I want to play devil's advocate for a moment. Many of you believe that realignment is essentially over (I do not). Let's assume that it is over as far as P5 conferences raiding each other. Let's also assume for a variety of reasons that the Big 10 and SEC would still like to get to 16 for ease of scheduling and for positioning in new markets. Let's also assume that the Big 12 will look at expansion to stabilize what they intend to be home. Who are now the viable candidates if not UConn, Buffalo, Cincinnati, South Florida, Central Florida, East Carolina, Houston, S.M.U., Boise State, Nevada, U.N.L.V., B.Y.U., San Diego State, Fresno State, Colorado State, New Mexico, Hawaii, Wyoming, possibly Temple, Tulane, or Rice.

Suddenly the usual parameters are out the window. Value will be found primarily in markets, upside potential in growth, in academics, etc.

Nothing would signal the official end of P5 conferences raiding each other more than the additions of some of these schools to the P5. That would be sign that would convince me that we are through.

If all 5 conferences moved to 16 we would have an upper tier of 80 schools. Such a number may bring with it much more of a sense of unity in that upper tier, clearer parameters for inclusion for those not making the move, and keep more fan bases energized. It might also keep those FCS fans who adopt FBS teams to pull for engaged.

But as I see it we won't have both. If we don't move to include the Cincinnati's and UConn's then we will likely get more compact and growth will be off of the weakest remaining P5 conference. Then anywhere from 60 to 66 teams will be the final number.

But if P5 conferences reach out to the East Carolina's, develop the Buffalo's, grow the South Florida's then the future of college football will be less dissimilar to its past, just with reestablished boundaries and the P5 conferences will be with us for some time.

But, if we want just 64-66 total teams we will not remain at 5 conferences. I know there is a theoretical middle ground, but I do not believe there will be an actual one.

(06-24-2013 10:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I want to play devil's advocate for a moment. Many of you believe that realignment is essentially over (I do not). Let's assume that it is over as far as P5 conferences raiding each other. Let's also assume for a variety of reasons that the Big 10 and SEC would still like to get to 16 for ease of scheduling and for positioning in new markets. Let's also assume that the Big 12 will look at expansion to stabilize what they intend to be home. Who are now the viable candidates if not UConn, Buffalo, Cincinnati, South Florida, Central Florida, East Carolina, Houston, S.M.U., Boise State, Nevada, U.N.L.V., B.Y.U., San Diego State, Fresno State, Colorado State, New Mexico, Hawaii, Wyoming, possibly Temple, Tulane, or Rice.

Suddenly the usual parameters are out the window. Value will be found primarily in markets, upside potential in growth, in academics, etc.

Nothing would signal the official end of P5 conferences raiding each other more than the additions of some of these schools to the P5. That would be sign that would convince me that we are through.

If all 5 conferences moved to 16 we would have an upper tier of 80 schools. Such a number may bring with it much more of a sense of unity in that upper tier, clearer parameters for inclusion for those not making the move, and keep more fan bases energized. It might also keep those FCS fans who adopt FBS teams to pull for engaged.

But as I see it we won't have both. If we don't move to include the Cincinnati's and UConn's then we will likely get more compact and growth will be off of the weakest remaining P5 conference. Then anywhere from 60 to 66 teams will be the final number.

But if P5 conferences reach out to the East Carolina's, develop the Buffalo's, grow the South Florida's then the future of college football will be less dissimilar to its past, just with reestablished boundaries and the P5 conferences will be with us for some time.

But, if we want just 64-66 total teams we will not remain at 5 conferences. I know there is a theoretical middle ground, but I do not believe there will be an actual one.

Everything you say is very logical and makes sense. And the scenario you present is good for the sport and the 'league' if you will.

The way things are though, no one is trying to better the sport (nor should they really). Its all about getting the most money for yourself and your conference as you can. That's just the way it is. You will continue to see this consolidation of power at the top as a result.

Its also a very shortsighted viewpoint in my opinion. But again, its the nature of the sport. There is no reason for one school or conference to care about the other because its not a cohesive league. Not like it is in the professional leagues. That's how college sports are and always will be. The NCAA is kind of a joke that certainly doesn't have the teeth or even the ability really to do anything constructive or bring any cohesion to anything like any professional league office would.

