This has been discussed in the 2024 thread but here's a separate one concerning the Big 12.

The mission should the other P5 conferences and the TV partners choose to accept it is to turn the Power 5 into a Power 4 by removing the Big 12 as a power conference. The logic is clearly one fewer power conference means one fewer piece of the pie for the others. Maybe it comes with the possibility the CFP becomes the four winners of the four major conferences get automatic bids (although I'm sure the SEC would hesitate as the current system allows them to get two teams in). But at the very least it's one fewer conference taking money from ESPN/FOX.

I think we can all agree that if Texas and Oklahoma stay in the Big 12 it's still a P5 conference and if both leave for other conferences it's not. Now here's the questions:

1) If Texas leaves and Oklahoma stays, is it a P5 conference?

2) If Oklahoma leaves and Texas stays, is it?

In terms of $, Texas is clearly the bigger fish. It's one thing to leave Oklahoma out and/or force them to join one of the other four conference if it doesn't want to, it's another thing to force Texas to. On the other hand, Oklahoma has won the Big 12 in football five years in a row and made the CFP four of the last five years. Texas in the last five years has been 5-7, 5-7, 7-6, 10-4, and 8-5. You take Oklahoma out of the Big 12 and can Texas or someone else pick up the slack?

All three of the SEC, Big Ten, and Pac 12 would love to take Texas and Oklahoma and no one else. I think Oklahoma wouldn't insist on Oklahoma State. Texas on the other hand could be a problem. But if Oklahoma leaves and the CFP says the Big 12 doesn't get a CFP autobid anymore, Texas might not have a choice. So taking Oklahoma to get Texas would be a sound strategy. Certainly each of the three should call Texas and Oklahoma and ask if they would come together. If Texas says no, call Oklahoma and see if they come alone and force Texas's hand. See if ESPN is also willing to force Texas's hand. Assuming they will be televising the CFP (or its successor), they will play a big part in deciding whether an Oklahoma-less Big 12 will be a part of the CFP or not.

As a Big Ten'er, I'd be cautious at accepting Oklahoma unless I knew I could get Texas. I wouldn't want to invite Oklahoma only for Texas to say Texas Tech has to come along or no deal and then we're stuck with Oklahoma. I'd take Texas and Oklahoma in a heartbeat. And to me, no other Texas school other than UT is welcome in the Big Ten.

I don't know how the Pac-12 feels. There was a rumor about the Pac-16, maybe they would take several other Texas schools to get Texas. They also could use Texas more than the Big Ten (or the SEC). They also have Stanford to please and their academic standards are as strict as the Big Ten's if not stricter. Could there also be a scenario that the Pac-12 calls Texas and Texas demands Texas Tech, Baylor, and TCU and freezes Oklahoma out? Would the Pac-12 demand Oklahoma as part of the deal?

If multiple conferences court Oklahoma, where do you see them going (or do you think they will just stay in the Big 12?) Will any conference go for Oklahoma first or will they go for Texas first (or for both at the same time? Or will the three conferences just be happy with the current setup and leave the Big 12 alone? I think the SEC and Big Ten are so far ahead of the Big 12 they don't see the Big 12 as a threat financially. The SEC doesn't see the Big 12 as a threat on the gridiron either. The Pac-12 certainly can use Texas to help themselves financially and being the fifth P5 conference and being shut out of the Playoff most years isn't good. Without a doubt they have the most to gain by trying to get Texas/Oklahoma and improving their next media deal.

My thoughts:

The Big Ten should hold firm, Texas/Oklahoma, Texas/Kansas, or nothing. Don't compromise on academics.

The SEC should invite Oklahoma, try to get Texas. If it doesn't work, then take Kansas along with Oklahoma.

The Pac-12? They may have to bit the bullet to get Texas and just ask Texas what they want and give it to them.

(02-23-2020 05:05 PM)schmolik Wrote:  This has been discussed in the 2024 thread but here's a separate one concerning the Big 12.

The mission should the other P5 conferences and the TV partners choose to accept it is to turn the Power 5 into a Power 4 by removing the Big 12 as a power conference. The logic is clearly one fewer power conference means one fewer piece of the pie for the others. Maybe it comes with the possibility the CFP becomes the four winners of the four major conferences get automatic bids (although I'm sure the SEC would hesitate as the current system allows them to get two teams in). But at the very least it's one fewer conference taking money from ESPN/FOX.

