Oklahoma, Kansas and West Virginia to its footprint. ESPN is happy. The Big Ten is sad.

I prefer the 20 team ACC rather than the 18 just because 18 pretty much requires a 2 round conference championship tournament (3 division champs, 1 wild card). It would require a rule change with the NCAA and the presidents and ADs have shown a reluctance to lengthen the season. It just seems more far-fetched than 20 teams (I realize that ALL of this is far-fetched). 4 pods of 5 teams makes for nice, neat rotating divisions.

East – BC, Syracuse, Pitt, WV, Miami
Central – VT, UVa, UNC, Duke, Louisville
South – NCSU, WF, Clemson, FSU, GT
West – Texas, TCU, Baylor, OSU, Kansas State

I really like how the pods break out in this scenario – old Big East, old Big12 and 2 old ACCs (plus Louisville). I think Kansas might prefer the ACC over the SEC due to basketball, but putting them in the SEC gives the SEC some much needed basketball power along with OU and putting Kansas State in the ACC gives the ACC some much needed football power along with OSU and the Texas schools.

(05-07-2015 09:51 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-06-2015 05:16 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-06-2015 08:17 AM)ren.hoek Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-05-2015 11:50 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-05-2015 11:34 PM)Marge Schott Wrote: [ -> ]I have no idea what you're saying.

If Texas were willing to join the ACC in all sports but football, but with a 5-game football agreement, there would be zero reason to keep the Big 12 alive. For one, there's no way their tv partners would continue their current payments without Texas. Even if it did manage to survive in the short-term, it'd be greatly destabilized. So if the ACC is going to take Texas in that type of deal, then there's no reason not to also lure OU and a few other schools that would secure that western front. Once you pilfer the linchpin of the conference, you may as well go and pluck up the rest of the schools you're interested in, too.

I agreed with your view of N.D.'s relationship. And I was merely stating that should Texas or Oklahoma choose to leave it would be better for the remainder of the schools if they did it sooner and used their weight to leverage some of them a new home as well. The irony is that the closer they get to the end of the GOR the more precarious it becomes for the non brands. So essentially we assess their situation similarly. If one of the top two brands leaves, particularly Texas, it's over. I merely added that sooner would actually be better for the rest than later would be.

here's how it could work...

The ACC takes 6 from the Big12: Texas, TCU, Baylor, OSU, KState and WVU. ND keeps its 5 game deal with the ACC. The 5 team pods work out very neatly and logically. The ACC's footprint is monstrous and the ACCN will be a rou$ing success.

The SEC takes OU and KU, two highly desirable schools in two new states to the SEC. Basketball improves a good bit with this move.

New ACC-SEC matchups - Texas - aTm, KU-KSU, OU-OSU.

That is 8 schools, enough to dissolve the conference. Sorry TTech and ISU.

I could live with that.

Another way to get 8 schools for dissolution:

Texas, Oklahoma, Baylor and TCU to the ACC for a total of 18 teams.

Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Kansas and West Virginia to the SEC (18 also).

Now there are no schools left that the Big Ten would be interested in. The ACC has shored up its football cred, while the SEC significantly improves in hoops. Combined they have all the major programs in Texas, while the SEC adds Oklahoma, Kansas and West Virginia to its footprint. ESPN is happy. The Big Ten is sad.

Love that plan...then you add a round of conference semi-finals on home fields featuring division champs (3 divisions of 6) + a wild card.

You play 5 in your division every year, and 3 of the other 12. That is already an improvement (2x every 8 years) over how often the ACC/SEC sees cross division opponents now (2x every 12 years), BUT you could drop the home+home in consecutive years requirement, and cycle through all opponents in a four year career.

The thing is...that slate for the SEC, if you're an SEC fan, is mighty underwhelming and doesn't add a huge amount of population footprint...I'm guessing you might have to flip OU and OSU, although that ruins one of the main attractions, getting Texas-ATM going again last game of the year. If TX-OU becomes a non-conference game, any Texas-ATM game is going be occasional at best, like Clemson-UGA.

But that would be brilliant.

