Texas and Oklahoma’s move to the SEC started a chain-reaction that is changing P5 dynamics. The SEC is the first power conference to have 16 members. Rather than following the leader, the B1G, ACC and PAC formed an Alliance in response to the SEC change. To stabilize its power conference status, the B12 not only backfilled but expanded to 12 members. The P5 conferences will now have 69 members…BYU, Cincinnati, Houston, and UCF have now joined the club.

NCAA athletics have always been a form of a caste system. D1 includes over 350 universities and the P5 schools are generally regarded as having the elite athletic programs. Football, basketball, Olympic-sports, finances, and rivalry games are all bigger at the P5 level. Within the P5 conferences there is a class structure, or caste system, for athletic programs. This round of realignment helped to make the class structure more obvious.

Using commonly available data updated through August 2021, I created a model to quantify the current caste system (the methodology is somewhat complex to explain and maintain) for P5 universities:

Kings: Ohio State, Michigan, and Texas
Royalty: Alabama, UF, UGA, OU, WI, LSU & PSU
Gentry: UCLA, USC, FSU, Tennessee, Auburn, ND, TAM, MSU, Stan, UK, Wash, UNC, Iowa, Duke, Clem, MN, Cal, Ore, Illinois, Purdue & Indiana
Bourgeoisie: ASU, UNL, Ark, VT, UVa, SC, NCS, Mia, NW, AZ, KU, OM, Lou, Ok St, GT, UMCP, Pitt, MS St, Vanderbilt, Utah, TCU, MO, K St, Baylor, Syracuse, WF, CO and ISU
Proletariat: Or St, TTU, Rutgers, WSU, BYU, BC, WVU, Houston, Cincy and UCF

Realignment initially hurts the moving school’s caste score. For example, Oklahoma is ending generations of conference rivalries (such as Oklahoma State, Kansas, ISU, etc.) as well as geographic advantages (the geo-center of the B12 is in the state of Oklahoma…while the new geo-center of the SEC will be in Mississippi). This initial downgrade in caste score is modest and does not generally impact their broader class. Before the realignment announcement, Oklahoma had the fifth highest score (between Alabama and Florida) and is now seventh in P5 pecking order.

It’s not surprising that the new P5 universities (BYU, Houston, Cincy, and UCF) are all entering the caste system at the lowest P5 tier. Except for Houston, the additions were not in the B12 geography and don’t have many existing rivalries with other members of the new conference. These programs also don’t yet have the financial nor competitive experience from participating in the P5. In the 2012 realignment, Louisville, Utah, and TCU were similarly promoted from the G5…a decade later these three programs have risen to the bourgeoisie. In expanding, the B12 appears to have prioritized football and university profile. The revenues of the new members were amongst the highest of G5 programs, but that is still very low for P5 programs. The four expansion members should see a significant rise in their conference financial payouts. It may be years before a new B12 media deal is finalized. The remaining 8 B12 programs could experience a significant relative drop from their current payout levels (resulting from the loss of the two upper tier brands).

The announced realignments will result in the following class structure for the P5 conferences:

SEC B1G PAC ACC B12 G5 FCS No FB Total
Kings 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Royals 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
Gentry 4 6 6 5 0 0 0 0 21
Bourgeoisie 6 3 4 9 6 0 0 0 28
Proletariat 0 1 2 1 6 0 0 0 10
Plebeians 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 61 128 100 289

SEC now has the strongest collection of athletic programs. Adding Texas (with the strongest P5 finances) and Oklahoma (with an outstanding P5 football program) augmented the SEC strengths. The additions also improved Olympic sports and overall university profiles. Competitive fit (rivalries) stayed level with the additions because the SEC had a solid core of long-term rivals (TA&M, Arkansas, and Missouri). Simply put, UT & OU were ideal additions. Going forward, the only accretive expansion candidates left are FSU, ND, and UNC; Duke and Clemson are likely break-even additions. If basketball, university profile or new markets gain importance (or if the SEC just needs an even-numbered addition), then other universities could be considered. IMO, the SEC isn’t looking to expand but would welcome overtures from UNC.

B1G has an overall class structure that is comparable to the SEC. Yet the B1G’s relative strengths are university profiles and competitive fit. Their recent additions (UNL, UMCP and Rutgers) have struggled in the B1G; UNL and UMCP lost value in their transitions and Rutgers is still stuck in the lowest P5 caste. If the B1G needs to expand, ND is still their white whale…both ND and the conference would rise in the caste system from this marriage (ND is an awkward fit in the ACC). A plausible alternative for the B1G is to replicate the Larry Scott wish of entering an entirely new region with many additions: going to the far west / PAC (with UCLA, USC, Stanford, Washington, Cal & Oregon/ND) or the south / ACC (with FSU, UNC, Duke, UVa, GT & Miami/ND). Miami and FSU are not in the AAU, but their research programs are above those of UNL (and their undergraduate educational reputations are strong). IMO, the next move in P4 expansion will involve the B1G.

PAC is clearly a tier below the SEC and B1G. Their university profiles are like the B1G, but they don’t have football programs that draw 90-100K+ fans. There are no realistic accretive expansion moves for the PAC. The previous expansion got the best schools available…but the expansion was still dilutive. Colorado & Utah are in the lower half of the PAC’s class structure and not winning conference championships. An Alliance or merger (especially with the B1G) is now their best approach to enhance value. The PAC needs to prevent defection of their gentry. UCLA & USC need to see a bright future within the PAC, rather than looking longingly at the B1G. The elite programs in the PAC could decide that the UT/OU approach of abandoning their conference (and joining the B1G) makes strategic sense.

