(05-26-2018 08:02 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  The 16 team model can work. You just got to have the divisions right. SEC is pretty close to do it, Big Ten as well. PAC-16 would be close for the most part, the Arizona and Mountain schools would like to be with California but its close enough to work out. CUSA could work as 16 team conference how its set up now.

Thats kinda what I think. The idea that the 16 member threshold represents some sort of critical mass for a conference detonation is silly. For instance, in a conference like the AAC---it wouldn't likely matter at all because there are virtually no significant rivalries or special games that need to be protected. USF vs UCF--thats about it. Beyond that, I dont think it matters. I mean---I doubt any UConn season ticket holder will cancel their tickets if they only play Houston once every 8 years in football. As long as you're adding the best teams available and every team continues to pour money into improving their programs---any divisional configuration should yield a high quality divisional race that will generate interest. The key is figuring out how to limit travel costs via the use of divisions.

(05-27-2018 10:46 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-26-2018 08:02 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  The 16 team model can work. You just got to have the divisions right. SEC is pretty close to do it, Big Ten as well. PAC-16 would be close for the most part, the Arizona and Mountain schools would like to be with California but its close enough to work out. CUSA could work as 16 team conference how its set up now.

Thats kinda what I think. The idea that the 16 member threshold represents some sort of critical mass for a conference detonation is silly. For instance, in a conference like the AAC---it wouldn't likely matter at all because there are virtually no significant rivalries or special games that need to be protected.

Yeah, that was my point earlier - the nature of the conference matters. If the conference does not rely on cultural cohesion, but rather is kind of a thrown together collection of schools all wanting something better but in it because "it's the best we can do right now", then yes, 16 is not likely to be an issue, because as you say, from the POV of each school, any random assemblage of the other schools is just as good from a fan interest standpoint. E.g., nobody at USF would care if in a given year we play Tulsa and Memphis as opposed to Tulane and Houston, or vice-versa. The only issue would be if the money is right.

IMO, the AAC and C-USA fit that bill best, though it also characterizes the other G5 to a significant extent.

However, there is one caveat: If some schools in a 16 team league are marginally more valuable than others, then it is easier for those somewhat more valuable schools to envision being able to boost their payouts by defecting with same-level peers. That's kind of what happened with the 16-team WAC. The eight or so most valuable teams said "we can make more by splitting off", and it's easier to do because the numbers mean that new league is pretty much ready-made.

(05-27-2018 11:04 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-27-2018 10:46 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-26-2018 08:02 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  The 16 team model can work. You just got to have the divisions right. SEC is pretty close to do it, Big Ten as well. PAC-16 would be close for the most part, the Arizona and Mountain schools would like to be with California but its close enough to work out. CUSA could work as 16 team conference how its set up now.

Thats kinda what I think. The idea that the 16 member threshold represents some sort of critical mass for a conference detonation is silly. For instance, in a conference like the AAC---it wouldn't likely matter at all because there are virtually no significant rivalries or special games that need to be protected.

Yeah, that was my point earlier - the nature of the conference matters. If the conference does not rely on cultural cohesion, but rather is kind of a thrown together collection of schools all wanting something better but in it because "it's the best we can do right now", then yes, 16 is not likely to be an issue, because as you say, from the POV of each school, any random assemblage of the other schools is just as good from a fan interest standpoint. E.g., nobody at USF would care if in a given year we play Tulsa and Memphis as opposed to Tulane and Houston, or vice-versa. The only issue would be if the money is right.

IMO, the AAC and C-USA fit that bill best, though it also characterizes the other G5 to a significant extent.

However, there is one caveat: If some schools in a 16 team league are marginally more valuable than others, then it is easier for those somewhat more valuable schools to envision being able to boost their payouts by defecting with same-level peers. That's kind of what happened with the 16-team WAC. The eight or so most valuable teams said "we can make more by splitting off", and it's easier to do because the numbers mean that new league is pretty much ready-made.