(05-07-2015 10:09 AM)ren.hoek Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-07-2015 09:51 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-06-2015 05:16 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-06-2015 08:17 AM)ren.hoek Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-05-2015 11:50 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]I agreed with your view of N.D.'s relationship. And I was merely stating that should Texas or Oklahoma choose to leave it would be better for the remainder of the schools if they did it sooner and used their weight to leverage some of them a new home as well. The irony is that the closer they get to the end of the GOR the more precarious it becomes for the non brands. So essentially we assess their situation similarly. If one of the top two brands leaves, particularly Texas, it's over. I merely added that sooner would actually be better for the rest than later would be.

here's how it could work...

The ACC takes 6 from the Big12: Texas, TCU, Baylor, OSU, KState and WVU. ND keeps its 5 game deal with the ACC. The 5 team pods work out very neatly and logically. The ACC's footprint is monstrous and the ACCN will be a rou$ing success.

The SEC takes OU and KU, two highly desirable schools in two new states to the SEC. Basketball improves a good bit with this move.

New ACC-SEC matchups - Texas - aTm, KU-KSU, OU-OSU.

That is 8 schools, enough to dissolve the conference. Sorry TTech and ISU.

I could live with that.

Another way to get 8 schools for dissolution:

Texas, Oklahoma, Baylor and TCU to the ACC for a total of 18 teams.

Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Kansas and West Virginia to the SEC (18 also).

Now there are no schools left that the Big Ten would be interested in. The ACC has shored up its football cred, while the SEC significantly improves in hoops. Combined they have all the major programs in Texas, while the SEC adds Oklahoma, Kansas and West Virginia to its footprint. ESPN is happy. The Big Ten is sad.

I prefer the 20 team ACC rather than the 18 just because 18 pretty much requires a 2 round conference championship tournament (3 division champs, 1 wild card). It would require a rule change with the NCAA and the presidents and ADs have shown a reluctance to lengthen the season. It just seems more far-fetched than 20 teams (I realize that ALL of this is far-fetched). 4 pods of 5 teams makes for nice, neat rotating divisions.

East – BC, Syracuse, Pitt, WV, Miami
Central – VT, UVa, UNC, Duke, Louisville
South – NCSU, WF, Clemson, FSU, GT
West – Texas, TCU, Baylor, OSU, Kansas State

I really like how the pods break out in this scenario – old Big East, old Big12 and 2 old ACCs (plus Louisville). I think Kansas might prefer the ACC over the SEC due to basketball, but putting them in the SEC gives the SEC some much needed basketball power along with OU and putting Kansas State in the ACC gives the ACC some much needed football power along with OSU and the Texas schools.

I'm cool with that idea too...but it's problematic that you are splitting Texas and OU in this scenario. That pretty much prevents Texas from playing A&M and Oklahoma from playing OSU. They aren't going to play those games plus the RRR out of conference.

Of course, the advantage is that if you take more teams, it's easier to make happen...but who's the SEC's six to get to 20? You are getting into Iowa State territory...doubt that's going to happen.

So if the ACC and SEC both went to 20, that's 12 teams that would be added.

You could say that's the entire Big 12 + ND + ?. It sounds stupid, but I don't think Cincinnati is a ludicrous choice for the SEC. It's certainly not far-flung from the footprint, and it brings in a massive state, and good basketball.

So something like:

So to the ACC: TX, OU, KSU, TCU, ISU, ND
To the SEC: OSU, Kansas, Baylor, TT, WVU, Cinci

It's just hard to see the SEC getting real excited about that.

(05-07-2015 10:09 AM)ren.hoek Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-07-2015 09:51 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-06-2015 05:16 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-06-2015 08:17 AM)ren.hoek Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-05-2015 11:50 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]I agreed with your view of N.D.'s relationship. And I was merely stating that should Texas or Oklahoma choose to leave it would be better for the remainder of the schools if they did it sooner and used their weight to leverage some of them a new home as well. The irony is that the closer they get to the end of the GOR the more precarious it becomes for the non brands. So essentially we assess their situation similarly. If one of the top two brands leaves, particularly Texas, it's over. I merely added that sooner would actually be better for the rest than later would be.

here's how it could work...