I think we can all agree that if Texas and Oklahoma stay in the Big 12 it's still a P5 conference and if both leave for other conferences it's not. Now here's the questions:

1) If Texas leaves and Oklahoma stays, is it a P5 conference?

2) If Oklahoma leaves and Texas stays, is it?

In terms of $, Texas is clearly the bigger fish. It's one thing to leave Oklahoma out and/or force them to join one of the other four conference if it doesn't want to, it's another thing to force Texas to. On the other hand, Oklahoma has won the Big 12 in football five years in a row and made the CFP four of the last five years. Texas in the last five years has been 5-7, 5-7, 7-6, 10-4, and 8-5. You take Oklahoma out of the Big 12 and can Texas or someone else pick up the slack?

All three of the SEC, Big Ten, and Pac 12 would love to take Texas and Oklahoma and no one else. I think Oklahoma wouldn't insist on Oklahoma State. Texas on the other hand could be a problem. But if Oklahoma leaves and the CFP says the Big 12 doesn't get a CFP autobid anymore, Texas might not have a choice. So taking Oklahoma to get Texas would be a sound strategy. Certainly each of the three should call Texas and Oklahoma and ask if they would come together. If Texas says no, call Oklahoma and see if they come alone and force Texas's hand. See if ESPN is also willing to force Texas's hand. Assuming they will be televising the CFP (or its successor), they will play a big part in deciding whether an Oklahoma-less Big 12 will be a part of the CFP or not.

As a Big Ten'er, I'd be cautious at accepting Oklahoma unless I knew I could get Texas. I wouldn't want to invite Oklahoma only for Texas to say Texas Tech has to come along or no deal and then we're stuck with Oklahoma. I'd take Texas and Oklahoma in a heartbeat. And to me, no other Texas school other than UT is welcome in the Big Ten.

I don't know how the Pac-12 feels. There was a rumor about the Pac-16, maybe they would take several other Texas schools to get Texas. They also could use Texas more than the Big Ten (or the SEC). They also have Stanford to please and their academic standards are as strict as the Big Ten's if not stricter. Could there also be a scenario that the Pac-12 calls Texas and Texas demands Texas Tech, Baylor, and TCU and freezes Oklahoma out? Would the Pac-12 demand Oklahoma as part of the deal?

If multiple conferences court Oklahoma, where do you see them going (or do you think they will just stay in the Big 12?) Will any conference go for Oklahoma first or will they go for Texas first (or for both at the same time? Or will the three conferences just be happy with the current setup and leave the Big 12 alone? I think the SEC and Big Ten are so far ahead of the Big 12 they don't see the Big 12 as a threat financially. The SEC doesn't see the Big 12 as a threat on the gridiron either. The Pac-12 certainly can use Texas to help themselves financially and being the fifth P5 conference and being shut out of the Playoff most years isn't good. Without a doubt they have the most to gain by trying to get Texas/Oklahoma and improving their next media deal.

First, the Big12 does not get an auto bid to the CFP, no one does.

Second, the PAC has made it plain, they do not want any team from the Big12, if it does not include Texas.

Third, the PAC is not interested in religious affiliated schools like Baylor and TCU.

(02-23-2020 06:50 PM)texoma Wrote:  First, the Big12 does not get an auto bid to the CFP, no one does.

This is true. But no one said the Sugar Bowl has to renew with the Big 12 in the next cycle either. The Big Ten and the Pac-12 will have the Rose, the SEC will have the Sugar, and the ACC will have the Orange. What if the Big 12 doesn't have a guaranteed New Year's Six bowl? That would put them below the others. Maybe the Cotton signs them and they'll be OK. But it would depend on who's still in the Big 12. What if Oklahoma's not there? This year the Sugar Bowl got Baylor and drew 55,211. Coincidence? I guarantee you they're not going to want Baylor every year.

I’m fine with Kansas and Oklahoma being the package the Big Ten targets. Realistically, I don’t think the Big Ten has much of a shot at Texas. The SEC has more schools that would be appealing as annual games to the Longhorn faithful—TAMU, Arkansas, and LSU. The SEC could also deliver them a 8 game schedule where they’d only leave the state 3 times since they’d likely have alternating road games with TAMU and TTU. Texas won’t play an OOC game out of state unless they absolutely want to (one of those OOC games being the RRR at the Cotton Bowl) so they’d be looking at playing 9 of 12 games in their home state.

