(10-29-2019 02:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-29-2019 12:44 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(10-28-2019 05:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-27-2019 11:29 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(10-27-2019 10:47 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Yes. So then the appropriate question is, "Wouldn't it suit Texas better (provided they knew that either or both of Kansas and Oklahoma were leaving) to take the initiative and craft a move more to their liking and one that made it look like they were in control?"

I believe that answer is of course since that is their nature. They won't like moving without a face saving cover. Enter the Texas legislature with more than a resolution requiring Texas, Texas A&M and Texas Tech to play annually.

Then a move to the SEC with Tech guarantees UT 7 games inside the state of Texas annually, and still leaves them 3 games with which to schedule Oklahoma annually for the RRR, and to schedule two more Texas schools of a lesser classification for buy games bringing their instate total to 8 games per year which fits their business model.

The move also essentially cuts Oklahoma out of a major physical presence within Texas except for the RRR game in Dallas, relegates T.C.U. and Baylor to a lesser recruiting status, takes away Texas A&M's SEC brand advantage, and gives the Longhorns their old familiar foes and advantages once again. And does all of that while giving them the excuse that they only made the move to protect Texas Tech and to appease the Texas legislature.

The move the SEC would want would be Texas and Oklahoma. But that move would leave UT with too many equal rivals in their new division. A&M, OU, and L.S.U. would be dangerous gauntlet. They would take Tech along instead of OU to reduce that gauntlet to 2 games for a divisional championship. And that new division would essentially be a more TV worthy yet Texas centric division than the Big 12 with easier travel for their fans and a better fit for their sports.

If this happens Oklahoma and Kansas would be likely for the Big 10 and the SEC and Big 10 will have widened the gap further on the ACC and PAC.

And if Kansas and Oklahoma head to the SEC and then Texas wants in (a situation I don't think Texas would ever permit to happen) then yes they would want in as well. That shift might be covered by say a Vanderbilt move to the ACC (only if Vandy wanted it), or possibly just an expansion to 18 with Tech still being the tag along.

With all that is happening with the court system and players compensation, eventually there will be a break from the NCAA. If in the new sports conference reality structure becomes a right for each conference to decide then three divisions of 6 or a divisionless format would accommodate conference sizes of 18 or even 20 if that was desired and remained profitable for the conference.

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Kansas

It would be a really good combo.

I believe that would be the strongest play to date in realignment. It gives us the entire footprint of the Big 12 minus Iowa and West Virginia. It gives us their best three remaining brands. It keeps the rivalries together. And it leaves a future move to 20 with two remaining slots for the ACC reserving slots for a North Carolina school and Florida State. The rest can be left to hang out to dry.

If we don't raid the ACC I think they add WVU for football gravitas and stand pat waiting for N.D. to go all in.

I still like 3 divisions of 6 but going divisionless would be great too. But adding those four cleans up the table and leaves the SEC in an unassailable position with regard to content.

I think 20 is an arbitrary number. If we are already at 3 divisions of 6, shifting to 4 of 5 is harder than 3 of 7. 21 might be better.


Scheduling would be harder, but it would establish a wild card and keep fans interested

Division less works at 21 too. You play:
5 every season, rotate 5 for 10 conference games, takes 6 years

4 every season, 4 others at 8 conference games, takes 8 years

Actually 20 is not arbitrary. With 4 half divisions of 5 you would play the 4 in your half division every year. Rotate the 5 from the other divisions each year and play everyone in 3 years. What you would not be able to keep are any permanent rivals except those in your division.

Divisionless you might keep 4 annual rivals and rotate the other 15 (5 per year) play 9 conference games and play everyone every 3 years.

Maybe "unnecessary limit" is a better word. The only difference between 20 in a 4 division set up and 21 in a three division set up is you need the 10th conference game to see everyone in three years.

I wrote this mostly because your post mentioned having two spots open for a NC school and FSU. I guess what I am claiming is that 3 spots could also work. One NC school, Clemson and FSU all fit.

I know this is reductio ad absurdum to a point:
If you had 12 conference games you could have 25 teams and play 12 one season and the other 12 the other, but no one is suggesting 25 teams. I've seen some 24 team alignments: 5-1-3 (play 5 from your division, 1 permanent, 3 from another division, get through in 6 years).

I do tend to like the configurations that allow for H-H of every conference team in 4 four years, so that 4 year players are guaranteed to play every team twice. That could work at 15 (4 in your division every year, 5 from the other division and rotate), 16 (3 permanent rivals, rotate the other 6), and larger configurations too.