(06-18-2019 08:27 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 08:17 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(06-17-2019 07:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  Realistically, Nebraska was the only real loss. And there were stories that Nebraska only represented 8% of the TV value (1/12th). CU had stumbled and was no longer significant in football. They never were in basketball. Missouri wasn't significant. A&M was a loss in non-rev and in bringing fans, but competitively in football and basketball, no loss. The Big 12 lost their #3 program and 3 middle programs.

Lol, they were very big losses. Big 12 went from being easily the 2nd or 3rd best conference to being maybe 4th at best. The reputation took a huge hit and likely never will recover.

Right, and the value is relative. Colorado had fallen off and never was a basketball program, but that didn't stop the PAC and Big Ten from wanting them badly. Nebraska is in the "middle of nowhere" part of this country...they are ALL about legacy, and had they shopped themselves around, could have found a buyer anywhere. And we know Missouri wasn't much on football and had some success in basketball, but, I'm pretty sure Missouri is something like that conference's second biggest state, and its gateway to the midwest, especially Chicago...which was part of the reason schools like Illinois and Iowa wanted no part of them in the Big Ten (put Missouri as your peer, and watch the kids in your state move south).

It's the replacements that can't be overlooked. The conference was lucky it landed good football programs, and, in the case of West Virginia, a school that could shove Big XII content into surrounding states (still figuring out why I see Iowa State, Okie State, or Kansas football on my local ABC station sometimes here outside Philly).

TCU and WVU were good replacements. I'd even argue they should have just gone all the way and added Louisville and Cincinnati too, or at least UCF/USF.

But still, losing 4 flagship schools in their region was a huge blow, especially given that 3 were in fairly high population states and the other was a major blue blood program. You just can't recover that tradition and those natural rivalries.

(06-18-2019 08:45 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 08:27 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 08:17 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(06-17-2019 07:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  Realistically, Nebraska was the only real loss. And there were stories that Nebraska only represented 8% of the TV value (1/12th). CU had stumbled and was no longer significant in football. They never were in basketball. Missouri wasn't significant. A&M was a loss in non-rev and in bringing fans, but competitively in football and basketball, no loss. The Big 12 lost their #3 program and 3 middle programs.

Lol, they were very big losses. Big 12 went from being easily the 2nd or 3rd best conference to being maybe 4th at best. The reputation took a huge hit and likely never will recover.

Right, and the value is relative. Colorado had fallen off and never was a basketball program, but that didn't stop the PAC and Big Ten from wanting them badly. Nebraska is in the "middle of nowhere" part of this country...they are ALL about legacy, and had they shopped themselves around, could have found a buyer anywhere. And we know Missouri wasn't much on football and had some success in basketball, but, I'm pretty sure Missouri is something like that conference's second biggest state, and its gateway to the midwest, especially Chicago...which was part of the reason schools like Illinois and Iowa wanted no part of them in the Big Ten (put Missouri as your peer, and watch the kids in your state move south).

It's the replacements that can't be overlooked. The conference was lucky it landed good football programs, and, in the case of West Virginia, a school that could shove Big XII content into surrounding states (still figuring out why I see Iowa State, Okie State, or Kansas football on my local ABC station sometimes here outside Philly).

A lot of people on these boards underestimate WVU. They are very SEC like in terms of statewide fan support, die hard fans, FB is everything, and can actually win at a high level. They beat the SEC(Georgia), XII (OU) and ACC champs (Clemson) in BCS bowls and in two of those games absolutely blew out their opponents winning one game 48-28 and the other winning 70-33 and it wasn't even that close.

I think if the SEC goes to 16 and they don't get Texas or OU watch for them to go after WVU. They fit that conference like a glove. Yes, they aren't a flashy big name but they bring top quality FB to any conference, and thats not even bringing up their good BBall program.

