(04-17-2016 02:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-17-2016 01:23 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-17-2016 11:06 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-17-2016 07:04 AM)XLance Wrote:  Why did ESPN encourage the SEC to take Missouri? By the same token, why would ESPN encourage the ACC to add Louisville? If you were building either conference from scratch, would you add Missouri to the SEC or Louisville to the ACC?
History has shown that consolidation will eventually lead to break up because the sub-sets of the consolidated units will tend to group together. It's interesting that the first time (when the old Southern Conference divided), geography played a big role. Even now JR is advocating FSU and Clemson based not really on "fit" but to seal off an area of geography.
In the natural world things tend to separate based on east-west bands that may be several hundred miles wide, except when they run into natural barriers. This is true of many species of plants and animals, in that their ranges stretch great distances east to west, but not very far north to south. The anomalies in the SEC are Georgia and South Carolina on the eastern side off the Appalachians and LSU on the "other" side of the Mississippi. The old ACC confined itself to the eastern side off the Appalachians, but went out of area with the addition of Florida State.
Louisville an ACC addition? It's on the wrong side of the mountains and not a true academic peer. Missouri? the only thing Missouri has in common with the rest of the SEC is that the State chose to ally itself with the correct side during the War for Southern Economic Independence.
What is ESPN up to?

ESPN was up to building television markets. Missouri added the 2nd most number of top markets and the 2nd most population. Louisville added market, but more importantly was a compromise for that cobbled together creature called the ACC.

I do like your climate based theory on why species stay within temperate zones however. I didn't realize the ACC people were so climate specific in their needs. Most hominids are more adaptable. But since we are on the topic why did the Big 10 move into Pennsylvania and New Jersey, let alone Maryland?

Conferences didn't think that way until networks showed them a new paradigm for marketing. The whole market concept was once anathema to conference thinking.

So once again you insinuate a position that actually proves my point.

Call me old fashioned but I do prefer we solidify our Southeast first. And we would have in '91 had ESPN not been hatching a new concept. It was after all the last time realignment targets were essentially formed by the conferences. Back then the interference by the networks was less direct.

Things would be quite different if Jake Crouthamel had been more receptive to the ACC's initial call to Syracuse. If Syracuse shows interest, the ACC would have never gotten around to contacting Florida State and the 'noles probably end up in the SEC as #12 w/ Arkansas.
Blame it on those folks in Tallahassee on on Corrigan for being such a good salesman, but Florida State's decision to reject the SEC and join the ACC changed realignment in the southeast for sure.


BTW JR the climate band theory is the work of Jared Diamond (UCLA geography professor and author of the Pulitzer Prize winning, Guns, Germs and Steel).

Gotta love those unique academic projects that receive awards. There have been oodles of them amounting to not much, even theories well received have later been debunked. I'm not saying this one lacks merit, just that it seems rather confining given the adaptability of people.

As to realignment '91, I agree. Arkansas and F.S.U. would have set the SEC up much better and if the ACC had more aggressively moved North at that time, say 5 additions, Delany would never have gained the toe hold he has now, and Penn State would have faced a few more questions. Spurrier probably never goes to South Carolina, Clemson becomes a darling ahead of their present pace, and Realignment would likely be over.

Not only the adaptability of people but of domesticated animals like sheep and cattle and crops such as wheat and barley which were all spread by people to areas that they were not native.
Fascinating read on the spread of civilization.

(04-17-2016 03:53 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-17-2016 02:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-17-2016 01:23 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-17-2016 11:06 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-17-2016 07:04 AM)XLance Wrote:  Why did ESPN encourage the SEC to take Missouri? By the same token, why would ESPN encourage the ACC to add Louisville? If you were building either conference from scratch, would you add Missouri to the SEC or Louisville to the ACC?
History has shown that consolidation will eventually lead to break up because the sub-sets of the consolidated units will tend to group together. It's interesting that the first time (when the old Southern Conference divided), geography played a big role. Even now JR is advocating FSU and Clemson based not really on "fit" but to seal off an area of geography.
In the natural world things tend to separate based on east-west bands that may be several hundred miles wide, except when they run into natural barriers. This is true of many species of plants and animals, in that their ranges stretch great distances east to west, but not very far north to south. The anomalies in the SEC are Georgia and South Carolina on the eastern side off the Appalachians and LSU on the "other" side of the Mississippi. The old ACC confined itself to the eastern side off the Appalachians, but went out of area with the addition of Florida State.
Louisville an ACC addition? It's on the wrong side of the mountains and not a true academic peer. Missouri? the only thing Missouri has in common with the rest of the SEC is that the State chose to ally itself with the correct side during the War for Southern Economic Independence.
What is ESPN up to?

