If ESPN directs the ACC to expand, they will expand. There is no one available to join the ACC to move its revenue stream closer to The Big Ten or SEC. The ACC’s task now is to stay ahead of the PAC and Big 12. Doing that will be challenge enough. There’s no guarantee they’ll be able to do it.

The reality is nothing has changed. It’s been a survival contest between the ACC and Big 12 since A&M jumped to the SEC and Nebraska left for the Big Ten.

The ACC could expand with Cincinnati and West Virginia before they join the Big 12. I’m not sure there’s anyone else available. I don’t believe Cincinnati has signed a GOR yet and I doubt WVU would.

The reality there is going to be further realignment. If it’s coordinated between the ACC and SEC by ESPN it could happen before 2036. I’m not sure if ESPN would allow the movement any ACC programs to the Big Ten. Not sure if ESPN can move programs between properties it owns without opening the ACC GOR up.

The Big 12’s biggest problem is Bowlsby may have made an enemy of ESPN with his response to the AAC expansion fiasco. The Big East found out firsthand what happens when you make an enemy of the four letter network. When The Big East turned down ESPN rights offer, ESPN responded by “encouraging” the ACC to invite Pittsburgh and Syracuse to the ACC out of the blue. Tom Jurich said at the time whoever the Pittsburgh rep was at the time was instrumental in getting The Big East to turndown ESPN’s offer.

Not sure if ESPN would or will respond in the same manner, it is however something to think about.

(01-14-2022 01:32 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  Thought this was pretty noteworthy from the interview with Jim Phillips:

From ESPN's David Hale:

Phillips suggests that before CFP expansion happens (reminder: current ESPN contract expires after the 2025-26 season), it’s entirely likely more conference realignment will happen. Also says the ACC’s vote against expanding has nothing to do with forcing ND’s hand in joining the league.

To what do you think Phillips was referring to here? It does seem unlikely that he would be commenting on "G5" expansion matters since that would be of minimal to no impact on the ACC.

Seems very strange that a conference commissioner -- who famously preach about stability and cordiality and schools being happy where they are -- would say on the record to a reporter that it’s entirely likely more conference realignment will happen (before 2025-26).

What do y'all make of this?

By "further realignment," it seems likely that, much like the Big 12 commissioner - - who has predicted that all the P5 conferences are going to have at least 16 teams - - he's suggesting that there's probably going to be further conference expansion, and that it might happen fairly soon (e.g., by 2026).

.

That would mean:

--The AAC could add 1 or 2 new members.

--The Big 12 will probably add 4 new members, as it has already suggested that it might.

--The Big Ten could add 2 new members.

--The PAC-12 could add 4 new members.

,

That, of couse, would really shake up the world of FBS football.

Rather than having 65 P5 and 65 non-P5 teams as we do now, there would be 80 P5 teams and only 53 non-P5 teams, including the three that are preparing to make the transition to FBS (JSU, SHSU, & JMU).

This could do quite a number on the G5 conferences. With only 53 FBS teams, there might not be enough teams to sustain all five G5 conferences unless there is some "horse-trading," and there could be G5 conference merger(s).

Which conferences would be hardest hit?

*The MWC - Could lose 4-8 teams (4 to the PAC-12 and 2-4) to the Big 12 or AAC.

---MWC would have to reload with at least 4 teams, most likely from Montana, California, or Texas, quite possibly including Montana, Montana St., & Sacramento State (FCS).

---Depending on how many members the MWC loses, they could end up with as few as 8-10 full members, even if they add a few new members.

*The AAC - Could lose another 3, 4, 5, or 6 more teams to the Big 12 (Memphis, SMU, USF) and ACC (Temple, USF) after UC, UH, & UCF depart, and could also lose some Texas teams to the MWC.

---AAC might make another attempt at poaching AFA and CSU from MWC, or poaching C-USA, or could add FCS teams (e.g., NDSU, SDSU).

*The MAC - Could lose Buffalo to the ACC or Big Ten.

*The Big East - Could lose UConn to the ACC.

