Since JR shot down my last compromise scenario I'll try another just for the fun of it.

The B1G gets NC State & V Tech from the ACC & Kansas from the Big 12. Nebraska goes to the SEC as #15 giving the B1G 16. The ACC gets Texas & ND all in with 2 more from the Big 12 for 16. Oklahoma chooses between the SEC & the ACC with Oklahoma State going to the other. PAC adds 4 to make a P4 x 16.

Fox gets east coast coverage & ESPN gets Texas & Oklahoma & trades Kansas for Nebraska. All is well in conference realignment land.

(07-22-2015 07:01 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Since JR shot down my last compromise scenario I'll try another just for the fun of it.

The B1G gets NC State & V Tech from the ACC & Kansas from the Big 12. Nebraska goes to the SEC as #15 giving the B1G 16. The ACC gets Texas & ND all in with 2 more from the Big 12 for 16. Oklahoma chooses between the SEC & the ACC with Oklahoma State going to the other. PAC adds 4 to make a P4 x 16.

Fox gets east coast coverage & ESPN gets Texas & Oklahoma & trades Kansas for Nebraska. All is well in conference realignment land.

Nebraska would make for a much more interesting travel partner for the SEC should they land Oklahoma. But given the schools involved in the move I think the SEC would rather have Oklahoma go with Kansas to the Big 10 and we'd take N.C. State and Virginia Tech as it was supposed to have happened in 2010 for movement in 2012. Back then it was Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and another to the ACC in exchange for Virginia Tech and N.C. State.

If Chapel Hill wouldn't go for it then what makes you think they will take Texas and lesser schools now just so the Big 10 can have Oklahoma and Kansas? Nebraska as a brand would be great, but the markets of Nebraska and Oklahoma might as well be in Siberia when compared to the markets of Virginia and North Carolina. If those two states are possible then nobody is taking up space with more Big 12 schools without Texas.

If one assumes the ACC is stable no matter what the income disparity may become, as ACC posters here claim, then Oklahoma makes tremendous sense to the SEC or Big 10. But if VaTech and N.C. State are on the table it's not happening for the Big 12 if we are stopping at 16.

Now if we move to getting paid just for content then Nebraska and Oklahoma win hands down.

(07-22-2015 07:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 07:01 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Since JR shot down my last compromise scenario I'll try another just for the fun of it.

The B1G gets NC State & V Tech from the ACC & Kansas from the Big 12. Nebraska goes to the SEC as #15 giving the B1G 16. The ACC gets Texas & ND all in with 2 more from the Big 12 for 16. Oklahoma chooses between the SEC & the ACC with Oklahoma State going to the other. PAC adds 4 to make a P4 x 16.

Fox gets east coast coverage & ESPN gets Texas & Oklahoma & trades Kansas for Nebraska. All is well in conference realignment land.

Nebraska would make for a much more interesting travel partner for the SEC should they land Oklahoma. But given the schools involved in the move I think the SEC would rather have Oklahoma go with Kansas to the Big 10 and we'd take N.C. State and Virginia Tech as it was supposed to have happened in 2010 for movement in 2012. Back then it was Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and another to the ACC in exchange for Virginia Tech and N.C. State.

If Chapel Hill wouldn't go for it then what makes you think they will take Texas and lesser schools now just so the Big 10 can have Oklahoma and Kansas? Nebraska as a brand would be great, but the markets of Nebraska and Oklahoma might as well be in Siberia when compared to the markets of Virginia and North Carolina. If those two states are possible then nobody is taking up space with more Big 12 schools without Texas.

If one assumes the ACC is stable no matter what the income disparity may become, as ACC posters here claim, then Oklahoma makes tremendous sense to the SEC or Big 10. But if VaTech and N.C. State are on the table it's not happening for the Big 12 if we are stopping at 16.

Now if we move to getting paid just for content then Nebraska and Oklahoma win hands down.