Those 8 made sense geographically as well. 6 were tight nit Mountain State Schools and the other 2 who they shared a lot of history with were destinations for those 6 being in Vegas and San Diego. That original 8 made sense in every way.

(05-26-2018 05:06 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(05-26-2018 04:10 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-26-2018 02:31 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  so wac 16 did work
CFB hierarcy wouldn't let it grow

Probably...it’s ironic that a conference with that solid lineup, Utah, BYU, TCU, Air Force, San Diego St etc wasn’t included in the country club but a conference with Rutgers, Temple, Pitt, BC, Syracuse was.... unfair, let’s be honest: The WAC got hosed.

A large reason for that was Miami

Exactly.

(05-26-2018 08:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-26-2018 08:03 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Almost everything about the expansion of the WAC to 16 schools was weird and ill-advised. There might not be any "lesson" to be learned from such a weird situation, but if there is one it would be that none of today's G5 conferences can get to a P5 revenue level by just expanding. 16 teams didn't work for the WAC then, and it wouldn't work for the AAC or MWC or any other G5 conference today, as Craig Thompson said in that article.

At least they left us a good rule for moving to 16. Rotating half divisions solve a lot of scheduling issues and would work if the conference footprint is reasonably compact.

As the Utah president said, he couldn't figure it out and he came from the U of Michigan.

For the fans, KISS, KISS, KISS.

Rotating divisions is the anti-thesis of that. For 16 to work, it really needs to be two 8 team leagues put together. That can't happen with the Big 10 and SEC. Each has 10 teams that have been together for over half a century, many over a century.

The ACC, on the other hand, already is two leagues thrown together-the ACC-FSU, GT, Clemson, UNC, NCSU, Duke, WF, UVA and the Big East-Miami, Virginia Tech, Pitt, BC, Syracuse, Louisville and Notre Dame.

(05-27-2018 01:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  The ACC, on the other hand, already is two leagues thrown together-the ACC-FSU, GT, Clemson, UNC, NCSU, Duke, WF, UVA and the Big East-Miami, Virginia Tech, Pitt, BC, Syracuse, Louisville and Notre Dame.

Miami and VT are in the pre-expansion ACC footprint and fit better with the pre-expansion ACC than with the old Big East football lineup.

The ACC is a 10 school southern conference with a 5 school annex, and the Big Ten is an 11 school midwestern conference with a 3 school eastern annex. In both cases they've stretched out to try to grab more TV money.

(05-27-2018 02:21 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-27-2018 01:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  The ACC, on the other hand, already is two leagues thrown together-the ACC-FSU, GT, Clemson, UNC, NCSU, Duke, WF, UVA and the Big East-Miami, Virginia Tech, Pitt, BC, Syracuse, Louisville and Notre Dame.

Miami and VT are in the pre-expansion ACC footprint and fit better with the pre-expansion ACC than with the old Big East football lineup.

Miami is in the pre-expansion ACC footprint?

It's hard for me to imagine any school further from that footprint, east of the Mississippi at least.

The pre-expansion ACC footprint was Atlanta to Washington DC. Miami was a good 650 miles away from the closest part of it.

(05-27-2018 01:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-26-2018 08:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-26-2018 08:03 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Almost everything about the expansion of the WAC to 16 schools was weird and ill-advised. There might not be any "lesson" to be learned from such a weird situation, but if there is one it would be that none of today's G5 conferences can get to a P5 revenue level by just expanding. 16 teams didn't work for the WAC then, and it wouldn't work for the AAC or MWC or any other G5 conference today, as Craig Thompson said in that article.

At least they left us a good rule for moving to 16. Rotating half divisions solve a lot of scheduling issues and would work if the conference footprint is reasonably compact.

As the Utah president said, he couldn't figure it out and he came from the U of Michigan.

For the fans, KISS, KISS, KISS.

