Typically, I am a fan of symmetry. While I haven't given up my love for all things balanced, I think we're approach a stage of conference alignment that will make it difficult and that's before you get to the monetary values.

The SEC is in a strong position to deal a deathblow to the Big 12. Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas would look good on the SEC trophy shelf and ESPN has enough money to pay everyone handsomely. I think Texas Tech is likely the 4th team in that scenario.

So let's say for a moment those moves come to fruition...

What can the Big Ten do to compensate? Not much in the way of additions. The ACC is not poachable at the moment unless ESPN is willing to get very creative with their contract. My belief is that's the direction the Big Ten would rather go and that's part of why they went after Maryland several years back...to create a bridge into the Mid-Atlantic. Doesn't do them much good right now though.

BUT...what if there's another option that doesn't involve poaching another league?

Let's take a step back and be realistic about the PAC 12...they have issues. They need new money and they need exposure in the Eastern and Central time zones. Their GOR is up around the same time as the Big Ten and I think the posturing from USC recently was a means to shake up the conference leadership. Larry Scott is probably gone soon and then a new vision has room to take hold.

I'm dubious about the PAC 12 being able to sell their network and make a profitable venture out of it, but there are still some options. The Big Ten and the PAC 12 balked at a scheduling alliance a few years back, but I think the time may be right for a new type of partnership. I don't think a true scheduling agreement will arise, but the 2 leagues can partner on media rights in a significant way. Basically, they need to negotiate as one entity.

If the PAC 12 and Big Ten combine their media rights and work with a network like FOX for most of their content then there's an opportunity for a big splash. FOX could own some strong content in all the major windows and that may be more important than ever because they never really got a shot to land the SEC. The BTN and the PAC 12 Network could be combined into one entity that would raise the profile across the country. Now, I don't think conference networks are the future, but they still have a place if you can use them to distribute content on a national scale.

One of the reasons snagging most of the PAC 12 rights(in conjunction with the Big Ten) may be significant is because it will keep more games out of rival ESPN's hands.

Here's where things might get really interesting...

I'm going to make an odd yet bold prediction. I'm going to say that the glory days of the Big Ten and PAC 12 are important enough to re-establish that these leagues will be willing to go to great lengths to bring those days back. If the 2 leagues are negotiating as one then the Rose Bowl basically belongs to these leagues, right? It's not quite that simple, but I think the people in Pasadena will be more than willing to allow these leagues to control the game under the right scenario. That scenario is one where the College Football Playoff cease to exist as we know it.

Here's the problem with the current CFP...no one from the PAC 12 is even getting in. The Big Ten teams have gotten in a little more often, but haven't had a lot of luck outside of Ohio State's run in 2014. Much of the nation feels the CFP is flawed in how they rank schools and biased towards Southern teams. True or not, it doesn't much matter. The reality is that the PAC 12 and Big Ten have been less than competitive during these events.

I think the PAC and Big Ten will push for a CFP expansion. They want more opportunities to get their teams in and more opportunities to win a title. If the CFP doesn't expand to 8 or at least 6 then I think the PAC and Big Ten would actually be better off by splitting off and forming their own postseason series. The Rose Bowl could be the crowning game on New Year's Day...a match up between conference champions in the old style.

Think about it...removing themselves from the CFP structure would probably benefit these 2 leagues financially and competitively. Just as important, it would reduce the legitimacy of whatever agreement the SEC and ACC put forth in place of the CFP. A college football playoff isn't worth as much if it doesn't involve all of college football. In the same way the Ivy League maintains a separation from the other FCS schools, perhaps the Big Ten and PAC could do something in the neighborhood of such a strategy although not precisely the same move as they still would want national games and Southern exposure.

The CFP agreement will end right around the same time that these GORs are ending. I think we should consider the potential for a bargaining chip being played by the Big Ten and PAC. If they are serious about such a maneuver then they'll either have greater access to the CFP of they will have their own postseason model and some old glory attached to it.

When you think about, the long term legitimacy of the Big Ten and PAC may depend on asymmetrical moves because competing head to head with the powers of the SEC, especially if Texas and Oklahoma are added, is not a great plan.