(06-25-2013 11:16 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(06-24-2013 10:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I want to play devil's advocate for a moment. Many of you believe that realignment is essentially over (I do not). Let's assume that it is over as far as P5 conferences raiding each other. Let's also assume for a variety of reasons that the Big 10 and SEC would still like to get to 16 for ease of scheduling and for positioning in new markets. Let's also assume that the Big 12 will look at expansion to stabilize what they intend to be home. Who are now the viable candidates if not UConn, Buffalo, Cincinnati, South Florida, Central Florida, East Carolina, Houston, S.M.U., Boise State, Nevada, U.N.L.V., B.Y.U., San Diego State, Fresno State, Colorado State, New Mexico, Hawaii, Wyoming, possibly Temple, Tulane, or Rice.

Suddenly the usual parameters are out the window. Value will be found primarily in markets, upside potential in growth, in academics, etc.

Nothing would signal the official end of P5 conferences raiding each other more than the additions of some of these schools to the P5. That would be sign that would convince me that we are through.

If all 5 conferences moved to 16 we would have an upper tier of 80 schools. Such a number may bring with it much more of a sense of unity in that upper tier, clearer parameters for inclusion for those not making the move, and keep more fan bases energized. It might also keep those FCS fans who adopt FBS teams to pull for engaged.

But as I see it we won't have both. If we don't move to include the Cincinnati's and UConn's then we will likely get more compact and growth will be off of the weakest remaining P5 conference. Then anywhere from 60 to 66 teams will be the final number.

But if P5 conferences reach out to the East Carolina's, develop the Buffalo's, grow the South Florida's then the future of college football will be less dissimilar to its past, just with reestablished boundaries and the P5 conferences will be with us for some time.

But, if we want just 64-66 total teams we will not remain at 5 conferences. I know there is a theoretical middle ground, but I do not believe there will be an actual one.

Everything you say is very logical and makes sense. And the scenario you present is good for the sport and the 'league' if you will.

The way things are though, no one is trying to better the sport (nor should they really). Its all about getting the most money for yourself and your conference as you can. That's just the way it is. You will continue to see this consolidation of power at the top as a result.

Its also a very shortsighted viewpoint in my opinion. But again, its the nature of the sport. There is no reason for one school or conference to care about the other because its not a cohesive league. Not like it is in the professional leagues. That's how college sports are and always will be. The NCAA is kind of a joke that certainly doesn't have the teeth or even the ability really to do anything constructive or bring any cohesion to anything like any professional league office would.

That is essentially my opinion on realignment and has always been so.

No matter how great 4x16, consolidation into four conferences, a breakaway and intra conference playoffs sounds to fans (and perhaps networks), I think that there are too many competing fiefdoms and parochial interests for these things to happen.

(06-25-2013 11:22 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(06-25-2013 11:16 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(06-24-2013 10:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I want to play devil's advocate for a moment. Many of you believe that realignment is essentially over (I do not). Let's assume that it is over as far as P5 conferences raiding each other. Let's also assume for a variety of reasons that the Big 10 and SEC would still like to get to 16 for ease of scheduling and for positioning in new markets. Let's also assume that the Big 12 will look at expansion to stabilize what they intend to be home. Who are now the viable candidates if not UConn, Buffalo, Cincinnati, South Florida, Central Florida, East Carolina, Houston, S.M.U., Boise State, Nevada, U.N.L.V., B.Y.U., San Diego State, Fresno State, Colorado State, New Mexico, Hawaii, Wyoming, possibly Temple, Tulane, or Rice.

Suddenly the usual parameters are out the window. Value will be found primarily in markets, upside potential in growth, in academics, etc.

Nothing would signal the official end of P5 conferences raiding each other more than the additions of some of these schools to the P5. That would be sign that would convince me that we are through.

If all 5 conferences moved to 16 we would have an upper tier of 80 schools. Such a number may bring with it much more of a sense of unity in that upper tier, clearer parameters for inclusion for those not making the move, and keep more fan bases energized. It might also keep those FCS fans who adopt FBS teams to pull for engaged.

But as I see it we won't have both. If we don't move to include the Cincinnati's and UConn's then we will likely get more compact and growth will be off of the weakest remaining P5 conference. Then anywhere from 60 to 66 teams will be the final number.

