Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Realignment Conpsiracy Theory: OK State
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,622
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 193
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #21
RE: Realignment Conpsiracy Theory: OK State
(08-28-2017 12:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-28-2017 11:36 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(08-27-2017 08:48 PM)XLance Wrote:  You had better hope 15 is the number.
Kansas to the B1G.
Oklahoma to the SEC
Texas, TCU, and Texas Tech to the PAC
Notre Dame to the ACC

Everybody else heads to the American.

It seems to me (and I could be wrong), that the general consensus is that texas will wind up either in the SEC or the ACC? If that's the case, PAC might take Tech, TCU and Houston in a 15 team scenario.

That is possible. But, I'm still not sure the moves will be to 15. It would be the most efficient number with which to expand, but it is also probably the stickiest. There are too many ties that would have to be severed.

OK, then:
Kansas and Missouri to the B1G
Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, West Virginia/Baylor to the SEC
Texas, TCU, Texas Tech, Rice/Houston to the PAC
Notre Dame, Cincinnati/UConn/West Virginia to the ACC
There are your moves to 16
08-29-2017 12:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 16,110
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 866
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #22
RE: Realignment Conpsiracy Theory: OK State
(08-29-2017 12:29 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(08-28-2017 12:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-28-2017 11:36 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(08-27-2017 08:48 PM)XLance Wrote:  You had better hope 15 is the number.
Kansas to the B1G.
Oklahoma to the SEC
Texas, TCU, and Texas Tech to the PAC
Notre Dame to the ACC

Everybody else heads to the American.

It seems to me (and I could be wrong), that the general consensus is that texas will wind up either in the SEC or the ACC? If that's the case, PAC might take Tech, TCU and Houston in a 15 team scenario.

That is possible. But, I'm still not sure the moves will be to 15. It would be the most efficient number with which to expand, but it is also probably the stickiest. There are too many ties that would have to be severed.

OK, then:
Kansas and Missouri to the B1G
Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, West Virginia/Baylor to the SEC
Texas, TCU, Texas Tech, Rice/Houston to the PAC
Notre Dame, Cincinnati/UConn/West Virginia to the ACC
There are your moves to 16

Too Conventional:
The PAC doesn't expand. Why? Because they don't care about expansion and aren't football crazy. In fact they aren't sports crazy, just politically crazy.

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to the SEC. Why? They are football crazy and identify more with the South.

The Big 10 adds Kansas pushes for Virginia Tech and settles for Connecticut. Why? Because they still want to pursue the Northeast if it kills them.

The ACC adds Cincinnati and West Virginia as full members and N.D. remains a partial. Why? You need new markets for the network and you will still be sucking up to N.D. at the end of the day.

T.C.U., Baylor, Kansas State and Iowa State join the AAC. Why? Because they nowhere else to go!

ESPN gets everything they care to own and that winds it up for quite sometime to come.
08-29-2017 12:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,622
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 193
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #23
RE: Realignment Conpsiracy Theory: OK State
(08-29-2017 12:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-29-2017 12:29 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(08-28-2017 12:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-28-2017 11:36 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(08-27-2017 08:48 PM)XLance Wrote:  You had better hope 15 is the number.
Kansas to the B1G.
Oklahoma to the SEC
Texas, TCU, and Texas Tech to the PAC
Notre Dame to the ACC

Everybody else heads to the American.

It seems to me (and I could be wrong), that the general consensus is that texas will wind up either in the SEC or the ACC? If that's the case, PAC might take Tech, TCU and Houston in a 15 team scenario.

That is possible. But, I'm still not sure the moves will be to 15. It would be the most efficient number with which to expand, but it is also probably the stickiest. There are too many ties that would have to be severed.

OK, then:
Kansas and Missouri to the B1G
Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, West Virginia/Baylor to the SEC
Texas, TCU, Texas Tech, Rice/Houston to the PAC
Notre Dame, Cincinnati/UConn/West Virginia to the ACC
There are your moves to 16

Too Conventional:
The PAC doesn't expand. Why? Because they don't care about expansion and aren't football crazy. In fact they aren't sports crazy, just politically crazy.

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to the SEC. Why? They are football crazy and identify more with the South.

The Big 10 adds Kansas pushes for Virginia Tech and settles for Connecticut. Why? Because they still want to pursue the Northeast if it kills them.

The ACC adds Cincinnati and West Virginia as full members and N.D. remains a partial. Why? You need new markets for the network and you will still be sucking up to N.D. at the end of the day.

T.C.U., Baylor, Kansas State and Iowa State join the AAC. Why? Because they nowhere else to go!

ESPN gets everything they care to own and that winds it up for quite sometime to come.

http://www.ocregister.com/2009/07/02/han...nd-future/
Q. In 1990, Arkansas jumped from the Southwest Conference to the SEC. That same year the ACC expanded and the Pac-10 took a look at adding Texas and Texas A&M. How close did the Texas schools come to joining the Pac-10?

