+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: SECbbs (/forum-285.html)
+---- Forum: SEC Conference Talk (/forum-246.html)
+---- Thread: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? (/thread-639096.html)
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - He1nousOne - 12-27-2014 11:44 AM
(12-21-2014 03:56 PM)XLance Wrote:(12-21-2014 03:17 PM)He1nousOne Wrote: Well, since the reaction to Maryland and Rutgers, I don't know if more of the Big Ten power persons are interested in more East Coast expansion or if they would rather look into a strong Midwest expansion in order to balance the additions of Penn State, Rutgers and Maryland. Those three to the East balanced by Nebraska, Oklahoma and Kansas to the West. That is a pretty strong expansion ending and it is one that Big Ten traditionals would be more amiable to than a heavy move to the East.
You are right though about how strong the ACC could become with the additions that I list for them. They might just end up with an expansion of Texas (partial), Baylor and UConn. That really isn't all that scary to the SEC. If the Big Ten lands Oklahoma then it doesn't really worry me for the Big Ten either. I see good things happening for the Big Ten if the trend continues and Michigan can actually land Harbaugh. They are coming around. Seeing Pelini get the boot at Nebraska is also good news. Chryst finally coming back to Wisconsin in order to create some stability there will help. Dantonio at Michigan State, Franklin at Penn State. The future is looking alright.
Right now, as it stands, the Big 12 puts out a better football product than the ACC so worrying about what the ACC could become in the future isn't as big of a deal as is what The Big 12 is now. I have nothing against the Big 12, I have nothing against the ACC and I really, honestly, don't have anything against the SEC. I like how much **** the Big Ten has been taking lately. They deserve it but I think they will turn things around.
I still am of the opinion that ESPN is in the business of protecting their basketball interests with the ACC. That is why I think they would like the triple addition of Texas, Baylor and UConn to ACC basketball. Now that right there is the biggest threat that the ACC would pose to either the SEC or Big Ten.
H1, if indeed the triple addition to the ACC was made, it would be with Texas (partial), Baylor and Kansas. This is the only scenario in which I think the ACC would agree to take Texas as a partial member.
The B1G could then try to pry Missouri away from the SEC to pair with Oklahoma or look to UConn to try to enhance their basketball product.
You guys wont get Kansas or Oklahoma. Be realistic. This is a massive negotiation with multiple parties including all the major conference Universities and the major networks.
ESPN has more leverage on the ACC to get them to accept UConn. It's called The ACC Network.
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - JRsec - 12-27-2014 01:44 PM
(12-27-2014 11:44 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:(12-21-2014 03:56 PM)XLance Wrote:(12-21-2014 03:17 PM)He1nousOne Wrote: Well, since the reaction to Maryland and Rutgers, I don't know if more of the Big Ten power persons are interested in more East Coast expansion or if they would rather look into a strong Midwest expansion in order to balance the additions of Penn State, Rutgers and Maryland. Those three to the East balanced by Nebraska, Oklahoma and Kansas to the West. That is a pretty strong expansion ending and it is one that Big Ten traditionals would be more amiable to than a heavy move to the East.
You are right though about how strong the ACC could become with the additions that I list for them. They might just end up with an expansion of Texas (partial), Baylor and UConn. That really isn't all that scary to the SEC. If the Big Ten lands Oklahoma then it doesn't really worry me for the Big Ten either. I see good things happening for the Big Ten if the trend continues and Michigan can actually land Harbaugh. They are coming around. Seeing Pelini get the boot at Nebraska is also good news. Chryst finally coming back to Wisconsin in order to create some stability there will help. Dantonio at Michigan State, Franklin at Penn State. The future is looking alright.
Right now, as it stands, the Big 12 puts out a better football product than the ACC so worrying about what the ACC could become in the future isn't as big of a deal as is what The Big 12 is now. I have nothing against the Big 12, I have nothing against the ACC and I really, honestly, don't have anything against the SEC. I like how much **** the Big Ten has been taking lately. They deserve it but I think they will turn things around.
I still am of the opinion that ESPN is in the business of protecting their basketball interests with the ACC. That is why I think they would like the triple addition of Texas, Baylor and UConn to ACC basketball. Now that right there is the biggest threat that the ACC would pose to either the SEC or Big Ten.
H1, if indeed the triple addition to the ACC was made, it would be with Texas (partial), Baylor and Kansas. This is the only scenario in which I think the ACC would agree to take Texas as a partial member.
The B1G could then try to pry Missouri away from the SEC to pair with Oklahoma or look to UConn to try to enhance their basketball product.