ACC has an overall class structure that is comparable to the PAC. Amongst P5 conferences, their relative strength is in Olympic sports (especially basketball). The ACC also needs to prevent defection of their gentry (starting with FSU, ND, and UNC). ACC schools’ proximity to both the B1G and SEC make them more likely realignment prey, rather than predators. The best ACC expansion candidate is ND…somehow growing the football ties to the ACC. ESPN may offer modest increases to payouts with additions such as KU, Okie State, and/or TCU…gaining content that ESPN does not fully control, while improving the ACC’s basketball/football reputation. Expanding into the central time-zone will probably not be well received by the ACC’s class-conscious old guard (UNC, Duke and UVa). Rather than the quagmire of expansion, the ACC could focus on enhancing its value in football and basketball. Unbalanced football scheduling could be used to generate more marquee matchups. More frequent games amongst the southern-publics (Clemson, VT, Louisville, GT, FSU, and NC State) or rotating ND games amongst stronger opponents every other year (and weaker opponents every fourth year). In NCAA governance discussions, the ACC should be advocating for creation of a new, smaller D1+ division, principally as a means of changing the basketball tournament structure and disbursements. Growing basketball’s importance in college athletics resolves a lot of ACC problems.

B12 class structure was clearly downgraded with the loss of UT & OU. But is still reasonably within the boundaries of other P5 conferences. The programs in the B12 are now all below the median caste status of the P5. In addition, all B12 universities have caste scores that are below the average of the four other conferences. The top priority is to ensure that the conference is worthy of its “autonomous” status. Expansion did a great job of enhancing football, while also improving the university profiles of the conference. Ironically, this iteration of the B12 membership should be much more stable…no individual program is accretive to any of the P4 conferences and expansion addressed foundational aspects staying in the club. Expanding with Boise State and/or Memphis would have been risky because those programs are further outside the caste parameters of the P4. Competitively, B12 football and basketball should be equal to other P5 conferences (and far superior to the G5).

Very interesting post, thanks!

Interesting assessment, well done. One thing I would say is that the expansion candidates you identified for the ACC are the same ones that the PAC will consider(along with another Texas school) when they renegotiate their TV contract in a couple years.

Again, very well done

(11-02-2021 02:55 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Texas and Oklahoma’s move to the SEC started a chain-reaction that is changing P5 dynamics. The SEC is the first power conference to have 16 members. Rather than following the leader, the B1G, ACC and PAC formed an Alliance in response to the SEC change. To stabilize its power conference status, the B12 not only backfilled but expanded to 12 members. The P5 conferences will now have 69 members…BYU, Cincinnati, Houston, and UCF have now joined the club.

NCAA athletics have always been a form of a caste system. D1 includes over 350 universities and the P5 schools are generally regarded as having the elite athletic programs. Football, basketball, Olympic-sports, finances, and rivalry games are all bigger at the P5 level. Within the P5 conferences there is a class structure, or caste system, for athletic programs. This round of realignment helped to make the class structure more obvious.

Using commonly available data updated through August 2021, I created a model to quantify the current caste system (the methodology is somewhat complex to explain and maintain) for P5 universities:

Kings: Ohio State, Michigan, and Texas
Royalty: Alabama, UF, UGA, OU, WI, LSU & PSU
Gentry: UCLA, USC, FSU, Tennessee, Auburn, ND, TAM, MSU, Stan, UK, Wash, UNC, Iowa, Duke, Clem, MN, Cal, Ore, Illinois, Purdue & Indiana
Bourgeoisie: ASU, UNL, Ark, VT, UVa, SC, NCS, Mia, NW, AZ, KU, OM, Lou, Ok St, GT, UMCP, Pitt, MS St, Vanderbilt, Utah, TCU, MO, K St, Baylor, Syracuse, WF, CO and ISU
Proletariat: Or St, TTU, Rutgers, WSU, BYU, BC, WVU, Houston, Cincy and UCF

Realignment initially hurts the moving school’s caste score. For example, Oklahoma is ending generations of conference rivalries (such as Oklahoma State, Kansas, ISU, etc.) as well as geographic advantages (the geo-center of the B12 is in the state of Oklahoma…while the new geo-center of the SEC will be in Mississippi). This initial downgrade in caste score is modest and does not generally impact their broader class. Before the realignment announcement, Oklahoma had the fifth highest score (between Alabama and Florida) and is now seventh in P5 pecking order.

It’s not surprising that the new P5 universities (BYU, Houston, Cincy, and UCF) are all entering the caste system at the lowest P5 tier. Except for Houston, the additions were not in the B12 geography and don’t have many existing rivalries with other members of the new conference. These programs also don’t yet have the financial nor competitive experience from participating in the P5. In the 2012 realignment, Louisville, Utah, and TCU were similarly promoted from the G5…a decade later these three programs have risen to the bourgeoisie. In expanding, the B12 appears to have prioritized football and university profile. The revenues of the new members were amongst the highest of G5 programs, but that is still very low for P5 programs. The four expansion members should see a significant rise in their conference financial payouts. It may be years before a new B12 media deal is finalized. The remaining 8 B12 programs could experience a significant relative drop from their current payout levels (resulting from the loss of the two upper tier brands).

