It's pretty clear that Realignment is no longer "Think like a University President", or "Think like a Conference Commissioner" and is much more like "Think like a Network Executive/CEO." Networks want stronger content, better inventory as a whole, and deeper reach into large markets, and they want that for the best possible cost. The latter means that grouping schools by value eliminates a lot of overpaying of schools which tag along with groups of schools which can command more. Obviously, this isn't going to impact the SEC or Big 10's membership roster. The networks know that's baked into those conferences' pricing. But with an opportunity to consolidate product by value they still can trim a lot of fat out of the current contracts.

Therefore, we'll look at this realignment as being minimal for the SEC and Big 10, and constrictive to the overall number of schools in the upper tier, and largely grouped by earning potential measured in terms of actual revenue.

The Gross Total Revenue Range: 95 million - 129 million will separate those making the cut from those which don't. Those making 130 million and more will be in the two stronger conferences with minor exceptions which shall be noted.

Schools Which Qualify for the Upper Tier:

From the Big 12:
Baylor, Kansas*, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Christian**, Texas Tech, West Virginia. (Brigham Young the only entering member who is above 90 million)

From the PAC 12:
Arizona, Arizona State, California, Colorado, Oregon, Utah

From the ACC:
Boston College, Georgia Tech, Louisville**, North Carolina*, N.C. State, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia*, Virginia Tech*

Those qualifying for the S2 minimum of 130 million in total revenue:
ACC: Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Louisville**, Miami
B12: T.C.U.**
PAC: Washington, Stanford


Below 90 million: Oregon State, Washington State, Wake Forest, Iowa State

*Below the norms but possible for a S2 landing spot.
**Above the norms but less likely for a S2 landing spot.

Assumptions:
Clemson, Florida State, Miami, North Carolina to the SEC
Duke, Stanford, Virginia, Washington to the Big 10

*Notre Dame stays unaffiliated but schedules all 3 conferences and relies on at large entry to the CFP.

Considerations: The Big 10 may prefer Miami and UNC may prefer to stay with Duke so those arrangements may be changeable. Other than that, the other 3 I have down for the SEC and Big 10 are pretty solid.

SEC & Big 10 Selections are Based Upon NET Revenue Higher than 130 million, or Market reach, or AAU status.

Therefore, if you follow these guidelines plus some semblance of regionality you wind up with this:

Big 10:
Duke, Maryland, Penn State, Rutgers, Virginia
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin
California Los Angeles, Nebraska, Southern California, Stanford, Washington

SEC:
Clemson, Kentucky, Miami, North Carolina, South Carolina
Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State
Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

NEW Conference:
Arizona, Arizona State, California, Oregon, Utah
Boston College, Kansas, Kansas State, Louisville, Syracuse
Baylor, Colorado, Oklahoma State, Texas Christain, Texas Tech
Georgia Tech, N.C. State, Pittsburgh, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

*Notre Dame as a independent.

With these 3 networks would payout ~75 million to 80 million for the top 2 and could payout 40 million or a bit more for the third.

This permits the networks to structure the new upper tier by payouts.

If the networks were really willing to pay top rate for market additions which lacked in content they could go bigger and up to as many as 28 schools each for the Big 10 and SEC and simply cut the total number to 57 with N.D.

I don't see any good reason to do that when they can hold the extra markets and pay less at 20 members for each of the 3 conferences plus Notre Dame. That move eliminates all schools making less than 95.9 million.

If a 4th conference emerges it will make about 10 million less than the #3 New Conference and will be comprised of the 4 dropped P5 schools plus the next 16 best G5.

We'll see what happens from here, but I'm thinking 20 keeps the SEC and Big 10 profitable enough, with enough regionality to make things work more efficiently.

