This is what I think should be, and to an extent, will be:

FOOTBALL

BIG EAST
1. Penn State
2. Syracuse
3. Boston College
4. Pitt
5. Notre Dame (protected USCali and Stanford games)
6. Maryland
7. Miami (protected FSU game)
8. West Virginia

*The BIG EAST would also commit to offer to play Rutgers in two home and two away games every year. The games would be chosen by the conference, and an away game could be substituted for a neutral game if one of the home games was substituted for a neutral game in the next year. However, RU is only required to accept such a substitution once every four years.

ACC
1. UNC
2. Duke
3. Wake
4. NCSU
5. Virginia
6. GT (protected UGA game)
7. Clemson (protected South Carolina and FSU games)
8. Virginia Tech

SEC EAST
1. UK
2. UL
3. UTenn (protected Alabama game)
4. Vandy
5. UGA (protected GT game)
6. UF
7. FSU (protected Miami and Clemson games)
8. South Carolina (protected Clemson game)

SEC WEST
1. Ole Miss
2. Mississippi State
3. Alabama (protected Tennessee game)
4. LSU
5. Texas A&M
6. Arkansas
7. Texas (protected Oklahoma and Texas Tech games)
8. Auburn

B1G
1. Michigan
2. Michigan State
3. Ohio State
4. Northwestern
5. Purdue
6. Indiana
7. Illinois
8. Iowa (protected Iowa State, Minnesota, and Wisc games)

Big 8
1. Minnesota (protected Iowa game)
2. Wisconsin (protected Iowa game)
3. Nebraska
4. Oklahoma (protected Texas and Oklahoma State games)
5. Kansas
6. Kansas State
7. Missouri
8. Iowa State (protected Iowa game)

Border
1. Arizona
2. Arizona State
3. Texas Tech (protected Texas game)
4. Oklahoma State (protected OU game)
5. Utah
6. Colorado
7. Baylor
8. TCU

Pac 8
1. Washington
2. Washington State
3. Oregon
4. Oregon State
5. Stanford (protected ND game)
6. Cal
7. UCLA
8. USCali (protected ND game)

NCG:
*Rose Bowl ("East-West Game") - Sugar vs. Fiesta winners

Semifinal Bowls:
*Sugar Bowl - Pinstripe vs. Orange winners
*Fiesta Bowl - Cotton vs. Sun winners

Quarterfinal Bowls:
*Sun Bowl - Pac 8 vs. Border
*Cotton Bowl - SEC West vs. Big 8
*Orange Bowl - SEC East vs. ACC
*Pinstripe Bowl - B1G vs. Big East

Additionally, each conference hosts a non playoff bowl (i.e. where it sends its #2 team) and each conference sends a team to another bowl:
*BIG EAST: Gator Bowl
*ACC: Russel Athletic
*B1G: Citrus Bowl
*SEC East: Peach Bowl
*SEC West: Liberty Bowl (or Texas Bowl)
*Big 8: Heart of Dallas Bowl (or Armed Forces Bowl)
*Border: Cactus Bowl
*Pac 8: Poinsettia Bowl

**The selection order rotates and each bowl can select any team from the pool of 3rd place finishers (except one from its own conference). The proceeds are split equally, but each conference has the autonomy to negotiate its own bowl's TV deal and to set ticket prices, and so on.