The ACC takes 6 from the Big12: Texas, TCU, Baylor, OSU, KState and WVU. ND keeps its 5 game deal with the ACC. The 5 team pods work out very neatly and logically. The ACC's footprint is monstrous and the ACCN will be a rou$ing success.

The SEC takes OU and KU, two highly desirable schools in two new states to the SEC. Basketball improves a good bit with this move.

New ACC-SEC matchups - Texas - aTm, KU-KSU, OU-OSU.

That is 8 schools, enough to dissolve the conference. Sorry TTech and ISU.

I could live with that.

Another way to get 8 schools for dissolution:

Texas, Oklahoma, Baylor and TCU to the ACC for a total of 18 teams.

Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Kansas and West Virginia to the SEC (18 also).

Now there are no schools left that the Big Ten would be interested in. The ACC has shored up its football cred, while the SEC significantly improves in hoops. Combined they have all the major programs in Texas, while the SEC adds Oklahoma, Kansas and West Virginia to its footprint. ESPN is happy. The Big Ten is sad.

I prefer the 20 team ACC rather than the 18 just because 18 pretty much requires a 2 round conference championship tournament (3 division champs, 1 wild card). It would require a rule change with the NCAA and the presidents and ADs have shown a reluctance to lengthen the season. It just seems more far-fetched than 20 teams (I realize that ALL of this is far-fetched). 4 pods of 5 teams makes for nice, neat rotating divisions.

East – BC, Syracuse, Pitt, WV, Miami
Central – VT, UVa, UNC, Duke, Louisville
South – NCSU, WF, Clemson, FSU, GT
West – Texas, TCU, Baylor, OSU, Kansas State

I really like how the pods break out in this scenario – old Big East, old Big12 and 2 old ACCs (plus Louisville). I think Kansas might prefer the ACC over the SEC due to basketball, but putting them in the SEC gives the SEC some much needed basketball power along with OU and putting Kansas State in the ACC gives the ACC some much needed football power along with OSU and the Texas schools.

To be sure that I understand your concept, it appears that you propose that each year one pod will be paired with a second pod to form a division, and the teams in that division will play a full 9 game round robin. They will not play any teams in the other two pods. Each year, the pods will be paired differently on a rotating basis so that each pod will play the other pods once every three years, and will complete a home and home with everybody every six years. Is that correct?

So, in the two years out of three that the East is not paired with the South, FSU would have to play Miami OOC if they wish to continue that rivalry on an annual basis (like UNC and Wake Forest are doing now). In some years, then, FSU could have a nine game division schedule, plus Florida, Miami and Notre Dame OOC.

How would you schedule basketball, with 21 teams in the league? Since you would certainly need to preserve some home and home rivalries, it seems like you would have to skip playing some teams every year or you wouldn't have room for much of an OOC schedule. Or would you divide them into separate divisions that schedule almost as if they were different conferences entirely? That would make the most sense to me.

(05-07-2015 10:47 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-07-2015 10:09 AM)ren.hoek Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-07-2015 09:51 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-06-2015 05:16 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-06-2015 08:17 AM)ren.hoek Wrote: [ -> ]here's how it could work...

The ACC takes 6 from the Big12: Texas, TCU, Baylor, OSU, KState and WVU. ND keeps its 5 game deal with the ACC. The 5 team pods work out very neatly and logically. The ACC's footprint is monstrous and the ACCN will be a rou$ing success.

The SEC takes OU and KU, two highly desirable schools in two new states to the SEC. Basketball improves a good bit with this move.

New ACC-SEC matchups - Texas - aTm, KU-KSU, OU-OSU.

That is 8 schools, enough to dissolve the conference. Sorry TTech and ISU.

I could live with that.

Another way to get 8 schools for dissolution:

Texas, Oklahoma, Baylor and TCU to the ACC for a total of 18 teams.

Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Kansas and West Virginia to the SEC (18 also).