. . . . . . . .

If the P5 increases to 80 teams (5 X 16), the number of non-P5 teams will drop to 53 unless more FCS teams join the ranks of the non-P5s.

The MWC and AAC might add as many as 7 more FCS teams, in response. This could bring the total number of non-P5 FBS teams back to 60 (5 fewer than it has now), including a few independents and football-only members of G5 conferences (Navy, Hawaii).

This could increase the number of FBS teams from 130 to 140.

.

(01-14-2022 05:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 02:32 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  He could be referring to anticipated G5 consolidation. I’m sure a 5+1+6 model is more palatable to 3 or 4 G-conferences rather than 5.

MWC and MAC and Sun Belt had their chance to facilitate that. They chose not to. CUSA added a couple more FCS and Sun Belt added one.

Sun Belt did their part in taking 3 from C-USA. That left 5. The only reason the MAC didn't take 2 is because MTSU didn't want to leave. That would've taken C-USA down to 3. They likely would've still called up enough FCS teams to stay alive. C-USA isn't going to roll over and willingly die.

The only way to stop C-USA from grabbing however many FCS they need to stay alive in the future would be to make it harder to transition from FCS to FBS.

(01-15-2022 11:38 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 05:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 02:32 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  He could be referring to anticipated G5 consolidation. I’m sure a 5+1+6 model is more palatable to 3 or 4 G-conferences rather than 5.

MWC and MAC and Sun Belt had their chance to facilitate that. They chose not to. CUSA added a couple more FCS and Sun Belt added one.

Sun Belt did their part in taking 3 from C-USA. That left 5. The only reason the MAC didn't take 2 is because MTSU didn't want to leave. That would've taken C-USA down to 3. They likely would've still called up enough FCS teams to stay alive. C-USA isn't going to roll over and willingly die.

The only way to stop C-USA from grabbing however many FCS they need to stay alive in the future would be to make it harder to transition from FCS to FBS.

If MWC had taken UTEP and say Texas St. from the SB, then the SB would need one more and if MAC takes two, that gets it down to just one school. FIU, Liberty and NMSU would not be enough FBS schools to pull up 5 FCS schools. And there may not have been be 5 FCS schools ready to move up.

(01-15-2022 11:48 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-15-2022 11:38 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 05:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 02:32 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  He could be referring to anticipated G5 consolidation. I’m sure a 5+1+6 model is more palatable to 3 or 4 G-conferences rather than 5.

MWC and MAC and Sun Belt had their chance to facilitate that. They chose not to. CUSA added a couple more FCS and Sun Belt added one.

Sun Belt did their part in taking 3 from C-USA. That left 5. The only reason the MAC didn't take 2 is because MTSU didn't want to leave. That would've taken C-USA down to 3. They likely would've still called up enough FCS teams to stay alive. C-USA isn't going to roll over and willingly die.

The only way to stop C-USA from grabbing however many FCS they need to stay alive in the future would be to make it harder to transition from FCS to FBS.

If MWC had taken UTEP and say Texas St. from the SB, then the SB would need one more and if MAC takes two, that gets it down to just one school. FIU, Liberty and NMSU would not be enough FBS schools to pull up 5 FCS schools. And there may not have been be 5 FCS schools ready to move up.

Why take Texas State from the Sun Belt? Seems like an unnecessary step if the goal is to kill C-USA. MWC could have easily taken UTEP and Louisiana Tech if they wanted to. LT used to play in the WAC, so it wouldn't be too out of character for them.

There will always be an FCS school willing to move up if an FBS conference comes begging, unless the rules are changed to make it harder to move to FBS.

(01-15-2022 12:02 PM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(01-15-2022 11:48 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-15-2022 11:38 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 05:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 02:32 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  He could be referring to anticipated G5 consolidation. I’m sure a 5+1+6 model is more palatable to 3 or 4 G-conferences rather than 5.

MWC and MAC and Sun Belt had their chance to facilitate that. They chose not to. CUSA added a couple more FCS and Sun Belt added one.

