Fighting Muskie
Senior Chief Realignmentologist
Posts: 11,932
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 818
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location: Biden Cesspool
|
RE: Which FBS conferences will be affected by realignments between now and 2026?
(05-28-2020 07:49 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote: (05-28-2020 07:12 PM)jedclampett Wrote: (05-28-2020 06:43 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote: (05-28-2020 05:56 PM)jedclampett Wrote: (05-28-2020 06:30 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote: I'm not a fan of realignment simply for the sake of realignment, but more to correct the disorder represented by the current college sports alignments. To this end, yes, I would be disappointed if the Big 12 didn't add members, since the most realistic chance of increasing the order within college sports is for the Big 12 to take a hit and lose members and power status. At that point it would have to add schools to restock. Of course, such events could easily result in the same level of disorder as now or worse, but the status quo is not optimal.
What kind of "disorder" are you referring to? Could you write a clear definition of what you mean by the disorder?
For example, "disorder" could refer to chaos, or it could refer to unfair mismatches, or it could refer to geographical mismatches, etc. Are you referring to these kinds of disorder?
Even if you're comparing conferences of similar athletic strength, there are inconsistent numbers of schools per conference and overlapping geography between conferences. Taking just the P5, you have 2 conferences of 14, 1 conference with 14 full members and 1 non-FB member, 1 conference of 12, and 1 conference of 10. Geographically, the ACC overlaps both the Big Ten and SEC, and you've got WVU in the Big 12. It's a mess to my OCD sensibilities.
You've got a good point. The overlap of the C-USA and Sun Belt footprints is completely ridiculous. From a money-savings standpoint, and to reduce travel time, they ought to be completely reorganized on a regional basis. They could reorganize geographically by simply trading teams without losing their automatic bids.
The MAC, PAC, and Big 12 are fairly coherent, geographically, but the Big 12 should either change their name to "The Great Plains Conference" or better still, reabsorb 2 schools (Nebraska and Texas A&M) to get back to 12. To make this possible, Texas might have to have their longhorns trimmed somewhat. Alternatively, Houston and SMU should be absorbed into the Big-12.
Nebraska should return to the Big-12, and Maryland/Rutgers should move to the AAC, which should then be elevated to the status of a power conference. The Big Ten made the most sense as "The Big Ten," but Penn State's status could be up for discussion.
Louisville, BC, Syracuse, and Pitt would all fit better into the footprint of the AAC as a power conference, while Tulane, Tulsa, and ECU would make more sense in C-USA or the Sun Belt.
These would be somewhat radical changes, but they would make geographical sense.
Alternately, all the teams that don't seem to fit into their conferences, geographically could be thrown into a "Hodgepodge League," sort of similar to the amorphous AAC, but elevated to the status of a power conference. In that case, Nebraska and Louisville would both be moved to the Hodgepodge League, along with Colorado and Utah (not even adjacent to Pacific Coast States).
Whaddya' think?
Here's my mostly geographic P4. Miami is treated as an honorary Northeastern school.
Also, good point about the number in the conference name not matching the number of members. That's annoying as well. Of all the NCAA conferences with numbers in their name, only the Pac-12 actually has a matching number of members.
Big Ten: 14
Big 12: 10
A-10: 14
NE-10: 14
Empire 8: 9
If one all powerful CFB czar existed and all of the P5s were compensated equally this would make a lot of sense. Other than convenience, why did Baylor get axed? They are quite a bit better supported than many of the other schools that made the cut—Duke, WF, BC, Cuse, etc.
|
|