Ultimately there will be a P1 football conference, a P1 basketball conference and best of the rest conference

P1-football
Bama, Georgia, Tenn, LSU, Florida,
TEX, Ok, ND, Mich, Ohio St, PSU,
Clemson, Florida St,
USC, Oregon, Washington

P1-Basketball
UNC, Duke, NCSU, VA,
Cuse, UConn, Lou, Cincy,
Ind, Mich St, MD, Ky,
Kan, Ark, UCLA, Ariz,

BOTR
Aub, Tex A&M, Miami, VT,
Wisc, Neb, Iowa, TCU,
Col, Utah, Ariz St, Stan,

(06-30-2023 06:30 PM)goofus Wrote:  Ultimately there will be a P1 football conference, a P1 basketball conference and best of the rest conference

P1-football
Bama, Georgia, Tenn, LSU, Florida,
TEX, Ok, ND, Mich, Ohio St, PSU,
Clemson, Florida St,
USC, Oregon, Washington

P1-Basketball
UNC, Duke, NCSU, VA,
Cuse, UConn, Lou, Cincy,
Ind, Mich St, MD, Ky,
Kan, Ark, UCLA, Ariz,

BOTR
Aub, Tex A&M, Miami, VT,
Wisc, Neb, Iowa, TCU,
Col, Utah, Ariz St, Stan,

I may disagree with the teams involved but I can get behind this concept. I think P-1 basketball shouldn't be restricted to just current FBS schools, schools like Villanova and Gonzaga should be allowed in it.

Leagues of 20 won't happen.

As the playoffs expand, first to 12 and eventually to 16, conference symmetry will be increasingly important and it will be necessary to have 4 conferences (of the same size), not three.
We can't go to 4 X 20 because the system won't or can't promote another 11 teams into the upper echelon. It is already a stretch with 69 and the system can't accommodate much more, nor will the nets pay. I believe the max will top out at 72 with the likelihood of shrinking back to 64 a real possibility.

(07-01-2023 08:52 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(06-30-2023 06:30 PM)goofus Wrote:  Ultimately there will be a P1 football conference, a P1 basketball conference and best of the rest conference

P1-football
Bama, Georgia, Tenn, LSU, Florida,
TEX, Ok, ND, Mich, Ohio St, PSU,
Clemson, Florida St,
USC, Oregon, Washington

P1-Basketball
UNC, Duke, NCSU, VA,
Cuse, UConn, Lou, Cincy,
Ind, Mich St, MD, Ky,
Kan, Ark, UCLA, Ariz,

BOTR
Aub, Tex A&M, Miami, VT,
Wisc, Neb, Iowa, TCU,
Col, Utah, Ariz St, Stan,

I may disagree with the teams involved but I can get behind this concept. I think P-1 basketball shouldn't be restricted to just current FBS schools, schools like Villanova and Gonzaga should be allowed in it.

My question regarding this concept is, if a school is in the P-1 basketball conference, where do they play FB and other sports, in the third conference? Or do the P-1 basketball teams just play the same basketball teams for football and other sports?

(06-30-2023 06:30 PM)goofus Wrote:  Ultimately there will be a P1 football conference, a P1 basketball conference and best of the rest conference

P1-football
Bama, Georgia, Tenn, LSU, Florida,
TEX, Ok, ND, Mich, Ohio St, PSU,
Clemson, Florida St,
USC, Oregon, Washington

P1-Basketball
UNC, Duke, NCSU, VA,
Cuse, UConn, Lou, Cincy,
Ind, Mich St, MD, Ky,
Kan, Ark, UCLA, Ariz,

BOTR
Aub, Tex A&M, Miami, VT,
Wisc, Neb, Iowa, TCU,
Col, Utah, Ariz St, Stan,

What prevents this is regional rivalries are still the greatest interest driver for the sport. They will group in ways which preserve the greatest number of those games.

