(11-19-2013 07:41 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Nope

can i get a response to my previous posts about TX recruiting from you?

(11-19-2013 08:48 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(11-18-2013 08:06 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Yeah, but also remember that I am a staunch believer that the Major Conferences are going to gain governing control. They will do what they have to in order to get that and they have made that very clear.

So for me, I just cant see why they wouldn't allow themselves to have Football Conference Tournaments. The latest two Conference Championship games sold for 20 million each. That is huge money. Conference Semifinals are a given at this point when these Major Conferences get control. We may be talking 15 million a pop for each of them which means these Conference Tournaments would be worth around 50 million dollars each.

The best way to lead into that is to have four divisional winners. That is why I push four divisions instead of two.

So in a four division set up, by putting USC and UCLA with the two Arizona schools and then putting Stanford and California with Colorado and Utah as some folks suggest, I don't see how that works for the likes of Oregon. Yes, they want to protect their northwest rivalries but their bread and butter has become California and Texas games for recruiting. If they get a couple of Texas teams into the conference, then they are going to want strong access to both States but they wont want other schools in the conference to have stronger access to either. That is why I feel, in this kind of a scenario, history gets thrown out the window. The best situation for Oregon, Oregon State, Washington and Washington State is for the California schools to be all in one division. That will maintain two games a year against the Cali schools for those Northwest schools while making sure that the other schools don't get more access.


In terms of the four schools? Well for me Tech, ISU and KSU are a given. ESPN and FOX will pay for that. If this is to go down, FOX will need those Central Time Zone locations for the PAC so that the loss of Big 12 scheduling will be remedied for the earlier time slot by the PAC being able to provide games. ESPN will pay in order to get Texas over to the ACC as well as to get Texas and Notre Dame together as well as providing the ACC with a strong connection to the State of Texas. They will also be served by pitting Oklahoma against the likes of Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and of course Nebraska.


In terms of the fourth school for the PAC? That is up in the air. Personally, if I was the Commish and I was able to convince the Presidents on whatever I thought was best? I would attempt to sell them on Houston first in order to have two programs in the State of Texas. That means everyone in the conference will get an opportunity to be seen in the State of Texas every year. With just one team in the State, that is not the case. Houston may be a long ways away but it is a very large city with an airport that is easily accessible. Getting to Houston for those schools would be easier and less costly than getting to many schools that are farther West.

I agree on the control aspect, I just think that 'winning' a 4 team pod is kind of wonky. Yes it works in the NFL, but there a 32 teams there versus the 16 teams that a conference would have. In my mind, 4 pod winners is the equivalent of two division winners and two wild card teams. And since we are talking about adding CTZ teams not named Texas, the PAC still remains mono-polar (CA) which is something I think has to be accounted for.

Wonky or not, it is about the money. Those three divisional games will become strong rivalry games that actually mean something. They will be a boost for many attendance figures. I don't see why there is an argument to say that it works for 32 in the NFL but not for 16 in a college football conference. That doesn't really make any sense to me, sorry. I get it, you personally don't like it.

Maybe in your mind it means two division winners and two wild card winners but that is just in your mind. It is four division winners that take part in a tournament that will likely bring at least 50 million dollars directly to the conference. That is the short of it.

(11-19-2013 07:48 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 07:41 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Nope

can i get a response to my previous posts about TX recruiting from you?

From me?

this is my master plan

B10
28 teams

East
syracuse
BC
pitt
psu
rutgers
maryland
miami

North
minnesota
wisconsin
michigan
michigan state
ohio state
iowa
missouri

South
northwestern
illinois
purdue
indiana
nebraska
Texas
Texas A&M

West
Notre Dame
USC
UCLA
Stanford
Cal
washington
colorado

SEC
28 teams

North*
tennessee
ole miss
mississippi state
georgia tech
florida state
vanderbilt
kentucky

south*
alabama
lsu
auburn
georgia
florida
clemson
south carolina

east
virginia (7)
virginia tech
west virginia
duke
wake forest
unc
nc state

west
oklahoma
oklahoma state
kansas
kansas state
texas tech (by far the hardest school to relocate i this thread)
arkansas
iowa state

*the north & south divisions have fixed cross division rivals. their rivals go down the list, for example bama gets tenn, lsu gets ole miss. east & west rotate division rivals

No Name Conference (idea's welcomed)
42 teams
(division names pay homage to their former conferences)

Western Athletic
oregon
oregon state
washington
washington state
san jose state
frenso st
san diego state

Rocky Mountain Athletic
nevada
UNLV
idaho
boise state
utah
byu
utah state

Mountain West
arizona
arizona state
new mexico
new mexico state
colorado state
air force
wyoming

American Athletic
cincy
lousiville
memphis
usf
ucf
uconn <==
hawaii <==this will be a big LOL

southwest
houston
rice
TCU
baylor
SMU
navy
army

playoffs

b10 playoffs (4 teams, 2 rounds)

SEC playoffs (4 teams, 2 rounds)

