Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
[split] Spitballing about realignment
Author Message
XLance Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,231
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #1
[split] Spitballing about realignment
(12-01-2019 07:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-01-2019 06:36 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(12-01-2019 06:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(12-01-2019 06:21 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  If you're looking at the purely tangential effects of altering the schedule then I think keeping 8 league games and adding an additional Power game in non-conference is the best.

I think the snag is that inevitably there will be conference members who beg to get out of the requirement to play P5 non-con opponents, and keep begging until the conference office lets them out. The Big Ten had a requirement like that, and teams almost immediately started asking the conference office to let them count games against UConn or Tulane or whomever toward the rule, instead of playing actual P5 opponents.

Actually, I'd be ok with that as long as the stipulation was that your program had to take a hit on the annual payments.

It's not reasonable for each program to reap the same reward if they're not willing to make the same commitment.

The stipulations for avoiding a P5 OOC opponent in the SEC is fairly well restricted to last minute cancellations which leave little time to reschedule without picking up a G5 or FCS opponent.

If we move to all P scheduling playing 8 or 9 conference games and playing 3 or 4 OOC P games will make the most sense and will provide a better comparison for selecting at large bids if we ever go to 8 in the CFP and use auto qualifiers for the conference champs and a committee to select the at large.

Two leagues, 32 teams per league, 2 conferences per league, two divisions per conference = 8 divisions with a champion. Champions only playoff.
All P scheduling makes sense.
12-01-2019 07:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #2
RE: Inside the SEC on CBS contract discussions and what could come next
(12-01-2019 07:55 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(12-01-2019 07:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-01-2019 06:36 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(12-01-2019 06:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(12-01-2019 06:21 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  If you're looking at the purely tangential effects of altering the schedule then I think keeping 8 league games and adding an additional Power game in non-conference is the best.

I think the snag is that inevitably there will be conference members who beg to get out of the requirement to play P5 non-con opponents, and keep begging until the conference office lets them out. The Big Ten had a requirement like that, and teams almost immediately started asking the conference office to let them count games against UConn or Tulane or whomever toward the rule, instead of playing actual P5 opponents.

Actually, I'd be ok with that as long as the stipulation was that your program had to take a hit on the annual payments.

It's not reasonable for each program to reap the same reward if they're not willing to make the same commitment.

The stipulations for avoiding a P5 OOC opponent in the SEC is fairly well restricted to last minute cancellations which leave little time to reschedule without picking up a G5 or FCS opponent.

If we move to all P scheduling playing 8 or 9 conference games and playing 3 or 4 OOC P games will make the most sense and will provide a better comparison for selecting at large bids if we ever go to 8 in the CFP and use auto qualifiers for the conference champs and a committee to select the at large.

Two leagues, 32 teams per league, 2 conferences per league, two divisions per conference = 8 divisions with a champion. Champions only playoff.
All P scheduling makes sense.

I don't disagree at all. However, I'm afraid we only get there by degree. And a protracted process is going to be unduly destructive to traditions and fan interest. This needs to be done in one action followed by a few decades of on intentional stasis so that traditions can be re-established, fans simply focus on the games, and the structure provides the championship bracket and ultimate champion.
12-01-2019 09:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Offline
Senior Chief Realignmentologist
*

Posts: 11,789
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 789
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location: Biden Cesspool
Post: #3
RE: Inside the SEC on CBS contract discussions and what could come next
Do we really need 64 teams in the new order? I can think of a few schools that wouldn’t be on anyone’s must have list:

1. WF—maybe not even the 4th most popular school in their state
2. Wash St—not AAU so not a Big Ten target
3. Ore St—see Wash St
4. Kan St—the AAU school in Lawrence is more of a priority
5. TCU—does the SEC really need the private TX schools?
6. Baylor—see TCU
7. Duke—similar situation as WF but they have a basketball team
T-8. Pitt & BC—buried in pro markets
10. Syracuse—another so so Northeastern program