(07-01-2023 12:50 PM)EdwordL Wrote:  

(07-01-2023 08:52 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(06-30-2023 06:30 PM)goofus Wrote:  Ultimately there will be a P1 football conference, a P1 basketball conference and best of the rest conference

P1-football
Bama, Georgia, Tenn, LSU, Florida,
TEX, Ok, ND, Mich, Ohio St, PSU,
Clemson, Florida St,
USC, Oregon, Washington

P1-Basketball
UNC, Duke, NCSU, VA,
Cuse, UConn, Lou, Cincy,
Ind, Mich St, MD, Ky,
Kan, Ark, UCLA, Ariz,

BOTR
Aub, Tex A&M, Miami, VT,
Wisc, Neb, Iowa, TCU,
Col, Utah, Ariz St, Stan,

I may disagree with the teams involved but I can get behind this concept. I think P-1 basketball shouldn't be restricted to just current FBS schools, schools like Villanova and Gonzaga should be allowed in it.

My question regarding this concept is, if a school is in the P-1 basketball conference, where do they play FB and other sports, in the third conference? Or do the P-1 basketball teams just play the same basketball teams for football and other sports?

Schools can easily do all but football in the "main" conference and a separate conference for football if they are FCS (Villanova) or not worry about it (Gonzaga).

(07-01-2023 02:14 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(07-01-2023 12:50 PM)EdwordL Wrote:  

(07-01-2023 08:52 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(06-30-2023 06:30 PM)goofus Wrote:  Ultimately there will be a P1 football conference, a P1 basketball conference and best of the rest conference

P1-football
Bama, Georgia, Tenn, LSU, Florida,
TEX, Ok, ND, Mich, Ohio St, PSU,
Clemson, Florida St,
USC, Oregon, Washington

P1-Basketball
UNC, Duke, NCSU, VA,
Cuse, UConn, Lou, Cincy,
Ind, Mich St, MD, Ky,
Kan, Ark, UCLA, Ariz,

BOTR
Aub, Tex A&M, Miami, VT,
Wisc, Neb, Iowa, TCU,
Col, Utah, Ariz St, Stan,

I may disagree with the teams involved but I can get behind this concept. I think P-1 basketball shouldn't be restricted to just current FBS schools, schools like Villanova and Gonzaga should be allowed in it.

My question regarding this concept is, if a school is in the P-1 basketball conference, where do they play FB and other sports, in the third conference? Or do the P-1 basketball teams just play the same basketball teams for football and other sports?

Schools can easily do all but football in the "main" conference and a separate conference for football if they are FCS (Villanova) or not worry about it (Gonzaga).

I think we eventually see ABF memberships in the upper tier. And we will have them because of the desire to pack in hoops content. All But Football memberships will be able to play football, just on a separate contract in a separate conference.

Just a hypothetical example: Vanderbilt can't afford to keep pace in football with the SEC. The SEC and Vanderbilt don't want to part company. Vanderbilt opts to play football in the Southern Conference and everything else in the SEC. Duke could do the same. Butler, UConn, and Xavier could do the same in the Big 10 if academics permitted the association.

I don't believe we'll wind up with basketball only conferences. I do believe we will see All But Football memberships in the top 3 conferences.

(07-01-2023 10:38 AM)XLance Wrote:  Leagues of 20 won't happen.

As the playoffs expand, first to 12 and eventually to 16, conference symmetry will be increasingly important and it will be necessary to have 4 conferences (of the same size), not three.
We can't go to 4 X 20 because the system won't or can't promote another 11 teams into the upper echelon. It is already a stretch with 69 and the system can't accommodate much more, nor will the nets pay. I believe the max will top out at 72 with the likelihood of shrinking back to 64 a real possibility.

Why do you need symmetry?

I do agree with you that there won't be 80 power teams. There aren't 11 who can afford to move up and there may not be 11 who competitively could do it in the revenue sports.

(07-01-2023 04:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-01-2023 10:38 AM)XLance Wrote:  Leagues of 20 won't happen.

