Well you've lost me JR.
Nevada and New Mexico? UConn and Cincinnati? I really don't think BYU will make it (they were only added to make the numbers right).
65 only works because Notre Dame will want to stay a partial and until such time that they are forced to join a confernce we will have to deal with odd numbers (3 x 16 and 1 x 16 +1, or 2 x 16, 1 x 16 +1, 1 x 15 +1).

While I still think it's a huge longshot, I could still see the PAC expanding eastward to a PAC 18 by adding 6 Big 12 teams:

Texas
Texas Tech
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Kansas
Kansas State

It would of course require that ESPN gets ownership in the PAC network, but this would be a bold stroke that would give many parties something they want:

ESPN (who is already invested in eastern conferences and their networks) gets their westward expansion.

The PAC gets Central time zone inventory, and adds major football brands in OU and UT, and basketball brand KU. While they'd also add a few "tag-alongs", much of the conference consists of State-U/State-State pairings in any case, and these pairings maintain intrastate harmony in the newcomers. With the exception of Nebraska (and pariah to the PAC BYU), the PAC would have every major brand west of the Missouri river. The PAC now has not only expanded their footprint, but added football-crazed Texas in the process.

The former Big 12 schools get to spend a significant part of their schedule with old friends, in familiar geography along the I-35 corridor. While they do have to go 2 time zones west to play new rivals, they only have to travel westward twice a year since the other games against the other division teams will be home games. (Here's where the larger expansion to 18 plays better than a potential expansion to 16, which might be attractive to the existing PAC in limiting the adds to major brands, but which would cause issues if the Central teams had to spend too much time going west.) The former Big 12 schools are now part of a conference with a greatly expanded footprint and they get access to California.

UT and OU add some major football brands to their schedule in USC and Oregon while keeping each other in conference. That gives the new PAC a respectable stable of top-shelf brands, without exposing the Sooners and Longhorns to the buzz-saw of SEC competition that would further increase the difficulty of winning the conference. The academic-minded in Austin would love to rub shoulders with new peers from Cal and Stanford.

(01-16-2015 01:54 PM)XLance Wrote:  Well you've lost me JR.
Nevada and New Mexico? UConn and Cincinnati? I really don't think BYU will make it (they were only added to make the numbers right).
65 only works because Notre Dame will want to stay a partial and until such time that they are forced to join a confernce we will have to deal with odd numbers (3 x 16 and 1 x 16 +1, or 2 x 16, 1 x 16 +1, 1 x 15 +1).

Well, as I said somewhere in this thread it doesn't really matter if the PAC stays at 12. If the SEC wanted to move to 18 with a Texahoma kind of deal it doesn't really matter whether anyone else takes any of the existing Big 12 schools or not, unless they want to get it done early. If the conference making the deal is not the Big 10 then there is no reason to hurry. The ACC could stay at 15 and if Notre Dame wants all in simply move to 3 divisions of 15, if they don't take West Virginia. B.Y.U., and Cincinnati probably do deserve an in somewhere, but if they don't make it nobody loses any sleep about it outside of those two fan bases. UConn has value, just not as a football school, but then Kansas, and most years Virginia and North Carolina fall marginally within that parameter as well. So,.....meh!

I do think 3 divisions could prove very beneficial to the SEC and ACC whether at 15, or 18 doesn't matter.

Let's say that the Big 10 simply goes to 15 by adding Kansas, the SEC goes to 15 by adding Oklahoma, and the PAC adds Texas, Texas Tech, and Iowa State (two AAU and a tag along). If Wake drops out and N.D. goes all in then the ACC adds WVU and we have a 4 x 15 with three divisions each.

Now we look like this:
ACC:
Boston College, Louisville, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse

Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Virginia Tech

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, West Virginia

SEC:
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina

Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M

Big 10:
Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin

Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern.

PAC:
Colorado, Iowa State, Utah, Texas, Texas Tech

Arizona, Arizona State, California, Southern Cal, U.C.L.A.

Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State


That's 60 schools in a lot stronger alignment. It still works. Whether it's 60, 64, or 72 doesn't really matter.

(01-16-2015 05:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-16-2015 01:54 PM)XLance Wrote:  Well you've lost me JR.
Nevada and New Mexico? UConn and Cincinnati? I really don't think BYU will make it (they were only added to make the numbers right).
65 only works because Notre Dame will want to stay a partial and until such time that they are forced to join a confernce we will have to deal with odd numbers (3 x 16 and 1 x 16 +1, or 2 x 16, 1 x 16 +1, 1 x 15 +1).

Well, as I said somewhere in this thread it doesn't really matter if the PAC stays at 12. If the SEC wanted to move to 18 with a Texahoma kind of deal it doesn't really matter whether anyone else takes any of the existing Big 12 schools or not, unless they want to get it done early. If the conference making the deal is not the Big 10 then there is no reason to hurry. The ACC could stay at 15 and if Notre Dame wants all in simply move to 3 divisions of 15, if they don't take West Virginia. B.Y.U., and Cincinnati probably do deserve an in somewhere, but if they don't make it nobody loses any sleep about it outside of those two fan bases. UConn has value, just not as a football school, but then Kansas, and most years Virginia and North Carolina fall marginally within that parameter as well. So,.....meh!

I do think 3 divisions could prove very beneficial to the SEC and ACC whether at 15, or 18 doesn't matter.