No name conference (2 highest division winners in the bcs get first round bye. 6 teams 3 rounds)

final four (4 teams, 2 rounds)
No Name champ (cotton bowl)
b10 champ (rose bowl)
SEC champ (sugar bowl)
Highest team in the BCS (think of the rematch possibilities)

bowls: bowl games remain in place (the losers of conference playoffs are eligible)

3 person committee (1 rep for each conference):
-chooses the final 4 layout (location & matchups)
-choose the bowl matchups for the non FF teams.

games played:
as it stands right now: 14 games max

under this setup:
teams that win it all : 16 games max (no-name 17)

this will be a problem, but not a big problem. the season will have to be stretched & rosters expanded, but not by huge numbers.

a radical idea:
-let the committee determine conf. schedules & 1 ooc matchup for each school. the NFL does it that way. it would boast the quality of matchups & eliminate conference dodging. not only that but imagine if BC-uconn were FORCED into playing each other or some situation like that. for the ooc game perhaps an exemption for schools whose ooc already contain a team projected to be in the preseason rankings.

-schools can fill their 3 remaining ooc's however they want. we could add an ooc but that would be pushing it for games played


for basketball:

SEC/b10
the season is going to have to be expanded. as it stands right now its 13 ooc, 18 conference games for 31 regular season games. i prefer 9 ooc +28 conference games for 37 regular season games.

conf tourny: it would be pretty sweet to see a conf tourny with 28 teams (top 4 get a 1st round bye). 5 rounds total.

no-name
they will be split into two divisions (pacific, atlantic) based on geography of 21 teams. they have 9 ooc, 21 division, 7 cross division.

42 team tourny

b10
Finals: MSG,
regional sites rotate among: Verizon (DC) staples (LA), barclays (NYC), & Indianapolis.

no name:
all sites rotate between: staples (LA), vegas, barclays (NYC), dallas, & tampa

SEC:
all sites rotate between: tampa, orlando, atlanta north carolina, & Verizon (DC)

you can change these sites around but i think you all get the point.

strength of conference

b10 football
top 10 programs: psu, michigan, ohio state, notre dame, nebraska, texas, usc (7)

power progams: stanford, wisconsin, texas a&m, miami (4)

programs with potential washington, ucla, msu, NW, mizz(5)

sec football
top 10 programs: OU, tenn, bama (3)

power programs: FSU, clemson, georgia, LSU, auburn, arkansas, florida, Scar (8)

programs with potential: unc, vtech, osu, wvu vandy, uva (6)

===so while the b10 may be more top heavy, the SEC makes up for that with more power programs & more fertile recruiting grounds)===

no name football
top 10 programs: oregon (1) they may not be top 10, but given the wealth of this program they are in that class.

power programs: baylor, BYU, bsu (3)

programs with potential: tcu, zona, asu (3)

basketball

b10
top 10 programs: syracuse, IU, UCLA, msu (4)

power programs: michigan, osu, ND, pitt, wisc (4)

programs with potential: colorado, texas, usc, bc, md, nebraska, illinois, purdue, mizz (9)

sec
top 10 programs: kentucky, unc, duke, kansas (4) (this will be insane)

power programs: florida (1)

programs with potential: wvu, uva, lsu, wf, nc state, arky (6)

like FB the b10 & sec are pretty even in BB as well. the b10 runs away with depth, but the sec has a slight advantage in top 10 programs

no name
top 10 programs: uconn, louisville (2)

power programs: memphis, cincy, unlv, zona (4)

smu, new mexico, temple, bsu (4)

one last question: would it be appropriate to give "no name conference" the name "pacific"

Let's bring this back to the original concept. Is it possible for the PAC to remain at 12 and for the ACC, SEC, and Big 10 to absorb the Big 12?

The SEC has 14 schools, the ACC has 15, and the Big 10 has 14. That is 11 slots to get to 18 a piece. The ACC technically has 14 full members so there could potentially be a swing of +1 there if need be, especially if they add another partial.

H1 has been fond of pushing the Longhorns as a partial to the ACC and the idea has some merit, especially as he has pointed out, if Texas can take a few more schools with it. That could work if the distribution of teams was intentionally made to form a zipper of rivals between the SEC and ACC.
The SEC will want new markets if possible, the ACC needs a more in the way of football content. So if the SEC took Oklahoma, West Virginia, Kansas State, and Baylor and the ACC took Texas as a partial, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech as full members, leaving Kansas and Iowa State for the Big 10 then you would have enough members accounted for to dissolve the Big 12. Connecticut would still be there for the Big 10 if they wanted to move toward 18 by eventually adding Buffalo.

Sounds great but it's not. It is actually nowhere close to what either the Big 10, or SEC would really want. In fact for many of the same reasons that the PAC would like to stay at 12 the SEC and Big 10 really would rather hit a sweet 16 than to expand further unless the teams applying were as the Florida president said "jewels". For both the Big 10 and the SEC the jewels are essentially the same: Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, North Carolina, Virginia, and/or Duke. The Big 10 might find a jewel in Syracuse. The SEC might find a jewel in Florida State. But you can see the obvious problem right away. There aren't enough true jewels in the Big 12 for both the SEC and Big 10 to expand happily to 16. In fact the only compromise that might work involves Oklahoma State which is the 24th most profitable athletic department in the nation and competitive in most sports. If Kansas and OU went to the Big 10, and Oklahoma State and Texas came to the SEC that "might" be a workable solution.

