(10-21-2013 03:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-19-2013 04:06 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  I totally agree, JR. Trying to squeeze 72 teams into the existing P4 is impossible unless the ACC were to be split up instead of/along with the Big 12. The latter just does not have enough quality pieces to make it work. As I wrote a few months ago, though, new markets and quality institutions are readily available if the PAC and B1G are willing to cross the border to Vancouver and Toronto. Both cities are extraordinarily close in proximity to existing states (Vancouver to Washingtion and Toronto to Michigan, not to mention New York if Buffalo were to be added).

Having said that, 72 would be possible if there was further movement within the P4. Culturally, 18 in the SEC is only possible with the addition of North Carolina and Virginia unless we agree to double down in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, or Texas. Additionally, 18 is only possible for the PAC with the addition of Texas or at least Oklahoma and Kansas. The ACC would need to agree to scoop up at least 2 programs from Texas, but, in turn, the B1G would need to steal from the ACC since Kansas is really the only Big 12 school that would makes sense for them on all levels.

BBB, it can be done but there are some stringent caveats for it to be able to happen. And it is easier at 64 than at 72.

1. Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas must all wind up in different conferences.

2. As we move to a P4 set up all conferences must play 9 conference games, and must play 1 school from each of the three remaining P4 conferences to round out their 12 game schedule. There will be no FCS or lower division FBS games.

3. All Spring games are moved to mid August and become a true preseason game and more importantly the 7th home game for each P4 school. These games may be scheduled against FCS or lower division FBS schools.

4. This is a model but gives you an indication of how it might be done:
SEC 16:
East: Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina
North: Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
South: L.S.U., Ole Miss, Miss State, Texas A&M
West: Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

At 18 we add Kansas State and Baylor/U.C.F./E.C.U.?

ACC 16:
North: Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse
East: Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Wake Forest
West: Louisville, Virginia, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
South: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

At 18 the ACC adds Cincinnati and Tulane

Big 1G:
East: Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers
North: Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue
South: Illinois, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin
West: Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Nebraska

At 18 the B1G adds Buffalo and Connecticut

PAC 16:
East: Colorado, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech
South: Arizona, Arizona State, California Los Angeles, Southern California
West: California, Nevada/U.N.L.V., Stanford, Utah
North: Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State

At 18 the PAC adds New Mexico and B.Y.U.

It's not perfect by any means but it gives each conference a regional or national brand, and either a top earner (Oklahoma State) or a new market.

At 18 it's just new markets and nothing to write home about except if the upper tier is set at 72 it gets us there.

Looks good JR.
Regardless of what Bit has to say, West Virginia will end up in the ACC.
The Nevada/UNLV selection is interesting.....not bad, just interesting.
Good work, I don't know if it can be improved. The 18 per conference is not so good. It's just that 72 is too many.
I would shift the ACC divisions just a little:

Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse
Louisville, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, NC State
Carolina, UVa, Duke, Georgia Tech
Clemson, Florida State, Wake Forest, Miami

(10-21-2013 07:24 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-21-2013 03:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-19-2013 04:06 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  I totally agree, JR. Trying to squeeze 72 teams into the existing P4 is impossible unless the ACC were to be split up instead of/along with the Big 12. The latter just does not have enough quality pieces to make it work. As I wrote a few months ago, though, new markets and quality institutions are readily available if the PAC and B1G are willing to cross the border to Vancouver and Toronto. Both cities are extraordinarily close in proximity to existing states (Vancouver to Washingtion and Toronto to Michigan, not to mention New York if Buffalo were to be added).

Having said that, 72 would be possible if there was further movement within the P4. Culturally, 18 in the SEC is only possible with the addition of North Carolina and Virginia unless we agree to double down in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, or Texas. Additionally, 18 is only possible for the PAC with the addition of Texas or at least Oklahoma and Kansas. The ACC would need to agree to scoop up at least 2 programs from Texas, but, in turn, the B1G would need to steal from the ACC since Kansas is really the only Big 12 school that would makes sense for them on all levels.

BBB, it can be done but there are some stringent caveats for it to be able to happen. And it is easier at 64 than at 72.

1. Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas must all wind up in different conferences.

