JRsec
Super Moderator
Posts: 38,264
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7969
I Root For: SEC
Location:
|
RE: Things to Know about Any Future Realignment
(01-15-2015 08:57 PM)XLance Wrote: (01-15-2015 06:28 PM)JRsec Wrote: (01-15-2015 03:32 PM)XLance Wrote: (01-15-2015 01:59 PM)JRsec Wrote: (01-15-2015 01:22 PM)XLance Wrote: JR, the SEC really does not need a bump in football. You guys already have enough football schools, and the B1G now thinks they do. The PAC now has some hope that somebody will have appreciation for "west coast" football and might want to watch it if it were available at a decent hour against a team the east coast might recognize. Who better than to promote and market your product than ESPN especially if they have a vested interest (and could use the inventory for the LHN).
That scenario would bring some balance and it might well be best for the sport, but I doubt anything like it happens. Instead we will wait for 5 or 6 years and the Big 12 will be cherry picked with OU and UT finally getting little brothers in. I wouldn't be surprised to see the SEC under new leadership (and with a full understanding that the ACC would remain un-breached beyond the Maryland loss) decide to take the two Oklahoma's, Texas, and another Texas school (either Tech or Baylor). It's interesting how macro economics could alter this however. If petro products stay deflated the Texas oil fund money won't be as staunch and while that will not dictate their actions it could exert some influence upon their timeline.
I really believe that geography will be the greatest factor in future realignment and that is the only reason that I think the Horns and Sooners eventually look to the SEC. (L.S.U., Arkansas, A&M, the Mississippi's, and Missouri are simply a lot more interesting to their fans, easier to get to, and much more compatible for them to play than traveling mates and Nebraska in the Big 10, or the traveling mates and Arizona schools, and Colorado in the PAC.)
Texas, Notre Dame, West Virginia, and Connecticut/Kansas might make for an interesting 18 for the ACC and if partnered with an SEC that adds Baylor, (Texas Tech/Kansas/Kansas State/T.C.U.), Oklahoma and Oklahoma State that would make for a very interesting 36 schools for ESPN to lock down should Texas not want to move West or the PAC not want to sell any part of their network to Disney.
The greatest the leverage the SEC has would be to create an East and West Division of 9 schools each (or even 3 six school divisions) and to essentially give Texas and Oklahoma their dream schedules with the divisions. They would be kings of the West (at least in their minds) if Alabama and Auburn were in the East.
SEC West:
Arkansas, Baylor, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M
SEC East:
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
or
SEC West: Arkansas, Baylor, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas
SEC Central: Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M, Tennessee
SEC East: Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Vanderbilt
Either of those gives their fan bases a guaranteed home schedule of 5 interesting games a year without having to have their minor sports travel to the hinterlands to play. Remember too that if the conference champ automatically enters the 4 team playoff (Big 10, ACC, & PAC champ included) then playing an 11 game conference schedule makes sense. You would play 8 divisional games and 1 permanent crossover rival while rotating the rest. That's a heck of a schedule.
JR don't you think the three division set-up would make the LSU people feel a little more comfortable? They might get lost west of the Red River.
Yeah, I do. It would likely please the Aggies as well. They both would have the chance of winning their divisions and that might be enough separation to keep them happy. Plus that allows the conference to select the best of the remaining schools for the conference playoff which helps balance good divisions with bad divisions by giving the strong division a chance to land a second school into the playoffs each year. That will keep interest up much longer into the season among a greater number of fan bases improving viewing and attendance. It's why I still like that model for the ACC as well.
If the 4 P5 conferences (can you say that) adopt the three pod system then:
The B1G could go to 18 by adding Iowa State, Kansas and Kansas State. The PAC would need to get to 15 to be able to divide by three. Not an easy task with only two Texas schools left out of the Big 12 (with West Virginia not really a candidate for the PAC and necessary for the ACC to get to 15). So how about the PAC taking TCU, Texas Tech AND BYU as a football only member?
If they wouldn't discriminate against Mormons they would already have them. B.Y.U. has much better numbers than Utah.
I would see something more along the lines of the ACC at 18 with West Virginia, Cincinnati, Notre Dame, and Connecticut. The Big 10 goes to 16 with Kansas and Iowa State. The SEC to 18 with some version of Texahoma. The PAC picks up T.C.U., Texas Tech, and Kansas State (which is contiguous with Colorado) and moves to 16 with either Nevada or New Mexico or both with B.Y.U. in a move to 18.
Now you have 70 schools in the upper tier.
Cincinnati, Boston College, Connecticut, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse
Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Miami, West Virginia
Now you have a Northern Big East Basketball division that Notre Dame can progress through, your core of the Old ACC division which one of the Virginia or Carolina schools can progress through, and a football first division which likely will supply not only your division champion for the conference playoffs but likely your wild card too.
So on any given year the ACC is likely to have Notre Dame, U.N.C. or Virginia Tech, Florida State, and a Clemson, Louisville, Miami, Georgia Tech, or West Virginia in their 4 team conference football championship playoff and that my friend is a formula for fantastic ratings. The South division carries the content during football season, the North and Atlantic carry the content during hoops season.
I don't see how the Big 10 gets to 18 without raiding the ACC so I think they move to 16 and stop. Since their TV contracts will remain near the top then 16 gives their schools all a bit more money than 18 and they keeps their AAU state university thing going. Plus with OSU winning this year they are feeling better about their football, especially with the Harbaugh hire and PSU coming off of probation.
The PAC at 18 solves a lot of their own issues in that it groups them geographically and segregates them from the Eastern schools to give an Old PAC 10 feel to it.:
California, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State
Arizona, Arizona State, Nevada, New Mexico, Southern Cal, and U.C.L.A. (this keeps this division from beating up on itself)
Brigham Young, Colorado, Kansas State, T.C.U., Texas Tech, Utah (The travel isn't so severe here and it keeps the B.Y.U. issue from being such a part of the California school objections.)
Now the PAC will produce champions from Oregon/Stanford/ and Washington in the North, a Los Angeles School or Arizona school in the South, and either Brigham Young, a Texas school, or Kansas State in the East. Either the North or South is likely to produce their wild card so their ratings go up as well. Well it's just a thought.
(This post was last modified: 01-15-2015 09:45 PM by JRsec.)
|
|