The Big Ten West less so.

Texas, TTU, Oklahoma, and Kansas make it out.

Baylor, TCU, Okla St, Kansas St, Iowa St, and WVU rebuild as a tweener league.

So you are saying the SEC should accept Texas Tech to get Texas? I wouldn't if I were the SEC. I'd tell Texas either Texas-Oklahoma alone or no deal. Unlike the Big Ten, the SEC already has a footprint in Texas. Plus, the SEC can grab Oklahoma and tell the Sugar Bowl to bump the Big 12 out. What's Texas going to do, demand the SEC to accept Texas Tech? The SEC will tell Texas to enjoy the Big 12 without Oklahoma and without an automatic NY6 bid.

(02-23-2020 11:04 PM)schmolik Wrote:  So you are saying the SEC should accept Texas Tech to get Texas? I wouldn't if I were the SEC. I'd tell Texas either Texas-Oklahoma alone or no deal. Unlike the Big Ten, the SEC already has a footprint in Texas. Plus, the SEC can grab Oklahoma and tell the Sugar Bowl to bump the Big 12 out. What's Texas going to do, demand the SEC to accept Texas Tech? The SEC will tell Texas to enjoy the Big 12 without Oklahoma and without an automatic NY6 bid.

Not really. If the SEC gains Texas and Tech here is what it does for the SEC.
1. It gives the SEC all 3 top state schools in Texas which is an effective monopoly of favorable programs spanning a state of nearly 29 million. Those 3 schools then triple dip the SEC's T2 revenue by giving them a very large regional market for 3 games a week and T1 size ratings when 2 of them play each other. which is still a week when the SEC double dips a state of nearly 29 million. Now that the Footprint market model is dead for all but T3 games the SEC realizes just how big a mistake it was to lose F.S.U, in the Florida market. Why? It would have been an essential monopoly being able to draw 80% of the state of Florida's college football audience twice each week with a national ratings game guaranteed when the UF/FSU game was played.

So the game now is about getting as much as you possibly can for your T1 and T2 rights. And Texas delivers that in spades. Oklahoma gives you a true blue blood. But Texas and Tech gives you more.

2. With leverage over the market in a large state the advantage of advertising rates is passed along to the conference, and not merely retained by the network. To that end the fear of losing UT to a FOX held company would make ESPN relent on Texas to the SEC. (BTW: This same reason is why Notre Dame holds value for the Big 10, not in states per se, but rather in large TV markets surrounding large Northern cities. Right now N.D. is a back door to advertising in those cities that allows the network (ESPN) to gain access to those cities without having to pay the Big 10 for monopolizing them. Add N.D. and the Big 10 gains advertising leverage to key cities. That and the fact the Irish would add national audience to many more conference games which multiplies content value for the Big 10. Oklahoma could give them national interest games but would have no impact on dominating any existing markets as they stand, other than in Oklahoma.)

3. A&M delivers around 40% of the state's college football fans. Texas delivers about another 40% of the state's college football fans plus a larger t-shirt group and a larger national audience. Tech delivers the part of the state the other two don't dominate and they have a massive number of alumni in DFW. The DFW market has more than twice as many potential viewers than the entire state of Oklahoma.

So from a monetary standpoint adding Texas and Tech is a no brainer and indeed Mike Slive while speaking in Dallas once told the audience that the SEC would be proud to have any or all of the 3 largest State Universities in Texas.

So in this regard I believe Muskie is correct. And of course SEC academics would welcome Texas with open arms.

Now if our options was between Texas and Tech or Oklahoma and Kansas an interesting dilemma could arise. Kansas would be beneficial for Missouri. Oklahoma would please the Aggies, but make no mistake the A&M administration would welcome Texas though they would likely abstain on their vote for their entrance in order not to anger many of their fans.

When the SEC invites a school 2 ballots are taken. The first is a roll call informal ballot and a school receiving 75% approval is extended an invitation. If they accept the invitation then the formal vote by precedent is unanimous and only abstentions are allowed to the contrary. Texas would have no problem getting 75% approval.

Would we love to have Texas and Oklahoma instead? Sure. But the money to be made by landing Texas would take priority.