Now there are no schools left that the Big Ten would be interested in. The ACC has shored up its football cred, while the SEC significantly improves in hoops. Combined they have all the major programs in Texas, while the SEC adds Oklahoma, Kansas and West Virginia to its footprint. ESPN is happy. The Big Ten is sad.

I prefer the 20 team ACC rather than the 18 just because 18 pretty much requires a 2 round conference championship tournament (3 division champs, 1 wild card). It would require a rule change with the NCAA and the presidents and ADs have shown a reluctance to lengthen the season. It just seems more far-fetched than 20 teams (I realize that ALL of this is far-fetched). 4 pods of 5 teams makes for nice, neat rotating divisions.

East – BC, Syracuse, Pitt, WV, Miami
Central – VT, UVa, UNC, Duke, Louisville
South – NCSU, WF, Clemson, FSU, GT
West – Texas, TCU, Baylor, OSU, Kansas State

I really like how the pods break out in this scenario – old Big East, old Big12 and 2 old ACCs (plus Louisville). I think Kansas might prefer the ACC over the SEC due to basketball, but putting them in the SEC gives the SEC some much needed basketball power along with OU and putting Kansas State in the ACC gives the ACC some much needed football power along with OSU and the Texas schools.

To be sure that I understand your concept, it appears that you propose that each year one pod will be paired with a second pod to form a division, and the teams in that division will play a full 9 game round robin. They will not play any teams in the other two pods. Each year, the pods will be paired differently on a rotating basis so that each pod will play the other pods once every three years, and will complete a home and home with everybody every six years. Is that correct?

So, in the two years out of three that the East is not paired with the South, FSU would have to play Miami OOC if they wish to continue that rivalry on an annual basis (like UNC and Wake Forest are doing now). In some years, then, FSU could have a nine game division schedule, plus Florida, Miami and Notre Dame OOC.

How would you schedule basketball, with 21 teams in the league? Since you would certainly need to preserve some home and home rivalries, it seems like you would have to skip playing some teams every year or you wouldn't have room for much of an OOC schedule. Or would you divide them into separate divisions that schedule almost as if they were different conferences entirely? That would make the most sense to me.

The concept works, but those divisions do not. You can't split UNC and NC State and FSU-Miami.

You would want to go:

East – BC, Syracuse, Pitt, WV, Louisville
Central – VT, UVa, UNC, Duke, NCSU
South – Miami, WF, Clemson, FSU, GT
West – Texas, TCU, Baylor, OSU, Oklahoma

That is bad for Wake Forest. It just is. But it is perfect for everyone else, and no need for cross-division anything.

(05-07-2015 10:22 AM)Lou_C Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-07-2015 09:51 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-06-2015 05:16 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-06-2015 08:17 AM)ren.hoek Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-05-2015 11:50 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]I agreed with your view of N.D.'s relationship. And I was merely stating that should Texas or Oklahoma choose to leave it would be better for the remainder of the schools if they did it sooner and used their weight to leverage some of them a new home as well. The irony is that the closer they get to the end of the GOR the more precarious it becomes for the non brands. So essentially we assess their situation similarly. If one of the top two brands leaves, particularly Texas, it's over. I merely added that sooner would actually be better for the rest than later would be.

here's how it could work...

The ACC takes 6 from the Big12: Texas, TCU, Baylor, OSU, KState and WVU. ND keeps its 5 game deal with the ACC. The 5 team pods work out very neatly and logically. The ACC's footprint is monstrous and the ACCN will be a rou$ing success.

The SEC takes OU and KU, two highly desirable schools in two new states to the SEC. Basketball improves a good bit with this move.

New ACC-SEC matchups - Texas - aTm, KU-KSU, OU-OSU.

That is 8 schools, enough to dissolve the conference. Sorry TTech and ISU.

I could live with that.

Another way to get 8 schools for dissolution:

Texas, Oklahoma, Baylor and TCU to the ACC for a total of 18 teams.

Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Kansas and West Virginia to the SEC (18 also).

Now there are no schools left that the Big Ten would be interested in. The ACC has shored up its football cred, while the SEC significantly improves in hoops. Combined they have all the major programs in Texas, while the SEC adds Oklahoma, Kansas and West Virginia to its footprint. ESPN is happy. The Big Ten is sad.