The announced realignments will result in the following class structure for the P5 conferences:

SEC B1G PAC ACC B12 G5 FCS No FB Total
Kings 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Royals 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
Gentry 4 6 6 5 0 0 0 0 21
Bourgeoisie 6 3 4 9 6 0 0 0 28
Proletariat 0 1 2 1 6 0 0 0 10
Plebeians 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 61 128 100 289

SEC now has the strongest collection of athletic programs. Adding Texas (with the strongest P5 finances) and Oklahoma (with an outstanding P5 football program) augmented the SEC strengths. The additions also improved Olympic sports and overall university profiles. Competitive fit (rivalries) stayed level with the additions because the SEC had a solid core of long-term rivals (TA&M, Arkansas, and Missouri). Simply put, UT & OU were ideal additions. Going forward, the only accretive expansion candidates left are FSU, ND, and UNC; Duke and Clemson are likely break-even additions. If basketball, university profile or new markets gain importance (or if the SEC just needs an even-numbered addition), then other universities could be considered. IMO, the SEC isn’t looking to expand but would welcome overtures from UNC.

B1G has an overall class structure that is comparable to the SEC. Yet the B1G’s relative strengths are university profiles and competitive fit. Their recent additions (UNL, UMCP and Rutgers) have struggled in the B1G; UNL and UMCP lost value in their transitions and Rutgers is still stuck in the lowest P5 caste. If the B1G needs to expand, ND is still their white whale…both ND and the conference would rise in the caste system from this marriage (ND is an awkward fit in the ACC). A plausible alternative for the B1G is to replicate the Larry Scott wish of entering an entirely new region with many additions: going to the far west / PAC (with UCLA, USC, Stanford, Washington, Cal & Oregon/ND) or the south / ACC (with FSU, UNC, Duke, UVa, GT & Miami/ND). Miami and FSU are not in the AAU, but their research programs are above those of UNL (and their undergraduate educational reputations are strong). IMO, the next move in P4 expansion will involve the B1G.

PAC is clearly a tier below the SEC and B1G. Their university profiles are like the B1G, but they don’t have football programs that draw 90-100K+ fans. There are no realistic accretive expansion moves for the PAC. The previous expansion got the best schools available…but the expansion was still dilutive. Colorado & Utah are in the lower half of the PAC’s class structure and not winning conference championships. An Alliance or merger (especially with the B1G) is now their best approach to enhance value. The PAC needs to prevent defection of their gentry. UCLA & USC need to see a bright future within the PAC, rather than looking longingly at the B1G. The elite programs in the PAC could decide that the UT/OU approach of abandoning their conference (and joining the B1G) makes strategic sense.

ACC has an overall class structure that is comparable to the PAC. Amongst P5 conferences, their relative strength is in Olympic sports (especially basketball). The ACC also needs to prevent defection of their gentry (starting with FSU, ND, and UNC). ACC schools’ proximity to both the B1G and SEC make them more likely realignment prey, rather than predators. The best ACC expansion candidate is ND…somehow growing the football ties to the ACC. ESPN may offer modest increases to payouts with additions such as KU, Okie State, and/or TCU…gaining content that ESPN does not fully control, while improving the ACC’s basketball/football reputation. Expanding into the central time-zone will probably not be well received by the ACC’s class-conscious old guard (UNC, Duke and UVa). Rather than the quagmire of expansion, the ACC could focus on enhancing its value in football and basketball. Unbalanced football scheduling could be used to generate more marquee matchups. More frequent games amongst the southern-publics (Clemson, VT, Louisville, GT, FSU, and NC State) or rotating ND games amongst stronger opponents every other year (and weaker opponents every fourth year). In NCAA governance discussions, the ACC should be advocating for creation of a new, smaller D1+ division, principally as a means of changing the basketball tournament structure and disbursements. Growing basketball’s importance in college athletics resolves a lot of ACC problems.

B12 class structure was clearly downgraded with the loss of UT & OU. But is still reasonably within the boundaries of other P5 conferences. The programs in the B12 are now all below the median caste status of the P5. In addition, all B12 universities have caste scores that are below the average of the four other conferences. The top priority is to ensure that the conference is worthy of its “autonomous” status. Expansion did a great job of enhancing football, while also improving the university profiles of the conference. Ironically, this iteration of the B12 membership should be much more stable…no individual program is accretive to any of the P4 conferences and expansion addressed foundational aspects staying in the club. Expanding with Boise State and/or Memphis would have been risky because those programs are further outside the caste parameters of the P4. Competitively, B12 football and basketball should be equal to other P5 conferences (and far superior to the G5).

I suspect that ACC expansion into the central time zone will be opposed as you suggest and by those you suspect. IMO, the best hope for the ACC is to withdraw from the NCAA as soon as possible and monetize basketball fully.

Your only other option, also iMO, is to say goodbye to UVa, Duke, and UNC and grow the conference as you see fit.

I too think this analysis is a reasonable one.

That said don't underestimate the timeline. It will move more swiftly than people think.

It has been said that the Alliance didn't take any of the remaining Big 12 schools, because none of them offered enough value for any of those conferences to expand. However as a unit that conference could be useful, because it now has shifted enough of the G schools around such that all of the G conferences are now similar, with no clear best (like the American was before their better teams moved to the Big 12).

The SEC is the clear king with the B1G not too far behind....just follow the money.

The trick is to grow the B1G to 16 to be able to match the SEC, and not damage another conference. Doing this, which would have to come from the ACC, would leave the other three conferences at 12 teams each which will be important for formatting playoff participants.

The two teams from the ACC that would enhance the B1G, but not destroy the ACC: Pitt and Virginia Tech.

The number of P conferences remains at 5 and would consist of 69 teams, broken down into conferences of 16, 16, 12, 12, 12+1.
Structure the 12 team playoff such that the SEC and B1G are guaranteed three spots each (1/2 of the field) and the other three conferences get two spots each.

Schedules should be simplified and everyone should remain happy until it's becomes time to cull the herd.

