Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
What if the P5 absorbed a few G5 schools in a breakaway
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #1
What if the P5 absorbed a few G5 schools in a breakaway
Reading Dodd's article from the other day, I would agree with commenters that 90-100 schools seems a little steep. Competitively speaking, that number would probably work, but I think you'll start dragging down the payments with that sort of number.

Let me propose though a way to incorporate some additional schools without too many alterations being made to the current system.

I make this proposal because I think 48-60 is probably too small. The money is more efficiently spent, but you'll have a problem with balancing competition on the lower rung. Some of the P5 schools in the lower grouping won't have anyone to beat with any consistency and I'm concerned that may cause some instability. So I'd like to create an additional rung of schools for that reason as well as including some large flagship schools around the country so that the politicians don't get too antsy with their respective constituencies.

So what if the current P5 simply adds a few members to each league?

I don't see the infrastructure of the current P5 being done away with. There's a lot of risk in officially dissolving these conferences once and for all. What I see instead is a cartel of sorts where the P5 have equal authority in the leadership of the overall organization. Given that framework, I don't think you'd want to add a bunch of new conferences to that alignment anyway because it monkeys with the power dynamics.

The Big East would be an exception to that rule, but their decisions don't affect football so it shouldn't be a big deal.

So how about this?

We have 5 Power conferences so why not have 16 members each?

Now, here's the tricky part. The PAC 12 and the Big 12 are smaller than the rest so their product would be too diluted if they added 4 and 6 respectively. In this scenario, they are allowed to merge in some respects. I'll call it the Pacific Western Conference because I've always liked that name.

The PWC adds Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State. They now stand at 16.

The SEC adds TCU and South Florida

Notre Dame agrees to enter the ACC fully and the league finishes up by adding Cincinnati

The Big Ten adds Kansas and Iowa State

Now what is left of the Big 12 will have their choice in rebuilding their league. I would suggest a bevy of schools from across the country so that their league is well represented. Note here that this league will still receive equal authority and money within the framework of the new organization. This is key because there are a ton of marginal schools that would be able to compete from time to time. Their inclusion will make things a little more interesting while at the same time providing a little more cannon fodder for the lower rung of the established P5.

Add to that, some of the postseason tournaments would lose the casual fan if they didn't have Cinderella stories and underdog battles to follow. TV time slots are important too. This league can fill those in multiple time zones when the big boys don't necessarily want to play. This league of upstarts fills a lot of roles.

Baylor, Kansas State, and West Virginia have been left behind. The small number of selectors here should make it easy to build a new league...fewer sets of priorities to meet.

West: San Diego State, UNLV, BYU, Boise State
Mountain: Wyoming, Colorado State, New Mexico, Kansas State
Central: Baylor, SMU, Houston, Memphis,
East: Central Florida, East Carolina, Temple, West Virginia

So all in all, you have 80 schools inside a P5 framework. We've included key members from the AAC and the MWC without taking the whole of the leagues. We've included some quality basketball and baseball teams that will add to the overall competitiveness of the new organization throughout the year.
(This post was last modified: 05-31-2020 09:44 AM by AllTideUp.)
05-31-2020 12:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


bill dazzle Offline
Craft beer and urban living enthusiast
*

Posts: 10,382
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 946
I Root For: Vandy/Memphis/DePaul/UNC
Location: Nashville
Post: #2
RE: What if the P5 absorbed a few G5 schools in a breakaway
(05-31-2020 12:11 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Reading Dodd's article from the other day, I would agree with commenters that 90-100 schools seems a little steep. Competitively speaking, that number would probably work, but I think you'll start dragging down the payments with that sort of number.

Let me propose though a way to incorporate some additional schools without too many alterations being made to the current system.

I make this proposal because I think 48-60 is probably too small. The money is more efficiently spent, but you'll have a problem with balancing competition on the lower rung. Some of the P5 schools in the lower grouping won't have anyone to beat with any consistency and I'm concerned that may cause some instability. So I'd like to create an additional rung of schools for that reason as well as including some large flagship schools around the country so that the politicians don't get too antsy with their respective constituencies.

So what if the current P5 simply adds a few members to each league?

I don't see the infrastructure of the current P5 being done away with. There's a lot of risk in officially dissolving these conferences once and for all. What I see instead is a cartel of sorts where the P5 have equal authority in the leadership of the overall organization. Given that framework, I don't think you'd want to add a bunch of new conferences to that alignment anyway because it monkeys with the Power dynamics.

The Big East would be an exception to that rule, but their decisions don't affect football so it shouldn't be a big deal.

So how about this?

We have 5 Power conferences so why not have 16 members each?

Now, here's the tricky part. The PAC 12 and the Big 12 are smaller than the rest so their product would be too diluted if they added 4 and 6 respectively. In this scenario, they are allowed to merge in some respects. I'll call it the Pacific Western Conference because I've always liked that name.

The PWC adds Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State. They now stand at 16.

The SEC adds TCU and South Florida

Notre Dame agrees to enter the ACC fully and the league finishes up by adding Cincinnati

The Big Ten adds Kansas and Iowa State

Now what is left of the Big 12 will have their choice in rebuilding their league. I would suggest a bevy of schools from across the country so that their league is well represented. Note here that this league will still receive equal authority and money within the framework of the new organization. This is key because there are a ton of marginal schools that would be able to compete from to time. Their inclusion will make things a little more interesting while at the same time providing a little more canon fodder for the lower run of the established P5.

Add to that, some of the postseason tournaments would lose the casual fan if they didn't have Cinderella stories and underdog battles to follow. TV time slots are important too. This league can fill them in multiple time zones when the big boys don't necessarily want to play. This league of upstarts fills a lot of roles.

