Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
SuperFlyBCat Offline
Banned

Posts: 49,583
Joined: Mar 2005
I Root For: America and UC
Location: Cincinnati
Post: #621
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(07-08-2014 03:18 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  Since a part of Cincinnati is in Kentucky wouldn't the SEC already get the full SECN rate in the Cincinnati DMA? If so that would reduce UC value to the SEC some, though adding them would give some negotiating power for the rest of Ohio, but how much? I think the B12 or ACC are UC's best hopes. UC would have the most value to those conferences and would be able to compete better there.

I feel for Cincinnati (UConn, BYU, and many others as well) because it has to be extremely frustrating to be on the cusp of a power conference invite (and having lost a power conference spot previously in some cases) at this uncertain and perilous period in realignment. If I was them I'd be praying for 5x16 or 4x20 (top 80 schools) like JRSec mentioned. I'd hope that the new division or breakaway doesn't require power conference membership, but instead certain metrics that need to be met (attendance, revenue, etc.) and a willingness to pay the extra expenses likely to be involved going forward (stipends, full cost of attendance, etc.).

The SEC has the strongest TV viewership in the Country, planting a flag in a new market like Ohio would open that up even more. A&M tv ratings since entering the SEC are much better than what Texas is getting, even in Texas. In SW Ohio it would be interesting to know who draws better....
in the same time slots, comparing similar ranked Big and SEC matchups?

Even prior to the dominance of ESPN programming, the local multimedia Cincinnati station (either 19 or 64) carried the Jefferson Pilot SEC games...going back to the 1980's. I am just a Cincy homer but I think it is an interesting idea. There is 11-12 Million population in this state, how much market share gets captured? The TV execs probably have a formula for that.
07-10-2014 07:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #622
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
Since nothing is going on I will share some random ideas about what to do with the Big 12.

Ideally it would be great for Southern football if the SEC, ACC and Big 12 just merged into a greater league of Southern football schools. That might be done if the SEC and ACC just split the Big 12 between them. If we had a move to 20 schools each then the SEC could take Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Baylor, and West Virginia. The ACC could take Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas State, T.C.U., and Connecticut and with Notre Dame they would have 20 as well. Miami could be placed with the Texas Big 12 schools for one 5 team division since the Canes have to fly everywhere anyway.

ACC: Boston College, Connecticut, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse
Duke, Louisville, North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, N.C. State, Wake Forest
Kansas State, Miami, Oklahoma, Texas, T.C.U.

SEC: Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech
Arkansas, Baylor, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Texas A&M
Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, West Virginia

I'm not saying this is it, but something like this would be a great way to resolve many issues. OU/OSU becomes an ACC vs SEC game, the ACC gets the RRR for a marquee game, The SEC picks up two AAU schools and adds hoops strength with Iowa State and Kansas. OSU, TTU, and Missouri are in a division that would permit them the opportunity to compete for a conference playoff spot annually, Kansas/ K-State becomes an ACC/SEC game, Baylor, TTU, and A&M could renew the hate and A&M/Texas becomes an ACC/SEC game, Texas gets a Florida profile with Miami annually, Miami gets Texas and OU annually to drive attendance and content, and the conferences could move to 10 conference games (4 division, 1 rotating division, 1 permanent rival) and two cross league games with PAC & Big 10 schools and with their ACC rival.

While not ideal for either conference it is nevertheless workable with advantages to each of the SEC and ACC. The SEC picks up Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, West Virginia and essentially all of Texas. The ACC lands the two prizes of Texas and Oklahoma with a DFW presence and the state of Kansas. They also add Husky basketball to their content. For the ACC they pick up large markets and content in both football and basketball without losing anyone. The additions for both should only strengthen their markets and content without threatening the power elite of either conference (other than in ACC football which needs the boost anyway).
(This post was last modified: 07-17-2014 03:46 PM by JRsec.)
07-17-2014 03:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #623
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
Perhaps ESPN and FOX should work together to divide out the Big 12.
ESPN gets out of the LHN and FOX gives up on Oklahoma and that's the compromise for the Networks. The Big 10 and SEC get three new states each. The Big 10 gets 3 AAU programs and a decent football program in the Cowboys. The SEC gains a second Texas school, a national brand, and three new states.



Let the Big 10 take care of Iowa State. And for that they also get Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma State.

The SEC takes care of Baylor since they are unacceptable to the PAC and Oklahoma, Kansas State, and West Virginia.

The PAC gets into Texas if it wants to with Texas Tech and T.C.U.

All 10 schools are taken care of and annual games against their in state rivals are set up between the Big 10 and SEC, or with the PAC.

Kansas / Kansas State, Oklahoma / Texas, Oklahoma / Oklahoma State, Texas / Texas A&M, Texas A&M / Baylor, Baylor / T.C.U., and Missouri / Kansas, and Missouri / Illinois all become Big 10 versus SEC contests with a couple of PAC games thrown in.

It improves the Big 10 market wise and with a football brand and hoops.
It improves the SEC market wise and with decent programs in both football and hoops.
It puts the PACN into DFW and West Texas.

It leaves the ACC in a position to expand with Cincinnati or Connecticut but doesn't depend upon them to have to do anything.

The Big 10's West Division becomes:
Iowa State, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oklahoma State, Texas

Central:
Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Wisconsin

East:
Indiana, Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

The SEC West Division becomes:
Arkansas, Baylor, Kansas State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M

The SEC Central becomes:
Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

The SEC East becomes:
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, West Virginia

If the PAC doesn't want Texas Tech and T.C.U. and Texas insists that Tech have a home then they could simply take Baylor's place in the SEC (although I would rather have Baylor). Either way by placing all 10, or at least 8 of them the deal gets done.

If Kansas and Kansas State can't be separated or Oklahoma and Oklahoma State it is not as profitable but the two Kansas schools could move the Big 10 and the two Oklahoma Schools to the SEC and you could still work the same kind of arrangement. Maybe Boone Pickens can give the CIC some money to make the deal sweeter?
(This post was last modified: 11-03-2014 01:00 AM by JRsec.)
11-03-2014 12:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jhawkmvp Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 443
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 35
I Root For: Kansas
Location: Over the Rainbow
Post: #624
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(11-03-2014 02:07 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  
(11-03-2014 12:48 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Perhaps ESPN and FOX should work together to divide out the Big 12.
ESPN gets out of the LHN and FOX gives up on Oklahoma and that's the compromise for the Networks. The Big 10 and SEC get three new states each. The Big 10 gets 3 AAU programs and a decent football program in the Cowboys. The SEC gains a second Texas school, a national brand, and three new states.



Let the Big 10 take care of Iowa State. And for that they also get Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma State.

The SEC takes care of Baylor since they are unacceptable to the PAC and Oklahoma, Kansas State, and West Virginia.

The PAC gets into Texas if it wants to with Texas Tech and T.C.U.

All 10 schools are taken care of and annual games against their in state rivals are set up between the Big 10 and SEC, or with the PAC.

Kansas / Kansas State, Oklahoma / Texas, Oklahoma / Oklahoma State, Texas / Texas A&M, Texas A&M / Baylor, Baylor / T.C.U., and Missouri / Kansas, and Missouri / Illinois all become Big 10 versus SEC contests with a couple of PAC games thrown in.

It improves the Big 10 market wise and with a football brand and hoops.
It improves the SEC market wise and with decent programs in both football and hoops.
It puts the PACN into DFW and West Texas.