You're not alone in gravitating towards symmetry. We've never had it in college sports so I'm not sure why we, including myself, believe it will ever happen. The conferences clearly don't care. Take a look at the Sugar Bowl, for example. The SEC doesn't care that each school has a theoretical 7.14% chance of playing in the Sugar Bowl while each XII school has a theoretical 10% chance. The XII, with 10 schools, has an equal chance to make the CFP as does the SEC, B1G, and ACC with 14 schools each and none of those conferences seem to care.

I think we'd see push back if an 8-school power conference appears (similar to the Big East) and there's power conferences with 16 or more schools. In that case, I think independents would be viewed as more acceptable entrants to the CFP. I think the ACC is more vulnerable than the XII, which may not be a popular opinion. Texas and Oklahoma are making good money in a conference they control. The ACC is a Frankenstein's monster of core ACC, southern independents, and Big East defects. While the XII isn't too terribly different, the characteristics of the ACC groupings vary much, much greater.

First and foremost, I think the PAC stays at 12 and remains the smallest leg of the power conferences. It is not unprecedented to have geographic outliers like that. In a similar comparison, my company is split into 4 global geographies which govern themselves to a certain degree: the Americas, Asia Pacific, Europe & Central Asia (ECA), and Greater Middle East & Africa (GMEA). GMEA is significantly smaller in revenue than the other 3 but its politicogeographical differences make that separation a necessity.

Looking at splitting the ACC, the academic basketball ACC core (North Carolina, Duke, Virginia) seems to want to move together. Most seem to slot them in the B1G, and I usually do, but lets say they see the SEC as the better road. Why? More money, cultural fit, more favorable basketball scheduling, and its not like they were ever in the running to win the football national title. Football powers Florida St and Clemson also jump into the SEC - I don't think there's much debate here. That's 19 so the conference agrees to bring in Louisville who is a tremendous player in football, basketball, and baseball. The B1G becomes the favored destination for Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Boston College, and Virginia Tech - and stops. The rest (Miami, Georgia Tech, North Carolina St, and Wake Forest) join the XII. Notre Dame, in this case, may see the B1G as the home for its non-football sports with a similar Notre Dame-ACC deal. It already plays hockey there.

PAC
North: Washington, Washington St, Oregon, Oregon St, California, Stanford
South: USC, UCLA, Arizona, Arizona St, Utah, Colorado

XIV
West: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Kansas, Kansas St, Iowa St
East: Baylor, TCU, Miami, Georgia Tech, North Carolina St, Wake Forest, West Virginia

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

B1G
West: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern
North: Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St
East: Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Boston College, Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia Tech
*Notre Dame for non-football sports

NY6 tie-ins -
Rose Bowl: B1G vs. PAC
Sugar Bowl: SEC vs. XIV
Orange Bowl: B1G vs. SEC
Fiesta Bowl / Cotton Bowl / Peach Bowl: At-Large vs. At-Large

Just a subsequent thought on this...

What if these leagues started taking over the entire postseason structure in a way we haven't really seen?

It seems that the bowls have a lot of power and no one wants to get rid of them...ok, fine.

It also seems like there's no real agreement on what the CFP should be going forward. It's been prosperous, but it's not been equally beneficial for all conferences. Keep in mind that the parameters of this system are imminently more important than other sports because the money difference is so significant. There's a reason the conferences control the football postseason and always have. There's a reason they allowed other sports to be under the authority of the NCAA.

It doesn't matter if the NCAA controls the volleyball tournament or the softball tournament and it doesn't really matter who gets in and who doesn't. Whoever wins the national title in most sports doesn't really matter as far as the entire athletic ecosystem.

I do think the leagues are probably regretting allowing such control over the basketball tournament, but they likely never anticipated just what a money-maker it would be. Of course, they can rectify that going forward, but that's a different topic.

The conferences controlling football, however, is power they will never give up to an authority that will not ensure the benefit of each participant. Perhaps the clamor from the fan bases for a national playoff ended up clouding certain leaders' judgement or maybe they simply thought it would work out differently.

Bottom line is this...the Big Ten and the PAC have a lot to lose by ceding any degree of national prominence. If I'm a leader in those conferences then everything is on the table and if the CFP isn't serving my purposes then I pull out.

BUT what about this?

The bowl games don't appear to be going away so why not incorporate them in a new way?

The conference title games have a lot of value under certain circumstances although the SEC's game is more valuable than the others. What if the conference title games were hosted at the bowl games?