ESPN was up to building television markets. Missouri added the 2nd most number of top markets and the 2nd most population. Louisville added market, but more importantly was a compromise for that cobbled together creature called the ACC.

I do like your climate based theory on why species stay within temperate zones however. I didn't realize the ACC people were so climate specific in their needs. Most hominids are more adaptable. But since we are on the topic why did the Big 10 move into Pennsylvania and New Jersey, let alone Maryland?

Conferences didn't think that way until networks showed them a new paradigm for marketing. The whole market concept was once anathema to conference thinking.

So once again you insinuate a position that actually proves my point.

Call me old fashioned but I do prefer we solidify our Southeast first. And we would have in '91 had ESPN not been hatching a new concept. It was after all the last time realignment targets were essentially formed by the conferences. Back then the interference by the networks was less direct.

Things would be quite different if Jake Crouthamel had been more receptive to the ACC's initial call to Syracuse. If Syracuse shows interest, the ACC would have never gotten around to contacting Florida State and the 'noles probably end up in the SEC as #12 w/ Arkansas.
Blame it on those folks in Tallahassee on on Corrigan for being such a good salesman, but Florida State's decision to reject the SEC and join the ACC changed realignment in the southeast for sure.


BTW JR the climate band theory is the work of Jared Diamond (UCLA geography professor and author of the Pulitzer Prize winning, Guns, Germs and Steel).

Gotta love those unique academic projects that receive awards. There have been oodles of them amounting to not much, even theories well received have later been debunked. I'm not saying this one lacks merit, just that it seems rather confining given the adaptability of people.

As to realignment '91, I agree. Arkansas and F.S.U. would have set the SEC up much better and if the ACC had more aggressively moved North at that time, say 5 additions, Delany would never have gained the toe hold he has now, and Penn State would have faced a few more questions. Spurrier probably never goes to South Carolina, Clemson becomes a darling ahead of their present pace, and Realignment would likely be over.

Not only the adaptability of people but of domesticated animals like sheep and cattle and crops such as wheat and barley which were all spread by people to areas that they were not native.
Fascinating read on the spread of civilization.

I'll probably check that one out X. It's kind of up my alley.

(04-17-2016 04:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-17-2016 03:53 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-17-2016 02:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-17-2016 01:23 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-17-2016 11:06 AM)JRsec Wrote:  ESPN was up to building television markets. Missouri added the 2nd most number of top markets and the 2nd most population. Louisville added market, but more importantly was a compromise for that cobbled together creature called the ACC.

I do like your climate based theory on why species stay within temperate zones however. I didn't realize the ACC people were so climate specific in their needs. Most hominids are more adaptable. But since we are on the topic why did the Big 10 move into Pennsylvania and New Jersey, let alone Maryland?

Conferences didn't think that way until networks showed them a new paradigm for marketing. The whole market concept was once anathema to conference thinking.

So once again you insinuate a position that actually proves my point.

Call me old fashioned but I do prefer we solidify our Southeast first. And we would have in '91 had ESPN not been hatching a new concept. It was after all the last time realignment targets were essentially formed by the conferences. Back then the interference by the networks was less direct.

Things would be quite different if Jake Crouthamel had been more receptive to the ACC's initial call to Syracuse. If Syracuse shows interest, the ACC would have never gotten around to contacting Florida State and the 'noles probably end up in the SEC as #12 w/ Arkansas.
Blame it on those folks in Tallahassee on on Corrigan for being such a good salesman, but Florida State's decision to reject the SEC and join the ACC changed realignment in the southeast for sure.


BTW JR the climate band theory is the work of Jared Diamond (UCLA geography professor and author of the Pulitzer Prize winning, Guns, Germs and Steel).

Gotta love those unique academic projects that receive awards. There have been oodles of them amounting to not much, even theories well received have later been debunked. I'm not saying this one lacks merit, just that it seems rather confining given the adaptability of people.

As to realignment '91, I agree. Arkansas and F.S.U. would have set the SEC up much better and if the ACC had more aggressively moved North at that time, say 5 additions, Delany would never have gained the toe hold he has now, and Penn State would have faced a few more questions. Spurrier probably never goes to South Carolina, Clemson becomes a darling ahead of their present pace, and Realignment would likely be over.

Not only the adaptability of people but of domesticated animals like sheep and cattle and crops such as wheat and barley which were all spread by people to areas that they were not native.
Fascinating read on the spread of civilization.

I'll probably check that one out X. It's kind of up my alley.

Look into Collapse too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/30/books/....html?_r=0


BTW if FSU goes to the SEC in '91. The ACC accepts Notre Dame's 7 year entry schedule, Pitt and Miami join Syracuse for 12.

Not that the anthropology isn't interesting, but we are living in the 21st century. Migration and economic models have changed due to more advanced technology and access to information. I think what would be more relevant in predicting future realignment would be to look at the patterns of corporate America and how they go about acquiring new properties. Regionalism is not nearly as predominant as it once was.

In short, the nation and the world is shrinking whether it be for good or ill. I don't think we're experiencing an phenomenon of oscillation. I don't think we're going back.

(04-17-2016 07:04 AM)XLance Wrote:  Why did ESPN encourage the SEC to take Missouri? By the same token, why would ESPN encourage the ACC to add Louisville? If you were building either conference from scratch, would you add Missouri to the SEC or Louisville to the ACC?
History has shown that consolidation will eventually lead to break up because the sub-sets of the consolidated units will tend to group together. It's interesting that the first time (when the old Southern Conference divided), geography played a big role. Even now JR is advocating FSU and Clemson based not really on "fit" but to seal off an area of geography.
In the natural world things tend to separate based on east-west bands that may be several hundred miles wide, except when they run into natural barriers. This is true of many species of plants and animals, in that their ranges stretch great distances east to west, but not very far north to south. The anomalies in the SEC are Georgia and South Carolina on the eastern side off the Appalachians and LSU on the "other" side of the Mississippi. The old ACC confined itself to the eastern side off the Appalachians, but went out of area with the addition of Florida State.
Louisville an ACC addition? It's on the wrong side of the mountains and not a true academic peer. Missouri? the only thing Missouri has in common with the rest of the SEC is that the State chose to ally itself with the correct side during the War for Southern Economic Independence.
What is ESPN up to?

We were a part of Virginia so looks like Mountains have little to do with it !

from Wiki
Kentucky (Listeni/kənˈtʌki/, kən-tu-kee), officially the Commonwealth of Kentucky, is a state located in the east south-central region of the United States. Kentucky is one of four U.S. states constituted as a commonwealth (the others being Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts). Originally a part of Virginia, in 1792 Kentucky became the 15th state to join the Union. Kentucky is the 37th most extensive and the 26th most populous of the 50 United States.

(04-17-2016 11:14 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Not that the anthropology isn't interesting, but we are living in the 21st century. Migration and economic models have changed due to more advanced technology and access to information. I think what would be more relevant in predicting future realignment would be to look at the patterns of corporate America and how they go about acquiring new properties. Regionalism is not nearly as predominant as it once was.

In short, the nation and the world is shrinking whether it be for good or ill. I don't think we're experiencing an phenomenon of oscillation. I don't think we're going back.

Median household income which was $54,443 in 1997 is now down to $53,657 today. The average person is more picky as to where they spend their money. Travel costs are up, expenses are up but income is flat at best. Student apathy is at an all time high. Regionalism is the only hope college football has to survive that includes large fan involvement. As the injury statistics and concussion studies evolve, football as we know it won't be around in 50 years.
Already we are seeing that Texas (the richest athletic department around) will send it's marching band to only a few conferences games. The latest to be cut out was Texas Tech (a 7 hour bus ride from Austin).
Money (the driving force) is now in shorter supply than ever and it's getting worse and will be the reason that as conferences grow, they will eventually splinter off into more regional groups to help control costs and reduce expenses.

(04-18-2016 07:23 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(04-17-2016 07:04 AM)XLance Wrote:  Why did ESPN encourage the SEC to take Missouri? By the same token, why would ESPN encourage the ACC to add Louisville? If you were building either conference from scratch, would you add Missouri to the SEC or Louisville to the ACC?
History has shown that consolidation will eventually lead to break up because the sub-sets of the consolidated units will tend to group together. It's interesting that the first time (when the old Southern Conference divided), geography played a big role. Even now JR is advocating FSU and Clemson based not really on "fit" but to seal off an area of geography.
In the natural world things tend to separate based on east-west bands that may be several hundred miles wide, except when they run into natural barriers. This is true of many species of plants and animals, in that their ranges stretch great distances east to west, but not very far north to south. The anomalies in the SEC are Georgia and South Carolina on the eastern side off the Appalachians and LSU on the "other" side of the Mississippi. The old ACC confined itself to the eastern side off the Appalachians, but went out of area with the addition of Florida State.
Louisville an ACC addition? It's on the wrong side of the mountains and not a true academic peer. Missouri? the only thing Missouri has in common with the rest of the SEC is that the State chose to ally itself with the correct side during the War for Southern Economic Independence.
What is ESPN up to?

We were a part of Virginia so looks like Mountains have little to do with it !

from Wiki
Kentucky (Listeni/kənˈtʌki/, kən-tu-kee), officially the Commonwealth of Kentucky, is a state located in the east south-central region of the United States. Kentucky is one of four U.S. states constituted as a commonwealth (the others being Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts). Originally a part of Virginia, in 1792 Kentucky became the 15th state to join the Union. Kentucky is the 37th most extensive and the 26th most populous of the 50 United States.

Kentucky was not part of Virginia in 1953.

(04-18-2016 11:30 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-17-2016 11:14 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Not that the anthropology isn't interesting, but we are living in the 21st century. Migration and economic models have changed due to more advanced technology and access to information. I think what would be more relevant in predicting future realignment would be to look at the patterns of corporate America and how they go about acquiring new properties. Regionalism is not nearly as predominant as it once was.

In short, the nation and the world is shrinking whether it be for good or ill. I don't think we're experiencing an phenomenon of oscillation. I don't think we're going back.

Median household income which was $54,443 in 1997 is now down to $53,657 today. The average person is more picky as to where they spend their money. Travel costs are up, expenses are up but income is flat at best. Student apathy is at an all time high. Regionalism is the only hope college football has to survive that includes large fan involvement. As the injury statistics and concussion studies evolve, football as we know it won't be around in 50 years.
Already we are seeing that Texas (the richest athletic department around) will send it's marching band to only a few conferences games. The latest to be cut out was Texas Tech (a 7 hour bus ride from Austin).
Money (the driving force) is now in shorter supply than ever and it's getting worse and will be the reason that as conferences grow, they will eventually splinter off into more regional groups to help control costs and reduce expenses.

I don't disagree with any of this. But I don't think we will break back down into smaller regional conferences. I think we will have isolated 10 school divisions playing within a larger confederation for the purpose of negotiating leverage and I do think those will be grouped sub regionally for divisions and regionally for a conference.

We might one day see a 32 - 36 school SEC broken down into 4 divisions each of which will play a round robin and have a couple of out of division games.

Your theory would be fulfilled by how the divisions were drawn, but the leverage will be necessary in an ever increasingly corporate world.

(04-18-2016 12:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 11:30 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-17-2016 11:14 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Not that the anthropology isn't interesting, but we are living in the 21st century. Migration and economic models have changed due to more advanced technology and access to information. I think what would be more relevant in predicting future realignment would be to look at the patterns of corporate America and how they go about acquiring new properties. Regionalism is not nearly as predominant as it once was.

In short, the nation and the world is shrinking whether it be for good or ill. I don't think we're experiencing an phenomenon of oscillation. I don't think we're going back.

Median household income which was $54,443 in 1997 is now down to $53,657 today. The average person is more picky as to where they spend their money. Travel costs are up, expenses are up but income is flat at best. Student apathy is at an all time high. Regionalism is the only hope college football has to survive that includes large fan involvement. As the injury statistics and concussion studies evolve, football as we know it won't be around in 50 years.
Already we are seeing that Texas (the richest athletic department around) will send it's marching band to only a few conferences games. The latest to be cut out was Texas Tech (a 7 hour bus ride from Austin).
Money (the driving force) is now in shorter supply than ever and it's getting worse and will be the reason that as conferences grow, they will eventually splinter off into more regional groups to help control costs and reduce expenses.