Love that plan...then you add a round of conference semi-finals on home fields featuring division champs (3 divisions of 6) + a wild card.

You play 5 in your division every year, and 3 of the other 12. That is already an improvement (2x every 8 years) over how often the ACC/SEC sees cross division opponents now (2x every 12 years), BUT you could drop the home+home in consecutive years requirement, and cycle through all opponents in a four year career.

The thing is...that slate for the SEC, if you're an SEC fan, is mighty underwhelming and doesn't add a huge amount of population footprint...I'm guessing you might have to flip OU and OSU, although that ruins one of the main attractions, getting Texas-ATM going again last game of the year. If TX-OU becomes a non-conference game, any Texas-ATM game is going be occasional at best, like Clemson-UGA.

But that would be brilliant.

My thinking here is that the SEC doesn't need any more powerhouse programs. They have plenty already. By adding respectable but not dominant programs, you still allow the Alabamas of the league to pile up 11-12 win seasons and qualify for the CFP. As for footprint, the only avenue for the SEC to improve significantly here is to poach one NC and one VA school from the ACC. Since ESPN already controls all these properties, there is nothing in it for them. Between the two leagues they have all the footprint they're going to get.

(05-07-2015 10:54 AM)Lou_C Wrote: [ -> ]You would want to go:

East – BC, Syracuse, Pitt, WV, Louisville
Central – VT, UVa, UNC, Duke, NCSU
South – Miami, WF, Clemson, FSU, GT
West – Texas, TCU, Baylor, OSU, Oklahoma

That is bad for Wake Forest. It just is. But it is perfect for everyone else, and no need for cross-division anything.

Everything is going to be bad for Wake Forest. I've given up trying to think of ways to make that not be the case, but they all have a huge downside for the league.

(05-07-2015 10:54 AM)Lou_C Wrote: [ -> ]You would want to go:

East – BC, Syracuse, Pitt, WV, Louisville
Central – VT, UVa, UNC, Duke, NCSU
South – Miami, WF, Clemson, FSU, GT
West – Texas, TCU, Baylor, OSU, Oklahoma

That is bad for Wake Forest. It just is. But it is perfect for everyone else, and no need for cross-division anything.

There is one way to help Wake Forest here. One year out of three, the Deacons would get UNC, Duke and NC State in their division. If those three all agreed to schedule Wake OOC in the other two years, each of them would have ten games (five home, five away) locked in every year, while Wake would have all 12 games locked in two years out of three and 9 games locked in in the other. Wake would continue to get their butts kicked with regularity, but at least they would keep all their in state rivalries.

(05-07-2015 09:48 AM)Dasville Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-07-2015 08:45 AM)Lou_C Wrote: [ -> ]It's off the subject, but I think Texas would be insane to try to go independent in football. They're struggling against Texas A&M for mindshare right now, and I don't see it helping them one bit.

First, without the ability to play for a conference championship (13th) game, and no conference title to win, you're basically playing for pride after one loss. That's going to go over really well when they drop their opener.

Then you lose the conference eyeballs of Baylor, Texas Tech, TCU fans watching Texas for the conference standings.

You have to attract coaches that can't win division or conference titles, so they've got nothing to go on their resume but national championships.

You've got to play a national schedule to may independence pay, so you might raise your national profile, but you'll further concede Texas to the Aggies, who will presumably be in a conference chase well into the season while Texas is doing it's Rainbow Tour every year.

I think it would be disastrous for Texas to go that way. Independence is a cultural thing with Notre Dame that means enough to them to deal with it's downside. And the fact that ND is in Indiana, and has to recruit nationally, there is actually at least some benefit there, a benefit that doesn't really do anything for Texas.

I really think Texas' smarter play would be leveraging 1-2 additional Texas schools (and hopefully OU) into the ACC or PAC with them. So you have the advantages of playing in a conference, but that conference becomes a Texas conference. Even though the SEC > ACC, having 3 ACC schools in Texas, generating a fairly broad ACC presence in the state is the better counter to A&M's SEC mojo than going it alone. Basically, Texas going independent makes the SEC into THE only conference that matters in Texas. That would really be Texas shooting itself in the face.