A.It’s been a long time and memories do tricks to you but Texas was in my opinion based on communications, Texas was very interested and it thought initially might be able to come alone. Then about the time things were really getting serious it was made clear to us by Texas-Austin that it couldn’t get clear of A&M. We invited A&M but before we got a clear signal from A&M, Ann Richards who was then the governor said Baylor’s my alma mater and they’re going wherever Texas and Texas A&M go and then in a less clear message, but still pretty well defined, we were told the legislators who control the oil money that goes to the Texas universities was controlled either by alumni of or representatives of the area of Texas Tech and now there was a group of four and we were not interested in going from 10 to 14 so we said ‘thank you anyway.’ But Texas alone was very favorably inclined to consider our offer.
08-29-2017 01:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BePcr07 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 836
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 48
I Root For: Boise St & Zags
Location:
Post: #24
RE: Realignment Conpsiracy Theory: OK State
(08-29-2017 12:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Too Conventional:
The PAC doesn't expand. Why? Because they don't care about expansion and aren't football crazy. In fact they aren't sports crazy, just politically crazy.

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to the SEC. Why? They are football crazy and identify more with the South.

The Big 10 adds Kansas pushes for Virginia Tech and settles for Connecticut. Why? Because they still want to pursue the Northeast if it kills them.

The ACC adds Cincinnati and West Virginia as full members and N.D. remains a partial. Why? You need new markets for the network and you will still be sucking up to N.D. at the end of the day.

T.C.U., Baylor, Kansas State and Iowa State join the AAC. Why? Because they nowhere else to go!

ESPN gets everything they care to own and that winds it up for quite sometime to come.

This is boring like when you watch a show after seeing a spoiler lol

This is probably exactly the way it'll be. The SEC will offer big money (the biggest of all) to the two XII gems, little brothers included. The PAC has no real players for expansion that they seem to like. The B1G will take Kansas and Connecticut. The ACC will never get Notre Dame to go all in without the CFP committee essentially saying it must or no championship - so Cincinnati and West Virginia find a home there.

I can easily see Iowa St and Kansas St heading to the AAC but I wouldn't be surprised if TCU and Baylor headed to the MWC. Although, the AAC would likely be a bit more attractive even without Cincinnati and Connecticut.

PAC - same

B1G
West: Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue
East: Indiana, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St, Maryland, Rutgers, Connecticut

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

ACC
Atlantic: Boston College, Cincinnati, Clemson, Florida St, Louisville, North Carolina St, Syracuse, Wake Forest
Coastal: Duke, Georgia Tech, Miami, North Carolina, Pittsburgh, Virginia, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
*Notre Dame partial*

AAC (zipper model - across from annual rival)
Blue: Iowa St, TCU, Baylor, Tulane, Central Florida, Memphis, Temple
Red: Kansas St, SMU, Houston, Tulsa, South Florida, East Carolina, Navy
08-29-2017 01:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 16,110
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 866
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #25
RE: Realignment Conpsiracy Theory: OK State
(08-29-2017 01:17 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(08-29-2017 12:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-29-2017 12:29 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(08-28-2017 12:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-28-2017 11:36 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  It seems to me (and I could be wrong), that the general consensus is that texas will wind up either in the SEC or the ACC? If that's the case, PAC might take Tech, TCU and Houston in a 15 team scenario.

That is possible. But, I'm still not sure the moves will be to 15. It would be the most efficient number with which to expand, but it is also probably the stickiest. There are too many ties that would have to be severed.

OK, then:
Kansas and Missouri to the B1G
Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, West Virginia/Baylor to the SEC
Texas, TCU, Texas Tech, Rice/Houston to the PAC
Notre Dame, Cincinnati/UConn/West Virginia to the ACC
There are your moves to 16

Too Conventional:
The PAC doesn't expand. Why? Because they don't care about expansion and aren't football crazy. In fact they aren't sports crazy, just politically crazy.

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to the SEC. Why? They are football crazy and identify more with the South.

The Big 10 adds Kansas pushes for Virginia Tech and settles for Connecticut. Why? Because they still want to pursue the Northeast if it kills them.

The ACC adds Cincinnati and West Virginia as full members and N.D. remains a partial. Why? You need new markets for the network and you will still be sucking up to N.D. at the end of the day.

T.C.U., Baylor, Kansas State and Iowa State join the AAC. Why? Because they nowhere else to go!

ESPN gets everything they care to own and that winds it up for quite sometime to come.

http://www.ocregister.com/2009/07/02/han...nd-future/
Q. In 1990, Arkansas jumped from the Southwest Conference to the SEC. That same year the ACC expanded and the Pac-10 took a look at adding Texas and Texas A&M. How close did the Texas schools come to joining the Pac-10?

A.It’s been a long time and memories do tricks to you but Texas was in my opinion based on communications, Texas was very interested and it thought initially might be able to come alone. Then about the time things were really getting serious it was made clear to us by Texas-Austin that it couldn’t get clear of A&M. We invited A&M but before we got a clear signal from A&M, Ann Richards who was then the governor said Baylor’s my alma mater and they’re going wherever Texas and Texas A&M go and then in a less clear message, but still pretty well defined, we were told the legislators who control the oil money that goes to the Texas universities was controlled either by alumni of or representatives of the area of Texas Tech and now there was a group of four and we were not interested in going from 10 to 14 so we said ‘thank you anyway.’ But Texas alone was very favorably inclined to consider our offer.

Texas may be the cheese, but they refuse to stand alone. So if anybody wants the Lemberger they are going to have to take cheese crackers to get them.
08-29-2017 02:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 16,110
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 866
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #26
RE: Realignment Conpsiracy Theory: OK State
(08-29-2017 01:24 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(08-29-2017 12:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Too Conventional:
The PAC doesn't expand. Why? Because they don't care about expansion and aren't football crazy. In fact they aren't sports crazy, just politically crazy.

