CSNbbs

(09-28-2017 04:57 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-28-2017 02:11 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-28-2017 12:51 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting exercise JR, you have the right string, but the wrong yo-yo.

I think you are more likely to see: 12-18-18-12.

In the west the PAC will remain the same.
In the east you will find a conference of privates and small publics:
Northwestern, Notre Dame, Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College and UConn
Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Wake Forest, Duke and UVa.

The SEC will have 18....your 13 plus Florida State, Texas, Oklahoma and 2 more (West Virginia, Louisville, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech)
The B1G will have their 13 plus Carolina, NC State, Virginia Tech, Missouri and Kansas

We'll take Clemson too, and then one of those from the bracket grouping. Besides maybe Rice or Vanderbilt joins that private grouping.

Our ideal 18 would Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State and Clemson, and if w should be minus Vanderbilt then we would consider one of the others.

I'll bet you a dollar vs. a doughnut you're wrong.
The folks at Clemson aren't that stupid. There is enough good football in that 12 conference league to have good SOS and a few premier games, plus they would still get South Carolina every year and Auburn every two or three, throw in Georgia every 5 years and they are good to go. The rest of their athletic department sans baseball couldn't stand up vs top SEC competition.

Use some common sense! Content will drive contract valuations and Clemson already suffers from a bunch of small privates with minuscule venues. Yeah right! Only an ACC mind would think otherwise since it is the delusion you've forced others to live with. Without being in a conference with the Heels Clemson's butt would be out of there faster than you could blink.

(09-28-2017 04:57 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-28-2017 02:11 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-28-2017 12:51 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting exercise JR, you have the right string, but the wrong yo-yo.

I think you are more likely to see: 12-18-18-12.

In the west the PAC will remain the same.
In the east you will find a conference of privates and small publics:
Northwestern, Notre Dame, Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College and UConn
Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Wake Forest, Duke and UVa.

The SEC will have 18....your 13 plus Florida State, Texas, Oklahoma and 2 more (West Virginia, Louisville, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech)
The B1G will have their 13 plus Carolina, NC State, Virginia Tech, Missouri and Kansas

We'll take Clemson too, and then one of those from the bracket grouping. Besides maybe Rice or Vanderbilt joins that private grouping.

Our ideal 18 would Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State and Clemson, and if w should be minus Vanderbilt then we would consider one of the others.

I'll bet you a dollar vs. a doughnut you're wrong.
The folks at Clemson aren't that stupid. There is enough good football in that 12 conference league to have good SOS and a few premier games, plus they would still get South Carolina every year and Auburn every two or three, throw in Georgia every 5 years and they are good to go. The rest of their athletic department sans baseball couldn't stand up vs top SEC competition.

Clemson never seemed like they wanted to move to the sec unless forced to. I think FSU is more inclined to switch over.

Anyways, there was a mention of expanding to 20.... I would go with OU, Texas, Kansas Wezt Virginia, then wait until ACC schools are available and grab FSU and VT.

(09-28-2017 09:57 AM)BePcr07 Wrote: [ -> ]3x20 has potential. What I would propose is a 3x20 + 1x25. Should there be a split, any anti-trust matters could be resolved by including a large, inclusive lesser power conference.

For scheduling a 20-school conference, I like the idea of 7 annual rivals + 3 other conference games. This gets a schedule to 10 conference games and you see everyone every 4 years.

For scheduling a 25-school conference, I like the idea of 4 annual rivals + 5 other conference games. This gets a schedule to 9 conference games and you see everyone every 4 years.

Conferences (splits are alphabetical, not divisional)

SEC
Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Clemson, Florida
Florida St, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Kentucky, LSU
Miami, Mississippi, Mississippi St, North Carolina St, South Carolina
Tennessee, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

B1G
Boston College, Duke, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa
Maryland, Michigan, Michigan St, Minnesota, North Carolina
Northwestern, Notre Dame, Ohio St, Penn St, Pittsburgh
Purdue, Rutgers, Syracuse, Virginia, Wisconsin

PAC
Arizona, Arizona St, California, Colorado, Kansas
Kansas St, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St
Oregon, Oregon St, Stanford, Texas, Texas Tech
UCLA, USC, Utah, Washington, Washington St

AAC
Air Force, Army, Baylor, Boise St, BYU
Central Florida, Cincinnati, Colorado St, Connecticut, East Carolina
Houston, Iowa St, Louisville, Memphis, Navy
New Mexico, San Diego St, SMU, South Florida, TCU
Temple, Tulane, Tulsa, UNLV, Wake Forest

I like your idea of including the AAC in the breakaway plan. Problems are:

JRSEC is right in that the academies would find it problematic competing even against G-level programs. Fortunately, there are programs that could step in to take their place. Also, regional and rivalry matches in division will still be factors.

SEC
Vanderbilt, Georgia, South Carolina, Clemson, Florida
Florida St, North Carolina State, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, Miami,
Tennessee, Auburn, Alabama, Kentucky, West Virginia
LSU, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Mississippi, Mississippi State

B1G
Boston College, Rutgers, Penn State, Pitt, Syracuse
Maryland, UNC, Duke, Virginia, Notre Dame
Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Northwestern, Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Purdue

PAC
Washington, Oregon, Stanford, USC, Arizona State
Oregon State, Washington State, Cal, UCLA, Arizona
Utah, Colorado, Texas Tech, Texas, Iowa State
Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Nebraska, Missouri

AAC
San Diego State, UNLV, Boise State, BYU, New Mexico
Colorado State, Wyoming, Utah State, Fresno State, Kansas State
TCU, Baylor, Houston, Memphis, Louisville
Central Florida, South Florida, East Carolina, Tulane, Wake Forest
Connecticut, Cincinnati, Temple, SMU, Tulsa

(09-28-2017 04:28 PM)murrdcu Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-27-2017 09:16 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]If we're picking 4 from the Big 12 then I think it's got to be those 4 and this is one of the reasons. It should help Mizzou blend in. And I'm not sure that KU's taking football more seriously isn't an effort to market itself to the SEC specifically.

With three SEC additions to the west, adding more schools from that region almost feels like a requirement. With Boren stepping down , OU might be more willing to move without OSU. Assuming that happens, it would be really fun to see how the presidents and the conference decide who should be added between Kansas and West Virginia. I'm guessing the academics of Kansas would push that vote right through. TV partners will push the other way.

I think it's possible OU could move without OSU, but I don't know that the state politicians would allow them to do so. It may not be so much about Boren.

I like those 4 in part because of the quality of what they bring.

I do think WVU instead of OSU makes sense from a market penetration standpoint, but I don't know that we'll get that opportunity.

(09-28-2017 08:18 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-28-2017 04:28 PM)murrdcu Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-27-2017 09:16 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]If we're picking 4 from the Big 12 then I think it's got to be those 4 and this is one of the reasons. It should help Mizzou blend in. And I'm not sure that KU's taking football more seriously isn't an effort to market itself to the SEC specifically.

With three SEC additions to the west, adding more schools from that region almost feels like a requirement. With Boren stepping down , OU might be more willing to move without OSU. Assuming that happens, it would be really fun to see how the presidents and the conference decide who should be added between Kansas and West Virginia. I'm guessing the academics of Kansas would push that vote right through. TV partners will push the other way.

I think it's possible OU could move without OSU, but I don't know that the state politicians would allow them to do so. It may not be so much about Boren.

I like those 4 in part because of the quality of what they bring.

I do think WVU instead of OSU makes sense from a market penetration standpoint, but I don't know that we'll get that opportunity.

There would be more than just Oklahoma politicians getting involved in some of these scenarios.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk