Like most of us I have proposed "the perfect solution" in the past. Realignment to end all realignment, but alas, there was always a flaw.
But, not this time.

The problem:
divide the 65 P5 teams into conferences that will maximize revenue, provide reasonable competitiveness and do it in a compact regional footprint that keeps traditional rivalries to increase fan interest. Whew!

Knowing that football is weakest on the coasts and strongest in the middle of the country, I found it necessary to continue with 5 conferences. Ten members in the two coastal conferences and 15 members each in the conferences located in the center.

BTW in researching rivals, I learned that Rutgers probably has fewer rivals than any other P5 school, which is why I placed that school in the eastern coastal conference.

Also since it seems inevitable that we are moving toward an 8 team playoff, it is only fitting that the 3 stronger conferences (the middle one's) will get two teams each in the playoff while the coastal conferences will only get one representative. How those teams are chosen should be left up to the individual conference.
Also know that all games are to be played against other P5 teams. No play outside of the 65 team league.

Starting from left to right:

The PAC
(this conference plays a round robin format-9 conference games)

Arizona State, Arizona, UCLA, Southern Cal, Stanford, Cal, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State

Big 12
(this conference like the B1G and SEC play in pods of 5. Playing all of the teams in your own pod every year while alternating the other 2 pods to make a 9 conference game schedule).

Utah, Colorado, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech
Iowa State, Nebraska, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri
Arkansas, Texas, Texas A&M, TCU, Baylor

SEC

LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn
West Virginia, Kentucky, Louisville, Vanderbilt, Tennessee
Miami, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech

B1G

Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Michigan State
Notre Dame, Purdue, Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern
Boston College, Syracuse, Penn State, Pitt, Ohio State

ACC
(this conference plays a 9 game round robin schedule like the PAC)

Rutgers, Maryland, UVa, Virginia Tech, Carolina, NC State, Duke, Wake Forest, Clemson, South Carolina

Rutgers may be bridge too far.

It’s a good university with a great history. New Jersey is an excellent market; wealthy with lots of students who are willing to travel for their education.

But...Rutgers’ commitment to sports is haphazard. Rutgers excels at what the core ACC schools can’t afford...another dysfunctional athletic department.

(03-15-2021 01:13 PM)XLance Wrote:  Like most of us I have proposed "the perfect solution" in the past. Realignment to end all realignment, but alas, there was always a flaw.
But, not this time.

The problem:
divide the 65 P5 teams into conferences that will maximize revenue, provide reasonable competitiveness and do it in a compact regional footprint that keeps traditional rivalries to increase fan interest. Whew!

Knowing that football is weakest on the coasts and strongest in the middle of the country, I found it necessary to continue with 5 conferences. Ten members in the two coastal conferences and 15 members each in the conferences located in the center.

BTW in researching rivals, I learned that Rutgers probably has fewer rivals than any other P5 school, which is why I placed that school in the eastern coastal conference.

Also since it seems inevitable that we are moving toward an 8 team playoff, it is only fitting that the 3 stronger conferences (the middle one's) will get two teams each in the playoff while the coastal conferences will only get one representative. How those teams are chosen should be left up to the individual conference.
Also know that all games are to be played against other P5 teams. No play outside of the 65 team league.

Starting from left to right:

The PAC
(this conference plays a round robin format-9 conference games)

Arizona State, Arizona, UCLA, Southern Cal, Stanford, Cal, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State

Big 12
(this conference like the B1G and SEC play in pods of 5. Playing all of the teams in your own pod every year while alternating the other 2 pods to make a 9 conference game schedule).

Utah, Colorado, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech
Iowa State, Nebraska, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri
Arkansas, Texas, Texas A&M, TCU, Baylor

SEC

LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn
West Virginia, Kentucky, Louisville, Vanderbilt, Tennessee
Miami, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech

B1G

Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Michigan State
Notre Dame, Purdue, Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern
Boston College, Syracuse, Penn State, Pitt, Ohio State

ACC
(this conference plays a 9 game round robin schedule like the PAC)

Rutgers, Maryland, UVa, Virginia Tech, Carolina, NC State, Duke, Wake Forest, Clemson, South Carolina

Your perfect solution is a failure since it does not address the media revenue disparities between the B1G/SEC and the rest of the P5. Why should teams in the XII, PAC, ACC agree to this?