VT and NC State do a better job for the B10 and both are structured like B10 schools.

Now you can have an annual cross league rivalry series with VT and UVa, as well as NC State with UNC, WF

But I still think that 2 eight member divisions do not work.

(11-04-2021 01:45 PM)Statefan Wrote:  VT and NC State do a better job for the B10 and both are structured like B10 schools.

Now you can have an annual cross league rivalry series with VT and UVa, as well as NC State with UNC, WF

But I still think that 2 eight member divisions do not work.

So be it.
NC State and Virginia Tech would move to the B1G, instead of Pitt and VT, making the B1G a 16 team super conference like the SEC, leaving the ACC, Big 12 and PAC as 12 team leagues.
All of the "kings" and "royalty" are still located within the SEC and B1G, and the ACC loses two members of the "bourgeoisie" which would actually boost the ACC's overall rating.

BTW this would actually be heaven for the tens of thousands of B1G graduates/fans that now live in and around Raleigh. There would never be a shortage of visiting fans when B1G teams played State in Carter-Finley.

Take all of the Kings, Royals, and Gentry in the Eastern and Central Time Zones and put them in the SEC and Big Ten.
Take all the Bourgeoisie and Proletariat from the same time zones as well as BYU and put them in the ACC and Big 12.

Big Ten East: Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Notre Dame, Michigan State, North Carolina, Duke
Big Ten West: Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, Purdue, Indiana
(If Notre Dame resists, it's a perfect 12 team conference. But if they want in, the Big 10 will figure out how to handle 13)

SEC East: Florida, Georgia, Florida State, Tennessee, Kentucky, Clemson
SEC West: Texas, Alabama, Oklahoma, LSU, Auburn, Texas A&M

ACC North: Louisville, Maryland, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Rutgers, Boston College, West Virginia, Cincinnati
ACC South: Virginia Tech, Virginia, South Carolina, NC State, Miami, Georgia Tech, Wake Forest, Central Florida

Big 12 South: Arkansas, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt, TCU, Baylor, Texas Tech, Houston
Big 12 North: Nebraska, Northwestern, Kansas, Oklahoma State, Missouri, Kansas State, Iowa State, BYU

Someone had to move North and Oklahoma State fits well with their old Big 8 rivals.
Since there are no Eastern Time Zone teams in the Big 12 now, it wouldn't be as big a deal for them to have BYU.

The Pac 12 will just stay as is.

I shall refer to this as the Wahoowa84 Caste Plan.

(11-02-2021 02:55 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Texas and Oklahoma’s move to the SEC started a chain-reaction that is changing P5 dynamics. The SEC is the first power conference to have 16 members. Rather than following the leader, the B1G, ACC and PAC formed an Alliance in response to the SEC change. To stabilize its power conference status, the B12 not only backfilled but expanded to 12 members. The P5 conferences will now have 69 members…BYU, Cincinnati, Houston, and UCF have now joined the club.

NCAA athletics have always been a form of a caste system. D1 includes over 350 universities and the P5 schools are generally regarded as having the elite athletic programs. Football, basketball, Olympic-sports, finances, and rivalry games are all bigger at the P5 level. Within the P5 conferences there is a class structure, or caste system, for athletic programs. This round of realignment helped to make the class structure more obvious.

Using commonly available data updated through August 2021, I created a model to quantify the current caste system (the methodology is somewhat complex to explain and maintain) for P5 universities:

Kings: Ohio State, Michigan, and Texas
Royalty: Alabama, UF, UGA, OU, WI, LSU & PSU
Gentry: UCLA, USC, FSU, Tennessee, Auburn, ND, TAM, MSU, Stan, UK, Wash, UNC, Iowa, Duke, Clem, MN, Cal, Ore, Illinois, Purdue & Indiana
Bourgeoisie: ASU, UNL, Ark, VT, UVa, SC, NCS, Mia, NW, AZ, KU, OM, Lou, Ok St, GT, UMCP, Pitt, MS St, Vanderbilt, Utah, TCU, MO, K St, Baylor, Syracuse, WF, CO and ISU
Proletariat: Or St, TTU, Rutgers, WSU, BYU, BC, WVU, Houston, Cincy and UCF

Realignment initially hurts the moving school’s caste score. For example, Oklahoma is ending generations of conference rivalries (such as Oklahoma State, Kansas, ISU, etc.) as well as geographic advantages (the geo-center of the B12 is in the state of Oklahoma…while the new geo-center of the SEC will be in Mississippi). This initial downgrade in caste score is modest and does not generally impact their broader class. Before the realignment announcement, Oklahoma had the fifth highest score (between Alabama and Florida) and is now seventh in P5 pecking order.

It’s not surprising that the new P5 universities (BYU, Houston, Cincy, and UCF) are all entering the caste system at the lowest P5 tier. Except for Houston, the additions were not in the B12 geography and don’t have many existing rivalries with other members of the new conference. These programs also don’t yet have the financial nor competitive experience from participating in the P5. In the 2012 realignment, Louisville, Utah, and TCU were similarly promoted from the G5…a decade later these three programs have risen to the bourgeoisie. In expanding, the B12 appears to have prioritized football and university profile. The revenues of the new members were amongst the highest of G5 programs, but that is still very low for P5 programs. The four expansion members should see a significant rise in their conference financial payouts. It may be years before a new B12 media deal is finalized. The remaining 8 B12 programs could experience a significant relative drop from their current payout levels (resulting from the loss of the two upper tier brands).