Now we have a new problem. Without Texas there is no way that the ACC wants to add less than an equal grouping from the Big 12. Baylor, T.C.U. and Texas Tech just don't move the needle enough to warrant such a move. Kansas State and Iowa State don't move the needle either. So even if the SEC & Big 10 agreed upon the above compromise there aren't enough teams involved to break the GOR through dissolution.

That is why the only tenable workaround, and it is a long shot, would be the move of Virginia Tech and N.C. State to the SEC. The move of Texas as a partial, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Kansas State, and Baylor to the ACC. And the SEC adding Oklahoma State and West Virginia to go to 18. Then even if the Big 10 only added Kansas you have enough for dissolution. But more importantly the ACC would be constituted like this:
North: Boston College, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia, (with Notre Dame attached to this division)
East: Duke, Louisville, North Carolina, Wake Forest
South: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami
West: Baylor, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Texas Tech (with Texas attached to the this division)

The sacrifice of two schools already in the footprint, one of which is not a founding ACC member, permits the addition of strong football programs and national brands which only serves to elevate the ACC.

If the Big 10 then moves to 16 with Iowa State as the final member or brings Connecticut on board then the moves are over.

Now this workaround isn't perfect either. The SEC may not find enough value in Oklahoma State and West Virginia to desire to move to 18. The Big 10 will probably want Texas or Oklahoma to go with Kansas. But it is the kind of solution that would have to be agreed upon as being less than satisfactory for all involved, but better money wise than not doing it.

If this kind of solution is not worked out, or if the PAC makes a big move to grab Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas with little brothers in tow, the ACC will never experience long term security. They will be on the menu for the SEC and Big 10 at the first viable opportunity. Why? The property that those two conferences covet resides in the ACC. Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas are not the top targets. Texas would be for the Big 10, but Kansas they cover fairly well already and Oklahoma while a nice brand isn't an academic fit. The SEC has A&M and while they wouldn't turn Texas down they really would rather be in North Carolina or Virginia. Ditto for Oklahoma. The SEC and Kansas don't really see each other as cultural fits.

If the ACC wants to survive and thrive they need to seriously consider adding a pod of Big 12 schools. Otherwise we eventually wind up realignment with 3 power conferences and the ACC won't be one of them.

Considering the networks involved and their interests, it would behoove the SEC and ACC to work very closely together to set up nice mirror images and foster permanent rivalries with each other across the board. By absorbing much of the Big 12 the two can quickly become the 2 strongest football conferences in the nation. ESPN would essentially own the best product. And, their combined footprints would be rock solid secure.

I don't see your original scenario working, but I think a variation of your alternative might work. I don't think the B1G or SEC will cooperate unless they really get the teams/geography they want. The B1G will not double up teams in Iowa just to rescue Iowa State from football oblivion. The B1G would take any combination of Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas, but no one else from the Big 12. Likewise, I don't see the SEC taking WVU when they really want to be in NC or VA.

What about a 'merger' though, with the Texas and most of the Big 12 joining NC and many of the ACC teams to form a new "Big ACC". The two conferences have 24 teams, so they need to find a home for most of them to get the votes to approve. There are other possibilities, but here's one

From the Big 12, seven teams would go to the new Big ACC. The leftovers are:
Kansas - which goes the BIG
WVU - which gets pushed to the AAC
TCU - which gets pushed to the Sun Belt or AAC
With Kansas, as a sure vote, that gives 8 of 10 votes in favor.

From the current ACC, ten go to the new Big ACC. The leftovers are
Syracuse - which goes to the BIG
Virginia Tech -which goes to the SEC
NC State - which goes to the SEC
BC - gets pushed to the AAC
Pitt - gets pushed to the AAC
The rest go to the new Big ACC, along with ND as a member except for football, which gives the new conference 18 members (counting ND).
All but BC and Pitt would vote in favor.

(11-23-2013 02:41 AM)CintiFan Wrote:  I don't see your original scenario working, but I think a variation of your alternative might work. I don't think the B1G or SEC will cooperate unless they really get the teams/geography they want. The B1G will not double up teams in Iowa just to rescue Iowa State from football oblivion. The B1G would take any combination of Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas, but no one else from the Big 12. Likewise, I don't see the SEC taking WVU when they really want to be in NC or VA.

What about a 'merger' though, with the Texas and most of the Big 12 joining NC and many of the ACC teams to form a new "Big ACC". The two conferences have 24 teams, so they need to find a home for most of them to get the votes to approve. There are other possibilities, but here's one

From the Big 12, seven teams would go to the new Big ACC. The leftovers are:
Kansas - which goes the BIG
WVU - which gets pushed to the AAC
TCU - which gets pushed to the Sun Belt or AAC
With Kansas, as a sure vote, that gives 8 of 10 votes in favor.

