(06-18-2013 12:18 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 09:22 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  I'd be curious to hear from OU and KU people who would know if OU and KU have a little brother problem when it comes to realignment. People have always speculated since this whole deal started several years ago, but is the climate still the same in those states?

I think that the KU/KSU tie is significant, but not irrevocable. I don't think that KU would have the freedom to strike out on their own just to seek greener pastures (such as the KU/UConn to B1G speculation) if the Big 12 essentially remains intact. (And if it does, I think we'd be likely to stay in any case).

Just my opinion: The KU/KSU and OU/OSU connections are not nearly as deep as the UU/BYU connection was.

(06-18-2013 12:18 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 09:22 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 09:08 PM)UCbball21 Wrote:  IMO Oklahoma and Kansas to the B1G will be the next move and it will probably happen a couple years before the GOR expiration date.

I'd be curious to hear from OU and KU people who would know if OU and KU have a little brother problem when it comes to realignment. People have always speculated since this whole deal started several years ago, but is the climate still the same in those states? If either OSU or KSU can't land in a P5, are OU and KU stuck? If so, OU, OSU, KU, and KSU all to the PAC is not horrible if it came down to it.

I think that the KU/KSU tie is significant, but not irrevocable. I don't think that KU would have the freedom to strike out on their own just to seek greener pastures (such as the KU/UConn to B1G speculation) if the Big 12 essentially remains intact. (And if it does, I think we'd be likely to stay in any case).

However, if it all really hits the fan and there's a real danger that both KU and KSU would be left out of major conferences, and KU has an invitation but KSU does not, I think that KU would be allowed to take that invitation. I suspect that there would mandated games and perhaps other concessions, but in the end I think that one school in a major conference would be seen as better than none.

Ok, thanks, Fog. That helps.

(06-18-2013 08:43 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 10:27 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 09:51 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  You know what I'd pay money to watch? An uncensored documentary where everyone absolutely had to agree to interviews and tell the truth about this UConn situation. I want to hear from Boston College, Swofford, and Delany. They all have to be in the same room with UConn. Round table style.

It's simple. UConn was not much different than UMass or the University of New Hampshire until Jim Calhoun arrived in 1986. UConn was late arriving to big time college athletics ... but once at the party, UConn made a big impact.

The nouveau riche Huskies infuriated the old eastern schools like BC, Syracuse, and Pitt. Those schools lie awake at night, in fear of UConn's potential as a land-grant state school with:

1) solid fan support,
2) an administration committed to success, and
3) nearly unlimited assets provided by the good people of Connecticut (another $2 billion was announced last week).

The old guard schools see realignment as a tool to cut UConn out of the picture, hoping that UConn will eventually die on the vine. It's very Machiavellian. It's not very collegial.

You're paranoid. UConn was just becoming FCS during the first raid. They still haven't done anything in football. BC is still mad because UConn led the lawsuit against them last time and the AG is now a Senator, using that lawsuit for political purposes. It has nothing to do with keeping UConn down. Its not very collegial to sue.

Now if not for Bridgewater, UConn might have gotten that spot instead of UL in spite of the lawsuit.

You're knowledge of this topic is lacking. It's all about keeping UConn down. BC fears UConn. Syracuse does as well, but they're more concerned about getting their old Connecticut recruiting grounds back. Syracuse always recruited Connecticut very well.

The suit was filed by all Big East schools (not just UConn). The State of Connecticut invested a lot of money in UConn's upgrade from 1-AA to 1-A, based on assurances there would be a Big East football conference to join. That entire time, BC and others were secretly scheming to leave the conference. And don't tell me realignment is commonplace and UConn should have expected BC, Miami, and VT to leave. Back then, realignment was not common. That was before realignment got going.

(06-18-2013 10:42 AM)bluesox Wrote:  I still wonder why the acc didn't jump to 12 in 1992. They had 8 at the time and only offered FSU to get to 9 while the sec went from 10 to 12 and the big 10 added psu. THe acc could have offered Scar and Miami to jump to 11 with probably syracuse getting spot 12 and go with this setup:

Syracuse
Maryland
UVA
UNC
DUKE
FSU

Nc State
Wake
Clemson
Scar
GTECH
Miami

THe sec would have added Arkansas and WVU, va tech was a nobody at the time. The big 12 would have still happened but the big east football might not have even started. I guess they might have looked at cincy, lville and ecu to go with bc, temple, pitt and va tech.