The PAC 12 is moving their title game to Las Vegas, but why not just utilize the Fiesta Bowl? Why not move the game until later and build a bowl game around it? Same deal for the Big Ten, but instead of Indianapolis, they host the game at the Cotton Bowl or the Citrus Bowl?

The SEC wouldn't want to leave Atlanta, but why not just negotiate with the Peach Bowl?

The ACC could do the same wherever they want their game...the Orange maybe.

The ACC and SEC Champions can still meet in the Sugar Bowl and both those conferences could simply share the revenue of that game. Same deal for the PAC 12 and Big Ten with the Rose Bowl.

The issue with the current CCG model is some of these games aren't well-attended. They make for good TV product and that's about it. The fans need a motivation to show up and they need time to make arrangements. Scheduling the games a couple of weeks later in conjunction with a bowl game should fit the bill.

For one, the last regular season game could still be played on that first weekend in December. This will stretch the schedule out a little bit as it was originally designed to do. Everybody's got an extra BYE week and the TV networks have a little more room to schedule the games in friendly and varied time slots throughout the season.

Move the entire postseason until Christmas and after. That way, all the big time teams are playing 1 less game instead of 1 more game. The bowls are still incorporated and everything is a little more conference centric as opposed to the way it is now.

Also, the fans have fewer burdens placed on them with regard to ticket purchases and travel.

Incorporating the bowl games in high stakes match-ups...conference titles and additional bowl berths on the line...should ramp the numbers up and make them profitable for all leagues. This is probably more economical than each league trying to run their own event as the bowl games have more legacy marketing and a greater stake in ensuring it's a big event rather than just a game on a random December afternoon.

Asymmetry is certainly a possible outcome and should be considered. But I think if it happens it will be centered around the payment of players at levels that some schools will simply not want to participate in.

I think pride on the part of the Big 10 would lead them to be a part of any breakaway. I could however see some of the PAC schools trying to make some kind of political statement by not participating but if they did it would kill the Rose Bowl so I'm not sure they'd even go that far.

Losing small privates and having a tweener tier is probable. There may be many publics at the G5 level who want to keep football for their alumni but which won't opt to play at the highest level and will keep a form of amateurism which I assume some current P5 privates might join them in as well as the service academies..

It is for that reason that I wouldn't rule out 3 P conferences of roughly 18 each out of the realm of the likely or perhaps even 4 conferences of 14. I suppose it would depend on when and how the separation occurred.

It is also probable that the upper tier will have certain bowl tie ins and that the more amateur tier will as well.

We could even have asymmetry in the size of upper tier conferences depending upon geography.

But either way I expect the Big 10 and SEC and Big 12 to do whatever is necessary to remain in the upper tier, minus possibly some privates. I strongly suspect there could be division within the ACC over it, and if there is a "conscientious objector" look to some of the West Coast.

(03-05-2020 01:54 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Asymmetry is certainly a possible outcome and should be considered. But I think if it happens it will be centered around the payment of players at levels that some schools will simply not want to participate in.

I think pride on the part of the Big 10 would lead them to be a part of any breakaway. I could however see some of the PAC schools trying to make some kind of political statement by not participating but if they did it would kill the Rose Bowl so I'm not sure they'd even go that far.

Losing small privates and having a tweener tier is probable. There may be many publics at the G5 level who want to keep football for their alumni but which won't opt to play at the highest level and will keep a form of amateurism which I assume some current P5 privates might join them in as well as the service academies..

It is for that reason that I wouldn't rule out 3 P conferences of roughly 18 each out of the realm of the likely or perhaps even 4 conferences of 14. I suppose it would depend on when and how the separation occurred.

It is also probable that the upper tier will have certain bowl tie ins and that the more amateur tier will as well.

We could even have asymmetry in the size of upper tier conferences depending upon geography.

But either way I expect the Big 10 and SEC and Big 12 to do whatever is necessary to remain in the upper tier, minus possibly some privates. I strongly suspect there could be division within the ACC over it, and if there is a "conscientious objector" look to some of the West Coast.

As it stands, the full ride scholarship is considered a form of compensation. It's a benefit as opposed to cash, but the scholarship nonetheless forms the backbone of the dividing line between divisions.