The announced realignments will result in the following class structure for the P5 conferences:

SEC B1G PAC ACC B12 G5 FCS No FB Total
Kings 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Royals 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
Gentry 4 6 6 5 0 0 0 0 21
Bourgeoisie 6 3 4 9 6 0 0 0 28
Proletariat 0 1 2 1 6 0 0 0 10
Plebeians 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 61 128 100 289

SEC now has the strongest collection of athletic programs. Adding Texas (with the strongest P5 finances) and Oklahoma (with an outstanding P5 football program) augmented the SEC strengths. The additions also improved Olympic sports and overall university profiles. Competitive fit (rivalries) stayed level with the additions because the SEC had a solid core of long-term rivals (TA&M, Arkansas, and Missouri). Simply put, UT & OU were ideal additions. Going forward, the only accretive expansion candidates left are FSU, ND, and UNC; Duke and Clemson are likely break-even additions. If basketball, university profile or new markets gain importance (or if the SEC just needs an even-numbered addition), then other universities could be considered. IMO, the SEC isn’t looking to expand but would welcome overtures from UNC.

B1G has an overall class structure that is comparable to the SEC. Yet the B1G’s relative strengths are university profiles and competitive fit. Their recent additions (UNL, UMCP and Rutgers) have struggled in the B1G; UNL and UMCP lost value in their transitions and Rutgers is still stuck in the lowest P5 caste. If the B1G needs to expand, ND is still their white whale…both ND and the conference would rise in the caste system from this marriage (ND is an awkward fit in the ACC). A plausible alternative for the B1G is to replicate the Larry Scott wish of entering an entirely new region with many additions: going to the far west / PAC (with UCLA, USC, Stanford, Washington, Cal & Oregon/ND) or the south / ACC (with FSU, UNC, Duke, UVa, GT & Miami/ND). Miami and FSU are not in the AAU, but their research programs are above those of UNL (and their undergraduate educational reputations are strong). IMO, the next move in P4 expansion will involve the B1G.

PAC is clearly a tier below the SEC and B1G. Their university profiles are like the B1G, but they don’t have football programs that draw 90-100K+ fans. There are no realistic accretive expansion moves for the PAC. The previous expansion got the best schools available…but the expansion was still dilutive. Colorado & Utah are in the lower half of the PAC’s class structure and not winning conference championships. An Alliance or merger (especially with the B1G) is now their best approach to enhance value. The PAC needs to prevent defection of their gentry. UCLA & USC need to see a bright future within the PAC, rather than looking longingly at the B1G. The elite programs in the PAC could decide that the UT/OU approach of abandoning their conference (and joining the B1G) makes strategic sense.

ACC has an overall class structure that is comparable to the PAC. Amongst P5 conferences, their relative strength is in Olympic sports (especially basketball). The ACC also needs to prevent defection of their gentry (starting with FSU, ND, and UNC). ACC schools’ proximity to both the B1G and SEC make them more likely realignment prey, rather than predators. The best ACC expansion candidate is ND…somehow growing the football ties to the ACC. ESPN may offer modest increases to payouts with additions such as KU, Okie State, and/or TCU…gaining content that ESPN does not fully control, while improving the ACC’s basketball/football reputation. Expanding into the central time-zone will probably not be well received by the ACC’s class-conscious old guard (UNC, Duke and UVa). Rather than the quagmire of expansion, the ACC could focus on enhancing its value in football and basketball. Unbalanced football scheduling could be used to generate more marquee matchups. More frequent games amongst the southern-publics (Clemson, VT, Louisville, GT, FSU, and NC State) or rotating ND games amongst stronger opponents every other year (and weaker opponents every fourth year). In NCAA governance discussions, the ACC should be advocating for creation of a new, smaller D1+ division, principally as a means of changing the basketball tournament structure and disbursements. Growing basketball’s importance in college athletics resolves a lot of ACC problems.

B12 class structure was clearly downgraded with the loss of UT & OU. But is still reasonably within the boundaries of other P5 conferences. The programs in the B12 are now all below the median caste status of the P5. In addition, all B12 universities have caste scores that are below the average of the four other conferences. The top priority is to ensure that the conference is worthy of its “autonomous” status. Expansion did a great job of enhancing football, while also improving the university profiles of the conference. Ironically, this iteration of the B12 membership should be much more stable…no individual program is accretive to any of the P4 conferences and expansion addressed foundational aspects staying in the club. Expanding with Boise State and/or Memphis would have been risky because those programs are further outside the caste parameters of the P4. Competitively, B12 football and basketball should be equal to other P5 conferences (and far superior to the G5).

I see the caste a little differently

1. - B10, SEC+TX/OU, Notre Dame, Clemson, FSU, USC, Oregon

2. The rest of the P5

















3. G5

(11-05-2021 06:33 AM)schmolik Wrote:  Take all of the Kings, Royals, and Gentry in the Eastern and Central Time Zones and put them in the SEC and Big Ten.
Take all the Bourgeoisie and Proletariat from the same time zones as well as BYU and put them in the ACC and Big 12.

Big Ten East: Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Notre Dame, Michigan State, North Carolina, Duke
Big Ten West: Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, Purdue, Indiana
(If Notre Dame resists, it's a perfect 12 team conference. But if they want in, the Big 10 will figure out how to handle 13)

SEC East: Florida, Georgia, Florida State, Tennessee, Kentucky, Clemson
SEC West: Texas, Alabama, Oklahoma, LSU, Auburn, Texas A&M

ACC North: Louisville, Maryland, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Rutgers, Boston College, West Virginia, Cincinnati
ACC South: Virginia Tech, Virginia, South Carolina, NC State, Miami, Georgia Tech, Wake Forest, Central Florida

Big 12 South: Arkansas, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt, TCU, Baylor, Texas Tech, Houston
Big 12 North: Nebraska, Northwestern, Kansas, Oklahoma State, Missouri, Kansas State, Iowa State, BYU

Someone had to move North and Oklahoma State fits well with their old Big 8 rivals.
Since there are no Eastern Time Zone teams in the Big 12 now, it wouldn't be as big a deal for them to have BYU.

