(06-05-2022 12:00 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(06-04-2022 06:57 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  The ACC, to me is one big giant blob.

... other terms for "giant blob" include Franken-conference, crap show and turd sandwich

It's two conferences pretending to be one conference. The ACC is The Borg.
https://bitrebels.com/entertainment/we-a...similated/

(06-05-2022 11:23 AM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  IMO the simplest (not simple) and most logical (there is no logic in college football) is a P4of 18 teams each. The 4 conferences all would play 10 conference games and 13 games in total. Their 3 other games would be against the other P4. All 4 would be division-less and play a conference semifinal and finals. The winners of the PAC vs B1G in the Rose bowl, and the SEC vs ACC in Sugar bowl. Rose and Sugar winners meet in a national championship.

So in conclusion this would be the top 72 teams broken into 4x18 conferences and a 16 team playoff. Makes to much sense so it definitely won't happen.

Here's 8 "divisions" of 9 I think make geographical sense.

A: Penn State, Pittsburgh, Temple, Syracuse, Rutgers, Connecticut, Boston College, Maryland, West Virginia
B: Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue, Notre Dame, Illinois, Wisconsin, Northwestern
C: Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina, Duke, NC State, Wake Forest, Kentucky, Louisville, Cincinnati
D: Florida, Florida State, Miami, Central Florida, South Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech, South Carolina, Clemson
E: Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Memphis, Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State, LSU, Arkansas
F: Texas, Texas A&M, TCU, Texas Tech, SMU, Houston, Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
G: UCLA, USC, Stanford, California, Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Arizona State, Boise State
H: Utah, BYU, Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, Iowa State, Minnesota

H is the "misfit" division.

The traditional divisions would likely lead to:
SEC: D and E
Big Ten: B and H
ACC: A and C
Pacific: F and G (only teams left)

But that leads to a Big Ten with two teams in Utah and no Penn State and a Pacific with teams in Texas.

An alternate would be:
Big Ten: A and B
ACC: C and D
SEC: E and F
Pacific: G and H

The deep South SEC would lose Florida and Georgia but gain the Texas and Oklahoma schools. The Big Ten would get Penn State back but lose Minnesota and Iowa. Notre Dame would probably prefer being paired with a division of East Coast teams than flyover state schools. The Pac 12 would get the Utah schools and Colorado back but Minnesota and Iowa are really far away from California and the West Coast. But some division has to be in with the West Coast teams and only F and H make geographic sense.

Obviously B is the heart of the Big Ten. I'm biased towards A being in the Big Ten but I'm guessing many Big Ten fans would rather H. Assuming the SEC wants D-E and the Big Ten A-B, would C-F or C-H work for the "ACC"?

Am I the only one that sees the irony here?

The only way to solve the Gordian knot was to simply slice the thing in half.

We're past a P4 being a solution to anything.

(06-05-2022 12:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-04-2022 06:57 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(06-04-2022 04:54 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-04-2022 11:19 AM)schmolik Wrote:  Tulane over Temple? Now that's just anti-North.

Nope......Southern Ivy.

That's the problem with the ACC right there!!!! No, picking Temple is not the fix. It is the way the ACC's profile is. What the heck does the ACC represent??

I can tell you what the SEC represents: every major university in the southeast, excluding those in the ACC.

The SunBelt represents the second best state universities in the southeast, IMO.

The ACC, to me is one big giant blob. Part wants to be Southern Ivy, part wants to be like the SEC, and rest are northern schools!!

The Sun Belt is a bunch of regional schools. Arkansas St., USM and Georgia Southern can claim to be the best non-P5 in their state (2 of those 3 are the only G5), but nobody else in the Sun Belt is close.

There are a number of major private schools not in the SEC or ACC. And given their size and fairly strong academics, you could call UCF and USF "major" schools not in the SEC or ACC.

Disagree. App State, Marshall, and Troy University are standard bearers as well, IMO.

Fixed and edited.

(06-05-2022 12:11 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(06-05-2022 11:23 AM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  IMO the simplest (not simple) and most logical (there is no logic in college football) is a P4of 18 teams each

So four conferences with the same amount of members should be the objective (i.e., simpler and/or more logical) rather than:

Schools belonging to conferences whereby:

• The conference is amenable to adding it as a member;
  

• The school deems itself a better fit institutionally, culturally and/or geographically;
  

• The school and its athletic program can make more money
  

Is that what you're suggesting?