BASKETBALL

BIG EAST: UConn, Rutgers, St. John's, and Villanova
Tourney: MSG (NYC)

ACC: Georgetown (protected game against Syracuse) and Richmond
Tourney: Greensboro Coliseum (Greensboro, NC)

B1G: No partial members
Tourney: United Center (Chicago)

SEC East: No partial members
Tourney: Philips Arena (Atlanta)

SEC West: No partial members, unless there is a need for privates for admin reasons - then Rice and Tulane
Tourney: Smoothie King Arena (New Orleans)

Big 8: Marquette and Creighton
Tourney: Kemper Arena (Kansas City)

Border: No partial members
Tourney: Rotates between the Talking Stick Resort Arena, the Pepsi Center, The Chesapeake Energy Arena, and the American Airlines Center (Phoenix, Denver, Oklahoma City, and Dallas)

Pac 8: Gonzaga and SDSU
Tourney: Staples Center (LA)

ADMINISTRATIVE

General

*Each conference can choose its method for selecting a football champion.
*Any additional bowl-qualifying schools can participate in bowls with G5 schools, as negotiated by the conferences (i.e. the SEC West can create a bowl agreement with the American). The bowl proceeds would then be split by the members of the conference that sent the team to play in it, and the split would occur in a manner that said individual conference sees fit (i.e. even distribution or uneven distribution).
*Rutgers would get a cut equal to 67% of the average conference media payout and then 50% of the remaining football playoff money would be split equally by the 8 power conferences, 25% would go to the G5 conferences, 8.33% would go to fcs/D-III, and the remaining 16.67% would be distributed via a credit system, where you get a credit for each round that you advance. Combined, excluding RU's special cut, 67% would go to power conferences, 25% would go to the G5, and 8.33% would go to lower level football.

TV

*BIG EAST and ACC negotiate TV contracts together
*B1G and Big 8 negotiate TV contracts together
*Pac 8 and Border negotiate TV contracts together
*SEC East and SEC West negotiate TV contracts together

**I'm grouping conferences together because that would reduce the transaction costs, allowing schools to move to more lucrative setups, benefiting everyone involved. I chose the partners based on historic connections.

I'd put Rutgers football in the Big East over Syracuse. Syracuse can join as a basketball only tho.

This is not a slam on you...I know it's mainly just for ***** and giggles, but it cracks me up how folks want to make the P5 like a Cookie Cutter, NFL Prototype. It's NEVER going to happen. The traditions of CFB, Conferences and the Bowl System won't allow it. Add to the fact that University Presidents and Conference commissioners usually have their own self interest too much at hand to ever get too much done. Look how long it took to get the 4 team CFPlayoff from the BCS. Sooooo many think the 4 team will move to 8 very soon or before the last contract runs out....Pfffff!! ?

No thanks no need for Iowa state. Kansas sure. Oklahoma maybe but idk since there not AAU. I would like to see the big 10 stick with good academic schools.

(01-23-2016 02:30 PM)gopher952 Wrote:  No thanks no need for Iowa state. Kansas sure. Oklahoma maybe but idk since there not AAU. I would like to see the big 10 stick with good academic schools.

AAU membership is based on research prowess, not the school's ability to attract and educate high quality students. Furthermore, one school's research has little impact on any of their conference mate's. In fact, as far as I can tell, its impact is primarily limited to the budget benefits of pooled purchasing agreements. However, those agreements don't have to be based on conference affiliation. With that in mind, there's no reason why this realignment would have to have any impact the CIC's membership.

IMHO, conference affiliation impacts academics to the extent that it impacts who the school is able to advertise to, and where they're able to effectively advertise. Without looking, my guess is that Minnesota's strongest recruiting grounds are the Great Plains and the Great Lakes. This realignment would give them great exposure in the Great Plains against the best schools in the region, and decent exposure in the western Great Lakes against several of the premier schools in the region. Additionally, the a hotter schedule would give Minnesota increased flexibility to schedule games against select Great Lakes schools, thereby ensuring strong exposure in that region as well.

In the end, I have a hard time seeing why (or how) Minnesota's academics would be adversely affected.

(01-23-2016 03:30 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-23-2016 02:30 PM)gopher952 Wrote:  No thanks no need for Iowa state. Kansas sure. Oklahoma maybe but idk since there not AAU. I would like to see the big 10 stick with good academic schools.

