(05-01-2018 08:54 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 09:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 09:35 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 08:37 PM)XLance Wrote:  Texas will be a partial and keep the LHN.
They could be playing attached to a division made up of:
Tulsa
Houston
TCU
Baylor
Texas Tech
SMU
Tulane

West Virginia may even want in on this league as a replacement for UConn after they move to the Big East. That would give you this lineup on the other side:
West Virginia
Temple
East Carolina
Cincinnati
USF
UCF
Memphis

Adding Tejas to the American gives this 14 team league a lot of cred.

I think Texas would rebuild the Big 12 again if Oklahoma left. They would have to become a partial member in football just so they could schedule historic rivals and schedule teams the fans actually want to buy tickets for.

Let’s assume the Sec grabs OU and OSU while KU runs off to the B1G. Texas might be better off playing in a small 7 team conference with only six conference games and noCCG. The strength of schedule would then derive from adding tough OOC opponents. If this “conference” wanted to align with another conference in B.B. and the Olympic sports, then so be it.

It doesn't change your theory by much, but the NCAA requires 8 member schools to be called a conference.

JR, I thought the minimum # was still 7. Do you know when it was changed or have a link? A few months back I went through a search of NCAA rules and did not find the specific rule, but didn't spend much time trying.
The ACC functioned at 7 for awhile when SC withdrew and before GT was added. I once heard 6 was required to formulate a conference, but that was long ago. The number factor impacts basketball moreso with the auto-bid requirements.

I've spent some time searching this morning and as of yet can't find a definitive answer. The last time this came up was in 2010-2 when the Big 12 was bleeding members. The two numbers discussed at that time were 10 members for the keeping of the television contract which was a minimum established by contract and had more to do with the total number of games purchased and some discussion centered around the dropping below 8 schools being the number to remain viable as a conference.

You could be correct on the number being 7, since the ACC sat at 7 for a little over 6 years before Georgia Tech was added. However the NCAA allows conferences that fall below the minimum to be able to spend a couple of years in acquiring a replacement before they lose their status. And just like with other NCAA minimum requirements they are very slow to enforce those standards, e.g. minimum attendance requirements for FBS inclusion.

If I can find the number I'll post it.

And as to X's post about about UCF you kind of missed my point. UT can't afford to play only a couple of key opponents a year. The CFP requirements would do to them what happened to UCF last year. My point was that regarding entry into the CFP a school needs to do more than surround themselves with ringers. I can't imagine Texas's donors and fans endorsing a plan that could put them on the outside looking in. A conference of essentially Texas and 7 other G5 level schools isn't going to get Texas in any faster than UCF's schedule got them in last year. And that's not a knock on UCF but the failure to play at least 8 P level games would get them passed over.