The PAC 12 and Big 12 contracts will end about the same time which means their respective GOR agreements will end about the same time. We've covered all that before, but what if there's a wrinkle to this reality we haven't really considered?
I'm not talking about some sort of merger between the 2 leagues or large scale expansion by the PAC as I don't think that works too well. I don't see the B1G raiding the PAC except for maybe Colorado under the right circumstances.
1. But what if both leagues decide to essentially dissolve as their GOR deals are ending?
2. What if the path to survival for the PAC runs through a completely new governance structure?
Currently, the PAC is on the hook for a poorly performing network in an economic climate that doesn't favor linear networks. Would ESPN or FOX buy it? Would it be worth the trouble or would there be an easier way to get the content you really want?
In addition, you have Larry Scott and other key leaders running roughshod over the books of the league. They're spending entirely too much money on unneeded services and assets. How easy would it be to get rid of that structure when it appears to be entrenched?
So how about this?
What if ESPN encouraged certain properties from the PAC to abandon ship and form a new league alongside Texas? Let me lay it out...
What are the truly valuable properties from the PAC that bring quality content in multiple sports: Washington, Oregon, UCLA, USC, Stanford, California, Arizona, and Arizona State. I'm going to throw in Colorado here just because the market is strong even though the content never is.
What if these 9 schools teamed up with Texas, Texas Tech, and TCU?
1. The LHN could be used to build a conference network and ESPN wouldn't have to invest anything in buying a property like the PAC Network.
2. A 12-team league with strong markets may provide good solid media payments as there aren't a ton of quality programs in this region of the country.
So at this point, ESPN would own every quality product in the West.
Here's another reason I propose this notion:
What if Oklahoma and Kansas are the ones that bolt for the SEC? It's a good strategic move for everyone and blocks the Big Ten from moving into the region. It's also good for every party that's interested in keeping the SEC from becoming too strong.
In this scenario, Texas doesn't have to follow A&M and they also get to keep a few more local schools on the schedule. An annual game between Texas and Oklahoma will still be played, of course. A&M doesn't want to play Texas right now so they can just keep playing in-conference against LSU. Mizzou and Kansas can be renewed while Arkansas and Oklahoma can match up the last weekend of the season.
There's another ancillary benefit here. The leftovers of the Big 12 and PAC 12 and probably a few Mountain West schools can form a pretty solid league. That's more good content covering that region of the country and ESPN can probably obtain that as well.
(12-24-2018 06:15 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]The PAC 12 and Big 12 contracts will end about the same time which means their respective GOR agreements will end about the same time. We've covered all that before, but what if there's a wrinkle to this reality we haven't really considered?
I'm not talking about some sort of merger between the 2 leagues or large scale expansion by the PAC as I don't think that works too well. I don't see the B1G raiding the PAC except for maybe Colorado under the right circumstances.
1. But what if both leagues decide to essentially dissolve as their GOR deals are ending?
2. What if the path to survival for the PAC runs through a completely new governance structure?
Currently, the PAC is on the hook for a poorly performing network in an economic climate that doesn't favor linear networks. Would ESPN or FOX buy it? Would it be worth the trouble or would there be an easier way to get the content you really want?
In addition, you have Larry Scott and other key leaders running roughshod over the books of the league. They're spending entirely too much money on unneeded services and assets. How easy would it be to get rid of that structure when it appears to be entrenched?
So how about this?
What if ESPN encouraged certain properties from the PAC to abandon ship and form a new league alongside Texas? Let me lay it out...
What are the truly valuable properties from the PAC that bring quality content in multiple sports: Washington, Oregon, UCLA, USC, Stanford, California, Arizona, and Arizona State. I'm going to throw in Colorado here just because the market is strong even though the content never is.
What if these 9 schools teamed up with Texas, Texas Tech, and TCU?
1. The LHN could be used to build a conference network and ESPN wouldn't have to invest anything in buying a property like the PAC Network.
2. A 12-team league with strong markets may provide good solid media payments as there aren't a ton of quality programs in this region of the country.
So at this point, ESPN would own every quality product in the West.