Sun Belt did their part in taking 3 from C-USA. That left 5. The only reason the MAC didn't take 2 is because MTSU didn't want to leave. That would've taken C-USA down to 3. They likely would've still called up enough FCS teams to stay alive. C-USA isn't going to roll over and willingly die.

The only way to stop C-USA from grabbing however many FCS they need to stay alive in the future would be to make it harder to transition from FCS to FBS.

If MWC had taken UTEP and say Texas St. from the SB, then the SB would need one more and if MAC takes two, that gets it down to just one school. FIU, Liberty and NMSU would not be enough FBS schools to pull up 5 FCS schools. And there may not have been be 5 FCS schools ready to move up.

Why take Texas State from the Sun Belt? Seems like an unnecessary step if the goal is to kill C-USA. MWC could have easily taken UTEP and Louisiana Tech if they wanted to. LT used to play in the WAC, so it wouldn't be too out of character for them.

There will always be an FCS school willing to move up if an FBS conference comes begging, unless the rules are changed to make it harder to move to FBS.

Maybe. But LT is a few hundred extra miles and near a smaller airport.

(01-15-2022 12:07 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-15-2022 12:02 PM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(01-15-2022 11:48 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-15-2022 11:38 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 05:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  MWC and MAC and Sun Belt had their chance to facilitate that. They chose not to. CUSA added a couple more FCS and Sun Belt added one.

Sun Belt did their part in taking 3 from C-USA. That left 5. The only reason the MAC didn't take 2 is because MTSU didn't want to leave. That would've taken C-USA down to 3. They likely would've still called up enough FCS teams to stay alive. C-USA isn't going to roll over and willingly die.

The only way to stop C-USA from grabbing however many FCS they need to stay alive in the future would be to make it harder to transition from FCS to FBS.

If MWC had taken UTEP and say Texas St. from the SB, then the SB would need one more and if MAC takes two, that gets it down to just one school. FIU, Liberty and NMSU would not be enough FBS schools to pull up 5 FCS schools. And there may not have been be 5 FCS schools ready to move up.

Why take Texas State from the Sun Belt? Seems like an unnecessary step if the goal is to kill C-USA. MWC could have easily taken UTEP and Louisiana Tech if they wanted to. LT used to play in the WAC, so it wouldn't be too out of character for them.

There will always be an FCS school willing to move up if an FBS conference comes begging, unless the rules are changed to make it harder to move to FBS.

Maybe. But LT is a few hundred extra miles and near a smaller airport.

That did not stop them from preferring a western conference over the Sun Belt before.

(01-15-2022 12:11 PM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(01-15-2022 12:07 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-15-2022 12:02 PM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(01-15-2022 11:48 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-15-2022 11:38 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  Sun Belt did their part in taking 3 from C-USA. That left 5. The only reason the MAC didn't take 2 is because MTSU didn't want to leave. That would've taken C-USA down to 3. They likely would've still called up enough FCS teams to stay alive. C-USA isn't going to roll over and willingly die.

The only way to stop C-USA from grabbing however many FCS they need to stay alive in the future would be to make it harder to transition from FCS to FBS.

If MWC had taken UTEP and say Texas St. from the SB, then the SB would need one more and if MAC takes two, that gets it down to just one school. FIU, Liberty and NMSU would not be enough FBS schools to pull up 5 FCS schools. And there may not have been be 5 FCS schools ready to move up.

Why take Texas State from the Sun Belt? Seems like an unnecessary step if the goal is to kill C-USA. MWC could have easily taken UTEP and Louisiana Tech if they wanted to. LT used to play in the WAC, so it wouldn't be too out of character for them.

There will always be an FCS school willing to move up if an FBS conference comes begging, unless the rules are changed to make it harder to move to FBS.

Maybe. But LT is a few hundred extra miles and near a smaller airport.

That did not stop them from preferring a western conference over the Sun Belt before.

but that might stop the MWC from preferring them over a Texas school.