It leaves the ACC in a position to expand with Cincinnati or Connecticut but doesn't depend upon them to have to do anything.

The Big 10's West Division becomes:
Iowa State, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oklahoma State, Texas

Central:
Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Wisconsin

East:
Indiana, Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

The SEC West Division becomes:
Arkansas, Baylor, Kansas State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M

The SEC Central becomes:
Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

The SEC East becomes:
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, West Virginia

If the PAC doesn't want Texas Tech and T.C.U. and Texas insists that Tech have a home then they could simply take Baylor's place in the SEC (although I would rather have Baylor). Either way by placing all 10, or at least 8 of them the deal gets done.

If Kansas and Kansas State can't be separated or Oklahoma and Oklahoma State it is not as profitable but the two Kansas schools could move the Big 10 and the two Oklahoma Schools to the SEC and you could still work the same kind of arrangement. Maybe Boone Pickens can give the CIC some money to make the deal sweeter?

This is fairly plausible; however, OSU would be a no go to the B1G due to academics. I think Rice could work as a school to give Texas another regional partner and is AAU. Rice with B1G/P5 money could easily compete as well as Northwestern being in Houston, TX FB recruiting hotbed. It is also an academic powerhouse that would make the B1G presidents happy. It would really divide Texas among 3 conferences (PAC/SEC/B1G) so no one conference would dominate.

OSU could go to the PAC and the PAC could pick up one of Houston, BYU, UNM, UNLV/Nevada, or Hawaii. They could also add 3 non-B12 schools and go to 18 for a 4x18. I'll assume 16 since most of those are not ready and they go with New Mexico or Houston (to combat UT/A&M with 3 schools in TX).

KU and KSU could separate easily if they would both have a power conference home. Not ideal, but KSU is not relegated to the G5 and they could continue the rivalry OOC. Same for OU/OSU.

Using your original conferences I would make the following changes:

It leaves the ACC in a position to expand with Cincinnati or Connecticut but doesn't depend upon them to have to do anything.

Same and leaves them time to work on ND since with 4 conferences they probably go champs only and ND is forced to join a conference and likely it is the ACC where it and FSU would be the most likely CCG each season. They could add 4 more and go to 18 with UCF to really plant the FL flag and keep the VA/NC schools in the same division. Sixteen is more likely though, with ND and Cincinnati likely the picks.

ACC North: ND, BC, Pitt, Syracuse, UConn, Cincinnati

ACC East: UNC, UVA, VT, WF, NC ST, Duke

ACC South: FSU, Miami, GT, Clemson, Louisville, UCF


The Big 10's West Division becomes:
Iowa State, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Rice, Texas

Central:
Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Wisconsin

East:
Indiana, Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

The SEC West Division becomes:
Arkansas, Baylor, Kansas State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M

The SEC Central becomes:
Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

The SEC East becomes:
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, West Virginia

PAC north becomes
Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, WSU

PAC East becomes
TTU, TCU, Oklahoma State, New Mexico/Houston

PAC Mountain becomes
Arizona, ASU, CU, Utah

PAC California becomes
USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford


The PAC is definitely the least happy with these divisions (No Texas or OU, or even Kansas), but they also have the worst options on the table unless Texas and OU want to go west. However, they do get 3 schools in Texas (if they add UH) and get schools throughout the state, even if they are lesser brands, and gain 4 CST schools for earlier games and east coast exposure. Texas recruiting exposure as well.

Pretty sure UT only goes to the B1G with OU, but you never know. If OU insists on the SEC and Texas is dead set against the SEC, then the B1G makes a lot of sense at that point, if they decide east is where they want to be instead of the west (PAC) and the B1G would take Rice (or another Texas school). Of course, ND and Texas for 15 and 16 in the ACC would make some sense too though UT would have no travel/regional partner(s) like WVU's situation in the current B12. Academically they self identify 11 schools as peers and 7 are B1G, 3 PAC and 1 ACC. So academically the B1G is their best fit.
(This post was last modified: 11-03-2014 02:39 AM by jhawkmvp.)
11-03-2014 02:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #625
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(11-03-2014 02:23 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  
(11-03-2014 02:07 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  
(11-03-2014 12:48 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Perhaps ESPN and FOX should work together to divide out the Big 12.
ESPN gets out of the LHN and FOX gives up on Oklahoma and that's the compromise for the Networks. The Big 10 and SEC get three new states each. The Big 10 gets 3 AAU programs and a decent football program in the Cowboys. The SEC gains a second Texas school, a national brand, and three new states.



Let the Big 10 take care of Iowa State. And for that they also get Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma State.

The SEC takes care of Baylor since they are unacceptable to the PAC and Oklahoma, Kansas State, and West Virginia.

The PAC gets into Texas if it wants to with Texas Tech and T.C.U.

All 10 schools are taken care of and annual games against their in state rivals are set up between the Big 10 and SEC, or with the PAC.

Kansas / Kansas State, Oklahoma / Texas, Oklahoma / Oklahoma State, Texas / Texas A&M, Texas A&M / Baylor, Baylor / T.C.U., and Missouri / Kansas, and Missouri / Illinois all become Big 10 versus SEC contests with a couple of PAC games thrown in.

It improves the Big 10 market wise and with a football brand and hoops.
It improves the SEC market wise and with decent programs in both football and hoops.
It puts the PACN into DFW and West Texas.

It leaves the ACC in a position to expand with Cincinnati or Connecticut but doesn't depend upon them to have to do anything.

The Big 10's West Division becomes:
Iowa State, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oklahoma State, Texas

Central:
Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Wisconsin

East:
Indiana, Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

The SEC West Division becomes:
Arkansas, Baylor, Kansas State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M

The SEC Central becomes:
Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

The SEC East becomes:
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, West Virginia

If the PAC doesn't want Texas Tech and T.C.U. and Texas insists that Tech have a home then they could simply take Baylor's place in the SEC (although I would rather have Baylor). Either way by placing all 10, or at least 8 of them the deal gets done.

If Kansas and Kansas State can't be separated or Oklahoma and Oklahoma State it is not as profitable but the two Kansas schools could move the Big 10 and the two Oklahoma Schools to the SEC and you could still work the same kind of arrangement. Maybe Boone Pickens can give the CIC some money to make the deal sweeter?

This is fairly plausible; however, OSU would be a no go to the B1G due to academics. I think Rice could work as a school to give Texas another regional partner and is AAU. Rice with B1G/P5 money could easily compete as well as Northwestern being in Houston, TX FB recruiting hotbed. It is also an academic powerhouse that would make the B1G presidents happy. It would really divide Texas among 3 conferences (PAC/SEC/B1G) so no one conference would dominate.

OSU could go to the PAC and the PAC could pick up one of Houston, BYU, UNM, UNLV/Nevada, or Hawaii. They could also add 3 non-B12 schools and go to 18 for a 4x18. I'll assume 16 since most of those are not ready and they go with New Mexico or Houston (to combat UT/A&M with 3 schools in TX).

KU and KSU could separate easily if they would both have a power conference home. Not ideal, but KSU is not relegated to the G5 and they could continue the rivalry OOC. Same for OU/OSU.

Using your original conferences I would make the following changes:

It leaves the ACC in a position to expand with Cincinnati or Connecticut but doesn't depend upon them to have to do anything.

Same and leaves them time to work on ND since with 4 conferences they probably go champs only and ND is forced to join a conference and likely it is the ACC where it and FSU would be the most likely CCG each season. They could add 4 more and go to 18 with UCF to really plant the FL flag and keep the VA/NC schools in the same division. Sixteen is more likely though, with ND and Cincinnati likely the picks.