You guys wont get Kansas or Oklahoma. Be realistic. This is a massive negotiation with multiple parties including all the major conference Universities and the major networks.
ESPN has more leverage on the ACC to get them to accept UConn. It's called The ACC Network.
The prospect of brokering is fading H1. I'm beginning to believe that it simply isn't going to go down that way. The Big 12, if or when it goes, will simply be picked apart. If it is brokered it will mean that it happens soon, but more and more I believe it will happen later so that the brokering doesn't have to happen at all. I don't think the networks are interested in becoming welfare to all of its members.
Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, West Virginia, Kansas, and possibly Iowa State will all find homes for either brand or market status, or academics. That means on their content value, their ability to provide viewers, or their school standing. I do think it likely that Texas Tech also finds a home. Kansas State will have a tough time. If T.C.U. winds up anywhere it will be the PAC but only with Texas Tech. Baylor won't get into the PAC, will not be wanted by the Big 10, and only finds a home in the SEC should the SEC expand by 4 out of the Big 12 which isn't likely, or if the SEC gets shut out of Oklahoma Schools which also isn't likely, or should West Virginia be taken by the ACC and Kansas and Oklahoma aren't available.
Considering there are more Southern Baptists in the SEC than anywhere else in the world (hyperbole here) I think they would be a good addition for us. They have nice new facilities, play an exciting brand of ball, and are decent in baseball and hoops. Plus they aren't named "Tigers" or "Bulldogs" which helps. We don't have a green team in the SEC since Tulane left and we don't have any Bears. But seriously while they fit in the ACC if the ACC doesn't form a Western Division I don't think they get into the ACC either.
On a more serious note about Baylor, I like them for the following reasons: they are the oldest university in the state of Texas. Their alumni have some influence in a state where I consider them to be the #3 University of Texas. They are within a reasonable driving distance of most SEC West teams. They are balanced in sports and their academic standing would slightly improve that of the SEC. I think they are marketable both inside Texas and within the greater SEC footprint for those reasons. However I know I am in the minority on this opinion within the SEC.
I don't think we are headed to more than 64 any more. I once believed 72 would be the final number. Now I'm thinking more like 60. We'll see.
If Texas goes to the ACC as an independent nobody else goes with them. They'll have 7 games to schedule their Texas buddies and OU. The sticking point on that will be minor sports travel.
North Carolina doesn't want to do what it takes to land 3 Big 12 schools and form a Western Division. Remember Louisville could easily slip into a Western division with Texas, a Texas private, and an Oklahoma or Kansas school and that would work if N.D. came all in. That would likely require them to make room for the Western division by shedding the two programs that were originally considered for this deal. In that event the SEC could land Va Tech and N.C. State, or N.C. State and an Oklahoma School while the Big 10 landed Virginia Tech and Kansas, or some other arrangement of similar compromise. When it was first presented as a concept the idea was that the advantages for the ACC would prove irresistible. Carolina is apparently the obstacle. This is why the demise of the Big 12 may be a premature prediction. If ESPN can't enhance the market value of the ACC with such additions and monetize it by converting the LHN into an ACCN then Delany's desire for more Eastern properties may not be dead quite yet and neither is the idea of a 3 x 20. Let ESPN gain a share of the PACN, a long duration contract for Big 10 T1 content, and utilize the markets to enhance their investment and potential income from the SECN and it could be quite advantageous to move to just a P3 setup. Then your final four every year are the three champs and the best at large school. And remember H1 if the SEC and Big 10 take 6 each of the ACC that meets requirements for dissolution. If the PAC takes 8 of the Big 12 it does the same.
The SEC in that scenario likely picks up: Miami, Georgia Tech, Florida State, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, and Clemson. Georgia Tech gives us academics and an old rival back for many of our schools. Florida State and Clemson are big content additions. Virginia Tech and N.C. State are market adds, and Miami gives us good academics and a presence in South Florida.
The Big 10 gets: Syracuse, Notre Dame (nowhere else for them to go), B.C. (big market), Virginia, Duke and North Carolina. All of these while not all AAU are very high in academics and the markets are there that Delany wanted.
The PAC gets: Texas, T.C.U. and Texas Tech along with Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State. So three AAU schools, 4 states, 8 Central Time Zone venues, and three national brands.
Baylor, West Virginia, Pitt, Louisville, and Wake Forest are out unless one conference expands to 24 and then only Wake is out and we are back to 64..