Rotating divisions is the anti-thesis of that. For 16 to work, it really needs to be two 8 team leagues put together. That can't happen with the Big 10 and SEC. Each has 10 teams that have been together for over half a century, many over a century.

The SEC schools can easily expand to 16. They just need to bring in a pair of old buddies for A&M, Arkansas, and Missouri. And the half division rotations will keep fresh and stable on the home schedule menu. It was only a logistical problem for the WAC Bullet.

(05-27-2018 06:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-27-2018 01:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-26-2018 08:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-26-2018 08:03 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Almost everything about the expansion of the WAC to 16 schools was weird and ill-advised. There might not be any "lesson" to be learned from such a weird situation, but if there is one it would be that none of today's G5 conferences can get to a P5 revenue level by just expanding. 16 teams didn't work for the WAC then, and it wouldn't work for the AAC or MWC or any other G5 conference today, as Craig Thompson said in that article.

At least they left us a good rule for moving to 16. Rotating half divisions solve a lot of scheduling issues and would work if the conference footprint is reasonably compact.

As the Utah president said, he couldn't figure it out and he came from the U of Michigan.

For the fans, KISS, KISS, KISS.

Rotating divisions is the anti-thesis of that. For 16 to work, it really needs to be two 8 team leagues put together. That can't happen with the Big 10 and SEC. Each has 10 teams that have been together for over half a century, many over a century.

The SEC schools can easily expand to 16. They just need to bring in a pair of old buddies for A&M, Arkansas, and Missouri. And the half division rotations will keep fresh and stable on the home schedule menu. It was only a logistical problem for the WAC Bullet.

I remember Roy Kramer saying if the WAC had given it a little more time he thought they would have eventually been included in the BCS. I think they were on to something and just didn't know it at the time...

(05-26-2018 02:31 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  so wac 16 did work
CFB hierarcy wouldn't let it grow

Wrong on both. It didn’t work, and the “CFB hierarchy” had nothing to do with it.

The core of the problem was that a 16-team league divided into 4x4 groups (“pods”) could only allow for 3 guaranteed annual opponents. Yet there was a group of 5 or 6 teams that wanted to play each other every year. If all 5 or 6 of those teams had been clustered on the western or eastern side of the league, they could’ve split 2x8, but they were in the geographic middle. So if you had put them all in the same division, then you’ve got Rice and La. Tech in the same division as (say) Hawaii and San Jose State.

A 16-team league could work but a lot of different variables all have to be rowing in the same direction.

16 could definitely work in pods, divisions, or no delineation. It depends on the conference members.

Pod example: PAC + Texoma-4. 4 easily identifiable regions with opportunity to play everyone and everywhere in a cycle.
North: Washington, Washington St, Oregon, Oregon St
West: California, Stanford, USC, UCLA
South: Arizona, Arizona St, Utah, Colorado
East: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St

Division example: ACC + Notre Dame, West Virginia. Two groups of historical rivals.
Atlantic: Notre Dame, Miami, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Boston College
Coastal: Florida St, Georgia Tech, Clemson, North Carolina, North Carolina St, Duke, Wake Forest, Virginia

Delineated example: SEC + any two schools. Geographical or historic division will cause unhappiness among members who may prefer to regularly play schools it wouldn’t necessarily be associated with.
Alabama might prefer Auburn who might prefer Georgia who might prefer Florida who might prefer LSU who might prefer Arkansas who might prefer Texas A&M...you can’t make the majority happy

(05-27-2018 07:27 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-27-2018 06:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-27-2018 01:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-26-2018 08:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-26-2018 08:03 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Almost everything about the expansion of the WAC to 16 schools was weird and ill-advised. There might not be any "lesson" to be learned from such a weird situation, but if there is one it would be that none of today's G5 conferences can get to a P5 revenue level by just expanding. 16 teams didn't work for the WAC then, and it wouldn't work for the AAC or MWC or any other G5 conference today, as Craig Thompson said in that article.