To me schools like Iowa St, Louisville, and Miami still have some worthwhile. The Cyclones are an AAU school playing second fiddle in a small state but still average almost 60K—that’s impressive and worth keeping.
12-02-2019 08:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,231
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #4
RE: Inside the SEC on CBS contract discussions and what could come next
(12-01-2019 09:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-01-2019 07:55 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(12-01-2019 07:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-01-2019 06:36 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(12-01-2019 06:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  I think the snag is that inevitably there will be conference members who beg to get out of the requirement to play P5 non-con opponents, and keep begging until the conference office lets them out. The Big Ten had a requirement like that, and teams almost immediately started asking the conference office to let them count games against UConn or Tulane or whomever toward the rule, instead of playing actual P5 opponents.

Actually, I'd be ok with that as long as the stipulation was that your program had to take a hit on the annual payments.

It's not reasonable for each program to reap the same reward if they're not willing to make the same commitment.

The stipulations for avoiding a P5 OOC opponent in the SEC is fairly well restricted to last minute cancellations which leave little time to reschedule without picking up a G5 or FCS opponent.

If we move to all P scheduling playing 8 or 9 conference games and playing 3 or 4 OOC P games will make the most sense and will provide a better comparison for selecting at large bids if we ever go to 8 in the CFP and use auto qualifiers for the conference champs and a committee to select the at large.

Two leagues, 32 teams per league, 2 conferences per league, two divisions per conference = 8 divisions with a champion. Champions only playoff.
All P scheduling makes sense.

I don't disagree at all. However, I'm afraid we only get there by degree. And a protracted process is going to be unduly destructive to traditions and fan interest. This needs to be done in one action followed by a few decades of on intentional stasis so that traditions can be re-established, fans simply focus on the games, and the structure provides the championship bracket and ultimate champion.

It can be done, but only after the Big 12's demise.
Timing will be critical and the PAC will have to digest 4 teams at once (not an easy task), and it will probably have to be the first move.
The PAC's concept of schools paired in two's for the PAC network would work perfectly for Oklahoma/Oklahoma State and Kansas/Kansas State.
I would think it would be necessary for the PAC to secure national distribution/guaranteed money/broadcast times from either FOX or ESPN to entice the four schools which could be accomplished through the sale of a portion of their network.
Once the PAC is taken care of the rest of the pieces can fall into place.
12-03-2019 07:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Offline
Senior Chief Realignmentologist
*

Posts: 11,789
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 789
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location: Biden Cesspool
Post: #5
RE: Inside the SEC on CBS contract discussions and what could come next
I don’t see the Big 12 breakup going that direction. Oklahoma and Texas will do a tango with the Big Ten and SEC. Both conferences will try to land the pair but I think the Big Ten settles for Oklahoma and Kansas while the SEC gets Texas and TTU.

The PAC 12 will stand pat and the Big 12 will backfill with 4-6 AAC schools and/or BYU and Boise.
12-03-2019 09:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


DawgNBama Offline
the Rush Limbaugh of CSNBBS
*

Posts: 8,319
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation: 444
I Root For: conservativism/MAGA
Location: US
Post: #6
RE: Inside the SEC on CBS contract discussions and what could come next
(12-02-2019 08:55 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Do we really need 64 teams in the new order? I can think of a few schools that wouldn’t be on anyone’s must have list:

1. WF—maybe not even the 4th most popular school in their state
2. Wash St—not AAU so not a Big Ten target
3. Ore St—see Wash St
4. Kan St—the AAU school in Lawrence is more of a priority
5. TCU—does the SEC really need the private TX schools?
6. Baylor—see TCU
7. Duke—similar situation as WF but they have a basketball team
T-8. Pitt & BC—buried in pro markets
10. Syracuse—another so so Northeastern program