I think there's one thing we can bet on when it comes to the future...the powers that be will try to hold onto as much of the current structure as possible.

Recently, we've seen moves to loosen the transfer rules. The new rules are incredibly inconvenient to the coaches, but they make the NCAA "look" better. Forget the coaches, I think it's mostly an effort to keep the Feds or other entities off their back. In the long run, it won't work, but let's consider that whatever compensation model emerges doesn't necessarily have to be universally applied.

After all, the scholarship rules are not universally applied and are based to a significant degree upon a school's ability to fund competition at a certain level. The same dynamics would probably apply to other types of compensation.

Let's say the top division's requirements look something like this:

1. FCOA scholarship to 100 football players
2. Medical insurance
3. Loss of value insurance for top athletes
4. Name, image, and likeness rights for all athletes
5. Monthly stipend of $2,000 as long as athlete is eligible and enrolled in classes
6. Full ride scholarship is honored for Bachelors and Masters degrees even in the event athlete departs school early
7. Paid travel for family to see home, away, and postseason games.

Any idea what that would cost?

My premise here is that a 2nd division could form that adopted some of these measures, but not all of them. Or perhaps it adopts all measures, but does it for fewer athletes?

I think competing at the highest levels is something most Power schools and even some G5 schools might be interested in, but allowing for a hybrid division between the above and a standard definition of amateurism might appeal to quite a few.

At the end of the day, some schools will go into the red on the athletic side if they deem the exposure worthwhile to the function of the academic side. It's true that some have less room to spend than others, but most of these schools will want an opportunity to be on national TV and to compete for their own championships. If some have to sacrifice the glory of top flight competition for the sake of finances then they could settle for most of what they want if it's accompanied by a slightly higher bill. That could be preferable to cheaper bills and relegation to a division that no one will watch.

Think of it this way, the G5 is regarded as inferior, but they're still on TV. Assuming the top division has fewer schools in the first place, there could be plenty of air time available for schools in a tweener division.

(03-06-2020 01:41 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 01:54 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Asymmetry is certainly a possible outcome and should be considered. But I think if it happens it will be centered around the payment of players at levels that some schools will simply not want to participate in.

I think pride on the part of the Big 10 would lead them to be a part of any breakaway. I could however see some of the PAC schools trying to make some kind of political statement by not participating but if they did it would kill the Rose Bowl so I'm not sure they'd even go that far.

Losing small privates and having a tweener tier is probable. There may be many publics at the G5 level who want to keep football for their alumni but which won't opt to play at the highest level and will keep a form of amateurism which I assume some current P5 privates might join them in as well as the service academies..

It is for that reason that I wouldn't rule out 3 P conferences of roughly 18 each out of the realm of the likely or perhaps even 4 conferences of 14. I suppose it would depend on when and how the separation occurred.

It is also probable that the upper tier will have certain bowl tie ins and that the more amateur tier will as well.

We could even have asymmetry in the size of upper tier conferences depending upon geography.

But either way I expect the Big 10 and SEC and Big 12 to do whatever is necessary to remain in the upper tier, minus possibly some privates. I strongly suspect there could be division within the ACC over it, and if there is a "conscientious objector" look to some of the West Coast.

As it stands, the full ride scholarship is considered a form of compensation. It's a benefit as opposed to cash, but the scholarship nonetheless forms the backbone of the dividing line between divisions.

I think there's one thing we can bet on when it comes to the future...the powers that be will try to hold onto as much of the current structure as possible.

Recently, we've seen moves to loosen the transfer rules. The new rules are incredibly inconvenient to the coaches, but they make the NCAA "look" better. Forget the coaches, I think it's mostly an effort to keep the Feds or other entities off their back. In the long run, it won't work, but let's consider that whatever compensation model emerges doesn't necessarily have to be universally applied.

After all, the scholarship rules are not universally applied and are based to a significant degree upon a school's ability to fund competition at a certain level. The same dynamics would probably apply to other types of compensation.

Let's say the top division's requirements look something like this:

1. FCOA scholarship to 100 football players
2. Medical insurance
3. Loss of value insurance for top athletes
4. Name, image, and likeness rights for all athletes
5. Monthly stipend of $2,000 as long as athlete is eligible and enrolled in classes
6. Full ride scholarship is honored for Bachelors and Masters degrees even in the event athlete departs school early
7. Paid travel for family to see home, away, and postseason games.