Let's say that the Big 10 simply goes to 15 by adding Kansas, the SEC goes to 15 by adding Oklahoma, and the PAC adds Texas, Texas Tech, and Iowa State (two AAU and a tag along). If Wake drops out and N.D. goes all in then the ACC adds WVU and we have a 4 x 15 with three divisions each.

Now we look like this:
ACC:
Boston College, Louisville, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse

Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Virginia Tech

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, West Virginia

SEC:
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina

Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M

Big 10:
Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin

Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern.

PAC:
Colorado, Iowa State, Utah, Texas, Texas Tech

Arizona, Arizona State, California, Southern Cal, U.C.L.A.

Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State


That's 60 schools in a lot stronger alignment. It still works. Whether it's 60, 64, or 72 doesn't really matter.

Brilliant!
I could envision that Wake Forest would swap places with Notre Dame and become a partial member of the ACC for football. They could play a set schedule of ACC schools (Carolina, NC State, Dook, Clemson and become the cross division rival for Boston College (that would actually count as a conference game for BC).
Wake could compete in all other sports in the ACC just like Notre Dame does now. As an independent they could schedule on an annual basis teams like Army, Navy, Vanderbilt, Tulane, and Northwestern in addition to their ACC schedule.
From my standpoint it would be great. Carolina has played Wake over 100 times in football, but now at best we see them only twice every 6 years.
Good job JR. 60 is a lot better than 70. Kansas State, Oklahoma State, TCU and Baylor could team up with the AAC for a natural fit.

(01-16-2015 04:50 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  While I still think it's a huge longshot, I could still see the PAC expanding eastward to a PAC 18 by adding 6 Big 12 teams:

Texas
Texas Tech
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Kansas
Kansas State

It would of course require that ESPN gets ownership in the PAC network, but this would be a bold stroke that would give many parties something they want:

ESPN (who is already invested in eastern conferences and their networks) gets their westward expansion.

The PAC gets Central time zone inventory, and adds major football brands in OU and UT, and basketball brand KU. While they'd also add a few "tag-alongs", much of the conference consists of State-U/State-State pairings in any case, and these pairings maintain intrastate harmony in the newcomers. With the exception of Nebraska (and pariah to the PAC BYU), the PAC would have every major brand west of the Missouri river. The PAC now has not only expanded their footprint, but added football-crazed Texas in the process.

The former Big 12 schools get to spend a significant part of their schedule with old friends, in familiar geography along the I-35 corridor. While they do have to go 2 time zones west to play new rivals, they only have to travel westward twice a year since the other games against the other division teams will be home games. (Here's where the larger expansion to 18 plays better than a potential expansion to 16, which might be attractive to the existing PAC in limiting the adds to major brands, but which would cause issues if the Central teams had to spend too much time going west.) The former Big 12 schools are now part of a conference with a greatly expanded footprint and they get access to California.

UT and OU add some major football brands to their schedule in USC and Oregon while keeping each other in conference. That gives the new PAC a respectable stable of top-shelf brands, without exposing the Sooners and Longhorns to the buzz-saw of SEC competition that would further increase the difficulty of winning the conference. The academic-minded in Austin would love to rub shoulders with new peers from Cal and Stanford.

Phog this is the flip side of the "if the SEC, ACC, and Big 10 expand it doesn't mean that the PAC has to expand also" scenario. Should the PAC take those six schools it doesn't mean that the SEC, ACC, and Big 10 need to expand, and if they did expansion might be very limited. If the ACC added a 15th full member it would likely still be West Virginia. The Big 10 might be limited to UConn. The SEC might still want a second Texas school. We might well end up with 60 or 63 P4 members at that point.

I like XLance's suggestion below that N.D. switch with Wake and have the Deacons become the partial football member of the ACC. Perhaps we are getting down to a more creative step in realignment.

Phog, I like your concept but if you don't mind, I'll put my own spin on it.
I think that the SEC could use more presence in Texas. I also think that the only conference that Oklahoma "fits" into is the SEC and the PAC really does not want them. And that the stories that Oklahoma and Oklahoma State can't separated are true. I also think that Missouri is the missing piece to Delany's empire and he wants the Tigers for multiple reasons (geography, market and maybe most importantly power, in that he would have taken a school from the SEC,the ACC and the Big 12).
Delany, after the championship rise of Ohio State, now has some momentum going into the negotiations with ESPN for the Tier I broadcast rights for the B1G. Just suppose that his price for being cooperative with ESPN is ........Missouri? What then? The B1G could balance by taking UConn in the east and stopping at 16.
The SEC could add Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Baylor/West Virginia (I really think the smart play here would be Baylor).
The ACC would end up with West Virginia for 15 (or 16 if Notre Dame is forced to join which I don't believe will ever happen).
Then the rest is up to the PAC: At 18 they could take everybody else (that would include Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Kansas Kansas State, and Iowa State) or at 16 and eliminate Iowa State and Kansas State. The other possibility is that Texas goes to the PAC as a partial but with the rest of the scenario being the same.

So there you have it:
The B1G with 16, the ACC with 15+1, the SEC with 16 and the PAC with multiple configurations that involve as many as 6 schools out of the Big 12. Even if the PAC goes on the low side at only 16 is still accounts for 8 of the 10 Big 12 schools (which are votes to dissolve the conference).