Here's another reason I propose this notion:
What if Oklahoma and Kansas are the ones that bolt for the SEC? It's a good strategic move for everyone and blocks the Big Ten from moving into the region. It's also good for every party that's interested in keeping the SEC from becoming too strong.
In this scenario, Texas doesn't have to follow A&M and they also get to keep a few more local schools on the schedule. An annual game between Texas and Oklahoma will still be played, of course. A&M doesn't want to play Texas right now so they can just keep playing in-conference against LSU. Mizzou and Kansas can be renewed while Arkansas and Oklahoma can match up the last weekend of the season.
There's another ancillary benefit here. The leftovers of the Big 12 and PAC 12 and probably a few Mountain West schools can form a pretty solid league. That's more good content covering that region of the country and ESPN can probably obtain that as well.
I don't think we would get anyone from the Big 12 if they merged in some fashion with the PAC.
Now if we struck first for Kansas and Oklahoma then maybe this could happen with Texas leading the contingent. But if Texas moves first to the PAC there is a high degree of probability that Oklahoma and Kansas go with them.
I'm also curious about the "little brothers" especially OK State. No way the PAC takes them without OK, and so OK State gets left behind even in a reformed MWC.
Makes scheduling hard for OK too.
I do like the idea of both the MWC and the AAC surviving as top G5/lower power conferences.
(12-26-2018 09:09 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm also curious about the "little brothers" especially OK State. No way the PAC takes them without OK, and so OK State gets left behind even in a reformed MWC.
Makes scheduling hard for OK too.
I do like the idea of both the MWC and the AAC surviving as top G5/lower power conferences.
The PAC can’t be too picky. They’ll fall way behind doing so.
(12-26-2018 12:48 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (12-24-2018 06:15 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]The PAC 12 and Big 12 contracts will end about the same time which means their respective GOR agreements will end about the same time. We've covered all that before, but what if there's a wrinkle to this reality we haven't really considered?
I'm not talking about some sort of merger between the 2 leagues or large scale expansion by the PAC as I don't think that works too well. I don't see the B1G raiding the PAC except for maybe Colorado under the right circumstances.
1. But what if both leagues decide to essentially dissolve as their GOR deals are ending?
2. What if the path to survival for the PAC runs through a completely new governance structure?
Currently, the PAC is on the hook for a poorly performing network in an economic climate that doesn't favor linear networks. Would ESPN or FOX buy it? Would it be worth the trouble or would there be an easier way to get the content you really want?
In addition, you have Larry Scott and other key leaders running roughshod over the books of the league. They're spending entirely too much money on unneeded services and assets. How easy would it be to get rid of that structure when it appears to be entrenched?
So how about this?
What if ESPN encouraged certain properties from the PAC to abandon ship and form a new league alongside Texas? Let me lay it out...
What are the truly valuable properties from the PAC that bring quality content in multiple sports: Washington, Oregon, UCLA, USC, Stanford, California, Arizona, and Arizona State. I'm going to throw in Colorado here just because the market is strong even though the content never is.
What if these 9 schools teamed up with Texas, Texas Tech, and TCU?
1. The LHN could be used to build a conference network and ESPN wouldn't have to invest anything in buying a property like the PAC Network.
2. A 12-team league with strong markets may provide good solid media payments as there aren't a ton of quality programs in this region of the country.
So at this point, ESPN would own every quality product in the West.
Here's another reason I propose this notion:
What if Oklahoma and Kansas are the ones that bolt for the SEC? It's a good strategic move for everyone and blocks the Big Ten from moving into the region. It's also good for every party that's interested in keeping the SEC from becoming too strong.
In this scenario, Texas doesn't have to follow A&M and they also get to keep a few more local schools on the schedule. An annual game between Texas and Oklahoma will still be played, of course. A&M doesn't want to play Texas right now so they can just keep playing in-conference against LSU. Mizzou and Kansas can be renewed while Arkansas and Oklahoma can match up the last weekend of the season.
There's another ancillary benefit here. The leftovers of the Big 12 and PAC 12 and probably a few Mountain West schools can form a pretty solid league. That's more good content covering that region of the country and ESPN can probably obtain that as well.