ACC North: ND, BC, Pitt, Syracuse, UConn, Cincinnati

ACC East: UNC, UVA, VT, WF, NC ST, Duke

ACC South: FSU, Miami, GT, Clemson, Louisville, UCF


The Big 10's West Division becomes:
Iowa State, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Rice, Texas

Central:
Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Wisconsin

East:
Indiana, Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

The SEC West Division becomes:
Arkansas, Baylor, Kansas State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M

The SEC Central becomes:
Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

The SEC East becomes:
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, West Virginia

PAC north becomes
Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, WSU

PAC East becomes
TTU, TCU, Oklahoma State, New Mexico/Houston

PAC Mountain becomes
Arizona, ASU, CU, Utah

PAC California becomes
USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford


The PAC is definitely the least happy with these divisions (No Texas or OU, or even Kansas), but they also have the worst options on the table unless Texas and OU want to go west. However, they do get 3 schools in Texas (if they add UH) and get schools throughout the state, even if they are lesser brands, and gain 4 CST schools for earlier games and east coast exposure. Texas recruiting exposure as well.

Pretty sure UT only goes to the B1G with OU, but you never know. If OU insists on the SEC and Texas is dead set against the SEC, then the B1G makes a lot of sense at that point, if they decide east is where they want to be instead of the west (PAC) and the B1G would take Rice (or another Texas school). Of course, ND and Texas for 15 and 16 in the ACC would make some sense too though UT would have no travel/regional partner(s) like WVU's situation in the current B12. Academically they self identify 11 schools as peers and 7 are B1G, 3 PAC and 1 ACC. So academically the B1G is their best fit.

I can buy the ACC but just not with UCF. I think Tulane completes their Southern most division perfectly without having to take a 3rd Florida School. New Orleans is a destination game, puts them into the Southern Louisiana market, gives them a presence at the Sugar Bowl, and helps out F.S.U. as that is an easy travel up I10. And Tulane fits much of the ACC profile, they are private and AAU. Just a thought.

So to use your revision of the scenario I threw out there here is where we would stand:

Big 10:
East: Indiana, Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers
Central: Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Wisconsin
West: Iowa State, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Rice, Texas

SEC:
East: Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, West Virginia
Central: Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
West: Arkansas, Baylor, Kansas State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M

ACC:
North: Boston College, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse
Central: Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest
South: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Miami, Tulane

PAC:
North: California, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State
South: Arizona, Arizona State, Cal Los Angeles, Nevada, Southern California, Utah
East: Colorado, Houston, New Mexico, Oklahoma State, T.C.U., Texas Tech


The Big 10 has added only AAU schools while picking up a basketball brand and football brand and improving baseball significantly. By scheduling early season games as home games in Texas and early summer games North of that the Big 10 becomes viable in baseball. They also pick up 30 million viewers and gain access to Southern recruiting markets.

The SEC has added 4 schools with decent basketball programs, a national brand in football, 4 decent football schools, solidified its Texas markets, and added nearly 9 million viewers without suffering any serious brand erosion and while adding to its football gravitas. 3 of the 4 have good baseball programs and all still maintain a fairly dominate footprint.

The ACC has added 3 schools that fit with both football and basketball profiles, entered the Ohio market, locked down the New England market picking up a national hoops power, and landed N.D. Tulane adds nice perks to their Southern division football travels and fits academically and historically.

The PAC picks up Texas, Albuquerque, or if expanding further Nevada markets for the PACN.

None of the conferences lose identity.

Athletically here is what is set up for their conference championship series:

The Big 10 sets up likely annual entries of Texas and Nebraska from the West, Michigan State, Michigan, or Wisconsin from the Central, and Ohio State, Penn State from the East. That plus the best at large means they have spread their top brands out which enhances viewership of their championship series.

The SEC simply spreads its power out. In the West we could have any of them emerge as it would be a very balanced division. In the central Alabama and L.S.U. (and when they recover Tennessee) are set up to emerge, and from the East it too is so balanced that practically anyone could emerge.

The ACC stands to gain the most because Notre Dame and Cincinnati could easily emerge from the North and Pitt and Syracuse could reemerge from that grouping as well.

The Central is set up for Virginia Tech, North Carolina or a Cutcliffe coached Duke.

The South gets to pad stats against Tulane while still beating up on each other, but the champion would be in great position every year and this division would likely supply the at large spot which would help with ACC viewer interest in its football championship series as well.

The PAC is set up for Washington / Oregon in the North, U.S.C./ Stanford in the West, an Arizona school or Utah in the South, and a Texas entrant in the East. This means that into their championship series they have their names and Texas viewing interest.

I think something like this scenario has a lot of merit.
(This post was last modified: 11-04-2014 02:28 AM by JRsec.)
11-03-2014 02:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jhawkmvp Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 443
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 35
I Root For: Kansas
Location: Over the Rainbow
Post: #626
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(11-03-2014 02:53 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(11-03-2014 02:23 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  
(11-03-2014 02:07 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  
(11-03-2014 12:48 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Perhaps ESPN and FOX should work together to divide out the Big 12.
ESPN gets out of the LHN and FOX gives up on Oklahoma and that's the compromise for the Networks. The Big 10 and SEC get three new states each. The Big 10 gets 3 AAU programs and a decent football program in the Cowboys. The SEC gains a second Texas school, a national brand, and three new states.



Let the Big 10 take care of Iowa State. And for that they also get Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma State.

The SEC takes care of Baylor since they are unacceptable to the PAC and Oklahoma, Kansas State, and West Virginia.

The PAC gets into Texas if it wants to with Texas Tech and T.C.U.

All 10 schools are taken care of and annual games against their in state rivals are set up between the Big 10 and SEC, or with the PAC.

Kansas / Kansas State, Oklahoma / Texas, Oklahoma / Oklahoma State, Texas / Texas A&M, Texas A&M / Baylor, Baylor / T.C.U., and Missouri / Kansas, and Missouri / Illinois all become Big 10 versus SEC contests with a couple of PAC games thrown in.

It improves the Big 10 market wise and with a football brand and hoops.
It improves the SEC market wise and with decent programs in both football and hoops.
It puts the PACN into DFW and West Texas.

It leaves the ACC in a position to expand with Cincinnati or Connecticut but doesn't depend upon them to have to do anything.

The Big 10's West Division becomes:
Iowa State, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oklahoma State, Texas

Central:
Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Wisconsin

East:
Indiana, Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

The SEC West Division becomes:
Arkansas, Baylor, Kansas State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M

The SEC Central becomes:
Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

The SEC East becomes:
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, West Virginia

If the PAC doesn't want Texas Tech and T.C.U. and Texas insists that Tech have a home then they could simply take Baylor's place in the SEC (although I would rather have Baylor). Either way by placing all 10, or at least 8 of them the deal gets done.

If Kansas and Kansas State can't be separated or Oklahoma and Oklahoma State it is not as profitable but the two Kansas schools could move the Big 10 and the two Oklahoma Schools to the SEC and you could still work the same kind of arrangement. Maybe Boone Pickens can give the CIC some money to make the deal sweeter?

This is fairly plausible; however, OSU would be a no go to the B1G due to academics. I think Rice could work as a school to give Texas another regional partner and is AAU. Rice with B1G/P5 money could easily compete as well as Northwestern being in Houston, TX FB recruiting hotbed. It is also an academic powerhouse that would make the B1G presidents happy. It would really divide Texas among 3 conferences (PAC/SEC/B1G) so no one conference would dominate.