No, What I am suggesting is that if a true breakaway from the NCAA is imminent, then the best way to make sure the most schools possible are included is a 4x18 model.

What I really want isn't going to happen, I want early 80s football conferences, SWC, Big8, PAC 10, etc. I'm old and my memory is long and those years IMO were the best. Alas this ship has sailed, just as I believe the time to save the rest of the FBS (G5) has also passed us by.

I have no illusions that what I am suggesting is going to happen but it's better than what the networks want, which is the 30-40 best in a super league. So I throw out ideas into the world and pray that one of them somehow gains traction. We need solidarity among the schools and conferences, otherwise there will be no PAC, ACC, BigXII, B1G, or SEC. We will have a American football college conference (AFCC) and a National football college conference (NFCC). I for one want nothing to do with that, so I hope cooler heads prevail and they can all work together to try to salvage something we can recognize.

(06-05-2022 06:16 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(06-05-2022 12:11 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(06-05-2022 11:23 AM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  IMO the simplest (not simple) and most logical (there is no logic in college football) is a P4of 18 teams each

So four conferences with the same amount of members should be the objective (i.e., simpler and/or more logical) rather than:

Schools belonging to conferences whereby:

• The conference is amenable to adding it as a member;
  

• The school deems itself a better fit institutionally, culturally and/or geographically;
  

• The school and its athletic program can make more money
  

Is that what you're suggesting?

No, What I am suggesting is that if a true breakaway from the NCAA is imminent, then the best way to make sure the most schools possible are included is a 4x18 model.

What if the goal weren't to make sure that the most schools possible are included? Why not 4X24 if you want more teams? Because, frankly, there's no likely path to make that happen without forcing a lot of schools together who don't want to be together. I don't think 4X18 is possible for the same reason.

I, too, go way back, and liked the way things were in the '50s and '60s. But they aren't coming back. In a world where the public insists on having a playoff to determine a "national champion" I would be satisfied if a breakaway group included as many teams with a reasonable chance of achieving that goal as possible. My 2X27 model with three 9 team divisions includes 27 of the top 30 programs and 19 of the top 20.

I also would like to see a structure in which the teams in conferences are geographically and culturally compatible, and where everybody in a division plays the same conference schedule as everyone else. I'm not a fan of divisionless models in which schools only have a small number of annual opponents just so they can be forced to play schools they really don't care about. I like 8 game conference schedules where everybody plays the same number of home and away games, and has enough OOD games to allow them to play every true rival every year.

Like you, though, I'm afraid my dreams won't come true, and we will always have a suboptimal outcome every year. That's just the way markets work, and schools aren't altruistic. The ones with an advantage don't want to give that up by sharing, even to make the sport better. Ultimately, money will carry the day, not for its own sake but because that's generally how markets keep score. The B1G and the SEC now have what appear to be an insurmountable advantage over everybody else, and they don't need to share that with any school(s) that don't add to their advantage.

(06-05-2022 07:10 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-05-2022 06:16 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(06-05-2022 12:11 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(06-05-2022 11:23 AM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  IMO the simplest (not simple) and most logical (there is no logic in college football) is a P4of 18 teams each

So four conferences with the same amount of members should be the objective (i.e., simpler and/or more logical) rather than:

Schools belonging to conferences whereby:

• The conference is amenable to adding it as a member;
  

• The school deems itself a better fit institutionally, culturally and/or geographically;
  

• The school and its athletic program can make more money
  

Is that what you're suggesting?

No, What I am suggesting is that if a true breakaway from the NCAA is imminent, then the best way to make sure the most schools possible are included is a 4x18 model.

What if the goal weren't to make sure that the most schools possible are included? Why not 4X24 if you want more teams? Because, frankly, there's no likely path to make that happen without forcing a lot of schools together who don't want to be together. I don't think 4X18 is possible for the same reason.