Same for the ACC if the XII gets torn apart and WVU is sitting there after the big dogs have left don't be shocked if the FB schools in that conference throw their weight around again and push for a quality FB program like WVU to be added. I know Clemson and FSU would love to have another good team in the conference especially if the B1G and SEC make themselves better with old XII members.

It seems that you surly do know a lot about how Clemson and Florida State "feel" since West Virginia has played Florida State three times in history and Clemson only twice.
And as far as the "football schools" throwing their weight around AGAIN; I would suggest to you that all of the schools in the ACC were on board with Louisville to begin with, otherwise their selection process would have lasted much longer.
You may just want to stick to New Jersey and your vast knowledge of the Big Ten.

(06-17-2019 04:44 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-17-2019 02:55 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(06-16-2019 08:59 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(06-16-2019 03:05 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-16-2019 02:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  We'll only know if the SEC is interested in Clemson and Florida State when the GOR for those two is about up and well only know if those two are interested in the SEC at the same time.

Right now it is ESPN that has refused to pay the SEC for Clemson and F.S.U. and that's kept them in place no matter what any of them wan't or don't want.

Other than that, I agree that the emphasis will be upon Oklahoma and Texas, but not just from the Big 10 and SEC. But those two have the most to offer.

Clemson in particular has a hard time generating sufficient income to truly be competitive in the SEC, and two schools in South Carolina is a bit of overkill for the market.
I also have a hard time seeing Oklahoma fit into B1G culture (I see them as a much better candidate for the SEC).
Texas will do what Texas will do and money won't be their driving force.

We are no longer in a market driven economy; we are in a content driven economy. If people want to watch them it doesn't matter if they play on Manhattan Island or Wake Island.

The area of revenue Clemson trails in is tv revenue and that is remedied by a move to the SEC.

Oklahoma plausibly fits in both the Big Ten and SEC. The SEC is the better fit but the Big Ten has serious academic appeal that's hard for university presidents to resist.

Very true, and if we were still in the market driven economy, ESPN would be encouraging Texas to join the ACC, very, very strongly, and discouraging a move to the SEC. Why?? Because of Texas A&M's presence (in our hypothetical scenario). However, ESPN's execs will tell you themselves the market driven economy is dead.

When you see Florida/Florida State, the Iron Bowl, Clemson/South Carolina, the Egg Bowl, Georgia/Georgia Tech, et al played on different weekends throughout the season, you will know that content is king and the market model is dead. Until then, the market model is very much alive, and I fully expect Texas will end up as a member of the ACC in some fashion.

Your trying to say content is "king" so Texas is going to end up in the ACC? That is the last league where Texas and content go together.

(06-18-2019 01:19 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(06-17-2019 04:44 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-17-2019 02:55 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(06-16-2019 08:59 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(06-16-2019 03:05 PM)XLance Wrote:  Clemson in particular has a hard time generating sufficient income to truly be competitive in the SEC, and two schools in South Carolina is a bit of overkill for the market.
I also have a hard time seeing Oklahoma fit into B1G culture (I see them as a much better candidate for the SEC).
Texas will do what Texas will do and money won't be their driving force.

We are no longer in a market driven economy; we are in a content driven economy. If people want to watch them it doesn't matter if they play on Manhattan Island or Wake Island.

The area of revenue Clemson trails in is tv revenue and that is remedied by a move to the SEC.

Oklahoma plausibly fits in both the Big Ten and SEC. The SEC is the better fit but the Big Ten has serious academic appeal that's hard for university presidents to resist.

Very true, and if we were still in the market driven economy, ESPN would be encouraging Texas to join the ACC, very, very strongly, and discouraging a move to the SEC. Why?? Because of Texas A&M's presence (in our hypothetical scenario). However, ESPN's execs will tell you themselves the market driven economy is dead.

When you see Florida/Florida State, the Iron Bowl, Clemson/South Carolina, the Egg Bowl, Georgia/Georgia Tech, et al played on different weekends throughout the season, you will know that content is king and the market model is dead. Until then, the market model is very much alive, and I fully expect Texas will end up as a member of the ACC in some fashion.