(01-14-2022 02:35 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 02:33 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 02:25 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 02:17 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Seems like he's banking on a "P4 champs only" CFP scenario wherein the Big 12 is effectively demoted from power status (which it arguably could be after OUT leave). That's the likeliest scenario in which Notre Dame would add 3 more ACC conference games. Perhaps he's hoping that the Big 12 will be further dismembered to bolster the case for its exclusion?

Or, this has nothing to do with the ACC and he expects that the Big 12 will consider adding two more teams when OUT buy their way out of their GoR early. I wouldn't assume he knows anything we don't. He could just be speculating the same way we do.

Yeah, probably best not to read too much into such comments.

He's just throwing out the possibility of further realignment as an excuse for the ACC standing in the way of playoff expansion. Unless we see real evidence, there's no reason to think further P realignment is likely.

I think this could be the case. It’s a PR move as none of the P5 want to be seen as the sole cause of killing the play-off expansion and have public sentiment turn against them and further hurt their ratings. The next 2 years will be a giant PR campaign to get public sentiment on your side and push your preferred solution. 5 + 1 + 6 or 6 + 6

(01-15-2022 11:23 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 01:32 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  Thought this was pretty noteworthy from the interview with Jim Phillips:

From ESPN's David Hale:

Phillips suggests that before CFP expansion happens (reminder: current ESPN contract expires after the 2025-26 season), it’s entirely likely more conference realignment will happen. Also says the ACC’s vote against expanding has nothing to do with forcing ND’s hand in joining the league.

To what do you think Phillips was referring to here? It does seem unlikely that he would be commenting on "G5" expansion matters since that would be of minimal to no impact on the ACC.

Seems very strange that a conference commissioner -- who famously preach about stability and cordiality and schools being happy where they are -- would say on the record to a reporter that it’s entirely likely more conference realignment will happen (before 2025-26).

What do y'all make of this?

By "further realignment," it seems likely that, much like the Big 12 commissioner - - who has predicted that all the P5 conferences are going to have at least 16 teams - - he's suggesting that there's probably going to be further conference expansion, and that it might happen fairly soon (e.g., by 2026).

.

That would mean:

--The AAC could add 1 or 2 new members.

--The Big 12 will probably add 4 new members, as it has already suggested that it might.

--The Big Ten could add 2 new members.

--The PAC-12 could add 4 new members.

,

That, of couse, would really shake up the world of FBS football.

Rather than having 65 P5 and 65 non-P5 teams as we do now, there would be 80 P5 teams and only 53 non-P5 teams, including the three that are preparing to make the transition to FBS (JSU, SHSU, & JMU).

This could do quite a number on the G5 conferences. With only 53 FBS teams, there might not be enough teams to sustain all five G5 conferences unless there is some "horse-trading," and there could be G5 conference merger(s).

Which conferences would be hardest hit?

*The MWC - Could lose 4-8 teams (4 to the PAC-12 and 2-4) to the Big 12 or AAC.

---MWC would have to reload with at least 4 teams, most likely from Montana, California, or Texas, quite possibly including Montana, Montana St., & Sacramento State (FCS).

---Depending on how many members the MWC loses, they could end up with as few as 8-10 full members, even if they add a few new members.

*The AAC - Could lose another 3, 4, 5, or 6 more teams to the Big 12 (Memphis, SMU, USF) and ACC (Temple, USF) after UC, UH, & UCF depart, and could also lose some Texas teams to the MWC.

---AAC might make another attempt at poaching AFA and CSU from MWC, or poaching C-USA, or could add FCS teams (e.g., NDSU, SDSU).

*The MAC - Could lose Buffalo to the ACC or Big Ten.

*The Big East - Could lose UConn to the ACC.

. . . . . . . .

If the P5 increases to 80 teams (5 X 16), the number of non-P5 teams will drop to 53 unless more FCS teams join the ranks of the non-P5s.

The MWC and AAC might add as many as 7 more FCS teams, in response. This could bring the total number of non-P5 FBS teams back to 60 (5 fewer than it has now), including a few independents and football-only members of G5 conferences (Navy, Hawaii).

