Well, there's a good chance we're headed there one day...power schools playing nothing but power schools.

What would it look like?

Who might make the cut?

What sort of sacrifices would have to be made?

What would the money look like?

We've talked about all this before in varying contexts, but I want to propose a couple of ideas that I'm not sure we've really fleshed out.

The Financial Side:

With a Power-only schedule, you'd have to go to 6 home games. No more 7 or 8 games for the schools that can afford to bring in a patsy.

There's some good and bad to that. The bad is that you'd have fewer home games to collect revenue. The good is that you wouldn't have to cut a check to a visiting team. I want to focus on that last part for a moment.

A lot of the cupcakes these days are demanding higher and higher fees. It's worth it to some schools because they get a guaranteed win and they'll just "share" some of their pot from the game being played. The check to the cupcake is a part of the cost of doing business, if you will. At the same time, ticket prices must necessarily be a little cheaper because there's less demand to watch a cupcake than a conference opponent.

Additionally, networks aren't going to pay as much for these games because they will have smaller audiences anyway. That and as far as negotiations go, these sorts of games are pooled as part of your 3rd Tier package so they're disadvantaged from a revenue standpoint before the game is ever scheduled.

Might I suggest that it might actually be more economical to invite a small number of cupcake squads up to the Power level. Why?

1. The more conference games you play, the larger the amount will be for your 1st and 2nd tier rights. You wouldn't play as many cupcakes under that model as a team does now(2-3 a season) so you really wouldn't be dumbing down the level of competition so the networks shouldn't care too much.

2. We've discussed before that having a few sacrificial lambs in the fold could help with giving teams a break physically along with inflating some schools' records and leading to happier fans. Happy fans are fans that donate.

3. Financially speaking, a school wouldn't have to cut a special check to a non-conference school(certainly not 2 or 3 of them). They wouldn't have to reduce their ticket prices when the occasional weaker conference member comes to town either. In addition, creating more scarcity with the remaining number of home games should allow for slightly higher prices for those games.

4. It's true that you'd have to pay a premium share to any full member, but considering these ancillary benefits, that might actually be a little cheaper to put more of the burden on the networks to pay for those games rather than pooling non-conference games in with a 3rd tier package. In effect, you wouldn't have 3rd tier football games anymore. That tier of content would be reserved for basketball and other sports. At the very least, it could be revenue neutral with other tangible benefits to make it worth our while. I'm spitballing here, don't know that for a fact.

5. We've also discussed before that the cupcake schools could be scheduled for preseason match-ups. This should be mostly FCS squads and lower-tier G5 squads so that the exertion level isn't too great, but this would be a way to generate ticket sales/TV ratings during a portion of the year where everyone is starved for football. There are a lot of benefits to that strategy, but a shift that allows a full slate of mostly quality games during the season is really what helps on the back end.

All in all, this is why I think adding a small number of schools that have committed to major athletics while never being super successful could be a net gain. Sure, the networks will want as many Alabama/Oklahoma or Florida/Texas or Auburn/Clemson games as they can get, and they'll still be gaining a great deal of inventory they'd find optimal. Shifting a few lesser games to entities like the SEC Network and ACC Network won't damage the value. It will provide a little more stability though as far as player safety, fan interest, and simplifying the economics.

Basically, if you're going to be limited to 6 true home games then I think a strategy that takes these priorities into account is more likely to get the approval of administrators that don't like big changes and don't tend to understand the business side of this as well. That and they could probably associate a little more with some premier academic schools and that will make them feel better.

BTW, I'm thinking in terms of roughly 20 team leagues here because 18 is a little awkward to divide up. In truth, 16 is optimal, but we may have to go bigger for political reasons.

You make a few quality additions and then basically a couple of lesser programs just to balance the schedule a little better.

Let's say we were raiding the Big 12. Would we take 6 schools from that league when no more than 2 or 3 could really contribute towards a better lineup? We need the better lineup and the money that comes with it, but if we're going to add schools that balance numbers then perhaps we should think in terms of ancillary benefits rather than expecting a certain school to meet the standard criteria.

Kansas could be a good addition here all the way around because the odds of their program becoming truly competitive are low. They could serve the role of a cupcake while also adding financially in other areas.

(11-16-2018 03:07 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  BTW, I'm thinking in terms of roughly 20 team leagues here because 18 is a little awkward to divide up. In truth, 16 is optimal, but we may have to go bigger for political reasons.

You make a few quality additions and then basically a couple of lesser programs just to balance the schedule a little better.

Let's say we were raiding the Big 12. Would we take 6 schools from that league when no more than 2 or 3 could really contribute towards a better lineup? We need the better lineup and the money that comes with it, but if we're going to add schools that balance numbers then perhaps we should think in terms of ancillary benefits rather than expecting a certain school to meet the standard criteria.

Kansas could be a good addition here all the way around because the odds of their program becoming truly competitive are low. They could serve the role of a cupcake while also adding financially in other areas.

Okay, but let's stretch this just a tad, to 24. I think at 24 you can accomplish the same ends and have those conference semis that make sense financially.

But let's start with the beginning of the season. Let's adopt Dabo's idea and move the Spring game to the 2nd week of August and play it at home against a local FCS or G5 school to be that 7th season ticket that our A.D.'s like. Fall practice would begin on the 5th of July and there would be two weeks to work out the kinks after the preseason game before the season opener. All remaining games would be P games.

So here's the concept using the SEC as an example. For cupcakes we don't think in terms of regular cupcakes but in terms of schools that add cachet in a sport other than football. I submit Kansas, Duke, North Carolina, and Virginia as four such schools. Now let's add some mid tier meat with recognizable names for the middle. I submit Virginia Tech, N.C. State, and Georgia Tech. Now for some branding and contenders. I submit Florida State, Oklahoma, and Clemson.

Here the SEC:

East:
Kentucky, North Carolina, N.C. State, Tennessee, Virginia, Virginia Tech


Southeast:
Auburn, Clemson, Duke, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi

South:
Alabama, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Mississippi State, South Carolina, Vanderbilt

Southwest:
Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M

Now each division has what is now an annual challenger: It's just that the East has it in hoops power where the following is the strongest:
East: Kentucky/North Carolina (Hoops)
SE: Clemson/Georgia (Football)
South: Alabama/Florida State (Football)
SW: L.S.U./Oklahoma (Football)

Each has mid tier contenders capable of making a run:
East: Virginia/Tennessee (Hoops)
SE: Auburn/Florida (Football)
South: Miss St/Georgia Tech/South Carolina
SW: Missouri/Texas A&M and possibly Arkansas.