OSU could go to the PAC and the PAC could pick up one of Houston, BYU, UNM, UNLV/Nevada, or Hawaii. They could also add 3 non-B12 schools and go to 18 for a 4x18. I'll assume 16 since most of those are not ready and they go with New Mexico or Houston (to combat UT/A&M with 3 schools in TX).

KU and KSU could separate easily if they would both have a power conference home. Not ideal, but KSU is not relegated to the G5 and they could continue the rivalry OOC. Same for OU/OSU.

Using your original conferences I would make the following changes:

It leaves the ACC in a position to expand with Cincinnati or Connecticut but doesn't depend upon them to have to do anything.

Same and leaves them time to work on ND since with 4 conferences they probably go champs only and ND is forced to join a conference and likely it is the ACC where it and FSU would be the most likely CCG each season. They could add 4 more and go to 18 with UCF to really plant the FL flag and keep the VA/NC schools in the same division. Sixteen is more likely though, with ND and Cincinnati likely the picks.

ACC North: ND, BC, Pitt, Syracuse, UConn, Cincinnati

ACC East: UNC, UVA, VT, WF, NC ST, Duke

ACC South: FSU, Miami, GT, Clemson, Louisville, UCF


The Big 10's West Division becomes:
Iowa State, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Rice, Texas

Central:
Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Wisconsin

East:
Indiana, Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

The SEC West Division becomes:
Arkansas, Baylor, Kansas State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M

The SEC Central becomes:
Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

The SEC East becomes:
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, West Virginia

PAC north becomes
Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, WSU

PAC East becomes
TTU, TCU, Oklahoma State, New Mexico/Houston

PAC Mountain becomes
Arizona, ASU, CU, Utah

PAC California becomes
USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford


The PAC is definitely the least happy with these divisions (No Texas or OU, or even Kansas), but they also have the worst options on the table unless Texas and OU want to go west. However, they do get 3 schools in Texas (if they add UH) and get schools throughout the state, even if they are lesser brands, and gain 4 CST schools for earlier games and east coast exposure. Texas recruiting exposure as well.

Pretty sure UT only goes to the B1G with OU, but you never know. If OU insists on the SEC and Texas is dead set against the SEC, then the B1G makes a lot of sense at that point, if they decide east is where they want to be instead of the west (PAC) and the B1G would take Rice (or another Texas school). Of course, ND and Texas for 15 and 16 in the ACC would make some sense too though UT would have no travel/regional partner(s) like WVU's situation in the current B12. Academically they self identify 11 schools as peers and 7 are B1G, 3 PAC and 1 ACC. So academically the B1G is their best fit.

I can buy the ACC but just not with UCF. I think Tulane completes their Southern most division perfectly without having to take a 3rd Florida School. New Orleans is a destination game, puts them into the Southern Louisiana market, gives them a presence at the Sugar Bowl, and helps out F.S.U. as that is an easy travel up I10. And Tulane fits much of the ACC profile, they are private and AAU. Just a thought.

So to use your revision of the scenario I threw out there here is where we would stand:

Big 10:
East: Indiana, Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers
Central: Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Wisconsin
West: Iowa State, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Rice, Texas

SEC:
East: Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, West Virginia
Central: Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
West: Arkansas, Baylor, Kansas State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M

ACC:
North: Boston College, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse
Central: Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest
South: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Miami, Tulane

PAC:
North: Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State
West: California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern California, Stanford
South: Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah
East: Houston, New Mexico, T.C.U., Texas Tech

If you wanted an 18 member Pack just add B.Y.U. (in spite of their issues) and either Nevada or U.N.L.V. and you have 4 eighteen member conferences.

Now here is the resulting improvement for each conference:

The Big 10 has added only AAU schools while picking up a basketball brand and football brand and improving baseball significantly. By scheduling early season games as home games in Texas and early summer games North of that the Big 10 becomes viable in baseball. They also pick up 30 million viewers and gain access to Southern recruiting markets.

The SEC has added 4 schools with decent basketball programs, a national brand in football, 4 decent football schools, solidified its Texas markets, and added nearly 9 million viewers without suffering any serious brand erosion and while adding to its football gravitas. 3 of the 4 have good baseball programs and all still maintain a fairly dominate footprint.

The ACC has added 3 schools that fit with both football and basketball profiles, entered the Ohio market, locked down the New England market picking up a national hoops power, and landed N.D. Tulane adds nice perks to their Southern division football travels and fits academically and historically.

The PAC picks up Texas, Albuquerque, or if expanding further Nevada markets for the PACN.

None of the conferences lose identity.

Athletically here is what is set up for their conference championship series:

The Big 10 sets up likely annual entries of Texas and Nebraska from the West, Michigan State, Michigan, or Wisconsin from the Central, and Ohio State, Penn State from the East. That plus the best at large means they have spread their top brands out which enhances viewership of their championship series.

The SEC simply spreads its power out. In the West we could have any of them emerge as it would be a very balanced division. In the central Alabama and L.S.U. (and when they recover Tennessee) are set up to emerge, and from the East it too is so balanced that practically anyone could emerge.

The ACC stands to gain the most because Notre Dame and Cincinnati could easily emerge from the North and Pitt and Syracuse could reemerge from that grouping as well.

The Central is set up for Virginia Tech, North Carolina or a Cutcliffe coached Duke.

The South gets to pad stats against Tulane while still beating up on each other, but the champion would be in great position every year and this division would likely supply the at large spot which would help with ACC viewer interest in its football championship series as well.

The PAC is set up for Washington / Oregon in the North, U.S.C./ Stanford in the West, an Arizona school or Utah in the South, and a Texas entrant in the East. This means that into their championship series they have their names and Texas viewing interest.

I think something like this scenario has a lot of merit.

Tulane was a school I considered for the ACC's 18th spot along with Memphis. Memphis would have a perfect location to fit in the ACC footprint; however, academically they would be a hard sell, so I doubt they would get the call. Tulane is pretty far away and like Rice it would have to invest to improve its AD, but it is a great school in a great location and recruiting area (per capita LA is the best state for FBS talent). Tulane makes a lot of sense there as it is closer to the ACC mold then UCF or Memphis. SMU is another school who could work with easy flights into DFW and gets every conference a least one flag planted in TX. Academically it is good enough and as we have seen in the past the boosters would pour cash into it's sports programs.

Optionally, the B1G could also take Tulane (they need the southern recruiting territory, they are AAU, new market for B1GN, and it gives Texas another regional partner) and either the PAC or ACC could add ISU.

You overlooked Oklahoma State, probably because I moved them out of the B1G. Oklahoma St. probably lands in PAC 16 and then, if the PAC went to 18, I think New Mexico is a sure thing and probably a Nevada school. BYU is the most deserving, but the religious issues and already having Utah work against them so I lean toward UNLV or Nevada; however, there is a chance that they would get that last bid or Hawaii could work in there as well.