(03-15-2021 02:49 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Rutgers may be bridge too far.

It’s a good university with a great history. New Jersey is an excellent market; wealthy with lots of students who are willing to travel for their education.

But...Rutgers’ commitment to sports is haphazard. Rutgers excels at what the core ACC schools can’t afford...another dysfunctional athletic department.

I’d switch Rutgers and Boston College.

(03-15-2021 03:21 PM)RocketCitySooner Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 01:13 PM)XLance Wrote:  Like most of us I have proposed "the perfect solution" in the past. Realignment to end all realignment, but alas, there was always a flaw.
But, not this time.

The problem:
divide the 65 P5 teams into conferences that will maximize revenue, provide reasonable competitiveness and do it in a compact regional footprint that keeps traditional rivalries to increase fan interest. Whew!

Knowing that football is weakest on the coasts and strongest in the middle of the country, I found it necessary to continue with 5 conferences. Ten members in the two coastal conferences and 15 members each in the conferences located in the center.

BTW in researching rivals, I learned that Rutgers probably has fewer rivals than any other P5 school, which is why I placed that school in the eastern coastal conference.

Also since it seems inevitable that we are moving toward an 8 team playoff, it is only fitting that the 3 stronger conferences (the middle one's) will get two teams each in the playoff while the coastal conferences will only get one representative. How those teams are chosen should be left up to the individual conference.
Also know that all games are to be played against other P5 teams. No play outside of the 65 team league.

Starting from left to right:

The PAC
(this conference plays a round robin format-9 conference games)

Arizona State, Arizona, UCLA, Southern Cal, Stanford, Cal, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State

Big 12
(this conference like the B1G and SEC play in pods of 5. Playing all of the teams in your own pod every year while alternating the other 2 pods to make a 9 conference game schedule).

Utah, Colorado, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech
Iowa State, Nebraska, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri
Arkansas, Texas, Texas A&M, TCU, Baylor

SEC

LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn
West Virginia, Kentucky, Louisville, Vanderbilt, Tennessee
Miami, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech

B1G

Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Michigan State
Notre Dame, Purdue, Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern
Boston College, Syracuse, Penn State, Pitt, Ohio State

ACC
(this conference plays a 9 game round robin schedule like the PAC)

Rutgers, Maryland, UVa, Virginia Tech, Carolina, NC State, Duke, Wake Forest, Clemson, South Carolina

Your perfect solution is a failure since it does not address the media revenue disparities between the B1G/SEC and the rest of the P5. Why should teams in the XII, PAC, ACC agree to this?

It's a troll thread pure and simple. It doesn't take into consideration anything but his fantasy of what the ACC should be. The SEC politely rebuffed WVU twice. Kentucky is the only of the original SEC schools who doesn't want its in state rival joining the conference, and A&M left for good reason.

I'm not condemning it outright however because 99% of the realignment posts consist of some or all of these components, wish, schadenfreude, delusion, irrationality, and homeboy fandom.

In the end all that matters are these 3 considerations:
1. Does it make the moving school more money?
2. Does it make the conference they are moving to more money?
3. Does it make the rights holder of the conference they are moving to more money?

If you can answer yes to all 3 you have a potential legitimate move. If you answer no to any of them you don't. And if you can answer yes to all 3 and the school doesn't want to move you still don't have anything.

Texas probably doesn't want to move. Oklahoma might. If Oklahoma leaves we have realignment. If not we don't. Notre Dame is happy with status quo. An Academic prize from the ACC wanting Big 10 money might be another trigger. We'll see.

(03-15-2021 01:13 PM)XLance Wrote:  Big 12
(this conference like the B1G and SEC play in pods of 5. Playing all of the teams in your own pod every year while alternating the other 2 pods to make a 9 conference game schedule).