This could increase the number of FBS teams from 130 to 140.

.

Who is the PAC-12 going to add that fits their academic profile and adds strength to the conference? Their preference from a market standpoint would be UH and UNLV but they literally sit at the bottom of the MWC standings. Utah State, Boise State, Fresno State and San Diego State are the top of the MWC and none have the academics to join nor would the UC’s ever consider a Cal State School.

Heck the Big West which has UC’s and Cal States couldn’t expand unless the added one of both. The division you see in the country extends to CA Collegiate system with the coastal liberal elites (PAC-12) versus interior (Cal States).

(01-15-2022 11:01 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  The ACC could expand with Cincinnati and West Virginia before they join the Big 12. I’m not sure there’s anyone else available. I don’t believe Cincinnati has signed a GOR yet and I doubt WVU would.

I assume this is just a mistake in wording or something, as you must know that WVU is already a Big 12 member and that the conference signed a GOR a decade ago when WVU joined

(01-15-2022 01:01 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(01-15-2022 11:01 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  The ACC could expand with Cincinnati and West Virginia before they join the Big 12. I’m not sure there’s anyone else available. I don’t believe Cincinnati has signed a GOR yet and I doubt WVU would.

I assume this is just a mistake in wording or something, as you must know that WVU is already a Big 12 member and that the conference signed a GOR a decade ago when WVU joined

I can see where one could read it like that. The OP, however, specifically mentioned ‘25-‘26 when the Big 12 present GOR expires. That’s why I wrote it that way.

(01-14-2022 07:10 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  Yes, the SBC, MAC, and MWC easily could have finished off C-USA after the AAC took six in one move. All they had to do was take five or six between them--- leaving CUSA at 2 or 3 which would have ended that league. Instead the SBC took three and the others ZERO. The two or three "orphans" would have been forced to go INDY or FCS or disband. The three fcs call-ups would have been out of luck.

A new G4 could have been created with a little more CFP money for each and maybe a little better media deal too.

Why didn't they finish them off??

Two possibilities:

--- Pure self-interest; thought it would not help their bottom line; espn or other media would NOT increase contract money for more members

OR

--- Conspiracy theory here--- they knew something we don't about future CFP or alignment moves

It could also have to do with perceived leverage of having a G5 vs. G4 when trying to negotiate for CFP access.

If I gave further P5 expansion the next few years a 50/50 chance I'd give CUSA a 85% chance of hanging in. That is because if the XII takes in 2 more AAC members the AAC doesn't have to expand since they would be in that case at 12.

(01-15-2022 11:48 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-15-2022 11:38 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 05:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 02:32 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  He could be referring to anticipated G5 consolidation. I’m sure a 5+1+6 model is more palatable to 3 or 4 G-conferences rather than 5.

MWC and MAC and Sun Belt had their chance to facilitate that. They chose not to. CUSA added a couple more FCS and Sun Belt added one.

Sun Belt did their part in taking 3 from C-USA. That left 5. The only reason the MAC didn't take 2 is because MTSU didn't want to leave. That would've taken C-USA down to 3. They likely would've still called up enough FCS teams to stay alive. C-USA isn't going to roll over and willingly die.

The only way to stop C-USA from grabbing however many FCS they need to stay alive in the future would be to make it harder to transition from FCS to FBS.

If MWC had taken UTEP and say Texas St. from the SB, then the SB would need one more and if MAC takes two, that gets it down to just one school. FIU, Liberty and NMSU would not be enough FBS schools to pull up 5 FCS schools. And there may not have been be 5 FCS schools ready to move up.