AAU membership is based on research prowess, not the school's ability to attract and educate high quality students. Furthermore, one school's research has little impact on any of their conference mate's. In fact, as far as I can tell, its impact is primarily limited to the budget benefits of pooled purchasing agreements. However, those agreements don't have to be based on conference affiliation. With that in mind, there's no reason why this realignment would have to have any impact the CIC's membership.

IMHO, conference affiliation impacts academics to the extent that it impacts who the school is able to advertise to, and where they're able to effectively advertise. Without looking, my guess is that Minnesota's strongest recruiting grounds are the Great Plains and the Great Lakes. This realignment would give them great exposure in the Great Plains against the best schools in the region, and decent exposure in the western Great Lakes against several of the premier schools in the region. Additionally, the a hotter schedule would give Minnesota increased flexibility to schedule games against select Great Lakes schools, thereby ensuring strong exposure in that region as well.

In the end, I have a hard time seeing why (or how) Minnesota's academics would be adversely affected.

the bold part is false the AAU gives a great deal of consideration to the academic metrics of incoming students and graduation rates, but they do so within the context of the mission of the university as well and comparisons to similar universities

(01-23-2016 05:39 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(01-23-2016 03:30 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-23-2016 02:30 PM)gopher952 Wrote:  No thanks no need for Iowa state. Kansas sure. Oklahoma maybe but idk since there not AAU. I would like to see the big 10 stick with good academic schools.

AAU membership is based on research prowess, not the school's ability to attract and educate high quality students. Furthermore, one school's research has little impact on any of their conference mate's. In fact, as far as I can tell, its impact is primarily limited to the budget benefits of pooled purchasing agreements. However, those agreements don't have to be based on conference affiliation. With that in mind, there's no reason why this realignment would have to have any impact the CIC's membership.

IMHO, conference affiliation impacts academics to the extent that it impacts who the school is able to advertise to, and where they're able to effectively advertise. Without looking, my guess is that Minnesota's strongest recruiting grounds are the Great Plains and the Great Lakes. This realignment would give them great exposure in the Great Plains against the best schools in the region, and decent exposure in the western Great Lakes against several of the premier schools in the region. Additionally, the a hotter schedule would give Minnesota increased flexibility to schedule games against select Great Lakes schools, thereby ensuring strong exposure in that region as well.

In the end, I have a hard time seeing why (or how) Minnesota's academics would be adversely affected.

the bold part is false the AAU gives a great deal of consideration to the academic metrics of incoming students and graduation rates, but they do so within the context of the mission of the university as well and comparisons to similar universities

Tell that to Notre Dame, Dartmouth, Wake Forest, Boston College, Williams (and countless other small schools), SUNY Buffalo, and SUNY Stonybrook.

Only one of the 8 criteria even considers undergraduate education and that isn't even until phase II. Even then, like you said, it's examined within the context of the school's mission, not an objective standard.

Reasonable minds can differ as to the exact balance, but I'd say it's ~90% research orientated and ~10% education orientated.

https://www.aau.edu/uploadedFiles/About/...Policy.pdf

(01-23-2016 11:25 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  This is what I think should be, and to an extent, will be:

FOOTBALL

BIG EAST
1. Penn State
2. Syracuse
3. Boston College
4. Pitt
5. Notre Dame (protected USCali and Stanford games)
6. Maryland
7. Miami (protected FSU game)
8. West Virginia

*[i]The BIG EAST would also commit to offer to play Rutgers

Jettison Notre Dame (should always be independent) and replace with Rutgers, and get rid of Miami (no fit with the others whatsoever) and replace with UConn, and this is perfect.

(01-23-2016 11:43 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  I'd put Rutgers football in the Big East over Syracuse. Syracuse can join as a basketball only tho.

To be fair, Syracuse football is good in 85 of last 100 years while Rutgers football is good in 10 of last 100 years. Right now both sucks.

