Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
OdinFrigg Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 146
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 8
I Root For: SEC &others
Location:
Post: #1541
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(05-19-2018 09:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-19-2018 09:14 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  
(05-19-2018 07:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-19-2018 07:22 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(05-19-2018 01:55 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  That remains the big question. Hopefully, before offers are extended, Texas is clear on their intentions. But we know they can flip or play manipulative games.

Going to 18 to include UT? That may be too much at one time, particularly 4 to the west (B12). But given near future variables, inclusive of broadcasting contracts, it would be hard to rule it out with certainty.

18 seems unruly in reality (fun in fantasy realignment.) However, should be optin be available, I can’t imaine either party (Texas or SEC) forgoing it without simply being stubborn. I’d do:

16 - Oklahoma, Oklahoma St
18 - Texas, Texas Tech
20 - Kansas, West Virginia
24 - Florida St, Clemson, North Carolina St, Virginia Tech

West: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Kansas, Missouri
South: Texas A&M, Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Alabama
North: Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina St
East: Auburn, Florida, Florida St, Georgia, South Carolina, Clemson

If the SEC landed Oklahoma and Texas, even with Oklahoma State and Texas Tech, there would be no further additions, ever. With UT & OU in the fold nobody left in the CFP outside of Ohio State and Notre Dame could add to our revenue. That twosome, or foursome is game over for the SEC.
High member numbers, say anything above 16, the entity ceases being a fundamental conference and more of an association. There are only 12 regular season fb games a season, and 20-something basketball games, several of which are home-to-home meetings. Plus all the other sports need to be accommodated and adjust. It would be a nightmare for the baseball tournament, unless cutting the invites. That will not go over well. And teams not getting basketball tournament invites will be a huge fuss. Those tournament available dates are crunched as it is.
Even for fb, making the full round or rotation gets extended. Bonding works better with frequency.
I am not one of those that says take Texas at all cost. And in terms of stability, it could lessen and the breakaway movement happens. The more-haves leave the haves. They will not all be equal, and they certainly aren't now.

In a content driven world having more haves will just be the norm for the best paid conferences.

The way you handle the baseball and basketball tournaments is to have the first rounds in division at a divisional location. with the division winner getting a bye to the finals. The other 8 play it out and the winner in each division advance to the final 4 of the Conference.

If there is one thing you learn setting up tournaments it's that a little imagination solves a myriad of problems.

As for scheduling at 18 you can still play everyone every three years by moving to 9 conference games. You simply rotate 6 groups of three to create 2 divisions of 9 every year. If you have to keep a permanent rival then you play 10 conference games, or just don't count the rival as a conference game.

I think the valid objection to Texas is the potential of future divisiveness.
For fb, extending the season with earlier (August) start, before most colleges are in session; and/or go deeper into January, in order to accommodate, potentially, an enhanced number of playoffs for within conference and post-season, would be new problems depending on the number of divisions within a conference. If post-season goes to 8 team playoffs, that's another week at least. The FCS doesn't have near the intense logistical issues since they use campus sites in the process. Then there's the matter of conflicting with NFL scheduling.
If near all power schools are in one conference, what's the point of having competition (on field or the court)? The conference championship essentially becomes the nat'l champ. Maybe the other conferences' provided competition essentially resides with schools such as Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, FSU, Clemson, USC, and Washington, and just those, are in three different conferences.
I never thought 4 power conferences @ 16 each is a realistic design. It is simply too exclusionary; and unlike the NFL, campuses grow, others get smaller, funding and enrollment diminishes some places, while others grow fast, and much happens outside the P5. There's no bumping system. The NFL has centralized governance, dealing with much fewer numbers, and is about one sport, nothing else.
That said, I too like symmetry, defined levels of competition, and each conference playing with the same numbers (relatively).
Gezz, JRsec, you roped me into these conversations. lol.
05-20-2018 03:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,275
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 93
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #1542
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
I still think Kansas showing up is a legitimate possibility.

That and I've always liked 20 better than 18. Breaking everyone up into 3 divisions has its advantages, but I think there are more drawbacks. If you have 4 different regions of 5 then that works pretty well, and not just for football but for many other sports as well.

As others pointed out, you can't really schedule with frequency in mind once you go past 16. You can take an 18 school league and come up with a fairly nice rotation using 9 conference games, but you also create a lot of inequities with regard to teams in the same division getting more home games than others in a given season. With 20, you could always make sure the divisional alignment is fair with regard to home/away match-ups and other factors like travel.

I think schools like Oklahoma and Missouri and others even might be more comfortable if we take a couple of extra schools from the West and go to 20.