I'm not an expert on NC State or V Tech but I assume that they would rather go to the B1G over the SEC with their first preference being the ACC. Academics aside they are set up better to compete in the B1G than they are the SEC. People can blame Chapel Hill for turning down a rumored deal but it's also possible that they could have been respecting the wishes of the schools involved, is it not?

I would think the ACC would at least be intriguing to Oklahoma in this scenario. You could set up an ACC west division of Texas, Oklahoma, +1, ND, Louisville, Miami, Pittsburgh & Syracuse. Oklahoma & Nebraska could play in the ACC/SEC rivalry at the end of the season. This gives them some things that the SEC cannot, a Florida team in their division, ND & greater eastern exposure.

Of course the SEC west would be enticing with A&M, LSU, Nebraska, Arkansas, Missouri & the Mississippis with its regional flare.

(07-22-2015 08:10 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 07:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 07:01 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Since JR shot down my last compromise scenario I'll try another just for the fun of it.

The B1G gets NC State & V Tech from the ACC & Kansas from the Big 12. Nebraska goes to the SEC as #15 giving the B1G 16. The ACC gets Texas & ND all in with 2 more from the Big 12 for 16. Oklahoma chooses between the SEC & the ACC with Oklahoma State going to the other. PAC adds 4 to make a P4 x 16.

Fox gets east coast coverage & ESPN gets Texas & Oklahoma & trades Kansas for Nebraska. All is well in conference realignment land.

Nebraska would make for a much more interesting travel partner for the SEC should they land Oklahoma. But given the schools involved in the move I think the SEC would rather have Oklahoma go with Kansas to the Big 10 and we'd take N.C. State and Virginia Tech as it was supposed to have happened in 2010 for movement in 2012. Back then it was Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and another to the ACC in exchange for Virginia Tech and N.C. State.

If Chapel Hill wouldn't go for it then what makes you think they will take Texas and lesser schools now just so the Big 10 can have Oklahoma and Kansas? Nebraska as a brand would be great, but the markets of Nebraska and Oklahoma might as well be in Siberia when compared to the markets of Virginia and North Carolina. If those two states are possible then nobody is taking up space with more Big 12 schools without Texas.

If one assumes the ACC is stable no matter what the income disparity may become, as ACC posters here claim, then Oklahoma makes tremendous sense to the SEC or Big 10. But if VaTech and N.C. State are on the table it's not happening for the Big 12 if we are stopping at 16.

Now if we move to getting paid just for content then Nebraska and Oklahoma win hands down.

I'm not an expert on NC State or V Tech but I assume that they would rather go to the B1G over the SEC with their first preference being the ACC. Academics aside they are set up better to compete in the B1G than they are the SEC. People can blame Chapel Hill for turning down a rumored deal but it's also possible that they could have been respecting the wishes of the schools involved, is it not?

I would think the ACC would at least be intriguing to Oklahoma in this scenario. You could set up an ACC west division of Texas, Oklahoma, +1, ND, Louisville, Miami, Pittsburgh & Syracuse. Oklahoma & Nebraska could play in the ACC/SEC rivalry at the end of the season. This gives them some things that the SEC cannot, a Florida team in their division, ND & greater eastern exposure.

Of course the SEC west would be enticing with A&M, LSU, Nebraska, Arkansas, Missouri & the Mississippis with its regional flare.

Lenville the SEC will stay Southern. Oklahoma? Yes. Nebraska? No. Furthermore I doubt seriously that Oklahoma alumni want to travel to the East coast to play. The SEC is the only option to keep their games regional. Kansas doesn't move the needle for them in football and Nebraska is just an example of what they fear about a move to the Big 10.

Jr. Some one mentioned an idea that if conferences grew to 16 schools, that one school could play everyone in the conference if they played 3 yearly opponents and rotate the remaining 12 schools every other year with a 9 game conference schedule. I'm just curious, if the SEC invited OU and [insert school of choice] to expand to 16 with, who do you think the three yearly opponents would be for each school?