This is a very compelling argument for Texas to join a conference.

What? Texas is already in a conference. haha

But as for LouC, that's the long version of me saying several times: "If Texas is going to join as a partial member, and the ACC would then be able to add OU, why wouldn't Texas just join as a full member and request/demand the ACC invite several other Big 12 schools as well?" (paraphrased)

(05-07-2015 10:22 AM)Lou_C Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-07-2015 09:51 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-06-2015 05:16 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-06-2015 08:17 AM)ren.hoek Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-05-2015 11:50 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]I agreed with your view of N.D.'s relationship. And I was merely stating that should Texas or Oklahoma choose to leave it would be better for the remainder of the schools if they did it sooner and used their weight to leverage some of them a new home as well. The irony is that the closer they get to the end of the GOR the more precarious it becomes for the non brands. So essentially we assess their situation similarly. If one of the top two brands leaves, particularly Texas, it's over. I merely added that sooner would actually be better for the rest than later would be.

here's how it could work...

The ACC takes 6 from the Big12: Texas, TCU, Baylor, OSU, KState and WVU. ND keeps its 5 game deal with the ACC. The 5 team pods work out very neatly and logically. The ACC's footprint is monstrous and the ACCN will be a rou$ing success.

The SEC takes OU and KU, two highly desirable schools in two new states to the SEC. Basketball improves a good bit with this move.

New ACC-SEC matchups - Texas - aTm, KU-KSU, OU-OSU.

That is 8 schools, enough to dissolve the conference. Sorry TTech and ISU.

I could live with that.

Another way to get 8 schools for dissolution:

Texas, Oklahoma, Baylor and TCU to the ACC for a total of 18 teams.

Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Kansas and West Virginia to the SEC (18 also).

Now there are no schools left that the Big Ten would be interested in. The ACC has shored up its football cred, while the SEC significantly improves in hoops. Combined they have all the major programs in Texas, while the SEC adds Oklahoma, Kansas and West Virginia to its footprint. ESPN is happy. The Big Ten is sad.

Love that plan...then you add a round of conference semi-finals on home fields featuring division champs (3 divisions of 6) + a wild card.

You play 5 in your division every year, and 3 of the other 12. That is already an improvement (2x every 8 years) over how often the ACC/SEC sees cross division opponents now (2x every 12 years), BUT you could drop the home+home in consecutive years requirement, and cycle through all opponents in a four year career.

The thing is...that slate for the SEC, if you're an SEC fan, is mighty underwhelming and doesn't add a huge amount of population footprint...I'm guessing you might have to flip OU and OSU, although that ruins one of the main attractions, getting Texas-ATM going again last game of the year. If TX-OU becomes a non-conference game, any Texas-ATM game is going be occasional at best, like Clemson-UGA.

But that would be brilliant.

Maybe flop Baylor and Kansas. I know the SEC would lose that basketball power, but it'd create another ACC/SEC rivalry with Mizzou, and keeps the UT/A&M game alive. And at least Baylor is good at basketball, if not great. The other option - TCU - doesn't have that (recent) success.

(05-07-2015 10:35 AM)Lou_C Wrote: [ -> ]So if the ACC and SEC both went to 20, that's 12 teams that would be added.

You could say that's the entire Big 12 + ND + ?. It sounds stupid, but I don't think Cincinnati is a ludicrous choice for the SEC. It's certainly not far-flung from the footprint, and it brings in a massive state, and good basketball.

So something like:

So to the ACC: TX, OU, KSU, TCU, ISU, ND
To the SEC: OSU, Kansas, Baylor, TT, WVU, Cinci

It's just hard to see the SEC getting real excited about that.

I can't say "No!" to Iowa State enough. No!

Give me UConn over Iowa State; 100% of the time. Iowa vs shoring up New England? Not a tough call.