I don't think we would get anyone from the Big 12 if they merged in some fashion with the PAC.
Now if we struck first for Kansas and Oklahoma then maybe this could happen with Texas leading the contingent. But if Texas moves first to the PAC there is a high degree of probability that Oklahoma and Kansas go with them.
That was actually my thought. I just didn't phrase it correctly.
I think the SEC would be satisfied with Oklahoma and Kansas. At that point, Texas might prefer a scenario where they play a few more in-state schools. If we cut off the Big Ten in the region then we can get something quality out of the deal while simultaneously giving rise to a more stable Western league. I think the networks would probably be happy with that.
The B1G is already stable long term. The SEC is fine too, but might be in a better position to add quality schools. The PAC has issues, however, and their only hope is Texas. I'm not sure they would take a lot of the regional powers of the Big 12 if both Texas and Oklahoma were headed East. They should be willing to lower their standards a little, but history would suggest they're too stubborn for that. Of course, that probably precludes the notion that they would allow the PAC 12 to dissolve, but that's the only way I could see some of those schools catching up...to trim the fat while not growing as large as some of the others.
(12-26-2018 03:26 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ] (12-26-2018 12:48 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (12-24-2018 06:15 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]The PAC 12 and Big 12 contracts will end about the same time which means their respective GOR agreements will end about the same time. We've covered all that before, but what if there's a wrinkle to this reality we haven't really considered?
I'm not talking about some sort of merger between the 2 leagues or large scale expansion by the PAC as I don't think that works too well. I don't see the B1G raiding the PAC except for maybe Colorado under the right circumstances.
1. But what if both leagues decide to essentially dissolve as their GOR deals are ending?
2. What if the path to survival for the PAC runs through a completely new governance structure?
Currently, the PAC is on the hook for a poorly performing network in an economic climate that doesn't favor linear networks. Would ESPN or FOX buy it? Would it be worth the trouble or would there be an easier way to get the content you really want?
In addition, you have Larry Scott and other key leaders running roughshod over the books of the league. They're spending entirely too much money on unneeded services and assets. How easy would it be to get rid of that structure when it appears to be entrenched?
So how about this?
What if ESPN encouraged certain properties from the PAC to abandon ship and form a new league alongside Texas? Let me lay it out...
What are the truly valuable properties from the PAC that bring quality content in multiple sports: Washington, Oregon, UCLA, USC, Stanford, California, Arizona, and Arizona State. I'm going to throw in Colorado here just because the market is strong even though the content never is.
What if these 9 schools teamed up with Texas, Texas Tech, and TCU?
1. The LHN could be used to build a conference network and ESPN wouldn't have to invest anything in buying a property like the PAC Network.
2. A 12-team league with strong markets may provide good solid media payments as there aren't a ton of quality programs in this region of the country.
So at this point, ESPN would own every quality product in the West.
Here's another reason I propose this notion:
What if Oklahoma and Kansas are the ones that bolt for the SEC? It's a good strategic move for everyone and blocks the Big Ten from moving into the region. It's also good for every party that's interested in keeping the SEC from becoming too strong.
In this scenario, Texas doesn't have to follow A&M and they also get to keep a few more local schools on the schedule. An annual game between Texas and Oklahoma will still be played, of course. A&M doesn't want to play Texas right now so they can just keep playing in-conference against LSU. Mizzou and Kansas can be renewed while Arkansas and Oklahoma can match up the last weekend of the season.
There's another ancillary benefit here. The leftovers of the Big 12 and PAC 12 and probably a few Mountain West schools can form a pretty solid league. That's more good content covering that region of the country and ESPN can probably obtain that as well.
I don't think we would get anyone from the Big 12 if they merged in some fashion with the PAC.
Now if we struck first for Kansas and Oklahoma then maybe this could happen with Texas leading the contingent. But if Texas moves first to the PAC there is a high degree of probability that Oklahoma and Kansas go with them.
That was actually my thought. I just didn't phrase it correctly.
I think the SEC would be satisfied with Oklahoma and Kansas. At that point, Texas might prefer a scenario where they play a few more in-state schools. If we cut off the Big Ten in the region then we can get something quality out of the deal while simultaneously giving rise to a more stable Western league. I think the networks would probably be happy with that.