At least they left us a good rule for moving to 16. Rotating half divisions solve a lot of scheduling issues and would work if the conference footprint is reasonably compact.

As the Utah president said, he couldn't figure it out and he came from the U of Michigan.

For the fans, KISS, KISS, KISS.

Rotating divisions is the anti-thesis of that. For 16 to work, it really needs to be two 8 team leagues put together. That can't happen with the Big 10 and SEC. Each has 10 teams that have been together for over half a century, many over a century.

The SEC schools can easily expand to 16. They just need to bring in a pair of old buddies for A&M, Arkansas, and Missouri. And the half division rotations will keep fresh and stable on the home schedule menu. It was only a logistical problem for the WAC Bullet.

I remember Roy Kramer saying if the WAC had given it a little more time he thought they would have eventually been included in the BCS. I think they were on to something and just didn't know it at the time...

The issue was really 4 time zones and travel for the non revenue sports.

Let's say Kansas and Oklahoma joined either the SEC or Big 10. The travel wouldn't be that great for the away half divisions.

In the SEC they would likely be paired with A&M and Missouri

So:
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State

Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M

Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina

Every third year Kansas & Oklahoma would be playing 7 games against schools relatively close to home and if they had a permanent rival that would be 8 conference games. 4 of the away games on that year would be reasonable travel. In the two years they play the other half divisions 2 of the 4 away games would bring longer travel. Those who can afford to do that would probably be about the average travel crowd of any SEC school 10 to 15 thousand on the upper end and 5 to 7 thousand on the lower end. They would still have 4 protected games with which to schedule 00C games. So they pick up two P5 games home and home and two lower tier games which are home only. This guarantees 7 home games. The fans get to see a variety of top schools, get the annual home opening rent a kill and a homecoming rent a kill game and get two prime 00C games a year one at home.

It's not only very doable it is downright practical.

So the RRR could still be played for OU and OSU could still be on the slate.

The only real thing that changes outside of keeping their 00C rivals and selecting a permanent in conference one is the selection of other conference games to be played. And there having Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, Auburn, Alabama, and South Carolina rotate through along with Missouri, Arkansas, L.S.U. and the Mississippi schools would be a site better than Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas State, Texas Tech, and T.C.U.

It was only as big as it was was because Hawaii was in the conference.

16 teams can totally work and once the big boys do it they can make whatever rules they want to make sure it works. If that means four 4 team pods or two 2 team divisions.

(05-27-2018 08:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-27-2018 07:27 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-27-2018 06:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-27-2018 01:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-26-2018 08:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  At least they left us a good rule for moving to 16. Rotating half divisions solve a lot of scheduling issues and would work if the conference footprint is reasonably compact.

As the Utah president said, he couldn't figure it out and he came from the U of Michigan.

For the fans, KISS, KISS, KISS.

Rotating divisions is the anti-thesis of that. For 16 to work, it really needs to be two 8 team leagues put together. That can't happen with the Big 10 and SEC. Each has 10 teams that have been together for over half a century, many over a century.

The SEC schools can easily expand to 16. They just need to bring in a pair of old buddies for A&M, Arkansas, and Missouri. And the half division rotations will keep fresh and stable on the home schedule menu. It was only a logistical problem for the WAC Bullet.

I remember Roy Kramer saying if the WAC had given it a little more time he thought they would have eventually been included in the BCS. I think they were on to something and just didn't know it at the time...

The issue was really 4 time zones and travel for the non revenue sports.

Let's say Kansas and Oklahoma joined either the SEC or Big 10. The travel wouldn't be that great for the away half divisions.