To me schools like Iowa St, Louisville, and Miami still have some worthwhile. The Cyclones are an AAU school playing second fiddle in a small state but still average almost 60K—that’s impressive and worth keeping.
1. WF- I'd say the Deacs are probably the sixth best program in NC. To me, NC's top 4 are as follows: UNC, NC State, ECU, and either Duke or App State. Basically, we agree.
2. WSU- they look like a Mountain West program in a P5 conference.
3. Oregon St- they have a market in Portland. And it is possible to win in Corvallis. It's just trying to get good coaches to stay that is the problem.
4. Kan St.- they do well in the most important sport, but trying to win without legendary Bill Snyder has been a problem. Klieman might be able to figure it out. KU is wayyy to similar to how IU used to be-a coach"s graveyard in football. Then again, IU might still be a graveyard for coaches in football.
5. TCU- could be Texas' answer to Miami. ACC might be interested.
6. Baylor- does SMU ring any bells???
7. Duke- agreed.
8. BC & Pitt- agreed.
9. Syracuse- starting to awaken, and has stellar basketball as well.
01-08-2020 06:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #7
RE: Inside the SEC on CBS contract discussions and what could come next
(12-02-2019 08:55 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Do we really need 64 teams in the new order?

(1) Need more than 64. The traditional powers whose reputations rest on lopsided W-L records don't want schedules where all opponents are among the 50 (or even 64) best teams. They want more cupcakes on the menu.

(2) AAU membership has no relevance whatsoever to college football. If any conference actually cared about academic labels, instead of just using it as a bogus marketing pitch, Caltech could be in the Pac-12 instead of Wazzu, Penn in the Big Ten instead of Penn State, MIT in the ACC instead of Boston College, etc., etc. For that matter, there are "legacy" members of AAU who aren't even in the top 50 or 100 of U.S. research universities in some of the contemporary rankings like ARWU or THE, so even if the powers-that-be made the odd decision to use academic reputation to decide which college football teams to compete against, AAU membership wouldn't be such a good metric.
01-08-2020 11:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kaplony Offline
Palmetto State Deplorable

Posts: 25,393
Joined: Apr 2013
I Root For: Newberry
Location: SC
Post: #8
RE: Inside the SEC on CBS contract discussions and what could come next
(01-08-2020 06:26 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  
(12-02-2019 08:55 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Do we really need 64 teams in the new order? I can think of a few schools that wouldn’t be on anyone’s must have list:

1. WF—maybe not even the 4th most popular school in their state
2. Wash St—not AAU so not a Big Ten target
3. Ore St—see Wash St
4. Kan St—the AAU school in Lawrence is more of a priority
5. TCU—does the SEC really need the private TX schools?
6. Baylor—see TCU
7. Duke—similar situation as WF but they have a basketball team
T-8. Pitt & BC—buried in pro markets
10. Syracuse—another so so Northeastern program

To me schools like Iowa St, Louisville, and Miami still have some worthwhile. The Cyclones are an AAU school playing second fiddle in a small state but still average almost 60K—that’s impressive and worth keeping.
1. WF- I'd say the Deacs are probably the sixth best program in NC. To me, NC's top 4 are as follows: UNC, NC State, ECU, and either Duke or App State. Basically, we agree.
2. WSU- they look like a Mountain West program in a P5 conference.
3. Oregon St- they have a market in Portland. And it is possible to win in Corvallis. It's just trying to get good coaches to stay that is the problem.
4. Kan St.- they do well in the most important sport, but trying to win without legendary Bill Snyder has been a problem. Klieman might be able to figure it out. KU is wayyy to similar to how IU used to be-a coach"s graveyard in football. Then again, IU might still be a graveyard for coaches in football.
5. TCU- could be Texas' answer to Miami. ACC might be interested.
6. Baylor- does SMU ring any bells???
7. Duke- agreed.
8. BC & Pitt- agreed.
9. Syracuse- starting to awaken, and has stellar basketball as well.