Your trying to say content is "king" so Texas is going to end up in the ACC? That is the last league where Texas and content go together.

(06-16-2019 07:11 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Expansion is done and realignment is on hold until at least 2021. We will get some idea who wins “The Best of The Big 12” sweepstakes then since The Big 12 GOR ends in June 2025.

The Big 10 adding Oklahoma and Kansas with Texas signing a Notre Dame-type deal with The ACC, or The SEC simply adding Texas and Oklahoma. Whatever happens The Big 12 is going to be gutted.

This was long decided when its broadcast partners offered to pay the conference not to expand. The LHN was created as a placeholder, a bandaid to fix a temporary problem. It kept The Big 12 from creating a network with Fox.

Rest assured if The Big 12 survives after 2025 it will look much different than it does today.

If it was long decided in 2016 and the Big 12 knew it was gone in 2025 at the next rights, why wouldn't they have expanded with the maximum available of 6 teams and only gave those teams a 33% or 50% share? The existing Big 12 would make out like bandits because the pro-rata increase was MUCH higher than the small amount given to not expand. There had to be dialogue and talk about ongoing revenues after the next contract or there was no motivation to not expand.

(06-18-2019 11:51 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 08:45 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 08:27 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 08:17 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(06-17-2019 07:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  Realistically, Nebraska was the only real loss. And there were stories that Nebraska only represented 8% of the TV value (1/12th). CU had stumbled and was no longer significant in football. They never were in basketball. Missouri wasn't significant. A&M was a loss in non-rev and in bringing fans, but competitively in football and basketball, no loss. The Big 12 lost their #3 program and 3 middle programs.

Lol, they were very big losses. Big 12 went from being easily the 2nd or 3rd best conference to being maybe 4th at best. The reputation took a huge hit and likely never will recover.

Right, and the value is relative. Colorado had fallen off and never was a basketball program, but that didn't stop the PAC and Big Ten from wanting them badly. Nebraska is in the "middle of nowhere" part of this country...they are ALL about legacy, and had they shopped themselves around, could have found a buyer anywhere. And we know Missouri wasn't much on football and had some success in basketball, but, I'm pretty sure Missouri is something like that conference's second biggest state, and its gateway to the midwest, especially Chicago...which was part of the reason schools like Illinois and Iowa wanted no part of them in the Big Ten (put Missouri as your peer, and watch the kids in your state move south).

It's the replacements that can't be overlooked. The conference was lucky it landed good football programs, and, in the case of West Virginia, a school that could shove Big XII content into surrounding states (still figuring out why I see Iowa State, Okie State, or Kansas football on my local ABC station sometimes here outside Philly).

A lot of people on these boards underestimate WVU. They are very SEC like in terms of statewide fan support, die hard fans, FB is everything, and can actually win at a high level. They beat the SEC(Georgia), XII (OU) and ACC champs (Clemson) in BCS bowls and in two of those games absolutely blew out their opponents winning one game 48-28 and the other winning 70-33 and it wasn't even that close.

I think if the SEC goes to 16 and they don't get Texas or OU watch for them to go after WVU. They fit that conference like a glove. Yes, they aren't a flashy big name but they bring top quality FB to any conference, and thats not even bringing up their good BBall program.

Same for the ACC if the XII gets torn apart and WVU is sitting there after the big dogs have left don't be shocked if the FB schools in that conference throw their weight around again and push for a quality FB program like WVU to be added. I know Clemson and FSU would love to have another good team in the conference especially if the B1G and SEC make themselves better with old XII members.

It seems that you surly do know a lot about how Clemson and Florida State "feel" since West Virginia has played Florida State three times in history and Clemson only twice.
And as far as the "football schools" throwing their weight around AGAIN; I would suggest to you that all of the schools in the ACC were on board with Louisville to begin with, otherwise their selection process would have lasted much longer.
You may just want to stick to New Jersey and your vast knowledge of the Big Ten.