You play 5 divisional games, 2 rotating schools from the other divisions and 1 permanent rival for 12 conference games. That way you play everyone every three years and play 6 schools every year.

Duke/UNC, Ala/Aub, Ga/GaTech, Clem/U.S.C., Vandy/UT, Fla/FSU, Ole Miss/Miss St. and the rest will work out just fine. Yes everyone gives up a past 2nd rival but it's not like you won't see them once during every 4 years or perhaps in the semis.

Alabama could open with Troy and Auburn could open with U.A.B. ditto for the other states.

1 preseason game, 12 conference games, 2 games for the Champion and runner up.

The Big 10 does the same thing and a 3rd conference formed out of the remnants and the best of the G5 does the same thing.

The CFP would be 3 champs and one at large. The only thing the committee would pick is the at large but the formula for doing so would be set.

Now you have 12 premium games for the networks who add the mid month August preseason game to their inventory and the conference semi finals.

I think that would be a bonanza for the conferences. And I like that the fact that there are only regional conference games and no crossovers because it carries a mystery into the playoffs that will help spike interest in those games.

So the only money the conferences share would be the CFP.

Big 10:
East:
Ohio State, Maryland, Notre Dame, Penn State, Rutgers

North:
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue

Midwest:
Arizona, Colorado, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Wisconsin

West:
California, Cal Los Angeles, Oregon, Stanford, Southern Cal, Washington

New Conference:
East:
Boston College, Cincinnati, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

Southeast:
Central Florida, East Carolina, Memphis, Miami, South Florida, Wake Forest

Southwest:
Baylor, Houston, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Christian

West:
Arizona State, Brigham Young, Oregon State, Utah, Washington State, Texas Tech

I’m fine with only six home games if it means it’s 6 interesting Power Five opponents

(11-17-2018 09:58 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  I’m fine with only six home games if it means it’s 6 interesting Power Five opponents

^^^ THIS ^^^

What fan wouldn't trade 2 FCS/G5 type games for 1 more P5 game? In a heartbeat! The money won't be impacted as much as you think, because everything - the price of the tickets, parking, concessions, souvenirs - will simply go up by 1/6th to compensate.

6 X (1+1/6) = 7

I’d be happy as a season ticket holder since some of my tickets wouldn’t be a total waste of time.

But, I’m not sure I’d be big on the harder path to a championship.

(11-18-2018 06:42 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I’d be happy as a season ticket holder since some of my tickets wouldn’t be a total waste of time.

But, I’m not sure I’d be big on the harder path to a championship.

It wouldn't be harder because the premise was all power leagues would be doing it.

(11-20-2018 02:12 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(11-18-2018 06:42 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I’d be happy as a season ticket holder since some of my tickets wouldn’t be a total waste of time.

But, I’m not sure I’d be big on the harder path to a championship.

It wouldn't be harder because the premise was all power leagues would be doing it.

There would be a lot more P5 teams with losing records every year. Coaches would hate it, but that might be a good thing - get rid of the inept coaches faster! I think most fans would love it.

(11-22-2018 09:02 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 02:12 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(11-18-2018 06:42 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I’d be happy as a season ticket holder since some of my tickets wouldn’t be a total waste of time.

But, I’m not sure I’d be big on the harder path to a championship.

It wouldn't be harder because the premise was all power leagues would be doing it.

There would be a lot more P5 teams with losing records every year. Coaches would hate it, but that might be a good thing - get rid of the inept coaches faster! I think most fans would love it.

I think there's probably a balance in there somewhere. Maybe make a 10 P5 requirement across the board or even 11. I could live with that.

(11-22-2018 09:02 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 02:12 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(11-18-2018 06:42 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I’d be happy as a season ticket holder since some of my tickets wouldn’t be a total waste of time.

But, I’m not sure I’d be big on the harder path to a championship.

It wouldn't be harder because the premise was all power leagues would be doing it.

There would be a lot more P5 teams with losing records every year. Coaches would hate it, but that might be a good thing - get rid of the inept coaches faster! I think most fans would love it.

This is significant. College football would look more like the NFL in terms of what constitutes a good win-loss record. Perceptions would need to re-calibrate. An 8-4 record might be today's 10-2.

(11-18-2018 06:18 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(11-17-2018 09:58 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  I’m fine with only six home games if it means it’s 6 interesting Power Five opponents

^^^ THIS ^^^

What fan wouldn't trade 2 FCS/G5 type games for 1 more P5 game? In a heartbeat! The money won't be impacted as much as you think, because everything - the price of the tickets, parking, concessions, souvenirs - will simply go up by 1/6th to compensate.

6 X (1+1/6) = 7

Also, my guess is the tv money would be better and could compensate for some of the loss. Also, a true expanded playoff instead of the bowls would create more money.

I think the smart way to do this is instead of trying to create leagues that are much stronger than the others or forget portions of the country and keeps the sport national but maintains regional rivalries with a true playoff is an equal P4 or P2. While the P3 can create three equal leagues but we are probably back to the same playoff problems unless each conference got the same number of playoff participants and any additional spot gets rotated among the 3 leagues in the case of a 16 team playoff, but a 24 team playoff among a P3 of 72 actually works well.