I like the 72 school model. It is more inclusive and the schools added for the most part bring value to the conferences without subtracting much if any revenue. It gets most of the schools that are as good as the bottom P5 schools into a major conference. There would still be a a handful of schools with an argument (like BYU, ECU, etc.), but fewer than we have now. A 4x20 model would basically cover all the most deserving schools, but it also starts to, maybe, take a little revenue off the table IMO. However, reshuffling the 65 into 4 conferences would be more profitable for existing P5 schools so that is what they will do most likely unless politics gets involved heavily.
(This post was last modified: 11-04-2014 02:31 AM by jhawkmvp.)
11-04-2014 02:14 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #627
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(11-04-2014 02:14 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  
(11-03-2014 02:53 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(11-03-2014 02:23 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  
(11-03-2014 02:07 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  
(11-03-2014 12:48 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Perhaps ESPN and FOX should work together to divide out the Big 12.
ESPN gets out of the LHN and FOX gives up on Oklahoma and that's the compromise for the Networks. The Big 10 and SEC get three new states each. The Big 10 gets 3 AAU programs and a decent football program in the Cowboys. The SEC gains a second Texas school, a national brand, and three new states.



Let the Big 10 take care of Iowa State. And for that they also get Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma State.

The SEC takes care of Baylor since they are unacceptable to the PAC and Oklahoma, Kansas State, and West Virginia.

The PAC gets into Texas if it wants to with Texas Tech and T.C.U.

All 10 schools are taken care of and annual games against their in state rivals are set up between the Big 10 and SEC, or with the PAC.

Kansas / Kansas State, Oklahoma / Texas, Oklahoma / Oklahoma State, Texas / Texas A&M, Texas A&M / Baylor, Baylor / T.C.U., and Missouri / Kansas, and Missouri / Illinois all become Big 10 versus SEC contests with a couple of PAC games thrown in.

It improves the Big 10 market wise and with a football brand and hoops.
It improves the SEC market wise and with decent programs in both football and hoops.
It puts the PACN into DFW and West Texas.

It leaves the ACC in a position to expand with Cincinnati or Connecticut but doesn't depend upon them to have to do anything.

The Big 10's West Division becomes:
Iowa State, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oklahoma State, Texas

Central:
Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Wisconsin

East:
Indiana, Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

The SEC West Division becomes:
Arkansas, Baylor, Kansas State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M

The SEC Central becomes:
Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

The SEC East becomes:
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, West Virginia

If the PAC doesn't want Texas Tech and T.C.U. and Texas insists that Tech have a home then they could simply take Baylor's place in the SEC (although I would rather have Baylor). Either way by placing all 10, or at least 8 of them the deal gets done.

If Kansas and Kansas State can't be separated or Oklahoma and Oklahoma State it is not as profitable but the two Kansas schools could move the Big 10 and the two Oklahoma Schools to the SEC and you could still work the same kind of arrangement. Maybe Boone Pickens can give the CIC some money to make the deal sweeter?

This is fairly plausible; however, OSU would be a no go to the B1G due to academics. I think Rice could work as a school to give Texas another regional partner and is AAU. Rice with B1G/P5 money could easily compete as well as Northwestern being in Houston, TX FB recruiting hotbed. It is also an academic powerhouse that would make the B1G presidents happy. It would really divide Texas among 3 conferences (PAC/SEC/B1G) so no one conference would dominate.

OSU could go to the PAC and the PAC could pick up one of Houston, BYU, UNM, UNLV/Nevada, or Hawaii. They could also add 3 non-B12 schools and go to 18 for a 4x18. I'll assume 16 since most of those are not ready and they go with New Mexico or Houston (to combat UT/A&M with 3 schools in TX).

KU and KSU could separate easily if they would both have a power conference home. Not ideal, but KSU is not relegated to the G5 and they could continue the rivalry OOC. Same for OU/OSU.

Using your original conferences I would make the following changes:

It leaves the ACC in a position to expand with Cincinnati or Connecticut but doesn't depend upon them to have to do anything.

Same and leaves them time to work on ND since with 4 conferences they probably go champs only and ND is forced to join a conference and likely it is the ACC where it and FSU would be the most likely CCG each season. They could add 4 more and go to 18 with UCF to really plant the FL flag and keep the VA/NC schools in the same division. Sixteen is more likely though, with ND and Cincinnati likely the picks.

ACC North: ND, BC, Pitt, Syracuse, UConn, Cincinnati

ACC East: UNC, UVA, VT, WF, NC ST, Duke

ACC South: FSU, Miami, GT, Clemson, Louisville, UCF


The Big 10's West Division becomes:
Iowa State, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Rice, Texas

Central:
Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Wisconsin

East:
Indiana, Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

The SEC West Division becomes:
Arkansas, Baylor, Kansas State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M

The SEC Central becomes:
Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

The SEC East becomes:
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, West Virginia

PAC north becomes
Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, WSU

PAC East becomes
TTU, TCU, Oklahoma State, New Mexico/Houston

PAC Mountain becomes
Arizona, ASU, CU, Utah

PAC California becomes
USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford


The PAC is definitely the least happy with these divisions (No Texas or OU, or even Kansas), but they also have the worst options on the table unless Texas and OU want to go west. However, they do get 3 schools in Texas (if they add UH) and get schools throughout the state, even if they are lesser brands, and gain 4 CST schools for earlier games and east coast exposure. Texas recruiting exposure as well.

Pretty sure UT only goes to the B1G with OU, but you never know. If OU insists on the SEC and Texas is dead set against the SEC, then the B1G makes a lot of sense at that point, if they decide east is where they want to be instead of the west (PAC) and the B1G would take Rice (or another Texas school). Of course, ND and Texas for 15 and 16 in the ACC would make some sense too though UT would have no travel/regional partner(s) like WVU's situation in the current B12. Academically they self identify 11 schools as peers and 7 are B1G, 3 PAC and 1 ACC. So academically the B1G is their best fit.

I can buy the ACC but just not with UCF. I think Tulane completes their Southern most division perfectly without having to take a 3rd Florida School. New Orleans is a destination game, puts them into the Southern Louisiana market, gives them a presence at the Sugar Bowl, and helps out F.S.U. as that is an easy travel up I10. And Tulane fits much of the ACC profile, they are private and AAU. Just a thought.

So to use your revision of the scenario I threw out there here is where we would stand:

Big 10:
East: Indiana, Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers
Central: Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Wisconsin
West: Iowa State, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Rice, Texas

SEC:
East: Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, West Virginia
Central: Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
West: Arkansas, Baylor, Kansas State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M

ACC:
North: Boston College, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse
Central: Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest
South: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Miami, Tulane

PAC:
North: Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State
West: California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern California, Stanford
South: Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah
East: Houston, New Mexico, T.C.U., Texas Tech

If you wanted an 18 member Pack just add B.Y.U. (in spite of their issues) and either Nevada or U.N.L.V. and you have 4 eighteen member conferences.

Now here is the resulting improvement for each conference:

The Big 10 has added only AAU schools while picking up a basketball brand and football brand and improving baseball significantly. By scheduling early season games as home games in Texas and early summer games North of that the Big 10 becomes viable in baseball. They also pick up 30 million viewers and gain access to Southern recruiting markets.

The SEC has added 4 schools with decent basketball programs, a national brand in football, 4 decent football schools, solidified its Texas markets, and added nearly 9 million viewers without suffering any serious brand erosion and while adding to its football gravitas. 3 of the 4 have good baseball programs and all still maintain a fairly dominate footprint.

The ACC has added 3 schools that fit with both football and basketball profiles, entered the Ohio market, locked down the New England market picking up a national hoops power, and landed N.D. Tulane adds nice perks to their Southern division football travels and fits academically and historically.

The PAC picks up Texas, Albuquerque, or if expanding further Nevada markets for the PACN.

None of the conferences lose identity.