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Iowa State would be a good core group to add.
05-20-2018 03:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,554
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 827
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1543
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(05-20-2018 03:25 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  
(05-19-2018 09:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-19-2018 09:14 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  
(05-19-2018 07:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-19-2018 07:22 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  18 seems unruly in reality (fun in fantasy realignment.) However, should be optin be available, I can’t imaine either party (Texas or SEC) forgoing it without simply being stubborn. I’d do:

16 - Oklahoma, Oklahoma St
18 - Texas, Texas Tech
20 - Kansas, West Virginia
24 - Florida St, Clemson, North Carolina St, Virginia Tech

West: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Kansas, Missouri
South: Texas A&M, Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Alabama
North: Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina St
East: Auburn, Florida, Florida St, Georgia, South Carolina, Clemson

If the SEC landed Oklahoma and Texas, even with Oklahoma State and Texas Tech, there would be no further additions, ever. With UT & OU in the fold nobody left in the CFP outside of Ohio State and Notre Dame could add to our revenue. That twosome, or foursome is game over for the SEC.
High member numbers, say anything above 16, the entity ceases being a fundamental conference and more of an association. There are only 12 regular season fb games a season, and 20-something basketball games, several of which are home-to-home meetings. Plus all the other sports need to be accommodated and adjust. It would be a nightmare for the baseball tournament, unless cutting the invites. That will not go over well. And teams not getting basketball tournament invites will be a huge fuss. Those tournament available dates are crunched as it is.
Even for fb, making the full round or rotation gets extended. Bonding works better with frequency.
I am not one of those that says take Texas at all cost. And in terms of stability, it could lessen and the breakaway movement happens. The more-haves leave the haves. They will not all be equal, and they certainly aren't now.

In a content driven world having more haves will just be the norm for the best paid conferences.

The way you handle the baseball and basketball tournaments is to have the first rounds in division at a divisional location. with the division winner getting a bye to the finals. The other 8 play it out and the winner in each division advance to the final 4 of the Conference.

If there is one thing you learn setting up tournaments it's that a little imagination solves a myriad of problems.

As for scheduling at 18 you can still play everyone every three years by moving to 9 conference games. You simply rotate 6 groups of three to create 2 divisions of 9 every year. If you have to keep a permanent rival then you play 10 conference games, or just don't count the rival as a conference game.

I think the valid objection to Texas is the potential of future divisiveness.
For fb, extending the season with earlier (August) start, before most colleges are in session; and/or go deeper into January, in order to accommodate, potentially, an enhanced number of playoffs for within conference and post-season, would be new problems depending on the number of divisions within a conference. If post-season goes to 8 team playoffs, that's another week at least. The FCS doesn't have near the intense logistical issues since they use campus sites in the process. Then there's the matter of conflicting with NFL scheduling.
If near all power schools are in one conference, what's the point of having competition (on field or the court)? The conference championship essentially becomes the nat'l champ. Maybe the other conferences' provided competition essentially resides with schools such as Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, FSU, Clemson, USC, and Washington, and just those, are in three different conferences.
I never thought 4 power conferences @ 16 each is a realistic design. It is simply too exclusionary; and unlike the NFL, campuses grow, others get smaller, funding and enrollment diminishes some places, while others grow fast, and much happens outside the P5. There's no bumping system. The NFL has centralized governance, dealing with much fewer numbers, and is about one sport, nothing else.
That said, I too like symmetry, defined levels of competition, and each conference playing with the same numbers (relatively).
Gezz, JRsec, you roped me into these conversations. lol.

I would like to believe that we could balance the conferences a bit better with these final moves. I'd like to believe that 16 is a many as we would have to a conference. But market forces are driving a shift (already underway) in the pay model.

In the end these are business moves. Business moves are practically never altruistic. Since what profits the most is the motivation for such moves and since geography, and regional familiarity are a part of making moves not only profitable but sustainable I simply can't rule out a Texa-homa foursome to the SEC. It not only would provide Texas with a division of foes that would please their alumni and donors, but it would also provide them the most reasonable travel options of about any other offer they might receive and at a very profitable return.

It would be great to get just OU and UT and call it a day, but it will be much more palatable for them if their division is a miniature version of the Big 12 only with restored rivalries and ones preserved in the move.