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - He1nousOne - 12-27-2014 05:22 PM
The prospect of brokering is not fading. We havnt even gotten out of the Bowl Season yet. Stop being silly.
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - XLance - 12-27-2014 10:03 PM
Once we are able to get the rule changed that governs how conference champions are chosen, the ACC will be ready for Texas as a partial and West Virginia as a full member.
The ACC will divide the 15 full members into three pods. When conference tournaments are approved the winner of each of the pods will play along with the highest ranked remaining team that will include partials (Texas and Notre Dame) to decide the conference champ. This puts both of those teams into the process of playing for a conference championship as a qualifier for the national championship tournament.
Those pods will be :
North: Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, West Virginia and Louisville
Central: UVa, Carolina, Dook, Georgia Tech and Miami
South: Virginia Tech, NCSU, Wake Forest, Clemson, and Florida State
Texas and Notre Dame will each play 5 ACC games per year.
The B1G and the SEC can fight it out for Oklahoma and Kansas.
ESPN gets their east coast conference, Notre Dame gets to stay independent and Texas can continue to play almost all of their games within the state of Texas.
RE: If the SEC did expand again... - Transic_nyc - 12-27-2014 10:37 PM
(12-27-2014 01:44 PM)JRsec Wrote: Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, West Virginia, Kansas, and possibly Iowa State will all find homes for either brand or market status, or academics. That means on their content value, their ability to provide viewers, or their school standing. I do think it likely that Texas Tech also finds a home. Kansas State will have a tough time. If T.C.U. winds up anywhere it will be the PAC but only with Texas Tech. Baylor won't get into the PAC, will not be wanted by the Big 10, and only finds a home in the SEC should the SEC expand by 4 out of the Big 12 which isn't likely, or if the SEC gets shut out of Oklahoma Schools which also isn't likely, or should West Virginia be taken by the ACC and Kansas and Oklahoma aren't available.
I still think the PAC has one last move to make, and that is offering Texas, T.C.U., Oklahoma and Texas Tech. Unless Texas is set on taking the ND-type deal with the ACC, they might consider it as the better offer.
Quote:I don't think we are headed to more than 64 any more. I once believed 72 would be the final number. Now I'm thinking more like 60. We'll see.
If Texas goes to the ACC as an independent nobody else goes with them. They'll have 7 games to schedule their Texas buddies and OU. The sticking point on that will be minor sports travel.
North Carolina doesn't want to do what it takes to land 3 Big 12 schools and form a Western Division. Remember Louisville could easily slip into a Western division with Texas, a Texas private, and an Oklahoma or Kansas school and that would work if N.D. came all in. That would likely require them to make room for the Western division by shedding the two programs that were originally considered for this deal. In that event the SEC could land Va Tech and N.C. State, or N.C. State and an Oklahoma School while the Big 10 landed Virginia Tech and Kansas, or some other arrangement of similar compromise. When it was first presented as a concept the idea was that the advantages for the ACC would prove irresistible. Carolina is apparently the obstacle. This is why the demise of the Big 12 may be a premature prediction. If ESPN can't enhance the market value of the ACC with such additions and monetize it by converting the LHN into an ACCN then Delany's desire for more Eastern properties may not be dead quite yet and neither is the idea of a 3 x 20. Let ESPN gain a share of the PACN, a long duration contract for Big 10 T1 content, and utilize the markets to enhance their investment and potential income from the SECN and it could be quite advantageous to move to just a P3 setup. Then your final four every year are the three champs and the best at large school. And remember H1 if the SEC and Big 10 take 6 each of the ACC that meets requirements for dissolution. If the PAC takes 8 of the Big 12 it does the same.
I find that assertion interesting. First, I would have thought that U.N.C.'s first choice would always be a viable ACC. Maybe I'm wrong but it doesn't make sense from the standpoint of wanting to be in a conference that they would better identify themselves with. Even with a bunch of schools in the plains they still would continue to play Duke, State, Wake and Virginia, whereas in the case of a brokered ACC they'd lose the ability to play Clemson, GT, Wake, Virginia Tech and Miami regularly.
Quote:The SEC in that scenario likely picks up: Miami, Georgia Tech, Florida State, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, and Clemson. Georgia Tech gives us academics and an old rival back for many of our schools. Florida State and Clemson are big content additions. Virginia Tech and N.C. State are market adds, and Miami gives us good academics and a presence in South Florida.
The Big 10 gets: Syracuse, Notre Dame (nowhere else for them to go), B.C. (big market), Virginia, Duke and North Carolina. All of these while not all AAU are very high in academics and the markets are there that Delany wanted.