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to the SEC. Why? They are football crazy and identify more with the South.

The Big 10 adds Kansas pushes for Virginia Tech and settles for Connecticut. Why? Because they still want to pursue the Northeast if it kills them.

The ACC adds Cincinnati and West Virginia as full members and N.D. remains a partial. Why? You need new markets for the network and you will still be sucking up to N.D. at the end of the day.

T.C.U., Baylor, Kansas State and Iowa State join the AAC. Why? Because they nowhere else to go!

ESPN gets everything they care to own and that winds it up for quite sometime to come.

This is boring like when you watch a show after seeing a spoiler lol

This is probably exactly the way it'll be. The SEC will offer big money (the biggest of all) to the two XII gems, little brothers included. The PAC has no real players for expansion that they seem to like. The B1G will take Kansas and Connecticut. The ACC will never get Notre Dame to go all in without the CFP committee essentially saying it must or no championship - so Cincinnati and West Virginia find a home there.

I can easily see Iowa St and Kansas St heading to the AAC but I wouldn't be surprised if TCU and Baylor headed to the MWC. Although, the AAC would likely be a bit more attractive even without Cincinnati and Connecticut.

PAC - same

B1G
West: Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue
East: Indiana, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St, Maryland, Rutgers, Connecticut

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

ACC
Atlantic: Boston College, Cincinnati, Clemson, Florida St, Louisville, North Carolina St, Syracuse, Wake Forest
Coastal: Duke, Georgia Tech, Miami, North Carolina, Pittsburgh, Virginia, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
*Notre Dame partial*

AAC (zipper model - across from annual rival)
Blue: Iowa St, TCU, Baylor, Tulane, Central Florida, Memphis, Temple
Red: Kansas St, SMU, Houston, Tulsa, South Florida, East Carolina, Navy

Uh, no. There are intricacies to the SEC that must be maintained. And then there is Arkansas that would love to be reunited with Texas and have Oklahoma to play.

So it would look like this:

Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M

Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Crossover rivals would have to be maintained.

If A&M was to ever stomach Texas they would need to be in a different division. L.S.U. is an old time rival of A&M. If this move happened these divisions would be needed to maintain the peace.
08-29-2017 02:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Online
1st String
*

Posts: 2,452
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 96
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #27
RE: Realignment Conpsiracy Theory: OK State
I do think local politics will play a big role. It's a minor miracle A&M was able to escape UT the way they did. With that said, Baylor may be so poisoned that no one has to worry about them. I think TCU is another story though. I suppose they're not as influential as Baylor was in the old days, but they've still cultivated a relationship with UT and I'm sure they've spent time currying favor with politicians.

Oklahoma and Oklahoma State could easily move together, but I think the TX schools could have more trouble if one league isn't willing to take them all. I don't think it will be the PAC or B1G. I suppose the ACC might be willing to take the group, but I really don't know.

I'm not sure the SEC would them all either.
08-29-2017 03:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 16,110
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 866
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #28
RE: Realignment Conpsiracy Theory: OK State
(08-29-2017 03:36 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I do think local politics will play a big role. It's a minor miracle A&M was able to escape UT the way they did. With that said, Baylor may be so poisoned that no one has to worry about them. I think TCU is another story though. I suppose they're not as influential as Baylor was in the old days, but they've still cultivated a relationship with UT and I'm sure they've spent time currying favor with politicians.

Oklahoma and Oklahoma State could easily move together, but I think the TX schools could have more trouble if one league isn't willing to take them all. I don't think it will be the PAC or B1G. I suppose the ACC might be willing to take the group, but I really don't know.

I'm not sure the SEC would them all either.

At this juncture the Horns have been down so long I think their fans, and the politicians of the state would be fine if the only one they covered was Tech.

Part of Texas's problem was that they elevated the minor brands in Texas too much. Now if Texas is to regain some steam what they really need is to trim the number of P5 brands in the state. They will always be the darling over Tech, but A&M gained a brand advantage over them. If they joined the SEC with Oklahoma, or with the additions of Tech and OSU they really only have to compete with A&M and Oklahoma in state. Relegating T.C.U. and Baylor permits them more 4 star recruits and equals the branding with A&M.

So I wouldn't rule out Texas's positioning for strategic advantages in all of this.
08-29-2017 03:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Soobahk40050 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 594
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 43
I Root For: Tennessee
Location:
Post: #29
RE: Realignment Conpsiracy Theory: OK State
(08-29-2017 02:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-29-2017 01:24 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(08-29-2017 12:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Too Conventional:
The PAC doesn't expand. Why? Because they don't care about expansion and aren't football crazy. In fact they aren't sports crazy, just politically crazy.

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to the SEC. Why? They are football crazy and identify more with the South.

The Big 10 adds Kansas pushes for Virginia Tech and settles for Connecticut. Why? Because they still want to pursue the Northeast if it kills them.

The ACC adds Cincinnati and West Virginia as full members and N.D. remains a partial. Why? You need new markets for the network and you will still be sucking up to N.D. at the end of the day.

T.C.U., Baylor, Kansas State and Iowa State join the AAC. Why? Because they nowhere else to go!

ESPN gets everything they care to own and that winds it up for quite sometime to come.