Athletically here is what is set up for their conference championship series:

The Big 10 sets up likely annual entries of Texas and Nebraska from the West, Michigan State, Michigan, or Wisconsin from the Central, and Ohio State, Penn State from the East. That plus the best at large means they have spread their top brands out which enhances viewership of their championship series.

The SEC simply spreads its power out. In the West we could have any of them emerge as it would be a very balanced division. In the central Alabama and L.S.U. (and when they recover Tennessee) are set up to emerge, and from the East it too is so balanced that practically anyone could emerge.

The ACC stands to gain the most because Notre Dame and Cincinnati could easily emerge from the North and Pitt and Syracuse could reemerge from that grouping as well.

The Central is set up for Virginia Tech, North Carolina or a Cutcliffe coached Duke.

The South gets to pad stats against Tulane while still beating up on each other, but the champion would be in great position every year and this division would likely supply the at large spot which would help with ACC viewer interest in its football championship series as well.

The PAC is set up for Washington / Oregon in the North, U.S.C./ Stanford in the West, an Arizona school or Utah in the South, and a Texas entrant in the East. This means that into their championship series they have their names and Texas viewing interest.

I think something like this scenario has a lot of merit.

Tulane was a school I considered for the ACC's 18th spot along with Memphis. Memphis would have a perfect location to fit in the ACC footprint; however, academically they would be a hard sell, so I doubt they would get the call. Tulane is pretty far away and like Rice it would have to invest to improve its AD, but it is a great school in a great location and recruiting area (per capita LA is the best state for FBS talent). Tulane makes a lot of sense there as it is closer to the ACC mold then UCF or Memphis. SMU is another school who could work with easy flights into DFW and gets every conference a least one flag planted in TX. Academically it is good enough and as we have seen in the past the boosters would pour cash into it's sports programs.

You overlooked Oklahoma State, probably because I moved them out of the B1G. Oklahoma St. probably lands in PAC 16 and then, if the PAC went to 18, I think New Mexico is a sure thing and probably a Nevada school. BYU is the most deserving, but the religious issues and already having Utah work against them so I lean toward UNLV or Nevada; however, there is a chance that they would get that last bid or Hawaii could work in there as well.

I like the 72 school model. It is more inclusive and the schools added for the most part bring value to the conferences without subtracting much if any revenue. It gets most of the schools that are as good as the bottom P5 schools into a major conference. There would still be a a handful of schools with an argument (like BYU, ECU, etc.), but fewer than we have now. A 4x20 model would basically cover all the most deserving schools, but it also starts to, maybe, take a little revenue off the table IMO. However, reshuffling the 65 into 4 conferences would be more profitable for existing P5 schools so that is what they will do most likely unless politics gets involved heavily.

Oklahoma State? Oops! I corrected it and moved all 4 major conferences to a 3 x 18. I do think Tulane (who is presently upgrading facilities) would make the better addition to the ACC.

Interestingly I've worked on a P4 model that is not equally distributed but has the Big 10, PAC, SEC, and a new P4 private school league where economic independence can be maintained but the privates enter into a scheduling agreement. It vacates Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Wake Forest, Miami, Duke, and others from their present conferences. I don't think it is economically viable but should the union thing actually pose a problem it might need to be considered. It leaves three dynamic state school only conferences however and yet works in the best academic privates.
11-04-2014 02:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Transic_nyc Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,401
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 194
I Root For: Return To Stability
Location:
Post: #628
RE:
Using the theme of the networks parceling out the programs, it's possible that they'd split the difference between what the Big Ten and SEC would want. Both prefer dealing with flagship schools for historical and economic reasons. Therefore, we might see both each have a program from both the B12 and ACC, clue being in states where either hasn't had a presence, yet.

Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Pennsylvania State, Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia

Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Missouri

Big Ten gets two AAU schools, one premium basketball power and further consolidation in the East, which is very needed. SEC gets two more premium programs and finally gets into NC.

The ACC picks up West Virginia and Iowa State as part of the B12 distribution, probably TCU and Baylor as well to access Texas recruiting and go to 16.

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State and Kansas State go to the PAC to round out the expansion.

ND renews its ACC deal and gets additional exposure in Texas.
11-04-2014 02:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #629
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(11-04-2014 02:34 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Using the theme of the networks parceling out the programs, it's possible that they'd split the difference between what the Big Ten and SEC would want. Both prefer dealing with flagship schools for historical and economic reasons. Therefore, we might see both each have a program from both the B12 and ACC, clue being in states where either hasn't had a presence, yet.

Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Pennsylvania State, Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia

Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Missouri

Big Ten gets two AAU schools, one premium basketball power and further consolidation in the East, which is very needed. SEC gets two more premium programs and finally gets into NC.

The ACC picks up West Virginia and Iowa State as part of the B12 distribution, probably TCU and Baylor as well to access Texas recruiting and go to 16.

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State and Kansas State go to the PAC to round out the expansion.

ND renews its ACC deal and gets additional exposure in Texas.

The Big 10, SEC, and PAC would be happy with that, but I don't think the ACC would be too excited. Of all the scenarios I've tinkered with the 3 x 20 that builds the PAC, Big 10 and SEC into 3 regional conferences with four divisions of 5 regionally based schools each has been the best and strongest model for all surviving conferences. I don't think that any move that leaves one inherently disadvantaged conference is going to work. There are also some potentials with the 4 x 18 model. But if new markets and brands drive realignment and conference networks are indeed the ticket nothing builds them any better than the 3 x 20. The only problem is that there will be 5 victims, unless 1 of the conferences has 24 schools. To work in Cincinnati, Connecticut, and B.Y.U. you have to have two conferences of 24 and then things start to get thin.
11-04-2014 02:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #630
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
Private Confederation

North: Army, Boston College, Notre Dame, Northwestern, Pittsburgh, Syracuse

South: Duke, Miami, Navy, Vanderbilt, Tulane, Wake Forest

West: Air Force, Baylor, Brigham Young, Rice, Texas Christian, Stanford

Perhaps the Service Academies would like to be a part of the P4 if they could compete in an academically based private school league. If not this P4 could easily stand as a 3 x 5 model. Pittsburgh is only quasi state operating like a private. Or if your wanted 18 you could add Temple, S.M.U., and Tulsa should the academies say no.

Now for the State Conference Models:

Big 10:

East: Connecticut, Maryland, North Carolina, Penn State, Rutgers, Virginia

Central: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue

West: Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Wisconsin

SEC:
North: Kentucky, Louisville, Tennessee, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

East: Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, N.C. State

South: Alabama, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Mississippi State, South Carolina

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

PAC:
North: California, Oregon, Oregon State, Utah, Washington, Washington State

South: Arizona, Arizona State, Cal Los Angeles, Colorado, Southern California, New Mexico

East: Cincinnati, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech
(This post was last modified: 11-04-2014 02:36 PM by JRsec.)
11-04-2014 03:20 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
vandiver49 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,589
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 315
I Root For: USNA/UTK
Location: West GA
Post: #631
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(11-04-2014 03:20 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Private Confederation

North: Army, Boston College, Notre Dame, Northwestern, Pittsburgh, Syracuse

South: Duke, Miami, Navy, Vanderbilt, Tulane, Wake Forest

West: Air Force, Baylor, Brigham Young, Rice, Texas Christian, Stanford

Perhaps the Service Academies would like to be a part of the P4 if they could compete in an academically based private school league. If not this P4 could easily stand as a 3 x 5 model. Pittsburgh is only quasi state operating like a private. Or if your wanted 18 you could add Temple, S.M.U., and Tulsa should the academies say no.

