(10-14-2013 09:09 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-14-2013 07:20 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  While I'm sure the Longhorns will call, I think Luck stays at WVU. But whoever is the next Texas AD, conference realignment will be the number 3 priority right after finding and new FB coach and fixing the rest of the Athletic Department. Over time, I've come to the conclusion that the B12 as constituted, lacks the necessary pieces the appease the other P4 sufficiently. That's why I really like your idea of VT and NCSU to the SEC. I actually think to work for all parties, Mizzou to the B10 must be on the table as well.

SEC:
Lose - Mizzou
Add - WVU, NCSU, VT

ACC:
Lose - NCSU, VT
Add - Texas, Baylor, OKST, KSU

B1G:
Add - Mizzou, UConn

PAC:
Add - OU, TT, KU, ISU

Realignment takes a temporary hold at this point to renegotiate with FOX/ESPN as well as Gage the fan backlash from this shuffle. After reading the tea leaves, the 4 conferences decide to go to 18 with a minimum payout of $23 million for all P4 teams. This is where TCU and Cincinnati get invited back to the party.

I can play along with that scenario, but who would you choose as #17 & #18 for each conference. The reason I ask is because if for instance I was the PAC commissioner I could rest fairly well assured that Nevada or New Mexico, or San Diego State would be there if I wanted them.

In the East it's a whole different matter. Who I take at #15 & #16 would be must takes. Who I take at #17 & #18 would be those that either brought in niche markets or met another need, like academics or AAU affiliation for the SECU.

For instance does the SEC show interest in another Texas school that really wouldn't threaten A&M as 10th has suggested, and would the SEC expand into an Ohio Market with someone like Cincinnati. In your scenario ECU wouldn't be a necessary reach with N.C. State on hand.

I think T.C.U. in your scenario is still available and might make a decent 17 or 18 for the SEC since the bring the DFW market. Cincinnati is competitive in all the major sports and gives you a niche market you don't have in a large state. Personally I would favor T.C.U. in this scenario but would be split over the Cincinnati question. At some point we might want a Gulf coast Florida school like USF.

IMO, picks 17 and 18 are strictly appeasement/scheduling additions due to the lack of AAU additions and the need to keep Congress at bay. In this scenario, ECU retains the same outside chance that it currently has today.

SEC: SMU, UCF

With regard to an additional team in TX, the crux is not A&M but the rest of the teams in the SEC West. Adding TCU/SMU would not be considered a threat by anyone but the Aggies. While I don't like saturating the FL market, I believe adding UCF would easily tie/displace Miami as the #3 school in the state if given the resources.

PAC: UNLV, UNM

For the PAC, I've always thought that it would be one of the 2 Nevada (UNV or UNLV for its market) schools along with UNM. I can't really see how SDSU get past the controlling Cali interests.

BIG: SUNY, Cincinnati

While most people say it will be UB, I'm leaving the option open that there might be another SUNY better positioned for this spot. I'm not really sure. After this though, the B1G is really out of acceptable options IMO, unless the Irish come calling. Thus they bite the bullet and add the Bearcats.

ACC: Temple, TCU

With the 2 and 3 schools in FL, I think the ACC would chose to strengthen its Western Front as well as solidify its position in the NE.