But if P5 conferences reach out to the East Carolina's, develop the Buffalo's, grow the South Florida's then the future of college football will be less dissimilar to its past, just with reestablished boundaries and the P5 conferences will be with us for some time.

But, if we want just 64-66 total teams we will not remain at 5 conferences. I know there is a theoretical middle ground, but I do not believe there will be an actual one.

Everything you say is very logical and makes sense. And the scenario you present is good for the sport and the 'league' if you will.

The way things are though, no one is trying to better the sport (nor should they really). Its all about getting the most money for yourself and your conference as you can. That's just the way it is. You will continue to see this consolidation of power at the top as a result.

Its also a very shortsighted viewpoint in my opinion. But again, its the nature of the sport. There is no reason for one school or conference to care about the other because its not a cohesive league. Not like it is in the professional leagues. That's how college sports are and always will be. The NCAA is kind of a joke that certainly doesn't have the teeth or even the ability really to do anything constructive or bring any cohesion to anything like any professional league office would.

That is essentially my opinion on realignment and has always been so.

No matter how great 4x16, consolidation into four conferences, a breakaway and intra conference playoffs sounds to fans (and perhaps networks), I think that there are too many competing fiefdoms and parochial interests for these things to happen.

And yet Terry D we continue to inch in that direction with each set of moves whether in realignment, playoff construction, or payment of athletes (above board). I've never denied that your assessment of the fiefdom mentality was accurate. I just think corporate America is into the scene now and that their MO is consolidation, structure, and profit. Everything we have scene is strictly by the book on corporate takeover. Acquire the property or rights, jettison the dead weight, organize the product into a marketable unit or units, and maximize the profits.

I think what is happening will be the death knell of fiefdoms. That's just another reason ultimately Texas and Oklahoma will wind up moving somewhere (in my opinion of course). The corporate Borg are assimilating and so far resistance seems futile (because of Federal and State funding crunches).

4 Conferences with 16 teams each is amazingly difficult to create because that formula forces the Pac 12 to take 4 teams, the Big 10 and SEC 2 each and the ACC one. This assumes the Big 12 will collapse. If you look at the ACC, the only teams that the ACC can add from the B12 that will make a net dollar per school impact is Texas. Even adding OU, if it's just OU, would probably not net the ACC any extra money per team or if it did, it would be minimal. Now Texas and the ACC began talking in 2010 and the ACC has a history of long preludes between initial talks and actually adding big schools - 1998-2003 for Miami, 2003-2012 for ND - Louisville is sort of an outlier.

Then when you look at the SEC and B10 who can they add out the B12 that adds value to the other teams? Kansas and OU - maybe. Beyond that it's a wash. Now, the only way the P12 comes east is if Texas is in the mix. Yet Texas is the only school the ACC really wants (beside Penn State) and only the ACC is now willing to the give Texas the ND deal since it keeps ND and Texas out of the other 14 teams shot at the ACC championship and the Longhorn network needs additional content and is easily bundled by ESPN.

There are not enough desireable teams to get 4 conferences to 16 schools and not every school is acceptable or advantagous to all conferences. UConn is of no value to the ACC and their past litigation against the ACC kills any shot. West Virginia helped to destroy the Southern Conference back in 1952, causing the ACC schools to pull out of the conference they had been in for 30 years. That's not forgotten and they recently gave an unearned graduate degree to the Governor's daughter. UNC, UVa, and Duke need only one more vote to block WVa.

WVa is of no value to the B10. UConn might be of some value to the B10. WVa might be of some value to the SEC, but not above the value they would place on OU, or Kansas.

There is just not enought value in the AAC schools or the B12 schools beyond Texas, OU, and Kansas to facilitate 9 additions to four conferences.

The only possible game changer I see is the addition of Canadian schools like Toronto, McGill, BC, and Alberta - however, college football in Canada sucks and would be in competition with a semi-pro developmental league below the CFL. It would be a 20 year project to develop programs at those schools that would be able to tap the tv market in Ontario, Quebec, BC, and Alberta, and that does not even begin to address some of the facilities issues needed to bridge the gap between 5000 seat on campus football stadiums and the professional facilties.