The PAC gets: Texas, T.C.U. and Texas Tech along with Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State. So three AAU schools, 4 states, 8 Central Time Zone venues, and three national brands.
Baylor, West Virginia, Pitt, Louisville, and Wake Forest are out unless one conference expands to 24 and then only Wake is out and we are back to 64..
I wouldn't mind that scenario, as I would get to see more games played in the Eastern Time Zone. It's the issue of the fans accepting such a radical change, as H1 has mentioned.
As for the potential left-behinds, I see the basis for forming two viable "tweener" conferences. Say Baylor gets together with Houston, Memphis, plus Louisville, Cincinnati, SMU or Rice, West Virginia, Pitt, Temple, UCONN, either Navy, Army or both, maybe include BYU and Colorado State in the mix, ECU, Old Dominion, UCF and USF. Could Air Force, Army and Navy be part of this mix?
SMU, Rice, Tulane, Wake Forest, Air Force, Tulsa, Navy, Army
Houston, Baylor, Memphis, Louisville, Cincinnati, West Virginia, UCF, USF, East Carolina, Pitt, BYU, Connecticut, Temple, Old Dominion
Lobby for being included in the mix for the at-large spot. That would ease the pain of being left out of a P3. They would have the support of the MWC, C-USA, MAC and what's left of the Sun Belt.
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - He1nousOne - 12-28-2014 03:09 AM
(12-27-2014 10:03 PM)XLance Wrote: Once we are able to get the rule changed that governs how conference champions are chosen, the ACC will be ready for Texas as a partial and West Virginia as a full member.
The ACC will divide the 15 full members into three pods. When conference tournaments are approved the winner of each of the pods will play along with the highest ranked remaining team that will include partials (Texas and Notre Dame) to decide the conference champ. This puts both of those teams into the process of playing for a conference championship as a qualifier for the national championship tournament.
Those pods will be :
North: Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, West Virginia and Louisville
Central: UVa, Carolina, Dook, Georgia Tech and Miami
South: Virginia Tech, NCSU, Wake Forest, Clemson, and Florida State
Texas and Notre Dame will each play 5 ACC games per year.
The B1G and the SEC can fight it out for Oklahoma and Kansas.
ESPN gets their east coast conference, Notre Dame gets to stay independent and Texas can continue to play almost all of their games within the state of Texas.
That rule isn't coming. Smoke and Mirrors. There will be divisional change rules coming but not that one.
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - JRsec - 12-28-2014 04:04 AM
(12-27-2014 10:03 PM)XLance Wrote: Once we are able to get the rule changed that governs how conference champions are chosen, the ACC will be ready for Texas as a partial and West Virginia as a full member.
The ACC will divide the 15 full members into three pods. When conference tournaments are approved the winner of each of the pods will play along with the highest ranked remaining team that will include partials (Texas and Notre Dame) to decide the conference champ. This puts both of those teams into the process of playing for a conference championship as a qualifier for the national championship tournament.
Those pods will be :
North: Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, West Virginia and Louisville
Central: UVa, Carolina, Dook, Georgia Tech and Miami
South: Virginia Tech, NCSU, Wake Forest, Clemson, and Florida State
Texas and Notre Dame will each play 5 ACC games per year.
The B1G and the SEC can fight it out for Oklahoma and Kansas.
ESPN gets their east coast conference, Notre Dame gets to stay independent and Texas can continue to play almost all of their games within the state of Texas.
That's actually a creative and sweet set up. I approve and applaud.
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - He1nousOne - 12-28-2014 05:18 AM
(12-28-2014 04:04 AM)JRsec Wrote:(12-27-2014 10:03 PM)XLance Wrote: Once we are able to get the rule changed that governs how conference champions are chosen, the ACC will be ready for Texas as a partial and West Virginia as a full member.
The ACC will divide the 15 full members into three pods. When conference tournaments are approved the winner of each of the pods will play along with the highest ranked remaining team that will include partials (Texas and Notre Dame) to decide the conference champ. This puts both of those teams into the process of playing for a conference championship as a qualifier for the national championship tournament.
Those pods will be :
North: Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, West Virginia and Louisville
Central: UVa, Carolina, Dook, Georgia Tech and Miami
South: Virginia Tech, NCSU, Wake Forest, Clemson, and Florida State
Texas and Notre Dame will each play 5 ACC games per year.
The B1G and the SEC can fight it out for Oklahoma and Kansas.
