(06-18-2019 10:10 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 09:56 PM)ArQ Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 07:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ... The 18 you covered pretty well. Also everyone already knows if we expand at all we move to 9 conference games. So even with two 8 school divisions you would play your 7 division mates and rotate 2 from the other side annually so that everyone is played in 4 years.

At 18:
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech

The only school that might gripe would be Ole Miss. Their rivalry with L.S.U. is their biggy. MSU could be scheduled OOC. That pretty well solves the rivalry thing.

Also when this happened, Big 10 is further weakened more. Penn State and Maryland want to jump ship. So ACC adds Penn State, Maryland, Notre Dame and UConn.

Big 10 loses two so they have to add six. Big 10 will add Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, West Virginia, North Dakota State and South Dakota. They probably will drop the island Rutgers and add North Dakota because now North Dakota and South Dakota are oil rich and Rutgers is useless as usual.

This is slightly inaccurate. The ACC adds Ohio State instead of UConn.

Except That School Up North at this time is 24th in the World on the Shanghai list and Ohio State is 98th, so the ACC takes That School Up North.

But, yeah, under the premise that the Big Ten is open for raiding by the ACC, it's Notre Dame and three Big Ten schools, not Notre Dame, two Big Ten Schools and UConn.

(06-18-2019 07:18 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 06:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 05:53 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If the SEC has the stomach to go to 18 and can devise a practical way to manage a league of that size then the next realignment round will be fairly simple: the Texlahoma 4 to the SEC and they will roll in piles and piles of money.

If they don't have that appetite then it will be a chess match between the SEC and Big Ten for the big prizes.

Unless the SEC makes the first move on them the ACC is safe, barring a ND change of heart. The Big Ten knows that if they destabilized the ACC the schools they would get would be far less valuable than the ones the SEC could extract.

Texlahoma 4 to the PAC 12 is not on the table and there's no one else out there that the Left Coasters would want so they will stand pat.

Divisions wouldn't work in the SEC with 18. To many cross-division rivalries. Maybe you could do a 5-4-4-5 where the "4" groups rotate between east and west every other year. UK/TN/Vandy/UGA/UF would be a "5" and AL/AU/MS/MSU as a "4." South Carolina would have to be in a "4" with 2 or 3 new eastern teams. LSU/A&M/AR and MU or 2 new schools would be in a "5."

There would be 8 division games, leaving just one to schedule outside the division, so the 10 original members would have to be set up to play each other frequently (or at least 9 with LSU getting the AL/MS schools frequently).

Its hard to do 16 also in the SEC.

I dunno, this SEC-18 works out decently.

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

Protected crossovers: Alabama/Tennessee, Auburn/Georgia

Maybe swap Arkansas and Missouri.

You should swap Missouri and Texas A&M. A&M has shown a clear desire to be aligned with the traditional SEC schools. Missouri probably would prefer to be grouped with it's old Big 12 pals. Arkansas also fits geographically in the west, and has history in the SWC.

(06-19-2019 06:49 AM)goofus Wrote:  You should swap Missouri and Texas A&M. A&M has shown a clear desire to be aligned with the traditional SEC schools. Missouri probably would prefer to be grouped with it's old Big 12 pals. Arkansas also fits geographically in the west, and has history in the SWC.

Missouri is the only SEC acquisition of the past 30 years that still doesn't "feel" like an SEC school, and they probably never will.

I bet they will, someday, end back up either with the Big 12 schools or in the B1G.

(06-19-2019 05:33 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 10:10 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 09:56 PM)ArQ Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 07:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ... The 18 you covered pretty well. Also everyone already knows if we expand at all we move to 9 conference games. So even with two 8 school divisions you would play your 7 division mates and rotate 2 from the other side annually so that everyone is played in 4 years.

At 18:
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech

The only school that might gripe would be Ole Miss. Their rivalry with L.S.U. is their biggy. MSU could be scheduled OOC. That pretty well solves the rivalry thing.

Also when this happened, Big 10 is further weakened more. Penn State and Maryland want to jump ship. So ACC adds Penn State, Maryland, Notre Dame and UConn.

Big 10 loses two so they have to add six. Big 10 will add Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, West Virginia, North Dakota State and South Dakota. They probably will drop the island Rutgers and add North Dakota because now North Dakota and South Dakota are oil rich and Rutgers is useless as usual.

This is slightly inaccurate. The ACC adds Ohio State instead of UConn.

Except That School Up North at this time is 24th in the World on the Shanghai list and Ohio State is 98th, so the ACC takes That School Up North.

But, yeah, under the premise that the Big Ten is open for raiding by the ACC, it's Notre Dame and three Big Ten schools, not Notre Dame, two Big Ten Schools and UConn.