As the playoffs expand, first to 12 and eventually to 16, conference symmetry will be increasingly important and it will be necessary to have 4 conferences (of the same size), not three.
We can't go to 4 X 20 because the system won't or can't promote another 11 teams into the upper echelon. It is already a stretch with 69 and the system can't accommodate much more, nor will the nets pay. I believe the max will top out at 72 with the likelihood of shrinking back to 64 a real possibility.

Why do you need symmetry?

I do agree with you that there won't be 80 power teams. There aren't 11 who can afford to move up and there may not be 11 who competitively could do it in the revenue sports.

You don't need symmetry.

Now way back when the SEC established the SEC Championship Game they established the rule about 12 teams needed for a conference championship game. It took the Big 12 about 5 years to go to 12 teams but more than a decade before the ACC did (and there were enough to initially block Boston College so their admission was delayed) and two decades before the Big 10 and Pac 12 did.

On the other hand, the last two times the SEC expanded (first for Texas A&M/Missouri, second for Texas/Oklahoma) the Big Ten expanded the following year both times. Now the East Coast and California/Los Angeles expansions certainly could be justified on their own but was it a case of the Big Ten "keeping up with the Joneses"?

But we know the Pac 12 had no desire of expanding past 12 teams to keep up with the Big Ten or SEC and there was nothing stopping the ACC from expanding to 16 teams and they still haven't (they IMO should have grabbed Cincinnati before the Big 12 did).

(07-01-2023 04:47 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(07-01-2023 04:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-01-2023 10:38 AM)XLance Wrote:  Leagues of 20 won't happen.

As the playoffs expand, first to 12 and eventually to 16, conference symmetry will be increasingly important and it will be necessary to have 4 conferences (of the same size), not three.
We can't go to 4 X 20 because the system won't or can't promote another 11 teams into the upper echelon. It is already a stretch with 69 and the system can't accommodate much more, nor will the nets pay. I believe the max will top out at 72 with the likelihood of shrinking back to 64 a real possibility.

Why do you need symmetry?

I do agree with you that there won't be 80 power teams. There aren't 11 who can afford to move up and there may not be 11 who competitively could do it in the revenue sports.

You don't need symmetry.

Now way back when the SEC established the SEC Championship Game they established the rule about 12 teams needed for a conference championship game. It took the Big 12 about 5 years to go to 12 teams but more than a decade before the ACC did (and there were enough to initially block Boston College so their admission was delayed) and two decades before the Big 10 and Pac 12 did.

On the other hand, the last two times the SEC expanded (first for Texas A&M/Missouri, second for Texas/Oklahoma) the Big Ten expanded the following year both times. Now the East Coast and California/Los Angeles expansions certainly could be justified on their own but was it a case of the Big Ten "keeping up with the Joneses"?

But we know the Pac 12 had no desire of expanding past 12 teams to keep up with the Big Ten or SEC and there was nothing stopping the ACC from expanding to 16 teams and they still haven't (they IMO should have grabbed Cincinnati before the Big 12 did).

Or WVU, which had had games with Syracuse, BC, Pitt, Miami, and VT for longer than Cincinnati did.

(07-01-2023 04:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-01-2023 10:38 AM)XLance Wrote:  Leagues of 20 won't happen.

As the playoffs expand, first to 12 and eventually to 16, conference symmetry will be increasingly important and it will be necessary to have 4 conferences (of the same size), not three.
We can't go to 4 X 20 because the system won't or can't promote another 11 teams into the upper echelon. It is already a stretch with 69 and the system can't accommodate much more, nor will the nets pay. I believe the max will top out at 72 with the likelihood of shrinking back to 64 a real possibility.

Why do you need symmetry?

I do agree with you that there won't be 80 power teams. There aren't 11 who can afford to move up and there may not be 11 who competitively could do it in the revenue sports.