ESPN gets their east coast conference, Notre Dame gets to stay independent and Texas can continue to play almost all of their games within the state of Texas.
That's actually a creative and sweet set up. I approve and applaud.
Creative as in completely imaginary because it is saying that this could possibly happen without the placement of every Big 12 program.
It seems you are all about creativity despite a lack of possibility these days JR.
Shotgun method?
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - XLance - 12-28-2014 01:37 PM
(12-28-2014 05:18 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:(12-28-2014 04:04 AM)JRsec Wrote:(12-27-2014 10:03 PM)XLance Wrote: Once we are able to get the rule changed that governs how conference champions are chosen, the ACC will be ready for Texas as a partial and West Virginia as a full member.
The ACC will divide the 15 full members into three pods. When conference tournaments are approved the winner of each of the pods will play along with the highest ranked remaining team that will include partials (Texas and Notre Dame) to decide the conference champ. This puts both of those teams into the process of playing for a conference championship as a qualifier for the national championship tournament.
Those pods will be :
North: Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, West Virginia and Louisville
Central: UVa, Carolina, Dook, Georgia Tech and Miami
South: Virginia Tech, NCSU, Wake Forest, Clemson, and Florida State
Texas and Notre Dame will each play 5 ACC games per year.
The B1G and the SEC can fight it out for Oklahoma and Kansas.
ESPN gets their east coast conference, Notre Dame gets to stay independent and Texas can continue to play almost all of their games within the state of Texas.
That's actually a creative and sweet set up. I approve and applaud.
Creative as in completely imaginary because it is saying that this could possibly happen without the placement of every Big 12 program.
It seems you are all about creativity despite a lack of possibility these days JR.
Shotgun method?
That is our long term plan.
1-conference tournaments are coming
2-it gives the now two independents a path to the national championship from within a conference so that they can't leapfrog any of the 4 champions into the tournament. This means that neither Texas nor Notre Dame will ever take the spot that belongs to the B1G, PAC or SEC.
3-the ACC will have accounted for 17 of the 65 teams. How you guys divide up the last 48 between the B1G, SEC and PAC is up to you. Were done here.
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - Transic_nyc - 12-28-2014 07:06 PM
The remnants of the B12, should UT, OU, KU and WVU leave, would fight to maintain their place in the top echelon. They'd likely not fit in the B1G, SEC or PAC, so they'd ally with the Group of Five schools to at least win themselves the opportunity to fight for that at-large spot in the playoffs. That's the big issue I see here.
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - JRsec - 12-28-2014 08:51 PM
(12-28-2014 07:06 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote: The remnants of the B12, should UT, OU, KU and WVU leave, would fight to maintain their place in the top echelon. They'd likely not fit in the B1G, SEC or PAC, so they'd ally with the Group of Five schools to at least win themselves the opportunity to fight for that at-large spot in the playoffs. That's the big issue I see here.
To get this done the Networks are going to have to make it worth someone's while to take 4 of the remaining 6. That alone means the division of the schools might not lead to equal distribution among the remaining 4 conferences. The only scenario that makes it simple would be Texas and 3 others to the PAC. I just don't see Texas heading West. The Oklahoma and 1 to the SEC, Kansas alone to the Big 10, and West Virginia to the ACC gets it done.
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - XLance - 12-28-2014 09:01 PM
(12-28-2014 03:09 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:(12-27-2014 10:03 PM)XLance Wrote: Once we are able to get the rule changed that governs how conference champions are chosen, the ACC will be ready for Texas as a partial and West Virginia as a full member.
The ACC will divide the 15 full members into three pods. When conference tournaments are approved the winner of each of the pods will play along with the highest ranked remaining team that will include partials (Texas and Notre Dame) to decide the conference champ. This puts both of those teams into the process of playing for a conference championship as a qualifier for the national championship tournament.
Those pods will be :
North: Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, West Virginia and Louisville
Central: UVa, Carolina, Dook, Georgia Tech and Miami
South: Virginia Tech, NCSU, Wake Forest, Clemson, and Florida State
Texas and Notre Dame will each play 5 ACC games per year.
The B1G and the SEC can fight it out for Oklahoma and Kansas.
ESPN gets their east coast conference, Notre Dame gets to stay independent and Texas can continue to play almost all of their games within the state of Texas.
That rule isn't coming. Smoke and Mirrors. There will be divisional change rules coming but not that one.
The rule change proposal is for a conference to be able to choose their own method by which to select a champion and not have the restriction of: a minimum of 12 teams, divided into two divisions where each team in a division has to play every other team in that division.