While that conference contains teams that the service academies have played frequently, playing in a conference of such schools is a bridge too far IMO.
(This post was last modified: 11-04-2014 12:36 PM by vandiver49.)
11-04-2014 08:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BewareThePhog Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,881
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 137
I Root For: KU
Location:
Post: #632
RE:If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(11-04-2014 03:20 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Private Confederation

North: Army, Boston College, Notre Dame, Northwestern, Pittsburgh, Syracuse

South: Duke, Miami, Navy, Vanderbilt, Tulane, Wake Forest

West: Air Force, Baylor, Brigham Young, Rice, Texas Christian, Stanford

Perhaps the Service Academies would like to be a part of the P4 if they could compete in an academically based private school league. If not this P4 could easily stand as a 3 x 5 model. Pittsburgh is only quasi state operating like a private. Or if your wanted 18 you could add Temple, S.M.U., and Tulsa should the academies say no.

Now for the State Conference Models:

Big 10:

East: Connecticut, Maryland, North Carolina, Penn State, Rutgers, Virginia

Central: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue

West: Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Wisconsin

SEC:
North: Kentucky, Louisville, Tennessee, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

East: Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, N.C. State

South: Alabama, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Mississippi State, South Carolina

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

PAC:
North: California, Oregon, Oregon State, Utah, Washington, Washington State

South: Arizona, Arizona State, Cal Los Angeles, Colorado, Southern California, New Mexico

East: Cincinnati, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech
That's an interesting model. I see you allow for some diversity in structure with the SEC having a different number of teams than the B1G and PAC.

Am I missing something, or is Southern Cal left out of the Private Confederation?
(This post was last modified: 11-04-2014 02:33 PM by JRsec.)
11-04-2014 10:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #633
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(11-04-2014 10:47 AM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  
(11-04-2014 03:20 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Private Confederation

North: Army, Boston College, Notre Dame, Northwestern, Pittsburgh, Syracuse

South: Duke, Miami, Navy, Vanderbilt, Tulane, Wake Forest

West: Air Force, Baylor, Brigham Young, Rice, Texas Christian, Stanford

Perhaps the Service Academies would like to be a part of the P4 if they could compete in an academically based private school league. If not this P4 could easily stand as a 3 x 5 model. Pittsburgh is only quasi state operating like a private. Or if your wanted 18 you could add Temple, S.M.U., and Tulsa should the academies say no.

Now for the State Conference Models:

Big 10:

East: Connecticut, Maryland, North Carolina, Penn State, Rutgers, Virginia

Central: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue

West: Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Wisconsin

SEC:
North: Kentucky, Louisville, Tennessee, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

East: Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, N.C. State

South: Alabama, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Mississippi State, South Carolina

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

PAC:
North: California, Oregon, Oregon State, Utah, Washington, Washington State

South: Arizona, Arizona State, Cal Los Angeles, Colorado, Southern California, New Mexico

East: Cincinnati, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech
That's an interesting model. I see you allow for some diversity in structure with the SEC having a different number of teams than the B1G and PAC.

Am I missing something, or is Southern Cal left out of the Private Confederation?
They were left out on purpose. They are kind of the face of the PAC. For the same reason I almost left out Stanford as well. I decided that N.D. needed at least one of them in to make it a conference they would "associate" with. And the PAC without Stanford and U.S.C. would lose two lynch pins in the center of it's identity and footprint. So yes Phog, I cheated.

As for the diverse structure of the SEC, I honored the Big 10's AAU and football needs, and that potentially left Louisville and West Virginia out because of distance to the PAC so I included them as both are deserving. It's not that the SEC is more deserving of 20 than the Big 10 but that the SEC is more flexible and as you can see the divisions of 5 in it are very tight geographically.
(This post was last modified: 11-04-2014 02:34 PM by JRsec.)
11-04-2014 01:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BewareThePhog Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,881
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 137
I Root For: KU
Location:
Post: #634
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
I agree with that reasoning. But am I overlooking something, or is USC also not listed in your PAC? I see 18 teams, including "California" which I take to be Cal-Berkeley, and "Cal Los Angeles" which I take to be UCLA, but no USC. If you were pondering moving them to the Private group and then didn't put them back in the PAC, adding them back could bump Nevada.

I think your larger SEC makes sense - my point (albeit not well articulated) was that you did not feel the need to shoehorn everything into the same size bucket, but allowed for some flexibility to create an overall structure that makes sense. I think in many of these exercises people feel the need to make everything match perfectly, and allowing for some customization makes it easier to come up with groupings that are logical.
(This post was last modified: 11-04-2014 02:06 PM by BewareThePhog.)
11-04-2014 02:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #635
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(11-04-2014 02:04 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  I agree with that reasoning. But am I overlooking something, or is USC also not listed in your PAC? I see 18 teams, including "California" which I take to be Cal-Berkeley, and "Cal Los Angeles" which I take to be UCLA, but no USC. If you were pondering moving them to the Private group and then didn't put them back in the PAC, adding them back could bump Nevada.

I think your larger SEC makes sense - my point (albeit not well articulated) was that you did not feel the need to shoehorn everything into the same size bucket, but allowed for some flexibility to create an overall structure that makes sense. I think in many of these exercises people feel the need to make everything match perfectly, and allowing for some customization makes it easier to come up with groupings that are logical.

Yep. I accidentally left them out when I redacted. I think they were in my original posting. I'll take care of that.
11-04-2014 02:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,969
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 144
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #636
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(07-06-2013 08:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Let's assume the ACC stands firm with their recent additions and that everyone has indeed signed their GOR and that they get their network. Should Texas and Oklahoma realize the disadvantage long term that their conference is in and the Big 12 was suddenly open for the taking of new members who should the SEC add and why?

To me the ideal additions would be Kansas & Oklahoma. We would likely find ourselves in head to head competition with the Big 10 for these schools. Kansas is a better cultural fit for the Big 10. Oklahoma could fit in just about anywhere. I think the ideal here is highly unlikely. So my goal would be to add the Sooners and West Virginia. The Mountaineers would be joyous to be a part of the SEC and that is worth a lot to me. Oklahoma might choose the Big 10 but if they do in my opinion they will wind up like Nebraska, good, but a shadow of their former selves. Personally, I think they need Southern recruiting ties to stay viable.

If the Sooners did go elsewhere the Cowboys are fine with me. They are top 25 in profitability and are competitive in all sports.

Since I'm a little late to the party, I'll just rank my quasi-Big 12 additions:
1. OU, Nebraska
2. OU, WVU
3. OU, Kansas

I don't ever see Texas joining, let alone playing by the rules.
11-04-2014 05:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #637
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(11-04-2014 05:33 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(07-06-2013 08:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Let's assume the ACC stands firm with their recent additions and that everyone has indeed signed their GOR and that they get their network. Should Texas and Oklahoma realize the disadvantage long term that their conference is in and the Big 12 was suddenly open for the taking of new members who should the SEC add and why?

To me the ideal additions would be Kansas & Oklahoma. We would likely find ourselves in head to head competition with the Big 10 for these schools. Kansas is a better cultural fit for the Big 10. Oklahoma could fit in just about anywhere. I think the ideal here is highly unlikely. So my goal would be to add the Sooners and West Virginia. The Mountaineers would be joyous to be a part of the SEC and that is worth a lot to me. Oklahoma might choose the Big 10 but if they do in my opinion they will wind up like Nebraska, good, but a shadow of their former selves. Personally, I think they need Southern recruiting ties to stay viable.

