http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...and-beyond

Highlights (none of it surprising):

1. 8 conference games remain.
2. 6-1-1 format remains.
3. Every team should be playing at least one power 5 conference team out of conference every year by 2016.
4. Crossovers as expected. Missouri-Arkansas, Texas A&M-South Carolina, rest the same.

(04-27-2014 09:02 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...and-beyond

Highlights (none of it surprising):

1. 8 conference games remain.
2. 6-1-1 format remains.
3. Every team should be playing at least one power 5 conference team out of conference every year by 2016.
4. Crossovers as expected. Missouri-Arkansas, Texas A&M-South Carolina, rest the same.

Good to see you around. Thanks for the post. JR

Gave up sports forums (among other things) for Lent. Will be back around a bit more now.

(04-27-2014 10:08 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Gave up sports forums (among other things) for Lent. Will be back around a bit more now.

It's nice to know that someone still takes the weeks of penitence seriously. I don't expect much to be happening until our place in the NCAA is nailed down and meets with approval and then I think by August 2015 we'll see movement, and mostly due to the disparity that may get set in stone when the Big 10 gets their new contract, especially if FOX lands the deal. The Big 12 won't be able to stay static while the Big 10 and SEC both move on up the ladder and the ACC will be out of reasons to spin numbers. I believe that scenario will spur ESPN to consolidate product. But we'll see. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the economy and Big 10 football.

Glad to see you again JRsec as always. My general opinion of the economy is pessimistic as ever (We've set ourselves up for a debt death spiral, but no telling how long we can continue as is).

For sports consolidation, while I think you are probably right long term, I think timing wise nothing is going to happen for while other than an outside shot of Big 12 expansion. ESPN has never wanted it in my opinion and their moves to try to secure the ACC/Big 12 have strongly supported that to me. They'd rather there be multiple conferences they can play off each other for leverage and rather their existing contracts maintain value. If a conference asks them about the value of expansion moves, they'll answer (reluctantly), but they'd much rather the status quo remain. If we get further raids/consolidation, I think it would be starting from the conference leadership and with ESPN privately fighting all the way rather than helping out.

Expansion went on anyway over the past few years, because there was a lot more value in expanded markets, but there are several push backs on that now.
1. We're reaching the point of diminishing returns due to limited number of games between existing teams in the big conferences. That doesn't mean there isn't still some value out there, but I doubt team 16 will be as valuable to most conferences as team 12 or 14 was.
2. The grant of rights essentially guarantee that any move would have to include all members of the ACC/Big 12..
3. The remaining power players liking their situations. Texas and North Carolina choose the Big 12/ACC over the Big Ten/PAC-12/SEC.
4. There is probably an realignment fatigue among the power brokers. The schools are trying to get used to 14 now and a little extra money won't convince them to take major changes.
5. We've never heard anything to suggest a full consolidation of the power 5 conferences so I don't that's even been discussed at this point.

In another decade or so (maybe less), the prospects of a unification of the 5 power conferences into a wider alliance or break-up of the Big 12/ACC are more probable, but I think all the signs are pointing against that at this point.

Was reading about this on MrSEC and they are of the opinion that this is a big mistake, and is probably for the short term. I feel they should go to nine, or at least drop the permanent cross-overs, but that will not happen. I am looking forward to the Mizzou-Arky annual game, but not seeing a conference foe for 10-12 years stinks...

(04-28-2014 11:41 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Was reading about this on MrSEC and they are of the opinion that this is a big mistake, and is probably for the short term. I feel they should go to nine, or at least drop the permanent cross-overs, but that will not happen. I am looking forward to the Mizzou-Arky annual game, but not seeing a conference foe for 10-12 years stinks...

No good way to do to schedule in the current set-up in my opinion. 9 conference games doesn't work for the 4 SEC east schools with instate opponents while dropping locked crossovers doesn't work for those with deep traditions against one team from the other division. Dropping some crossovers could have been done, but that would be awkward scheduling and no one in the east would be playing Alabama or Auburn anymore and no one in the west would be playing Tennessee or Georgia anymore at the very least.

What I do think would work better though with 14 teams (16 is interesting, but I think a ways off), is if the NCAA loosens restrictions on CCGs as the ACC is pushing and as looks like is might well pass this time (although it's had big issues before).

If that comes to pass, then the conference could lock 3 teams a piece, have 5 rotating games, and put the highest two in the CCG. There would be more controversy some year because of that (tie breakers meaning less clear cut), but it would help with schedules.

Scheduling with just 3 locked games would certainly be hard in the SEC. I'm sure this has probably been discussed before, but how do you guys imagine the locks would go. Looking through the rivalries I could see something like this:

South Carolina: Florida, Georgia, Missouri
Georgia: Auburn, Florida, South Carolina
Florida: Georgia, South Carolina, Auburn
Tennessee: Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Alabama
Kentucky: Tennessee, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt
Vanderbilt: Tennessee, Ole Miss, Kentucky
Alabama: Auburn, Tennessee, Mississippi State
Auburn: Alabama, Georgia, Florida
Ole Miss: Mississippi State, Vanderbilt, LSU
Mississippi State: Ole Miss, Kentucky, Alabama
LSU: Texas A&M, Arkansas, Ole Miss
Arkansas: Texas A&M, LSU, Missouri
Texas A&M: Arkansas, LSU, Missouri
Missouri: Texas A&M, Arkansas, South Carolina

The biggest loss that shows up to me is LSU/Alabama, but things seemed to fit better this way.

The schedule though would like this with 8 conference games.
3 teams that you play every year (100% of the time)
10 teams you 50% of the time (either play every other year, or two years on followed by two years off)

(04-29-2014 09:19 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Scheduling with just 3 locked games would certainly be hard in the SEC. I'm sure this has probably been discussed before, but how do you guys imagine the locks would go. Looking through the rivalries I could see something like this:

South Carolina: Florida, Georgia, Missouri
Georgia: Auburn, Florida, South Carolina
Florida: Georgia, South Carolina, Auburn
Tennessee: Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Alabama
Kentucky: Tennessee, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt
Vanderbilt: Tennessee, Ole Miss, Kentucky
Alabama: Auburn, Tennessee, Mississippi State
Auburn: Alabama, Georgia, Florida
Ole Miss: Mississippi State, Vanderbilt, LSU
Mississippi State: Ole Miss, Kentucky, Alabama
LSU: Texas A&M, Arkansas, Ole Miss
Arkansas: Texas A&M, LSU, Missouri
Texas A&M: Arkansas, LSU, Missouri
Missouri: Texas A&M, Arkansas, South Carolina

The biggest loss that shows up to me is LSU/Alabama, but things seemed to fit better this way.

The schedule though would like this with 8 conference games.
3 teams that you play every year (100% of the time)
10 teams you 50% of the time (either play every other year, or two years on followed by two years off)

I think the conference office would feel that Alabama and L.S.U. not playing annually would be a good thing. L.S.U.'s recent history indicates that most years they are at least the second strongest team in the conference. It has actually hurt the balance to have them in the same division as Auburn and Alabama.

You touched on it earlier but 16 is best for the SEC. At 16 Alabama and Auburn can move to the East and Missouri to the West. It works exceptionally well if the two additions come from the West. If the SEC added two from the East it could still work but would not solve nearly as many of the conference's issues. Less than stellar Georgia teams and the recent dip at Florida coinciding with a dip in productivity at Tennessee has weakened the East. South Carolina has helped but can't overcome the other 3 programs being down at the same time.

IMO Muschamp was a terrible hire at Florida and I think this year may prove that theory.