I, too, go way back, and liked the way things were in the '50s and '60s. But they aren't coming back. In a world where the public insists on having a playoff to determine a "national champion" I would be satisfied if a breakaway group included as many teams with a reasonable chance of achieving that goal as possible. My 2X27 model with three 9 team divisions includes 27 of the top 30 programs and 19 of the top 20.

I also would like to see a structure in which the teams in conferences are geographically and culturally compatible, and where everybody in a division plays the same conference schedule as everyone else. I'm not a fan of divisionless models in which schools only have a small number of annual opponents just so they can be forced to play schools they really don't care about. I like 8 game conference schedules where everybody plays the same number of home and away games, and has enough OOD games to allow them to play every true rival every year.

Like you, though, I'm afraid my dreams won't come true, and we will always have a suboptimal outcome every year. That's just the way markets work, and schools aren't altruistic. The ones with an advantage don't want to give that up by sharing, even to make the sport better. Ultimately, money will carry the day, not for its own sake but because that's generally how markets keep score. The B1G and the SEC now have what appear to be an insurmountable advantage over everybody else, and they don't need to share that with any school(s) that don't add to their advantage.

Well my model has eight "divisions" of nine teams so assuming divisional round robin play each division would play eight divisional games, four home and four away, and the divisions are for the most part geographically compact with many rivals together (Notre Dame-USC, Georgia-Auburn, Minnesota-Wisconsin are the biggest ones I can think of that aren't together).

Perhaps the compromise is to revert back to the current 65, leaving Notre Dame "special", but rearranging the deck chairs:

Oregon, Oregon State, Washington Washington State, Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC
Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Texas, Texas A&M, Missouri
Arkansas, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia

Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Miami, Clemson NC State, Wake Forest
Louisville, Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia Tech, UVa, Carolina, Duke, South Carolina

Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, Rutgers, Maryland, Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan State
Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Michigan

I may be in the minority here, but I don't see any movement within the P5 for a while, if ever. Nobody would move to any conference except the B1G or SEC, and only Notre Dame could increase the value to one of those conferences. Given that the Irish don't want to give up football independence and that they are contractually obligated to only join the ACC until 2035, that's unlikely.

As much as some would like to see a contraction to a P4 as a solution to create symmetry within the power conferences, I just don't see it happening, regardless of how NIL and pay for play might impact college sports. So while all these scenarios are fun to imagine while we wait for football season to start, they're just fantasies.

The battle for supremacy has been fought, and the SEC and B1G won. Let's declare a truce.

(06-06-2022 07:22 AM)XLance Wrote:  Perhaps the compromise is to revert back to the current 65, leaving Notre Dame "special", but rearranging the deck chairs:

Oregon, Oregon State, Washington Washington State, Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC
Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Texas, Texas A&M, Missouri
Arkansas, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia

Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Miami, Clemson NC State, Wake Forest
Louisville, Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia Tech, UVa, Carolina, Duke, South Carolina

Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, Rutgers, Maryland, Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan State
Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Michigan

Now I see why don't want UNC in the SEC: you don't think that UNC could compete in it. The above is very wishful thinking. I firmly believe that UNC could compete in the SEC. It would take some time, but I believe that it could do so. FSU and Clemson would be contending in the SEC much quicker than UNC, but this because of the makeup of FSU's and Clemson's donor base as opposed to UNC's.

(06-06-2022 10:44 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Now I see why don't want UNC in the SEC: you don't think that UNC could compete in it. The above is very wishful thinking. I firmly believe that UNC could compete in the SEC. It would take some time, but I believe that it could do so. FSU and Clemson would be contending in the SEC much quicker than UNC, but this because of the makeup of FSU's and Clemson's donor base as opposed to UNC's.

Mack Brown is an elite-level recruiter at a well-branded flagship university in the nation's ninth-most populous state — and one that easily produces its fair share of P5-level prospects.

If Brown — or his successors — could assemble an elite-level staff in terms of player development and game-day coaching , there's no reason to think UNC couldn't be a consistent contender in an expanded S-E-C.

(06-06-2022 11:38 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 10:44 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Now I see why don't want UNC in the SEC: you don't think that UNC could compete in it. The above is very wishful thinking. I firmly believe that UNC could compete in the SEC. It would take some time, but I believe that it could do so. FSU and Clemson would be contending in the SEC much quicker than UNC, but this because of the makeup of FSU's and Clemson's donor base as opposed to UNC's.