But lets look at a P2 where the B1G anchors one conference and the SEC the other and nobody is left out so there shouldn't be very many big hurdles to overcome. Lets try to balance brands, recruiting areas and traditional rivalries. maybe a 10 game conference schedule and 2 OOC against the other conference. I wouldn't keep divisions within the conference but instead would lock 5 games and schedule 5 other games on varying rotating basis. Some teams play 2 out of 4 years, some 2 out of 6 and maybe even 2 out of 8 or some might not play at all because the matchups really are not that important and maintain a single set of standings(which I think is the best for every league because it allows flexibility and a better chance at getting the best 8 to 10 teams in each league for the conference playoffs).
P2 with 68 teams

League 1
B1G(minus Neb.): Mich., OSU, PSU, MSU, Maryland, Rutgers, Indiana, Wisky, Iowa, Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue, Minnesota (13 teams)
Pac 12(minus Az & ASU) USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal, Wash., WSU, Oregon, OSU, Utah, Colorado (10 teams)
Plus: NC, Duke, Va, ND, Syr. BC, Pitt, FSU, GA. Tech, , Miami, Va. Tech

League 2
SEC: The current SEC intact (14 teams): Florida, Ga., Ky., SC, Missouri, Vandy UT
Alabama, Auburn, A&M, LSU, ole Miss, MSU, Ark.
B1G 12 plus Nebraska (11 teams) : UT, OU, Neb., TT, OSU, TCU, Baylor, KS, ISU, KSU, WVU
Plus(9 teams): NC St., Clemson, Louisville, WF, BYU, AZ, ASU, UCF, Cincy

Some would say FSU & Miami should go in the SEC but the conference but if the B1G division gave up access to Texas so representation in Florida helps balance that out. Nobody has probably equated Az & ASU with SEC teams but by the SEC league adding the B12 & Neb. it works and it helps incorporate BYU as a deserving program into a league.

(11-27-2018 05:19 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  I think the smart way to do this is instead of trying to create leagues that are much stronger than the others or forget portions of the country and keeps the sport national but maintains regional rivalries with a true playoff is an equal P4 or P2. While the P3 can create three equal leagues but we are probably back to the same playoff problems unless each conference got the same number of playoff participants and any additional spot gets rotated among the 3 leagues in the case of a 16 team playoff, but a 24 team playoff among a P3 of 72 actually works well.

But lets look at a P2 where the B1G anchors one conference and the SEC the other and nobody is left out so there shouldn't be very many big hurdles to overcome. Lets try to balance brands, recruiting areas and traditional rivalries. maybe a 10 game conference schedule and 2 OOC against the other conference. I wouldn't keep divisions within the conference but instead would lock 5 games and schedule 5 other games on varying rotating basis. Some teams play 2 out of 4 years, some 2 out of 6 and maybe even 2 out of 8 or some might not play at all because the matchups really are not that important and maintain a single set of standings(which I think is the best for every league because it allows flexibility and a better chance at getting the best 8 to 10 teams in each league for the conference playoffs).
P2 with 68 teams

League 1
B1G(minus Neb.): Mich., OSU, PSU, MSU, Maryland, Rutgers, Indiana, Wisky, Iowa, Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue, Minnesota (13 teams)
Pac 12(minus Az & ASU) USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal, Wash., WSU, Oregon, OSU, Utah, Colorado (10 teams)
Plus: NC, Duke, Va, ND, Syr. BC, Pitt, FSU, GA. Tech, , Miami, Va. Tech

League 2
SEC: The current SEC intact (14 teams): Florida, Ga., Ky., SC, Missouri, Vandy UT
Alabama, Auburn, A&M, LSU, ole Miss, MSU, Ark.
B1G 12 plus Nebraska (11 teams) : UT, OU, Neb., TT, OSU, TCU, Baylor, KS, ISU, KSU, WVU
Plus(9 teams): NC St., Clemson, Louisville, WF, BYU, AZ, ASU, UCF, Cincy

Some would say FSU & Miami should go in the SEC but the conference but if the B1G division gave up access to Texas so representation in Florida helps balance that out. Nobody has probably equated Az & ASU with SEC teams but by the SEC league adding the B12 & Neb. it works and it helps incorporate BYU as a deserving program into a league.

Screw That! The market will decide along with the schools themselves.

If it happens there will be consolidation to roughly 48 schools. The P3 concept is really a P2 plus a buffer conference. The playoff scenario is quite easy. 3 champs and a best at large selected with a rigid pre set criteria.

The Big 10 and SEC don't profit by adding schools that can't or won't pull their weight.

I don't think the Big 10 would want more than Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, Notre Dame and Syracuse from the ACC. That puts them at 19. Drop Nebraska and six from the PAC: Oregon, Washington, California, Cal Los Angeles, Stanford and Southern Cal.

The SEC picks up Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech and maybe N.C. State. We are at 18.
We add Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, and Iowa State.

Now what do you have?

Big 10:

East: Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Syracuse, Virginia
Northeast: Illinois, Indiana, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers
Northwest: Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin
West: California, Cal Los Angeles, Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington

SEC:
East: Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, South Carolina
North: Alabama, Kentucky, N.C. State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech
South: Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas, Texas A&M (Hybrid SWC / SEC West)
West: Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma (Core Old Big 8)

The Buffer Conference:
Northeast: Boston College, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Louisville, Pittsburgh, West Virginia (Old Big East)
Southeast: Central Florida, East Carolina, Georgia Tech, Miami, South Florida, Wake Forest (Southeast Tweeners & Privates)
Southwest: Baylor, Houston, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, T.C.U., Texas Tech (Southwest Tweeners & Privates)
West: Arizona, Arizona State, Brigham Young, Oregon State, Utah, Washington State (PAC schools plus B.Y.U.)

Three Champs are automatically in the CFP. One at large school selected annually to play against the #1 seed in the opening round.

(11-27-2018 05:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 05:19 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  I think the smart way to do this is instead of trying to create leagues that are much stronger than the others or forget portions of the country and keeps the sport national but maintains regional rivalries with a true playoff is an equal P4 or P2. While the P3 can create three equal leagues but we are probably back to the same playoff problems unless each conference got the same number of playoff participants and any additional spot gets rotated among the 3 leagues in the case of a 16 team playoff, but a 24 team playoff among a P3 of 72 actually works well.