From the current ACC, ten go to the new Big ACC. The leftovers are
Syracuse - which goes to the BIG
Virginia Tech -which goes to the SEC
NC State - which goes to the SEC
BC - gets pushed to the AAC
Pitt - gets pushed to the AAC
The rest go to the new Big ACC, along with ND as a member except for football, which gives the new conference 18 members (counting ND).
All but BC and Pitt would vote in favor.

That could work as well. I think the SEC and Big 10 would be very happy to hit their target markets with just 16 each. 18 in the ACC would allow a much better split of 3 divisions of 6 geographically grouped. I'll play with that and get back to you. JR

Okay I've thought about it a bit and the only big issue I see is that it would be contractually impossible for the ACC to kick anyone out without just cause. Relegating two Big 12 teams to a lesser conference once the requisite 8 are attained for dissolution could be done. But moving any ACC teams to such a lesser conference would not be possible. I do believe that the Big 10 would be interested in Syracuse and that would solve quite a few issues for them. If we don't get hung up on symmetry there are some workarounds for your idea though.

So you add Virginia Tech and N.C.State to the SEC. SEC stands at 16.
You add Kansas and Syracuse to the Big 10. Big 10 stands at 16.
You add Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Baylor, Texas Tech and West Virginia to the ACC as full members and Texas with a Notre Dame like deal. Now the ACC has 18 full members with two hybrids which may be attached to two of 3 six team divisions.

North: Boston College, Duke, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Virginia, West Virginia (with N.D. attached here for 6 conference games and an ability to play into the CCG for entry into the NC playoffs).
South: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, North Carolina, Wake Forest
West: Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech (with Texas attached here for 6 conference games and an ability to play into the CCG for entry into the NC playoffs).

Mull that over and get back to me.

I like it

(11-23-2013 02:54 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-23-2013 02:41 AM)CintiFan Wrote:  I don't see your original scenario working, but I think a variation of your alternative might work. I don't think the B1G or SEC will cooperate unless they really get the teams/geography they want. The B1G will not double up teams in Iowa just to rescue Iowa State from football oblivion. The B1G would take any combination of Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas, but no one else from the Big 12. Likewise, I don't see the SEC taking WVU when they really want to be in NC or VA.

What about a 'merger' though, with the Texas and most of the Big 12 joining NC and many of the ACC teams to form a new "Big ACC". The two conferences have 24 teams, so they need to find a home for most of them to get the votes to approve. There are other possibilities, but here's one

From the Big 12, seven teams would go to the new Big ACC. The leftovers are:
Kansas - which goes the BIG
WVU - which gets pushed to the AAC
TCU - which gets pushed to the Sun Belt or AAC
With Kansas, as a sure vote, that gives 8 of 10 votes in favor.

From the current ACC, ten go to the new Big ACC. The leftovers are
Syracuse - which goes to the BIG
Virginia Tech -which goes to the SEC
NC State - which goes to the SEC
BC - gets pushed to the AAC
Pitt - gets pushed to the AAC
The rest go to the new Big ACC, along with ND as a member except for football, which gives the new conference 18 members (counting ND).
All but BC and Pitt would vote in favor.

That could work as well. I think the SEC and Big 10 would be very happy to hit their target markets with just 16 each. 18 in the ACC would allow a much better split of 3 divisions of 6 geographically grouped. I'll play with that and get back to you. JR

Okay I've thought about it a bit and the only big issue I see is that it would be contractually impossible for the ACC to kick anyone out without just cause. Relegating two Big 12 teams to a lesser conference once the requisite 8 are attained for dissolution could be done. But moving any ACC teams to such a lesser conference would not be possible. I do believe that the Big 10 would be interested in Syracuse and that would solve quite a few issues for them. If we don't get hung up on symmetry there are some workarounds for your idea though.

So you add Virginia Tech and N.C.State to the SEC. SEC stands at 16.
You add Kansas and Syracuse to the Big 10. Big 10 stands at 16.
You add Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Baylor, Texas Tech and West Virginia to the ACC as full members and Texas with a Notre Dame like deal. Now the ACC has 18 full members with two hybrids which may be attached to two of 3 six team divisions.

North: Boston College, Duke, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Virginia, West Virginia (with N.D. attached here for 6 conference games and an ability to play into the CCG for entry into the NC playoffs).
South: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, North Carolina, Wake Forest
West: Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech (with Texas attached here for 6 conference games and an ability to play into the CCG for entry into the NC playoffs).

Mull that over and get back to me.

From a technical perspective, I assumed both the Big 12 and ACC would vote to dissolve their conferences as part of the move to a new Big ACC, so no school is technically being kicked out. The teams that don't have a favorable landing slot are the only ones who would vote against it.