Yet Wake has won the ACC in football (2006) since UNC (1980) Duke (1989) and NC State (1979) by a long shot, and won the ACC in basketball (1996) since NC State (1987)
01-08-2020 12:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie Mark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,719
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 1392
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #9
RE: Inside the SEC on CBS contract discussions and what could come next
(01-08-2020 12:00 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(01-08-2020 06:26 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  
(12-02-2019 08:55 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Do we really need 64 teams in the new order? I can think of a few schools that wouldn’t be on anyone’s must have list:

1. WF—maybe not even the 4th most popular school in their state
2. Wash St—not AAU so not a Big Ten target
3. Ore St—see Wash St
4. Kan St—the AAU school in Lawrence is more of a priority
5. TCU—does the SEC really need the private TX schools?
6. Baylor—see TCU
7. Duke—similar situation as WF but they have a basketball team
T-8. Pitt & BC—buried in pro markets
10. Syracuse—another so so Northeastern program

To me schools like Iowa St, Louisville, and Miami still have some worthwhile. The Cyclones are an AAU school playing second fiddle in a small state but still average almost 60K—that’s impressive and worth keeping.
1. WF- I'd say the Deacs are probably the sixth best program in NC. To me, NC's top 4 are as follows: UNC, NC State, ECU, and either Duke or App State. Basically, we agree.
2. WSU- they look like a Mountain West program in a P5 conference.
3. Oregon St- they have a market in Portland. And it is possible to win in Corvallis. It's just trying to get good coaches to stay that is the problem.
4. Kan St.- they do well in the most important sport, but trying to win without legendary Bill Snyder has been a problem. Klieman might be able to figure it out. KU is wayyy to similar to how IU used to be-a coach"s graveyard in football. Then again, IU might still be a graveyard for coaches in football.
5. TCU- could be Texas' answer to Miami. ACC might be interested.
6. Baylor- does SMU ring any bells???
7. Duke- agreed.
8. BC & Pitt- agreed.
9. Syracuse- starting to awaken, and has stellar basketball as well.

Yet Wake has won the ACC in football (2006) since UNC (1980) Duke (1989) and NC State (1979) by a long shot, and won the ACC in basketball (1996) since NC State (1987)

Wake is a curious case. Their athletic department is generally well-run and operates near peak efficiency... but their ceiling is so low that winning the ACC is probably the best they can ever hope for (and that only once every several decades). UNC and NC State clearly have the biggest upside in the state, but internal politics (and competition from the other FBS programs) hinders their progress.

I see some of the same thing beginning to happen in Virginia where we've seen it go from 2 FBS teams (UVA and VT) to 4 (plus Liberty and ODU). VT has been most affected since Blacksburg is furthest from the best recruiting grounds (the 757 area code).

If/when the top teams break off to form a smaller group, it will help teams like UNC, NC State, UVA and VT (assuming of course that they are in the new group!)
01-08-2020 12:30 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Kaplony Offline
Palmetto State Deplorable

Posts: 25,393
Joined: Apr 2013
I Root For: Newberry
Location: SC
Post: #10
RE: Inside the SEC on CBS contract discussions and what could come next
(01-08-2020 12:30 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Wake is a curious case. Their athletic department is generally well-run and operates near peak efficiency... but their ceiling is so low that winning the ACC is probably the best they can ever hope for (and that only once every several decades).

The same could be said about 90% of the P5. Do you see Indiana, Mississippi State, Kansas State, or UCLA competing for national championships or just competing for conference titles once every several decades?


Quote:UNC and NC State clearly have the biggest upside in the state, but internal politics (and competition from the other FBS programs) hinders their progress.
It's more internal than external factors. ECU, App State, and Charlotte aren't taking the type of recruits they would need to compete on a regular basis for conference titles, and in the case of App State and Charlotte they can't be used as excuses for 40 years of futility.

Quote:If/when the top teams break off to form a smaller group, it will help teams like UNC, NC State, UVA and VT (assuming of course that they are in the new group!)