But lets look at a P2 where the B1G anchors one conference and the SEC the other and nobody is left out so there shouldn't be very many big hurdles to overcome. Lets try to balance brands, recruiting areas and traditional rivalries. maybe a 10 game conference schedule and 2 OOC against the other conference. I wouldn't keep divisions within the conference but instead would lock 5 games and schedule 5 other games on varying rotating basis. Some teams play 2 out of 4 years, some 2 out of 6 and maybe even 2 out of 8 or some might not play at all because the matchups really are not that important and maintain a single set of standings(which I think is the best for every league because it allows flexibility and a better chance at getting the best 8 to 10 teams in each league for the conference playoffs).
P2 with 68 teams

League 1
B1G(minus Neb.): Mich., OSU, PSU, MSU, Maryland, Rutgers, Indiana, Wisky, Iowa, Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue, Minnesota (13 teams)
Pac 12(minus Az & ASU) USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal, Wash., WSU, Oregon, OSU, Utah, Colorado (10 teams)
Plus: NC, Duke, Va, ND, Syr. BC, Pitt, FSU, GA. Tech, , Miami, Va. Tech

League 2
SEC: The current SEC intact (14 teams): Florida, Ga., Ky., SC, Missouri, Vandy UT
Alabama, Auburn, A&M, LSU, ole Miss, MSU, Ark.
B1G 12 plus Nebraska (11 teams) : UT, OU, Neb., TT, OSU, TCU, Baylor, KS, ISU, KSU, WVU
Plus(9 teams): NC St., Clemson, Louisville, WF, BYU, AZ, ASU, UCF, Cincy

Some would say FSU & Miami should go in the SEC but the conference but if the B1G division gave up access to Texas so representation in Florida helps balance that out. Nobody has probably equated Az & ASU with SEC teams but by the SEC league adding the B12 & Neb. it works and it helps incorporate BYU as a deserving program into a league.

Screw That! The market will decide along with the schools themselves.

I think your focusing on one portion. In this scenario the B1G takes on the baggage of the PAC although there is some traditional rivalry there but the West generally has less viewers. While the SEC got the two largest modern day blue bloods of the expansion in Texas & OU and restores some pretty big regional rivalry games OU vs Neb and UT vs A&M and also Ark. As well as adding Clemson. While the B1G took the declining blue bloods in USC & ND(which I'm not sure I would call a blue blood anymore).

So yes the secondary product you highlighted gave advantage B1G but I think the football product of the southwest/B12 country is better than what the B1G received in the ACC coastal states.

If its simply decided by the market and a free for all I'm not positive the B1G with the way academic presidents think couldn't pull in the best of the PAC the desired ACC coastal and UT & OU, keep Neb. and I'm not sure you would want that.

BTW, I was hoping this would get to a point where both leagues were equal and could negotiate as one body and its not a revenue/brand race in the future.

(11-27-2018 05:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 05:19 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  I think the smart way to do this is instead of trying to create leagues that are much stronger than the others or forget portions of the country and keeps the sport national but maintains regional rivalries with a true playoff is an equal P4 or P2. While the P3 can create three equal leagues but we are probably back to the same playoff problems unless each conference got the same number of playoff participants and any additional spot gets rotated among the 3 leagues in the case of a 16 team playoff, but a 24 team playoff among a P3 of 72 actually works well.

But lets look at a P2 where the B1G anchors one conference and the SEC the other and nobody is left out so there shouldn't be very many big hurdles to overcome. Lets try to balance brands, recruiting areas and traditional rivalries. maybe a 10 game conference schedule and 2 OOC against the other conference. I wouldn't keep divisions within the conference but instead would lock 5 games and schedule 5 other games on varying rotating basis. Some teams play 2 out of 4 years, some 2 out of 6 and maybe even 2 out of 8 or some might not play at all because the matchups really are not that important and maintain a single set of standings(which I think is the best for every league because it allows flexibility and a better chance at getting the best 8 to 10 teams in each league for the conference playoffs).
P2 with 68 teams

League 1
B1G(minus Neb.): Mich., OSU, PSU, MSU, Maryland, Rutgers, Indiana, Wisky, Iowa, Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue, Minnesota (13 teams)
Pac 12(minus Az & ASU) USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal, Wash., WSU, Oregon, OSU, Utah, Colorado (10 teams)
Plus: NC, Duke, Va, ND, Syr. BC, Pitt, FSU, GA. Tech, , Miami, Va. Tech

League 2
SEC: The current SEC intact (14 teams): Florida, Ga., Ky., SC, Missouri, Vandy UT
Alabama, Auburn, A&M, LSU, ole Miss, MSU, Ark.
B1G 12 plus Nebraska (11 teams) : UT, OU, Neb., TT, OSU, TCU, Baylor, KS, ISU, KSU, WVU
Plus(9 teams): NC St., Clemson, Louisville, WF, BYU, AZ, ASU, UCF, Cincy

Some would say FSU & Miami should go in the SEC but the conference but if the B1G division gave up access to Texas so representation in Florida helps balance that out. Nobody has probably equated Az & ASU with SEC teams but by the SEC league adding the B12 & Neb. it works and it helps incorporate BYU as a deserving program into a league.

Screw That! The market will decide along with the schools themselves.

If it happens there will be consolidation to roughly 48 schools. The P3 concept is really a P2 plus a buffer conference. The playoff scenario is quite easy. 3 champs and a best at large selected with a rigid pre set criteria.

The Big 10 and SEC don't profit by adding schools that can't or won't pull their weight.

I don't think the Big 10 would want more than Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, Notre Dame and Syracuse from the ACC. That puts them at 19. Drop Nebraska and six from the PAC: Oregon, Washington, California, Cal Los Angeles, Stanford and Southern Cal.

The SEC picks up Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech and maybe N.C. State. We are at 18.
We add Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, and Iowa State.

Now what do you have?

Big 10:

East: Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Syracuse, Virginia
Northeast: Illinois, Indiana, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers
Northwest: Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin
West: California, Cal Los Angeles, Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington

SEC:
East: Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, South Carolina
North: Alabama, Kentucky, N.C. State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech
South: Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas, Texas A&M (Hybrid SWC / SEC West)
West: Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma (Core Old Big 8)

The Buffer Conference:
Northeast: Boston College, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Louisville, Pittsburgh, West Virginia (Old Big East)
Southeast: Central Florida, East Carolina, Georgia Tech, Miami, South Florida, Wake Forest (Southeast Tweeners & Privates)
Southwest: Baylor, Houston, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, T.C.U., Texas Tech (Southwest Tweeners & Privates)
West: Arizona, Arizona State, Brigham Young, Oregon State, Utah, Washington State (PAC schools plus B.Y.U.)

Three Champs are automatically in the CFP. One at large school selected annually to play against the #1 seed in the opening round.

I like those leauges for matchups quite a bit but I am not a big fan of creating a 3rd league that is a doormat to the other 2 and leaving us with a playoff committee choice again with ONLY 4 teams. Its one thing to be picking at large teams with a large playoff field but not picking one team, that's whats wrong with CFB.

I still like the P2 I had better than an unequal P3. If your going to do a P3 make them equal leagues of 24 and say the top 8 from each conference makes the playoffs(no conference playoffs).