(01-17-2015 12:05 PM)XLance Wrote:  Phog, I like your concept but if you don't mind, I'll put my own spin on it.
I think that the SEC could use more presence in Texas. I also think that the only conference that Oklahoma "fits" into is the SEC and the PAC really does not want them. And that the stories that Oklahoma and Oklahoma State can't separated are true. I also think that Missouri is the missing piece to Delany's empire and he wants the Tigers for multiple reasons (geography, market and maybe most importantly power, in that he would have taken a school from the SEC,the ACC and the Big 12).
Delany, after the championship rise of Ohio State, now has some momentum going into the negotiations with ESPN for the Tier I broadcast rights for the B1G. Just suppose that his price for being cooperative with ESPN is ........Missouri? What then? The B1G could balance by taking UConn in the east and stopping at 16.
The SEC could add Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Baylor/West Virginia (I really think the smart play here would be Baylor).
The ACC would end up with West Virginia for 15 (or 16 if Notre Dame is forced to join which I don't believe will ever happen).
Then the rest is up to the PAC: At 18 they could take everybody else (that would include Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Kansas Kansas State, and Iowa State) or at 16 and eliminate Iowa State and Kansas State. The other possibility is that Texas goes to the PAC as a partial but with the rest of the scenario being the same.

So there you have it:
The B1G with 16, the ACC with 15+1, the SEC with 16 and the PAC with multiple configurations that involve as many as 6 schools out of the Big 12. Even if the PAC goes on the low side at only 16 is still accounts for 8 of the 10 Big 12 schools (which are votes to dissolve the conference).

XLance while there is logic behind your scenario I would point out of couple things. The Big 10 didn't take Missouri because it didn't fit their plans. They didn't take Missouri because they get share in the Kansas City Market and in St. Louis without having to pay a Missouri school to get it. Heck it's probably part of the reason the Jayhawks haven't been asked yet. So your desire to see the SEC lose a school to the Big 10 is nothing short of conscious or subconscious schadenfreude that will help you feel better about the ACC's loss of Maryland.

It's possible that the SEC could lose a school, but the only one I see going to the Big 10 would be Vanderbilt, but then they fit the ACC so much better, and they don't want to leave the SEC apparently because they have had a standing offer from the Big 10, or at least that is what some Big 10 guys have claimed. Who knows?

ESPN wanted Missouri in the SEC to bolster markets. The demographics that have hampered the Big 10 and benefited the SEC are still in place and deepening. The coaching will enhance the Big 10's competitiveness but only to the extent that at least half to 3/4's of their conference buys in otherwise it will be the usual suspects of Ohio State, Penn State, and Michigan with Sparty and Bucky Badger making the occasional run.

The SEC's position going forward is strong in spite of the sputter of last year. Where there is truth in your supposition is in the culture of Missouri. The state has several diverse cultures but the school itself seems more Northern. But, with expansion the border states will be what they are, border states.

When I suggested 18 for the SEC I was being serious, and the biggest reason for that is demographics. It allows for Oklahoma and Oklahoma State if necessary, but also allows for that second Texas school which if the Oklahoma's are on board doesn't require us to fill the DFW need, hence Baylor. That leaves the SEC a 4th spot to fill which could be anyone from Texas or West Virginia, to a long shot like ECU or another Florida school.

The Big 10 wants into Virginia and North Carolina. There isn't much for them in Kansas and Missouri in the way of a future tap on population. It's lucky for the ACC that the Big 10 isn't so cozy with ESPN. And you better hope things stay that way otherwise your parts are worth more parked elsewhere. If ESPN loaded up on the ACC and SEC it's because that's where the future is. They don't need more than a toe in the ponds of the PAC and Big 10 to stay on top of the sports broadcasting world. ESPN has two issues. 1. How to get the ACC more active viewers out of that wonderful market. 2. How to get the SEC into more markets. If there is a third it is how to improve the total content of both of those conferences. Rights to T1 games are all they want out of the Big 10. When one of the big 3, or the moderate 5 aren't playing each other there is no content there that they want. They get what they want out of the PAC as well and don't have to buy all of those other games between Oregon State and Utah, Washington State and Colorado, etc. When they park Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and West Virginia in either the ACC or SEC they will have all they need.

Everyone harps on the PAC and its markets. They have a captive audience out there and can't top the SEC, Big 10, and Big 12 in viewership. Heck they barely beet out you guys. I don't think that ESPN would be thrilled with a piece of the PACN. I've conjectured that getting a piece would be the only way the PAC would land Texas, but really the Horns draw more eyes in the Southeast and Southwest than they will ever draw in L.A., San Francisco, San Diego, or anywhere out West. When the Texas issue is settled realignment will be over. If ESPN lands them, particularly with the Sooners they will have all they want or need.

Now that said, if it means we have to wait 6 to 10 years to cherry pick the Big 12 then that may likely happen. However the bargaining chips right now are the little brothers. If Texas and Oklahoma deal then 18 is possible for either or both of the SEC and ACC. If Texas and Oklahoma wait that 15 team model looks awfully nice. So when it's done the little brothers will only have the big brothers to blame. That's why I think in state politics gets this done sooner rather than later.

BTW, I still don't think ESPN abandons their successful plan of controlling Southeastern football and ACC/Big East basketball and cherry picking what they want from the Big 10 and PAC. It's cheaper, has better markets, greater saturation, and good old fashioned hate centered rivalries right in the middle of a culture of sports and growth.