Utah, Colorado, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech
Iowa State, Nebraska, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri
Arkansas, Texas, Texas A&M, TCU, Baylor

Just on this point, you can't alternate pods like you describe because there are only 3 pods. While 2 pods are playing each other, what's the 3rd doing?

(03-15-2021 03:38 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 02:49 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Rutgers may be bridge too far.

It’s a good university with a great history. New Jersey is an excellent market; wealthy with lots of students who are willing to travel for their education.

But...Rutgers’ commitment to sports is haphazard. Rutgers excels at what the core ACC schools can’t afford...another dysfunctional athletic department.

I’d switch Rutgers and Boston College.

I'd go with Maryland in the Big Ten instead of BC or Rutgers.

(03-15-2021 04:57 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 03:38 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 02:49 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Rutgers may be bridge too far.

It’s a good university with a great history. New Jersey is an excellent market; wealthy with lots of students who are willing to travel for their education.

But...Rutgers’ commitment to sports is haphazard. Rutgers excels at what the core ACC schools can’t afford...another dysfunctional athletic department.

I’d switch Rutgers and Boston College.

I'd go with Maryland in the Big Ten instead of BC or Rutgers.

I’d keep Maryland as a classic ACC school. When the ACC expanded in the early-mid 00s, they added Boston College despite the distance from the rest of the conference. Rutgers was passed up on.

(03-15-2021 08:18 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 04:57 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 03:38 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 02:49 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Rutgers may be bridge too far.

It’s a good university with a great history. New Jersey is an excellent market; wealthy with lots of students who are willing to travel for their education.

But...Rutgers’ commitment to sports is haphazard. Rutgers excels at what the core ACC schools can’t afford...another dysfunctional athletic department.

I’d switch Rutgers and Boston College.

I'd go with Maryland in the Big Ten instead of BC or Rutgers.

I’d keep Maryland as a classic ACC school. When the ACC expanded in the early-mid 00s, they added Boston College despite the distance from the rest of the conference. Rutgers was passed up on.

If the ACC only had two choices of Rutgers and BC, then inviting BC was the better option at the time. Rutgers was the doormat of the old BE and its facilities were midmajor at best. BC was living off of the Flutie years and the idea that a daU/BC rivalry would be rekindled was over played. BC to the ACC has been a complete bust. It made for a small and forgotten Northern outpost in an otherwise Southeastern conference that has never brought the expected dividends. BC was a plan B after the ACC failed to lure Syracuse, but inviting any other school would have allowed for a football CCG. BC, a smallish, elitist, private college was never going to deliver the Boston/New England markets the ACC hoped to establish. Even worse, that area of the country just does not produce the D1 athletes in the sports the ACC cares about, to make it a prime recruiting area.

IMO without the Deep South wing, media rights for the ACC would have been too low during the past two generations. Georgia Tech and FSU were essential expansions in order for the ACC to maintain national relevance. Clemson and VT do not have enough pull to be anchor institutions in a football-driven landscape. FSU has been an effective tent pole that allows other programs (and the whole conference) to flourish. The other potential eastern football tent poles (Penn State, Georgia and/or Florida) were already spoken for and also slightly outside the core footprint of the traditional Tidewater region.

Looking forward, a strong Deep South wing strengthens football and helps maintain the institutions from jumping to the SEC or BIG. The east coast provides great demographics that football-driven conferences best exploit. Hence why the Big 10 left its Midwestern roots to get Penn State, Maryland and Rutgers; why some SEC folks are still baffled by Bobby Bowden’s choice; or why UNC always has a landing spot if the ACC ever dissolves. For the next generation (or two), football media rights is the essential revenue-stream keeping conferences together. FSU is the ACC’s tent pole and glue; Georgia Tech and Miami make the ACC a welcoming environment for the Seminoles. The ACC would be suffering the fate of the old Big East without Deep South football.