I don't disagree with any of this. But I don't think we will break back down into smaller regional conferences. I think we will have isolated 10 school divisions playing within a larger confederation for the purpose of negotiating leverage and I do think those will be grouped sub regionally for divisions and regionally for a conference.

We might one day see a 32 - 36 school SEC broken down into 4 divisions each of which will play a round robin and have a couple of out of division games.

Your theory would be fulfilled by how the divisions were drawn, but the leverage will be necessary in an ever increasingly corporate world.

A reasonable assessment.

(04-18-2016 11:30 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-17-2016 11:14 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Not that the anthropology isn't interesting, but we are living in the 21st century. Migration and economic models have changed due to more advanced technology and access to information. I think what would be more relevant in predicting future realignment would be to look at the patterns of corporate America and how they go about acquiring new properties. Regionalism is not nearly as predominant as it once was.

In short, the nation and the world is shrinking whether it be for good or ill. I don't think we're experiencing an phenomenon of oscillation. I don't think we're going back.

Median household income which was $54,443 in 1997 is now down to $53,657 today. The average person is more picky as to where they spend their money. Travel costs are up, expenses are up but income is flat at best. Student apathy is at an all time high. Regionalism is the only hope college football has to survive that includes large fan involvement. As the injury statistics and concussion studies evolve, football as we know it won't be around in 50 years.
Already we are seeing that Texas (the richest athletic department around) will send it's marching band to only a few conferences games. The latest to be cut out was Texas Tech (a 7 hour bus ride from Austin).
Money (the driving force) is now in shorter supply than ever and it's getting worse and will be the reason that as conferences grow, they will eventually splinter off into more regional groups to help control costs and reduce expenses.

Technology breaks down barriers though.

The life blood of any money sport is television broadcasts. Yes, the upcoming generation of fans are more apathetic and that makes them far less likely to attend games, but that is true regardless of the opponent. What they are more likely to do, however, is watch TV or subscribe to streaming services.

Networks will be looking for wider audiences to market their product to because it's the best way to generate large amounts of revenue. Notice how European soccer leagues are aggressively marketing their product in the US now despite our complete lack of connection to those leagues and the small but growing affinity we have for the sport. The English Premier League, as a matter of fact, markets their product in dozens of countries around the world. The reason is that the broader the audience the more revenue generating potential you have.

The same dynamic has driven conference expansion. Accessing new markets is all about creating a new audience for the product. It doesn't mean that everyone in that new market has to watch, but as long as you can create additional interest from dedicated fans then the networks are going to make more money.

Then considering that more people are becoming apathetic, the irony is that networks will have to move away from traditional regionalism in order to maintain the numbers. The networks have to think on a national level because that's their market. It probably means there will be greater consolidation at the highest ranks in order to maximize payments and much of the dross will have to be burned away to keep the average payments up.

Think in terms of the average professional sports leagues in the US. They all have about 30 franchises accessing roughly 30 different markets. I'm not saying we'll end up with 30 major college programs, but I think it will be closer to that number than the 65 we have now.

That and I think it's a bit alarmist to assume football will basically disappear within a few decades. Putting aside the obvious that it's hard to predict the future, one thing to consider is that change is typically slow in American culture. The NFL is still the number one sports product. College football is still number two. Football may not always be number one as some people are scared into not playing the game, but one thing we've discovered recently is that concussions and head trauma are somewhat common in a lot of different sports. Football just happens to be the more violent of the current popular sports.

Either way, if college sports are to survive then it won't matter what sport takes the top spot. If football dies a slow death then something else will replace it, but the market dynamics with regard to needing wide audiences will remain the same.

(04-18-2016 12:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I don't disagree with any of this. But I don't think we will break back down into smaller regional conferences. I think we will have isolated 10 school divisions playing within a larger confederation for the purpose of negotiating leverage and I do think those will be grouped sub regionally for divisions and regionally for a conference.