The dilemma would be profit versus what is best for member schools in the West should the pairing of Oklahoma and Kansas be amenable.

Would the SEC offer Texas, Tech, Oklahoma, and Kansas? We could and it would be a bold move. But I think the preference is for 16 as most believe it is difficult enough to integrate 2 new schools into the conference at one time let alone 4. But who knows? This may be the last realignment for quite sometime. So never say never.

I'm just not seeing Texas Tech as particularly valuable. They're from Lubbock which in Texas is irrelevant compared to the rest of the state. By contrast, you have the University of Houston (which also by the way has more students). Texas Tech might have a lot of Dallas/Ft. Worth alum but I doubt they have more than Texas or Texas A&M and those two will certainly give the SEC or any conference plenty of alum/fanbase in the Metroplex. If Tech wasn't part of the Big 12, they'd be on par with Houston right now. If you didn't live in or near Lubbock, why would you rather go to Texas Tech than Houston?

Now do you accept Texas Tech to get Texas? You can argue it's worth it, it probably is. But if the SEC can exercise it's power and get Texas without Tech and get the expansion they want (Texas-Oklahoma), why not flex its muscles rather than one of the other two alternatives, a Texas-Texas Tech expansion without Oklahoma or an 18 team expansion which you said would be tough to implement at once?

Let's assume here that the Texas politicians of 2020 don't care about the other Texas schools like they cared when the Big 12 was formed but that Texas's "8 games in Texas" requirement is real (at least one poster said it was a myth but let's assume it's real). Can each of the SEC, Big Ten, and Pac 12 bring in Texas and Oklahoma without Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, or any other Texas schools and still allow Texas to play 8 games in Texas every year.

The key is Texas must play a maximum of four conference games out of state every year. If Texas does draw four road games out of Texas in a year, it will be tougher but they can certainly schedule all four of their non conference games in Texas (most likely three home games in Austin).

Let's start with the SEC. Divisional alignment is actually meaningless to the discussion.

If they do 8 conference games, they play all 7 divisional games and one crossover, four road and four home. It doesn't matter if Oklahoma is a "road" game and/or Texas A&M is a road game, even if their 4 road games are out of state they're OK. They certainly can ask the SEC to schedule them to have Oklahoma "away" in opposite years with A&M so they're only playing three out of state SEC games a year, giving them one game flexibility to play out of state in non conference every year.

If they do 9 conference games, the assumption is Texas would play 4 games in Austin, 4 true road games, and Oklahoma in Dallas. In the years they play at A&M, they will play three road games outside of Texas, in the years they don't they will play four.

Either way, it's not only doable but still gives them some leeway.

Now in the Big Ten and Pac-12 they don't have Texas A&M to help Texas out and the assumption is both conferences will want to keep nine game conference schedules. Both could arrange that the years that Texas is scheduled to play five road games that one of their "road" games is Oklahoma though and that would leave Texas with four road games out of state. They would lose all flexibility in this case since they would be playing four road games out of state every year and if they really want 8 games in Texas every year could never play a non conference game outside of Texas due to their conference road game commitments. But the key is they can still do it if they wanted to.

Texas/Oklahoma in the Big Ten with Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State would be worth mega bucks. Texas/Oklahoma in the Pac-12 (Pac-14?) with the California schools, Oregon, and Washington will still be valuable but not as valuable. Would Texas give up their non conference game flexibility to join the Pac-12 schools? Not as likely as they would the Big Ten (or SEC). The SEC would be the easiest to join and keep non conference game flexibility because A&M is already in the conference and of course adding Texas/Oklahoma to a conference with Alabama, Florida, Georgia, LSU, and Auburn? Texas Tech who?

(02-24-2020 06:03 AM)schmolik Wrote:  I'm just not seeing Texas Tech as particularly valuable. They're from Lubbock which in Texas is irrelevant compared to the rest of the state. By contrast, you have the University of Houston (which also by the way has more students). Texas Tech might have a lot of Dallas/Ft. Worth alum but I doubt they have more than Texas or Texas A&M and those two will certainly give the SEC or any conference plenty of alum/fanbase in the Metroplex. If Tech wasn't part of the Big 12, they'd be on par with Houston right now. If you didn't live in or near Lubbock, why would you rather go to Texas Tech than Houston?