(01-23-2016 06:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-23-2016 11:25 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  This is what I think should be, and to an extent, will be:

FOOTBALL

BIG EAST
1. Penn State
2. Syracuse
3. Boston College
4. Pitt
5. Notre Dame (protected USCali and Stanford games)
6. Maryland
7. Miami (protected FSU game)
8. West Virginia

*[i]The BIG EAST would also commit to offer to play Rutgers

Jettison Notre Dame (should always be independent) and replace with Rutgers, and get rid of Miami (no fit with the others whatsoever) and replace with UConn, and this is perfect.

I included ND because otherwise they would be left out of a chance at a NC.

I'd say ND-Miami, PSU-Miami, and Pitt-Miami are all classic games. And, I doubt that Miami sees SU as a rival, SU sees them as one for a variety of reasons (memories of 90's Miami, NY snowbirds in Florida, and so on). Additionally, through either BIG EAST membership or ACC membership, they have a history with pretty much everyone in the conference.

I didn't include RU and UConn because someone had to get the cut and the weaker schools (WSU, WF, and NW) all have big friends. Additionally, the NE is extremely crowded given the level of local talent (or lack thereof).

However, RU should come out of this deal financially OK. 67% of a payout + ~20% of a payout for being a partial member + ~10-15% of a payout for RU's Indy TV deal (or G5 football-only deal) = ~100% of the media rights money without the expectation that they hire a big-name coach. And 4 BIG EAST H&H games plus BYU, Army, and UConn gives them 7 yearly games (I assume they would play BYU, Army, and UConn either yearly or close to yearly). That's close to the same as being in a P8 conference after they schedule several P8 games "OOC."

They would take a hit in playoff revenue (~50% of average and 67% of the lowest), but the BIG EAST's higher than normal NCAA BBT revenue would help offset that, as would greater football scheduling flexibility.

It's not ideal, but it's not completely terrible.

UConn isn't getting this deal because they'd be jumping from the American, not the B1G, so they'd need less of an incentive.

(01-23-2016 06:56 PM)ArQ Wrote:  

(01-23-2016 11:43 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  I'd put Rutgers football in the Big East over Syracuse. Syracuse can join as a basketball only tho.

To be fair, Syracuse football is good in 85 of last 100 years while Rutgers football is good in 10 of last 100 years. Right now both sucks.

He's trolling me because I'm a Syracuse fan and he doesn't like the idea that some teams are being excluded. It's not really a RU vs. SU thing.

(01-23-2016 11:25 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  This is what I think should be, and to an extent, will be:

FOOTBALL

BIG EAST
1. Penn State
2. Syracuse
3. Boston College
4. Pitt
5. Notre Dame (protected USCali and Stanford games)
6. Maryland
7. Miami (protected FSU game)
8. West Virginia

*The BIG EAST would also commit to offer to play Rutgers in two home and two away games every year. The games would be chosen by the conference, and an away game could be substituted for a neutral game if one of the home games was substituted for a neutral game in the next year. However, RU is only required to accept such a substitution once every four years.

I believe most Maryland alumni and fans, myself included, would prefer the school to return to the ACC as it existed in 1991. That said, if Maryland were to join a northeast conference, I would not want either Miami or Notre Dame in the conference. I would add Rutgers, UConn, UMass, and Temple to get to ten.

(01-23-2016 12:15 PM)TitanTopper Wrote:  This is not a slam on you...I know it's mainly just for ***** and giggles, but it cracks me up how folks want to make the P5 like a Cookie Cutter, NFL Prototype. It's NEVER going to happen. The traditions of CFB, Conferences and the Bowl System won't allow it. Add to the fact that University Presidents and Conference commissioners usually have their own self interest too much at hand to ever get too much done. Look how long it took to get the 4 team CFPlayoff from the BCS. Sooooo many think the 4 team will move to 8 very soon or before the last contract runs out....Pfffff!! ?

