JRsec
Super Moderator
Posts: 38,244
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7940
I Root For: SEC
Location:
|
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
(09-10-2017 10:13 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote: (09-10-2017 03:55 PM)JRsec Wrote: It won't happen that way. They will use divisions to geographically group schools and rivals where possible. The remaining very large conferences will represent regions of the country. Overhead will be reduced by eliminating duplicated conference governmental layers.
It could happen if the PAC was absorbed along with the Big 12, or if the ACC was absorbed along with the Big 12. Either way a regional P3 of between 20-24 schools would work quite nicely.
The 72 would be the 65 we currently have plus: Connecticut, Brigham Young, Central Florida, Cincinnati, Houston, San Diego State, and South Florida. That's the three most deserving: Connecticut, Cincinnati, and Brigham Young plus the best earners from Texas, California, and Florida.
PAC:
North: Brigham Young, Oregon, Oregon State, Utah, Washington, Washington State
West: Arizona, Arizona State, California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal, Stanford
South: Baylor, Colorado, Houston, San Diego State, Texas, Texas Tech
East: Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Christian
B1G:
East: Boston College, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Notre Dame, Penn State, Rutgers
South: Duke, Maryland, Pittsburgh, North Carolina, Virginia, Wake Forest
North: Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, Syracuse
West: Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin
SEC:
North: Kentucky, Louisville, N.C. State, Tennessee, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
East: Central Florida, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech, South Carolina
South: Alabama, Auburn, Florida State, Mississippi State, South Florida, Vanderbilt
West: Arkansas, Louisiana State, Miami, Mississippi, Missouri, Texas A&M
Now at a crueler leaner 60 it might look like this:
PAC:
North: Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State
West: California, Cal Los Angeles, Colorado, Southern Cal, Utah
East: Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
South: Arizona, Arizona State, Texas, Texas Christian, Texas Tech
B1G:
East: Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers, Syracuse
South: Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Pittsburgh, Virginia
West: Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin
North: Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Purdue
SEC:
North: Kentucky, Louisville, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, Tennessee
East: Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Georgia, Tech, South Carolina
South: Alabama, Auburn, Florida State, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt
West: Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Texas A&M
The political wrangling needed to effect this outcome would be fascinating to see. A lot of presidents would have to be convinced to give up a bunch of control over the consolidation process. Ex: convincing secular schools to accept BYU into the club. Maybe giving up the names of "Big Ten," "SEC," etc, can help soothe some hard feelings.
The angle that should be looked at is how basketball can help get the programs towards the new paradigm. At 72 it gets much easier for schools to argue for separation from the NCAA when you add the Big East, Gonzaga, Atlantic 10, etc, as allies. A school like UConn should be part of the new group.
Thus my preference for the "72" idea.
I think if you group the schools with issues away from those who hold the issues, that within a larger construct you can gain acceptance. Ideally to make 72 work we need to start by separating athletic relationships from academic ones. There would be no threat to the B1G by the additions I've suggested as theirs is the only conference where academic considerations were applied along with geography. The Big 10 has one pill to swallow here and that's not a bitter one, Cincinnati.
But if you can differentiate the two forms of associations then 72 becomes possible. B.Y.U. becomes acceptable. And tertiary schools from large states can be added for extra value. When a conference like the SEC can dip into Florida 5 potentially 5 times on a weekend for add revenue that's a big deal. In this scenario the PAC gets that benefit in Texas. And the Big 10 owns the upper Eastern Atlantic and New England. There's the value. The regional nature of the divisions allows for two crucial things to happen: minor sports play stays relatively local an inexpensive and TV networks get an entrant into each sub-region of audience within the larger region whether that is by a conference championship round, or an expanded playoff round. Either way the nation stays engaged through the semis.
We get better quality opponents with a 12 game all P schedule, but have enough lower tier schools to make it work, but they are lower tier schools that have something to offer whether that is good attendance, or one sport at which they excel or a niche market that pays advertising dividends, particularly in large states.
(This post was last modified: 09-10-2017 11:25 PM by JRsec.)
|
|