(11-27-2018 05:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 05:19 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  I think the smart way to do this is instead of trying to create leagues that are much stronger than the others or forget portions of the country and keeps the sport national but maintains regional rivalries with a true playoff is an equal P4 or P2. While the P3 can create three equal leagues but we are probably back to the same playoff problems unless each conference got the same number of playoff participants and any additional spot gets rotated among the 3 leagues in the case of a 16 team playoff, but a 24 team playoff among a P3 of 72 actually works well.

But lets look at a P2 where the B1G anchors one conference and the SEC the other and nobody is left out so there shouldn't be very many big hurdles to overcome. Lets try to balance brands, recruiting areas and traditional rivalries. maybe a 10 game conference schedule and 2 OOC against the other conference. I wouldn't keep divisions within the conference but instead would lock 5 games and schedule 5 other games on varying rotating basis. Some teams play 2 out of 4 years, some 2 out of 6 and maybe even 2 out of 8 or some might not play at all because the matchups really are not that important and maintain a single set of standings(which I think is the best for every league because it allows flexibility and a better chance at getting the best 8 to 10 teams in each league for the conference playoffs).
P2 with 68 teams

League 1
B1G(minus Neb.): Mich., OSU, PSU, MSU, Maryland, Rutgers, Indiana, Wisky, Iowa, Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue, Minnesota (13 teams)
Pac 12(minus Az & ASU) USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal, Wash., WSU, Oregon, OSU, Utah, Colorado (10 teams)
Plus: NC, Duke, Va, ND, Syr. BC, Pitt, FSU, GA. Tech, , Miami, Va. Tech

League 2
SEC: The current SEC intact (14 teams): Florida, Ga., Ky., SC, Missouri, Vandy UT
Alabama, Auburn, A&M, LSU, ole Miss, MSU, Ark.
B1G 12 plus Nebraska (11 teams) : UT, OU, Neb., TT, OSU, TCU, Baylor, KS, ISU, KSU, WVU
Plus(9 teams): NC St., Clemson, Louisville, WF, BYU, AZ, ASU, UCF, Cincy

Some would say FSU & Miami should go in the SEC but the conference but if the B1G division gave up access to Texas so representation in Florida helps balance that out. Nobody has probably equated Az & ASU with SEC teams but by the SEC league adding the B12 & Neb. it works and it helps incorporate BYU as a deserving program into a league.

Screw That! The market will decide along with the schools themselves.

If it happens there will be consolidation to roughly 48 schools. The P3 concept is really a P2 plus a buffer conference. The playoff scenario is quite easy. 3 champs and a best at large selected with a rigid pre set criteria.

The Big 10 and SEC don't profit by adding schools that can't or won't pull their weight.

I don't think the Big 10 would want more than Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, Notre Dame and Syracuse from the ACC. That puts them at 19. Drop Nebraska and six from the PAC: Oregon, Washington, California, Cal Los Angeles, Stanford and Southern Cal.

The SEC picks up Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech and maybe N.C. State. We are at 18.
We add Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, and Iowa State.

Now what do you have?

Big 10:

East: Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Syracuse, Virginia
Northeast: Illinois, Indiana, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers
Northwest: Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin
West: California, Cal Los Angeles, Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington

SEC:
East: Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, South Carolina
North: Alabama, Kentucky, N.C. State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech
South: Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas, Texas A&M (Hybrid SWC / SEC West)
West: Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma (Core Old Big 8)

The Buffer Conference:
Northeast: Boston College, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Louisville, Pittsburgh, West Virginia (Old Big East)
Southeast: Central Florida, East Carolina, Georgia Tech, Miami, South Florida, Wake Forest (Southeast Tweeners & Privates)
Southwest: Baylor, Houston, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, T.C.U., Texas Tech (Southwest Tweeners & Privates)
West: Arizona, Arizona State, Brigham Young, Oregon State, Utah, Washington State (PAC schools plus B.Y.U.)

Three Champs are automatically in the CFP. One at large school selected annually to play against the #1 seed in the opening round.

I like those leauges for matchups quite a bit but I am not a big fan of creating a 3rd league that is a doormat to the other 2 and leaving us with a playoff committee choice again with ONLY 4 teams. Its one thing to be picking at large teams with a large playoff field but not picking one team, that's whats wrong with CFB.

I still like the P2 I had better than an unequal P3. If your going to do a P3 make them equal leagues of 24 and say the top 8 from each conference makes the playoffs(no conference playoffs).

(11-27-2018 06:03 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 05:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 05:19 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  I think the smart way to do this is instead of trying to create leagues that are much stronger than the others or forget portions of the country and keeps the sport national but maintains regional rivalries with a true playoff is an equal P4 or P2. While the P3 can create three equal leagues but we are probably back to the same playoff problems unless each conference got the same number of playoff participants and any additional spot gets rotated among the 3 leagues in the case of a 16 team playoff, but a 24 team playoff among a P3 of 72 actually works well.

But lets look at a P2 where the B1G anchors one conference and the SEC the other and nobody is left out so there shouldn't be very many big hurdles to overcome. Lets try to balance brands, recruiting areas and traditional rivalries. maybe a 10 game conference schedule and 2 OOC against the other conference. I wouldn't keep divisions within the conference but instead would lock 5 games and schedule 5 other games on varying rotating basis. Some teams play 2 out of 4 years, some 2 out of 6 and maybe even 2 out of 8 or some might not play at all because the matchups really are not that important and maintain a single set of standings(which I think is the best for every league because it allows flexibility and a better chance at getting the best 8 to 10 teams in each league for the conference playoffs).
P2 with 68 teams

League 1
B1G(minus Neb.): Mich., OSU, PSU, MSU, Maryland, Rutgers, Indiana, Wisky, Iowa, Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue, Minnesota (13 teams)
Pac 12(minus Az & ASU) USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal, Wash., WSU, Oregon, OSU, Utah, Colorado (10 teams)
Plus: NC, Duke, Va, ND, Syr. BC, Pitt, FSU, GA. Tech, , Miami, Va. Tech

League 2
SEC: The current SEC intact (14 teams): Florida, Ga., Ky., SC, Missouri, Vandy UT
Alabama, Auburn, A&M, LSU, ole Miss, MSU, Ark.
B1G 12 plus Nebraska (11 teams) : UT, OU, Neb., TT, OSU, TCU, Baylor, KS, ISU, KSU, WVU
Plus(9 teams): NC St., Clemson, Louisville, WF, BYU, AZ, ASU, UCF, Cincy

Some would say FSU & Miami should go in the SEC but the conference but if the B1G division gave up access to Texas so representation in Florida helps balance that out. Nobody has probably equated Az & ASU with SEC teams but by the SEC league adding the B12 & Neb. it works and it helps incorporate BYU as a deserving program into a league.