To me, the biggest issues are:

1. Convincing VTech and NC State to go to the SEC, separating them from their in-state brothers. A deal for annual OOC games against each other may solve that problem.
2. Convincing the B1G to take Syracuse when they really want Oklahoma, Virginia, GTech or some other Big 12 or ACC school. If the B1G thought that a Big ACC conference was a done deal, they may settle for Syracuse knowing they really don't have any other good options.
3. When you say ND and Texas would be attached to the North and West divisions, I think they will need to play teams in the South as well. Each should play 4 teams in their 'attached' division and two games against teams in the South Division.
4. Three divisions seems awkward. Two nine team divisions seems better. If they want interdivisional play, they could go to a 10 game conference schedule, with 6, 7 or 8 games against divisional opponents and the others against teams in the other division. Texas and ND would essentially be scheduled like an OOC game for whoever they played that year. Interdivisional play helps overcome objections by schools that feel they are in the wrong conference.
5. 18 teams means alot of pie slices to cut in conference revenues. 16 means higher per team revenue and if the SEC and B1G are dividing their pots by 16, the Big ACC combo division may not want 18. Kicking out the weak sisters (e.g. Wake and maybe Iowa State) may not be politically correct. Kicking out some of the newbies (Louisville, Pitt, WVU or BC (if ND doesn't object)) might work better.

(11-23-2013 04:48 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  

(11-23-2013 02:54 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-23-2013 02:41 AM)CintiFan Wrote:  I don't see your original scenario working, but I think a variation of your alternative might work. I don't think the B1G or SEC will cooperate unless they really get the teams/geography they want. The B1G will not double up teams in Iowa just to rescue Iowa State from football oblivion. The B1G would take any combination of Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas, but no one else from the Big 12. Likewise, I don't see the SEC taking WVU when they really want to be in NC or VA.

What about a 'merger' though, with the Texas and most of the Big 12 joining NC and many of the ACC teams to form a new "Big ACC". The two conferences have 24 teams, so they need to find a home for most of them to get the votes to approve. There are other possibilities, but here's one



From the Big 12, seven teams would go to the new Big ACC. The leftovers are:
Kansas - which goes the BIG
WVU - which gets pushed to the AAC
TCU - which gets pushed to the Sun Belt or AAC
With Kansas, as a sure vote, that gives 8 of 10 votes in favor.

From the current ACC, ten go to the new Big ACC. The leftovers are
Syracuse - which goes to the BIG
Virginia Tech -which goes to the SEC
NC State - which goes to the SEC
BC - gets pushed to the AAC
Pitt - gets pushed to the AAC
The rest go to the new Big ACC, along with ND as a member except for football, which gives the new conference 18 members (counting ND).
All but BC and Pitt would vote in favor.

That could work as well. I think the SEC and Big 10 would be very happy to hit their target markets with just 16 each. 18 in the ACC would allow a much better split of 3 divisions of 6 geographically grouped. I'll play with that and get back to you. JR

Okay I've thought about it a bit and the only big issue I see is that it would be contractually impossible for the ACC to kick anyone out without just cause. Relegating two Big 12 teams to a lesser conference once the requisite 8 are attained for dissolution could be done. But moving any ACC teams to such a lesser conference would not be possible. I do believe that the Big 10 would be interested in Syracuse and that would solve quite a few issues for them. If we don't get hung up on symmetry there are some workarounds for your idea though.

So you add Virginia Tech and N.C.State to the SEC. SEC stands at 16.
You add Kansas and Syracuse to the Big 10. Big 10 stands at 16.
You add Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Baylor, Texas Tech and West Virginia to the ACC as full members and Texas with a Notre Dame like deal. Now the ACC has 18 full members with two hybrids which may be attached to two of 3 six team divisions.

North: Boston College, Duke, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Virginia, West Virginia (with N.D. attached here for 6 conference games and an ability to play into the CCG for entry into the NC playoffs).
South: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, North Carolina, Wake Forest
West: Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech (with Texas attached here for 6 conference games and an ability to play into the CCG for entry into the NC playoffs).

Mull that over and get back to me.

From a technical perspective, I assumed both the Big 12 and ACC would vote to dissolve their conferences as part of the move to a new Big ACC, so no school is technically being kicked out. The teams that don't have a favorable landing slot are the only ones who would vote against it.

To me, the biggest issues are:

1. Convincing VTech and NC State to go to the SEC, separating them from their in-state brothers. A deal for annual OOC games against each other may solve that problem.
2. Convincing the B1G to take Syracuse when they really want Oklahoma, Virginia, GTech or some other Big 12 or ACC school. If the B1G thought that a Big ACC conference was a done deal, they may settle for Syracuse knowing they really don't have any other good options.
3. When you say ND and Texas would be attached to the North and West divisions, I think they will need to play teams in the South as well. Each should play 4 teams in their 'attached' division and two games against teams in the South Division.
4. Three divisions seems awkward. Two nine team divisions seems better. If they want interdivisional play, they could go to a 10 game conference schedule, with 6, 7 or 8 games against divisional opponents and the others against teams in the other division. Texas and ND would essentially be scheduled like an OOC game for whoever they played that year. Interdivisional play helps overcome objections by schools that feel they are in the wrong conference.
5. 18 teams means alot of pie slices to cut in conference revenues. 16 means higher per team revenue and if the SEC and B1G are dividing their pots by 16, the Big ACC combo division may not want 18. Kicking out the weak sisters (e.g. Wake and maybe Iowa State) may not be politically correct. Kicking out some of the newbies (Louisville, Pitt, WVU or BC (if ND doesn't object)) might work better.