Now do you accept Texas Tech to get Texas? You can argue it's worth it, it probably is. But if the SEC can exercise it's power and get Texas without Tech and get the expansion they want (Texas-Oklahoma), why not flex its muscles rather than one of the other two alternatives, a Texas-Texas Tech expansion without Oklahoma or an 18 team expansion which you said would be tough to implement at once?

Tech’s value as a companion school for Texas is that it locks down access to advertisers to audiences in the state of Texas—the state with the most college football fans. If you want to reach football fans in Texas you have to advertise with whoever holds the SEC’s television rights and you have to pay their rates.

Sure there’s Houston, Baylor, and TCU out there but they have much smaller viewership and fan following.

Using similar logic, if we move past divisions or the NCAA begins permitting 3+ divisions and conference semi final games by 2037 I see the SEC going after Florida St and Clemson to solidify their Sunshine State holdings and devalue the ACC tv rights by taking their top 2 brands.

(02-23-2020 05:05 PM)schmolik Wrote:  ...turn the Power 5 into a Power 4 by removing the Big 12 as a power conference. The logic is clearly one fewer power conference means one fewer piece of the pie for the others. Maybe it comes with the possibility the CFP becomes the four winners of the four major conferences get automatic bids (although I'm sure the SEC would hesitate as the current system allows them to get two teams in). But at the very least it's one fewer conference taking money from ESPN/FOX...

There is one possibility that I don't think has been fully explored yet: if the conference championships become de facto playoff games (because the CFP is taking all 4 power conference champs), how much does that increase the value of the SEC CG? Maybe all that's needed to get the SEC to agree to that is to let them rebid the CCG...?

(02-24-2020 09:33 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-23-2020 05:05 PM)schmolik Wrote:  ...turn the Power 5 into a Power 4 by removing the Big 12 as a power conference. The logic is clearly one fewer power conference means one fewer piece of the pie for the others. Maybe it comes with the possibility the CFP becomes the four winners of the four major conferences get automatic bids (although I'm sure the SEC would hesitate as the current system allows them to get two teams in). But at the very least it's one fewer conference taking money from ESPN/FOX...

There is one possibility that I don't think has been fully explored yet: if the conference championships become de facto playoff games (because the CFP is taking all 4 power conference champs), how much does that increase the value of the SEC CG? Maybe all that's needed to get the SEC to agree to that is to let them rebid the CCG...?

I don’t think it changes the value of the SEC CCG much; to date they’ve never been in danger of missing the play offs.

What it does do is increase the value of the CCG for the other conferences because their games are effectively play in games.

(02-24-2020 10:54 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(02-24-2020 09:33 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-23-2020 05:05 PM)schmolik Wrote:  ...turn the Power 5 into a Power 4 by removing the Big 12 as a power conference. The logic is clearly one fewer power conference means one fewer piece of the pie for the others. Maybe it comes with the possibility the CFP becomes the four winners of the four major conferences get automatic bids (although I'm sure the SEC would hesitate as the current system allows them to get two teams in). But at the very least it's one fewer conference taking money from ESPN/FOX...

There is one possibility that I don't think has been fully explored yet: if the conference championships become de facto playoff games (because the CFP is taking all 4 power conference champs), how much does that increase the value of the SEC CG? Maybe all that's needed to get the SEC to agree to that is to let them rebid the CCG...?

I don’t think it changes the value of the SEC CCG much; to date they’ve never been in danger of missing the play offs.

What it does do is increase the value of the CCG for the other conferences because their games are effectively play in games.

I don't see how CCGs should ever be play-in games for the playoffs. You run the risk of having an inadequate playoff contestant. This is made worse with division champions playing for a conference championship. If it becomes mandatory that a conference champion gets an autobid to the playoffs then divisions must go and we have Conference #1 vs. Conference #2 in a divisionless format.

If we based conference championship games on the best two conference records, the following championship games may have been different:

XII (11/18): 1996, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010
PAC (4/9): 2011, 2012, 2015, 2018
B1G (4/9): 2011, 2014, 2016, 2018
SEC (11/28): 1995, 1996, 1998, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2017
ACC (7/15):2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2012, 2013, 2016

(02-24-2020 09:20 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Tech’s value as a companion school for Texas is that it locks down access to advertisers to audiences in the state of Texas—the state with the most college football fans. If you want to reach football fans in Texas you have to advertise with whoever holds the SEC’s television rights and you have to pay their rates.

