Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Realignment proposal to end all further realignment
Author Message
ken d Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,717
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 343
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #21
RE: Realignment proposal to end all further realignment
(01-28-2018 03:34 PM)clpp01 Wrote:  Washington and the California schools would never go to the Big-12, there are too many poor academic schools within the Big-12 for that to ever be a viable option for the people that run those universities. If and/or when things ever got so bad to the point where Cal schools were actively looking to leave, the only conference that is powerful and prestigious enough to entice UW and the Cal 4 to make the jump would be the Big Ten.

The only way the Big-12 would be able to start expanding with schools from the Pac-12 is if the B1G had already breached the conference and left behind anyone the Big-12 would want to add.

If you were to take Washington and the Cali schools out of the PAC, the remainder wouldn't look all that different from the Big 12 academically speaking.
01-29-2018 11:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,717
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 343
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #22
RE: Realignment proposal to end all further realignment
IMO, the PAC could not muster the votes to invite a Texhoma 4. At best, I think they could get 6 votes (50%) and would need 9 (75%).

The 4 corners schools would oppose it as a solid bloc because the last thing they want is to be part of the eastern division with OU and UT. Colorado, in particular, ran away from that league and doesn't want to go back.

Washington State and Oregon State, IMO, would also vote no, out of fear that if the Texhoma 4 were added that could create critical mass to vote them out of the conference as "deadweight".

The only solution I can see to ease the fears of these six schools is a fairly radical one. I don't think it has been done anywhere else, but maybe it would work here.

Let's say the current PAC members invite six Big 12 schools: Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Kansas. NCAA rules currently require that a conference be divided into equal size divisions to have a CCG. I doubt that the other power conferences would support giving this new 18 team league any waiver from that.

But what they could do, in order to give the "weak six" continued access to scheduling the Cali schools on a regular basis, is to divided them into two "zipper" groups of three schools each and rotate them annually between the Pacific Six and the Texhoma Six divisions. That would give two 9 team divisions each year, who play an 8 game schedule with no crossovers in league play. It provides the opportunity for Washington and Oregon to play their in-state rival every other year OOC when their pod is slotted in the other division. Utah could do the same with Colorado, and Arizona with Arizona State. None of this requires any changes in NCAA rules.

Clearly, the two groups would have to find a way to handle the PACN and BTN. But with each having the opportunity to expand viewership into the other's territory, two currently unprofitable networks might be able to be transformed into one profitable one.

Again, though, there are an awful lot of moving parts to this, and college presidents are hidebound and risk averse. This would be hard to do - probably too hard.
01-29-2018 11:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Nerdlinger Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,008
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 33
I Root For: Realignment!
Location: :uoᴉʇɐɔo⌉
Post: #23
RE: Realignment proposal to end all further realignment
(01-29-2018 11:51 AM)ken d Wrote:  IMO, the PAC could not muster the votes to invite a Texhoma 4. At best, I think they could get 6 votes (50%) and would need 9 (75%).

The 4 corners schools would oppose it as a solid bloc because the last thing they want is to be part of the eastern division with OU and UT. Colorado, in particular, ran away from that league and doesn't want to go back.

Washington State and Oregon State, IMO, would also vote no, out of fear that if the Texhoma 4 were added that could create critical mass to vote them out of the conference as "deadweight".

The only solution I can see to ease the fears of these six schools is a fairly radical one. I don't think it has been done anywhere else, but maybe it would work here.

Let's say the current PAC members invite six Big 12 schools: Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Kansas. NCAA rules currently require that a conference be divided into equal size divisions to have a CCG. I doubt that the other power conferences would support giving this new 18 team league any waiver from that.

But what they could do, in order to give the "weak six" continued access to scheduling the Cali schools on a regular basis, is to divided them into two "zipper" groups of three schools each and rotate them annually between the Pacific Six and the Texhoma Six divisions. That would give two 9 team divisions each year, who play an 8 game schedule with no crossovers in league play. It provides the opportunity for Washington and Oregon to play their in-state rival every other year OOC when their pod is slotted in the other division. Utah could do the same with Colorado, and Arizona with Arizona State. None of this requires any changes in NCAA rules.

Clearly, the two groups would have to find a way to handle the PACN and BTN. But with each having the opportunity to expand viewership into the other's territory, two currently unprofitable networks might be able to be transformed into one profitable one.

Again, though, there are an awful lot of moving parts to this, and college presidents are hidebound and risk averse. This would be hard to do - probably too hard.

Better plan:

East Pod: UT/TT/OU/OkSU or UT/TT/TCU/UH
South Pod: UA/ASU/CU/UU
North Pod: UO/OrSU/UW/WSU
West Pod: Cal/Stan/UCLA/USC

For two years, the East and North Pods form the Northeast Division and the South and West Pods form the Southwest Division. A school plays its entire division home and away and 2 schools from the opposite* pod home and away.