The problem is that it takes 12 schools to dissolve the ACC. We are only moving 3. Syracuse is one of the original high priority targets listed by the Big 10 and a much better option than Buffalo. Neither Virginia Tech nor N.C. State cost the ACC any of their footprint. Syracuse is their Northern outlier.

Buffalo is a MAC school and there is no way the B1G takes it - Syracuse would be the choice, but even Syracuse would be a stretch because they lost their AAU status and, unlike Nebraska, are not a national football power.

Regarding conference dissolution votes, I think it still works. We started with 24 teams - 10 from the Big 12 and 14 from the ACC. Two go to the B1G (Kansas, Syracuse), two go to the SEC (VTech, NC St), one goes independent (TX) and three get left out (let's say WVU and TCU from the Big 12 plus Louisville from the ACC). That leaves 16 teams for the new conference.

In the ACC, the 12 'yea' votes would be the 10 teams moving to the new conference plus Syracuse (B1G) VTech and NC State (SEC) - with the only no vote coming from whoever is left out (I assume one of Louisville, Pitt or BC is left homeless).

In the Big 12, the 8 'yea' votes would be the 6 going to the new conference plus Kansas (B1G) and Texas (independent) - with WVU and TCU voting no because they are left homeless.

(11-24-2013 02:29 AM)CintiFan Wrote:  Buffalo is a MAC school and there is no way the B1G takes it - Syracuse would be the choice, but even Syracuse would be a stretch because they lost their AAU status and, unlike Nebraska, are not a national football power.

syracuse may not be a national football power, but our football history is better than 90-95% of FBS schools, and we run a very profitable athletics program considering our sup par tv contract, fanbase, & attendance.

granted we are no nebraska but to rag on SU football for lacking history or tradition is an argument for CFB fans who only started watching the sport since 2000

(11-24-2013 02:51 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-24-2013 02:29 AM)CintiFan Wrote:  Buffalo is a MAC school and there is no way the B1G takes it - Syracuse would be the choice, but even Syracuse would be a stretch because they lost their AAU status and, unlike Nebraska, are not a national football power.

syracuse may not be a national football power, but our football history is better than 90-95% of FBS schools, and we run a very profitable athletics program considering our sup par tv contract, fanbase, & attendance.

granted we are no nebraska but to rag on SU football for lacking history or tradition is an argument for CFB fans who only started watching the sport since 2000

You are right... I would rate their popularity nationally about like WVU, which is not bad.

I'm not ragging on Syracuse, I thought Syracuse and Missouri would be near the top of the list for B1G expansion last time. But they got passed over for Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland. If the B1G thinks 16 is the cap on size, and Kansas is coming in as #15, they will not fill that last spot with Syracuse until they are sure ND or some other top 10 national program isn't available.

(11-25-2013 09:39 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  I'm not ragging on Syracuse, I thought Syracuse and Missouri would be near the top of the list for B1G expansion last time. But they got passed over for Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland. If the B1G thinks 16 is the cap on size, and Kansas is coming in as #15, they will not fill that last spot with Syracuse until they are sure ND or some other top 10 national program isn't available.

from what i heard SU was never really sold on the b10. sure it would of been nice for us however we would of filled only a northwestern type role, been stuck in a little brother rivalry with psu, a private non research school that stuck out like a sore thumb among the b10s big research publics. (and they didnt offer lax at the time).

i think syracuse looked at all of that and said "thanks but no thanks" and opted for the ACC a conference in which they are 100x more a cultural fit.

what i find very VERY intriguing is that colorado & syracuse received full shares while nebraska, maryland, rutgers, & utah didnt <== i think thats a pretty telling sign that these schools were not so desperate when they joined their respective new conferences.

IMO i think its a very real possibility that the b10s 4 biggest targets were colorado texas nebraska & syracuse and ended up getting rejected by 3 of them.

(11-26-2013 10:25 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-25-2013 09:39 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  I'm not ragging on Syracuse, I thought Syracuse and Missouri would be near the top of the list for B1G expansion last time. But they got passed over for Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland. If the B1G thinks 16 is the cap on size, and Kansas is coming in as #15, they will not fill that last spot with Syracuse until they are sure ND or some other top 10 national program isn't available.

from what i heard SU was never really sold on the b10. sure it would of been nice for us however we would of filled only a northwestern type role, been stuck in a little brother rivalry with psu, a private non research school that stuck out like a sore thumb among the b10s big research publics. (and they didnt offer lax at the time).

i think syracuse looked at all of that and said "thanks but no thanks" and opted for the ACC a conference in which they are 100x more a cultural fit.

what i find very VERY intriguing is that colorado & syracuse received full shares while nebraska, maryland, rutgers, & utah didnt <== i think thats a pretty telling sign that these schools were not so desperate when they joined their respective new conferences.