South Carolina used to be in the ACC they would not go back. That would be like Georgia Tech going to the SEC it just is not happening (and that is OK for both as the ACC/SEC combo is actually good for both overall).

(06-18-2013 01:36 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 12:18 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 09:22 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 09:08 PM)UCbball21 Wrote:  IMO Oklahoma and Kansas to the B1G will be the next move and it will probably happen a couple years before the GOR expiration date.

I'd be curious to hear from OU and KU people who would know if OU and KU have a little brother problem when it comes to realignment. People have always speculated since this whole deal started several years ago, but is the climate still the same in those states? If either OSU or KSU can't land in a P5, are OU and KU stuck? If so, OU, OSU, KU, and KSU all to the PAC is not horrible if it came down to it.

I think that the KU/KSU tie is significant, but not irrevocable. I don't think that KU would have the freedom to strike out on their own just to seek greener pastures (such as the KU/UConn to B1G speculation) if the Big 12 essentially remains intact. (And if it does, I think we'd be likely to stay in any case).

However, if it all really hits the fan and there's a real danger that both KU and KSU would be left out of major conferences, and KU has an invitation but KSU does not, I think that KU would be allowed to take that invitation. I suspect that there would mandated games and perhaps other concessions, but in the end I think that one school in a major conference would be seen as better than none.

Ok, thanks, Fog. That helps.

For what it's worth, I don't think anyone will be leaving the Big 12 unless the entire conference has a landing spot. The fallout from doing anything other than that wouldn't go over so well at home for many of those schools.

With that in mind that it is all or none, it makes for a different situation when it comes to the "Little Brother Situation". If both have a good landing spot then it isn't a situation. They will still be able to have an OOC game and none of this happens unless a major majority of the schools think it is for the best. We are talking an 8 out of 10 vote for dissolution and likely you dont find 8 of the Universities willing to make the vote if there are any votes against it due to how that would be publicly perceived.

In the conference dissolution theory, there is no big/little brother issue.

(06-17-2013 10:27 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 09:51 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  You know what I'd pay money to watch? An uncensored documentary where everyone absolutely had to agree to interviews and tell the truth about this UConn situation. I want to hear from Boston College, Swofford, and Delany. They all have to be in the same room with UConn. Round table style.

It's simple. UConn was not much different than UMass or the University of New Hampshire until Jim Calhoun arrived in 1986. UConn was late arriving to big time college athletics ... but once at the party, UConn made a big impact.

The nouveau riche Huskies infuriated the old eastern schools like BC, Syracuse, and Pitt. Those schools lie awake at night, in fear of UConn's potential as a land-grant state school with:

(06-18-2013 07:05 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 08:43 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 10:27 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 09:51 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  You know what I'd pay money to watch? An uncensored documentary where everyone absolutely had to agree to interviews and tell the truth about this UConn situation. I want to hear from Boston College, Swofford, and Delany. They all have to be in the same room with UConn. Round table style.

It's simple. UConn was not much different than UMass or the University of New Hampshire until Jim Calhoun arrived in 1986. UConn was late arriving to big time college athletics ... but once at the party, UConn made a big impact.

The nouveau riche Huskies infuriated the old eastern schools like BC, Syracuse, and Pitt. Those schools lie awake at night, in fear of UConn's potential as a land-grant state school with:

1) solid fan support,
2) an administration committed to success, and
3) nearly unlimited assets provided by the good people of Connecticut (another $2 billion was announced last week).

The old guard schools see realignment as a tool to cut UConn out of the picture, hoping that UConn will eventually die on the vine. It's very Machiavellian. It's not very collegial.

You're paranoid. UConn was just becoming FCS during the first raid. They still haven't done anything in football. BC is still mad because UConn led the lawsuit against them last time and the AG is now a Senator, using that lawsuit for political purposes. It has nothing to do with keeping UConn down. Its not very collegial to sue.

Now if not for Bridgewater, UConn might have gotten that spot instead of UL in spite of the lawsuit.

You're knowledge of this topic is lacking. It's all about keeping UConn down. BC fears UConn. Syracuse does as well, but they're more concerned about getting their old Connecticut recruiting grounds back. Syracuse always recruited Connecticut very well.

