(07-11-2018 09:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 08:52 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  SEC takes Texas and Kansas (16)

ACC takes WVU, UConn (or Cincy) (16)

PAC12 takes TTU, UNM (or TCU), OU, oSu (16)

BIG takes ISU, ND (ft). (16).

OK, won't happen this way. But......

I don't think that's too out of line. I've quietly contemplated something very similar.

Big 10 takes Oklahoma and Notre Dame
SEC takes Texas and Kansas
ACC takes T.C.U. and W.V.U.
PAC takes Iowa State, Oklahoma State, Kansas State and Texas Tech.

That way the Big 10 and SEC are placated and both in ways that enhance the advertising value of their existing footprint and add a brand that enhances the weaknesses of both.

The ACC fills in their gap and the demographic of T.C.U. meets their need for market enhancement while providing them a good sports fit which is something WVU does as well.

The PAC who is presently in the weakest position gains 4 central time zone states. They don't like OSU but take them to set up a scheduling alliance with the Big 10 to enhance their market value along with the all of the footprint of the former Big 12 minus West Virginia. Iowa vs Iowa State & Oklahoma vs OSU, and of course now USC vs ND.

End the end if it looks like we are moving toward a champs only format the Irish will go for the money, especially if a scheduling alliance with the PAC gives them the largess to keep U.S.C as an annual.

But, I decided to pull for:
SEC: Texas & Kansas
B1G: Oklahoma & ISU
ACC: West Virginia and N.D.
PAC: Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech & T.C.U. (I think the PAC would like to have a bigger piece of Texas than Tech could give them alone).

This scenario ensures that all rivalries are restored.

Do you think that, in light of the article on Utah and the Pac-10, that more old assumptions should be changed?