Mack Brown is an elite-level recruiter at a well-branded flagship university in the nation's ninth-most populous state — and one that easily produces its fair share of P5-level prospects.

If Brown — or his successors — could assemble an elite-level staff in terms of player development and game-day coaching , there's no reason to think UNC couldn't be a consistent contender in an expanded S-E-C.

Considering that UNC hasn't been a consistent contender in the ACC for a long time (last first place finish 1980) that's a lot to expect.

(06-04-2022 10:34 AM)XLance Wrote:  It has become obvious that in order to have the symmetry necessary to have any kind of workable playoff structure (4, 6 12, or 16) all conferences need to adopt the same structure.

Since the NB12 plans to elevate 4 schools and adding Notre Dame on a full time basis takes us beyond 4 x 16, the next logical step would be 4 x 18. Unfortunately 5 conferences can't survive and have any type of logical division to advance the playoffs in an organized fashion.

This may not be perfect, but it should illustrate how conferences could be organized to allow for a rational playoff system so that every school could be involved and therefore profit from the system.

ACC
adds: UCF, West Virginia, Tulane, Houston

B1G
adds: Notre Dame, Cincinnati, Iowa State, Kansas

SEC
adds: USF, Baylor

PAC
adds: San Diego State, BYU, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, TCU

I still like the traditional division approach, but with 18 teams those divisions could be either 2 x 9 or 3 x 6.

The only 2 schools in all of that, that I see possibly being added by those conferences is ND and Kansas to the B1G. Maybe the ACC adds WVU if ND gets added but other than that none of these conferences is adding those schools.

(06-06-2022 03:51 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 11:38 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 10:44 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Now I see why don't want UNC in the SEC: you don't think that UNC could compete in it. The above is very wishful thinking. I firmly believe that UNC could compete in the SEC. It would take some time, but I believe that it could do so. FSU and Clemson would be contending in the SEC much quicker than UNC, but this because of the makeup of FSU's and Clemson's donor base as opposed to UNC's.

Mack Brown is an elite-level recruiter at a well-branded flagship university in the nation's ninth-most populous state — and one that easily produces its fair share of P5-level prospects.

If Brown — or his successors — could assemble an elite-level staff in terms of player development and game-day coaching , there's no reason to think UNC couldn't be a consistent contender in an expanded S-E-C.

Considering that UNC hasn't been a consistent contender in the ACC for a long time (last first place finish 1980) that's a lot to expect.

UNC would contend for 1st place in the SEC - in every sport except football, that is.

(06-04-2022 10:34 AM)XLance Wrote:  It has become obvious that in order to have the symmetry necessary to have any kind of workable playoff structure (4, 6 12, or 16) all conferences need to adopt the same structure.

Since the NB12 plans to elevate 4 schools and adding Notre Dame on a full time basis takes us beyond 4 x 16, the next logical step would be 4 x 18. Unfortunately 5 conferences can't survive and have any type of logical division to advance the playoffs in an organized fashion.

This may not be perfect, but it should illustrate how conferences could be organized to allow for a rational playoff system so that every school could be involved and therefore profit from the system.

ACC
adds: UCF, West Virginia, Tulane, Houston

B1G
adds: Notre Dame, Cincinnati, Iowa State, Kansas

SEC
adds: USF, Baylor

PAC
adds: San Diego State, BYU, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, TCU

I still like the traditional division approach, but with 18 teams those divisions could be either 2 x 9 or 3 x 6.

On it's worst day, the Big 12 wont be rated below the ACC or the Pac 12.

If there's going to be a P4, it will happen when the ACC dissolves because its handcuffed into a generationally bad TV deal.

Or.. when USC leaves the horrific Pac 12.