FWIW - the ACC desperately needs another tent pole. Clemson is in the midst of a historic football renaissance with Dabo...that helps. Bringing a northern wing has made Notre Dame a potential solution...although I wouldn’t bet on it. Regardless, the ACC is still in a somewhat precarious position. If football doesn’t improve, the SEC or BIG will be tempting to the most valuable athletic properties within the ACC.

(03-16-2021 09:38 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  IMO without the Deep South wing, media rights for the ACC would have been too low during the past two generations. Georgia Tech and FSU were essential expansions in order for the ACC to maintain national relevance. Clemson and VT do not have enough pull to be anchor institutions in a football-driven landscape. FSU has been an effective tent pole that allows other programs (and the whole conference) to flourish. The other potential eastern football tent poles (Penn State, Georgia and/or Florida) were already spoken for and also slightly outside the core footprint of the traditional Tidewater region.

Looking forward, a strong Deep South wing strengthens football and helps maintain the institutions from jumping to the SEC or BIG. The east coast provides great demographics that football-driven conferences best exploit. Hence why the Big 10 left its Midwestern roots to get Penn State, Maryland and Rutgers; why some SEC folks are still baffled by Bobby Bowden’s choice; or why UNC always has a landing spot if the ACC ever dissolves. For the next generation (or two), football media rights is the essential revenue-stream keeping conferences together. FSU is the ACC’s tent pole and glue; Georgia Tech and Miami make the ACC a welcoming environment for the Seminoles. The ACC would be suffering the fate of the old Big East without Deep South football.

FWIW - the ACC desperately needs another tent pole. Clemson is in the midst of a historic football renaissance with Dabo...that helps. Bringing a northern wing has made Notre Dame a potential solution...although I wouldn’t bet on it. Regardless, the ACC is still in a somewhat precarious position. If football doesn’t improve, the SEC or BIG will be tempting to the most valuable athletic properties within the ACC.

You are very right. Had the Noles chose the SEC over the ACC in 1990 when they were in talks with both leagues the ACC would be a much different conference today.

The ACC would have needed to land the Canes to be relevant in the 90s.

I think that Clemson would have left when the SEC was in search of a partner for Texas A&M.

——

The ACC really needs Clemson, Florida St, Miami, and VT all to be playing at a high level and gaining ND as a full member would also help a lot.

(03-16-2021 09:01 AM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 08:18 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 04:57 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 03:38 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(03-15-2021 02:49 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Rutgers may be bridge too far.

It’s a good university with a great history. New Jersey is an excellent market; wealthy with lots of students who are willing to travel for their education.

But...Rutgers’ commitment to sports is haphazard. Rutgers excels at what the core ACC schools can’t afford...another dysfunctional athletic department.

I’d switch Rutgers and Boston College.

I'd go with Maryland in the Big Ten instead of BC or Rutgers.

I’d keep Maryland as a classic ACC school. When the ACC expanded in the early-mid 00s, they added Boston College despite the distance from the rest of the conference. Rutgers was passed up on.

If the ACC only had two choices of Rutgers and BC, then inviting BC was the better option at the time. Rutgers was the doormat of the old BE and its facilities were midmajor at best. BC was living off of the Flutie years and the idea that a daU/BC rivalry would be rekindled was over played. BC to the ACC has been a complete bust. It made for a small and forgotten Northern outpost in an otherwise Southeastern conference that has never brought the expected dividends. BC was a plan B after the ACC failed to lure Syracuse, but inviting any other school would have allowed for a football CCG. BC, a smallish, elitist, private college was never going to deliver the Boston/New England markets the ACC hoped to establish. Even worse, that area of the country just does not produce the D1 athletes in the sports the ACC cares about, to make it a prime recruiting area.

Agree that the ACC could not have afforded Rutgers 20 years ago.

Now that Rutgers is finally getting an equitable share of Big 10 media distributions, it should be fun to see their entire athletic department grow into a consistent power program. Football had not been far off (attendance should be closer to 50k, and the team making bowls at least half the years). Basketball has looked much better the last couple of years. I don’t really follow Rutgers so I don’t know about their non-revenue sports’ accomplishments. Rutgers athletics is in the middle of a generational reconstruction project and they should see signs of improvements.