In the SEC they would likely be paired with A&M and Missouri

So:
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State

Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M

Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina

Every third year Kansas & Oklahoma would be playing 7 games against schools relatively close to home and if they had a permanent rival that would be 8 conference games. 4 of the away games on that year would be reasonable travel. In the two years they play the other half divisions 2 of the 4 away games would bring longer travel. Those who can afford to do that would probably be about the average travel crowd of any SEC school 10 to 15 thousand on the upper end and 5 to 7 thousand on the lower end. They would still have 4 protected games with which to schedule 00C games. So they pick up two P5 games home and home and two lower tier games which are home only. This guarantees 7 home games. The fans get to see a variety of top schools, get the annual home opening rent a kill and a homecoming rent a kill game and get two prime 00C games a year one at home.

It's not only very doable it is downright practical.

So the RRR could still be played for OU and OSU could still be on the slate.

The only real thing that changes outside of keeping their 00C rivals and selecting a permanent in conference one is the selection of other conference games to be played. And there having Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, Auburn, Alabama, and South Carolina rotate through along with Missouri, Arkansas, L.S.U. and the Mississippi schools would be a site better than Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas State, Texas Tech, and T.C.U.

This exact setup (with the possibility of ok state instead of Kansas) is what I think we’re likely to get in 5-6 year

(05-27-2018 08:00 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  16 could definitely work in pods, divisions, or no delineation. It depends on the conference members.

Division example: ACC + Notre Dame, West Virginia. Two groups of historical rivals.
Atlantic: Notre Dame, Miami, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Boston College
Coastal: Florida St, Georgia Tech, Clemson, North Carolina, North Carolina St, Duke, Wake Forest, Virginia

Switch Florida State and Virginia Tech.

(05-27-2018 10:11 AM)Steve1981 Wrote:  

(05-26-2018 08:02 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  The 16 team model can work. You just got to have the divisions right. SEC is pretty close to do it, Big Ten as well. PAC-16 would be close for the most part, the Arizona and Mountain schools would like to be with California but its close enough to work out. CUSA could work as 16 team conference how its set up now.

Personally think that would be a recipe for the eastern teams to split off. CUSA gets very little for being a 14 team conference. Rules change and at some point there is a risk that conference USA will continue to change.

Mike Hamrick actually proposed that while at ECU. He wanted CUSA to go to 16 so the league could eventually split.

If you are using divisions the interlocking is just too trivial to keep the league united.

You could take say 8 for AAC and 8 from MWC (or 9 each) and if the dollars worked, the league would work because the lack of interlocking would be a feature rather than a bug. For the SEC that scenario would be tougher to sell when you start breaking up traditional rivals.

(05-28-2018 12:53 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  You could take say 8 for AAC and 8 from MWC (or 9 each) and if the dollars worked, the league would work because the lack of interlocking would be a feature rather than a bug.

The only advantage would be jointly selling TV rights, if it was possible to get more per-school for the joint TV package than either league could get separately. Probably, if there was any per-school increase at all, it would come from leaving behind schools who are less valuable to TV -- as the Big 12 did when it formed, and as the MWC did when they split away from the other 8 WAC-16 members.

Getting only one autobid to playoffs in each NCAA sport would be an undesirable effect of combining into one large league.

(05-26-2018 04:10 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-26-2018 02:31 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  so wac 16 did work
CFB hierarcy wouldn't let it grow

Probably...it’s ironic that a conference with that solid lineup, Utah, BYU, TCU, Air Force, San Diego St etc wasn’t included in the country club but a conference with Rutgers, Temple, Pitt, BC, Syracuse was.... unfair, let’s be honest: The WAC got hosed.

What? Utah and SDSU had done nothing before the turn of the century. TCU was left out of the Big 8 merger for a reason.

The best thing the WAC had going for it was big markets and especially state flagships/land grants.

(05-26-2018 06:14 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  My preference on conference sizes the FBS has seen:

1) 12
2) 10
3) 16
4) Under 10
5) 11, 13, 15 (if we've seen those)
6) 14

14 is just such a weird number to me. It seems very incomplete.

8, 9 or 10. Round robin play, otherwise it's just a coalition of schools/scheduling alliance and not a conference.