After getting Penn State, ACC will have enough football schools. Assuming ACC let Notre Dame decide which school will come with them, I think Notre Dame will choose UConn. Thus divisions will like this:

ACC North:

Notre Dame
Penn State
Syracuse
Pitt
BC
UConn


ACC central:

Louisville
Virginia Tech
Virginia
Maryland
Duke
UNC


ACC South:

NC State
Wake Forest
Clemson
Georgia Tech
Florida State
Miami

(06-18-2019 07:18 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 06:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 05:53 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If the SEC has the stomach to go to 18 and can devise a practical way to manage a league of that size then the next realignment round will be fairly simple: the Texlahoma 4 to the SEC and they will roll in piles and piles of money.

If they don't have that appetite then it will be a chess match between the SEC and Big Ten for the big prizes.

Unless the SEC makes the first move on them the ACC is safe, barring a ND change of heart. The Big Ten knows that if they destabilized the ACC the schools they would get would be far less valuable than the ones the SEC could extract.

Texlahoma 4 to the PAC 12 is not on the table and there's no one else out there that the Left Coasters would want so they will stand pat.

Divisions wouldn't work in the SEC with 18. To many cross-division rivalries. Maybe you could do a 5-4-4-5 where the "4" groups rotate between east and west every other year. UK/TN/Vandy/UGA/UF would be a "5" and AL/AU/MS/MSU as a "4." South Carolina would have to be in a "4" with 2 or 3 new eastern teams. LSU/A&M/AR and MU or 2 new schools would be in a "5."

There would be 8 division games, leaving just one to schedule outside the division, so the 10 original members would have to be set up to play each other frequently (or at least 9 with LSU getting the AL/MS schools frequently).

Its hard to do 16 also in the SEC.

I dunno, this SEC-18 works out decently.

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

Protected crossovers: Alabama/Tennessee, Auburn/Georgia

Maybe swap Arkansas and Missouri.

Basically that would just give us the old Big 12 South.

(06-19-2019 08:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 06:49 AM)goofus Wrote:  You should swap Missouri and Texas A&M. A&M has shown a clear desire to be aligned with the traditional SEC schools. Missouri probably would prefer to be grouped with it's old Big 12 pals. Arkansas also fits geographically in the west, and has history in the SWC.

Missouri is the only SEC acquisition of the past 30 years that still doesn't "feel" like an SEC school, and they probably never will.

I bet they will, someday, end back up either with the Big 12 schools or in the B1G.

It's an unusual state that doesn't truly fit anywhere, but personally it seems fine as an SEC school. Underrated tailgate scene. Rivalries take time to develop, but I think they will get there.

(06-19-2019 09:10 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 08:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 06:49 AM)goofus Wrote:  You should swap Missouri and Texas A&M. A&M has shown a clear desire to be aligned with the traditional SEC schools. Missouri probably would prefer to be grouped with it's old Big 12 pals. Arkansas also fits geographically in the west, and has history in the SWC.

Missouri is the only SEC acquisition of the past 30 years that still doesn't "feel" like an SEC school, and they probably never will.

I bet they will, someday, end back up either with the Big 12 schools or in the B1G.

It's an unusual state that doesn't truly fit anywhere, but personally it seems fine as an SEC school. Underrated tailgate scene. Rivalries take time to develop, but I think they will get there.

Missouri as a state easily fits in Big 8 or Big 10 culture. Especially Columbia. Only 2 southern pockets -- the bootheel and Ozarks -- both of which are 3 hours removed and further from MU than KU.

There is nothing Southern or SEC about Columbia - or the state's 2 flagship Metros - St Louis and Kansas City.

(06-19-2019 08:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 06:49 AM)goofus Wrote:  You should swap Missouri and Texas A&M. A&M has shown a clear desire to be aligned with the traditional SEC schools. Missouri probably would prefer to be grouped with it's old Big 12 pals. Arkansas also fits geographically in the west, and has history in the SWC.

Missouri is the only SEC acquisition of the past 30 years that still doesn't "feel" like an SEC school, and they probably never will.

I bet they will, someday, end back up either with the Big 12 schools or in the B1G.

Most of the schools from the SWC and Old Big 8 are going to just feel grafted in wherever they wind up. The trick here Quo is to take the best of those two and create as Gamecock has stated above a division that fits with each other. And quite frankly that is why the Big 10 and ACC don't really seem to be a sound possibility for these schools. Nebraska, Colorado, and Missouri all chose to be where they are and that's the best you can say for them. The Huskers are beginning to graft into the B1G West. Colorado's alums tend to head West so there's that. The big issue for Missouri is the wonky positioning in the SEC East which was purely to satisfy Alabama gripes. They didn't want Auburn in the East because then they would have to choose between Auburn and Tennessee for an annual crossover game. So for Mizzou to come in they had to head East. It's just not a natural feel for fans. But that said they are closer to Vanderbilt and Kentucky that way.