2. As we move to a P4 set up all conferences must play 9 conference games, and must play 1 school from each of the three remaining P4 conferences to round out their 12 game schedule. There will be no FCS or lower division FBS games.

3. All Spring games are moved to mid August and become a true preseason game and more importantly the 7th home game for each P4 school. These games may be scheduled against FCS or lower division FBS schools.

4. This is a model but gives you an indication of how it might be done:
SEC 16:
East: Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina
North: Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
South: L.S.U., Ole Miss, Miss State, Texas A&M
West: Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

At 18 we add Kansas State and Baylor/U.C.F./E.C.U.?

ACC 16:
North: Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse
East: Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Wake Forest
West: Louisville, Virginia, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
South: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

At 18 the ACC adds Cincinnati and Tulane

Big 1G:
East: Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers
North: Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue
South: Illinois, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin
West: Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Nebraska

At 18 the B1G adds Buffalo and Connecticut

PAC 16:
East: Colorado, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech
South: Arizona, Arizona State, California Los Angeles, Southern California
West: California, Nevada/U.N.L.V., Stanford, Utah
North: Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State

At 18 the PAC adds New Mexico and B.Y.U.

It's not perfect by any means but it gives each conference a regional or national brand, and either a top earner (Oklahoma State) or a new market.

At 18 it's just new markets and nothing to write home about except if the upper tier is set at 72 it gets us there.

Looks good JR.
Regardless of what Bit has to say, West Virginia will end up in the ACC.
The Nevada/UNLV selection is interesting.....not bad, just interesting.
Good work, I don't know if it can be improved. The 18 per conference is not so good. It's just that 72 is too many.
I would shift the ACC divisions just a little:

Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse
Louisville, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, NC State
Carolina, UVa, Duke, Georgia Tech
Clemson, Florida State, Wake Forest, Miami

Yeah, your ACC grouping works fine for me as well.

The whole idea of 18 is just three divisions of 6 each geographically grouped and an at large into the 4 team Conference Championship playoff. I still believe having an at large with the best remaining record helps balance years in which there are inequities between divisions. I also think that going to 72 helps to eliminate most angles for law suits. There is a definite break in investing in sports at the 71st position. 64 is fine by me.

If you were to go to 72, I think some movement between existing conference members might have to take place.
Tulane get put on a "West Virginia" island, and Cal and Stanford accept BYU?

(10-21-2013 08:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  If you were to go to 72, I think some movement between existing conference members might have to take place.
Tulane get put on a "West Virginia" island, and Cal and Stanford accept BYU?

Tulane would be an easy trip for Florida State right down I 10 and an easy hop for Georgia Tech and Clemson. Miami has to fly anyway.

B.Y.U. could be replaced with Baylor, New Mexico, or Hawaii if they didn't want to play ball by PAC rules. I have a feeling that they would come around real fast if they thought they would be left out otherwise.

But, some trading around could make it even better and I would not be adverse to the idea.

(10-21-2013 08:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-21-2013 08:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  If you were to go to 72, I think some movement between existing conference members might have to take place.
Tulane get put on a "West Virginia" island, and Cal and Stanford accept BYU?

Tulane would be an easy trip for Florida State right down I 10 and an easy hop for Georgia Tech and Clemson. Miami has to fly anyway.

B.Y.U. could be replaced with Baylor, New Mexico, or Hawaii if they didn't want to play ball by PAC rules. I have a feeling that they would come around real fast if they thought they would be left out otherwise.

But, some trading around could make it even better and I would not be adverse to the idea.

The folks on the Vanderbilt boards talk about missing Tulane a lot.

(10-22-2013 12:51 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-21-2013 08:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-21-2013 08:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  If you were to go to 72, I think some movement between existing conference members might have to take place.
Tulane get put on a "West Virginia" island, and Cal and Stanford accept BYU?

Tulane would be an easy trip for Florida State right down I 10 and an easy hop for Georgia Tech and Clemson. Miami has to fly anyway.

B.Y.U. could be replaced with Baylor, New Mexico, or Hawaii if they didn't want to play ball by PAC rules. I have a feeling that they would come around real fast if they thought they would be left out otherwise.

But, some trading around could make it even better and I would not be adverse to the idea.

The folks on the Vanderbilt boards talk about missing Tulane a lot.

Vandy has a board?