Except the fact that all of the schools listed had that same advantage for decades and couldn't do anything with it. One title game appearance since Division I split in 1978.
01-08-2020 12:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,287
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #11
RE: [split] Spitballing about realignment
Well for spitballing, think about 2 possibilities:

USC, UCLA, Cal and Stanford to the Big 12. West-USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Kansas, Kansas St., Iowa St.; East-Texas, TCU, Baylor, Texas Tech, OU, Oklahoma St., WVU

or:

USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Washington and Kansas to the Big 10-20 teams. West-USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Washington; Central-Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin; North-Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan St., Ohio St.; East-Illinois, NW, Penn St., Rutgers, Maryland
01-08-2020 05:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,231
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #12
RE: [split] Spitballing about realignment
(01-08-2020 05:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  Well for spitballing, think about 2 possibilities:

USC, UCLA, Cal and Stanford to the Big 12. West-USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Kansas, Kansas St., Iowa St.; East-Texas, TCU, Baylor, Texas Tech, OU, Oklahoma St., WVU

or:

USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Washington and Kansas to the Big 10-20 teams. West-USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Washington; Central-Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, North-Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan St., Ohio St.; East-Illinois, NW, Penn St., Rutgers, Maryland

Bullet, you may want to look at a true 8/8 split.
I would tend to completely bypass the Bay Area.

Washington, Oregon, USC, UCLA, Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, Colorado
Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State

I know we are just throwing things up against the wall but the most likely thing is:

Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to the PAC for 16.
It fits with the PAC's paired network strategy and Kansas and Oklahoma already have experience in profitably selling their own content.
It also gives the PAC a CTZ platform with a blue blood basketball and a blue blood football program which they might be willing to pay extra for.
(This post was last modified: 01-10-2020 08:19 AM by XLance.)
01-10-2020 06:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chargeradio Offline
Vamos Morados
*

Posts: 7,466
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation: 121
I Root For: ALA, KY, USA
Location: Louisville, KY
Post: #13
RE: [split] Spitballing about realignment
I'd go for 72:

C-FOX: Pac 12 (12) Big Ten (14), West Virginia, Oklahoma State, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, TCU, Kansas, Kansas State, USF, UCF, East Carolina

C-ESPN: ACC (15), SEC (14), Iowa State, Texas, Baylor, Colorado State, BYU, Boise State, UNLV

Fox Pacific: Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, UCLA, USC, Cal, Stanford, Utah
Fox West: Colorado, Arizona, Arizona State, Texas Tech, TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State
Fox Central: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue, Michigan State
Fox East: Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, West Virginia, East Carolina, USF, UCF

ESPN West: BYU, Boise State, UNLV, Colorado State, Texas, Baylor, Missouri, Arkansas, LSU
ESPN South: Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Florida State, Miami (FL), Georgia Tech
ESPN North: Iowa State, Notre Dame, Louisville, Kentucky, Tennesee, Vanderbilt, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Boston College
ESPN East: Clemson, South Carolina, North Carolina, NC State, Wake Forest, Duke, Virginia, Virginia Tech
01-11-2020 09:46 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


BewareThePhog Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,881
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 137
I Root For: KU
Location:
Post: #14
RE: [split] Spitballing about realignment
(01-11-2020 09:46 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  I'd go for 72:

C-FOX: Pac 12 (12) Big Ten (14), West Virginia, Oklahoma State, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, TCU, Kansas, Kansas State, USF, UCF, East Carolina

C-ESPN: ACC (15), SEC (14), Iowa State, Texas, Baylor, Colorado State, BYU, Boise State, UNLV

Fox Pacific: Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, UCLA, USC, Cal, Stanford, Utah
Fox West: Colorado, Arizona, Arizona State, Texas Tech, TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State
Fox Central: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue, Michigan State
Fox East: Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, West Virginia, East Carolina, USF, UCF

ESPN West: BYU, Boise State, UNLV, Colorado State, Texas, Baylor, Missouri, Arkansas, LSU
ESPN South: Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Florida State, Miami (FL), Georgia Tech
ESPN North: Iowa State, Notre Dame, Louisville, Kentucky, Tennesee, Vanderbilt, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Boston College
ESPN East: Clemson, South Carolina, North Carolina, NC State, Wake Forest, Duke, Virginia, Virginia Tech

Interesting lineup. I can see how you'd take current network affiliation as a starting point, but even if ESPN prefers more engaged regions like the traditional SEC footprint, I'm not sure that they would like a long-term arrangement where they're no farther west than Utah.