This is boring like when you watch a show after seeing a spoiler lol

This is probably exactly the way it'll be. The SEC will offer big money (the biggest of all) to the two XII gems, little brothers included. The PAC has no real players for expansion that they seem to like. The B1G will take Kansas and Connecticut. The ACC will never get Notre Dame to go all in without the CFP committee essentially saying it must or no championship - so Cincinnati and West Virginia find a home there.

I can easily see Iowa St and Kansas St heading to the AAC but I wouldn't be surprised if TCU and Baylor headed to the MWC. Although, the AAC would likely be a bit more attractive even without Cincinnati and Connecticut.

PAC - same

B1G
West: Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue
East: Indiana, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St, Maryland, Rutgers, Connecticut

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

ACC
Atlantic: Boston College, Cincinnati, Clemson, Florida St, Louisville, North Carolina St, Syracuse, Wake Forest
Coastal: Duke, Georgia Tech, Miami, North Carolina, Pittsburgh, Virginia, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
*Notre Dame partial*

AAC (zipper model - across from annual rival)
Blue: Iowa St, TCU, Baylor, Tulane, Central Florida, Memphis, Temple
Red: Kansas St, SMU, Houston, Tulsa, South Florida, East Carolina, Navy

Uh, no. There are intricacies to the SEC that must be maintained. And then there is Arkansas that would love to be reunited with Texas and have Oklahoma to play.

So it would look like this:

Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M

Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Crossover rivals would have to be maintained.

If A&M was to ever stomach Texas they would need to be in a different division. L.S.U. is an old time rival of A&M. If this move happened these divisions would be needed to maintain the peace.

If TN is to stomach this expansion, we still have to play Bama. Can't eliminate corssover rivals.
08-29-2017 05:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 16,110
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 866
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #30
RE: Realignment Conpsiracy Theory: OK State
(08-29-2017 05:08 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(08-29-2017 02:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-29-2017 01:24 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(08-29-2017 12:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Too Conventional:
The PAC doesn't expand. Why? Because they don't care about expansion and aren't football crazy. In fact they aren't sports crazy, just politically crazy.

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to the SEC. Why? They are football crazy and identify more with the South.

The Big 10 adds Kansas pushes for Virginia Tech and settles for Connecticut. Why? Because they still want to pursue the Northeast if it kills them.

The ACC adds Cincinnati and West Virginia as full members and N.D. remains a partial. Why? You need new markets for the network and you will still be sucking up to N.D. at the end of the day.

T.C.U., Baylor, Kansas State and Iowa State join the AAC. Why? Because they nowhere else to go!

ESPN gets everything they care to own and that winds it up for quite sometime to come.

This is boring like when you watch a show after seeing a spoiler lol

This is probably exactly the way it'll be. The SEC will offer big money (the biggest of all) to the two XII gems, little brothers included. The PAC has no real players for expansion that they seem to like. The B1G will take Kansas and Connecticut. The ACC will never get Notre Dame to go all in without the CFP committee essentially saying it must or no championship - so Cincinnati and West Virginia find a home there.

I can easily see Iowa St and Kansas St heading to the AAC but I wouldn't be surprised if TCU and Baylor headed to the MWC. Although, the AAC would likely be a bit more attractive even without Cincinnati and Connecticut.

PAC - same

B1G
West: Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue
East: Indiana, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St, Maryland, Rutgers, Connecticut

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

ACC
Atlantic: Boston College, Cincinnati, Clemson, Florida St, Louisville, North Carolina St, Syracuse, Wake Forest
Coastal: Duke, Georgia Tech, Miami, North Carolina, Pittsburgh, Virginia, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
*Notre Dame partial*

AAC (zipper model - across from annual rival)
Blue: Iowa St, TCU, Baylor, Tulane, Central Florida, Memphis, Temple
Red: Kansas St, SMU, Houston, Tulsa, South Florida, East Carolina, Navy

Uh, no. There are intricacies to the SEC that must be maintained. And then there is Arkansas that would love to be reunited with Texas and have Oklahoma to play.

So it would look like this:

Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M

Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Crossover rivals would have to be maintained.

If A&M was to ever stomach Texas they would need to be in a different division. L.S.U. is an old time rival of A&M. If this move happened these divisions would be needed to maintain the peace.

If TN is to stomach this expansion, we still have to play Bama. Can't eliminate corssover rivals.
There's no doubt about it. Tennesee / Alabama has to be cross divisional so that Tennessee can keep Kentucky and Vanderbilt.

Auburn/Georiga has to be cross divisional so that Georgia can keep Tennessee and Florida.

A&M/Texas would have to be cross divisional so that that rivalry can be renewed.

And there are others.
08-29-2017 05:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Soobahk40050 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 594
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 43
I Root For: Tennessee
Location:
Post: #31
RE: Realignment Conpsiracy Theory: OK State
(08-29-2017 05:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-29-2017 05:08 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(08-29-2017 02:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-29-2017 01:24 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(08-29-2017 12:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Too Conventional:
The PAC doesn't expand. Why? Because they don't care about expansion and aren't football crazy. In fact they aren't sports crazy, just politically crazy.

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to the SEC. Why? They are football crazy and identify more with the South.

The Big 10 adds Kansas pushes for Virginia Tech and settles for Connecticut. Why? Because they still want to pursue the Northeast if it kills them.

The ACC adds Cincinnati and West Virginia as full members and N.D. remains a partial. Why? You need new markets for the network and you will still be sucking up to N.D. at the end of the day.

T.C.U., Baylor, Kansas State and Iowa State join the AAC. Why? Because they nowhere else to go!