The Pac 12 will just stay as is.

I shall refer to this as the Wahoowa84 Caste Plan.

Problem is that all schools are notorious social climbers…especially those who believe in academic snootiness. UVa will not easily give-up its association with UNC and Duke. Vandy wants to stay with Florida and Georgia.

(11-03-2021 05:12 AM)XLance Wrote:  It has been said that the Alliance didn't take any of the remaining Big 12 schools, because none of them offered enough value for any of those conferences to expand. However as a unit that conference could be useful, because it now has shifted enough of the G schools around such that all of the G conferences are now similar, with no clear best (like the American was before their better teams moved to the Big 12).

The SEC is the clear king with the B1G not too far behind....just follow the money.

The trick is to grow the B1G to 16 to be able to match the SEC, and not damage another conference. Doing this, which would have to come from the ACC, would leave the other three conferences at 12 teams each which will be important for formatting playoff participants.

The two teams from the ACC that would enhance the B1G, but not destroy the ACC: Pitt and Virginia Tech.

The number of P conferences remains at 5 and would consist of 69 teams, broken down into conferences of 16, 16, 12, 12, 12+1.
Structure the 12 team playoff such that the SEC and B1G are guaranteed three spots each (1/2 of the field) and the other three conferences get two spots each.

Schedules should be simplified and everyone should remain happy until it's becomes time to cull the herd.

As with Mizzou, the B1G had a chance to add Pitt and didn't do it. Virginia Tech has no desire to go to the B1G. NC State might, due to all the snowbirds who migrated to NC.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

(11-06-2021 12:25 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(11-03-2021 05:12 AM)XLance Wrote:  It has been said that the Alliance didn't take any of the remaining Big 12 schools, because none of them offered enough value for any of those conferences to expand. However as a unit that conference could be useful, because it now has shifted enough of the G schools around such that all of the G conferences are now similar, with no clear best (like the American was before their better teams moved to the Big 12).

The SEC is the clear king with the B1G not too far behind....just follow the money.

The trick is to grow the B1G to 16 to be able to match the SEC, and not damage another conference. Doing this, which would have to come from the ACC, would leave the other three conferences at 12 teams each which will be important for formatting playoff participants.

The two teams from the ACC that would enhance the B1G, but not destroy the ACC: Pitt and Virginia Tech.

The number of P conferences remains at 5 and would consist of 69 teams, broken down into conferences of 16, 16, 12, 12, 12+1.
Structure the 12 team playoff such that the SEC and B1G are guaranteed three spots each (1/2 of the field) and the other three conferences get two spots each.

Schedules should be simplified and everyone should remain happy until it's becomes time to cull the herd.

As with Mizzou, the B1G had a chance to add Pitt and didn't do it. Virginia Tech has no desire to go to the B1G. NC State might, due to all the snowbirds who migrated to NC.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

Would VT turn down a B1G invitation though, given the stability & money difference? Although Virginia politics played a huge role in getting them into the ACC and it might also prevent them from leaving UVA behind in a less advantageous situation.

(11-06-2021 01:20 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(11-06-2021 12:25 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(11-03-2021 05:12 AM)XLance Wrote:  It has been said that the Alliance didn't take any of the remaining Big 12 schools, because none of them offered enough value for any of those conferences to expand. However as a unit that conference could be useful, because it now has shifted enough of the G schools around such that all of the G conferences are now similar, with no clear best (like the American was before their better teams moved to the Big 12).

The SEC is the clear king with the B1G not too far behind....just follow the money.

The trick is to grow the B1G to 16 to be able to match the SEC, and not damage another conference. Doing this, which would have to come from the ACC, would leave the other three conferences at 12 teams each which will be important for formatting playoff participants.

The two teams from the ACC that would enhance the B1G, but not destroy the ACC: Pitt and Virginia Tech.

The number of P conferences remains at 5 and would consist of 69 teams, broken down into conferences of 16, 16, 12, 12, 12+1.
Structure the 12 team playoff such that the SEC and B1G are guaranteed three spots each (1/2 of the field) and the other three conferences get two spots each.

Schedules should be simplified and everyone should remain happy until it's becomes time to cull the herd.

As with Mizzou, the B1G had a chance to add Pitt and didn't do it. Virginia Tech has no desire to go to the B1G. NC State might, due to all the snowbirds who migrated to NC.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

Would VT turn down a B1G invitation though, given the stability & money difference? Although Virginia politics played a huge role in getting them into the ACC and it might also prevent them from leaving UVA behind in a less advantageous situation.

I'm thinking yes, due to Virginia politics. UVa cannot be left behind. I'm thinking UNC could veto NC State if they wanted to. Just depends on which conference they want more: B1G or SEC?? If NC State wanted to be more independent of UNC, IMO, they should withdraw from the UNC System altogether and form their own system. But....that might require Mafia help... ...

(11-06-2021 02:11 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(11-06-2021 01:20 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  Would VT turn down a B1G invitation though, given the stability & money difference? Although Virginia politics played a huge role in getting them into the ACC and it might also prevent them from leaving UVA behind in a less advantageous situation.