Personally, I think the SBC, MAC, and MWC, should have worked cooperatively to gobble up C-USA to:

A) increase their CFP money (G5 money only gets split 4 ways)
B) close the door on new FBS call ups (who’d then get a cut of CFP $)

WKU & MTSU to MAC (14)
LA Tech & FIU to SBC (16)
UTEP & NMSU to MWC (14)

(01-14-2022 05:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  A. He's speaking of a possible Big Ten expansion. Why? Phillips has knowledge of B1G and ACC affairs. Right now, in terms of value and branding there is only 1 move which could bring stability within a SuperP2 / P2 setup. Notre Dame goes for the bucks to transition to pay for play. Kansas is the partner. FOX and the Big 10 get a close approximation to the SEC's additions with the top remaining football brand and a huge basketball brand. Should hoops break free of NCAA control Kansas more than doubles hoops value and jumps to 800 million in valuation for all sports. Texas was #1, Notre Dame #2, Oklahoma #3, and Kansas would become #4 in the realignment value pecking order in a hoops monetized world of non-Big 10 and non-SEC schools.

This would mean that the Big 12 has been tapped again. And Phillips and the ACC taps them again taking possibly West Virginia and Cincinnati, or Baylor and TCU, or all 4 if divisions are deregulated.

The ACC becomes more stable offering better matchups in a larger market.

The Big 10 and SEC agree to sit on 16.

The PAC 12 now has some decisions to make. Iowa State, Kansas State, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Houston, and Brigham Young make a nice new 6 team division, if things are deregulated. Yes, I know the objections to B.Y.U. but they are competitive in money sports and fill stadiums. Houston and Tech cover DFW enough and add Houston as markets. And a whole new time zone adds time slots and more games to market.

Now you have a P4 of 68 schools. Now you get agreement to move to a 4+4+4 model for the CFP. The four conference champs draw a bye. The next 4 P schools are seeded and play the top 2 G5 programs and 2 more at large from the whole field. All 4 P4 schools get 2 in. The G5 get 2 in. And everyone has a shot at the last 2 slots.

Everyone gets something. The Big 10 and SEC share their pots with 2 less mouths each. The PAC 12 and ACC get incentivized with 2 berths each to spur interest. Everyone's best 2 are included. The top 2 G5 are included. And the Big 10 and SEC should feel fairly good about prospects for a #3.

One can hope Phillips has something like this in mind. And with ND the Big 10 should feel better about 3 and going head to head with the SEC.


B. Phillips knows his top ACC schools want a shot at SEC and B1G money and big division of the ACC will be at hand and as a B1G guy he's there to help broker it.

The SEC and Big 10 both move to 20 out of the ACC. The New Big 12 takes the remaining 5 plus Memphis. Then the PAC 12 takes 6 of the 18 member Big 12 and backfill comes again from the AAC and the B12 absorbs the best of the Mountain West and becomes the 4th P conference.

Now you have 2 18 member conferences (PAC 18 & Big 18) and two 20 member conferences (B1G and SEC) for a 76 member P4 and we move to a 4+4 model.
Four champs and Four at large. There is a complete divide between P and G conference championships.

If we are doing fantasies, then we can keep them simple…

A) ND wants to join a conference, the ACC welcomes them with open arms.

Or

B) B1G moves forward with a PAC merger / acquisition (sans Washington State and Oregon State). The B1G grows to a 24 team conglomerate…22 AAU members plus Arizona State and Nebraska.

After OU and UT announced their future move to the SEC and no power league came calling for any other B12 programs, I thought "well, that's it for a while. Stability is upon us."

But the more I've thought about — and with each JRSec post regarding this topic — I feel massive realignment looms. Pay-for-play, NIL, ego, etc. are driving this. Once finished, there could stand four high-powered leagues of major note (we know the Big Ten and SEC will be two of those but are not certain as to the other two). There could also easily be a fifth league that — though not "power" in the conventional sense — will be stronger than any current "G" conference and will be highly respected. These five conferences will offer about 75 to 80 programs (there currently are 65 in the "power" structure).

A few things I anticipate (and many others on this board do too, as I am no soothsayer):

* Notre Dame likely will join a conference for all sports

* UConn will leave the Big East for an all-sports league

* The most influential all-round programs in the Mountain West and American (including, but perhaps not limited to, San Diego State, Boise, Colorado State, SMU, Memphis, USF and Temple) will be members of a league (either one of the future P4 or the "major fifth conference") that is much more prestigious than currently is the case with either the MWC or the AAC.