(06-06-2022 10:44 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 07:22 AM)XLance Wrote:  Perhaps the compromise is to revert back to the current 65, leaving Notre Dame "special", but rearranging the deck chairs:

Oregon, Oregon State, Washington Washington State, Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC
Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Texas, Texas A&M, Missouri
Arkansas, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia

Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Miami, Clemson NC State, Wake Forest
Louisville, Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia Tech, UVa, Carolina, Duke, South Carolina

Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, Rutgers, Maryland, Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan State
Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Michigan

Now I see why don't want UNC in the SEC: you don't think that UNC could compete in it. The above is very wishful thinking. I firmly believe that UNC could compete in the SEC. It would take some time, but I believe that it could do so. FSU and Clemson would be contending in the SEC much quicker than UNC, but this because of the makeup of FSU's and Clemson's donor base as opposed to UNC's.

Dawg, Carolina just doesn't want to compete in the SEC.
At one time we were all in a conference together. The two old Southern Conference schools that ended up in the SEC that Carolina played most often were Georgia and Tennessee. We haven't played either since the '60's except for a few bowl games (although Tennessee did back out of a scheduled series about 15 years ago).
BTW the two that Duke played most often were Tennessee and Georgia Tech. Tennessee is no longer on Duke's schedule but the Devils have played GT every year since 1933.
The only SEC team that Carolina has scheduled with any regularity in recent years has been South Carolina. Those games were initiated by South Carolina, in the 30 years of being in the SEC the Gamecocks haven't developed a single "real" conference rivalry game.

(06-08-2022 05:00 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 10:44 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 07:22 AM)XLance Wrote:  Perhaps the compromise is to revert back to the current 65, leaving Notre Dame "special", but rearranging the deck chairs:

Oregon, Oregon State, Washington Washington State, Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC
Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Texas, Texas A&M, Missouri
Arkansas, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia

Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Miami, Clemson NC State, Wake Forest
Louisville, Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia Tech, UVa, Carolina, Duke, South Carolina

Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, Rutgers, Maryland, Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan State
Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Michigan

Now I see why don't want UNC in the SEC: you don't think that UNC could compete in it. The above is very wishful thinking. I firmly believe that UNC could compete in the SEC. It would take some time, but I believe that it could do so. FSU and Clemson would be contending in the SEC much quicker than UNC, but this because of the makeup of FSU's and Clemson's donor base as opposed to UNC's.

Dawg, Carolina just doesn't want to compete in the SEC.
At one time we were all in a conference together. The two old Southern Conference schools that ended up in the SEC that Carolina played most often were Georgia and Tennessee. We haven't played either since the '60's except for a few bowl games (although Tennessee did back out of a scheduled series about 15 years ago).
BTW the two that Duke played most often were Tennessee and Georgia Tech. Tennessee is no longer on Duke's schedule but the Devils have played GT every year since 1933.
The only SEC team that Carolina has scheduled with any regularity in recent years has been South Carolina. Those games were initiated by South Carolina, in the 30 years of being in the SEC the Gamecocks haven't developed a single "real" conference rivalry game.

XLance, why doesn't Carolina want to compete in the SEC?? Does Carolina want to compete in the B1G???

Btw, I knew that my Dawgs had some history with your TarHeels.

As for the Gamecocks, they do have a single "real" conference rivalry game: the University of Georgia, my team. However, the Gamecocks have had about as much success against us, as they have had against Clemson in football, maybe slightly less. In basketball, Frank Martin, their old basketball coach (who they wound up firing) did try to get a rivalry going with the Dawgs basketball team , which truly only had one rivalry game for several years, with Georgia Tech. He was able to get a little bit of a rivalry going. Bruce Pearl was finally able to get a rivalry going with us in basketball as well.

You see XLance, the Dawgs has always had several football rivalries (Florida, Auburn, Georgia Tech, South Carolina, Tennessee), but really lacked in basketball rivalries (for years, just Georgia Tech, now South Carolina and Auburn are in the mix). I don't see why UNC never really bothered to try to play the Dawgs in football and basketball again after the SoCon break-up. The Dawgs played Clemson a lot too, even post-SoCon, until the SEC mandated more conference games (eight, as opposed to the original seven). It was then that the Dawgs reluctantly started scheduling a lot more non conference cupcakes, because of the special nature of the game with Florida (with few exceptions, this game has been played in Jacksonville, FL, and takes away a home game from Dooley-Sanford Stadium every other year).It is for this same reason that Florida had to cancel their games with the Hurricanes, who they had played as often as we had played Clemson. Now, when the NCAA went to twelve games instead of 11, what happened?? The Dawgs' rivalry with Clemson came back, as did Florida's rivalry with Miami. The Dawgs play other P5 teams in addition to Clemson too, with that extra game. I'm surprised that UNC hasn't tried to schedule a game with us as well.