I'm thinking yes, due to Virginia politics. UVa cannot be left behind. I'm thinking UNC could veto NC State if they wanted to. Just depends on which conference they want more: B1G or SEC?? If NC State wanted to be more independent of UNC, IMO, they should withdraw from the UNC System altogether and form their own system. But....that might require Mafia help... ...

I expect you're right, not sure they'd be required to stay together but can't see the Commonwealth letting Tech leave UVA behind in an inferior position. I'm not sure Tech is really looking for that separation from UVA either, I know much less about NC schools & politics but somehow NC State seems more likely to want a move like A&M did wanting to separate their brand from Texas.

(11-06-2021 03:58 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(11-06-2021 02:11 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(11-06-2021 01:20 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  Would VT turn down a B1G invitation though, given the stability & money difference? Although Virginia politics played a huge role in getting them into the ACC and it might also prevent them from leaving UVA behind in a less advantageous situation.

I'm thinking yes, due to Virginia politics. UVa cannot be left behind. I'm thinking UNC could veto NC State if they wanted to. Just depends on which conference they want more: B1G or SEC?? If NC State wanted to be more independent of UNC, IMO, they should withdraw from the UNC System altogether and form their own system. But....that might require Mafia help... ...

I expect you're right, not sure they'd be required to stay together but can't see the Commonwealth letting Tech leave UVA behind in an inferior position. I'm not sure Tech is really looking for that separation from UVA either, I know much less about NC schools & politics but somehow NC State seems more likely to want a move like A&M did wanting to separate their brand from Texas.

Yes NC State would like to be out from under the thumb of the UNC System. However as soon as you achieve a divorce from the system and NC State has as much sovereignty as VT or Clemson, most of the reason to get away from UNC and Duke are gone.

In the attempt to dictate everything UNC-Ch empowered many of the directional schools to play politics while Carolina sought to prevent Medical, Dental, Optometric, and Public Health schools from opening in the Triad and in Charlotte.

The created an environment where upstarts like Elon, Campbell, and High Point could peel off important graduate programs and make a fortune in the process with the net result being that UNC-Ch doesn't mint medical doctors for NC they are minting them for wider world.

The real problem with NC State is that it is the most "Southern" school culturally between Duke, UNC, WF, VT, and UVa and its fan base is typically southern but less "Eastern" or "Tidewater" than those 5. However the university is organized and run like midwest Big 10 schools like Purdue.

The entire "Atlantic" and "Tidewater, paternalistic" culture is the reason the ACC exists. It took 50 years for MD to change their culture enough to obfuscate reasons for a change.

(11-06-2021 07:35 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(11-06-2021 03:58 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(11-06-2021 02:11 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(11-06-2021 01:20 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  Would VT turn down a B1G invitation though, given the stability & money difference? Although Virginia politics played a huge role in getting them into the ACC and it might also prevent them from leaving UVA behind in a less advantageous situation.

I'm thinking yes, due to Virginia politics. UVa cannot be left behind. I'm thinking UNC could veto NC State if they wanted to. Just depends on which conference they want more: B1G or SEC?? If NC State wanted to be more independent of UNC, IMO, they should withdraw from the UNC System altogether and form their own system. But....that might require Mafia help... ...

I expect you're right, not sure they'd be required to stay together but can't see the Commonwealth letting Tech leave UVA behind in an inferior position. I'm not sure Tech is really looking for that separation from UVA either, I know much less about NC schools & politics but somehow NC State seems more likely to want a move like A&M did wanting to separate their brand from Texas.

Yes NC State would like to be out from under the thumb of the UNC System. However as soon as you achieve a divorce from the system and NC State has as much sovereignty as VT or Clemson, most of the reason to get away from UNC and Duke are gone.

In the attempt to dictate everything UNC-Ch empowered many of the directional schools to play politics while Carolina sought to prevent Medical, Dental, Optometric, and Public Health schools from opening in the Triad and in Charlotte.

The created an environment where upstarts like Elon, Campbell, and High Point could peel off important graduate programs and make a fortune in the process with the net result being that UNC-Ch doesn't mint medical doctors for NC they are minting them for wider world.

The real problem with NC State is that it is the most "Southern" school culturally between Duke, UNC, WF, VT, and UVa and its fan base is typically southern but less "Eastern" or "Tidewater" than those 5. However the university is organized and run like midwest Big 10 schools like Purdue.

The entire "Atlantic" and "Tidewater, paternalistic" culture is the reason the ACC exists. It took 50 years for MD to change their culture enough to obfuscate reasons for a change.

You left out upstart Wingate, which like High Point Univ. has a Pharmacy school (Wingate and High Point are filling the need for retail pharmacist while most of the Pharmacy students at Carolina are increasingly moving into Pharmacy research).

Which brings me back to my original contention since NC State is too "southern" to fit in the B1G. Pitt and Virginia Tech to the B1G to allow the B1G to match the SEC in "super-conference" status, while leaving the Big 12, PAC and ACC as 12 team conferences.

(11-06-2021 07:35 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Yes NC State would like to be out from under the thumb of the UNC System. However as soon as you achieve a divorce from the system and NC State has as much sovereignty as VT or Clemson, most of the reason to get away from UNC and Duke are gone.

In the attempt to dictate everything UNC-Ch empowered many of the directional schools to play politics while Carolina sought to prevent Medical, Dental, Optometric, and Public Health schools from opening in the Triad and in Charlotte.

The created an environment where upstarts like Elon, Campbell, and High Point could peel off important graduate programs and make a fortune in the process with the net result being that UNC-Ch doesn't mint medical doctors for NC they are minting them for wider world.