Any idea what that would cost?

My premise here is that a 2nd division could form that adopted some of these measures, but not all of them. Or perhaps it adopts all measures, but does it for fewer athletes?

I think competing at the highest levels is something most Power schools and even some G5 schools might be interested in, but allowing for a hybrid division between the above and a standard definition of amateurism might appeal to quite a few.

At the end of the day, some schools will go into the red on the athletic side if they deem the exposure worthwhile to the function of the academic side. It's true that some have less room to spend than others, but most of these schools will want an opportunity to be on national TV and to compete for their own championships. If some have to sacrifice the glory of top flight competition for the sake of finances then they could settle for most of what they want if it's accompanied by a slightly higher bill. That could be preferable to cheaper bills and relegation to a division that no one will watch.

Think of it this way, the G5 is regarded as inferior, but they're still on TV. Assuming the top division has fewer schools in the first place, there could be plenty of air time available for schools in a tweener division.

I think this one has to be limited to parents, or spouse. I don't see room for siblings. And I think they should be allowed to pick 2 away games a year and the CCG or CFP play. Home games are not a problem. It would amount to having to take a 2nd chartered jet and that's pretty darned expensive as opposed to a bus. I think this is an area where all top tier schools need to agree. The parents or spouse can be supplied with a pair of tickets to all games, but paying their transportation needs to be very limited. That's why 2 away games and postseason make the most sense.

(03-06-2020 01:56 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 01:41 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 01:54 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Asymmetry is certainly a possible outcome and should be considered. But I think if it happens it will be centered around the payment of players at levels that some schools will simply not want to participate in.

I think pride on the part of the Big 10 would lead them to be a part of any breakaway. I could however see some of the PAC schools trying to make some kind of political statement by not participating but if they did it would kill the Rose Bowl so I'm not sure they'd even go that far.

Losing small privates and having a tweener tier is probable. There may be many publics at the G5 level who want to keep football for their alumni but which won't opt to play at the highest level and will keep a form of amateurism which I assume some current P5 privates might join them in as well as the service academies..

It is for that reason that I wouldn't rule out 3 P conferences of roughly 18 each out of the realm of the likely or perhaps even 4 conferences of 14. I suppose it would depend on when and how the separation occurred.

It is also probable that the upper tier will have certain bowl tie ins and that the more amateur tier will as well.

We could even have asymmetry in the size of upper tier conferences depending upon geography.

But either way I expect the Big 10 and SEC and Big 12 to do whatever is necessary to remain in the upper tier, minus possibly some privates. I strongly suspect there could be division within the ACC over it, and if there is a "conscientious objector" look to some of the West Coast.

As it stands, the full ride scholarship is considered a form of compensation. It's a benefit as opposed to cash, but the scholarship nonetheless forms the backbone of the dividing line between divisions.

I think there's one thing we can bet on when it comes to the future...the powers that be will try to hold onto as much of the current structure as possible.

Recently, we've seen moves to loosen the transfer rules. The new rules are incredibly inconvenient to the coaches, but they make the NCAA "look" better. Forget the coaches, I think it's mostly an effort to keep the Feds or other entities off their back. In the long run, it won't work, but let's consider that whatever compensation model emerges doesn't necessarily have to be universally applied.

After all, the scholarship rules are not universally applied and are based to a significant degree upon a school's ability to fund competition at a certain level. The same dynamics would probably apply to other types of compensation.

Let's say the top division's requirements look something like this:

1. FCOA scholarship to 100 football players
2. Medical insurance
3. Loss of value insurance for top athletes
4. Name, image, and likeness rights for all athletes
5. Monthly stipend of $2,000 as long as athlete is eligible and enrolled in classes
6. Full ride scholarship is honored for Bachelors and Masters degrees even in the event athlete departs school early
7. Paid travel for family to see home, away, and postseason games.

Any idea what that would cost?

My premise here is that a 2nd division could form that adopted some of these measures, but not all of them. Or perhaps it adopts all measures, but does it for fewer athletes?

I think competing at the highest levels is something most Power schools and even some G5 schools might be interested in, but allowing for a hybrid division between the above and a standard definition of amateurism might appeal to quite a few.