ESPN gets everything they care to own and that winds it up for quite sometime to come.

This is boring like when you watch a show after seeing a spoiler lol

This is probably exactly the way it'll be. The SEC will offer big money (the biggest of all) to the two XII gems, little brothers included. The PAC has no real players for expansion that they seem to like. The B1G will take Kansas and Connecticut. The ACC will never get Notre Dame to go all in without the CFP committee essentially saying it must or no championship - so Cincinnati and West Virginia find a home there.

I can easily see Iowa St and Kansas St heading to the AAC but I wouldn't be surprised if TCU and Baylor headed to the MWC. Although, the AAC would likely be a bit more attractive even without Cincinnati and Connecticut.

PAC - same

B1G
West: Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue
East: Indiana, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St, Maryland, Rutgers, Connecticut

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

ACC
Atlantic: Boston College, Cincinnati, Clemson, Florida St, Louisville, North Carolina St, Syracuse, Wake Forest
Coastal: Duke, Georgia Tech, Miami, North Carolina, Pittsburgh, Virginia, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
*Notre Dame partial*

AAC (zipper model - across from annual rival)
Blue: Iowa St, TCU, Baylor, Tulane, Central Florida, Memphis, Temple
Red: Kansas St, SMU, Houston, Tulsa, South Florida, East Carolina, Navy

Uh, no. There are intricacies to the SEC that must be maintained. And then there is Arkansas that would love to be reunited with Texas and have Oklahoma to play.

So it would look like this:

Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M

Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Crossover rivals would have to be maintained.

If A&M was to ever stomach Texas they would need to be in a different division. L.S.U. is an old time rival of A&M. If this move happened these divisions would be needed to maintain the peace.

If TN is to stomach this expansion, we still have to play Bama. Can't eliminate corssover rivals.
There's no doubt about it. Tennesee / Alabama has to be cross divisional so that Tennessee can keep Kentucky and Vanderbilt.

Auburn/Georiga has to be cross divisional so that Georgia can keep Tennessee and Florida.

A&M/Texas would have to be cross divisional so that that rivalry can be renewed.

And there are others.

I totally misread your post. I read "crossover rivals would have to be eliminated" not "maintained."

However, that does create a weird schedule. 5-1-3? It would take eight years to rotate through the 11 teams left over.
08-29-2017 08:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,622
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 193
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #32
RE: Realignment Conpsiracy Theory: OK State
(08-29-2017 08:19 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(08-29-2017 05:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-29-2017 05:08 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(08-29-2017 02:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-29-2017 01:24 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  This is boring like when you watch a show after seeing a spoiler lol

This is probably exactly the way it'll be. The SEC will offer big money (the biggest of all) to the two XII gems, little brothers included. The PAC has no real players for expansion that they seem to like. The B1G will take Kansas and Connecticut. The ACC will never get Notre Dame to go all in without the CFP committee essentially saying it must or no championship - so Cincinnati and West Virginia find a home there.

I can easily see Iowa St and Kansas St heading to the AAC but I wouldn't be surprised if TCU and Baylor headed to the MWC. Although, the AAC would likely be a bit more attractive even without Cincinnati and Connecticut.

PAC - same

B1G
West: Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue
East: Indiana, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St, Maryland, Rutgers, Connecticut

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

ACC
Atlantic: Boston College, Cincinnati, Clemson, Florida St, Louisville, North Carolina St, Syracuse, Wake Forest
Coastal: Duke, Georgia Tech, Miami, North Carolina, Pittsburgh, Virginia, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
*Notre Dame partial*

AAC (zipper model - across from annual rival)
Blue: Iowa St, TCU, Baylor, Tulane, Central Florida, Memphis, Temple
Red: Kansas St, SMU, Houston, Tulsa, South Florida, East Carolina, Navy

Uh, no. There are intricacies to the SEC that must be maintained. And then there is Arkansas that would love to be reunited with Texas and have Oklahoma to play.

So it would look like this:

Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M

Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Crossover rivals would have to be maintained.

If A&M was to ever stomach Texas they would need to be in a different division. L.S.U. is an old time rival of A&M. If this move happened these divisions would be needed to maintain the peace.

If TN is to stomach this expansion, we still have to play Bama. Can't eliminate corssover rivals.
There's no doubt about it. Tennesee / Alabama has to be cross divisional so that Tennessee can keep Kentucky and Vanderbilt.

Auburn/Georiga has to be cross divisional so that Georgia can keep Tennessee and Florida.

A&M/Texas would have to be cross divisional so that that rivalry can be renewed.

And there are others.

I totally misread your post. I read "crossover rivals would have to be eliminated" not "maintained."

However, that does create a weird schedule. 5-1-3? It would take eight years to rotate through the 11 teams left over.

With pods of 5 (15 total) you could play every team in the conference every two years with a 9 conference game schedule.
08-29-2017 08:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 16,110
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 866
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #33
RE: Realignment Conpsiracy Theory: OK State
(08-29-2017 08:19 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(08-29-2017 05:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-29-2017 05:08 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(08-29-2017 02:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-29-2017 01:24 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  This is boring like when you watch a show after seeing a spoiler lol

This is probably exactly the way it'll be. The SEC will offer big money (the biggest of all) to the two XII gems, little brothers included. The PAC has no real players for expansion that they seem to like. The B1G will take Kansas and Connecticut. The ACC will never get Notre Dame to go all in without the CFP committee essentially saying it must or no championship - so Cincinnati and West Virginia find a home there.