The suit was filed by all Big East schools (not just UConn). The State of Connecticut invested a lot of money in UConn's upgrade from 1-AA to 1-A, based on assurances there would be a Big East football conference to join. That entire time, BC and others were secretly scheming to leave the conference. And don't tell me realignment is commonplace and UConn should have expected BC, Miami, and VT to leave. Back then, realignment was not common. That was before realignment got going.

UConn and the state of Connecticut were the voice and face of the lawsuit. Whether it was justified or not is irrelevant. Basically they burned ALL their bridges and BC basically said as much when Pitt and SU were invited. Its your objectivity that is lacking. You might recall, UConn got invited to the BE for fb while BC was still there.

Realignment has always been commonplace. UConn got caught off guard like lots of other schools have been-notably with the SWC-Houston, Rice, TCU and SMU and later with the WAC-Rice, TCU, SMU (all again), Tulsa, UTEP, Fresno, Hawaii and San Jose.

(06-17-2013 12:17 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  I can see a 24 super conference that could be the best out of the ACC-SEC-Big 10- Big 12, and PAC 12. Schools like Miss State, Vandy, Ole Miss, Wake Forest, etc would be booted down to the next 24 of the super conference. Then another 24 which would include the good programs with decent budgets but not elite.

No, I will go on the record now and say that degree of change will never happen. This is not soccer...you will not see a "relegation" of current P5 programs to a lower level.

I understand your perspective as a Big East guy, but there is a reason why no other conferences have acted like the Big East and kicked a Temple to the curb.

11 years

(06-18-2013 08:51 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

This level of delusion hasn't been seen since when some still thought the dude was credible.

(06-19-2013 10:17 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  This level of delusion hasn't been seen since when some still thought the dude was credible.

Did anyone ever really believe that?

Probably 20-25 years when, as ArkStfan suggested here or in another thread, the media markets change enough. And that could produce major changes that are very hard to predict.

It could happen when the GORs expire in the 2020s under several possibilities, but that IMO is less likely. In order of likelihood:

1) Key ACC schools get tired of being #5 in media money and take better offers leaving half the ACC schools stuck in a mezzanine level conference-not quite mid-major, but not major;
2) Texas and OU decide the Big 12 doesn't work for them as well as they would like and head together to Big 10 or Pac 12;
3) Major schools form a 10-12 team superconference. I would be amazed if that has not been one of the topics of conversation between Dodds and Swarbick. USC, Texas, Notre Dame, at least one Florida school and several others would form a conference of powers that would play a limited 6-7 game conference schedule to give them flexibility and limit in conference losses and make mega-bucks. School presidents are conservative, so this is less likely than 1) and 2);
4) SEC implodes either due to recruiting frustrations or the difficulties of working with 14. 10-12 breakaway and start over. Possibly only 7-8 SEC schools if they add 2-3 schools from other conferences.

The Big 10 schools are similar and less likely to implode. Pac 12 is safe by geography. It would survive mostly intact even if option 3) occurs.

Note:

I think the Gang of 5 conferences will face pretty much continuous change and churn over the next dozen years as they try to figure out the best configuration. They've been doing it on the fly with constant stuff falling on them from above. And the possibility of a new division in the NCAA will motivate them as well.

I could see a the big 10 go risk domination with 4 divisions of 10 teams. THus, you would have 2 major leagues left standing the big 10 and sec which both have networks for the top tier. The sec could jump to 20-24.

Bullet, the B1G, SEC, and PAC are safe as long as colleges still compete as conferences. Your idea for a 10-12 team super-conference would destroy the existing SEC, B1G, and Big 12. There are no PAC or ACC teams in the top 12 of revenue (Notre Dame comes in at #14 with $97 mil, Louisville is #17 at $88 mil, and FSU is down at #25 with $81 mil. Stanford is #16 at $89 mil, USC is #20 at $84 mil, and Washington is #23 at $82.5 mil).

Your theoretical super-conference has 5 obvious choices based on superior athletic departments, revenue, and very good academics in the public education realm: Texas, Ohio State, Michigan, Alabama, and Florida. All of those schools are $120 mil revenue, top 75 schools, a history of athletic success, and national brands. LSU is the #6 revenue school with $113 mil, but they are academically #134. Hold off on them for a minute. Rounding out the top 11 is, in order of revenue, Penn State, Oklahoma, Auburn, Tennessee, and Wisconsin. All are top 100 schools that make over #100 mil. From there, #12 Arkansas makes $99.7 mil, #13 Iowa makes $97 mil as does #14 Notre Dame, and then you get a drop to #15 Georgia at $91 mil.

