(05-28-2020 06:43 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 05:56 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 06:30 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 04:31 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(05-27-2020 10:15 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  The Big 12 would only add members if they lost members.

That may be true, but if so, you will no doubt be disappointed, considering that you are a fan of realignment.

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?

(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:  

(05-28-2020 04:31 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  That may be true, but if so, you will no doubt be disappointed, considering that you are a fan of realignment.

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

CUSA is the one with bigger footprint than Sunbelt. The Sunbelt is just fine.

(05-28-2020 08:03 PM)kevinwmsn Wrote:  CUSA is the one with bigger footprint than Sunbelt. The Sunbelt is just fine.

The Sun Belt schools are just about as widely scattered, geographically, as the C-USA schools are. The two conferences overlap, about 80%, geographically.

(05-29-2020 06:22 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 08:03 PM)kevinwmsn Wrote:  CUSA is the one with bigger footprint than Sunbelt. The Sunbelt is just fine.

The Sun Belt schools are just about as widely scattered, geographically, as the C-USA schools are. The two conferences overlap, about 80%, geographically.

You could say the exact same thing with A-Sun, OVC, Southern, Southland, SWAC, Lone Star, GAC and Gulf South.

(05-29-2020 06:22 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(05-28-2020 08:03 PM)kevinwmsn Wrote:  CUSA is the one with bigger footprint than Sunbelt. The Sunbelt is just fine.

The Sun Belt schools are just about as widely scattered, geographically, as the C-USA schools are. The two conferences overlap, about 80%, geographically.

The Sun Belt has two schools in Texas, two in Louisiana, two in Arkansas, two in Alabama, two in Georgia, and two in the Carolinas. That's far more compact than what C-USA has right now. Most C-USA teams have to fly to most of their conference games, even games in their own division.

We bus to every Sun Belt East team except for South Alabama.

(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.

(05-29-2020 08:54 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(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:  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.

That's the first P4 alignment I've seen that's good - and I don't think there's another P4 alignment that can top it. If everyone plays 9 games (3+2/4+2/4+2/4), everyone visits everyone's stadium in 4 years and has 3 OOC games leftover.

(05-29-2020 08:54 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(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:  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.

I would like to nominate myself for the position of all powerful CFP czar

(05-29-2020 08:54 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  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.

Besides convenience, a number of reasons related to my personal dislike for the institution -- mainly how they used politics to get into the Big 12, how they sued to block A&M leaving, how they tried to finagle themselves into the "Pac-16" over Colorado, the sexual assault scandals, and being a conservative religious school.

(05-29-2020 02:44 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 08:54 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  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.

Besides convenience, a number of reasons related to my personal dislike for the institution -- mainly how they used politics to get into the Big 12, how they sued to block A&M leaving, how they tried to finagle themselves into the "Pac-16" over Colorado, the sexual assault scandals, and being a conservative religious school.

Agree with you on Baylor, they had no business in the Big 12. Don't forget about Patrick Dennehy. Also didn't like it when Britney Griner broke that girl's nose.

Question:

Can anybody explain why C-USA is viewed as being particularly likely to be affected by realignment by 2026, even moreso than the Big 12 and AAC?

(05-30-2020 12:13 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  Question:

Can anybody explain why C-USA is viewed as being particularly likely to be affected by realignment by 2026, even moreso than the Big 12 and AAC?

There are those who believe in the fabled CUSA/Sun Belt reorg, so that might be a source of some voters who'd choose CUSA and not necessarily the Big 12 or AAC. You might say then why isn't the Sun Belt vote higher? A minor realignment in which the Big 12 loses only a few members could mean that the trickle-down effect would pass through the AAC but stop at CUSA, which has members to spare, before reaching the Sun Belt. And then there are those who may think the only realignment will be due to the AAC replacing UConn, and the likeliest replacements are in CUSA.

(05-30-2020 12:27 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(05-30-2020 12:13 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  Question:

Can anybody explain why C-USA is viewed as being particularly likely to be affected by realignment by 2026, even moreso than the Big 12 and AAC?

There are those who believe in the fabled CUSA/Sun Belt reorg, so that might be a source of some voters who'd choose CUSA and not necessarily the Big 12 or AAC. You might say then why isn't the Sun Belt vote higher? A minor realignment in which the Big 12 loses only a few members could mean that the trickle-down effect would pass through the AAC but stop at CUSA, which has members to spare, before reaching the Sun Belt. And then there are those who may think the only realignment will be due to the AAC replacing UConn, and the likeliest replacements are in CUSA.

The most likely if AAC doesn't get a rule change for Divisionless and decides not to play uneven Divisions( 6&5). UAB is a easy fillin 12th team. Would be a 2nd level team 6-10th place in FB and at large range for Basketball. Both would be upgrades from what UConn was for the AAC.

(05-30-2020 01:35 AM)spenser Wrote:  

(05-30-2020 12:27 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  [quote='jedclampett' pid='16839714' dateline='1590815598']
Question:

Can anybody explain why C-USA is viewed as being particularly likely to be affected by realignment by 2026, even moreso than the Big 12 and AAC?

There are those who believe in the fabled CUSA/Sun Belt reorg, so that might be a source of some voters who'd choose CUSA and not necessarily the Big 12 or AAC. You might say then why isn't the Sun Belt vote higher? A minor realignment in which the Big 12 loses only a few members could mean that the trickle-down effect would pass through the AAC but stop at CUSA, which has members to spare, before reaching the Sun Belt. And then there are those who may think the only realignment will be due to the AAC replacing UConn, and the likeliest replacements are in CUSA.