Sure there’s Houston, Baylor, and TCU out there but they have much smaller viewership and fan following.

Using similar logic, if we move past divisions or the NCAA begins permitting 3+ divisions and conference semi final games by 2037 I see the SEC going after Florida St and Clemson to solidify their Sunshine State holdings and devalue the ACC tv rights by taking their top 2 brands.

Problem is Texas Tech isn't a #2 like Clemson or Florida State is (in football, Clemson a #1, not a #2), they're a #3. Florida State isn't Texas Tech, they're Texas A&M. No one's disputing that FSU (or Clemson) is worth adding to the SEC. Texas Tech isn't Florida State, they're Central Florida. Also, UCF is in Orlando, a major city and one people want to go to. Texas Tech is in an irrelevant city. UCF went 12-0 in the regular season back to back years. Texas Tech literally couldn't win that much when Patrick Mahomes was there. Now Tech's men's basketball team is great now with Chris Beard but if you were choosing based on men's basketball you'd probably go with Kansas first. If you say #3 in Texas is bigger than #3 in Florida since Texas has more people and football is bigger in Texas than Florida then that's fair.

Do you see a scenario where all three of the SEC, Big Ten, and Pac 12 say to Texas that Texas Tech isn't welcome in their conference, Oklahoma has accepted a bid to the SEC, and Texas is faced with either a Big 12 w/o Oklahoma and no Sugar Bowl auto bid or forced to join either the SEC with Oklahoma or the Big Ten or Pac 12 with Kansas? If so, what would their choice be?

How about a scenario where the SEC grabs Oklahoma, convinces the Sugar to take away the SEC's auto bid, tells Texas that Tech's not welcome, the Big Ten says Texas/Kansas or nothing (because Texas/Oklahoma is off the table), but the Pac 12 offers Texas and one other Texas school of Texas's choice. Does Texas take the Pac 12's offer? They get one Texas school to come along with them but no Oklahoma and a weaker TV deal and longer travel but they do get California exposure.

(02-24-2020 10:54 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(02-24-2020 09:33 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-23-2020 05:05 PM)schmolik Wrote:  ...turn the Power 5 into a Power 4 by removing the Big 12 as a power conference. The logic is clearly one fewer power conference means one fewer piece of the pie for the others. Maybe it comes with the possibility the CFP becomes the four winners of the four major conferences get automatic bids (although I'm sure the SEC would hesitate as the current system allows them to get two teams in). But at the very least it's one fewer conference taking money from ESPN/FOX...

There is one possibility that I don't think has been fully explored yet: if the conference championships become de facto playoff games (because the CFP is taking all 4 power conference champs), how much does that increase the value of the SEC CG? Maybe all that's needed to get the SEC to agree to that is to let them rebid the CCG...?

I don’t think it changes the value of the SEC CCG much; to date they’ve never been in danger of missing the play offs.

What it does do is increase the value of the CCG for the other conferences because their games are effectively play in games.

All four would be play in games under this scenario, but let's face it - which one would be the most valuable?

(02-24-2020 09:33 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-23-2020 05:05 PM)schmolik Wrote:  ...turn the Power 5 into a Power 4 by removing the Big 12 as a power conference. The logic is clearly one fewer power conference means one fewer piece of the pie for the others. Maybe it comes with the possibility the CFP becomes the four winners of the four major conferences get automatic bids (although I'm sure the SEC would hesitate as the current system allows them to get two teams in). But at the very least it's one fewer conference taking money from ESPN/FOX...

There is one possibility that I don't think has been fully explored yet: if the conference championships become de facto playoff games (because the CFP is taking all 4 power conference champs), how much does that increase the value of the SEC CG? Maybe all that's needed to get the SEC to agree to that is to let them rebid the CCG...?

It has been discussed in depth on the SEC board. The only way I see to make moving to a champs only format a slam dunk is to allow the conferences to handle their own Semi finals in addition to the CCG.

This is essentially the best option to an 8 team playoff because it makes each conference more money by having semi finals.

If each conference were permitted a third division of 6 and expansion was to 18 that would permit the 3 division champions and the best at large to move into the semi finals.

