I saw a good thread on another message board about college football becoming too regionalized in the Southeast and I want to hear Southeastern perspective. For the sake of argument I think OU & Texas while in the southern half should be lumped in the central part of the US because it is centrally located as well.

The question becomes how do you keep the sport national because I think while I'm sure its great to say look at the way we dominate the sport in the Southeast, what does that do eventually to the viewership of the product and its popularity long term.

While I think Texas, OU and USC should have enough recruits with Texas and California to have a chance at national championships from time to time(and maybe UCLA especially with the right coach), other schools in that list such as Washington, Oregon or a Stanford really need the sun, moon and stars to align if they are to win a national title.

In the North its OSU, PSU, Mich., and ND and maybe some secondary schools like Neb., Wisconsin, MSU and as a stretch Iowa if everything goes right but lets focus primarily on the 4 major brands. Outside of OSU while these these have great brands they have to work harder for recruits and its a big disadvantage to FSU/Clemson and SEC.

The southeast is going to win more just based on the number of recruits that come from the area. But should the combo of the West, Central(Texas & OU) and north win 2 out of 4 yrs or 2 out of 5 years?Would that be balanced enough, I think so. The B1G has been disadvantaged by recruits as well as playing all the bowl games, NC games on the road. I think part of the problem is Delaney cared more about the "brand" of the Rose Bowl than a competitive advantage for his teams.

I will mention bad coaching hires have really limited Texas, USC, PSU, Mich & Neb the last 15 to 20 years. ND has had hiring issues for 30 yrs possibly with the exception of Kelly but I am sure ND & CFB fans are divided on him as a hire. While I don't expect the northern brands to win as many as Texas, USC & OU they should win some. I think bad coaching hires have cost the north a possible championship or two but is not the whole answer. Would just good coaching hires and an equal footing in playoff venues fix this? That might get them closer but I'm still not sure that puts them over the hump.

Some questions:
1. Do CFB fans in the southeast see this as an issue or do they just want to dominate the sport which could come to the detriment of it?

2. Is it just coaching hire blunders and playoff location disadvantage? Realizing the north will not win as many but should be pulling in 1 NC every 4 yrs where also the west or central gets one as well and the southeast gets 2 out of 4.

3. What league do you think is best to be consolidated to meet brand and competitive play requirements or do you think we are best off with 5 leagues and an 8 team playoff? Either way you don't have to go through the full realignment maybe just a high level discussion of what league is consolidated or if its recruiting for the B1G what area they get and what two leagues are consolidated after that.

4. If all the conferences and networks come to the conclusion we are too regionalized could this be where we see the tv revenues negotiated as 1 for a new P4 or P5 football that splits away? If so some minor trading for geographical fits even among the B1G & SEC could happen.

My take is some of this is coaching hires but I don't know if that will completely fix the problem especially with one of the 2 biggest brands being the B1G. You need 4 strong balanced divisions brand wise and talent wise where CFP is played in by conference champions and equal footing for the playoff game venues.

1. The SEC is set.

2. The B1G is set brand wise and has made progress talent with PSU & Mich. lately but they are not there yet. Everyone laughed at Rutgers and Maryland but I believe it has helped them recruiting wise and to rebuild the PSU brand. But they need more. You can help the B1G recruiting issue 3 ways:
A. Coastal Atlantic states. Would a small step in just adding Virginia to already go with New Jersey and the Maryland/DC area be enough? It might be too early to tell with PSU having Franklin and Mich. having Harbaugh(lets forget the SC game from what I hear lol). Its the least intrusive and leaves the option of keeping the ACC for the most part intact. Or do they need North Carolina also and Ga. Tech wouldn't hurt also but I don't know the politics of being a southern school vs. academics. I know Ga. Tech is dwarfed by the Bulldogs but it still is exposure. B. Central contingent with OU & TX but I don't believe they want enough Texas school representation that is meaningful to Texas.
C. Addition of PAC schools where the B1G gets the brands they want but some decent schools are left for the Big 12. I'm thinking USC, Stanford, Az., WAsh., Colorado. It still leaves 2 California schoos for the Big 12, and ASU.

3. ACC has won enough but still lags brand wise which is why they NEED ND eventually. But what happens if FSU & Clemson go through a down period are they out of luck? Maybe Miami could step up and carry them as their standard bearer, I don't think Va. Tech can long term and I'm ND can either.

4. Big 12- Has 2 strong brands and solid ratings but additions would need to be good partners. If the B1G took 6 PAC teams as long as the B1G only took 2 California schools and USC & UCLA were in opposite leagues you can make a solid Big 12.

5. PAC- they need to combine with the Big 12 but I'm not sure this helps one of the 2 biggest brands in the sport in the B1G.