Now, from the B10's point of view, Toronto and McGill are right up their alley since they are AAU schools, hockey schools, and tap the 5 million Toronto metro, and the 2 million Quebec metro. Long term - there is probably more money there for the B10 than Kansas and UConn - but who knows. Canadian law would probably have to change in addition to Canadian tradition.

I think the big 10 jumping to 40 or 60 would = the death of the fiefdoms. The big 10 would basically become the league ala MLB. THey might operate under the ncaa banner but they would run the show. The problem is how in the world do they get to such setup? I could see it be big 10 at 40 sec at 24 or big 10 at 60 with 6 divisions of 6. Yet, getting there is hard to predict. I'd probably go with a big 10/pac 10 merger than they slowly pick off acc school's to create an eastern division, ditto big 12 school's to create a central.

(06-25-2013 12:29 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I think the big 10 jumping to 40 or 60 would = the death of the fiefdoms. The big 10 would basically become the league ala MLB. THey might operate under the ncaa banner but they would run the show. The problem is how in the world do they get to such setup? I could see it be big 10 at 40 sec at 24 or big 10 at 60 with 6 divisions of 6. Yet, getting there is hard to predict. I'd probably go with a big 10/pac 10 merger than they slowly pick off acc school's to create an eastern division, ditto big 12 school's to create a central.

The Big 10 can't pick off the ACC because ND/UNC/UVa/Duke have no interest in the B10.

(06-25-2013 12:29 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  4 Conferences with 16 teams each is amazingly difficult to create because that formula forces the Pac 12 to take 4 teams, the Big 10 and SEC 2 each and the ACC one. This assumes the Big 12 will collapse. If you look at the ACC, the only teams that the ACC can add from the B12 that will make a net dollar per school impact is Texas. Even adding OU, if it's just OU, would probably not net the ACC any extra money per team or if it did, it would be minimal. Now Texas and the ACC began talking in 2010 and the ACC has a history of long preludes between initial talks and actually adding big schools - 1998-2003 for Miami, 2003-2012 for ND - Louisville is sort of an outlier.

Then when you look at the SEC and B10 who can they add out the B12 that adds value to the other teams? Kansas and OU - maybe. Beyond that it's a wash. Now, the only way the P12 comes east is if Texas is in the mix. Yet Texas is the only school the ACC really wants (beside Penn State) and only the ACC is now willing to the give Texas the ND deal since it keeps ND and Texas out of the other 14 teams shot at the ACC championship and the Longhorn network needs additional content and is easily bundled by ESPN.

There are not enough desireable teams to get 4 conferences to 16 schools and not every school is acceptable or advantagous to all conferences. UConn is of no value to the ACC and their past litigation against the ACC kills any shot. West Virginia helped to destroy the Southern Conference back in 1952, causing the ACC schools to pull out of the conference they had been in for 30 years. That's not forgotten and they recently gave an unearned graduate degree to the Governor's daughter. UNC, UVa, and Duke need only one more vote to block WVa.

WVa is of no value to the B10. UConn might be of some value to the B10. WVa might be of some value to the SEC, but not above the value they would place on OU, or Kansas.

There is just not enought value in the AAC schools or the B12 schools beyond Texas, OU, and Kansas to facilitate 9 additions to four conferences.

The only possible game changer I see is the addition of Canadian schools like Toronto, McGill, BC, and Alberta - however, college football in Canada sucks and would be in competition with a semi-pro developmental league below the CFL. It would be a 20 year project to develop programs at those schools that would be able to tap the tv market in Ontario, Quebec, BC, and Alberta, and that does not even begin to address some of the facilities issues needed to bridge the gap between 5000 seat on campus football stadiums and the professional facilties.

Now, from the B10's point of view, Toronto and McGill are right up their alley since they are AAU schools, hockey schools, and tap the 5 million Toronto metro, and the 2 million Quebec metro. Long term - there is probably more money there for the B10 than Kansas and UConn - but who knows. Canadian law would probably have to change in addition to Canadian tradition.

Yes. Canadian collegiate athletics are heavily regulated and very different from the collegiate athletics of the US of A.