It's my understanding that the B1G insists all members lie in contiguous states. Tennessee isn't contiguous with any current B1G member states, so if my understanding is correct, than Vanderbilt wouldn't be considered a viable candidate. Only if the B1G were able to capture Virginia (Maryland being the bridge) would Tennessee meet that requirement. UConn has the same problem, since the B1G geographic footprint doesn't include New York, even though its market penetration does.

(01-17-2015 02:11 PM)colohank Wrote:  It's my understanding that the B1G insists all members lie in contiguous states. Tennessee isn't contiguous with any current B1G member states, so if my understanding is correct, than Vanderbilt wouldn't be considered a viable candidate. Only if the B1G were able to capture Virginia (Maryland being the bridge) would Tennessee meet that requirement. UConn has the same problem, since the B1G geographic footprint doesn't include New York, even though its market penetration does.

I suggest you ask some Big 10 guys about the contiguity issue. They will tell you that it is a preference, but not a rule. These issues came up for discussion with talk about Virginia and Georgia Tech. The Vanderbilt issue is about a decade or two old now. Nashville is a desirable market and since there are no academic candidates in Kentucky and Virginia was not receptive, that only leaves Missouri to provide them access. However, they declined. I bet you that if Texas wanted in the Big 10 they would say yes in a heartbeat with or without Kansas or Oklahoma. The same would be true for North Carolina without Virginia. They took Maryland because it was the weak link. Would they prefer contiguous additions? Yes, who wouldn't. Do they require them? No, and Delany has said as much.

(01-16-2015 05:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-16-2015 01:54 PM)XLance Wrote:  Well you've lost me JR.
Nevada and New Mexico? UConn and Cincinnati? I really don't think BYU will make it (they were only added to make the numbers right).
65 only works because Notre Dame will want to stay a partial and until such time that they are forced to join a confernce we will have to deal with odd numbers (3 x 16 and 1 x 16 +1, or 2 x 16, 1 x 16 +1, 1 x 15 +1).

Well, as I said somewhere in this thread it doesn't really matter if the PAC stays at 12. If the SEC wanted to move to 18 with a Texahoma kind of deal it doesn't really matter whether anyone else takes any of the existing Big 12 schools or not, unless they want to get it done early. If the conference making the deal is not the Big 10 then there is no reason to hurry. The ACC could stay at 15 and if Notre Dame wants all in simply move to 3 divisions of 15, if they don't take West Virginia. B.Y.U., and Cincinnati probably do deserve an in somewhere, but if they don't make it nobody loses any sleep about it outside of those two fan bases. UConn has value, just not as a football school, but then Kansas, and most years Virginia and North Carolina fall marginally within that parameter as well. So,.....meh!

I do think 3 divisions could prove very beneficial to the SEC and ACC whether at 15, or 18 doesn't matter.

Let's say that the Big 10 simply goes to 15 by adding Kansas, the SEC goes to 15 by adding Oklahoma, and the PAC adds Texas, Texas Tech, and Iowa State (two AAU and a tag along). If Wake drops out and N.D. goes all in then the ACC adds WVU and we have a 4 x 15 with three divisions each.

Now we look like this:
ACC:
Boston College, Louisville, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse

Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Virginia Tech

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, West Virginia

SEC:
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina

Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M

Big 10:
Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin

Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern.

PAC:
Colorado, Iowa State, Utah, Texas, Texas Tech

Arizona, Arizona State, California, Southern Cal, U.C.L.A.

Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State


That's 60 schools in a lot stronger alignment. It still works. Whether it's 60, 64, or 72 doesn't really matter.

If you replace Wake Forest with Notre Dame as a full member and then add West Virginia is would be necessary to have new cross division rivals.

First Attempt give us:

Dook-Georgia Tech
Pitt-West Virginia
Clemson-NC State
Notre Dame-Miami
Syracuse-UVa
Virginia Tech-Louisville
Carolina-Florida State
Boston College-partial member Wake Forest

(01-17-2015 09:03 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-16-2015 05:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-16-2015 01:54 PM)XLance Wrote:  Well you've lost me JR.
Nevada and New Mexico? UConn and Cincinnati? I really don't think BYU will make it (they were only added to make the numbers right).
65 only works because Notre Dame will want to stay a partial and until such time that they are forced to join a confernce we will have to deal with odd numbers (3 x 16 and 1 x 16 +1, or 2 x 16, 1 x 16 +1, 1 x 15 +1).

Well, as I said somewhere in this thread it doesn't really matter if the PAC stays at 12. If the SEC wanted to move to 18 with a Texahoma kind of deal it doesn't really matter whether anyone else takes any of the existing Big 12 schools or not, unless they want to get it done early. If the conference making the deal is not the Big 10 then there is no reason to hurry. The ACC could stay at 15 and if Notre Dame wants all in simply move to 3 divisions of 15, if they don't take West Virginia. B.Y.U., and Cincinnati probably do deserve an in somewhere, but if they don't make it nobody loses any sleep about it outside of those two fan bases. UConn has value, just not as a football school, but then Kansas, and most years Virginia and North Carolina fall marginally within that parameter as well. So,.....meh!

I do think 3 divisions could prove very beneficial to the SEC and ACC whether at 15, or 18 doesn't matter.