(07-22-2015 10:55 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  Jr. Some one mentioned an idea that if conferences grew to 16 schools, that one school could play everyone in the conference if they played 3 yearly opponents and rotate the remaining 12 schools every other year with a 9 game conference schedule. I'm just curious, if the SEC invited OU and [insert school of choice] to expand to 16 with, who do you think the three yearly opponents would be for each school?

That's one of those ideas that sounds great until you start working out the logistics. I ask you how is that really any different than having the pod system. That's three games a year with a rotation among the rest? Even if you have one permanent rival in each of the 4 pods and rotated everyone else it's still the same.

I do think that 9 games is a given. I think 10 would be even better in that everyone would have 5 conference home games to sell and a patsy for homecoming, with one annual 00C game against a rival or a rotating schools.

I even like Dabo's idea of moving the Spring game to the third week of August and having it against a local FCS school and packaging the ticket to that game as the first in your season ticket book thereby giving every P5 7 home games. (1 preseason against the FCS, 12 against conference or other P5 opponents).

If Auburn had to pick three they would be Alabama, Georgia, and either Florida or Tennessee. I just think that picking three for everyone is going to be a nightmare.

I would much prefer this:
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Miss State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Team #16, Texas A&M

You play 7 from your own division and rotate 3 from the other division a year (staggered). You still play everybody every three years.

(07-22-2015 11:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 10:55 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  Jr. Some one mentioned an idea that if conferences grew to 16 schools, that one school could play everyone in the conference if they played 3 yearly opponents and rotate the remaining 12 schools every other year with a 9 game conference schedule. I'm just curious, if the SEC invited OU and [insert school of choice] to expand to 16 with, who do you think the three yearly opponents would be for each school?

That's one of those ideas that sounds great until you start working out the logistics. I ask you how is that really any different than having the pod system. That's three games a year with a rotation among the rest? Even if you have one permanent rival in each of the 4 pods and rotated everyone else it's still the same.

I do think that 9 games is a given. I think 10 would be even better in that everyone would have 5 conference home games to sell and a patsy for homecoming, with one annual 00C game against a rival or a rotating schools.

I even like Dabo's idea of moving the Spring game to the third week of August and having it against a local FCS school and packaging the ticket to that game as the first in your season ticket book thereby giving every P5 7 home games. (1 preseason against the FCS, 12 against conference or other P5 opponents).

If Auburn had to pick three they would be Alabama, Georgia, and either Florida or Tennessee. I just think that picking three for everyone is going to be a nightmare.

I would much prefer this:
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Miss State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Team #16, Texas A&M

You play 7 from your own division and rotate 3 from the other division a year (staggered). You still play everybody every three years.

I really, really would love 10 conference games. Mostly for the competition, but a 25% increase in football content would be great for TV.

Do you think it is possible though? The SEC has been so averse about going to 9 even though I agree they would go to 9 in the event of expansion. Would love to see it.

I am fine with OU and OSU myself. I think OSU brings a lot even though the market aspect is a legitimate concern, but we're talking about landing the Sooners here. That's a big deal.

Working with the theory that the GOR needs to be broken, what do you all think of this?

OU, OSU, Kansas St, and West Virginia to the SEC.
The 4 TX schools to the ACC where the LHN is used to become an ACCN.
Kansas goes to the Big Ten and perhaps they go after UConn to even the numbers?

In that scenario, only Iowa St is left out. Nothing against the Cyclones, but they're in a bad spot geographically for any suitors.

The GOR can certainly be broken with 9 signers. Everybody but the PAC 12 gets something they want.

Thoughts?

(07-22-2015 11:47 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 11:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 10:55 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  Jr. Some one mentioned an idea that if conferences grew to 16 schools, that one school could play everyone in the conference if they played 3 yearly opponents and rotate the remaining 12 schools every other year with a 9 game conference schedule. I'm just curious, if the SEC invited OU and [insert school of choice] to expand to 16 with, who do you think the three yearly opponents would be for each school?