RE: If the SEC did expand again... - Transic_nyc - 12-28-2014 09:31 PM
(12-28-2014 08:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:(12-28-2014 07:06 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote: The remnants of the B12, should UT, OU, KU and WVU leave, would fight to maintain their place in the top echelon. They'd likely not fit in the B1G, SEC or PAC, so they'd ally with the Group of Five schools to at least win themselves the opportunity to fight for that at-large spot in the playoffs. That's the big issue I see here.
To get this done the Networks are going to have to make it worth someone's while to take 4 of the remaining 6. That alone means the division of the schools might not lead to equal distribution among the remaining 4 conferences. The only scenario that makes it simple would be Texas and 3 others to the PAC. I just don't see Texas heading West. The Oklahoma and 1 to the SEC, Kansas alone to the Big 10, and West Virginia to the ACC gets it done.
Texas, TCU, Texas Tech and Oklahoma. That's the play I think the PAC should make if they want to win Texas over. Three Texas schools and a brand in OU. West Virginia could still go to the ACC but since ND will not join in full it may be necessary for them to get a full #16 member. This is where I think the B1G would make a protective move by bringing in KU and ISU. Just like WV would be a protective move done by the ACC.
Texas, TCU, TT, OU -> PAC
KU, ISU -> B1G
WVU, BU -> ACC
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - JRsec - 12-28-2014 10:20 PM
(12-28-2014 09:31 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:(12-28-2014 08:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:(12-28-2014 07:06 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote: The remnants of the B12, should UT, OU, KU and WVU leave, would fight to maintain their place in the top echelon. They'd likely not fit in the B1G, SEC or PAC, so they'd ally with the Group of Five schools to at least win themselves the opportunity to fight for that at-large spot in the playoffs. That's the big issue I see here.
To get this done the Networks are going to have to make it worth someone's while to take 4 of the remaining 6. That alone means the division of the schools might not lead to equal distribution among the remaining 4 conferences. The only scenario that makes it simple would be Texas and 3 others to the PAC. I just don't see Texas heading West. The Oklahoma and 1 to the SEC, Kansas alone to the Big 10, and West Virginia to the ACC gets it done.
Texas, TCU, Texas Tech and Oklahoma. That's the play I think the PAC should make if they want to win Texas over. Three Texas schools and a brand in OU. West Virginia could still go to the ACC but since ND will not join in full it may be necessary for them to get a full #16 member. This is where I think the B1G would make a protective move by bringing in KU and ISU. Just like WV would be a protective move done by the ACC.
Texas, TCU, TT, OU -> PAC
KU, ISU -> B1G
WVU, BU -> ACC
If Texas and OU headed to the PAC I think the SEC would land OSU and WVU. The Eers would choose the SEC over the ACC for the competition and money. I doubt in that case that Baylor would get into the ACC as they would be on an island.
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - He1nousOne - 12-29-2014 01:13 AM
(12-28-2014 09:01 PM)XLance Wrote:(12-28-2014 03:09 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:(12-27-2014 10:03 PM)XLance Wrote: Once we are able to get the rule changed that governs how conference champions are chosen, the ACC will be ready for Texas as a partial and West Virginia as a full member.
The ACC will divide the 15 full members into three pods. When conference tournaments are approved the winner of each of the pods will play along with the highest ranked remaining team that will include partials (Texas and Notre Dame) to decide the conference champ. This puts both of those teams into the process of playing for a conference championship as a qualifier for the national championship tournament.
Those pods will be :
North: Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, West Virginia and Louisville
Central: UVa, Carolina, Dook, Georgia Tech and Miami
South: Virginia Tech, NCSU, Wake Forest, Clemson, and Florida State
Texas and Notre Dame will each play 5 ACC games per year.
The B1G and the SEC can fight it out for Oklahoma and Kansas.
ESPN gets their east coast conference, Notre Dame gets to stay independent and Texas can continue to play almost all of their games within the state of Texas.
That rule isn't coming. Smoke and Mirrors. There will be divisional change rules coming but not that one.
The rule change proposal is for a conference to be able to choose their own method by which to select a champion and not have the restriction of: a minimum of 12 teams, divided into two divisions where each team in a division has to play every other team in that division.
Yes, I am aware. Did you think I wasn't? I am talking about a different divisional rule change that will come after major movement, not before.
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - XLance - 12-29-2014 01:57 PM
(12-29-2014 01:13 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:(12-28-2014 09:01 PM)XLance Wrote:(12-28-2014 03:09 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:(12-27-2014 10:03 PM)XLance Wrote: Once we are able to get the rule changed that governs how conference champions are chosen, the ACC will be ready for Texas as a partial and West Virginia as a full member.
