(09-21-2017 02:53 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(09-21-2017 02:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-21-2017 02:13 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(09-21-2017 01:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-21-2017 01:16 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I like 20 as a final number better than 18.

1) You can easily divide into 4 divisions and each division can produce a participant for the conference semis. I think it's much easier than creating a system to select a wildcard.

2) If we go to 9 games then 20 is more conducive to balanced scheduling because 2 divisions can have 5 home games while the other 2 can have 5 away games. They would simply switch the following season. There is no advantage of one division mate over another as would have to be the case if the number is 18. I think that sort of imbalance could lead to issues.

I would suggest this...

West: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas
Central: Texas A&M, LSU, Arkansas, Missouri, Ole Miss
South: Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
East: Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Kentucky, West Virginia

Play each of your division mates annually = 4
Select 2 permanent rivals from any division = 2
Play 1 opponent from each division on a rotational basis = 3

That's 9 games that preserve rivalries and allow plenty of room for non-conference games of note.

As to you last 2 posts, I have no problem with 20 as long as they fit and add. And, the SEC and the Big 10 are the most compact because only the desperate go beyond the natural grasp of their footprint to gain a school. The ACC needed relevance so they get N.D. as a partial. The PAC was dying for market penetration and Denver was attractive. WVU we've covered.

If we want to go to 20 profitably then it needs to be one of these options: Oklahoma, Texas, North Carolina, Duke, Florida State, Clemson; or Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, North Carolina, Duke, Florida State, Clemson; or substitute North Carolina State and Virginia Tech for North Carolina and Duke in either of the first two scenarios. So let's not waste space on the Big 12 until we know absolutely that the ACC is off the menu.

They may not be solvent long term.

I think if the ACC is ever breached by us though then we might as well go to 24. There are so many strong regional connections that could be re-established or created that I think it would pay dividends.

Personally, I would also like to ensure the inclusion of Texas as well. If we ever break away from ESPN then we may need the extra punch to ensure another network(s) is paying us what we're worth. The extra gravitas to the league will make picking off certain ACC schools that much easier.

Something like this one day maybe...

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State in the short term

Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, North Carolina, Duke, Virginia Tech in the long term

'the problem at 24 is that you can't play everyone every 4 years and have any OOC games to speak of. Also finding 6 that make you more money is danged tough. Finding 10 is probably impossible.

As to the SEC's future value to another network, we don't need to do anything but win. Our value is based on the extremely high % of our households that tune into SEC games each week. If we are winning it is too valuable to pass up. Having A&M puts us into Texas, but I agree if we had the Horns it gets even stronger.

I agree that adding 10 would be very difficult to maintain profitability in the current climate. I'm thinking the climate may change though.

If you add a large number of strong brands from multiple regions then all of a sudden the dynamics are different. The networks start competing with each other to a greater degree than the conferences are competing with each other for air time.

Travel and media exposure is what split the old Southern Conference. Those hurdles have been eliminated in the modern economy so I'm wondering if that's not where we're headed...a revival of that league.