Screw That! The market will decide along with the schools themselves.

I think your focusing on one portion. In this scenario the B1G takes on the baggage of the PAC although there is some traditional rivalry there but the West generally has less viewers. While the SEC got the two largest modern day blue bloods of the expansion in Texas & OU and restores some pretty big regional rivalry games OU vs Neb and UT vs A&M and also Ark. As well as adding Clemson. While the B1G took the declining blue bloods in USC & ND(which I'm not sure I would call a blue blood anymore).

So yes the secondary product you highlighted gave advantage B1G but I think the football product of the southwest/B12 country is better than what the B1G received in the ACC coastal states.

If its simply decided by the market and a free for all I'm not positive the B1G with the way academic presidents think couldn't pull in the best of the PAC the desired ACC coastal and UT & OU, keep Neb. and I'm not sure you would want that.

BTW, I was hoping this would get to a point where both leagues were equal and could negotiate as one body and its not a revenue/brand race in the future.

You squeezed in Cincinnati and some other's that can't pay their way.

BTW: The Big 10 academic angle hasn't dictated realignment so far! Maryland and Rutgers? That's hardly North Carolina and Virginia. Oklahoma may be an academic sticking point for the Big 10. They only meet the MEAN of the SEC academically.

My point is that neither the Big 10 nor the SEC will add schools that don't add significantly to their conference in some way.

Notre Dame gives the Big 10 exclusivity in many of the Northern cities like Chicago, Indianapolis, Detroit, Cincinnati, and gives them a bigger presence in New England. Syracuse is that physical presence in New York that coupled with N.D. and Rutgers brings home some ratings.

North Carolina / Duke / and Virginia nail down the beltway and a large state and provide them with 3 hoops brands to multiply content they already enjoy.

The Cali 4 and UW and Oregon are all that the Big 10 needs from the West to make it happen.

Those adds are all profitable in one way or another.

For the SEC securing the academic enhancement that Texas, Kansas, Colorado, and Iowa State would bring gives them a very balanced old core of the Big 8 and makes for a very Texas friendly schedule in the Southwest. It reunites rivalries that have a value on their own.

Virginia Tech and N.C. State are reasonable market additions while Clemson and F.S.U. bring the content multiplication that the SEC enjoys.

There's no reason why the Big 10 and SEC can't work together. And by providing the buffer conference we avoid political issues by creating a pathway for the 2nd state schools of the Big 12 and PAC and the leftover ACC schools to play and we include B.Y.U. Cincinnati, UConn, and the Florida twins without having to foist them upon the Big 10 or SEC. So it protects the branding of the SEC and Big 10 while solving the political problems of state Flagships with regard to their 2nd state schools.

At that point whatever the SEC and Big 10 decided would be law and the new conference would go along.

(11-27-2018 06:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 06:03 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 05:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 05:19 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  I think the smart way to do this is instead of trying to create leagues that are much stronger than the others or forget portions of the country and keeps the sport national but maintains regional rivalries with a true playoff is an equal P4 or P2. While the P3 can create three equal leagues but we are probably back to the same playoff problems unless each conference got the same number of playoff participants and any additional spot gets rotated among the 3 leagues in the case of a 16 team playoff, but a 24 team playoff among a P3 of 72 actually works well.

But lets look at a P2 where the B1G anchors one conference and the SEC the other and nobody is left out so there shouldn't be very many big hurdles to overcome. Lets try to balance brands, recruiting areas and traditional rivalries. maybe a 10 game conference schedule and 2 OOC against the other conference. I wouldn't keep divisions within the conference but instead would lock 5 games and schedule 5 other games on varying rotating basis. Some teams play 2 out of 4 years, some 2 out of 6 and maybe even 2 out of 8 or some might not play at all because the matchups really are not that important and maintain a single set of standings(which I think is the best for every league because it allows flexibility and a better chance at getting the best 8 to 10 teams in each league for the conference playoffs).
P2 with 68 teams

League 1
B1G(minus Neb.): Mich., OSU, PSU, MSU, Maryland, Rutgers, Indiana, Wisky, Iowa, Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue, Minnesota (13 teams)
Pac 12(minus Az & ASU) USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal, Wash., WSU, Oregon, OSU, Utah, Colorado (10 teams)
Plus: NC, Duke, Va, ND, Syr. BC, Pitt, FSU, GA. Tech, , Miami, Va. Tech

League 2
SEC: The current SEC intact (14 teams): Florida, Ga., Ky., SC, Missouri, Vandy UT
Alabama, Auburn, A&M, LSU, ole Miss, MSU, Ark.
B1G 12 plus Nebraska (11 teams) : UT, OU, Neb., TT, OSU, TCU, Baylor, KS, ISU, KSU, WVU
Plus(9 teams): NC St., Clemson, Louisville, WF, BYU, AZ, ASU, UCF, Cincy

Some would say FSU & Miami should go in the SEC but the conference but if the B1G division gave up access to Texas so representation in Florida helps balance that out. Nobody has probably equated Az & ASU with SEC teams but by the SEC league adding the B12 & Neb. it works and it helps incorporate BYU as a deserving program into a league.

Screw That! The market will decide along with the schools themselves.

I think your focusing on one portion. In this scenario the B1G takes on the baggage of the PAC although there is some traditional rivalry there but the West generally has less viewers. While the SEC got the two largest modern day blue bloods of the expansion in Texas & OU and restores some pretty big regional rivalry games OU vs Neb and UT vs A&M and also Ark. As well as adding Clemson. While the B1G took the declining blue bloods in USC & ND(which I'm not sure I would call a blue blood anymore).

So yes the secondary product you highlighted gave advantage B1G but I think the football product of the southwest/B12 country is better than what the B1G received in the ACC coastal states.

