When circumstances change sometimes it is necessary to reflect on what you have believed to be important in the past and test it to see if it is still valid. I believe the climate around realignment has significantly changed since 2010, and is still changing.

College football has issues today that it didn't have in 2010. Among those are the stress on attendance since virtually every game is on television, another is travel distances since conferences have spread out, and another is the shaky ground upon which cable operates today as opposed to the robust market model in 2010 that was based upon cable subscription fees.

With streaming looming ever larger on the horizon, and with content replacing subscription fees for T1 and T2 games as the driving force behind revenue, branding will be significantly more important moving forward. But so too will be added inventory whether by scheduling more conference games or through addition. Having more to sell (and to multiple networks) will be key to earning more revenue and having more power in negotiations as well.

It will also be important for conferences to realize that if we stay divided into 5 or more collections of schools loosely based on regions that we will suffer leverage in dealing with networks which more and more want things on their terms.

So what we need to ponder are the moves that increase the regional nature of divisions, alleviate the travel distance issues, and raise content value, while increasing inventory, and which incorporate enough schools to gain leverage in our negotiations with the networks.

The next 6 years will see an opening up of rights for the PAC / Big 12 / Big 10 and for the T1 rights of the SEC. GOR's will expire closely enough to each other to make some wholesale moves possible without the heavy hand of networks working against it. And the networks right now are scrambling for all the rights they can get, well at least ESPN is.

Heretofore the logic has been for the SEC to pursue the "crown jewels" as Machen called them in 2011. Perhaps what we need to consider is the efficiency with which we can operate even with as many as 20 schools. Sounds nuts doesn't it, but not really.

Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma like the familiar games on their schedules and while everyone is after Texas, and likely Oklahoma, not everyone is after Kansas. If the SEC made a move on Oklahoma simultaneously with the Big 10 the deciding factor for the SEC might well be the taking of Oklahoma State as we've discussed many times before. But why stop with two when it leaves too little familiarity for the Sooners in their new conference scheduling? Why stop at 2 when it leaves Missouri without their chief rival. Why not add Kansas too? And if having the two Oklahoma schools, Arkansas, and Texas A&M is a lure too strong for the Horns to resist and if the Texas legislature won't approve a move for UT without Tech, why not take Tech as well?

I know, I know, market duplication is not good. But we are no longer living in a market driven pay model. We are in a content driven pay model where the number of eyes on the games determines the ad rates which determines the value to the networks. Kansas adds hoops and probably an easy win on the schedule for most SEC football schools. But add them to Kentucky and the SEC has an answer for Duke / UNC and in a league that is getting much stronger on the hardwood that pays dividends.

Create a half division with Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas and Texas Tech and you get a division in which every divisional game could have up to 35 million potential viewers. No that couldn't really max out revenue for the Big 12, but in a division, or half division of the SEC it would be a T2 dynamo for every game except the RRR which would remain T1.

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri and Texas A&M would make another fine half division and if the old WAC system was adopted would play the division of the former Big 12 every 3rd year.

Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi State, Tennessee, and West Virginia would make another fine half division placing the SEC into the edge of the Beltway.

Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, and Vanderbilt could be the other.

You would have 10 conference games (9 from divisional play and 1 permanent rival). The other 2 would be home OOC games that should help most schools keep 7 home games. We wouldn't play OOC P schools until the bowls or CFP.

That limits the expensive travel for neutral site games and long distance away games. It keeps play closer to home but rotates everyone through the conference every three years and it keeps the SEC CCG fresh.

The content value of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and even WVU would add not only markets, but interest in the regions (or half divisions) in which they are grouped. All of this should help with ticket sales and affordability to the consumer while providing enough content to keep the ESPN numbers static while having extra inventory to sell for T1 and T2 rights deals whether to ESPN or other networks. The T3 value would go up by utilizing the SECN for the Eastern Schools and converting the LHN to the SECN West and selling the subscription to both for 1 price.

The leverage for that depth of branding would pay off for all of the schools and likely force the Big 10 to consider expansion as well. At that point cooperation between the Big 10 and SEC would garner even more leverage for the schools, and might enable CFB to become a two league sport with between 40 to 48 schools which will operate more efficiently without having to pay for 3 more sets of conference employees, properties, and officials and where 24 schools might split the overhead as opposed to 10-14.

So before we say let's just move to 16 and stop, we need to pause and reflect upon what kind of move garners us not only the most revenue, but which also could address the other issues we currently face, all while returning some balance in power between the conference and network in the process, and to do it while the window for that kind of comprehensive move still exits.