IMO, if the Big 12 is parsed, the best way to do it is to graft in a division so that the core schedules and rivalries of the Big 12 schools joining don't change that much. That's why the conference that can accommodate Texa-homa will stand the best chance of landing them. Right now that would be the PAC or SEC.

(06-19-2019 09:21 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 09:10 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 08:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 06:49 AM)goofus Wrote:  You should swap Missouri and Texas A&M. A&M has shown a clear desire to be aligned with the traditional SEC schools. Missouri probably would prefer to be grouped with it's old Big 12 pals. Arkansas also fits geographically in the west, and has history in the SWC.

Missouri is the only SEC acquisition of the past 30 years that still doesn't "feel" like an SEC school, and they probably never will.

I bet they will, someday, end back up either with the Big 12 schools or in the B1G.

It's an unusual state that doesn't truly fit anywhere, but personally it seems fine as an SEC school. Underrated tailgate scene. Rivalries take time to develop, but I think they will get there.

Missouri as a state easily fits in Big 8 or Big 10 culture. Especially Columbia. Only 2 southern pockets -- the bootheel and Ozarks -- both of which are 3 hours removed and further from MU than KU.

There is nothing Southern or SEC about Columbia - or the state's 2 flagship Metros - St Louis and Kansas City.

Actually where Columbia is located that part of the state's traditional nickname was Little Dixie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Dixie_(Missouri)

(06-19-2019 09:10 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 08:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 06:49 AM)goofus Wrote:  You should swap Missouri and Texas A&M. A&M has shown a clear desire to be aligned with the traditional SEC schools. Missouri probably would prefer to be grouped with it's old Big 12 pals. Arkansas also fits geographically in the west, and has history in the SWC.

Missouri is the only SEC acquisition of the past 30 years that still doesn't "feel" like an SEC school, and they probably never will.

I bet they will, someday, end back up either with the Big 12 schools or in the B1G.

It's an unusual state that doesn't truly fit anywhere, but personally it seems fine as an SEC school. Underrated tailgate scene. Rivalries take time to develop, but I think they will get there.

The joy of being smack dab in the middle of the country. St. Louis is the traditional Midwest city but has some Southern culture mixed in, Kansas City has more of a Western vibe. Bootheel is Deep South. Ozarks is the Appalachia feel.

(06-19-2019 08:55 AM)ArQ Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 05:33 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 10:10 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 09:56 PM)ArQ Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 07:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ... The 18 you covered pretty well. Also everyone already knows if we expand at all we move to 9 conference games. So even with two 8 school divisions you would play your 7 division mates and rotate 2 from the other side annually so that everyone is played in 4 years.

At 18:
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech

The only school that might gripe would be Ole Miss. Their rivalry with L.S.U. is their biggy. MSU could be scheduled OOC. That pretty well solves the rivalry thing.

Also when this happened, Big 10 is further weakened more. Penn State and Maryland want to jump ship. So ACC adds Penn State, Maryland, Notre Dame and UConn.

Big 10 loses two so they have to add six. Big 10 will add Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, West Virginia, North Dakota State and South Dakota. They probably will drop the island Rutgers and add North Dakota because now North Dakota and South Dakota are oil rich and Rutgers is useless as usual.

This is slightly inaccurate. The ACC adds Ohio State instead of UConn.

Except That School Up North at this time is 24th in the World on the Shanghai list and Ohio State is 98th, so the ACC takes That School Up North.

But, yeah, under the premise that the Big Ten is open for raiding by the ACC, it's Notre Dame and three Big Ten schools, not Notre Dame, two Big Ten Schools and UConn.

After getting Penn State, ACC will have enough football schools. Assuming ACC let Notre Dame decide which school will come with them, I think Notre Dame will choose UConn. Thus divisions will like this:

ACC North:

Notre Dame
Penn State
Syracuse
Pitt
BC
UConn


ACC central:

Louisville
Virginia Tech
Virginia
Maryland
Duke
UNC


ACC South:

NC State
Wake Forest
Clemson
Georgia Tech
Florida State
Miami

Getting past several mental hurdles in this fantasy scenario, what in the world makes you think that ND would want to choose UConn?

ND has little history with UConn and relations between them were always frosty at best.

UConn rejected a ten game series between the two about ten or so years ago, so they blew any chance of establishing any kind of relationship with ND.

I see one of the crazies is making some noise on this thread.

Cocaine is a heluva drug.