On another note, watching FSU-Clemson the other night is not making this realignment discussion any easier. It is like seeing a sibling being raised by another family. The whole space rock rubbing/ circling the stadium in Greyhound bus thing at Clemson is weird (and not in an endearing way). Other than that, they are hardcore fans that really seem to want the big stage.

If conference realignment were more like a stock and less of a partnership, Tulane would be an excellent cheap stock for the ACC to hold for the long term, especially if they could get Baylor.

(10-22-2013 12:51 PM)XLance Wrote:  The folks on the Vanderbilt boards talk about missing Tulane a lot.

That's not true. I have evidence of quite the opposite, actually...

(10-21-2013 07:24 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-21-2013 03:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-19-2013 04:06 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  I totally agree, JR. Trying to squeeze 72 teams into the existing P4 is impossible unless the ACC were to be split up instead of/along with the Big 12. The latter just does not have enough quality pieces to make it work. As I wrote a few months ago, though, new markets and quality institutions are readily available if the PAC and B1G are willing to cross the border to Vancouver and Toronto. Both cities are extraordinarily close in proximity to existing states (Vancouver to Washingtion and Toronto to Michigan, not to mention New York if Buffalo were to be added).

Having said that, 72 would be possible if there was further movement within the P4. Culturally, 18 in the SEC is only possible with the addition of North Carolina and Virginia unless we agree to double down in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, or Texas. Additionally, 18 is only possible for the PAC with the addition of Texas or at least Oklahoma and Kansas. The ACC would need to agree to scoop up at least 2 programs from Texas, but, in turn, the B1G would need to steal from the ACC since Kansas is really the only Big 12 school that would makes sense for them on all levels.

BBB, it can be done but there are some stringent caveats for it to be able to happen. And it is easier at 64 than at 72.

1. Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas must all wind up in different conferences.

2. As we move to a P4 set up all conferences must play 9 conference games, and must play 1 school from each of the three remaining P4 conferences to round out their 12 game schedule. There will be no FCS or lower division FBS games.

3. All Spring games are moved to mid August and become a true preseason game and more importantly the 7th home game for each P4 school. These games may be scheduled against FCS or lower division FBS schools.

4. This is a model but gives you an indication of how it might be done:
SEC 16:
East: Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina
North: Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
South: L.S.U., Ole Miss, Miss State, Texas A&M
West: Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

At 18 we add Kansas State and Baylor/U.C.F./E.C.U.?

ACC 16:
North: Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse
East: Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Wake Forest
West: Louisville, Virginia, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
South: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

At 18 the ACC adds Cincinnati and Tulane

Big 1G:
East: Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers
North: Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue
South: Illinois, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin
West: Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Nebraska

At 18 the B1G adds Buffalo and Connecticut

PAC 16:
East: Colorado, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech
South: Arizona, Arizona State, California Los Angeles, Southern California
West: California, Nevada/U.N.L.V., Stanford, Utah
North: Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State

At 18 the PAC adds New Mexico and B.Y.U.

It's not perfect by any means but it gives each conference a regional or national brand, and either a top earner (Oklahoma State) or a new market.

At 18 it's just new markets and nothing to write home about except if the upper tier is set at 72 it gets us there.

Looks good JR.
Regardless of what Bit has to say, West Virginia will end up in the ACC.
The Nevada/UNLV selection is interesting.....not bad, just interesting.
Good work, I don't know if it can be improved. The 18 per conference is not so good. It's just that 72 is too many.
I would shift the ACC divisions just a little:

Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse
Louisville, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, NC State
Carolina, UVa, Duke, Georgia Tech
Clemson, Florida State, Wake Forest, Miami

Like Bit, I am hoping for them as an SEC member. The SEC just took two teams from the west side. As much as I was happy we were picked, I hated that it was probably at WVU's expense. Let's fix that...

WVU has barely lost out on an SEC bid twice now. Once to South Carolina, and once to Mizzou...

(10-26-2013 12:12 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  WVU has barely lost out on an SEC bid twice now. Once to South Carolina, and once to Mizzou...

And third time is charm...

(10-29-2013 12:39 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 12:12 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  WVU has barely lost out on an SEC bid twice now. Once to South Carolina, and once to Mizzou...

And third time is charm...

That's what everyone says...