* The three military academies could easily be independents in football but still carry a certain influence in the future structure.

* The remaining schools in the five "G" leagues will see major shifts in memberships, likely yielding no more than four conferences (and perhaps only three). On this note, I struggle to foresee many of those programs (outside the ones in the MWC and AAC I list above) landing in any of the five leagues that comprise the "Top 75 to 80" all-around programs (football, baseball, hoops, academics, budgets, etc.). Those remaining "G" programs/leagues will no longer be termed as "group of" and will wield, collectively, a respected level of influence. Some of them will "drop down" a division, thus making the remaining group more stable and strong overall.

* Those leagues that do not sponsor football will be marginalized a bit more than is currently the case, with perhaps the exception of the Big East. With UConn gone and the MWC having imploded in this scenario ... Gonzaga will join the Big East, thus nicely countering the loss of UConn.

Lastly, so many of the "experiments" we have seen the past few years (Wichita and Navy to the AAC, UConn to the Big East with football indy, Notre Dame as a non-full member of the ACC, BYU to WCC and football indy, UMass as a football indy, C-USA having recently reinvented itself with a very unconventional model, etc.) will come to an end. They were never meant to be long-term, and the future league structure will make that glaringly clear.

As JRSec says: Major change is coming — and very soon.

(01-15-2022 01:39 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(01-15-2022 11:48 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-15-2022 11:38 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 05:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 02:32 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  He could be referring to anticipated G5 consolidation. I’m sure a 5+1+6 model is more palatable to 3 or 4 G-conferences rather than 5.

MWC and MAC and Sun Belt had their chance to facilitate that. They chose not to. CUSA added a couple more FCS and Sun Belt added one.

Sun Belt did their part in taking 3 from C-USA. That left 5. The only reason the MAC didn't take 2 is because MTSU didn't want to leave. That would've taken C-USA down to 3. They likely would've still called up enough FCS teams to stay alive. C-USA isn't going to roll over and willingly die.

The only way to stop C-USA from grabbing however many FCS they need to stay alive in the future would be to make it harder to transition from FCS to FBS.

If MWC had taken UTEP and say Texas St. from the SB, then the SB would need one more and if MAC takes two, that gets it down to just one school. FIU, Liberty and NMSU would not be enough FBS schools to pull up 5 FCS schools. And there may not have been be 5 FCS schools ready to move up.

Personally, I think the SBC, MAC, and MWC, should have worked cooperatively to gobble up C-USA to:

A) increase their CFP money (G5 money only gets split 4 ways)
B) close the door on new FBS call ups (who’d then get a cut of CFP $)

WKU & MTSU to MAC (14)
LA Tech & FIU to SBC (16)
UTEP & NMSU to MWC (14)

You're assuming the MWC would want UTEP and NMSU (they don't), the SBC would want FIU (they don't), and the relationship between the SBC and La Tech has improved (which isn't a given).

(01-15-2022 02:30 PM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(01-15-2022 01:39 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(01-15-2022 11:48 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-15-2022 11:38 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 05:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  MWC and MAC and Sun Belt had their chance to facilitate that. They chose not to. CUSA added a couple more FCS and Sun Belt added one.

Sun Belt did their part in taking 3 from C-USA. That left 5. The only reason the MAC didn't take 2 is because MTSU didn't want to leave. That would've taken C-USA down to 3. They likely would've still called up enough FCS teams to stay alive. C-USA isn't going to roll over and willingly die.

The only way to stop C-USA from grabbing however many FCS they need to stay alive in the future would be to make it harder to transition from FCS to FBS.

If MWC had taken UTEP and say Texas St. from the SB, then the SB would need one more and if MAC takes two, that gets it down to just one school. FIU, Liberty and NMSU would not be enough FBS schools to pull up 5 FCS schools. And there may not have been be 5 FCS schools ready to move up.