Oh please everyone is behind every addition to every conference. Every conference votes in new members unanimously.

It's not some new conspiracy theory that the FB schools threw their weight around to make sure a FB school got added after the last round was for BBall purposes. Maybe you're new around here but im not even close to the first poster to say that either.

(06-17-2019 07:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-17-2019 07:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-17-2019 09:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-17-2019 09:15 AM)zoocrew Wrote:  

(06-17-2019 08:42 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  We've both been around here long enough to have heard many claims that the Big 12 would be "gutted", etc. but so far, nothing.

Yea no...people claimed the Big 12 would be gutted last go around.....and it was. It was almost gutted even worse then people predicted. “People” were right. Then the Big 12 added teams and signed a GOR for survival.

And since then people have been claiming the Big 12 will be gutted ONLY ONCE their GOR runs out. That GOR hasn’t run out yet so claiming people were wrong about it being gutted makes no sense...everyone knows the GOR isn’t going to be broken.

If in 2026 the Big 12 still has Texahoma then you were right and will have earned a nice victory lap. If Texahoma leaves the Big 12 then you were wrong and “people” were right. But right now no one is wrong about anything relating to the collapse of the Big 12.

I’m not arguing whether it WILL happen or not just that you’re claiming victory wayyyyyyyyy too early.

The Big 12 was gutted in 2010-2011 by the B1G, SEC, and PAC. I don't remember many predicting that say in 2008-2009? Maybe a few voices did but was there a consensus then that this was coming? I don't recall it.

Beyond that, I'm not claiming victory as I don't have a stake in what happens to the Big 12. I agree that anything can happen in 2025, I just don't agree with those who are certain (like the poster I replied to) that gutting will happen to the B12 that year, as I don't see any evidence pointing in that direction. To me, the developments of the last 3-4 years - the Big 12 being able to get a CCG, the ability of the Big 12 champ to get into the CFP playoffs, and the good money the schools are getting - point in the other direction. But I wouldn't dare to say i know for sure that this means the Big 12 is stable after 2025.

Realistically, Nebraska was the only real loss. And there were stories that Nebraska only represented 8% of the TV value (1/12th). CU had stumbled and was no longer significant in football. They never were in basketball. Missouri wasn't significant. A&M was a loss in non-rev and in bringing fans, but competitively in football and basketball, no loss. The Big 12 lost their #3 program and 3 middle programs.

I would say that these days, TAMU is easily the most valuable of the four schools that left, and setting aside the SEC schools, they would be in the top half of value in every other P5 conference, in the ACC and PAC probably #2, in the Big 12, #3.

But with 3 other Texas schools, they don't provide as much value to the Big 12 as they do to the SEC.

(06-18-2019 08:17 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(06-17-2019 07:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  Realistically, Nebraska was the only real loss. And there were stories that Nebraska only represented 8% of the TV value (1/12th). CU had stumbled and was no longer significant in football. They never were in basketball. Missouri wasn't significant. A&M was a loss in non-rev and in bringing fans, but competitively in football and basketball, no loss. The Big 12 lost their #3 program and 3 middle programs.

Lol, they were very big losses. Big 12 went from being easily the 2nd or 3rd best conference to being maybe 4th at best. The reputation took a huge hit and likely never will recover.

Big 12 still 2nd or 3rd best in football. With the loss of A&M, NU and CU, moved up to 1st or 2nd best in basketball. And in revenue, they are 3rd best.

(06-18-2019 09:39 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  But still, losing 4 flagship schools in their region was a huge blow, especially given that 3 were in fairly high population states and the other was a major blue blood program. You just can't recover that tradition and those natural rivalries.