I list all of those schools out because I bet most people's idea of a super-conference of twelve teams would include all of those top 5 schools, but the rest comes down to what people value. Whether it is academics, athletic success, revenue, markets, or national brand will determine the remaining spots. Not even in the top 15 revenue schools are Stanford, USC, Nebraska, FSU, TAMU, UNC, Duke, or a number of other great schools. The most significant gap in revenue, not suprisingly, occurs between the #64 school, BYU, and the #72 school, Cincinnati. That gap is $53 mil to $39 mil. Between those schools, in order of revenue, are Wake Forest, Wazzu, Memphis, Utah, USF, Ole Miss, and SMU. Utah will jump up once they get a full share of PAC money, but that gives you an idea of the where schools stand.

The cleanest breaks are at #14 (Notre Dame at $97 mil) and #15 (Georgia at #91 mil), Duke at #32 (#78 mil) and Arizona at #33 ($75 mil), and #64 BYU ($53 mil) and #65 Wake Forest ($48 mil). Pretty much every other slot has schools within $1.5 mil of the schools directly above and below them.

Back to the original issue... if an super-conference were to form strictly by the numbers, it would be about 6 SEC schools, 4 B1G schools, and 2 Big 12 schools. A super-league of 24 would not be much more diverse. It would be 9 SEC, 7 B1G, 3 Big 12, 3 PAC, and 2 ACC (Notre Dame and Louisville). Schools like FSU, TAMU, Michigan State, UNC, Oregon, Arizona, WVU, Kansas, and UVA are still left out at 24 teams. Any decision to further split leagues will have to be done very diplomatically and be an "opt-out" situation, like paying players or making the "stipend" basically a pay-to-play. Interesting fodder for conversation, but unlikely in the near future.

(06-21-2013 10:04 AM)bluesox Wrote:  I could see a the big 10 go risk domination with 4 divisions of 10 teams. THus, you would have 2 major leagues left standing the big 10 and sec which both have networks for the top tier. The sec could jump to 20-24.

I like Risk, but the B1G would have to severely alter their standards to accept 40 teams. I don't think 20-24 team conferences are out of the question if the Big 12 and PAC agreed to a complete merger and the ACC was split between the SEC and B1G. That would be a major, major event, though, and it would not break as cleanly as it sounds. If the B1G is going to continue on insisting that new members be AAU, they are going to have to become a national conference if they hope to get to 24 unless they are willing to overlap in some markets (Iowa State and Pitt) or take lesser quality athletic departments (Buffalo, Stony Brook). I still think the University of Toronto should be a major consideration for the B1G, but that one has already been discussed on here. They would pretty much have to clean sweep the Big 12 and ACC schools that make sense to get to 24 and keep their AAU standard. Saying they did and got UVA, UNC, Duke, and Kansas, that is still only 18. Taking Texas and Ga. Tech is only 20. Something is going to have to give. Stealing Vandy and Mizzou will be next to impossible.

The SEC's geography and standards would make getting to 24 very easy if ACC and Big 12 schools became available. If I'm Larry Scott and Bob Bowlsby, I'd be sending each other Christmas cards for the next decade. If/when, the landscape changes, merging the PAC and the Big 12 may be the only way the PAC can compete with peers as close to home as possible and the only way the Big 12 schools can stay together if they so desire.

(06-21-2013 10:34 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Bullet, the B1G, SEC, and PAC are safe as long as colleges still compete as conferences. Your idea for a 10-12 team super-conference would destroy the existing SEC, B1G, and Big 12. There are no PAC or ACC teams in the top 12 of revenue (Notre Dame comes in at #14 with $97 mil, Louisville is #17 at $88 mil, and FSU is down at #25 with $81 mil. Stanford is #16 at $89 mil, USC is #20 at $84 mil, and Washington is #23 at $82.5 mil).