(06-25-2013 12:29 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  4 Conferences with 16 teams each is amazingly difficult to create because that formula forces the Pac 12 to take 4 teams, the Big 10 and SEC 2 each and the ACC one. This assumes the Big 12 will collapse. If you look at the ACC, the only teams that the ACC can add from the B12 that will make a net dollar per school impact is Texas. Even adding OU, if it's just OU, would probably not net the ACC any extra money per team or if it did, it would be minimal. Now Texas and the ACC began talking in 2010 and the ACC has a history of long preludes between initial talks and actually adding big schools - 1998-2003 for Miami, 2003-2012 for ND - Louisville is sort of an outlier.

Then when you look at the SEC and B10 who can they add out the B12 that adds value to the other teams? Kansas and OU - maybe. Beyond that it's a wash. Now, the only way the P12 comes east is if Texas is in the mix. Yet Texas is the only school the ACC really wants (beside Penn State) and only the ACC is now willing to the give Texas the ND deal since it keeps ND and Texas out of the other 14 teams shot at the ACC championship and the Longhorn network needs additional content and is easily bundled by ESPN.

There are not enough desireable teams to get 4 conferences to 16 schools and not every school is acceptable or advantagous to all conferences. UConn is of no value to the ACC and their past litigation against the ACC kills any shot. West Virginia helped to destroy the Southern Conference back in 1952, causing the ACC schools to pull out of the conference they had been in for 30 years. That's not forgotten and they recently gave an unearned graduate degree to the Governor's daughter. UNC, UVa, and Duke need only one more vote to block WVa.

WVa is of no value to the B10. UConn might be of some value to the B10. WVa might be of some value to the SEC, but not above the value they would place on OU, or Kansas.

There is just not enought value in the AAC schools or the B12 schools beyond Texas, OU, and Kansas to facilitate 9 additions to four conferences.

The only possible game changer I see is the addition of Canadian schools like Toronto, McGill, BC, and Alberta - however, college football in Canada sucks and would be in competition with a semi-pro developmental league below the CFL. It would be a 20 year project to develop programs at those schools that would be able to tap the tv market in Ontario, Quebec, BC, and Alberta, and that does not even begin to address some of the facilities issues needed to bridge the gap between 5000 seat on campus football stadiums and the professional facilties.

Now, from the B10's point of view, Toronto and McGill are right up their alley since they are AAU schools, hockey schools, and tap the 5 million Toronto metro, and the 2 million Quebec metro. Long term - there is probably more money there for the B10 than Kansas and UConn - but who knows. Canadian law would probably have to change in addition to Canadian tradition.

I think your analysis is good with one exception. The value for additions to the PAC fall into two categories: what they want, and what they need. Of course they want Texas and Oklahoma and claim they can't find enough value otherwise, but that simply isn't so. It is what they want. But, what they need is a new time slot to exploit. The inventory for the PAC goes way up with central time zone exposure. It means that they can now compete hour for hour out of the broadcast day with the Big 10, SEC, and ACC. While teams like Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech and Iowa State don't shake the earth in markets and would not bring much value to the SEC, ACC, and none to the Big 10 since they are not AAU, they do deliver 4 venues in which to showcase PAC games in the central time zone. That alone could pay for their inclusion and it would open interest in the PAC network beyond the West coast. I don't doubt that Larry Scott would like to have a home run with Texahoma, but I think in the end reasonable State schools in the central time zone will still be attractive.

(06-25-2013 11:16 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(06-24-2013 10:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I want to play devil's advocate for a moment. Many of you believe that realignment is essentially over (I do not). Let's assume that it is over as far as P5 conferences raiding each other. Let's also assume for a variety of reasons that the Big 10 and SEC would still like to get to 16 for ease of scheduling and for positioning in new markets. Let's also assume that the Big 12 will look at expansion to stabilize what they intend to be home. Who are now the viable candidates if not UConn, Buffalo, Cincinnati, South Florida, Central Florida, East Carolina, Houston, S.M.U., Boise State, Nevada, U.N.L.V., B.Y.U., San Diego State, Fresno State, Colorado State, New Mexico, Hawaii, Wyoming, possibly Temple, Tulane, or Rice.

Suddenly the usual parameters are out the window. Value will be found primarily in markets, upside potential in growth, in academics, etc.

Nothing would signal the official end of P5 conferences raiding each other more than the additions of some of these schools to the P5. That would be sign that would convince me that we are through.