For the same reason that Houston moved from the NL Central to the AL West. When playoffs get expanded, it is necessary to be pulling winners and wild cards from pools of equal size, because the public understands and buys into the process.
That's why there are 30 MLB teams, 30 NBA teams, 32 NHL teams and 32 NFL teams all broken down into divisions of equal size.
If you had a winners only playoff like the World Series of old where it was the NL champion playing the AL champ, it wouldn't matter how many teams were in each league, because each side only had one winner, but we now know the "money" is in the playoff structure and it must be strung out for as many games as possible. People will watch a playoff game even if they never turn on a regular season contest.

(07-02-2023 07:50 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-01-2023 04:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-01-2023 10:38 AM)XLance Wrote:  Leagues of 20 won't happen.

As the playoffs expand, first to 12 and eventually to 16, conference symmetry will be increasingly important and it will be necessary to have 4 conferences (of the same size), not three.
We can't go to 4 X 20 because the system won't or can't promote another 11 teams into the upper echelon. It is already a stretch with 69 and the system can't accommodate much more, nor will the nets pay. I believe the max will top out at 72 with the likelihood of shrinking back to 64 a real possibility.

Why do you need symmetry?

I do agree with you that there won't be 80 power teams. There aren't 11 who can afford to move up and there may not be 11 who competitively could do it in the revenue sports.

For the same reason that Houston moved from the NL Central to the AL West. When playoffs get expanded, it is necessary to be pulling winners and wild cards from pools of equal size, because the public understands and buys into the process.
That's why there are 30 MLB teams, 30 NBA teams, 32 NHL teams and 32 NFL teams all broken down into divisions of equal size.
If you had a winners only playoff like the World Series of old where it was the NL champion playing the AL champ, it wouldn't matter how many teams were in each league, because each side only had one winner, but we now know the "money" is in the playoff structure and it must be strung out for as many games as possible. People will watch a playoff game even if they never turn on a regular season contest.

The difference between MLB, the NFL, and the NBA vs. college football (or college basketball) is the professional leagues are one league and all the schools are under one jurisdiction. Yes there is the NCAA but the individual conferences run the NCAA. It's not like the NFC East and AFC West run the NFL. There's no way one conference is going to take on an unwanted member or two just to keep up with another conference. If the Big Ten can pick up East Coast or USC/UCLA to match the SEC they will. The SEC and Big Ten might be able to match each other because they can practically get anybody. Once you get to the ACC and Big 12 they'll have to add Wilkes University to get to 24 members.

(07-02-2023 08:58 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(07-02-2023 07:50 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-01-2023 04:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-01-2023 10:38 AM)XLance Wrote:  Leagues of 20 won't happen.

As the playoffs expand, first to 12 and eventually to 16, conference symmetry will be increasingly important and it will be necessary to have 4 conferences (of the same size), not three.
We can't go to 4 X 20 because the system won't or can't promote another 11 teams into the upper echelon. It is already a stretch with 69 and the system can't accommodate much more, nor will the nets pay. I believe the max will top out at 72 with the likelihood of shrinking back to 64 a real possibility.

Why do you need symmetry?

I do agree with you that there won't be 80 power teams. There aren't 11 who can afford to move up and there may not be 11 who competitively could do it in the revenue sports.

For the same reason that Houston moved from the NL Central to the AL West. When playoffs get expanded, it is necessary to be pulling winners and wild cards from pools of equal size, because the public understands and buys into the process.
That's why there are 30 MLB teams, 30 NBA teams, 32 NHL teams and 32 NFL teams all broken down into divisions of equal size.
If you had a winners only playoff like the World Series of old where it was the NL champion playing the AL champ, it wouldn't matter how many teams were in each league, because each side only had one winner, but we now know the "money" is in the playoff structure and it must be strung out for as many games as possible. People will watch a playoff game even if they never turn on a regular season contest.

The difference between MLB, the NFL, and the NBA vs. college football (or college basketball) is the professional leagues are one league and all the schools are under one jurisdiction. Yes there is the NCAA but the individual conferences run the NCAA. It's not like the NFC East and AFC West run the NFL. There's no way one conference is going to take on an unwanted member or two just to keep up with another conference. If the Big Ten can pick up East Coast or USC/UCLA to match the SEC they will. The SEC and Big Ten might be able to match each other because they can practically get anybody. Once you get to the ACC and Big 12 they'll have to add Wilkes University to get to 24 members.