Yeah. Granted, there were opportunities to get other flagships, like New Mexico and Colorado State, people know the difference, and while West Virginia fits the bill, I think enough people know some of the history and heat between WVU and the ACC and SEC, or, that they were simply unwanted by those two conferences this past round to stress a power structure or pecking order among the major conferences.

WVU brings value, and even if it won't ever see the AAU, nobody can discredit that, given its location and current media distribution models, and its competitive football and basketball, it was a decent addition.

...but, yeah, people can't get over the names of places like Colorado and Missouri, even if the program quality piece hasn't been there.

(06-18-2019 02:08 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 11:51 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 08:45 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 08:27 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 08:17 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Lol, they were very big losses. Big 12 went from being easily the 2nd or 3rd best conference to being maybe 4th at best. The reputation took a huge hit and likely never will recover.

Right, and the value is relative. Colorado had fallen off and never was a basketball program, but that didn't stop the PAC and Big Ten from wanting them badly. Nebraska is in the "middle of nowhere" part of this country...they are ALL about legacy, and had they shopped themselves around, could have found a buyer anywhere. And we know Missouri wasn't much on football and had some success in basketball, but, I'm pretty sure Missouri is something like that conference's second biggest state, and its gateway to the midwest, especially Chicago...which was part of the reason schools like Illinois and Iowa wanted no part of them in the Big Ten (put Missouri as your peer, and watch the kids in your state move south).

It's the replacements that can't be overlooked. The conference was lucky it landed good football programs, and, in the case of West Virginia, a school that could shove Big XII content into surrounding states (still figuring out why I see Iowa State, Okie State, or Kansas football on my local ABC station sometimes here outside Philly).

A lot of people on these boards underestimate WVU. They are very SEC like in terms of statewide fan support, die hard fans, FB is everything, and can actually win at a high level. They beat the SEC(Georgia), XII (OU) and ACC champs (Clemson) in BCS bowls and in two of those games absolutely blew out their opponents winning one game 48-28 and the other winning 70-33 and it wasn't even that close.

I think if the SEC goes to 16 and they don't get Texas or OU watch for them to go after WVU. They fit that conference like a glove. Yes, they aren't a flashy big name but they bring top quality FB to any conference, and thats not even bringing up their good BBall program.

Same for the ACC if the XII gets torn apart and WVU is sitting there after the big dogs have left don't be shocked if the FB schools in that conference throw their weight around again and push for a quality FB program like WVU to be added. I know Clemson and FSU would love to have another good team in the conference especially if the B1G and SEC make themselves better with old XII members.

It seems that you surly do know a lot about how Clemson and Florida State "feel" since West Virginia has played Florida State three times in history and Clemson only twice.
And as far as the "football schools" throwing their weight around AGAIN; I would suggest to you that all of the schools in the ACC were on board with Louisville to begin with, otherwise their selection process would have lasted much longer.
You may just want to stick to New Jersey and your vast knowledge of the Big Ten.

Oh please everyone is behind every addition to every conference. Every conference votes in new members unanimously.

It's not some new conspiracy theory that the FB schools threw their weight around to make sure a FB school got added after the last round was for BBall purposes. Maybe you're new around here but im not even close to the first poster to say that either.

(06-18-2019 09:39 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 08:27 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 08:17 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(06-17-2019 07:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  Realistically, Nebraska was the only real loss. And there were stories that Nebraska only represented 8% of the TV value (1/12th). CU had stumbled and was no longer significant in football. They never were in basketball. Missouri wasn't significant. A&M was a loss in non-rev and in bringing fans, but competitively in football and basketball, no loss. The Big 12 lost their #3 program and 3 middle programs.

Lol, they were very big losses. Big 12 went from being easily the 2nd or 3rd best conference to being maybe 4th at best. The reputation took a huge hit and likely never will recover.