The B1G is already stable long term. The SEC is fine too, but might be in a better position to add quality schools. The PAC has issues, however, and their only hope is Texas. I'm not sure they would take a lot of the regional powers of the Big 12 if both Texas and Oklahoma were headed East. They should be willing to lower their standards a little, but history would suggest they're too stubborn for that. Of course, that probably precludes the notion that they would allow the PAC 12 to dissolve, but that's the only way I could see some of those schools catching up...to trim the fat while not growing as large as some of the others.
What if the SEC and PAC divided up 8 of the Big 12 schools?
Texas, Texas Tech, Kansas State, and T.C.U.. KState's administration has been friendly to Austin over their Big 12 years. T.C.U.'s main campus is not influenced by their seminary.
The SEC could pick up Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa State (which helps us in the Chicago market when paired with Missouri and Kansas), and West Virginia.
The problem is OSU is out along with Baylor. I just don't see Houston or Rice getting a promotion. And DFW would be important to the PAC as a demographic and for ease of travel.
I'm not saying it is perfect but it would definitely help the SEC's emerging 3 divisions to become more geographically suitable.
Alabama, Auburn, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia
Arkansas, Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M
(12-26-2018 03:41 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (12-26-2018 03:26 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ] (12-26-2018 12:48 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (12-24-2018 06:15 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]The PAC 12 and Big 12 contracts will end about the same time which means their respective GOR agreements will end about the same time. We've covered all that before, but what if there's a wrinkle to this reality we haven't really considered?
I'm not talking about some sort of merger between the 2 leagues or large scale expansion by the PAC as I don't think that works too well. I don't see the B1G raiding the PAC except for maybe Colorado under the right circumstances.
1. But what if both leagues decide to essentially dissolve as their GOR deals are ending?
2. What if the path to survival for the PAC runs through a completely new governance structure?
Currently, the PAC is on the hook for a poorly performing network in an economic climate that doesn't favor linear networks. Would ESPN or FOX buy it? Would it be worth the trouble or would there be an easier way to get the content you really want?
In addition, you have Larry Scott and other key leaders running roughshod over the books of the league. They're spending entirely too much money on unneeded services and assets. How easy would it be to get rid of that structure when it appears to be entrenched?
So how about this?
What if ESPN encouraged certain properties from the PAC to abandon ship and form a new league alongside Texas? Let me lay it out...
What are the truly valuable properties from the PAC that bring quality content in multiple sports: Washington, Oregon, UCLA, USC, Stanford, California, Arizona, and Arizona State. I'm going to throw in Colorado here just because the market is strong even though the content never is.
What if these 9 schools teamed up with Texas, Texas Tech, and TCU?
1. The LHN could be used to build a conference network and ESPN wouldn't have to invest anything in buying a property like the PAC Network.
2. A 12-team league with strong markets may provide good solid media payments as there aren't a ton of quality programs in this region of the country.
So at this point, ESPN would own every quality product in the West.
Here's another reason I propose this notion:
What if Oklahoma and Kansas are the ones that bolt for the SEC? It's a good strategic move for everyone and blocks the Big Ten from moving into the region. It's also good for every party that's interested in keeping the SEC from becoming too strong.
In this scenario, Texas doesn't have to follow A&M and they also get to keep a few more local schools on the schedule. An annual game between Texas and Oklahoma will still be played, of course. A&M doesn't want to play Texas right now so they can just keep playing in-conference against LSU. Mizzou and Kansas can be renewed while Arkansas and Oklahoma can match up the last weekend of the season.
There's another ancillary benefit here. The leftovers of the Big 12 and PAC 12 and probably a few Mountain West schools can form a pretty solid league. That's more good content covering that region of the country and ESPN can probably obtain that as well.
I don't think we would get anyone from the Big 12 if they merged in some fashion with the PAC.
Now if we struck first for Kansas and Oklahoma then maybe this could happen with Texas leading the contingent. But if Texas moves first to the PAC there is a high degree of probability that Oklahoma and Kansas go with them.
That was actually my thought. I just didn't phrase it correctly.