I'm also not sure how much Texas A&M would like this setup. 04-cheers
01-12-2020 10:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DawgNBama Offline
the Rush Limbaugh of CSNBBS
*

Posts: 8,319
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation: 444
I Root For: conservativism/MAGA
Location: US
Post: #15
RE: [split] Spitballing about realignment
(01-08-2020 12:00 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(01-08-2020 06:26 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  
(12-02-2019 08:55 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Do we really need 64 teams in the new order? I can think of a few schools that wouldn’t be on anyone’s must have list:

1. WF—maybe not even the 4th most popular school in their state
2. Wash St—not AAU so not a Big Ten target
3. Ore St—see Wash St
4. Kan St—the AAU school in Lawrence is more of a priority
5. TCU—does the SEC really need the private TX schools?
6. Baylor—see TCU
7. Duke—similar situation as WF but they have a basketball team
T-8. Pitt & BC—buried in pro markets
10. Syracuse—another so so Northeastern program

To me schools like Iowa St, Louisville, and Miami still have some worthwhile. The Cyclones are an AAU school playing second fiddle in a small state but still average almost 60K—that’s impressive and worth keeping.
1. WF- I'd say the Deacs are probably the sixth best program in NC. To me, NC's top 4 are as follows: UNC, NC State, ECU, and either Duke or App State. Basically, we agree.
2. WSU- they look like a Mountain West program in a P5 conference.
3. Oregon St- they have a market in Portland. And it is possible to win in Corvallis. It's just trying to get good coaches to stay that is the problem.
4. Kan St.- they do well in the most important sport, but trying to win without legendary Bill Snyder has been a problem. Klieman might be able to figure it out. KU is wayyy to similar to how IU used to be-a coach"s graveyard in football. Then again, IU might still be a graveyard for coaches in football.
5. TCU- could be Texas' answer to Miami. ACC might be interested.
6. Baylor- does SMU ring any bells???
7. Duke- agreed.
8. BC & Pitt- agreed.
9. Syracuse- starting to awaken, and has stellar basketball as well.

Yet Wake has won the ACC in football (2006) since UNC (1980) Duke (1989) and NC State (1979) by a long shot, and won the ACC in basketball (1996) since NC State (1987)

The problem with Wake is that they have not really invested back into their football program. For a program that won the ACC in 2006, they still have a stadium roughly the same size as Sunbelt member Troy University. (Wake's BB & T Field@Groves Stadium=31,500 capacity. Troy's Larry Blakeney Field @Veterans Memorial Stadium= 30,402 capacity). Think about that for awhile Kaplony.
01-12-2020 12:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kaplony Offline
Palmetto State Deplorable

Posts: 25,393
Joined: Apr 2013
I Root For: Newberry
Location: SC
Post: #16
RE: [split] Spitballing about realignment
(01-12-2020 12:57 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  
(01-08-2020 12:00 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(01-08-2020 06:26 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  
(12-02-2019 08:55 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Do we really need 64 teams in the new order? I can think of a few schools that wouldn’t be on anyone’s must have list:

1. WF—maybe not even the 4th most popular school in their state
2. Wash St—not AAU so not a Big Ten target
3. Ore St—see Wash St
4. Kan St—the AAU school in Lawrence is more of a priority
5. TCU—does the SEC really need the private TX schools?
6. Baylor—see TCU
7. Duke—similar situation as WF but they have a basketball team
T-8. Pitt & BC—buried in pro markets
10. Syracuse—another so so Northeastern program