Right, and the value is relative. Colorado had fallen off and never was a basketball program, but that didn't stop the PAC and Big Ten from wanting them badly. Nebraska is in the "middle of nowhere" part of this country...they are ALL about legacy, and had they shopped themselves around, could have found a buyer anywhere. And we know Missouri wasn't much on football and had some success in basketball, but, I'm pretty sure Missouri is something like that conference's second biggest state, and its gateway to the midwest, especially Chicago...which was part of the reason schools like Illinois and Iowa wanted no part of them in the Big Ten (put Missouri as your peer, and watch the kids in your state move south).

It's the replacements that can't be overlooked. The conference was lucky it landed good football programs, and, in the case of West Virginia, a school that could shove Big XII content into surrounding states (still figuring out why I see Iowa State, Okie State, or Kansas football on my local ABC station sometimes here outside Philly).

TCU and WVU were good replacements. I'd even argue they should have just gone all the way and added Louisville and Cincinnati too, or at least UCF/USF.

But still, losing 4 flagship schools in their region was a huge blow, especially given that 3 were in fairly high population states and the other was a major blue blood program. You just can't recover that tradition and those natural rivalries.

If they added Louisville and found a way to make BYU work as well I think the narrative around the conference is different today.

If the SEC has the stomach to go to 18 and can devise a practical way to manage a league of that size then the next realignment round will be fairly simple: the Texlahoma 4 to the SEC and they will roll in piles and piles of money.

If they don't have that appetite then it will be a chess match between the SEC and Big Ten for the big prizes.

Unless the SEC makes the first move on them the ACC is safe, barring a ND change of heart. The Big Ten knows that if they destabilized the ACC the schools they would get would be far less valuable than the ones the SEC could extract.

Texlahoma 4 to the PAC 12 is not on the table and there's no one else out there that the Left Coasters would want so they will stand pat.

(06-18-2019 05:53 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If the SEC has the stomach to go to 18 ...

I think 16 is the maximum size for any "P" conference.

(06-18-2019 05:53 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If the SEC has the stomach to go to 18 and can devise a practical way to manage a league of that size then the next realignment round will be fairly simple: the Texlahoma 4 to the SEC and they will roll in piles and piles of money.

If they don't have that appetite then it will be a chess match between the SEC and Big Ten for the big prizes.

Unless the SEC makes the first move on them the ACC is safe, barring a ND change of heart. The Big Ten knows that if they destabilized the ACC the schools they would get would be far less valuable than the ones the SEC could extract.

Texlahoma 4 to the PAC 12 is not on the table and there's no one else out there that the Left Coasters would want so they will stand pat.

Divisions wouldn't work in the SEC with 18. To many cross-division rivalries. Maybe you could do a 5-4-4-5 where the "4" groups rotate between east and west every other year. UK/TN/Vandy/UGA/UF would be a "5" and AL/AU/MS/MSU as a "4." South Carolina would have to be in a "4" with 2 or 3 new eastern teams. LSU/A&M/AR and MU or 2 new schools would be in a "5."

There would be 8 division games, leaving just one to schedule outside the division, so the 10 original members would have to be set up to play each other frequently (or at least 9 with LSU getting the AL/MS schools frequently).

Its hard to do 16 also in the SEC.

(06-18-2019 06:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 05:53 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If the SEC has the stomach to go to 18 and can devise a practical way to manage a league of that size then the next realignment round will be fairly simple: the Texlahoma 4 to the SEC and they will roll in piles and piles of money.

If they don't have that appetite then it will be a chess match between the SEC and Big Ten for the big prizes.

Unless the SEC makes the first move on them the ACC is safe, barring a ND change of heart. The Big Ten knows that if they destabilized the ACC the schools they would get would be far less valuable than the ones the SEC could extract.

Texlahoma 4 to the PAC 12 is not on the table and there's no one else out there that the Left Coasters would want so they will stand pat.