I think the SEC would be satisfied with Oklahoma and Kansas. At that point, Texas might prefer a scenario where they play a few more in-state schools. If we cut off the Big Ten in the region then we can get something quality out of the deal while simultaneously giving rise to a more stable Western league. I think the networks would probably be happy with that.
The B1G is already stable long term. The SEC is fine too, but might be in a better position to add quality schools. The PAC has issues, however, and their only hope is Texas. I'm not sure they would take a lot of the regional powers of the Big 12 if both Texas and Oklahoma were headed East. They should be willing to lower their standards a little, but history would suggest they're too stubborn for that. Of course, that probably precludes the notion that they would allow the PAC 12 to dissolve, but that's the only way I could see some of those schools catching up...to trim the fat while not growing as large as some of the others.
What if the SEC and PAC divided up 8 of the Big 12 schools?
Texas, Texas Tech, Kansas State, and T.C.U.. KState's administration has been friendly to Austin over their Big 12 years. T.C.U.'s main campus is not influenced by their seminary.
The SEC could pick up Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa State (which helps us in the Chicago market when paired with Missouri and Kansas), and West Virginia.
The problem is OSU is out along with Baylor. I just don't see Houston or Rice getting a promotion. And DFW would be important to the PAC as a demographic and for ease of travel.
I'm not saying it is perfect but it would definitely help the SEC's emerging 3 divisions to become more geographically suitable.
Alabama, Auburn, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia
Arkansas, Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M
I know Oklahoma State is considered a great academic addition but the PAC might get better ratings from Texahoma games by adding OSU and letting Colorado go to the B1G.
I hope I never see the day where A&M joined the SEC only to get stuck in a reconstituted Big 8 division. Half the reason we wanted out of the B12 was our fan base hated all the games against the Midwest schools.
(12-27-2018 08:57 PM)10thMountain Wrote: [ -> ]I hope I never see the day where A&M joined the SEC only to get stuck in a reconstituted Big 8 division. Half the reason we wanted out of the B12 was our fan base hated all the games against the Midwest schools.
I'd be surprised if we went to 3 divisions because I think the scheduling would be more difficult. And I think at the very least that A&M will always be in a division with Arkansas and LSU.
I wouldn't be shocked to see us expand a little more into the Midwest, but if we go beyond 16 then I think the divisional structure will get pretty creative.
(12-27-2018 10:49 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ] (12-27-2018 08:57 PM)10thMountain Wrote: [ -> ]I hope I never see the day where A&M joined the SEC only to get stuck in a reconstituted Big 8 division. Half the reason we wanted out of the B12 was our fan base hated all the games against the Midwest schools.
I'd be surprised if we went to 3 divisions because I think the scheduling would be more difficult. And I think at the very least that A&M will always be in a division with Arkansas and LSU.
I wouldn't be shocked to see us expand a little more into the Midwest, but if we go beyond 16 then I think the divisional structure will get pretty creative.
The best addition to 16 without Texas would be Kansas and Oklahoma. Move Auburn and Alabama to the East and you would have your two divisions of 8:
Arkansas, Kansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
(12-27-2018 11:03 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (12-27-2018 10:49 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ] (12-27-2018 08:57 PM)10thMountain Wrote: [ -> ]I hope I never see the day where A&M joined the SEC only to get stuck in a reconstituted Big 8 division. Half the reason we wanted out of the B12 was our fan base hated all the games against the Midwest schools.
I'd be surprised if we went to 3 divisions because I think the scheduling would be more difficult. And I think at the very least that A&M will always be in a division with Arkansas and LSU.
I wouldn't be shocked to see us expand a little more into the Midwest, but if we go beyond 16 then I think the divisional structure will get pretty creative.
The best addition to 16 without Texas would be Kansas and Oklahoma. Move Auburn and Alabama to the East and you would have your two divisions of 8:
Arkansas, Kansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Geographically, yes, that is the best route. But the puts the balance of power heavily in the East. I understand talent fluctuates but that much?