We might one day see a 32 - 36 school SEC broken down into 4 divisions each of which will play a round robin and have a couple of out of division games.

Your theory would be fulfilled by how the divisions were drawn, but the leverage will be necessary in an ever increasingly corporate world.

I do tend to think we'll end up with some sort of national structure with regional divisions. I could see that sort of league ending up with 40-48 programs across the country though. The SEC as we know it may not exist.

I could live with a regional football structure over a conference structure.

South Region
Division 1: FSU, Florida, Miami, Georgia, GT, NC, Duke, Virginia, VT

Division 2: Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, LSU, Ole Miss, Miss State, Kentucky, Louisville

East Region
Division 1: Ohio St, Michigan, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Maryland, WV, Rutgers, UCONN

Division 2: Wisconsin, Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, ND, Michigan State, Cincinnati

Central Region
Division 1: Texas, TT, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa State, Baylor, Purdue, Northwestern, Kansas State

Division 2: Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Arkansas, Texas A&M, TCU, Colorado St, New Mexico, Houston, SMU

West Region
Division 1: Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State, BYU, Boise, San Diego St, UNLV, Wyoming

Division 2: USC, Stanford, UCLA, Cal, Arizona, Arizona St, Colorado, Utah, Utah State

(04-18-2016 12:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 11:30 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-17-2016 11:14 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Not that the anthropology isn't interesting, but we are living in the 21st century. Migration and economic models have changed due to more advanced technology and access to information. I think what would be more relevant in predicting future realignment would be to look at the patterns of corporate America and how they go about acquiring new properties. Regionalism is not nearly as predominant as it once was.

In short, the nation and the world is shrinking whether it be for good or ill. I don't think we're experiencing an phenomenon of oscillation. I don't think we're going back.

Median household income which was $54,443 in 1997 is now down to $53,657 today. The average person is more picky as to where they spend their money. Travel costs are up, expenses are up but income is flat at best. Student apathy is at an all time high. Regionalism is the only hope college football has to survive that includes large fan involvement. As the injury statistics and concussion studies evolve, football as we know it won't be around in 50 years.
Already we are seeing that Texas (the richest athletic department around) will send it's marching band to only a few conferences games. The latest to be cut out was Texas Tech (a 7 hour bus ride from Austin).
Money (the driving force) is now in shorter supply than ever and it's getting worse and will be the reason that as conferences grow, they will eventually splinter off into more regional groups to help control costs and reduce expenses.

I don't disagree with any of this. But I don't think we will break back down into smaller regional conferences. I think we will have isolated 10 school divisions playing within a larger confederation for the purpose of negotiating leverage and I do think those will be grouped sub regionally for divisions and regionally for a conference.

We might one day see a 32 - 36 school SEC broken down into 4 divisions each of which will play a round robin and have a couple of out of division games.

Your theory would be fulfilled by how the divisions were drawn, but the leverage will be necessary in an ever increasingly corporate world.

Which is why I think that the ACC merges with the B1G to set up three divisions and the SEC takes in The Big 12 to divide into two.

The current SEC minus Arkansas and Missouri which both go to the Big 12 to make 11 (add Houston, Tulane, New Mexico or Colorado State for 12?).
The ACC would consist of Miami, Florida State, GT, Clemson, Carolina, Dook, NCSU Wake Forest, UVa, and VT.

A northeast conference: BC, Syracuse, UConn, Rutgers, Penn State, Pitt, West Virginia, Cincinnati, Louisville and Maryland.

The B1G then goes back to 11

The PAC is safely secure and isolated.

That's 3 leagues with 6 entities of at least 10 teams.

(04-16-2016 04:15 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  ...
What I'd be fine with, and some of you already know I like the number 24...is taking a Texahoma 4...Texas, Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State. Then pull in a group from the East...Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, NC State, Virginia Tech, and Louisville. Let the Big Ten have UNC and UVA. I'd rather lock up our region and not worry about having too many schools that will find reasons not to be happy here.

I don't think the SEC would *let* the Big Ten have anything. Indeed, Sankey has stated that the SEC will look at great brands and markets in contiguous states with schools that have achieved academic and athletic excellence - AAU schools like UNC, Duke, and UVA at the top of the list.