Divisions wouldn't work in the SEC with 18. To many cross-division rivalries. Maybe you could do a 5-4-4-5 where the "4" groups rotate between east and west every other year. UK/TN/Vandy/UGA/UF would be a "5" and AL/AU/MS/MSU as a "4." South Carolina would have to be in a "4" with 2 or 3 new eastern teams. LSU/A&M/AR and MU or 2 new schools would be in a "5."

There would be 8 division games, leaving just one to schedule outside the division, so the 10 original members would have to be set up to play each other frequently (or at least 9 with LSU getting the AL/MS schools frequently).

Its hard to do 16 also in the SEC.

Not really. With 16 you group your top rivals in 4's and rotate half divisions. The rules are already there so no problem.

The 18 you covered pretty well. Also everyone already knows if we expand at all we move to 9 conference games. So even with two 8 school divisions you would play your 7 division mates and rotate 2 from the other side annually so that everyone is played in 4 years.

So at 16 from the Big 12 you would have:
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

At 18:
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech

The only school that might gripe would be Ole Miss. Their rivalry with L.S.U. is their biggy. MSU could be scheduled OOC. That pretty well solves the rivalry thing.

(06-18-2019 06:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 05:53 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If the SEC has the stomach to go to 18 and can devise a practical way to manage a league of that size then the next realignment round will be fairly simple: the Texlahoma 4 to the SEC and they will roll in piles and piles of money.

If they don't have that appetite then it will be a chess match between the SEC and Big Ten for the big prizes.

Unless the SEC makes the first move on them the ACC is safe, barring a ND change of heart. The Big Ten knows that if they destabilized the ACC the schools they would get would be far less valuable than the ones the SEC could extract.

Texlahoma 4 to the PAC 12 is not on the table and there's no one else out there that the Left Coasters would want so they will stand pat.

Divisions wouldn't work in the SEC with 18. To many cross-division rivalries. Maybe you could do a 5-4-4-5 where the "4" groups rotate between east and west every other year. UK/TN/Vandy/UGA/UF would be a "5" and AL/AU/MS/MSU as a "4." South Carolina would have to be in a "4" with 2 or 3 new eastern teams. LSU/A&M/AR and MU or 2 new schools would be in a "5."

There would be 8 division games, leaving just one to schedule outside the division, so the 10 original members would have to be set up to play each other frequently (or at least 9 with LSU getting the AL/MS schools frequently).

Its hard to do 16 also in the SEC.

I dunno, this SEC-18 works out decently.

East: Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Central: Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Mississippi State, Missouri, Ole Miss
West: Arkansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech

Protected crossovers: Alabama/Tennessee, Auburn/Georgia

Maybe swap Arkansas and Missouri.

I'm a personal fan of 3 pods of 6 if the NCAA could be coerced into permitting conference semi-finals. If they can get that past then the sky is really the limit.

(06-18-2019 08:10 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I'm a personal fan of 3 pods of 6 if the NCAA could be coerced into permitting conference semi-finals. If they can get that past then the sky is really the limit.

Yeah, I was pushing that 7 years ago and still like it. Play 5 in division and rotate 2 each annually and you've played everyone in 3 years. And with one best at large for conference semis you keep many more fan bases energized deep into the season which is a winner for everyone. Top seed plays the at large and 2 & 3 play in the semis and everyone makes out pretty well. It would help the ACC, Big 10 and SEC. It might even help the PAC.

(06-18-2019 07:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 06:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 05:53 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If the SEC has the stomach to go to 18 and can devise a practical way to manage a league of that size then the next realignment round will be fairly simple: the Texlahoma 4 to the SEC and they will roll in piles and piles of money.

If they don't have that appetite then it will be a chess match between the SEC and Big Ten for the big prizes.

Unless the SEC makes the first move on them the ACC is safe, barring a ND change of heart. The Big Ten knows that if they destabilized the ACC the schools they would get would be far less valuable than the ones the SEC could extract.