IMO i think its a very real possibility that the b10s 4 biggest targets were colorado texas nebraska & syracuse and ended up getting rejected by 3 of them.

I too believe Syracuse fits in better with the ACC. They would have been good for the Big Ten and in my early theories, I often had them listed. Once the ACC showed interest, the Big Ten likely had zero chance.

(11-26-2013 10:25 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-25-2013 09:39 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  I'm not ragging on Syracuse, I thought Syracuse and Missouri would be near the top of the list for B1G expansion last time. But they got passed over for Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland. If the B1G thinks 16 is the cap on size, and Kansas is coming in as #15, they will not fill that last spot with Syracuse until they are sure ND or some other top 10 national program isn't available.

from what i heard SU was never really sold on the b10. sure it would of been nice for us however we would of filled only a northwestern type role, been stuck in a little brother rivalry with psu, a private non research school that stuck out like a sore thumb among the b10s big research publics. (and they didnt offer lax at the time).

i think syracuse looked at all of that and said "thanks but no thanks" and opted for the ACC a conference in which they are 100x more a cultural fit.

what i find very VERY intriguing is that colorado & syracuse received full shares while nebraska, maryland, rutgers, & utah didnt <== i think thats a pretty telling sign that these schools were not so desperate when they joined their respective new conferences.

IMO i think its a very real possibility that the b10s 4 biggest targets were colorado texas nebraska & syracuse and ended up getting rejected by 3 of them.

I have a hard time believing that CU would have been a major target for the B1G. The Buffs make less sense than Mizzou and Delaney have no problem driving right by MTigers. What I could never figure out is why CU stayed in the B12 when they had an opportunity to join the PAC10 in 1994.

(11-27-2013 11:04 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 10:25 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-25-2013 09:39 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  I'm not ragging on Syracuse, I thought Syracuse and Missouri would be near the top of the list for B1G expansion last time. But they got passed over for Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland. If the B1G thinks 16 is the cap on size, and Kansas is coming in as #15, they will not fill that last spot with Syracuse until they are sure ND or some other top 10 national program isn't available.

from what i heard SU was never really sold on the b10. sure it would of been nice for us however we would of filled only a northwestern type role, been stuck in a little brother rivalry with psu, a private non research school that stuck out like a sore thumb among the b10s big research publics. (and they didnt offer lax at the time).

i think syracuse looked at all of that and said "thanks but no thanks" and opted for the ACC a conference in which they are 100x more a cultural fit.

what i find very VERY intriguing is that colorado & syracuse received full shares while nebraska, maryland, rutgers, & utah didnt <== i think thats a pretty telling sign that these schools were not so desperate when they joined their respective new conferences.

IMO i think its a very real possibility that the b10s 4 biggest targets were colorado texas nebraska & syracuse and ended up getting rejected by 3 of them.

I have a hard time believing that CU would have been a major target for the B12. The Buffs make less sense than Mizzou and Delaney have no problem driving right by MTigers. What could never figure out is why CU stayed in the B12 when they had an opportunity to join the PAC10 in 1994.

I think losing Nebraska and gaining Utah helped Colorado make that jump. In 1994, Utah was not even in the ballpark of being ready for the PAC, so that makes quite the island for Colorado in the PAC at that time. Plus, on paper, the Big 12 as originally composed looked terrific. It seems that Bevo drove the wedge over the years and made it fall apart. However, those original 12 members, if they could have all gotten along, were absolutely powerhouse.

(11-27-2013 01:06 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(11-27-2013 11:04 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 10:25 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-25-2013 09:39 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  I'm not ragging on Syracuse, I thought Syracuse and Missouri would be near the top of the list for B1G expansion last time. But they got passed over for Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland. If the B1G thinks 16 is the cap on size, and Kansas is coming in as #15, they will not fill that last spot with Syracuse until they are sure ND or some other top 10 national program isn't available.

from what i heard SU was never really sold on the b10. sure it would of been nice for us however we would of filled only a northwestern type role, been stuck in a little brother rivalry with psu, a private non research school that stuck out like a sore thumb among the b10s big research publics. (and they didnt offer lax at the time).

i think syracuse looked at all of that and said "thanks but no thanks" and opted for the ACC a conference in which they are 100x more a cultural fit.

what i find very VERY intriguing is that colorado & syracuse received full shares while nebraska, maryland, rutgers, & utah didnt <== i think thats a pretty telling sign that these schools were not so desperate when they joined their respective new conferences.

IMO i think its a very real possibility that the b10s 4 biggest targets were colorado texas nebraska & syracuse and ended up getting rejected by 3 of them.

I have a hard time believing that CU would have been a major target for the B12. The Buffs make less sense than Mizzou and Delaney have no problem driving right by MTigers. What could never figure out is why CU stayed in the B12 when they had an opportunity to join the PAC10 in 1994.

I think losing Nebraska and gaining Utah helped Colorado make that jump. In 1994, Utah was not even in the ballpark of being ready for the PAC, so that makes quite the island for Colorado in the PAC at that time. Plus, on paper, the Big 12 as originally composed looked terrific. It seems that Bevo drove the wedge over the years and made it fall apart. However, those original 12 members, if they could have all gotten along, were absolutely powerhouse.