Personally, I think the SBC, MAC, and MWC, should have worked cooperatively to gobble up C-USA to:

A) increase their CFP money (G5 money only gets split 4 ways)
B) close the door on new FBS call ups (who’d then get a cut of CFP $)

WKU & MTSU to MAC (14)
LA Tech & FIU to SBC (16)
UTEP & NMSU to MWC (14)

You're assuming the MWC would want UTEP and NMSU (they don't), the SBC would want FIU (they don't), and the relationship between the SBC and La Tech has improved (which isn't a given).

The trick would have been:

MTSU and WKU to MAC
SMU, UTEP, and Wichita State to MWC
Navy FB to FBS Ind
FIU and LT to AAC

This could have been facilitated by the Big 12's inviting a couple more teams -- say, Memphis and USF. But when all decisions are made out of immediate self-interest, you don't get the kind of results that large-scale, long-term planning can provide.

(01-15-2022 02:30 PM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(01-15-2022 01:39 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(01-15-2022 11:48 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-15-2022 11:38 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 05:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  MWC and MAC and Sun Belt had their chance to facilitate that. They chose not to. CUSA added a couple more FCS and Sun Belt added one.

Sun Belt did their part in taking 3 from C-USA. That left 5. The only reason the MAC didn't take 2 is because MTSU didn't want to leave. That would've taken C-USA down to 3. They likely would've still called up enough FCS teams to stay alive. C-USA isn't going to roll over and willingly die.

The only way to stop C-USA from grabbing however many FCS they need to stay alive in the future would be to make it harder to transition from FCS to FBS.

If MWC had taken UTEP and say Texas St. from the SB, then the SB would need one more and if MAC takes two, that gets it down to just one school. FIU, Liberty and NMSU would not be enough FBS schools to pull up 5 FCS schools. And there may not have been be 5 FCS schools ready to move up.

Personally, I think the SBC, MAC, and MWC, should have worked cooperatively to gobble up C-USA to:

A) increase their CFP money (G5 money only gets split 4 ways)
B) close the door on new FBS call ups (who’d then get a cut of CFP $)

WKU & MTSU to MAC (14)
LA Tech & FIU to SBC (16)
UTEP & NMSU to MWC (14)

You're assuming the MWC would want UTEP and NMSU (they don't), the SBC would want FIU (they don't), and the relationship between the SBC and La Tech has improved (which isn't a given).

Smartest post in this thread.

Its stupid for G5 conferences to go to 14-16 teams as it is. Addiding more deadweight!

(01-15-2022 02:30 PM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(01-15-2022 01:39 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(01-15-2022 11:48 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-15-2022 11:38 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 05:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  MWC and MAC and Sun Belt had their chance to facilitate that. They chose not to. CUSA added a couple more FCS and Sun Belt added one.

Sun Belt did their part in taking 3 from C-USA. That left 5. The only reason the MAC didn't take 2 is because MTSU didn't want to leave. That would've taken C-USA down to 3. They likely would've still called up enough FCS teams to stay alive. C-USA isn't going to roll over and willingly die.

The only way to stop C-USA from grabbing however many FCS they need to stay alive in the future would be to make it harder to transition from FCS to FBS.

If MWC had taken UTEP and say Texas St. from the SB, then the SB would need one more and if MAC takes two, that gets it down to just one school. FIU, Liberty and NMSU would not be enough FBS schools to pull up 5 FCS schools. And there may not have been be 5 FCS schools ready to move up.

Personally, I think the SBC, MAC, and MWC, should have worked cooperatively to gobble up C-USA to:

A) increase their CFP money (G5 money only gets split 4 ways)
B) close the door on new FBS call ups (who’d then get a cut of CFP $)

WKU & MTSU to MAC (14)
LA Tech & FIU to SBC (16)
UTEP & NMSU to MWC (14)

You're assuming the MWC would want UTEP and NMSU (they don't), the SBC would want FIU (they don't), and the relationship between the SBC and La Tech has improved (which isn't a given).

I’m not naive to the fact that UTEP, NMSU, and FIU are unattractive programs and that LA Tech and the SBC have some bad blood but in my evaluation, the benefits of absorbing them out weigh the negatives.