Let's say that the Big 10 simply goes to 15 by adding Kansas, the SEC goes to 15 by adding Oklahoma, and the PAC adds Texas, Texas Tech, and Iowa State (two AAU and a tag along). If Wake drops out and N.D. goes all in then the ACC adds WVU and we have a 4 x 15 with three divisions each.

Now we look like this:
ACC:
Boston College, Louisville, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse

Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Virginia Tech

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, West Virginia

SEC:
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina

Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M

Big 10:
Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin

Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern.

PAC:
Colorado, Iowa State, Utah, Texas, Texas Tech

Arizona, Arizona State, California, Southern Cal, U.C.L.A.

Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State


That's 60 schools in a lot stronger alignment. It still works. Whether it's 60, 64, or 72 doesn't really matter.

If you replace Wake Forest with Notre Dame as a full member and then add West Virginia is would be necessary to have new cross division rivals.

First Attempt give us:

Dook-Georgia Tech
Pitt-West Virginia
Clemson-NC State
Notre Dame-Miami
Syracuse-UVa
Virginia Tech-Louisville
Carolina-Florida State
Boston College-partial member Wake Forest

I don't see why that wouldn't work. Plus with 3 five team divisions there is no reason why you couldn't play your 4 divisional games, 1 permanent rival from each of the other two, and rotate two each from the other two divisions to have a grand total of 10 conference games. That way you will have played everyone at least twice in a 4 year period.

(01-17-2015 01:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-17-2015 12:05 PM)XLance Wrote:  Phog, I like your concept but if you don't mind, I'll put my own spin on it.
I think that the SEC could use more presence in Texas. I also think that the only conference that Oklahoma "fits" into is the SEC and the PAC really does not want them. And that the stories that Oklahoma and Oklahoma State can't separated are true. I also think that Missouri is the missing piece to Delany's empire and he wants the Tigers for multiple reasons (geography, market and maybe most importantly power, in that he would have taken a school from the SEC,the ACC and the Big 12).
Delany, after the championship rise of Ohio State, now has some momentum going into the negotiations with ESPN for the Tier I broadcast rights for the B1G. Just suppose that his price for being cooperative with ESPN is ........Missouri? What then? The B1G could balance by taking UConn in the east and stopping at 16.
The SEC could add Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Baylor/West Virginia (I really think the smart play here would be Baylor).
The ACC would end up with West Virginia for 15 (or 16 if Notre Dame is forced to join which I don't believe will ever happen).
Then the rest is up to the PAC: At 18 they could take everybody else (that would include Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Kansas Kansas State, and Iowa State) or at 16 and eliminate Iowa State and Kansas State. The other possibility is that Texas goes to the PAC as a partial but with the rest of the scenario being the same.

So there you have it:
The B1G with 16, the ACC with 15+1, the SEC with 16 and the PAC with multiple configurations that involve as many as 6 schools out of the Big 12. Even if the PAC goes on the low side at only 16 is still accounts for 8 of the 10 Big 12 schools (which are votes to dissolve the conference).

XLance while there is logic behind your scenario I would point out of couple things. The Big 10 didn't take Missouri because it didn't fit their plans. They didn't take Missouri because they get share in the Kansas City Market and in St. Louis without having to pay a Missouri school to get it. Heck it's probably part of the reason the Jayhawks haven't been asked yet. So your desire to see the SEC lose a school to the Big 10 is nothing short of conscious or subconscious schadenfreude that will help you feel better about the ACC's loss of Maryland.

It's possible that the SEC could lose a school, but the only one I see going to the Big 10 would be Vanderbilt, but then they fit the ACC so much better, and they don't want to leave the SEC apparently because they have had a standing offer from the Big 10, or at least that is what some Big 10 guys have claimed. Who knows?

ESPN wanted Missouri in the SEC to bolster markets. The demographics that have hampered the Big 10 and benefited the SEC are still in place and deepening. The coaching will enhance the Big 10's competitiveness but only to the extent that at least half to 3/4's of their conference buys in otherwise it will be the usual suspects of Ohio State, Penn State, and Michigan with Sparty and Bucky Badger making the occasional run.

The SEC's position going forward is strong in spite of the sputter of last year. Where there is truth in your supposition is in the culture of Missouri. The state has several diverse cultures but the school itself seems more Northern. But, with expansion the border states will be what they are, border states.

When I suggested 18 for the SEC I was being serious, and the biggest reason for that is demographics. It allows for Oklahoma and Oklahoma State if necessary, but also allows for that second Texas school which if the Oklahoma's are on board doesn't require us to fill the DFW need, hence Baylor. That leaves the SEC a 4th spot to fill which could be anyone from Texas or West Virginia, to a long shot like ECU or another Florida school.

The Big 10 wants into Virginia and North Carolina. There isn't much for them in Kansas and Missouri in the way of a future tap on population. It's lucky for the ACC that the Big 10 isn't so cozy with ESPN. And you better hope things stay that way otherwise your parts are worth more parked elsewhere. If ESPN loaded up on the ACC and SEC it's because that's where the future is. They don't need more than a toe in the ponds of the PAC and Big 10 to stay on top of the sports broadcasting world. ESPN has two issues. 1. How to get the ACC more active viewers out of that wonderful market. 2. How to get the SEC into more markets. If there is a third it is how to improve the total content of both of those conferences. Rights to T1 games are all they want out of the Big 10. When one of the big 3, or the moderate 5 aren't playing each other there is no content there that they want. They get what they want out of the PAC as well and don't have to buy all of those other games between Oregon State and Utah, Washington State and Colorado, etc. When they park Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and West Virginia in either the ACC or SEC they will have all they need.