Your theoretical super-conference has 5 obvious choices based on superior athletic departments, revenue, and very good academics in the public education realm: Texas, Ohio State, Michigan, Alabama, and Florida. All of those schools are $120 mil revenue, top 75 schools, a history of athletic success, and national brands. LSU is the #6 revenue school with $113 mil, but they are academically #134. Hold off on them for a minute. Rounding out the top 11 is, in order of revenue, Penn State, Oklahoma, Auburn, Tennessee, and Wisconsin. All are top 100 schools that make over #100 mil. From there, #12 Arkansas makes $99.7 mil, #13 Iowa makes $97 mil as does #14 Notre Dame, and then you get a drop to #15 Georgia at $91 mil.

I list all of those schools out because I bet most people's idea of a super-conference of twelve teams would include all of those top 5 schools, but the rest comes down to what people value. Whether it is academics, athletic success, revenue, markets, or national brand will determine the remaining spots. Not even in the top 15 revenue schools are Stanford, USC, Nebraska, FSU, TAMU, UNC, Duke, or a number of other great schools. The most significant gap in revenue, not suprisingly, occurs between the #64 school, BYU, and the #72 school, Cincinnati. That gap is $53 mil to $39 mil. Between those schools, in order of revenue, are Wake Forest, Wazzu, Memphis, Utah, USF, Ole Miss, and SMU. Utah will jump up once they get a full share of PAC money, but that gives you an idea of the where schools stand.

The cleanest breaks are at #14 (Notre Dame at $97 mil) and #15 (Georgia at #91 mil), Duke at #32 (#78 mil) and Arizona at #33 ($75 mil), and #64 BYU ($53 mil) and #65 Wake Forest ($48 mil). Pretty much every other slot has schools within $1.5 mil of the schools directly above and below them.

Back to the original issue... if an super-conference were to form strictly by the numbers, it would be about 6 SEC schools, 4 B1G schools, and 2 Big 12 schools. A super-league of 24 would not be much more diverse. It would be 9 SEC, 7 B1G, 3 Big 12, 3 PAC, and 2 ACC (Notre Dame and Louisville). Schools like FSU, TAMU, Michigan State, UNC, Oregon, Arizona, WVU, Kansas, and UVA are still left out at 24 teams. Any decision to further split leagues will have to be done very diplomatically and be an "opt-out" situation, like paying players or making the "stipend" basically a pay-to-play. Interesting fodder for conversation, but unlikely in the near future.

I don't think it would be quite that way, going straight by the numbers. I would envision something like:
USC
UCLA
Texas
Oklahoma
Georgia
Florida
North Carolina
South Carolina
Notre Dame
Nebraska
Big 10 stays together, SEC has enough left, Pac 12 has enough left. Big 12 and ACC get raided to re-fill Big 10/SEC/Pac 12. Not everyone has to be good at every sport.

(06-21-2013 09:43 AM)bullet Wrote:  Probably 20-25 years when, as ArkStfan suggested here or in another thread, the media markets change enough. And that could produce major changes that are very hard to predict.

It could happen when the GORs expire in the 2020s under several possibilities, but that IMO is less likely. In order of likelihood:

1) Key ACC schools get tired of being #5 in media money and take better offers leaving half the ACC schools stuck in a mezzanine level conference-not quite mid-major, but not major;
2) Texas and OU decide the Big 12 doesn't work for them as well as they would like and head together to Big 10 or Pac 12;
3) Major schools form a 10-12 team superconference. I would be amazed if that has not been one of the topics of conversation between Dodds and Swarbick. USC, Texas, Notre Dame, at least one Florida school and several others would form a conference of powers that would play a limited 6-7 game conference schedule to give them flexibility and limit in conference losses and make mega-bucks. School presidents are conservative, so this is less likely than 1) and 2);
4) SEC implodes either due to recruiting frustrations or the difficulties of working with 14. 10-12 breakaway and start over. Possibly only 7-8 SEC schools if they add 2-3 schools from other conferences.

The Big 10 schools are similar and less likely to implode. Pac 12 is safe by geography. It would survive mostly intact even if option 3) occurs.

ND had been part of the talks about forming an "Airplane Conference" back in the late 1950's.


"In 1959, Admiral Tom Hamilton, the incoming commissioner of the Pac-8 Conference, began drawing up plans for what he called the "Airplane Conference." The league of at least 13 schools would have included Notre Dame, the three service academies, the core of what is now the Pac-10 and stretched from coast-to-coast. The name fit: The new league would have flown over the poor(er) saps below. The Airplane Conference would have been the richest, most influential conference in the country.