ATLANTIC: Florida St., Clemson, UNC, Duke, UVA, *GA Tech or VA Tech
WEST: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, *OSU or TTech(?)
EAST: Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, South Carolina, Kentucky, Vanderbilt
SOUTH: Ole Miss, Mississippi St., Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Texas A&M

^ Arkansas prefer the South division? Missouri prefer East? South? A&M refuse West? Perhaps Arkansas and Missouri are thrown a bone by getting more South (Arkansas) and East (Missouri) schools in cross-division play.

SEC would own college football and basketball from Texas to Florida and almost everything south of the Missouri Compromise line.

The ACC would backfill, mostly on the SEC-B1G border (WVU, Cincy, UConn, but also USF/UCF). Not sure if Notre Dame would stay with the reconstituted ACC or pursue Big East affiliation.

Big 12 would backfill (Houston, Memphis, BYU?). Although, there's a chance that the PAC could expand with some Big 12 parts.

The ripples would extend to MWC, AAC, C-USA, and Sun Belt (and may be even MAC) realignment.

I'll go ahead and post this here. This is a breakdown of each school's ability to attract elite students. Elite is a student with over a 30 on the ACT, or equivalent. It is rather interesting.

The most interesting part is that you see that AAU, when it comes to college athletics, is a club, not a collection of elite universities.

I've added some others in just to give you a sense of the landscape.

To visualize...

_______________________________________________SEC Top
Vanderbilt 92%



***Stanford 88%


***Northwestern 85%




***Georgia Tech 80%






***California-Berkley 72%





***Virginia 67%
***Michigan 67%







***Miami 60%









***North Carolina 51%






***Ohio State 44%

***Texas 43%


***Wisconsin 41%
***Pittsburgh 41%
***Clemson 41%

Florida 40%


***Washington 38%


Alabama 36%
***Minnesota 36%
***Purdue 36%
***NC State 36%

Georgia 34%



Auburn 31%

***Indiana 30%



Tennessee 27%
A&M 27%

***Colorado 26%


***Penn State 25%

South Carolina 24%


***Oklahoma 22%

***Baylor 21%

***Louisville 20%

***Nebraska 19%

Missouri 18%
Arkansas 18%
Kentucky 18%
***Iowa 18%


Mississippi State 16%
***Kansas State 16%
***Kansas 16%
***Central Florida 16%

LSU 15%
***Cincinnati 15%
Ole Miss 15%
------------------------------------------------------------------SEC Floor
***Iowa State 15%
***Houston 15%

***South Florida 14%
***Rutgers 14%
***Oklahoma State 14%


***Arizona 12%

***Oregon 11%
***Louisiana Tech 11%

***Florida State 10%
***Southern Mississippi 10%

***Texas Tech 9%

***Memphis 8%
***Arkansas State 8%

***Washington State 7%

***South Alabama 6%

***West Virginia 5%

***Georgia Southern 4%

***North Alabama 3%
***Georgia State 3%

***East Carolina 2%

If you want somebody added in just let me know and I will dig around and see if I can find their information.

Some of these will change a little bit as the 2015-2016 information is updated. I used the most recent information available for each school.

It is probably worth pointing out that a 30-36 ACT score is in the top 1% of test scores in the nation. Those are highly desirable kids. And, the majority of these schools derive the overwhelming majority of their students from the top 20% of test takers nationally, with the exception of the regional schools with single digit scores here who mostly have student in the middle 50% of test takers.

I'm game for Clemson and FSU. I like Louisville/VT/UNC/or ncst depending on what you would want to secure for the last couple spots.

(04-19-2016 11:45 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  If you want somebody added in just let me know and I will dig around and see if I can find their information.

Can you find stats on:

Iowa State, Stanford, Northwestern, NC State, and Pittsburgh?

(04-19-2016 05:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(04-19-2016 11:45 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  If you want somebody added in just let me know and I will dig around and see if I can find their information.

Can you find stats on:

Iowa State, Stanford, Northwestern, NC State, and Pittsburgh?

Updated

(04-19-2016 05:26 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-19-2016 05:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(04-19-2016 11:45 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  If you want somebody added in just let me know and I will dig around and see if I can find their information.

Can you find stats on:

Iowa State, Stanford, Northwestern, NC State, and Pittsburgh?

Updated

Thanks!