Texlahoma 4 to the PAC 12 is not on the table and there's no one else out there that the Left Coasters would want so they will stand pat.

Divisions wouldn't work in the SEC with 18. To many cross-division rivalries. Maybe you could do a 5-4-4-5 where the "4" groups rotate between east and west every other year. UK/TN/Vandy/UGA/UF would be a "5" and AL/AU/MS/MSU as a "4." South Carolina would have to be in a "4" with 2 or 3 new eastern teams. LSU/A&M/AR and MU or 2 new schools would be in a "5."

There would be 8 division games, leaving just one to schedule outside the division, so the 10 original members would have to be set up to play each other frequently (or at least 9 with LSU getting the AL/MS schools frequently).

Its hard to do 16 also in the SEC.

Not really. With 16 you group your top rivals in 4's and rotate half divisions. The rules are already there so no problem.

The 18 you covered pretty well. Also everyone already knows if we expand at all we move to 9 conference games. So even with two 8 school divisions you would play your 7 division mates and rotate 2 from the other side annually so that everyone is played in 4 years.

At 18:
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech

The only school that might gripe would be Ole Miss. Their rivalry with L.S.U. is their biggy. MSU could be scheduled OOC. That pretty well solves the rivalry thing.

Also when this happened, Big 10 is further weakened more. Penn State and Maryland want to jump ship. So ACC adds Penn State, Maryland, Notre Dame and UConn.

Big 10 loses two so they have to add six. Big 10 will add Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, West Virginia, North Dakota State and South Dakota. They probably will drop the island Rutgers and add North Dakota because now North Dakota and South Dakota are oil rich and Rutgers is useless as usual.

(06-18-2019 09:56 PM)ArQ Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 07:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 06:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 05:53 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If the SEC has the stomach to go to 18 and can devise a practical way to manage a league of that size then the next realignment round will be fairly simple: the Texlahoma 4 to the SEC and they will roll in piles and piles of money.

If they don't have that appetite then it will be a chess match between the SEC and Big Ten for the big prizes.

Unless the SEC makes the first move on them the ACC is safe, barring a ND change of heart. The Big Ten knows that if they destabilized the ACC the schools they would get would be far less valuable than the ones the SEC could extract.

Texlahoma 4 to the PAC 12 is not on the table and there's no one else out there that the Left Coasters would want so they will stand pat.

Divisions wouldn't work in the SEC with 18. To many cross-division rivalries. Maybe you could do a 5-4-4-5 where the "4" groups rotate between east and west every other year. UK/TN/Vandy/UGA/UF would be a "5" and AL/AU/MS/MSU as a "4." South Carolina would have to be in a "4" with 2 or 3 new eastern teams. LSU/A&M/AR and MU or 2 new schools would be in a "5."

There would be 8 division games, leaving just one to schedule outside the division, so the 10 original members would have to be set up to play each other frequently (or at least 9 with LSU getting the AL/MS schools frequently).

Its hard to do 16 also in the SEC.

Not really. With 16 you group your top rivals in 4's and rotate half divisions. The rules are already there so no problem.

The 18 you covered pretty well. Also everyone already knows if we expand at all we move to 9 conference games. So even with two 8 school divisions you would play your 7 division mates and rotate 2 from the other side annually so that everyone is played in 4 years.

At 18:
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech

The only school that might gripe would be Ole Miss. Their rivalry with L.S.U. is their biggy. MSU could be scheduled OOC. That pretty well solves the rivalry thing.

Also when this happened, Big 10 is further weakened more. Penn State and Maryland want to jump ship. So ACC adds Penn State, Maryland, Notre Dame and UConn.

Big 10 loses two so they have to add six. Big 10 will add Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, West Virginia, North Dakota State and South Dakota. They probably will drop the island Rutgers and add North Dakota because now North Dakota and South Dakota are oil rich and Rutgers is useless as usual.

This is slightly inaccurate. The ACC adds Ohio State instead of UConn.