For the next two years, the East and South Pods form the Southeast Division and the North and West Pods form the Northwest Division. A school plays its entire division home and away and the other 2 schools from the opposite* pod home and away.

This way the CA schools can play each other every year while each non-CA school plays all 4 CA schools home and away within 4 years. And in 4 years, each school in the conference has played every other school at least once at home and once away. No rule change is required for divisions or the CCG.

* = North is opposite of South, East is opposite of West
(This post was last modified: 01-29-2018 02:51 PM by Nerdlinger.)
01-29-2018 01:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BePcr07 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 811
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 43
I Root For: Boise St & Zags
Location:
Post: #24
RE: Realignment proposal to end all further realignment
(01-29-2018 01:02 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  
(01-29-2018 11:51 AM)ken d Wrote:  IMO, the PAC could not muster the votes to invite a Texhoma 4. At best, I think they could get 6 votes (50%) and would need 9 (75%).

The 4 corners schools would oppose it as a solid bloc because the last thing they want is to be part of the eastern division with OU and UT. Colorado, in particular, ran away from that league and doesn't want to go back.

Washington State and Oregon State, IMO, would also vote no, out of fear that if the Texhoma 4 were added that could create critical mass to vote them out of the conference as "deadweight".

The only solution I can see to ease the fears of these six schools is a fairly radical one. I don't think it has been done anywhere else, but maybe it would work here.

Let's say the current PAC members invite six Big 12 schools: Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Kansas. NCAA rules currently require that a conference be divided into equal size divisions to have a CCG. I doubt that the other power conferences would support giving this new 18 team league any waiver from that.

But what they could do, in order to give the "weak six" continued access to scheduling the Cali schools on a regular basis, is to divided them into two "zipper" groups of three schools each and rotate them annually between the Pacific Six and the Texhoma Six divisions. That would give two 9 team divisions each year, who play an 8 game schedule with no crossovers in league play. It provides the opportunity for Washington and Oregon to play their in-state rival every other year OOC when their pod is slotted in the other division. Utah could do the same with Colorado, and Arizona with Arizona State. None of this requires any changes in NCAA rules.

Clearly, the two groups would have to find a way to handle the PACN and BTN. But with each having the opportunity to expand viewership into the other's territory, two currently unprofitable networks might be able to be transformed into one profitable one.

Again, though, there are an awful lot of moving parts to this, and college presidents are hidebound and risk averse. This would be hard to do - probably too hard.

Better plan:

East Pod: UT/TT/OU/OkSU or UT/TT/TCU/UH
South Pod: UA/ASU/CU/UU
North Pod: UO/OrSU/UW/WSU
West Pod: Cal/Stan/UCLA/USC

For two years, the East and North Pods form the Northeast Division and the South and West Pods form the Southwest Division. A school plays its entire division home and away and 2 schools from the opposite* pod home and away.

For the next two years, the East and South Pods form the Southeast Division and the North and West Pods form the Northwest Division. A school plays its entire division home and away and the other 2 schools from the opposite* pod home and away.

This way the CA schools can play each other every year while each non-CA school plays all 4 CA schools home and away within 4 years. And in 4 years, each school in the conference has played every other schools at least once at home and once away. No rule change is required for divisions or the CCG.

* = North is opposite of South, East is opposite of West

I’m a fan of those 4 Texas schools heading West. I just don’t think the PAC would be crazy about it. I’m also not sure how much bargaining power the PAC has.

PAC + Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Houston
SEC + Oklahoma, Oklahoma St
B1G + Kansas, Connecticut
ACC + West Virginia, Cincinnati
AAC backfills with Baylor, Kansas St, and Iowa St

PAC
North: Washington, Washington St, Oregon, Oregon St
West: California, Stanford, USC, UCLA
South: Arizona, Arizona St, Utah, Colorado
East: Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Houston

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

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

ACC
North: Boston College, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, West Virginia
East: Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina, Duke
West: Cincinnati, Louisville, North Carolina St, Wake Forest
South: Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida St, Miami

AAC
West: Iowa St, Kansas St, Tulsa, SMU, Baylor, Navy
East: Tulane, Memphis, South Florida, Central Florida, East Carolina, Temple
01-29-2018 01:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Nerdlinger Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,008
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 33
I Root For: Realignment!
Location: :uoᴉʇɐɔo⌉
Post: #25
RE: Realignment proposal to end all further realignment
(01-29-2018 01:15 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  I’m a fan of those 4 Texas schools heading West. I just don’t think the PAC would be crazy about it. I’m also not sure how much bargaining power the PAC has.