I can easily see Iowa St and Kansas St heading to the AAC but I wouldn't be surprised if TCU and Baylor headed to the MWC. Although, the AAC would likely be a bit more attractive even without Cincinnati and Connecticut.

PAC - same

B1G
West: Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue
East: Indiana, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St, Maryland, Rutgers, Connecticut

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

ACC
Atlantic: Boston College, Cincinnati, Clemson, Florida St, Louisville, North Carolina St, Syracuse, Wake Forest
Coastal: Duke, Georgia Tech, Miami, North Carolina, Pittsburgh, Virginia, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
*Notre Dame partial*

AAC (zipper model - across from annual rival)
Blue: Iowa St, TCU, Baylor, Tulane, Central Florida, Memphis, Temple
Red: Kansas St, SMU, Houston, Tulsa, South Florida, East Carolina, Navy

Uh, no. There are intricacies to the SEC that must be maintained. And then there is Arkansas that would love to be reunited with Texas and have Oklahoma to play.

So it would look like this:

Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M

Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Crossover rivals would have to be maintained.

If A&M was to ever stomach Texas they would need to be in a different division. L.S.U. is an old time rival of A&M. If this move happened these divisions would be needed to maintain the peace.

If TN is to stomach this expansion, we still have to play Bama. Can't eliminate corssover rivals.
There's no doubt about it. Tennesee / Alabama has to be cross divisional so that Tennessee can keep Kentucky and Vanderbilt.

Auburn/Georiga has to be cross divisional so that Georgia can keep Tennessee and Florida.

A&M/Texas would have to be cross divisional so that that rivalry can be renewed.

And there are others.

I totally misread your post. I read "crossover rivals would have to be eliminated" not "maintained."

However, that does create a weird schedule. 5-1-3? It would take eight years to rotate through the 11 teams left over.

You don't complete the rotation for home and home until everyone has been played. With 18 we would need 10 conference games. Then you rotate two each from the other divisions. It takes 3 years to cycle through and you alternate the permanent rival in the year they are in the rotation. If you play a school away in the first rotation you play them at home in the 2nd rotation.
(This post was last modified: 08-29-2017 09:12 PM by JRsec.)
08-29-2017 09:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,622
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 193
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #34
RE: Realignment Conpsiracy Theory: OK State
With a 16 team league it is possible to play everyone every two years. No divisions, three permanent rivals, 9 conference games, or for a 10 game conference schedule, 5 permanent rivals, either provides a lot of scheduling flexibility. I like the 5 permanent rival set-up.
08-30-2017 04:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,502
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 88
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #35
RE: Realignment Conpsiracy Theory: OK State
(08-27-2017 07:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-27-2017 06:30 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  2) OKST has zero history with any of the current SEC schools but Missouri and that was never a rivalry or game either school cared about.
True, but if they are in a division of essentially old SWC/Big 8 schools that would minimize that issue. Now I'm not saying this will happen, just that adding 4 instead of just two and placing Arkansas and Missouri in that division makes some sense. A&M would stay with L.S.U. and Alabama if that ever happened.

Hmmmm.....if Arkansas and Missouri were presented with picking their own division with 4 from the Big 12, I could see the Texahoma foursome of Texas, OU, Tech, and OSU getting first nod from Espn. Realistically, A&M would block Texas from entering the SEC. Thus, OU and Ok State join first for the money boost. Mizzou arranges landing spot for Kansas, and then West Virginia rounds out as it's the best of the rest options.
08-30-2017 06:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 16,110
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 866
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #36
RE: Realignment Conpsiracy Theory: OK State
(08-30-2017 06:26 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(08-27-2017 07:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-27-2017 06:30 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  2) OKST has zero history with any of the current SEC schools but Missouri and that was never a rivalry or game either school cared about.
True, but if they are in a division of essentially old SWC/Big 8 schools that would minimize that issue. Now I'm not saying this will happen, just that adding 4 instead of just two and placing Arkansas and Missouri in that division makes some sense. A&M would stay with L.S.U. and Alabama if that ever happened.

Hmmmm.....if Arkansas and Missouri were presented with picking their own division with 4 from the Big 12, I could see the Texahoma foursome of Texas, OU, Tech, and OSU getting first nod from Espn. Realistically, A&M would block Texas from entering the SEC. Thus, OU and Ok State join first for the money boost. Mizzou arranges landing spot for Kansas, and then West Virginia rounds out as it's the best of the rest options.

I want you to listen to what I'm about to say very carefully because I've been telling you this for almost 3 years and it hasn't sunk in yet, Texas A&M can't block Texas. It takes a 3/4's vote to accept a new member. So in a league of 14 schools it takes 4 votes to block. Florida will not vote against Texas. Georgia will not vote against Texas. Kentucky will not vote against Texas. That leaves A&M needing 3 more votes from university presidents that want an association academically with Texas. Athletic Directors don't get a vote, period.

I doubt Alabama would vote against them because they add revenue. Missouri might or might not vote against them and I seriously doubt that Arkansas would vote against them.

This is one of those times that IF, and that's a big if, ESPN wanted them in the SEC, or Texas required Texa-homa from ESPN to keep from heading to the PAC, that Texas A&M would just have to suck it up and soldier on.