There is only one CFP.
When the playoff dollars start rolling in, it will be the CFP making the rules for participation and the conferences will willingly follow their directions.
Leaving basketball and baseball/softball alone will be the way to keep Congress out of Collegiate Sports as they already have a prescribed playoff format.

(07-01-2023 12:50 PM)EdwordL Wrote:  

(07-01-2023 08:52 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(06-30-2023 06:30 PM)goofus Wrote:  Ultimately there will be a P1 football conference, a P1 basketball conference and best of the rest conference

P1-football
Bama, Georgia, Tenn, LSU, Florida,
TEX, Ok, ND, Mich, Ohio St, PSU,
Clemson, Florida St,
USC, Oregon, Washington

P1-Basketball
UNC, Duke, NCSU, VA,
Cuse, UConn, Lou, Cincy,
Ind, Mich St, MD, Ky,
Kan, Ark, UCLA, Ariz,

BOTR
Aub, Tex A&M, Miami, VT,
Wisc, Neb, Iowa, TCU,
Col, Utah, Ariz St, Stan,

I may disagree with the teams involved but I can get behind this concept. I think P-1 basketball shouldn't be restricted to just current FBS schools, schools like Villanova and Gonzaga should be allowed in it.

My question regarding this concept is, if a school is in the P-1 basketball conference, where do they play FB and other sports, in the third conference? Or do the P-1 basketball teams just play the same basketball teams for football and other sports?

Separate basketball and football conferences, then an all-sports conference for everything else. There's no need to artificially tie them together.

(07-02-2023 09:36 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-02-2023 08:58 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(07-02-2023 07:50 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-01-2023 04:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-01-2023 10:38 AM)XLance Wrote:  Leagues of 20 won't happen.

As the playoffs expand, first to 12 and eventually to 16, conference symmetry will be increasingly important and it will be necessary to have 4 conferences (of the same size), not three.
We can't go to 4 X 20 because the system won't or can't promote another 11 teams into the upper echelon. It is already a stretch with 69 and the system can't accommodate much more, nor will the nets pay. I believe the max will top out at 72 with the likelihood of shrinking back to 64 a real possibility.

Why do you need symmetry?

I do agree with you that there won't be 80 power teams. There aren't 11 who can afford to move up and there may not be 11 who competitively could do it in the revenue sports.

For the same reason that Houston moved from the NL Central to the AL West. When playoffs get expanded, it is necessary to be pulling winners and wild cards from pools of equal size, because the public understands and buys into the process.
That's why there are 30 MLB teams, 30 NBA teams, 32 NHL teams and 32 NFL teams all broken down into divisions of equal size.
If you had a winners only playoff like the World Series of old where it was the NL champion playing the AL champ, it wouldn't matter how many teams were in each league, because each side only had one winner, but we now know the "money" is in the playoff structure and it must be strung out for as many games as possible. People will watch a playoff game even if they never turn on a regular season contest.

The difference between MLB, the NFL, and the NBA vs. college football (or college basketball) is the professional leagues are one league and all the schools are under one jurisdiction. Yes there is the NCAA but the individual conferences run the NCAA. It's not like the NFC East and AFC West run the NFL. There's no way one conference is going to take on an unwanted member or two just to keep up with another conference. If the Big Ten can pick up East Coast or USC/UCLA to match the SEC they will. The SEC and Big Ten might be able to match each other because they can practically get anybody. Once you get to the ACC and Big 12 they'll have to add Wilkes University to get to 24 members.

There is only one CFP.
When the playoff dollars start rolling in, it will be the CFP making the rules for participation and the conferences will willingly follow their directions.
Leaving basketball and baseball/softball alone will be the way to keep Congress out of Collegiate Sports as they already have a prescribed playoff format.