I don't think it's all Bevo, but there was definitely a North/South split dynamic in the Big 12. I think that a number of the old Big 8 schools felt somewhat railroaded at times (in matters such as moving the conference offices south to Dallas, with old members OU and OSU joining the Southern bloc and CU breaking the tie). I think there was also a schism with some Big 8 people feeling like the Big 8 "saved" the SWC schools, while they felt that the Big 8 (despite having recently had great runs with OU, NU, and CU) didn't know how to play football.

Texas (the state, not the school) is, well, Texas...a whole different kind of place, and definitely more Southwest in character than Plains/Midwest, and there was also Colorado out on the western frontier in the mountains with their own unique culture.

So in short, there was a blend of differences and commonalities in the Big 12. We just had the misfortune of having been one of the early larger conferences so some of the later ideas (such as preserving cross-divisional rivalries) that might have built cohesion hadn't come about yet, and we were also surrounded by more powerful and hungry conferences. I think there's some truth in the idea that CU and aTm in particular may not have ever had their hearts entirely in the Big 12, but for the most part I think all the others were at the time and the dynamic simply soured over time.

(11-27-2013 11:04 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 10:25 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-25-2013 09:39 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  I'm not ragging on Syracuse, I thought Syracuse and Missouri would be near the top of the list for B1G expansion last time. But they got passed over for Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland. If the B1G thinks 16 is the cap on size, and Kansas is coming in as #15, they will not fill that last spot with Syracuse until they are sure ND or some other top 10 national program isn't available.

from what i heard SU was never really sold on the b10. sure it would of been nice for us however we would of filled only a northwestern type role, been stuck in a little brother rivalry with psu, a private non research school that stuck out like a sore thumb among the b10s big research publics. (and they didnt offer lax at the time).

i think syracuse looked at all of that and said "thanks but no thanks" and opted for the ACC a conference in which they are 100x more a cultural fit.

what i find very VERY intriguing is that colorado & syracuse received full shares while nebraska, maryland, rutgers, & utah didnt <== i think thats a pretty telling sign that these schools were not so desperate when they joined their respective new conferences.

IMO i think its a very real possibility that the b10s 4 biggest targets were colorado texas nebraska & syracuse and ended up getting rejected by 3 of them.

I have a hard time believing that CU would have been a major target for the B12. The Buffs make less sense than Mizzou and Delaney have no problem driving right by MTigers. What could never figure out is why CU stayed in the B12 when they had an opportunity to join the PAC10 in 1994.

heres my take on colorado to the b10 ==>

take a schools ARWU ranking and subtract that number from their US news ranking ranking. about a year before maryland announced their move to the b10 i did this for every school and i found some pretty interesting trends.

1. every b10 school with the exception of NW were all well into the positives showing that b10 schools do much better in the arwu than us news

heres where things start to get interesting

2. only a single ACC school was in the positives showing that ACC schools do much better in US news than the ARWU.

heres where things get very interesting

the one acc school that was positive ==> it was maryland

and heres where it gets mind blowing

whats interesting is that not only was maryland in the positive, it was incredibly high (around +35). of the 80 schools i did this to.....maryland was one of the highest.

so you have a case where all the b10 schools show one tendency and all the acc schools show a different tendency. at the same time a single ACC school appears to be an academic outlier in that conference and it matches up so much better in the b10 ==> and then that school does indeed leave for the b10.

you can call this coincidental but i think the odds of this being randomness are very low to non existent because we are talking 20+ schools here.

so how does this relate to colorado? because colorado is the textbook example of this trend. they were around +70 when i looked this up which is insane considering that no other school broke +50. and considering that colorado is a textbook b10 style school where they are a flagship landgrant with no other power schools in their state, tremendous football history, very good all around athletics, and come from a decent sized state which is the 3rd fastest growing state (think BTN). theres a major city right near the school and they add another time zone. add in their academics & research and its very easy to see why the b10 would want them.

now as for cu vs mizz

CU is ranked 32nd on the global scale, 24 nationally in the arwu. mizz is ranked 201st globally, 86 nationally in the arwu.

CU is about 15 spots higher than mizz on the all time wins list in football when they left for the p12.

CU has 26 national championships compared to missouri's 2

so lets not go down this road that mizz is a better b10 addition than CU or that these two schools are comparable in terms of their value to the b10. CU is much much better than mizz

some things to note:
1. i did this with academic rankings from 3 years ago. rankings change so some of these numbers may be off now.

2. you do need to use the eye test on this. for example if school A is 20th in us news & 3rd in arwu is going to have only +17 because its so high in the rankings. that +17 means a lot more than if school B school has +17 and is 86 in the US news to 69 in the arwu.

3. most schools that are low in the rankings have huge + or - numbers in these rankings which is why i didnt do this to lower ranked academic schools.

i wasnt surprised at all when maryland joined the b10. there really is a statistical element to conference realignment that can be used to predict these kinds of moves