If all 5 conferences moved to 16 we would have an upper tier of 80 schools. Such a number may bring with it much more of a sense of unity in that upper tier, clearer parameters for inclusion for those not making the move, and keep more fan bases energized. It might also keep those FCS fans who adopt FBS teams to pull for engaged.

But as I see it we won't have both. If we don't move to include the Cincinnati's and UConn's then we will likely get more compact and growth will be off of the weakest remaining P5 conference. Then anywhere from 60 to 66 teams will be the final number.

But if P5 conferences reach out to the East Carolina's, develop the Buffalo's, grow the South Florida's then the future of college football will be less dissimilar to its past, just with reestablished boundaries and the P5 conferences will be with us for some time.

But, if we want just 64-66 total teams we will not remain at 5 conferences. I know there is a theoretical middle ground, but I do not believe there will be an actual one.

Everything you say is very logical and makes sense. And the scenario you present is good for the sport and the 'league' if you will.

The way things are though, no one is trying to better the sport (nor should they really). Its all about getting the most money for yourself and your conference as you can. That's just the way it is. You will continue to see this consolidation of power at the top as a result.

Its also a very shortsighted viewpoint in my opinion. But again, its the nature of the sport. There is no reason for one school or conference to care about the other because its not a cohesive league. Not like it is in the professional leagues. That's how college sports are and always will be. The NCAA is kind of a joke that certainly doesn't have the teeth or even the ability really to do anything constructive or bring any cohesion to anything like any professional league office would.

Well put. They have never really worked together.

(06-25-2013 12:29 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  4 Conferences with 16 teams each is amazingly difficult to create because that formula forces the Pac 12 to take 4 teams, the Big 10 and SEC 2 each and the ACC one. This assumes the Big 12 will collapse. If you look at the ACC, the only teams that the ACC can add from the B12 that will make a net dollar per school impact is Texas. Even adding OU, if it's just OU, would probably not net the ACC any extra money per team or if it did, it would be minimal. Now Texas and the ACC began talking in 2010 and the ACC has a history of long preludes between initial talks and actually adding big schools - 1998-2003 for Miami, 2003-2012 for ND - Louisville is sort of an outlier.

Then when you look at the SEC and B10 who can they add out the B12 that adds value to the other teams? Kansas and OU - maybe. Beyond that it's a wash. Now, the only way the P12 comes east is if Texas is in the mix. Yet Texas is the only school the ACC really wants (beside Penn State) and only the ACC is now willing to the give Texas the ND deal since it keeps ND and Texas out of the other 14 teams shot at the ACC championship and the Longhorn network needs additional content and is easily bundled by ESPN.

There are not enough desireable teams to get 4 conferences to 16 schools and not every school is acceptable or advantagous to all conferences. UConn is of no value to the ACC and their past litigation against the ACC kills any shot. West Virginia helped to destroy the Southern Conference back in 1952, causing the ACC schools to pull out of the conference they had been in for 30 years. That's not forgotten and they recently gave an unearned graduate degree to the Governor's daughter. UNC, UVa, and Duke need only one more vote to block WVa.

WVa is of no value to the B10. UConn might be of some value to the B10. WVa might be of some value to the SEC, but not above the value they would place on OU, or Kansas.

There is just not enought value in the AAC schools or the B12 schools beyond Texas, OU, and Kansas to facilitate 9 additions to four conferences.

The only possible game changer I see is the addition of Canadian schools like Toronto, McGill, BC, and Alberta - however, college football in Canada sucks and would be in competition with a semi-pro developmental league below the CFL. It would be a 20 year project to develop programs at those schools that would be able to tap the tv market in Ontario, Quebec, BC, and Alberta, and that does not even begin to address some of the facilities issues needed to bridge the gap between 5000 seat on campus football stadiums and the professional facilties.

Now, from the B10's point of view, Toronto and McGill are right up their alley since they are AAU schools, hockey schools, and tap the 5 million Toronto metro, and the 2 million Quebec metro. Long term - there is probably more money there for the B10 than Kansas and UConn - but who knows. Canadian law would probably have to change in addition to Canadian tradition.