PAC + Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Houston
SEC + Oklahoma, Oklahoma St
B1G + Kansas, Connecticut
ACC + West Virginia, Cincinnati
AAC backfills with Baylor, Kansas St, and Iowa St

If OU goes to the SEC while UT goes to the Pac, UT will want more Texas friends to replace OU/OSU. The Pac will have to suck it up if they want UT.

UConn to the Big Ten ain't happening.

The ACC isn't going to fill the 15th and 16th spots without ND going all in.

The Big 12 will be backfilling from the AAC, and not the other way round.
01-29-2018 03:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,717
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 343
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #26
RE: Realignment proposal to end all further realignment
(01-29-2018 03:01 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  
(01-29-2018 01:15 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  I’m a fan of those 4 Texas schools heading West. I just don’t think the PAC would be crazy about it. I’m also not sure how much bargaining power the PAC has.

PAC + Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Houston
SEC + Oklahoma, Oklahoma St
B1G + Kansas, Connecticut
ACC + West Virginia, Cincinnati
AAC backfills with Baylor, Kansas St, and Iowa St

If OU goes to the SEC while UT goes to the Pac, UT will want more Texas friends to replace OU/OSU. The Pac will have to suck it up if they want UT.

UConn to the Big Ten ain't happening.

The ACC isn't going to fill the 15th and 16th spots without ND going all in.

The Big 12 will be backfilling from the AAC, and not the other way round.

I think there are 3 pairs of schools the ACC could get enough of its members willing to vote to invite to get to 16:

Notre Dame - Penn State
Florida - Georgia
Texas - Oklahoma

And I think the probability of getting any of those pairs to accept is about as close to zero as you can get. I just don't see the ACC adding anybody at this point.
01-29-2018 03:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wilkie01 Offline
Cards Prognosticater
*

Posts: 26,611
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 1042
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Planet Red
Post: #27
RE: Realignment proposal to end all further realignment
How about four 18 team conferences. Then the four conference playoff game champions, play in a four game national championship playoff.

Currently the P5 has 64 teams. The new P4 would have 72 teams. Of course this means no independents would be a member. Supply and demand would determine, which conference would fold and, which 8 teams would be added to reach 72 teams. 07-coffee3
01-29-2018 03:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chess Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,810
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 137
I Root For: ECU & Nebraska
Location: Chicagoland
Post: #28
RE: Realignment proposal to end all further realignment
I moved some of the teams around. Northwestern specifically asked to be in the division with Nebraska. While Virginia and North Carolina wish to be in the same division, the North Carolina schools would prefer playing each other. Wake Forest has set up non-conference football games to ensure UNC is on their schedule.

(01-29-2018 01:15 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  PAC
North: Washington, Washington St, Oregon, Oregon St
West: California, Stanford, USC, UCLA
South: Arizona, Arizona St, Utah, Colorado
East: Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Houston

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

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

ACC
North: Boston College, Syracuse, Cincinnati, Louisville
East: Virginia, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, Pittsburgh
West: North Carolina, Duke, North Carolina St, Wake Forest
South: Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida St, Miami

AAC
West: Iowa St, Kansas St, Tulsa, SMU, Baylor, Navy
East: Tulane, Memphis, South Florida, Central Florida, East Carolina, Temple
01-29-2018 04:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ColKurtz Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 152
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 22
I Root For: Virginia Tech
Location: Raleigh
Post: #29
RE: Realignment proposal to end all further realignment
Quote:I think there are 3 pairs of schools the ACC could get enough of its members willing to vote to invite to get to 16:

Notre Dame - Penn State
Florida - Georgia
Texas - Oklahoma

And I think the probability of getting any of those pairs to accept is about as close to zero as you can get. I just don't see the ACC adding anybody at this point.

The ACC would go to 16 with Notre Dame + anyone. I think the football-first contingent would look at WVU. Louisville already broke the ACC's bar on academic qualifications. If WVU were still locked up in a GOR them it would probably be down to UConn or Navy.

The other two don't make any sense. Why not also throw out OSU + Michigan or Bama + LSU.
01-29-2018 04:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ColKurtz Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 152
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 22
I Root For: Virginia Tech
Location: Raleigh
Post: #30
RE: Realignment proposal to end all further realignment
(01-29-2018 03:48 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  How about four 18 team conferences. Then the four conference playoff game champions, play in a four game national championship playoff.

Currently the P5 has 64 teams. The new P4 would have 72 teams. Of course this means no independents would be a member. Supply and demand would determine, which conference would fold and, which 8 teams would be added to reach 72 teams. 07-coffee3

18 teams is not a conference. It's two conferences where teams occasionally play teams in the other division. And "supply and demand" ignores regional and travel considerations. Is the ACC going to grab Iowa State because they were left out? Is the Pac12 going to add Wake Forest if the ACC is absorbed elsewhere?