If the Sooners did go elsewhere the Cowboys are fine with me. They are top 25 in profitability and are competitive in all sports.

Since I'm a little late to the party, I'll just rank my quasi-Big 12 additions:
1. OU, Nebraska
2. OU, WVU
3. OU, Kansas

I don't ever see Texas joining, let alone playing by the rules.

I appreciate your #1 but would Nebraska be a viable candidate now that they are in the Big 10? Or were you speaking of that pair as a viable Big 10 scenario? For the most part I agree with your preferences and your assessment of the Horns. But I do see merit in the Cowboys should OU not be available.
(This post was last modified: 11-04-2014 05:53 PM by JRsec.)
11-04-2014 05:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,969
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 144
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #638
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(11-04-2014 05:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(11-04-2014 05:33 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(07-06-2013 08:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Let's assume the ACC stands firm with their recent additions and that everyone has indeed signed their GOR and that they get their network. Should Texas and Oklahoma realize the disadvantage long term that their conference is in and the Big 12 was suddenly open for the taking of new members who should the SEC add and why?

To me the ideal additions would be Kansas & Oklahoma. We would likely find ourselves in head to head competition with the Big 10 for these schools. Kansas is a better cultural fit for the Big 10. Oklahoma could fit in just about anywhere. I think the ideal here is highly unlikely. So my goal would be to add the Sooners and West Virginia. The Mountaineers would be joyous to be a part of the SEC and that is worth a lot to me. Oklahoma might choose the Big 10 but if they do in my opinion they will wind up like Nebraska, good, but a shadow of their former selves. Personally, I think they need Southern recruiting ties to stay viable.

If the Sooners did go elsewhere the Cowboys are fine with me. They are top 25 in profitability and are competitive in all sports.

Since I'm a little late to the party, I'll just rank my quasi-Big 12 additions:
1. OU, Nebraska
2. OU, WVU
3. OU, Kansas

I don't ever see Texas joining, let alone playing by the rules.

I appreciate your #1 but would Nebraska be a viable candidate now that they are in the Big 10? Or were you speaking of that pair as a viable Big 10 scenario? For the most part I agree with your preferences and your assessment of the Horns. But I do see merit in the Cowboys should OU not be available.
A lot of NU fans are not happy with their conference schedules and the lack of respect they are getting when they sit atop the standings in B1G West. Further expansion of the B1G in the east could make NU reconsider their conference affiliation and if they start talking to the Big 12, why not make a power play to grab OU with their long time rival Nebraska as part of the deal? The pods wouldn't be too bad:
NU OU Mizz Ark
A&M LSU Ole MSU
Ala Aub V UK
FL UGA USC Tenn
(This post was last modified: 11-05-2014 12:51 AM by murrdcu.)
11-05-2014 12:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #639
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(11-05-2014 12:50 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(11-04-2014 05:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(11-04-2014 05:33 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(07-06-2013 08:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Let's assume the ACC stands firm with their recent additions and that everyone has indeed signed their GOR and that they get their network. Should Texas and Oklahoma realize the disadvantage long term that their conference is in and the Big 12 was suddenly open for the taking of new members who should the SEC add and why?

To me the ideal additions would be Kansas & Oklahoma. We would likely find ourselves in head to head competition with the Big 10 for these schools. Kansas is a better cultural fit for the Big 10. Oklahoma could fit in just about anywhere. I think the ideal here is highly unlikely. So my goal would be to add the Sooners and West Virginia. The Mountaineers would be joyous to be a part of the SEC and that is worth a lot to me. Oklahoma might choose the Big 10 but if they do in my opinion they will wind up like Nebraska, good, but a shadow of their former selves. Personally, I think they need Southern recruiting ties to stay viable.

If the Sooners did go elsewhere the Cowboys are fine with me. They are top 25 in profitability and are competitive in all sports.

Since I'm a little late to the party, I'll just rank my quasi-Big 12 additions:
1. OU, Nebraska
2. OU, WVU
3. OU, Kansas

I don't ever see Texas joining, let alone playing by the rules.

I appreciate your #1 but would Nebraska be a viable candidate now that they are in the Big 10? Or were you speaking of that pair as a viable Big 10 scenario? For the most part I agree with your preferences and your assessment of the Horns. But I do see merit in the Cowboys should OU not be available.
A lot of NU fans are not happy with their conference schedules and the lack of respect they are getting when they sit atop the standings in B1G West. Further expansion of the B1G in the east could make NU reconsider their conference affiliation and if they start talking to the Big 12, why not make a power play to grab OU with their long time rival Nebraska as part of the deal? The pods wouldn't be too bad:
NU OU Mizz Ark
A&M LSU Ole MSU
Ala Aub V UK
FL UGA USC Tenn

That's definitely a new perspective. I suppose if the Big 10 took Virginia and North Carolina and those two insisted on Duke it would work out all the way around. The SEC moves to 18 with Oklahoma and Nebraska and Virginia Tech and N.C. State. Now that would be wild. But NU would be a geographical outlier for sure.
11-05-2014 06:14 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,969
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 144
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #640
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(11-05-2014 06:14 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(11-05-2014 12:50 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(11-04-2014 05:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(11-04-2014 05:33 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(07-06-2013 08:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Let's assume the ACC stands firm with their recent additions and that everyone has indeed signed their GOR and that they get their network. Should Texas and Oklahoma realize the disadvantage long term that their conference is in and the Big 12 was suddenly open for the taking of new members who should the SEC add and why?

To me the ideal additions would be Kansas & Oklahoma. We would likely find ourselves in head to head competition with the Big 10 for these schools. Kansas is a better cultural fit for the Big 10. Oklahoma could fit in just about anywhere. I think the ideal here is highly unlikely. So my goal would be to add the Sooners and West Virginia. The Mountaineers would be joyous to be a part of the SEC and that is worth a lot to me. Oklahoma might choose the Big 10 but if they do in my opinion they will wind up like Nebraska, good, but a shadow of their former selves. Personally, I think they need Southern recruiting ties to stay viable.

If the Sooners did go elsewhere the Cowboys are fine with me. They are top 25 in profitability and are competitive in all sports.

Since I'm a little late to the party, I'll just rank my quasi-Big 12 additions:
1. OU, Nebraska
2. OU, WVU
3. OU, Kansas

I don't ever see Texas joining, let alone playing by the rules.

I appreciate your #1 but would Nebraska be a viable candidate now that they are in the Big 10? Or were you speaking of that pair as a viable Big 10 scenario? For the most part I agree with your preferences and your assessment of the Horns. But I do see merit in the Cowboys should OU not be available.
A lot of NU fans are not happy with their conference schedules and the lack of respect they are getting when they sit atop the standings in B1G West. Further expansion of the B1G in the east could make NU reconsider their conference affiliation and if they start talking to the Big 12, why not make a power play to grab OU with their long time rival Nebraska as part of the deal? The pods wouldn't be too bad:
NU OU Mizz Ark
A&M LSU Ole MSU
Ala Aub V UK
FL UGA USC Tenn

That's definitely a new perspective. I suppose if the Big 10 took Virginia and North Carolina and those two insisted on Duke it would work out all the way around. The SEC moves to 18 with Oklahoma and Nebraska and Virginia Tech and N.C. State. Now that would be wild. But NU would be a geographical outlier for sure.

NU being a geographical outlier would be no different than Miami (FL) for any conference they join.
11-05-2014 06:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.