(05-07-2015 11:06 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-07-2015 10:54 AM)Lou_C Wrote: [ -> ]You would want to go:

East – BC, Syracuse, Pitt, WV, Louisville
Central – VT, UVa, UNC, Duke, NCSU
South – Miami, WF, Clemson, FSU, GT
West – Texas, TCU, Baylor, OSU, Oklahoma

That is bad for Wake Forest. It just is. But it is perfect for everyone else, and no need for cross-division anything.

Everything is going to be bad for Wake Forest. I've given up trying to think of ways to make that not be the case, but they all have a huge downside for the league.

So you're proposing we "trade" Wake for Temple? Excellent idea. I vote in favor.

(05-07-2015 10:54 AM)Lou_C Wrote: [ -> ]You would want to go:

East – BC, Syracuse, Pitt, WV, Louisville
Central – VT, UVa, UNC, Duke, NCSU
South – Miami, WF, Clemson, FSU, GT
West – Texas, TCU, Baylor, OSU, Oklahoma

That is bad for Wake Forest. It just is. But it is perfect for everyone else, and no need for cross-division anything.

that's the best answer for 20. no need for cross pod permanent rivals. if anything, WF could play one NC school per year as an OOC game.

(05-07-2015 11:44 AM)ren.hoek Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-07-2015 10:54 AM)Lou_C Wrote: [ -> ]You would want to go:

East – BC, Syracuse, Pitt, WV, Louisville
Central – VT, UVa, UNC, Duke, NCSU
South – Miami, WF, Clemson, FSU, GT
West – Texas, TCU, Baylor, OSU, Oklahoma

That is bad for Wake Forest. It just is. But it is perfect for everyone else, and no need for cross-division anything.

that's the best answer for 20. no need for cross pod permanent rivals. if anything, WF could play one NC school per year as an OOC game.

See my post #210. That lets all the Tobacco Road schools play each other every year. It's not like any of them are likely CFP candidates anyway, so they might as well go for what helps fill their stadiums. Wake may not have a lot of fans, but they have enough to help the other three sell out.

(05-07-2015 10:54 AM)Lou_C Wrote: [ -> ]You would want to go:

East – BC, Syracuse, Pitt, WV, Louisville
Central – VT, UVa, UNC, Duke, NCSU
South – Miami, WF, Clemson, FSU, GT
West – Texas, TCU, Baylor, OSU, Oklahoma

That is bad for Wake Forest. It just is. But it is perfect for everyone else, and no need for cross-division anything.

The biggest problem I see with this is that it basically leaves the SEC with Kansas and Texas Tech. ESPN may be OK with this, but I doubt the SEC would. And if the SEC doesn't feel like they get something worthwhile out of the deal, it doesn't happen unless the Big Ten agrees to take Kansas and one other B12 team to get to the magic number to dissolve the B12. Who is that other team?

I would love to see Texas in the ACC. The Cowboys play in the NFC East and they do pretty good. The question is, would it make Texas fans sick though? And would they make enough money being TEXAS?

(05-07-2015 11:39 AM)Marge Schott Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-07-2015 10:35 AM)Lou_C Wrote: [ -> ]So if the ACC and SEC both went to 20, that's 12 teams that would be added.

You could say that's the entire Big 12 + ND + ?. It sounds stupid, but I don't think Cincinnati is a ludicrous choice for the SEC. It's certainly not far-flung from the footprint, and it brings in a massive state, and good basketball.

So something like:

So to the ACC: TX, OU, KSU, TCU, ISU, ND
To the SEC: OSU, Kansas, Baylor, TT, WVU, Cinci

It's just hard to see the SEC getting real excited about that.

I can't say "No!" to Iowa State enough. No!

Give me UConn over Iowa State; 100% of the time. Iowa vs shoring up New England? Not a tough call.

I don't disagree...but if the premise is that ALL the Big 12 teams need a home, NOBODY is going to want ISU. My premise is that the conference that gets UT and OU...they'd be the ones to take that hit.

(05-07-2015 01:25 PM)44AndThe23 Wrote: [ -> ]I would love to see Texas in the ACC. The Cowboys play in the NFC East and they do pretty good. The question is, would it make Texas fans sick though? And would they make enough money being TEXAS?

Good point. Welcome to the board 44and23