The ACC will divide the 15 full members into three pods. When conference tournaments are approved the winner of each of the pods will play along with the highest ranked remaining team that will include partials (Texas and Notre Dame) to decide the conference champ. This puts both of those teams into the process of playing for a conference championship as a qualifier for the national championship tournament.
Those pods will be :
North: Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, West Virginia and Louisville
Central: UVa, Carolina, Dook, Georgia Tech and Miami
South: Virginia Tech, NCSU, Wake Forest, Clemson, and Florida State
Texas and Notre Dame will each play 5 ACC games per year.
The B1G and the SEC can fight it out for Oklahoma and Kansas.
ESPN gets their east coast conference, Notre Dame gets to stay independent and Texas can continue to play almost all of their games within the state of Texas.
That rule isn't coming. Smoke and Mirrors. There will be divisional change rules coming but not that one.
The rule change proposal is for a conference to be able to choose their own method by which to select a champion and not have the restriction of: a minimum of 12 teams, divided into two divisions where each team in a division has to play every other team in that division.
Yes, I am aware. Did you think I wasn't? I am talking about a different divisional rule change that will come after major movement, not before.
What different divisional rule change are you talking about?
It must be a double secret rule change, because nobody else seems to know anything about it.
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - He1nousOne - 12-29-2014 06:36 PM
(12-29-2014 01:57 PM)XLance Wrote:(12-29-2014 01:13 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:(12-28-2014 09:01 PM)XLance Wrote:(12-28-2014 03:09 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:(12-27-2014 10:03 PM)XLance Wrote: Once we are able to get the rule changed that governs how conference champions are chosen, the ACC will be ready for Texas as a partial and West Virginia as a full member.
The ACC will divide the 15 full members into three pods. When conference tournaments are approved the winner of each of the pods will play along with the highest ranked remaining team that will include partials (Texas and Notre Dame) to decide the conference champ. This puts both of those teams into the process of playing for a conference championship as a qualifier for the national championship tournament.
Those pods will be :
North: Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, West Virginia and Louisville
Central: UVa, Carolina, Dook, Georgia Tech and Miami
South: Virginia Tech, NCSU, Wake Forest, Clemson, and Florida State
Texas and Notre Dame will each play 5 ACC games per year.
The B1G and the SEC can fight it out for Oklahoma and Kansas.
ESPN gets their east coast conference, Notre Dame gets to stay independent and Texas can continue to play almost all of their games within the state of Texas.
That rule isn't coming. Smoke and Mirrors. There will be divisional change rules coming but not that one.
The rule change proposal is for a conference to be able to choose their own method by which to select a champion and not have the restriction of: a minimum of 12 teams, divided into two divisions where each team in a division has to play every other team in that division.
Yes, I am aware. Did you think I wasn't? I am talking about a different divisional rule change that will come after major movement, not before.
What different divisional rule change are you talking about?
It must be a double secret rule change, because nobody else seems to know anything about it.
Right because they only talk about things that they release to the media. If you don't know about what I am talking about then you don't pay attention to what anyone else has to say.
Just like it would take a rule change for you guys to have the no divisions needed rule, it would take a similar change to allow conferences to have more than 2 divisions.
Come on now, this isn't rocket science, stop being a troll. This isn't the ACC forum or the main board.
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - XLance - 12-29-2014 07:04 PM
(12-29-2014 06:36 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:(12-29-2014 01:57 PM)XLance Wrote:(12-29-2014 01:13 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:(12-28-2014 09:01 PM)XLance Wrote:(12-28-2014 03:09 AM)He1nousOne Wrote: That rule isn't coming. Smoke and Mirrors. There will be divisional change rules coming but not that one.
The rule change proposal is for a conference to be able to choose their own method by which to select a champion and not have the restriction of: a minimum of 12 teams, divided into two divisions where each team in a division has to play every other team in that division.
Yes, I am aware. Did you think I wasn't? I am talking about a different divisional rule change that will come after major movement, not before.
What different divisional rule change are you talking about?
It must be a double secret rule change, because nobody else seems to know anything about it.
Right because they only talk about things that they release to the media. If you don't know about what I am talking about then you don't pay attention to what anyone else has to say.
Just like it would take a rule change for you guys to have the no divisions needed rule, it would take a similar change to allow conferences to have more than 2 divisions.