Would it be best for us to not take them? Maybe to probably. Maybe if we get Oklahoma and anyone else. Probably if we could stop profitably at 16. With Oklahoma we don't have to have Texas to control enough of that area to get prime ad rates. But you have to admit that Texas and Oklahoma together would add about 5 million a year in payouts to each of our programs.

But Murrdcu our bylaws and membership rules do not permit one school from excluding another. Presidents vote, not A.D.'s, and no matter how the voice vote goes, all final written ballots are required to be unanimous and only abstentions are allowed. Those are the operating procedures of the membership committee of the SEC. The membership committee is comprised of the 14 university presidents and the commissioner. There is, or at least used to be, a recording secretary.

The rest of this stuff about blackballs and voting blocks is pure internet B.S.!
08-30-2017 07:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
YNot Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,737
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 72
I Root For: BYU
Location:
Post: #37
RE: Realignment Conpsiracy Theory: OK State
(08-28-2017 12:03 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(08-28-2017 07:25 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(08-28-2017 01:18 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I don't think 15 is workable.

With odd numbers, at least one team has to be off every week. Sure, it's mathematically possible, but it's an awful lot of content being left on the table. Scheduling so many off weeks will also limit the options schools have for non-conference games. In other words, there's less flexibility when you can play a conference game and who has to be played at that time.

16 teams and 9 games is so much easier.

15 is very workable with 5 team pods and 9 conference games. You could play every team in your conference home and away every two years.

I understand. The problem is when you schedule those games. You have to fit those 9 games and 3 more non-conference games into a 13 week window. The 14th week is for the CCG.

At least one team has to be off every week which will create some interesting problems as far as when you play those non-conference games and who's available on the calendar to play.

Ultimately it would limit schedule flexibility so any extra cash saved by not splitting the pie a 16th way is probably not worth the hassle in my opinion.

If it saves the network tens of millions of dollars per year, I could absolutely see the 15-team conference scenario. With 3 divisions and conference championship semi-finals, it actually allows cross-division conference mates to play each other more often and creates more money for the conference.

Timing and scheduling with 15 is not hard. Don't over think it. Three 5-team divisions works extremely efficiently for scheduling. Remember, the MWC had 9 teams and the B1G had 11 teams for years.

The solution? Don't cram all OOC games into the same three weeks and occasionally give a bye week to more than one team at a time.
08-31-2017 01:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Online
1st String
*

Posts: 2,452
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 96
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #38
RE: Realignment Conpsiracy Theory: OK State
(08-31-2017 01:37 PM)YNot Wrote:  
(08-28-2017 12:03 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(08-28-2017 07:25 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(08-28-2017 01:18 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I don't think 15 is workable.

With odd numbers, at least one team has to be off every week. Sure, it's mathematically possible, but it's an awful lot of content being left on the table. Scheduling so many off weeks will also limit the options schools have for non-conference games. In other words, there's less flexibility when you can play a conference game and who has to be played at that time.

16 teams and 9 games is so much easier.

15 is very workable with 5 team pods and 9 conference games. You could play every team in your conference home and away every two years.

I understand. The problem is when you schedule those games. You have to fit those 9 games and 3 more non-conference games into a 13 week window. The 14th week is for the CCG.

At least one team has to be off every week which will create some interesting problems as far as when you play those non-conference games and who's available on the calendar to play.

Ultimately it would limit schedule flexibility so any extra cash saved by not splitting the pie a 16th way is probably not worth the hassle in my opinion.

If it saves the network tens of millions of dollars per year, I could absolutely see the 15-team conference scenario. With 3 divisions and conference championship semi-finals, it actually allows cross-division conference mates to play each other more often and creates more money for the conference.

Timing and scheduling with 15 is not hard. Don't over think it. Three 5-team divisions works extremely efficiently for scheduling. Remember, the MWC had 9 teams and the B1G had 11 teams for years.

The solution? Don't cram all OOC games into the same three weeks and occasionally give a bye week to more than one team at a time.

I understand your point, but it's actually not as simple as that.

Other conferences have made it work with smaller numbers, I get that, but the key is they had smaller numbers and fewer conference games.

When you have an odd number then at least 1 team must be off from playing a conference game in any given week. If you start with 9 weeks for conference games then obviously there aren't enough weeks to go around. The simple solution to that is to expand the conference schedule to stretch over the 13 weeks allotted for the regular season schedule...devoting the 14th to the CCG.

Better, but not real great. What it does is limit the weeks available for non-conference games especially rivals because you've got to squeeze 9 league games in for 15 separate teams. And God forbid everyone go to 15 because every league will be in the same predicament which will further limit when teams are available to play those non-conference games.

And what about conference semis? That extra game has got to go somewhere and if you've broken everything into 3 divisions then it's absolutely necessary.

I'm not saying it can't be done mathematically. I'm saying it's very difficult because the numbers really start to hamper schedule flexibility which is already tight when it comes to football anyway. If the NCAA votes to add at least a couple of weeks to the season then maybe it becomes more feasible. Even then, it won't be easy to schedule games.

Even numbers are easier to work with anyway and I think in the end the money will be there.
08-31-2017 01:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,622
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 193
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #39
RE: Realignment Conpsiracy Theory: OK State
(08-31-2017 01:57 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(08-31-2017 01:37 PM)YNot Wrote:  
(08-28-2017 12:03 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(08-28-2017 07:25 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(08-28-2017 01:18 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I don't think 15 is workable.