If its simply decided by the market and a free for all I'm not positive the B1G with the way academic presidents think couldn't pull in the best of the PAC the desired ACC coastal and UT & OU, keep Neb. and I'm not sure you would want that.

BTW, I was hoping this would get to a point where both leagues were equal and could negotiate as one body and its not a revenue/brand race in the future.

You squeezed in Cincinnati and some other's that can't pay their way.

BTW: The Big 10 academic angle hasn't dictated realignment so far! Maryland and Rutgers? That's hardly North Carolina and Virginia. Oklahoma may be an academic sticking point for the Big 10. They only meet the MEAN of the SEC academically.

My point is that neither the Big 10 nor the SEC will add schools that don't add significantly to their conference in some way.

Notre Dame gives the Big 10 exclusivity in many of the Northern cities like Chicago, Indianapolis, Detroit, Cincinnati, and gives them a bigger presence in New England. Syracuse is that physical presence in New York that coupled with N.D. and Rutgers brings home some ratings.

North Carolina / Duke / and Virginia nail down the beltway and a large state and provide them with 3 hoops brands to multiply content they already enjoy.

The Cali 4 and UW and Oregon are all that the Big 10 needs from the West to make it happen.

Those adds are all profitable in one way or another.

For the SEC securing the academic enhancement that Texas, Kansas, Colorado, and Iowa State would bring gives them a very balanced old core of the Big 8 and makes for a very Texas friendly schedule in the Southwest. It reunites rivalries that have a value on their own.

Virginia Tech and N.C. State are reasonable market additions while Clemson and F.S.U. bring the content multiplication that the SEC enjoys.

There's no reason why the Big 10 and SEC can't work together. And by providing the buffer conference we avoid political issues by creating a pathway for the 2nd state schools of the Big 12 and PAC and the leftover ACC schools to play and we include B.Y.U. Cincinnati, UConn, and the Florida twins without having to foist them upon the Big 10 or SEC. So it protects the branding of the SEC and Big 10 while solving the political problems of state Flagships with regard to their 2nd state schools.

At that point whatever the SEC and Big 10 decided would be law and the new conference would go along.

I was trying to be inclusive rather exclusive and didn't cut anyone from the current Power leagues although it was tempting to drop WSU, OSU, Baylor, WF and probably BC. I do think if the power leagues in CFB cut too many teams or creates too big of a disadvantage between leagues it may reduce its viewers its not as popular as the NFL. Throw int he way CFB tries to engineer outcomes with its playoffs, bowls and matchups and you risk losing overall market share for the sport in general.

I think I only added 3 schools BYU, Cincy & UCF to the current P65. I thought the growing Cincy market would fit in the current SEC. BYU probably deserves to be in a Power league with their attendance and following if leagues aren't biased towards them and UCF can be a better school/brand than quite a few teams in a short amount of time.

(11-27-2018 06:48 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 06:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 06:03 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 05:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 05:19 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  I think the smart way to do this is instead of trying to create leagues that are much stronger than the others or forget portions of the country and keeps the sport national but maintains regional rivalries with a true playoff is an equal P4 or P2. While the P3 can create three equal leagues but we are probably back to the same playoff problems unless each conference got the same number of playoff participants and any additional spot gets rotated among the 3 leagues in the case of a 16 team playoff, but a 24 team playoff among a P3 of 72 actually works well.

But lets look at a P2 where the B1G anchors one conference and the SEC the other and nobody is left out so there shouldn't be very many big hurdles to overcome. Lets try to balance brands, recruiting areas and traditional rivalries. maybe a 10 game conference schedule and 2 OOC against the other conference. I wouldn't keep divisions within the conference but instead would lock 5 games and schedule 5 other games on varying rotating basis. Some teams play 2 out of 4 years, some 2 out of 6 and maybe even 2 out of 8 or some might not play at all because the matchups really are not that important and maintain a single set of standings(which I think is the best for every league because it allows flexibility and a better chance at getting the best 8 to 10 teams in each league for the conference playoffs).
P2 with 68 teams

League 1
B1G(minus Neb.): Mich., OSU, PSU, MSU, Maryland, Rutgers, Indiana, Wisky, Iowa, Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue, Minnesota (13 teams)
Pac 12(minus Az & ASU) USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal, Wash., WSU, Oregon, OSU, Utah, Colorado (10 teams)
Plus: NC, Duke, Va, ND, Syr. BC, Pitt, FSU, GA. Tech, , Miami, Va. Tech

League 2
SEC: The current SEC intact (14 teams): Florida, Ga., Ky., SC, Missouri, Vandy UT
Alabama, Auburn, A&M, LSU, ole Miss, MSU, Ark.
B1G 12 plus Nebraska (11 teams) : UT, OU, Neb., TT, OSU, TCU, Baylor, KS, ISU, KSU, WVU
Plus(9 teams): NC St., Clemson, Louisville, WF, BYU, AZ, ASU, UCF, Cincy

Some would say FSU & Miami should go in the SEC but the conference but if the B1G division gave up access to Texas so representation in Florida helps balance that out. Nobody has probably equated Az & ASU with SEC teams but by the SEC league adding the B12 & Neb. it works and it helps incorporate BYU as a deserving program into a league.

Screw That! The market will decide along with the schools themselves.

I think your focusing on one portion. In this scenario the B1G takes on the baggage of the PAC although there is some traditional rivalry there but the West generally has less viewers. While the SEC got the two largest modern day blue bloods of the expansion in Texas & OU and restores some pretty big regional rivalry games OU vs Neb and UT vs A&M and also Ark. As well as adding Clemson. While the B1G took the declining blue bloods in USC & ND(which I'm not sure I would call a blue blood anymore).

So yes the secondary product you highlighted gave advantage B1G but I think the football product of the southwest/B12 country is better than what the B1G received in the ACC coastal states.

If its simply decided by the market and a free for all I'm not positive the B1G with the way academic presidents think couldn't pull in the best of the PAC the desired ACC coastal and UT & OU, keep Neb. and I'm not sure you would want that.

BTW, I was hoping this would get to a point where both leagues were equal and could negotiate as one body and its not a revenue/brand race in the future.

You squeezed in Cincinnati and some other's that can't pay their way.

BTW: The Big 10 academic angle hasn't dictated realignment so far! Maryland and Rutgers? That's hardly North Carolina and Virginia. Oklahoma may be an academic sticking point for the Big 10. They only meet the MEAN of the SEC academically.