Come on now, this isn't rocket science, stop being a troll. This isn't the ACC forum or the main board.
Maybe you had better review the proposal:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24483893/acc-supports-deregulation-of-conference-championship-games-would-change-postseason-structure
http://www.athleticscholarships.net/2014/03/15/acc-big-12-behind-movement-to-loosen-restrictions-on-conference-title-games.htm
If you don't have to play all of the teams in your division, you could theoretically divide divisions into multiple pods or not have divisions at all.
Keep up H1, this information has been out a long time.
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - He1nousOne - 12-29-2014 07:33 PM
(12-29-2014 07:04 PM)XLance Wrote:(12-29-2014 06:36 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:(12-29-2014 01:57 PM)XLance Wrote:(12-29-2014 01:13 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:(12-28-2014 09:01 PM)XLance Wrote: The rule change proposal is for a conference to be able to choose their own method by which to select a champion and not have the restriction of: a minimum of 12 teams, divided into two divisions where each team in a division has to play every other team in that division.
Yes, I am aware. Did you think I wasn't? I am talking about a different divisional rule change that will come after major movement, not before.
What different divisional rule change are you talking about?
It must be a double secret rule change, because nobody else seems to know anything about it.
Right because they only talk about things that they release to the media. If you don't know about what I am talking about then you don't pay attention to what anyone else has to say.
Just like it would take a rule change for you guys to have the no divisions needed rule, it would take a similar change to allow conferences to have more than 2 divisions.
Come on now, this isn't rocket science, stop being a troll. This isn't the ACC forum or the main board.
Maybe you had better review the proposal:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24483893/acc-supports-deregulation-of-conference-championship-games-would-change-postseason-structure
http://www.athleticscholarships.net/2014/03/15/acc-big-12-behind-movement-to-loosen-restrictions-on-conference-title-games.htm
If you don't have to play all of the teams in your division, you could theoretically divide divisions into multiple pods or not have divisions at all.
Keep up H1, this information has been out a long time.
But that also allows for no divisions and that doesn't really favor the likes of the Big Ten, SEC and PAC. So how about you keep up because obviously you aren't. Stop being a ******* while you are at it.
I am well aware of the situation. The other conferences aren't going to want to do away with divisions. That only helps the Big 12 stay as they are. Is that completely lost upon you? You are coming off as desperate for this if you cant understand why others wouldn't want it as the Big 12 is proposing. Has the ACC made any public statements about it yet now that we have seen the Playoff situation play out? I bet we don't see one.
Like I said, this isn't the ACC forum. If you cant keep that idiocy out of here then move on.
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - JRsec - 12-29-2014 08:35 PM
(12-29-2014 07:33 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:(12-29-2014 07:04 PM)XLance Wrote:(12-29-2014 06:36 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:(12-29-2014 01:57 PM)XLance Wrote:(12-29-2014 01:13 AM)He1nousOne Wrote: Yes, I am aware. Did you think I wasn't? I am talking about a different divisional rule change that will come after major movement, not before.
What different divisional rule change are you talking about?
It must be a double secret rule change, because nobody else seems to know anything about it.
Right because they only talk about things that they release to the media. If you don't know about what I am talking about then you don't pay attention to what anyone else has to say.
Just like it would take a rule change for you guys to have the no divisions needed rule, it would take a similar change to allow conferences to have more than 2 divisions.
Come on now, this isn't rocket science, stop being a troll. This isn't the ACC forum or the main board.
Maybe you had better review the proposal:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24483893/acc-supports-deregulation-of-conference-championship-games-would-change-postseason-structure
http://www.athleticscholarships.net/2014/03/15/acc-big-12-behind-movement-to-loosen-restrictions-on-conference-title-games.htm
If you don't have to play all of the teams in your division, you could theoretically divide divisions into multiple pods or not have divisions at all.
Keep up H1, this information has been out a long time.
But that also allows for no divisions and that doesn't really favor the likes of the Big Ten, SEC and PAC. So how about you keep up because obviously you aren't. Stop being a ******* while you are at it.
I am well aware of the situation. The other conferences aren't going to want to do away with divisions. That only helps the Big 12 stay as they are. Is that completely lost upon you? You are coming off as desperate for this if you cant understand why others wouldn't want it as the Big 12 is proposing. Has the ACC made any public statements about it yet now that we have seen the Playoff situation play out? I bet we don't see one.
Like I said, this isn't the ACC forum. If you cant keep that idiocy out of here then move on.
Your both welcomed guests here. Treat and speak to each other accordingly.