Everyone harps on the PAC and its markets. They have a captive audience out there and can't top the SEC, Big 10, and Big 12 in viewership. Heck they barely beet out you guys. I don't think that ESPN would be thrilled with a piece of the PACN. I've conjectured that getting a piece would be the only way the PAC would land Texas, but really the Horns draw more eyes in the Southeast and Southwest than they will ever draw in L.A., San Francisco, San Diego, or anywhere out West. When the Texas issue is settled realignment will be over. If ESPN lands them, particularly with the Sooners they will have all they want or need.

Now that said, if it means we have to wait 6 to 10 years to cherry pick the Big 12 then that may likely happen. However the bargaining chips right now are the little brothers. If Texas and Oklahoma deal then 18 is possible for either or both of the SEC and ACC. If Texas and Oklahoma wait that 15 team model looks awfully nice. So when it's done the little brothers will only have the big brothers to blame. That's why I think in state politics gets this done sooner rather than later.

BTW, I still don't think ESPN abandons their successful plan of controlling Southeastern football and ACC/Big East basketball and cherry picking what they want from the Big 10 and PAC. It's cheaper, has better markets, greater saturation, and good old fashioned hate centered rivalries right in the middle of a culture of sports and growth.

On this point we agree completely.

(01-17-2015 01:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-17-2015 12:05 PM)XLance Wrote:  Phog, I like your concept but if you don't mind, I'll put my own spin on it.
I think that the SEC could use more presence in Texas. I also think that the only conference that Oklahoma "fits" into is the SEC and the PAC really does not want them. And that the stories that Oklahoma and Oklahoma State can't separated are true. I also think that Missouri is the missing piece to Delany's empire and he wants the Tigers for multiple reasons (geography, market and maybe most importantly power, in that he would have taken a school from the SEC,the ACC and the Big 12).
Delany, after the championship rise of Ohio State, now has some momentum going into the negotiations with ESPN for the Tier I broadcast rights for the B1G. Just suppose that his price for being cooperative with ESPN is ........Missouri? What then? The B1G could balance by taking UConn in the east and stopping at 16.
The SEC could add Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Baylor/West Virginia (I really think the smart play here would be Baylor).
The ACC would end up with West Virginia for 15 (or 16 if Notre Dame is forced to join which I don't believe will ever happen).
Then the rest is up to the PAC: At 18 they could take everybody else (that would include Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Kansas Kansas State, and Iowa State) or at 16 and eliminate Iowa State and Kansas State. The other possibility is that Texas goes to the PAC as a partial but with the rest of the scenario being the same.

So there you have it:
The B1G with 16, the ACC with 15+1, the SEC with 16 and the PAC with multiple configurations that involve as many as 6 schools out of the Big 12. Even if the PAC goes on the low side at only 16 is still accounts for 8 of the 10 Big 12 schools (which are votes to dissolve the conference).

XLance while there is logic behind your scenario I would point out of couple things. The Big 10 didn't take Missouri because it didn't fit their plans. They didn't take Missouri because they get share in the Kansas City Market and in St. Louis without having to pay a Missouri school to get it. Heck it's probably part of the reason the Jayhawks haven't been asked yet. So your desire to see the SEC lose a school to the Big 10 is nothing short of conscious or subconscious schadenfreude that will help you feel better about the ACC's loss of Maryland.

It's possible that the SEC could lose a school, but the only one I see going to the Big 10 would be Vanderbilt, but then they fit the ACC so much better, and they don't want to leave the SEC apparently because they have had a standing offer from the Big 10, or at least that is what some Big 10 guys have claimed. Who knows?

ESPN wanted Missouri in the SEC to bolster markets. The demographics that have hampered the Big 10 and benefited the SEC are still in place and deepening. The coaching will enhance the Big 10's competitiveness but only to the extent that at least half to 3/4's of their conference buys in otherwise it will be the usual suspects of Ohio State, Penn State, and Michigan with Sparty and Bucky Badger making the occasional run.

The SEC's position going forward is strong in spite of the sputter of last year. Where there is truth in your supposition is in the culture of Missouri. The state has several diverse cultures but the school itself seems more Northern. But, with expansion the border states will be what they are, border states.

When I suggested 18 for the SEC I was being serious, and the biggest reason for that is demographics. It allows for Oklahoma and Oklahoma State if necessary, but also allows for that second Texas school which if the Oklahoma's are on board doesn't require us to fill the DFW need, hence Baylor. That leaves the SEC a 4th spot to fill which could be anyone from Texas or West Virginia, to a long shot like ECU or another Florida school.

The Big 10 wants into Virginia and North Carolina. There isn't much for them in Kansas and Missouri in the way of a future tap on population. It's lucky for the ACC that the Big 10 isn't so cozy with ESPN. And you better hope things stay that way otherwise your parts are worth more parked elsewhere. If ESPN loaded up on the ACC and SEC it's because that's where the future is. They don't need more than a toe in the ponds of the PAC and Big 10 to stay on top of the sports broadcasting world. ESPN has two issues. 1. How to get the ACC more active viewers out of that wonderful market. 2. How to get the SEC into more markets. If there is a third it is how to improve the total content of both of those conferences. Rights to T1 games are all they want out of the Big 10. When one of the big 3, or the moderate 5 aren't playing each other there is no content there that they want. They get what they want out of the PAC as well and don't have to buy all of those other games between Oregon State and Utah, Washington State and Colorado, etc. When they park Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and West Virginia in either the ACC or SEC they will have all they need.