NFL fans that also happen to follow college football think about football with the NFL as their point of reference. Us college football fanatics use college football tradition as our point of reference. Cheers!

Right, they are going to reverse course on everything that has happened....ok.

(01-23-2016 07:46 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(01-23-2016 11:25 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  This is what I think should be, and to an extent, will be:

FOOTBALL

BIG EAST
1. Penn State
2. Syracuse
3. Boston College
4. Pitt
5. Notre Dame (protected USCali and Stanford games)
6. Maryland
7. Miami (protected FSU game)
8. West Virginia

*The BIG EAST would also commit to offer to play Rutgers in two home and two away games every year. The games would be chosen by the conference, and an away game could be substituted for a neutral game if one of the home games was substituted for a neutral game in the next year. However, RU is only required to accept such a substitution once every four years.

I believe most Maryland alumni and fans, myself included, would prefer the school to return to the ACC as it existed in 1991. That said, if Maryland were to join a northeast conference, I would not want either Miami or Notre Dame in the conference. I would add Rutgers, UConn, UMass, and Temple to get to ten.

Agree with your take on a Northeast conference.

My ideal Big East would be:

1. Penn State
2. Syracuse
3. Boston College
4. Pitt
5. Rutgers
6. Maryland
7. UCONN
8. West Virginia
9. Temple
10. UMass

(01-23-2016 08:46 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(01-23-2016 07:46 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(01-23-2016 11:25 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  This is what I think should be, and to an extent, will be:

FOOTBALL

BIG EAST
1. Penn State
2. Syracuse
3. Boston College
4. Pitt
5. Notre Dame (protected USCali and Stanford games)
6. Maryland
7. Miami (protected FSU game)
8. West Virginia

*The BIG EAST would also commit to offer to play Rutgers in two home and two away games every year. The games would be chosen by the conference, and an away game could be substituted for a neutral game if one of the home games was substituted for a neutral game in the next year. However, RU is only required to accept such a substitution once every four years.

I believe most Maryland alumni and fans, myself included, would prefer the school to return to the ACC as it existed in 1991. That said, if Maryland were to join a northeast conference, I would not want either Miami or Notre Dame in the conference. I would add Rutgers, UConn, UMass, and Temple to get to ten.

Agree with your take on a Northeast conference.

My ideal Big East would be:

1. Penn State
2. Syracuse
3. Boston College
4. Pitt
5. Rutgers
6. Maryland
7. UCONN
8. West Virginia
9. Temple
10. UMass

In an ideal world, I'd either drop UMass and go with 9 teams (not sure they'll ever make it as a 1A program) or add Cincinnati to this mix as a 10 team conference.

(01-23-2016 08:52 PM)rjglassett Wrote:  

(01-23-2016 08:46 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(01-23-2016 07:46 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(01-23-2016 11:25 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  This is what I think should be, and to an extent, will be:

FOOTBALL

BIG EAST
1. Penn State
2. Syracuse
3. Boston College
4. Pitt
5. Notre Dame (protected USCali and Stanford games)
6. Maryland
7. Miami (protected FSU game)
8. West Virginia

*The BIG EAST would also commit to offer to play Rutgers in two home and two away games every year. The games would be chosen by the conference, and an away game could be substituted for a neutral game if one of the home games was substituted for a neutral game in the next year. However, RU is only required to accept such a substitution once every four years.

I believe most Maryland alumni and fans, myself included, would prefer the school to return to the ACC as it existed in 1991. That said, if Maryland were to join a northeast conference, I would not want either Miami or Notre Dame in the conference. I would add Rutgers, UConn, UMass, and Temple to get to ten.

Agree with your take on a Northeast conference.

My ideal Big East would be:

1. Penn State
2. Syracuse
3. Boston College
4. Pitt
5. Rutgers
6. Maryland
7. UCONN
8. West Virginia
9. Temple
10. UMass

In an ideal world, I'd either drop UMass and go with 9 teams (not sure they'll ever make it as a 1A program) or add Cincinnati to this mix as a 10 team conference.