With odd numbers, at least one team has to be off every week. Sure, it's mathematically possible, but it's an awful lot of content being left on the table. Scheduling so many off weeks will also limit the options schools have for non-conference games. In other words, there's less flexibility when you can play a conference game and who has to be played at that time.

16 teams and 9 games is so much easier.

15 is very workable with 5 team pods and 9 conference games. You could play every team in your conference home and away every two years.

I understand. The problem is when you schedule those games. You have to fit those 9 games and 3 more non-conference games into a 13 week window. The 14th week is for the CCG.

At least one team has to be off every week which will create some interesting problems as far as when you play those non-conference games and who's available on the calendar to play.

Ultimately it would limit schedule flexibility so any extra cash saved by not splitting the pie a 16th way is probably not worth the hassle in my opinion.

If it saves the network tens of millions of dollars per year, I could absolutely see the 15-team conference scenario. With 3 divisions and conference championship semi-finals, it actually allows cross-division conference mates to play each other more often and creates more money for the conference.

Timing and scheduling with 15 is not hard. Don't over think it. Three 5-team divisions works extremely efficiently for scheduling. Remember, the MWC had 9 teams and the B1G had 11 teams for years.

The solution? Don't cram all OOC games into the same three weeks and occasionally give a bye week to more than one team at a time.

I understand your point, but it's actually not as simple as that.

Other conferences have made it work with smaller numbers, I get that, but the key is they had smaller numbers and fewer conference games.

When you have an odd number then at least 1 team must be off from playing a conference game in any given week. If you start with 9 weeks for conference games then obviously there aren't enough weeks to go around. The simple solution to that is to expand the conference schedule to stretch over the 13 weeks allotted for the regular season schedule...devoting the 14th to the CCG.

Better, but not real great. What it does is limit the weeks available for non-conference games especially rivals because you've got to squeeze 9 league games in for 15 separate teams. And God forbid everyone go to 15 because every league will be in the same predicament which will further limit when teams are available to play those non-conference games.

And what about conference semis? That extra game has got to go somewhere and if you've broken everything into 3 divisions then it's absolutely necessary.

I'm not saying it can't be done mathematically. I'm saying it's very difficult because the numbers really start to hamper schedule flexibility which is already tight when it comes to football anyway. If the NCAA votes to add at least a couple of weeks to the season then maybe it becomes more feasible. Even then, it won't be easy to schedule games.

Even numbers are easier to work with anyway and I think in the end the money will be there.

Some time ago OmniOrange had worked up a schedule for a 15 team ACC. Worked like a charm. (he now goes by the name of OrangeDude)
08-31-2017 02:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Online
1st String
*

Posts: 2,452
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 96
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #40
RE: Realignment Conpsiracy Theory: OK State
(08-31-2017 02:25 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(08-31-2017 01:57 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(08-31-2017 01:37 PM)YNot Wrote:  
(08-28-2017 12:03 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(08-28-2017 07:25 AM)XLance Wrote:  15 is very workable with 5 team pods and 9 conference games. You could play every team in your conference home and away every two years.

I understand. The problem is when you schedule those games. You have to fit those 9 games and 3 more non-conference games into a 13 week window. The 14th week is for the CCG.

At least one team has to be off every week which will create some interesting problems as far as when you play those non-conference games and who's available on the calendar to play.

Ultimately it would limit schedule flexibility so any extra cash saved by not splitting the pie a 16th way is probably not worth the hassle in my opinion.

If it saves the network tens of millions of dollars per year, I could absolutely see the 15-team conference scenario. With 3 divisions and conference championship semi-finals, it actually allows cross-division conference mates to play each other more often and creates more money for the conference.

Timing and scheduling with 15 is not hard. Don't over think it. Three 5-team divisions works extremely efficiently for scheduling. Remember, the MWC had 9 teams and the B1G had 11 teams for years.

The solution? Don't cram all OOC games into the same three weeks and occasionally give a bye week to more than one team at a time.

I understand your point, but it's actually not as simple as that.

Other conferences have made it work with smaller numbers, I get that, but the key is they had smaller numbers and fewer conference games.

When you have an odd number then at least 1 team must be off from playing a conference game in any given week. If you start with 9 weeks for conference games then obviously there aren't enough weeks to go around. The simple solution to that is to expand the conference schedule to stretch over the 13 weeks allotted for the regular season schedule...devoting the 14th to the CCG.

Better, but not real great. What it does is limit the weeks available for non-conference games especially rivals because you've got to squeeze 9 league games in for 15 separate teams. And God forbid everyone go to 15 because every league will be in the same predicament which will further limit when teams are available to play those non-conference games.

And what about conference semis? That extra game has got to go somewhere and if you've broken everything into 3 divisions then it's absolutely necessary.

I'm not saying it can't be done mathematically. I'm saying it's very difficult because the numbers really start to hamper schedule flexibility which is already tight when it comes to football anyway. If the NCAA votes to add at least a couple of weeks to the season then maybe it becomes more feasible. Even then, it won't be easy to schedule games.

Even numbers are easier to work with anyway and I think in the end the money will be there.

Some time ago OmniOrange had worked up a schedule for a 15 team ACC. Worked like a charm. (he now goes by the name of OrangeDude)

But did he account for who would be available to play in non-conference? And ultimately when those games would have to be played?

Also...the conference semi-final?
08-31-2017 02:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 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.