That's a very good, parsimonious explanation for the data. William of Occam would approve!

(05-30-2020 01:35 AM)spenser Wrote:  The most likely if AAC doesn't get a rule change for Divisionless and decides not to play uneven Divisions( 6&5). UAB is a easy fillin 12th team. Would be a 2nd level team 6-10th place in FB and at large range for Basketball. Both would be upgrades from what UConn was for the AAC.

Interesting possibility. Perhaps more likely add from C-USA would be Marshall (FB only), with a BB/olympic add such as VCU from the A-10.

(05-30-2020 01:47 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(05-30-2020 01:35 AM)spenser Wrote:  

(05-30-2020 12:27 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  [quote='jedclampett' pid='16839714' dateline='1590815598']
Question:

Can anybody explain why C-USA is viewed as being particularly likely to be affected by realignment by 2026, even moreso than the Big 12 and AAC?

There are those who believe in the fabled CUSA/Sun Belt reorg, so that might be a source of some voters who'd choose CUSA and not necessarily the Big 12 or AAC. You might say then why isn't the Sun Belt vote higher? A minor realignment in which the Big 12 loses only a few members could mean that the trickle-down effect would pass through the AAC but stop at CUSA, which has members to spare, before reaching the Sun Belt. And then there are those who may think the only realignment will be due to the AAC replacing UConn, and the likeliest replacements are in CUSA.

That's a very good, parsimonious explanation for the data. William of Occam would approve!

(05-30-2020 01:35 AM)spenser Wrote:  The most likely if AAC doesn't get a rule change for Divisionless and decides not to play uneven Divisions( 6&5). UAB is a easy fillin 12th team. Would be a 2nd level team 6-10th place in FB and at large range for Basketball. Both would be upgrades from what UConn was for the AAC.

Interesting possibility. Perhaps more likely add from C-USA would be Marshall (FB only), with a BB/olympic add such as VCU from the A-10.

Marshall is basically eliminated because the school Presidents are the ones who decide. Marshall Athletics are only that good because of Partial and Non Qualifier players. Academics would need years of overhauling.

As for FB only and Olympic school split: Air Force, Army, BYU, and maybe Boise would have the FB and Academic level. Even App State FB only wouldn't get the Presidents yes votes.

All sports list then is behind those.
Notables in my opinion are UAB, Southern Miss, Colorado State, Georgia State. None are slam dunks, but hit that 6-10 range.

They potentially push the less consistent: Tulsa, Tulane, ECU, SMU, Temple, and USF. Cincy, UCF, Memphis, Houston, and Wichita/Navy are usually the Top 5, one might slip in a given year but bounce back.

(05-30-2020 01:47 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(05-30-2020 01:35 AM)spenser Wrote:  

(05-30-2020 12:27 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  [quote='jedclampett' pid='16839714' dateline='1590815598']
Question:

Can anybody explain why C-USA is viewed as being particularly likely to be affected by realignment by 2026, even moreso than the Big 12 and AAC?

There are those who believe in the fabled CUSA/Sun Belt reorg, so that might be a source of some voters who'd choose CUSA and not necessarily the Big 12 or AAC. You might say then why isn't the Sun Belt vote higher? A minor realignment in which the Big 12 loses only a few members could mean that the trickle-down effect would pass through the AAC but stop at CUSA, which has members to spare, before reaching the Sun Belt. And then there are those who may think the only realignment will be due to the AAC replacing UConn, and the likeliest replacements are in CUSA.

That's a very good, parsimonious explanation for the data. William of Occam would approve!

(05-30-2020 01:35 AM)spenser Wrote:  The most likely if AAC doesn't get a rule change for Divisionless and decides not to play uneven Divisions( 6&5). UAB is a easy fillin 12th team. Would be a 2nd level team 6-10th place in FB and at large range for Basketball. Both would be upgrades from what UConn was for the AAC.

Interesting possibility. Perhaps more likely add from C-USA would be Marshall (FB only), with a BB/olympic add such as VCU from the A-10.

UAB is about 800 times more likely than Marshall. This is a presidential decision with potential input from tv executives. Both heavily favor UAB.

[/quote]

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?
[/quote]

Jed, I don't think Baylor and West Virginia are part of "The Great Plains" and why do other people keep saying the Big12 should change their name since they only have 10 teams, but they seem to be fine with the Big10 name that has not had 10 teams in decades.

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?
[/quote]

Jed, I don't think Baylor and West Virginia are part of "The Great Plains" and why do other people keep saying the Big12 should change their name since they only have 10 teams, but they seem to be fine with the Big10 name that has not had 10 teams in decades.
[/quote]

The Big Ten sort of did change their name in the B1G logo, which is probably why they haven't gotten much grief. They probably should make a name change to:

"The Great Lakes Conference" or "The Big Ten (plus four) Conference"

.

I still like The Great Plains Conference, and think it works because of the word "Great" replacing the word "Big."

Let's think up an alternative, though.

What about this: "The Big-12 (minus two) Conference" (?)

With the AAC and c-usa each tied at 41 votes and the Big 12 coming in third at 38 ... it appears people might see dominoes falling along those lines. Makes sense.