What this does for each conference is to keep the fan bases of any school in contention for a division championship, and any schools in contention for the at large berth to keep their fans energized and their venues full deeper into the stadium. Since that is funding that doesn't have to be divided with all participants in a national playoff that would hold a great deal of appeal and benefit each conference participating.

Such a move would likely incorporate some of the best of the G5 who would get to move up, if all 4 surviving conferences did indeed move to 18. But that movement shouldn't be required and where 16 schools or fewer were involved (perhaps the PAC remains at 12) their champion would still be decided by a single CCG, but that would be their choice.

The result might be a new upper tier of 4 power conferences consisting of 66 schools instead of the current 65 and yes I believe that would force N.D. to commit since being a conference champion would be the only way they could access the playoffs.

But interestingly the best way to pull that off would not be by a parsing of the Big 12 but rather an parsing of the ACC. Only the ACC can provide 4 schools of value to the SEC and Big 10 and have the rest of the schools needed to move to the Big 12 (surviving intact) to 18.

The remaining 7 ACC schools and B.Y.U. become the new 18 member Big 12. Boston College, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Wake Forest, West Virginia becomes a division.

Brigham Young, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State becomes another.

Baylor, Georgia Tech, Miami, Texas, T.C.U., and Texas Tech become the third. Since Miami and Ga Tech are in transportation hubs the travel isn't that big of a deal, especially to DFW and it gives Texas a recruiting presence in Florida.

If you are going to simply divide up the Big 12 then we only move to 16 schools at most and we retain the CCG and have a 4 team playoff which hopefully would become a Champs Only which would force N.D. all in, but it wouldn't be guaranteed.

In that world Texas and Tech to the SEC, Kansas and Oklahoma to the Big 10, West Virginia or T.C.U. to the ACC makes some sense, especially since it is really the only model that gives Texas it's 8 games a year in the state of Texas (counting on keeping the RRR in Dallas).

If the PAC wants to expand fine. If not we move to a P4 of 60 schools. Offering Texas a partial membership to the ACC however means we will never move to a champs only format and that N.D. never joins in full. As long as Texas and Notre Dame can game the system to their advantage there is no reason for the SEC or Big 10 to voluntarily limit themselves. And in a world where there is pay for play at some level and with the Big 10 and SEC retaining their monetary advantages both would be well positioned to get more than just 1 entrant in on any given year.

Texas to the ACC in a partial "Notre Dame deal" is the ticket, then.

(02-24-2020 01:26 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Texas to the ACC in a partial "Notre Dame deal" is the ticket, then.

One worthless parasite is enough.

Permitting Conference Semi-Finals would be a huge game changer and one where the rich get richer.

3 x 6 = 18 is a formula that allows for a lot of expansion. The Big 12 and ACC Probably collectively lose 8 members to the SEC and Big Ten in the opening salvos of that realignment.

Things get interesting after that. The PAC 12 could step in and try to get 6 of the remaining schools who have high academic standards to become their third division. You could also see the Big 12 and ACC remnants join forces.

(02-24-2020 02:32 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Permitting Conference Semi-Finals would be a huge game changer and one where the rich get richer.

3 x 6 = 18 is a formula that allows for a lot of expansion. The Big 12 and ACC Probably collectively lose 8 members to the SEC and Big Ten in the opening salvos of that realignment.

Things get interesting after that. The PAC 12 could step in and try to get 6 of the remaining schools who have high academic standards to become their third division. You could also see the Big 12 and ACC remnants join forces.

I don't see Texas and Oklahoma leaving the Big 12 if it could expand out of the ACC's remnants, so I don't think anyone anybody leaves the Big 12 in that scenario. And if Texas and Oklahoma leave in that round of moves then North Carolina and Virginia would hunker down. I think it's a game of who blinks first.

Whatever that conference becomes you have to have a couple of brand anchors to build around. Now if you wanted another buffer conference created then you might be able to do some thing like this:
Notre Dame, Virginia, Kansas and Oklahoma to the Big 10. North Carolina, Duke, Texas, and Florida State to the SEC.

That would leave this for the reformed conference whatever you decide to call it:
Boston College, Iowa State, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest
Baylor, Brigham Young, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, T.C.U., Texas Tech

The problem with this would be that the new conference wouldn't make nearly as much. It might edge out the PAC, but the result is still a super P2 and lower P2.