The same CFP with the first round on the same Saturday of NFL regular season games and semifinals on weeknights in January? Good luck with that.

(07-01-2023 04:47 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(07-01-2023 04:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-01-2023 10:38 AM)XLance Wrote:  Leagues of 20 won't happen.

As the playoffs expand, first to 12 and eventually to 16, conference symmetry will be increasingly important and it will be necessary to have 4 conferences (of the same size), not three.
We can't go to 4 X 20 because the system won't or can't promote another 11 teams into the upper echelon. It is already a stretch with 69 and the system can't accommodate much more, nor will the nets pay. I believe the max will top out at 72 with the likelihood of shrinking back to 64 a real possibility.

Why do you need symmetry?

I do agree with you that there won't be 80 power teams. There aren't 11 who can afford to move up and there may not be 11 who competitively could do it in the revenue sports.

You don't need symmetry.

Now way back when the SEC established the SEC Championship Game they established the rule about 12 teams needed for a conference championship game. It took the Big 12 about 5 years to go to 12 teams but more than a decade before the ACC did (and there were enough to initially block Boston College so their admission was delayed) and two decades before the Big 10 and Pac 12 did.

On the other hand, the last two times the SEC expanded (first for Texas A&M/Missouri, second for Texas/Oklahoma) the Big Ten expanded the following year both times. Now the East Coast and California/Los Angeles expansions certainly could be justified on their own but was it a case of the Big Ten "keeping up with the Joneses"?

But we know the Pac 12 had no desire of expanding past 12 teams to keep up with the Big Ten or SEC and there was nothing stopping the ACC from expanding to 16 teams and they still haven't (they IMO should have grabbed Cincinnati before the Big 12 did).

The SEC did nothing to create that rule. It was a pre-existing NCAA rule and the SEC was the first major conference to take advantage of it once the earnings potential was realized.

Since that time, the NCAA has changed the rule. You no longer need a minimum number of members to play a conference championship game.

(07-02-2023 02:47 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-01-2023 04:47 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(07-01-2023 04:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-01-2023 10:38 AM)XLance Wrote:  Leagues of 20 won't happen.

As the playoffs expand, first to 12 and eventually to 16, conference symmetry will be increasingly important and it will be necessary to have 4 conferences (of the same size), not three.
We can't go to 4 X 20 because the system won't or can't promote another 11 teams into the upper echelon. It is already a stretch with 69 and the system can't accommodate much more, nor will the nets pay. I believe the max will top out at 72 with the likelihood of shrinking back to 64 a real possibility.

Why do you need symmetry?

I do agree with you that there won't be 80 power teams. There aren't 11 who can afford to move up and there may not be 11 who competitively could do it in the revenue sports.

You don't need symmetry.

Now way back when the SEC established the SEC Championship Game they established the rule about 12 teams needed for a conference championship game. It took the Big 12 about 5 years to go to 12 teams but more than a decade before the ACC did (and there were enough to initially block Boston College so their admission was delayed) and two decades before the Big 10 and Pac 12 did.

On the other hand, the last two times the SEC expanded (first for Texas A&M/Missouri, second for Texas/Oklahoma) the Big Ten expanded the following year both times. Now the East Coast and California/Los Angeles expansions certainly could be justified on their own but was it a case of the Big Ten "keeping up with the Joneses"?

But we know the Pac 12 had no desire of expanding past 12 teams to keep up with the Big Ten or SEC and there was nothing stopping the ACC from expanding to 16 teams and they still haven't (they IMO should have grabbed Cincinnati before the Big 12 did).

The SEC did nothing to create that rule. It was a pre-existing NCAA rule and the SEC was the first major conference to take advantage of it once the earnings potential was realized.

Since that time, the NCAA has changed the rule. You no longer need a minimum number of members to play a conference championship game.

True. The Big XII began to play CCG at 10 teams once the rule changed.