Boards and presidents vote in expansion. There is no scenario where this makes sense. There is no Oz behind the scenes controlling these votes. These magical even numbers are fantasyland message board fodder.
01-29-2018 04:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Nerdlinger Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,008
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 33
I Root For: Realignment!
Location: :uoᴉʇɐɔo⌉
Post: #31
RE: Realignment proposal to end all further realignment
(01-29-2018 04:19 PM)ColKurtz Wrote:  
Quote:I think there are 3 pairs of schools the ACC could get enough of its members willing to vote to invite to get to 16:

Notre Dame - Penn State
Florida - Georgia
Texas - Oklahoma

And I think the probability of getting any of those pairs to accept is about as close to zero as you can get. I just don't see the ACC adding anybody at this point.

The ACC would go to 16 with Notre Dame + anyone. I think the football-first contingent would look at WVU. Louisville already broke the ACC's bar on academic qualifications. If WVU were still locked up in a GOR them it would probably be down to UConn or Navy.

The other two don't make any sense. Why not also throw out OSU + Michigan or Bama + LSU.

If ND did join up full, the ACC should (although still might not) take WV for #16 if available. Otherwise, Cincinnati or UConn for #16. They won't add a service academy.
01-29-2018 04:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Nerdlinger Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,008
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 33
I Root For: Realignment!
Location: :uoᴉʇɐɔo⌉
Post: #32
RE: Realignment proposal to end all further realignment
(01-29-2018 04:26 PM)ColKurtz Wrote:  
(01-29-2018 03:48 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  How about four 18 team conferences. Then the four conference playoff game champions, play in a four game national championship playoff.

Currently the P5 has 64 teams. The new P4 would have 72 teams. Of course this means no independents would be a member. Supply and demand would determine, which conference would fold and, which 8 teams would be added to reach 72 teams. 07-coffee3

18 teams is not a conference. It's two conferences where teams occasionally play teams in the other division. And "supply and demand" ignores regional and travel considerations. Is the ACC going to grab Iowa State because they were left out? Is the Pac12 going to add Wake Forest if the ACC is absorbed elsewhere?

Boards and presidents vote in expansion. There is no scenario where this makes sense. There is no Oz behind the scenes controlling these votes. These magical even numbers are fantasyland message board fodder.

While I don't think conferences over 16 are in the cards for the next round of realignment, such sizes are manageable with a more flexible schedule. Further deregulation of divisions and CCGs could allow for the abolishment of divisions within a conference. For example, each team in an 18-team conference could have 3 protected rivals and a rotating schedule of 5 or 6 of the other 14 opponents. Thus you could do a full conference run in 3 years, as opposed to the 6 years it currently takes for the 14-team ACC and SEC.

But even with three 6-team divisions, you could still play the whole conference in 3 years. Five games against your division plus 2 vs. each of the other 2 divisions every year.
(This post was last modified: 01-30-2018 11:02 AM by Nerdlinger.)
01-29-2018 04:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,717
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 343
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #33
RE: Realignment proposal to end all further realignment
(01-29-2018 04:19 PM)ColKurtz Wrote:  
Quote:I think there are 3 pairs of schools the ACC could get enough of its members willing to vote to invite to get to 16:

Notre Dame - Penn State
Florida - Georgia
Texas - Oklahoma

And I think the probability of getting any of those pairs to accept is about as close to zero as you can get. I just don't see the ACC adding anybody at this point.

The ACC would go to 16 with Notre Dame + anyone. I think the football-first contingent would look at WVU. Louisville already broke the ACC's bar on academic qualifications. If WVU were still locked up in a GOR them it would probably be down to UConn or Navy.

The other two don't make any sense. Why not also throw out OSU + Michigan or Bama + LSU.

My post was a response to one which stated that the ACC wouldn't consider expanding without ND joining full time. I disagreed, and listed two options which would be acceptable to current members that don't include Notre Dame. I'm not sure why you would think the other two make no sense. If OU and UT were to approach the ACC and ask if they could join, I think they could get enough votes to get in. Don't you? That is all I said.

As for Florida and Georgia, they probably make the most sense of all. Unlike OSU-Michigan or Alabama-LSU, those two have close relationships with four of the most important football members of the ACC. They are in the heart of the footprint. Like OU and UT, please note that I also said there is virtually zero chance of this happening. But that wasn't the question.

I can't imagine ACC members agreeing to invite the two pairs you mentioned. I can't imagine ACC members turning down the pairs I suggested. Both would be home runs - as would ND and Penn State. I don't think you can say that about ND + any of the three you suggested.

All that being said, I'll say once again. I don't think the ACC will do anything, nor do they need to.
(This post was last modified: 02-01-2018 11:11 AM by ken d.)
01-29-2018 07:24 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.