Everyone harps on the PAC and its markets. They have a captive audience out there and can't top the SEC, Big 10, and Big 12 in viewership. Heck they barely beet out you guys. I don't think that ESPN would be thrilled with a piece of the PACN. I've conjectured that getting a piece would be the only way the PAC would land Texas, but really the Horns draw more eyes in the Southeast and Southwest than they will ever draw in L.A., San Francisco, San Diego, or anywhere out West. When the Texas issue is settled realignment will be over. If ESPN lands them, particularly with the Sooners they will have all they want or need.

Now that said, if it means we have to wait 6 to 10 years to cherry pick the Big 12 then that may likely happen. However the bargaining chips right now are the little brothers. If Texas and Oklahoma deal then 18 is possible for either or both of the SEC and ACC. If Texas and Oklahoma wait that 15 team model looks awfully nice. So when it's done the little brothers will only have the big brothers to blame. That's why I think in state politics gets this done sooner rather than later.

BTW, I still don't think ESPN abandons their successful plan of controlling Southeastern football and ACC/Big East basketball and cherry picking what they want from the Big 10 and PAC. It's cheaper, has better markets, greater saturation, and good old fashioned hate centered rivalries right in the middle of a culture of sports and growth.

Thanks, JR, I believe the logic is like a rock.....solid.

One point on OU and OSU. They can be separated IF they both land in a power conference and OU lands in a conference with Texas. OU just needs one of OSU or Texas in their conference so they have some OOC scheduling flexibility. They can't give up the Texas game as it is a donation driver for both schools and I believe the OSU game might be required by OK, though I might be mistaken. OU has just been trying to strong arm the SEC and PAC into taking OSU as well because OSU might not find a home on its own. If someone extends OSU an invite on its own then OU can do whatever it wants.

KU can separate from KSU if things go bad and the B12 dies; however, it will be hard to leave if the B12 is viable and KU leaving endangers the conference due to KSU being in the danger zone of B12 schools that might have to fall into the G5 if the B12 disintegrates. Like OU/OSU, if KSU gets an invite on its own it makes KU free to move easily without and messy politics.

(01-18-2015 08:06 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  One point on OU and OSU. They can be separated IF they both land in a power conference and OU lands in a conference with Texas. OU just needs one of OSU or Texas in their conference so they have some OOC scheduling flexibility. They can't give up the Texas game as it is a donation driver for both schools and I believe the OSU game might be required by OK, though I might be mistaken. OU has just been trying to strong arm the SEC and PAC into taking OSU as well because OSU might not find a home on its own. If someone extends OSU an invite on its own then OU can do whatever it wants.

KU can separate from KSU if things go bad and the B12 dies; however, it will be hard to leave if the B12 is viable and KU leaving endangers the conference due to KSU being in the danger zone of B12 schools that might have to fall into the G5 if the B12 disintegrates. Like OU/OSU, if KSU gets an invite on its own it makes KU free to move easily without and messy politics.

I agree with this, provided movement comes within the viable life of the GOR. While I find it highly improbable that Missouri would be involved in a Big 10 deal, I would be willing to admit that the following scenario would have the significant appeal to permit it: Texas, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State to the SEC, Kansas and Missouri to the Big 10, West Virginia to the ACC. If the PAC were interested they could go for Texas Tech, Iowa State, Kansas State, and T.C.U. But that would be the only way it would happen within the GOR timeline and it would be dependent upon Mizzou's desire to make the move. If not the aforementioned would occur quite differently and after the GOR. I think then you might indeed see the 4 conference of 15 members each model that would involve the top 60 programs.

If MU did not want to move to the B1G, the SEC could always take Baylor as well and go to 18. You would dominate Texas with UT, A&M, and BU. The PAC would still have a presence with TTU and TCU, but it would be much smaller. UConn slides into MU's slot in the B1G. Still kills the B12, but every school has a home. Delaney drives the NCAA coughing up the BB cash they have been hogging, and doing nothing with since they are a complete joke organization, to make it pay to take two great BB schools.

(01-18-2015 08:55 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  If MU did not want to move to the B1G, the SEC could always take Baylor as well and go to 18. You would dominate Texas with UT, A&M, and BU. The PAC would still have a presence with TTU and TCU, but it would be much smaller. UConn slides into MU's slot in the B1G. Still kills the B12, but every school as a home. Delaney drives the NCAA coughing up the BB cash they have been hogging, and doing nothing with since they are a complete joke organization, to make it pay to take to great BB schools.

Yes, I think 18 with a modified Texahoma that included Baylor instead of TTU would be just fine. Ohio St winning it all this year may dampen the desire of the Big 10 for Oklahoma since they would have been a hard sell anyway. If they feel they have football cred with the Buckeyes, Harbaugh, and a freed up PSU then they may go for the basketball schools as a long term bet on the futures of the two sports. Iowa State and Kansas, or Kansas and Connecticut would be a reasonable way for the Big 10 to get to 16.