(06-05-2022 03:09 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(06-05-2022 12:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-04-2022 06:57 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(06-04-2022 04:54 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-04-2022 11:19 AM)schmolik Wrote:  Tulane over Temple? Now that's just anti-North.

Nope......Southern Ivy.

That's the problem with the ACC right there!!!! No, picking Temple is not the fix. It is the way the ACC's profile is. What the heck does the ACC represent??

I can tell you what the SEC represents: every major university in the southeast, excluding those in the ACC.

The SunBelt represents the second best state universities in the southeast, IMO.

The ACC, to me is one big giant blob. Part wants to be Southern Ivy, part wants to be like the SEC, and rest are northern schools!!

The Sun Belt is a bunch of regional schools. Arkansas St., USM and Georgia Southern can claim to be the best non-P5 in their state (2 of those 3 are the only G5), but nobody else in the Sun Belt is close.

There are a number of major private schools not in the SEC or ACC. And given their size and fairly strong academics, you could call UCF and USF "major" schools not in the SEC or ACC.

Disagree. App State, Marshall, and Troy University are standard bearers as well, IMO.

Fixed and edited.

Forgot about Marshall. But they are a regional school. ECU is the top non-P5 in Carolina and UAB is in Alabama. App St. and Troy are very regional.

(06-04-2022 07:43 PM)Porcine Wrote:  

(06-04-2022 06:57 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(06-04-2022 04:54 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-04-2022 11:19 AM)schmolik Wrote:  Tulane over Temple? Now that's just anti-North.

Nope......Southern Ivy.

That's the problem with the ACC right there!!!! No, picking Temple is not the fix. It is the way the ACC's profile is. What the heck does the ACC represent??

I can tell you what the SEC represents: every major university in the southeast, excluding those in the ACC.

The SunBelt represents the second best state universities in the southeast, IMO.

The ACC, to me is one big giant blob. Part wants to be Southern Ivy, part wants to be like the SEC, and rest are northern schools!!

All of those East Indys should have carved out a whole new conference. No old school clique telling all the others that are used to do things their way what to do.

It was tried. Louisville and FSU killed it... allegedly. UL didn't want to share basketball. FSU wanted an unequal cut of football.

(06-04-2022 10:34 AM)XLance Wrote:  
It has become obvious that in order to have the symmetry necessary to have any kind of workable playoff structure (4, 6 12, or 16) all conferences need to adopt the same structure.

Since the NB12 plans to elevate 4 schools and adding Notre Dame on a full time basis takes us beyond 4 x 16, the next logical step would be 4 x 18. Unfortunately 5 conferences can't survive and have any type of logical division to advance the playoffs in an organized fashion.

This may not be perfect, but it should illustrate how conferences could be organized to allow for a rational playoff system so that every school could be involved and therefore profit from the system.

ACC
adds: UCF, West Virginia, Tulane, Houston

B1G
adds: Notre Dame, Cincinnati, Iowa State, Kansas

SEC
adds: USF, Baylor

PAC
adds: San Diego State, BYU, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, TCU

I still like the traditional division approach, but with 18 teams those divisions could be either 2 x 9 or 3 x 6.

IMO, the addition of UT and OU has completely changed the SEC’s viewpoint on conferences. If you have the most valuable brands and a long record of winning the most national championships, seeking “symmetry” is analogous to promoting welfare, redistribution and Socialism. Conference symmetry would help if conferences had relatively comparable brands and opportunities. Symmetry could have worked if: a) UT, OU, TTU and KU had joined the PAC, and b) ND joined the ACC.

Standardizing conference structures to 4x18 is now futile. Unfortunately, all four conferences would be weakened by expanding with the proposed members. The SEC is fully aligned with ND…they don’t value conference champions. The Alliance (B1G, ACC and PAC) still promotes the importance of conference champions, but they’re losing the PR war about CFP expansion.