At the end of the day, some schools will go into the red on the athletic side if they deem the exposure worthwhile to the function of the academic side. It's true that some have less room to spend than others, but most of these schools will want an opportunity to be on national TV and to compete for their own championships. If some have to sacrifice the glory of top flight competition for the sake of finances then they could settle for most of what they want if it's accompanied by a slightly higher bill. That could be preferable to cheaper bills and relegation to a division that no one will watch.

Think of it this way, the G5 is regarded as inferior, but they're still on TV. Assuming the top division has fewer schools in the first place, there could be plenty of air time available for schools in a tweener division.

I think this one has to be limited to parents, or spouse. I don't see room for siblings. And I think they should be allowed to pick 2 away games a year and the CCG or CFP play. Home games are not a problem. It would amount to having to take a 2nd chartered jet and that's pretty darned expensive as opposed to a bus. I think this is an area where all top tier schools need to agree. The parents or spouse can be supplied with a pair of tickets to all games, but paying their transportation needs to be very limited. That's why 2 away games and postseason make the most sense.

My thought wasn't so much the school providing the travel. I figure they can cut a deal with some airlines or whatever and pay for some vouchers and maybe a rental car. The parents themselves can be responsible for the travel and just be reimbursed as long as it meets certain criteria.

The home games shouldn't be a problem for players that grew up locally, but there will inevitably be kids signing from other parts of the country so I think it should apply to their parents as well.

Or you could just allow the parents to pick a certain number of games...maybe it's a few home games and maybe a few away games. Guarantee them tickets, but only reimburse travel for up to 6 games of their choice.

There is no organizational entity to dictate symmetry. Also, say the unofficially unstated goal is 16 conference members for all, geography and preferred availability gets in the way.

Actually though, ATU, respectable symmetry possibly could be achieved if the powers got together and did some horse-trading. But no school will want to move to anything less and outside its comfort zone.

Much of it will be achieved through the incremental changes that have been occurring for decades. One conference makes a move, then the ripple effect.

If conferences agreed to a 16 member cap for all power conferences, and dropped the paranoid, greedy GoRs, the SEC, BIG, and the more modified ACC, would get there. The PAC would soon follow just to conform. The B12 would dissolve or any remnant(s) would re-group with others from the current G5.

(03-06-2020 08:23 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  There is no organizational entity to dictate symmetry. Also, say the unofficially unstated goal is 16 conference members for all, geography and preferred availability gets in the way.

Actually though, ATU, respectable symmetry possibly could be achieved if the powers got together and did some horse-trading. But no school will want to move to anything less and outside its comfort zone.

Much of it will be achieved through the incremental changes that have been occurring for decades. One conference makes a move, then the ripple effect.

If conferences agreed to a 16 member cap for all power conferences, and dropped the paranoid, greedy GoRs, the SEC, BIG, and the more modified ACC, would get there. The PAC would soon follow just to conform. The B12 would dissolve or any remnant(s) would re-group with others from the current G5.

The easiest way to get there is for Texas, Texas Tech, Kansas and Kansas State to move to the PAC 12. They are done at 16. For Iowa State and Notre Dame to move to the Big 10. They are done at 16 and Iowa State is the price for Notre Dame. For Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to move to the SEC. They are done at 16. For Wake Forest to become the partial member of the ACC. And for Baylor, T..C.U., and West Virginia to join the ACC.

Now you have a 4 x 16 all out of the Big 12 except for partial Notre Dame who moves to the Big 10 for money and because the CFP just moved to a champs only model.

The ACC now has 16 full members a presence in Texas and a bridge to reconnect their footprint in West Virginia and there are still 65 schools in the P4 and the only one that doesn't have a path to the playoffs is Wake Forest who will likely never be there anyway.

Personally, I think if there's truly ever to be symmetry then I think it would have to come in the form of all the major leagues unifying into one entity.

They'd still have to make some sort divisional alignment to make most of the schools happy, but everyone in one organization produces symmetry. Outside of that, there's too much freedom for moves and counter-moves.

I think that's especially true when you account for the interests of media networks because they have a completely different set of priorities and simultaneously possess the freedom to pit leagues against each other.

It's almost like ESPN, FOX, or others are political superpowers and they exert influence over conferences like they are satellite states.