I like our chances.
05-20-2018 08:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,554
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 827
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1544
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(05-20-2018 03:25 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  
(05-19-2018 09:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-19-2018 09:14 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  
(05-19-2018 07:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-19-2018 07:22 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  18 seems unruly in reality (fun in fantasy realignment.) However, should be optin be available, I can’t imaine either party (Texas or SEC) forgoing it without simply being stubborn. I’d do:

16 - Oklahoma, Oklahoma St
18 - Texas, Texas Tech
20 - Kansas, West Virginia
24 - Florida St, Clemson, North Carolina St, Virginia Tech

West: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Kansas, Missouri
South: Texas A&M, Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Alabama
North: Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina St
East: Auburn, Florida, Florida St, Georgia, South Carolina, Clemson

If the SEC landed Oklahoma and Texas, even with Oklahoma State and Texas Tech, there would be no further additions, ever. With UT & OU in the fold nobody left in the CFP outside of Ohio State and Notre Dame could add to our revenue. That twosome, or foursome is game over for the SEC.
High member numbers, say anything above 16, the entity ceases being a fundamental conference and more of an association. There are only 12 regular season fb games a season, and 20-something basketball games, several of which are home-to-home meetings. Plus all the other sports need to be accommodated and adjust. It would be a nightmare for the baseball tournament, unless cutting the invites. That will not go over well. And teams not getting basketball tournament invites will be a huge fuss. Those tournament available dates are crunched as it is.
Even for fb, making the full round or rotation gets extended. Bonding works better with frequency.
I am not one of those that says take Texas at all cost. And in terms of stability, it could lessen and the breakaway movement happens. The more-haves leave the haves. They will not all be equal, and they certainly aren't now.

In a content driven world having more haves will just be the norm for the best paid conferences.

The way you handle the baseball and basketball tournaments is to have the first rounds in division at a divisional location. with the division winner getting a bye to the finals. The other 8 play it out and the winner in each division advance to the final 4 of the Conference.

If there is one thing you learn setting up tournaments it's that a little imagination solves a myriad of problems.

As for scheduling at 18 you can still play everyone every three years by moving to 9 conference games. You simply rotate 6 groups of three to create 2 divisions of 9 every year. If you have to keep a permanent rival then you play 10 conference games, or just don't count the rival as a conference game.

I think the valid objection to Texas is the potential of future divisiveness.
For fb, extending the season with earlier (August) start, before most colleges are in session; and/or go deeper into January, in order to accommodate, potentially, an enhanced number of playoffs for within conference and post-season, would be new problems depending on the number of divisions within a conference. If post-season goes to 8 team playoffs, that's another week at least. The FCS doesn't have near the intense logistical issues since they use campus sites in the process. Then there's the matter of conflicting with NFL scheduling.
If near all power schools are in one conference, what's the point of having competition (on field or the court)? The conference championship essentially becomes the nat'l champ. Maybe the other conferences' provided competition essentially resides with schools such as Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, FSU, Clemson, USC, and Washington, and just those, are in three different conferences.
I never thought 4 power conferences @ 16 each is a realistic design. It is simply too exclusionary; and unlike the NFL, campuses grow, others get smaller, funding and enrollment diminishes some places, while others grow fast, and much happens outside the P5. There's no bumping system. The NFL has centralized governance, dealing with much fewer numbers, and is about one sport, nothing else.
That said, I too like symmetry, defined levels of competition, and each conference playing with the same numbers (relatively).
Gezz, JRsec, you roped me into these conversations. lol.

I would like to believe that we could balance the conferences a bit better with these final moves. I'd like to believe that 16 is a many as we would have to a conference. But market forces are driving a shift (already underway) in the pay model.

In the end these are business moves. Business moves are practically never altruistic. Since what profits the most is the motivation for such moves and since geography, and regional familiarity are a part of making moves not only profitable but sustainable I simply can't rule out a Texa-homa foursome to the SEC. It not only would provide Texas with a division of foes that would please their alumni and donors, but it would also provide them the most reasonable travel options of about any other offer they might receive and at a very profitable return.

It would be great to get just OU and UT and call it a day, but it will be much more palatable for them if their division is a miniature version of the Big 12 only with restored rivalries and ones preserved in the move.

I like our chances.
05-20-2018 08:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,462
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 76
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #1545
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
Ok. Board at work and came up with a decent pod setup for a 16 team SEC with OU and OSU

Pods
1. OU, OSU, Mizz, Ark
2. A&M, LSU, Ole, MSU
3. Ala, Aub, Tenn, Vandy
4. UF, UGa, SC, UK

Permanent rivals:
Auburn-Georgia
Tennessee-Florida
Alabama-LSU
Arkansas-A&M

8 game SEC schedule: play everyone every three years
Today 03:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,554
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 827
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1546
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(Today 03:11 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  Ok. Board at work and came up with a decent pod setup for a 16 team SEC with OU and OSU

Pods
1. OU, OSU, Mizz, Ark
2. A&M, LSU, Ole, MSU
3. Ala, Aub, Tenn, Vandy
4. UF, UGa, SC, UK

Permanent rivals:
Auburn-Georgia
Tennessee-Florida
Alabama-LSU
Arkansas-A&M

8 game SEC schedule: play everyone every three years

It really works nicely doesn't it. At 18 you can accomplish this with 10 games. At 20 you can still accomplish it with 10 games. But at 16 you really can do it with 8 and that's why I think many believe it to be the sweet spot.
Today 03:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.