The real problem with NC State is that it is the most "Southern" school culturally between Duke, UNC, WF, VT, and UVa and its fan base is typically southern but less "Eastern" or "Tidewater" than those 5. However the university is organized and run like midwest Big 10 schools like Purdue.

The entire "Atlantic" and "Tidewater, paternalistic" culture is the reason the ACC exists. It took 50 years for MD to change their culture enough to obfuscate reasons for a change.

Thanks for sharing the State perspective! Personally I'd like to see you & VT in the SEC, and let the B1G have the elitist trio.

(11-06-2021 03:58 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(11-06-2021 02:11 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(11-06-2021 01:20 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  Would VT turn down a B1G invitation though, given the stability & money difference? Although Virginia politics played a huge role in getting them into the ACC and it might also prevent them from leaving UVA behind in a less advantageous situation.

I'm thinking yes, due to Virginia politics. UVa cannot be left behind. I'm thinking UNC could veto NC State if they wanted to. Just depends on which conference they want more: B1G or SEC?? If NC State wanted to be more independent of UNC, IMO, they should withdraw from the UNC System altogether and form their own system. But....that might require Mafia help... ...

I expect you're right, not sure they'd be required to stay together but can't see the Commonwealth letting Tech leave UVA behind in an inferior position. I'm not sure Tech is really looking for that separation from UVA either, I know much less about NC schools & politics but somehow NC State seems more likely to want a move like A&M did wanting to separate their brand from Texas.

Actually what their president said at the time is that they wanted to separate their brand from Texas Tech, Houston and the like.

(11-07-2021 10:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-06-2021 03:58 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(11-06-2021 02:11 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(11-06-2021 01:20 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  Would VT turn down a B1G invitation though, given the stability & money difference? Although Virginia politics played a huge role in getting them into the ACC and it might also prevent them from leaving UVA behind in a less advantageous situation.

I'm thinking yes, due to Virginia politics. UVa cannot be left behind. I'm thinking UNC could veto NC State if they wanted to. Just depends on which conference they want more: B1G or SEC?? If NC State wanted to be more independent of UNC, IMO, they should withdraw from the UNC System altogether and form their own system. But....that might require Mafia help... ...

I expect you're right, not sure they'd be required to stay together but can't see the Commonwealth letting Tech leave UVA behind in an inferior position. I'm not sure Tech is really looking for that separation from UVA either, I know much less about NC schools & politics but somehow NC State seems more likely to want a move like A&M did wanting to separate their brand from Texas.

Actually what their president said at the time is that they wanted to separate their brand from Texas Tech, Houston and the like.

And if you're UNC you don't want NC State moving to the SEC or Big Ten and separating themselves in a positive way like Texas A&M was able to over Texas. Do you think it's a coincidence UT chose the SEC over the Big Ten and Pac 12? Carolina certainly wants to be the top dog in the state and if they have say they'll make sure they stay that way.

I've been big on in state rivalries but not as big on UNC/NC State because I've felt like UNC/Duke has been the bigger rivalry because of Coach K. I remember seeing the 1983 national championship game (I was really young) but I don't remember those games. I've said many times I want to see Florida and Florida State in the same conference and Penn State and Pittsburgh in the same conference. If North Carolina and NC State separate, I wouldn't shed a tear. I feel UNC is an ideal Big Ten member academically and as long as their men's basketball continues to perform at a high level great for the B1G and would open up the Big Ten to the Southeast. I don't see NC State as the same, not as good in academics or men's basketball. But I also do like the ACC and want to see them stay intact.

(11-08-2021 05:05 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(11-07-2021 10:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-06-2021 03:58 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(11-06-2021 02:11 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(11-06-2021 01:20 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  Would VT turn down a B1G invitation though, given the stability & money difference? Although Virginia politics played a huge role in getting them into the ACC and it might also prevent them from leaving UVA behind in a less advantageous situation.

I'm thinking yes, due to Virginia politics. UVa cannot be left behind. I'm thinking UNC could veto NC State if they wanted to. Just depends on which conference they want more: B1G or SEC?? If NC State wanted to be more independent of UNC, IMO, they should withdraw from the UNC System altogether and form their own system. But....that might require Mafia help... ...

I expect you're right, not sure they'd be required to stay together but can't see the Commonwealth letting Tech leave UVA behind in an inferior position. I'm not sure Tech is really looking for that separation from UVA either, I know much less about NC schools & politics but somehow NC State seems more likely to want a move like A&M did wanting to separate their brand from Texas.

Actually what their president said at the time is that they wanted to separate their brand from Texas Tech, Houston and the like.

And if you're UNC you don't want NC State moving to the SEC or Big Ten and separating themselves in a positive way like Texas A&M was able to over Texas. Do you think it's a coincidence UT chose the SEC over the Big Ten and Pac 12? Carolina certainly wants to be the top dog in the state and if they have say they'll make sure they stay that way.

I've been big on in state rivalries but not as big on UNC/NC State because I've felt like UNC/Duke has been the bigger rivalry because of Coach K. I remember seeing the 1983 national championship game (I was really young) but I don't remember those games. I've said many times I want to see Florida and Florida State in the same conference and Penn State and Pittsburgh in the same conference. If North Carolina and NC State separate, I wouldn't shed a tear. I feel UNC is an ideal Big Ten member academically and as long as their men's basketball continues to perform at a high level great for the B1G and would open up the Big Ten to the Southeast. I don't see NC State as the same, not as good in academics or men's basketball. But I also do like the ACC and want to see them stay intact.

As long as UNC remains in the ACC, they can probably exercise influence over NC State to remain also. However, if UNC were to jump to either the B1G or the SEC, I'd expect NC State to jump to the other conference the next day.