(12-27-2018 11:20 PM)BePcr07 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-27-2018 11:03 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (12-27-2018 10:49 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ] (12-27-2018 08:57 PM)10thMountain Wrote: [ -> ]I hope I never see the day where A&M joined the SEC only to get stuck in a reconstituted Big 8 division. Half the reason we wanted out of the B12 was our fan base hated all the games against the Midwest schools.
I'd be surprised if we went to 3 divisions because I think the scheduling would be more difficult. And I think at the very least that A&M will always be in a division with Arkansas and LSU.
I wouldn't be shocked to see us expand a little more into the Midwest, but if we go beyond 16 then I think the divisional structure will get pretty creative.
The best addition to 16 without Texas would be Kansas and Oklahoma. Move Auburn and Alabama to the East and you would have your two divisions of 8:
Arkansas, Kansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Geographically, yes, that is the best route. But the puts the balance of power heavily in the East. I understand talent fluctuates but that much?
It looks that way because Georgia is up right now. But in reality the power in the East would be in order Alabama, Georgia, Auburn, Florida. The power in the West would be Oklahoma, L.S.U., Texas A&M and Mississippi State. If you look at what they've done those match up pretty well.
(12-27-2018 11:37 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (12-27-2018 11:20 PM)BePcr07 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-27-2018 11:03 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (12-27-2018 10:49 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ] (12-27-2018 08:57 PM)10thMountain Wrote: [ -> ]I hope I never see the day where A&M joined the SEC only to get stuck in a reconstituted Big 8 division. Half the reason we wanted out of the B12 was our fan base hated all the games against the Midwest schools.
I'd be surprised if we went to 3 divisions because I think the scheduling would be more difficult. And I think at the very least that A&M will always be in a division with Arkansas and LSU.
I wouldn't be shocked to see us expand a little more into the Midwest, but if we go beyond 16 then I think the divisional structure will get pretty creative.
The best addition to 16 without Texas would be Kansas and Oklahoma. Move Auburn and Alabama to the East and you would have your two divisions of 8:
Arkansas, Kansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Geographically, yes, that is the best route. But the puts the balance of power heavily in the East. I understand talent fluctuates but that much?
It looks that way because Georgia is up right now. But in reality the power in the East would be in order Alabama, Georgia, Auburn, Florida. The power in the West would be Oklahoma, L.S.U., Texas A&M and Mississippi State. If you look at what they've done those match up pretty well.
Not sure MS State fits that power scenario. I think the fourth spot would always be transitional.
(12-28-2018 12:37 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote: [ -> ] (12-27-2018 11:37 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (12-27-2018 11:20 PM)BePcr07 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-27-2018 11:03 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (12-27-2018 10:49 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]I'd be surprised if we went to 3 divisions because I think the scheduling would be more difficult. And I think at the very least that A&M will always be in a division with Arkansas and LSU.
I wouldn't be shocked to see us expand a little more into the Midwest, but if we go beyond 16 then I think the divisional structure will get pretty creative.
The best addition to 16 without Texas would be Kansas and Oklahoma. Move Auburn and Alabama to the East and you would have your two divisions of 8:
Arkansas, Kansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Geographically, yes, that is the best route. But the puts the balance of power heavily in the East. I understand talent fluctuates but that much?
It looks that way because Georgia is up right now. But in reality the power in the East would be in order Alabama, Georgia, Auburn, Florida. The power in the West would be Oklahoma, L.S.U., Texas A&M and Mississippi State. If you look at what they've done those match up pretty well.
Not sure MS State fits that power scenario. I think the fourth spot would always be transitional.
Same's true of Florida. It is a transitional spot. I just listed them for this year. Missouri and Ole Miss could just as easily be there. Same's true in the East with Tennessee and South Carolina.
why wouldn't any league want to go to a single set of standings and lock in 3-4 rivals and play the rest of the league in some sort of rotating fashion. That rotating fashion could be playing 2 out of every 4 years and some even 2 out of 6 years, depending on the size of the league and whether they play 8, 9 or 10 games maybe even 2 out of 8 years for some non-important matchups. Then you simply have the top 2 teams in the standings play for the CCG or even 4 if the conference finals are expanded to 4 teams although I really hope we don't see that unless there is only 4 Power leagues.