(01-16-2015 05:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well, as I said somewhere in this thread it doesn't really matter if the PAC stays at 12. If the SEC wanted to move to 18 with a Texahoma kind of deal it doesn't really matter whether anyone else takes any of the existing Big 12 schools or not, unless they want to get it done early. If the conference making the deal is not the Big 10 then there is no reason to hurry. The ACC could stay at 15 and if Notre Dame wants all in simply move to 3 divisions of 15, if they don't take West Virginia. B.Y.U., and Cincinnati probably do deserve an in somewhere, but if they don't make it nobody loses any sleep about it outside of those two fan bases. UConn has value, just not as a football school, but then Kansas, and most years Virginia and North Carolina fall marginally within that parameter as well. So,.....meh!

I do think 3 divisions could prove very beneficial to the SEC and ACC whether at 15, or 18 doesn't matter.

Let's say that the Big 10 simply goes to 15 by adding Kansas, the SEC goes to 15 by adding Oklahoma, and the PAC adds Texas, Texas Tech, and Iowa State (two AAU and a tag along). If Wake drops out and N.D. goes all in then the ACC adds WVU and we have a 4 x 15 with three divisions each.

Now we look like this:
ACC:
Boston College, Louisville, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse

Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Virginia Tech

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, West Virginia

SEC:
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina

Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M

Big 10:
Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin

Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern.

PAC:
Colorado, Iowa State, Utah, Texas, Texas Tech

Arizona, Arizona State, California, Southern Cal, U.C.L.A.

Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State


That's 60 schools in a lot stronger alignment. It still works. Whether it's 60, 64, or 72 doesn't really matter.

The issue wrt the Big 10 is separating O-H-I-O from the Michigan schools, probably why they don't want any odd numbers after 11. However, if I were to plot a 15-school Big Ten it might look like this:

PSU, RU, UMD, Nebraska, Kansas

Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Illinois

Purdue, Indiana, Michigan State, Michigan, Ohio State

The original 10 get divided into two, with the "newbies" in their own separate division. It's not ideal but at least there would be more than one football power each (Iowa would be at a "prince" level next to Wisconsin).

(01-19-2015 12:54 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(01-16-2015 05:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well, as I said somewhere in this thread it doesn't really matter if the PAC stays at 12. If the SEC wanted to move to 18 with a Texahoma kind of deal it doesn't really matter whether anyone else takes any of the existing Big 12 schools or not, unless they want to get it done early. If the conference making the deal is not the Big 10 then there is no reason to hurry. The ACC could stay at 15 and if Notre Dame wants all in simply move to 3 divisions of 15, if they don't take West Virginia. B.Y.U., and Cincinnati probably do deserve an in somewhere, but if they don't make it nobody loses any sleep about it outside of those two fan bases. UConn has value, just not as a football school, but then Kansas, and most years Virginia and North Carolina fall marginally within that parameter as well. So,.....meh!

I do think 3 divisions could prove very beneficial to the SEC and ACC whether at 15, or 18 doesn't matter.

Let's say that the Big 10 simply goes to 15 by adding Kansas, the SEC goes to 15 by adding Oklahoma, and the PAC adds Texas, Texas Tech, and Iowa State (two AAU and a tag along). If Wake drops out and N.D. goes all in then the ACC adds WVU and we have a 4 x 15 with three divisions each.

Now we look like this:
ACC:
Boston College, Louisville, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse

Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Virginia Tech

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, West Virginia

SEC:
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina

Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M

Big 10:
Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin

Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern.

PAC:
Colorado, Iowa State, Utah, Texas, Texas Tech

Arizona, Arizona State, California, Southern Cal, U.C.L.A.

Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State


That's 60 schools in a lot stronger alignment. It still works. Whether it's 60, 64, or 72 doesn't really matter.

The issue wrt the Big 10 is separating O-H-I-O from the Michigan schools, probably why they don't want any odd numbers after 11. However, if I were to plot a 15-school Big Ten it might look like this:

PSU, RU, UMD, Nebraska, Kansas

Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Illinois

Purdue, Indiana, Michigan State, Michigan, Ohio State

The original 10 get divided into two, with the "newbies" in their own separate division. It's not ideal but at least there would be more than one football power each (Iowa would be at a "prince" level next to Wisconsin).

I like the part where Missouri is not on this list...

(01-18-2015 08:06 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  One point on OU and OSU. They can be separated IF they both land in a power conference and OU lands in a conference with Texas. OU just needs one of OSU or Texas in their conference so they have some OOC scheduling flexibility. They can't give up the Texas game as it is a donation driver for both schools and I believe the OSU game might be required by OK, though I might be mistaken. OU has just been trying to strong arm the SEC and PAC into taking OSU as well because OSU might not find a home on its own. If someone extends OSU an invite on its own then OU can do whatever it wants.

KU can separate from KSU if things go bad and the B12 dies; however, it will be hard to leave if the B12 is viable and KU leaving endangers the conference due to KSU being in the danger zone of B12 schools that might have to fall into the G5 if the B12 disintegrates. Like OU/OSU, if KSU gets an invite on its own it makes KU free to move easily without and messy politics.

Oklahoma doesn't have to be in conference with Texas. The Red River Rivalry game has gone on much longer than the life of the big 12. Certainly Oklahoma would probably like to remain in the same conference with Texas as that would certainly make scheduling easier but it is not a necessity.