To me schools like Iowa St, Louisville, and Miami still have some worthwhile. The Cyclones are an AAU school playing second fiddle in a small state but still average almost 60K—that’s impressive and worth keeping.
1. WF- I'd say the Deacs are probably the sixth best program in NC. To me, NC's top 4 are as follows: UNC, NC State, ECU, and either Duke or App State. Basically, we agree.
2. WSU- they look like a Mountain West program in a P5 conference.
3. Oregon St- they have a market in Portland. And it is possible to win in Corvallis. It's just trying to get good coaches to stay that is the problem.
4. Kan St.- they do well in the most important sport, but trying to win without legendary Bill Snyder has been a problem. Klieman might be able to figure it out. KU is wayyy to similar to how IU used to be-a coach"s graveyard in football. Then again, IU might still be a graveyard for coaches in football.
5. TCU- could be Texas' answer to Miami. ACC might be interested.
6. Baylor- does SMU ring any bells???
7. Duke- agreed.
8. BC & Pitt- agreed.
9. Syracuse- starting to awaken, and has stellar basketball as well.

Yet Wake has won the ACC in football (2006) since UNC (1980) Duke (1989) and NC State (1979) by a long shot, and won the ACC in basketball (1996) since NC State (1987)

The problem with Wake is that they have not really invested back into their football program. For a program that won the ACC in 2006, they still have a stadium roughly the same size as Sunbelt member Troy University. (Wake's BB & T Field@Groves Stadium=31,500 capacity. Troy's Larry Blakeney Field @Veterans Memorial Stadium= 30,402 capacity). Think about that for awhile Kaplony.

They don't need a big stadium because they are a small school with a small, but very wealthy, alumni base. And don't let the size fool you, BB&T Field is one of if not the best football venues I've been to. It's a whole lot better than some much larger facilities by a long shot.

And if you think they haven't invested in their program it just goes to show you do not do your homework. Just in the past five years or so they've built a new football fieldhouse containing an indoor practice field and weightroom, and recently completed a new weight training facility that is attached to the fieldhouse for all of their athletic programs.
01-12-2020 02:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
IWokeUpLikeThis Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,726
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation: 1434
I Root For: NIU, Chicago St
Location:
Post: #17
RE: [split] Spitballing about realignment
IIRC every seat at BB&T Field is chairback or benchback. Parking is cheap, close, and super easy. Might be the most convenient P5 setup out there.
01-12-2020 02:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Nerdlinger Offline
Realignment Enthusiast
*

Posts: 4,908
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 423
I Root For: Realignment!
Location: Schmlocation
Post: #18
RE: [split] Spitballing about realignment
Here's my quasi-realistic P2:

Big Ten Conference
East: Boston College, Maryland, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse
North: Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Purdue
Central: Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin
South: Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, UCLA, USC, Utah
West: California, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State
Protected crossovers: California/UCLA, Colorado/Nebraska, Illinois/Purdue, Notre Dame/Pittsburgh, Notre Dame/USC, Ohio State/Penn State, Stanford/USC

Southeastern Conference
East: Clemson, Duke, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia
North: Kentucky, Louisville, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
Central: Arkansas, Kansas, LSU, Mississippi State, Missouri, Ole Miss
South: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Miami-FL
West: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, TCU, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech
Protected crossovers: Alabama/Tennessee, Arkansas/Texas, Clemson/Florida State, Georgia/Georgia Tech, LSU/Texas A&M, Ole Miss/Vanderbilt, Virginia/Virginia Tech

Left without a rose: Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas State, NC State, Wake Forest

Conference schedules are 10 games. The 5 division winners plus 3 wild cards in each conference make the postseason, with the Big Ten and SEC champs facing off in the College Super Bowl.
(This post was last modified: 01-12-2020 11:14 PM by Nerdlinger.)
01-12-2020 03:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.