Yes, there's nothing realistic about the other thread. The only way you could get a 4x16 would be a desire by the 10 Big 12 schools to dissolve (highly unlikely) and an agreement by the other 4 to take everyone (impossible). Given that UT isn't going to be separate from both OU and A&M and neither UT or OU wants the SEC, A&M would throw a fit if Tech went to the SEC and the Big 10 wants AAU schools, you would be left with:
Pac 12 adding UT, OU, Texas Tech, Baylor
SEC adding TCU, Okie St., KSU, dropping Vandy
ACC adding Vandy, WVU (or KSU or TCU instead of Vandy)
Big 10 adding Iowa St. and Kansas

The SEC and Big 10 adds are simply not realistic. They wouldn't do that. ACC might not be willing to add WVU (WVU fans believe UNC and Duke would blackball them). And if the ACC is the one who dissolves, the Pac 12 can't reasonably get to 16. The Big 10 and SEC are going to want to keep their long term financial advantages. 4x16 simply is not going to happen. Not now, not 15 years from now.

(06-26-2013 11:18 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-25-2013 11:16 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(06-24-2013 10:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I want to play devil's advocate for a moment. Many of you believe that realignment is essentially over (I do not). Let's assume that it is over as far as P5 conferences raiding each other. Let's also assume for a variety of reasons that the Big 10 and SEC would still like to get to 16 for ease of scheduling and for positioning in new markets. Let's also assume that the Big 12 will look at expansion to stabilize what they intend to be home. Who are now the viable candidates if not UConn, Buffalo, Cincinnati, South Florida, Central Florida, East Carolina, Houston, S.M.U., Boise State, Nevada, U.N.L.V., B.Y.U., San Diego State, Fresno State, Colorado State, New Mexico, Hawaii, Wyoming, possibly Temple, Tulane, or Rice.

Suddenly the usual parameters are out the window. Value will be found primarily in markets, upside potential in growth, in academics, etc.

Nothing would signal the official end of P5 conferences raiding each other more than the additions of some of these schools to the P5. That would be sign that would convince me that we are through.

If all 5 conferences moved to 16 we would have an upper tier of 80 schools. Such a number may bring with it much more of a sense of unity in that upper tier, clearer parameters for inclusion for those not making the move, and keep more fan bases energized. It might also keep those FCS fans who adopt FBS teams to pull for engaged.

But as I see it we won't have both. If we don't move to include the Cincinnati's and UConn's then we will likely get more compact and growth will be off of the weakest remaining P5 conference. Then anywhere from 60 to 66 teams will be the final number.

But if P5 conferences reach out to the East Carolina's, develop the Buffalo's, grow the South Florida's then the future of college football will be less dissimilar to its past, just with reestablished boundaries and the P5 conferences will be with us for some time.

But, if we want just 64-66 total teams we will not remain at 5 conferences. I know there is a theoretical middle ground, but I do not believe there will be an actual one.

Everything you say is very logical and makes sense. And the scenario you present is good for the sport and the 'league' if you will.

The way things are though, no one is trying to better the sport (nor should they really). Its all about getting the most money for yourself and your conference as you can. That's just the way it is. You will continue to see this consolidation of power at the top as a result.

Its also a very shortsighted viewpoint in my opinion. But again, its the nature of the sport. There is no reason for one school or conference to care about the other because its not a cohesive league. Not like it is in the professional leagues. That's how college sports are and always will be. The NCAA is kind of a joke that certainly doesn't have the teeth or even the ability really to do anything constructive or bring any cohesion to anything like any professional league office would.

Well put. They have never really worked together.

Necessity has always been an inspiration. What has happened in NCAA football has already been unprecedented. The BCS, now the playoffs, consolidation from multiple conferences to 7 then 6 then 5..., Notre Dame to the ACC with some limitations upon making schedules, all of it would have been unthinkable a few years ago.

NCAA football is just another symptom of consolidation of our economy into fewer hands. Television money is being sought to try to stave off total dependency upon corporate grant funding primarily because of the threats to intellectual property that many corporate grants pose.

The whole nation is headed where many from my generation would have sworn a death oath that it could never head. We are living in times of unprecedented change and the cultural paradigm shift that is underway is epic. And you utter words like "never have and never will in a subsequent post". Those who are not flexible in times like these have a very hard time surviving them. Awareness leads to preparedness which leads to adaptability which leads to survival.

When the previous poster referred to further consolidation that is exactly what I believe is coming. Like I said in the post I was playing devil's advocate. We'll see what happens soon enough. But, things won't be staying the same in a climate of change.