(06-19-2019 10:37 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Cocaine is a heluva drug.

Lol

(06-19-2019 09:21 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 09:10 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 08:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 06:49 AM)goofus Wrote:  You should swap Missouri and Texas A&M. A&M has shown a clear desire to be aligned with the traditional SEC schools. Missouri probably would prefer to be grouped with it's old Big 12 pals. Arkansas also fits geographically in the west, and has history in the SWC.

Missouri is the only SEC acquisition of the past 30 years that still doesn't "feel" like an SEC school, and they probably never will.

I bet they will, someday, end back up either with the Big 12 schools or in the B1G.

It's an unusual state that doesn't truly fit anywhere, but personally it seems fine as an SEC school. Underrated tailgate scene. Rivalries take time to develop, but I think they will get there.

Missouri as a state easily fits in Big 8 or Big 10 culture. Especially Columbia. Only 2 southern pockets -- the bootheel and Ozarks -- both of which are 3 hours removed and further from MU than KU.

There is nothing Southern or SEC about Columbia - or the state's 2 flagship Metros - St Louis and Kansas City.

It was great in the Big 8. Not so sure I necessarily agree with you on the Big Ten part though, it seems about as great of a fit there as it does in the SEC.

(06-19-2019 09:27 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 08:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 06:49 AM)goofus Wrote:  You should swap Missouri and Texas A&M. A&M has shown a clear desire to be aligned with the traditional SEC schools. Missouri probably would prefer to be grouped with it's old Big 12 pals. Arkansas also fits geographically in the west, and has history in the SWC.

Missouri is the only SEC acquisition of the past 30 years that still doesn't "feel" like an SEC school, and they probably never will.

I bet they will, someday, end back up either with the Big 12 schools or in the B1G.

Most of the schools from the SWC and Old Big 8 are going to just feel grafted in wherever they wind up. The trick here Quo is to take the best of those two and create as Gamecock has stated above a division that fits with each other. And quite frankly that is why the Big 10 and ACC don't really seem to be a sound possibility for these schools. Nebraska, Colorado, and Missouri all chose to be where they are and that's the best you can say for them. The Huskers are beginning to graft into the B1G West. Colorado's alums tend to head West so there's that. The big issue for Missouri is the wonky positioning in the SEC East which was purely to satisfy Alabama gripes. They didn't want Auburn in the East because then they would have to choose between Auburn and Tennessee for an annual crossover game. So for Mizzou to come in they had to head East. It's just not a natural feel for fans. But that said they are closer to Vanderbilt and Kentucky that way.

IMO, if the Big 12 is parsed, the best way to do it is to graft in a division so that the core schedules and rivalries of the Big 12 schools joining don't change that much. That's why the conference that can accommodate Texa-homa will stand the best chance of landing them. Right now that would be the PAC or SEC.

They aren't particularly close to any of the west schools either outside of Ole Miss and Arkansas. Of the 5 closest schools, 3 are in the East.

Missouri was a market driven move; an antiquated maneuver this day in age. They have no rivals or real history with anybody in their current conference. They have about as much of a chance winning the SEC in football as Maryland or Rutgers do the Big Ten. Yes I know about their CCG appearances, but somehow they’ve done worse with SEC recruits than Big XII recruits. Also their basketball program, once the athletic department’s crown jewel, has floundered. I think Martin is a solid coach, so time will tell.

Most of the time, expansion has destroyed rivalries and traditions, something college sports was built on. Sometimes it also destroys the chances of teams winning conference titles.

(06-19-2019 12:38 PM)esayem Wrote:  Missouri was a market driven move; an antiquated maneuver this day in age. They have no rivals or real history with anybody in their current conference. They have about as much of a chance winning the SEC in football as Maryland or Rutgers do the Big Ten. Yes I know about their CCG appearances, but somehow they’ve done worse with SEC recruits than Big XII recruits.

I just don't understand how you can make this argument when they've played in the SEC CG 2/7 years and only played in the Big12 CG 2/15 years. It's not like they were winning the Big 12 every few years and they've been at least as competitive in the SEC (if not more so)

You’re right, they don’t really have a chance in either.

(06-19-2019 02:16 PM)esayem Wrote:  You’re right, they don’t really have a chance in either.

Well, that's fine if that's your take. They very well may never win an SEC title in football, who knows.

But if that is standard then UNC doesn't really have a chance to win an ACC title (1 trip in 14 seasons). And SC doesn't have a chance to win the SEC (1 trip). In fact 8 of the current SEC teams and 9 of the current ACC teams don't really have a chance at a title, so why are all these schools moving conferences?

My point is it's a weird thing to throw on Missouri when the fact is they are doing about as good as 50-75% of the ACC/SEC