That's one of those ideas that sounds great until you start working out the logistics. I ask you how is that really any different than having the pod system. That's three games a year with a rotation among the rest? Even if you have one permanent rival in each of the 4 pods and rotated everyone else it's still the same.

I do think that 9 games is a given. I think 10 would be even better in that everyone would have 5 conference home games to sell and a patsy for homecoming, with one annual 00C game against a rival or a rotating schools.

I even like Dabo's idea of moving the Spring game to the third week of August and having it against a local FCS school and packaging the ticket to that game as the first in your season ticket book thereby giving every P5 7 home games. (1 preseason against the FCS, 12 against conference or other P5 opponents).

If Auburn had to pick three they would be Alabama, Georgia, and either Florida or Tennessee. I just think that picking three for everyone is going to be a nightmare.

I would much prefer this:
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Miss State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Team #16, Texas A&M

You play 7 from your own division and rotate 3 from the other division a year (staggered). You still play everybody every three years.

I really, really would love 10 conference games. Mostly for the competition, but a 25% increase in football content would be great for TV.

Do you think it is possible though? The SEC has been so averse about going to 9 even though I agree they would go to 9 in the event of expansion. Would love to see it.

I am fine with OU and OSU myself. I think OSU brings a lot even though the market aspect is a legitimate concern, but we're talking about landing the Sooners here. That's a big deal.

Working with the theory that the GOR needs to be broken, what do you all think of this?

OU, OSU, Kansas St, and West Virginia to the SEC.
The 4 TX schools to the ACC where the LHN is used to become an ACCN.
Kansas goes to the Big Ten and perhaps they go after UConn to even the numbers?

In that scenario, only Iowa St is left out. Nothing against the Cyclones, but they're in a bad spot geographically for any suitors.

The GOR can certainly be broken with 9 signers. Everybody but the PAC 12 gets something they want.

Thoughts?

I would love to have 10 conference games in an eleven team conference.

(07-16-2015 06:33 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(07-16-2015 10:58 AM)Bearcat Billy Wrote:  Many Cincinnatians consider Cincinnati the northern most southern city. For those of you who have never been here it is clearly more southern in its feel than the rest of Ohio. Cincinnati has NOTHING in common with the rest of Ohio. I would love to see a bigger SEC presence in southern Ohio because it would just irritate the big 10 folks to no end.

It's amusing that folks in Cincy would actually think of themselves as Southern. That is such a ludicrous idea. You may not feel you are "Ohio" but you are definitely not Southern. Hell, Kentucky isn't even Southern.

Just more proof that people will believe anything that they tell themselves.

Ky is Southern. They have southern accents. Professional bio's include what church you belong to. I live in Cincy, and have done multiple business deals in Ville and Lexington, it is Southern.

Cincy is not Southern, but many folks from Ky and Tennessee relocated here during the Industrial boom. Tennessee Baptist Convention selected greater Cincy (only areas north of the river) Baptists Churches as a partnership to grow the Southern brand around here. The region is more Catholic though.

Another interesting connection.
The rail line that it operates, the Cincinnati Southern Railway, constructed to Chattanooga in 1880,[1] is owned by the City of Cincinnati and is leased to the CNO&TP under a long-term agreement. It is the only such long-distance railway owned by a municipality in the United States. The CNO&TP's lease of the Cincinnati Southern Railway is currently set to expire in 2026, with an option for a 25-year renewal.[2] The agreement is governed by the Trustees of the Cincinnati Southern Railway, who are appointed by the Mayor of the City of Cincinnati.[3][4]

(07-22-2015 11:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I even like Dabo's idea of moving the Spring game to the third week of August and having it against a local FCS school and packaging the ticket to that game as the first in your season ticket book thereby giving every P5 7 home games. (1 preseason against the FCS, 12 against conference or other P5 opponents).

I don't know, I'd rather schedule a FCS team in the spring and have that count as the spring game as coaches should be playing their full rosters and the result won't matter. Now if everyone agrees to start a week early, add a tax write off game against a lower level opponent and have that count as the start of the season, then sure, I'll go along with that too.

Mc