My point is that neither the Big 10 nor the SEC will add schools that don't add significantly to their conference in some way.

Notre Dame gives the Big 10 exclusivity in many of the Northern cities like Chicago, Indianapolis, Detroit, Cincinnati, and gives them a bigger presence in New England. Syracuse is that physical presence in New York that coupled with N.D. and Rutgers brings home some ratings.

North Carolina / Duke / and Virginia nail down the beltway and a large state and provide them with 3 hoops brands to multiply content they already enjoy.

The Cali 4 and UW and Oregon are all that the Big 10 needs from the West to make it happen.

Those adds are all profitable in one way or another.

For the SEC securing the academic enhancement that Texas, Kansas, Colorado, and Iowa State would bring gives them a very balanced old core of the Big 8 and makes for a very Texas friendly schedule in the Southwest. It reunites rivalries that have a value on their own.

Virginia Tech and N.C. State are reasonable market additions while Clemson and F.S.U. bring the content multiplication that the SEC enjoys.

There's no reason why the Big 10 and SEC can't work together. And by providing the buffer conference we avoid political issues by creating a pathway for the 2nd state schools of the Big 12 and PAC and the leftover ACC schools to play and we include B.Y.U. Cincinnati, UConn, and the Florida twins without having to foist them upon the Big 10 or SEC. So it protects the branding of the SEC and Big 10 while solving the political problems of state Flagships with regard to their 2nd state schools.

At that point whatever the SEC and Big 10 decided would be law and the new conference would go along.

I was trying to be inclusive rather exclusive and didn't cut anyone from the current Power leagues although it was tempting to drop WSU, OSU, Baylor, WF and probably BC. I do think if the power leagues in CFB cut too many teams or creates too big of a disadvantage between leagues it may reduce its viewers its not as popular as the NFL. Throw int he way CFB tries to engineer outcomes with its playoffs, bowls and matchups and you risk losing overall market share for the sport in general.

I think I only added 3 schools BYU, Cincy & UCF to the current P65. I thought the growing Cincy market would fit in the current SEC. BYU probably deserves to be in a Power league with their attendance and following if leagues aren't biased towards them and UCF can be a better school/brand than quite a few teams in a short amount of time.

Actually USF has considerable advantages for inclusion mostly due the academic side of the ledger and the Gulf Coast exposure. But in a buffer league they all fit and you'll see that in that buffer league that ECU and Houston make the cut as well, mostly out of regional considerations in the groupings.

(11-27-2018 07:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 06:48 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 06:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 06:03 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 05:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Screw That! The market will decide along with the schools themselves.

I think your focusing on one portion. In this scenario the B1G takes on the baggage of the PAC although there is some traditional rivalry there but the West generally has less viewers. While the SEC got the two largest modern day blue bloods of the expansion in Texas & OU and restores some pretty big regional rivalry games OU vs Neb and UT vs A&M and also Ark. As well as adding Clemson. While the B1G took the declining blue bloods in USC & ND(which I'm not sure I would call a blue blood anymore).

So yes the secondary product you highlighted gave advantage B1G but I think the football product of the southwest/B12 country is better than what the B1G received in the ACC coastal states.

If its simply decided by the market and a free for all I'm not positive the B1G with the way academic presidents think couldn't pull in the best of the PAC the desired ACC coastal and UT & OU, keep Neb. and I'm not sure you would want that.

BTW, I was hoping this would get to a point where both leagues were equal and could negotiate as one body and its not a revenue/brand race in the future.

You squeezed in Cincinnati and some other's that can't pay their way.

BTW: The Big 10 academic angle hasn't dictated realignment so far! Maryland and Rutgers? That's hardly North Carolina and Virginia. Oklahoma may be an academic sticking point for the Big 10. They only meet the MEAN of the SEC academically.

My point is that neither the Big 10 nor the SEC will add schools that don't add significantly to their conference in some way.

Notre Dame gives the Big 10 exclusivity in many of the Northern cities like Chicago, Indianapolis, Detroit, Cincinnati, and gives them a bigger presence in New England. Syracuse is that physical presence in New York that coupled with N.D. and Rutgers brings home some ratings.

North Carolina / Duke / and Virginia nail down the beltway and a large state and provide them with 3 hoops brands to multiply content they already enjoy.

The Cali 4 and UW and Oregon are all that the Big 10 needs from the West to make it happen.

Those adds are all profitable in one way or another.

For the SEC securing the academic enhancement that Texas, Kansas, Colorado, and Iowa State would bring gives them a very balanced old core of the Big 8 and makes for a very Texas friendly schedule in the Southwest. It reunites rivalries that have a value on their own.

Virginia Tech and N.C. State are reasonable market additions while Clemson and F.S.U. bring the content multiplication that the SEC enjoys.

There's no reason why the Big 10 and SEC can't work together. And by providing the buffer conference we avoid political issues by creating a pathway for the 2nd state schools of the Big 12 and PAC and the leftover ACC schools to play and we include B.Y.U. Cincinnati, UConn, and the Florida twins without having to foist them upon the Big 10 or SEC. So it protects the branding of the SEC and Big 10 while solving the political problems of state Flagships with regard to their 2nd state schools.

At that point whatever the SEC and Big 10 decided would be law and the new conference would go along.

I was trying to be inclusive rather exclusive and didn't cut anyone from the current Power leagues although it was tempting to drop WSU, OSU, Baylor, WF and probably BC. I do think if the power leagues in CFB cut too many teams or creates too big of a disadvantage between leagues it may reduce its viewers its not as popular as the NFL. Throw int he way CFB tries to engineer outcomes with its playoffs, bowls and matchups and you risk losing overall market share for the sport in general.

I think I only added 3 schools BYU, Cincy & UCF to the current P65. I thought the growing Cincy market would fit in the current SEC. BYU probably deserves to be in a Power league with their attendance and following if leagues aren't biased towards them and UCF can be a better school/brand than quite a few teams in a short amount of time.

Actually USF has considerable advantages for inclusion mostly due the academic side of the ledger and the Gulf Coast exposure. But in a buffer league they all fit and you'll see that in that buffer league that ECU and Houston make the cut as well, mostly out of regional considerations in the groupings.

What kind of total conference tv/bowl/playoff revenue in your model would the buffer league receive and what would the 2 power leagues revenue be?