'That's the first instance of the super conference idea,' said author Keith Dunnavant, who interviewed the now-deceased Hamilton for his 2004 book, The Fifty Year Seduction. 'It could have been a dramatic change. I think they came pretty close.'

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...e-the-same


http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/06/14...round.html



It is pretty tough to come up with a national super conference like that, even suspending reality and dissolving some conferences to make the new one.


How about a West Coast/Southwest/Southeast/Northeast pod structure for such a conference? It is tough to imagine.

West Coast:

Southern Cal
Stanford
Oregon
Arizona State

Southwest:

Texas
Oklahoma
Kansas
Oklahoma State

Southeast:

Florida State
Miami
North Carolina
Duke


Northeast: (toughest to do)

ND
Penn State
Syracuse
Pitt


I tried to combine football schools and basketball schools for year around television appeal.

I hope that Wilkie would be proud.

(06-21-2013 11:46 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(06-21-2013 09:43 AM)bullet Wrote:  Probably 20-25 years when, as ArkStfan suggested here or in another thread, the media markets change enough. And that could produce major changes that are very hard to predict.

It could happen when the GORs expire in the 2020s under several possibilities, but that IMO is less likely. In order of likelihood:

1) Key ACC schools get tired of being #5 in media money and take better offers leaving half the ACC schools stuck in a mezzanine level conference-not quite mid-major, but not major;
2) Texas and OU decide the Big 12 doesn't work for them as well as they would like and head together to Big 10 or Pac 12;
3) Major schools form a 10-12 team superconference. I would be amazed if that has not been one of the topics of conversation between Dodds and Swarbick. USC, Texas, Notre Dame, at least one Florida school and several others would form a conference of powers that would play a limited 6-7 game conference schedule to give them flexibility and limit in conference losses and make mega-bucks. School presidents are conservative, so this is less likely than 1) and 2);
4) SEC implodes either due to recruiting frustrations or the difficulties of working with 14. 10-12 breakaway and start over. Possibly only 7-8 SEC schools if they add 2-3 schools from other conferences.

The Big 10 schools are similar and less likely to implode. Pac 12 is safe by geography. It would survive mostly intact even if option 3) occurs.

ND had been part of the talks about forming an "Airplane Conference" back in the late 1950's.


"In 1959, Admiral Tom Hamilton, the incoming commissioner of the Pac-8 Conference, began drawing up plans for what he called the "Airplane Conference." The league of at least 13 schools would have included Notre Dame, the three service academies, the core of what is now the Pac-10 and stretched from coast-to-coast. The name fit: The new league would have flown over the poor(er) saps below. The Airplane Conference would have been the richest, most influential conference in the country.


'That's the first instance of the super conference idea,' said author Keith Dunnavant, who interviewed the now-deceased Hamilton for his 2004 book, The Fifty Year Seduction. 'It could have been a dramatic change. I think they came pretty close.'

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...e-the-same


http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/06/14...round.html



It is pretty tough to come up with a national super conference like that, even suspending reality and dissolving some conferences to make the new one.


How about a West Coast/Southwest/Southeast/Northeast pod structure for such a conference? It is tough to imagine.

West Coast:

Southern Cal
Stanford
Oregon
Arizona State

Southwest:

Texas
Oklahoma
Kansas
Oklahoma State

Southeast:

Florida State
Miami
North Carolina
Duke


Northeast: (toughest to do)

ND
Penn State
Syracuse
Pitt


I tried to combine football schools and basketball schools for year around television appeal.

I hope that Wilkie would be proud.

No SEC teams, a wise move. But, I would have thought that Notre Dame would have considered an "Airplane" conference anathema after losing Rockne on one.

(06-21-2013 09:45 AM)bullet Wrote:  Note:

I think the Gang of 5 conferences will face pretty much continuous change and churn over the next dozen years as they try to figure out the best configuration. They've been doing it on the fly with constant stuff falling on them from above. And the possibility of a new division in the NCAA will motivate them as well.

The G5 churn is mostly pointless because so little is gained. Maryland's inducement payment from the Big 10 (on top of the revenue distribution gain) would take about 7 years to earn taking the difference between best and worst G5 payment.

It is very likely that there will be some institutions in the G5 that will change conferences before they have recovered exit fees and entry fees associated with their move, making that interim stop a money loser.