I also like Cincinnati, but in an ideal world, I think they belong in the Midwestern Big Ten.

(01-23-2016 06:32 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-23-2016 05:39 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(01-23-2016 03:30 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-23-2016 02:30 PM)gopher952 Wrote:  No thanks no need for Iowa state. Kansas sure. Oklahoma maybe but idk since there not AAU. I would like to see the big 10 stick with good academic schools.

AAU membership is based on research prowess, not the school's ability to attract and educate high quality students. Furthermore, one school's research has little impact on any of their conference mate's. In fact, as far as I can tell, its impact is primarily limited to the budget benefits of pooled purchasing agreements. However, those agreements don't have to be based on conference affiliation. With that in mind, there's no reason why this realignment would have to have any impact the CIC's membership.

IMHO, conference affiliation impacts academics to the extent that it impacts who the school is able to advertise to, and where they're able to effectively advertise. Without looking, my guess is that Minnesota's strongest recruiting grounds are the Great Plains and the Great Lakes. This realignment would give them great exposure in the Great Plains against the best schools in the region, and decent exposure in the western Great Lakes against several of the premier schools in the region. Additionally, the a hotter schedule would give Minnesota increased flexibility to schedule games against select Great Lakes schools, thereby ensuring strong exposure in that region as well.

In the end, I have a hard time seeing why (or how) Minnesota's academics would be adversely affected.

the bold part is false the AAU gives a great deal of consideration to the academic metrics of incoming students and graduation rates, but they do so within the context of the mission of the university as well and comparisons to similar universities

Tell that to Notre Dame, Dartmouth, Wake Forest, Boston College, Williams (and countless other small schools), SUNY Buffalo, and SUNY Stonybrook.

Only one of the 8 criteria even considers undergraduate education and that isn't even until phase II. Even then, like you said, it's examined within the context of the school's mission, not an objective standard.

Reasonable minds can differ as to the exact balance, but I'd say it's ~90% research orientated and ~10% education orientated.

https://www.aau.edu/uploadedFiles/About/...Policy.pdf

Buffalo and Stony Brook are AAU members

Williams College barely offers any graduate degrees and has only 36 majors that is hardly a comprehensive university and "numerous other small colleges" are just that SMALL COLLEGES

the AAU is for research UNIVERSITIES and while research plays a factor you are not going to be able to conduct hundreds of millions of research while ignoring graduation rates, overall breadth and depth of programs, faculty quality, freshman metrics or many other factors to get into the AAU based on "research" nor are you going to get in based on a few other metrics

they are looking for well above average in all metrics not a few or not just in research

Boston College does a pittance in research so they are not even in consideration....and again research matters, but it is not a factor that you can just grow to some massive size and pretend you are getting into the AAU

also the factors listed are just the factors the AAU decided to publicly list and they state nothing about how they actually evaluate those factors which again starts with weighing them against peer schools

when you compare Boston College to peer private universities they are not that spectacular they are just another really good private school same with Wake Forest, Dartmouth and many others

when you compare them to PEER universities they are not in the very upper echelon they are down in the second tier and thus are not in the AAU

you can be a high quality university and still not be in the top of your PEER group

(01-23-2016 08:46 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  Agree with your take on a Northeast conference.

My ideal Big East would be:

1. Boston College
2. UMass
3. UConn
4. Syracuse
5. Rutgers
6. Temple
7. Penn State
8. Pitt
9. West Virginia
10. Maryland

I placed the schools from your list in geographic order from north to south. There are a lot of natural rivalries in this proposed conference. I think this would be successful and very popular among casual fans in the northeast.

I assume in all this that you envision the Big Ten and SEC giving up their clear financial advantages, and agreeing to share all media and bowl/playoff revenue equally as if this were a single 64 team conference. How would you imagine that happening?