Baylor, Kansas State, and West Virginia have been left behind. The small number of selectors here should make it easy to build a new league...fewer sets of priorities to meet.

West: San Diego State, UNLV, BYU, Boise State
Mountain: Wyoming, Colorado State, New Mexico, Kansas State
Central: Baylor, SMU, Houston, Memphis,
East: Central Florida, East Carolina, Temple, West Virginia

So all in all, you have 80 schools inside a P5 framework. We've included key members from the AAC and the MWC without taking the whole of the leagues. We've included some quality basketball and baseball teams that will add to the overall competitiveness of the new organization throughout the year.



This is actually realistic and could work.
05-31-2020 08:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #3
RE: What if the P5 absorbed a few G5 schools in a breakaway
(05-31-2020 08:43 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  
(05-31-2020 12:11 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Reading Dodd's article from the other day, I would agree with commenters that 90-100 schools seems a little steep. Competitively speaking, that number would probably work, but I think you'll start dragging down the payments with that sort of number.

Let me propose though a way to incorporate some additional schools without too many alterations being made to the current system.

I make this proposal because I think 48-60 is probably too small. The money is more efficiently spent, but you'll have a problem with balancing competition on the lower rung. Some of the P5 schools in the lower grouping won't have anyone to beat with any consistency and I'm concerned that may cause some instability. So I'd like to create an additional rung of schools for that reason as well as including some large flagship schools around the country so that the politicians don't get too antsy with their respective constituencies.

So what if the current P5 simply adds a few members to each league?

I don't see the infrastructure of the current P5 being done away with. There's a lot of risk in officially dissolving these conferences once and for all. What I see instead is a cartel of sorts where the P5 have equal authority in the leadership of the overall organization. Given that framework, I don't think you'd want to add a bunch of new conferences to that alignment anyway because it monkeys with the Power dynamics.

The Big East would be an exception to that rule, but their decisions don't affect football so it shouldn't be a big deal.

So how about this?

We have 5 Power conferences so why not have 16 members each?

Now, here's the tricky part. The PAC 12 and the Big 12 are smaller than the rest so their product would be too diluted if they added 4 and 6 respectively. In this scenario, they are allowed to merge in some respects. I'll call it the Pacific Western Conference because I've always liked that name.

The PWC adds Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State. They now stand at 16.

The SEC adds TCU and South Florida

Notre Dame agrees to enter the ACC fully and the league finishes up by adding Cincinnati

The Big Ten adds Kansas and Iowa State

Now what is left of the Big 12 will have their choice in rebuilding their league. I would suggest a bevy of schools from across the country so that their league is well represented. Note here that this league will still receive equal authority and money within the framework of the new organization. This is key because there are a ton of marginal schools that would be able to compete from to time. Their inclusion will make things a little more interesting while at the same time providing a little more canon fodder for the lower run of the established P5.

Add to that, some of the postseason tournaments would lose the casual fan if they didn't have Cinderella stories and underdog battles to follow. TV time slots are important too. This league can fill them in multiple time zones when the big boys don't necessarily want to play. This league of upstarts fills a lot of roles.

Baylor, Kansas State, and West Virginia have been left behind. The small number of selectors here should make it easy to build a new league...fewer sets of priorities to meet.

West: San Diego State, UNLV, BYU, Boise State
Mountain: Wyoming, Colorado State, New Mexico, Kansas State
Central: Baylor, SMU, Houston, Memphis,
East: Central Florida, East Carolina, Temple, West Virginia

So all in all, you have 80 schools inside a P5 framework. We've included key members from the AAC and the MWC without taking the whole of the leagues. We've included some quality basketball and baseball teams that will add to the overall competitiveness of the new organization throughout the year.



This is actually realistic and could work.

If there is a breakaway regionality and structure will be very important to the networks paying the money to make it happen. Content value will also be paramount.

Therein lies what is realistic and could work.

The structure would have to yield the playoff participants to make the regular season games more meaningful. Wild cards would probably be employed sparsely for this number to keep fan bases energized deeper into the season. Markets would matter, but I seriously doubt Wyoming makes that cut given their demographics don't move needles in anything, although I like their school and their football team and if my heart was leading the selection they'd be in.

So when you think about a breakaway the best structure is symmetrical and like with features on the human face most people find anything with symmetry more appealing. It is an innate prejudice that is profitable to pursue.

Therefore if there is a breakaway I look for four regional conferences making sure that each main regional grouping has games of interest locally all year long and that their representative(s) in the playoff structure will likely draw the interest of their entire region because the network's push will be to help everyone in that region buy into that season's winners, which is what they do now only less efficiently because of the structure.

I think ATU is correct in that 48-60 won't produce the kinds of records conducive to college football fan support. But we only cross that 60 marker if the networks believe it too.

So for the sake argument let's assume they decide that 72 is better. If you want realistic then first work the existing schools into 4 regional groupings. The Big 10 and SEC are gestalt. In this case the ACC stands alone so it stays as is. You would have to merge the Big 12 and PAC. So take the 6 state schools that must stay together Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas and Kansas State join the schools of the PAC. And here we are assuming that none of the 65 are leaving as they all have better numbers than the G5's that would be promoted.

So ATU's PWC is set:
Arizona, Arizona State, California Los Angeles, Colorado, Southern Cal, Utah
California, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State
Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

SEC:
Let's go with both Baylor and T.C.U. even though I'm not sold on Baylor but we are accounting for all current 65 schools and the SEC is best positioned to take them and expand their Texas presence.

I also think there is tremendous upside to South Florida as a promotion school. So add them as well. Now where do we look? Do we take Central Florida as well? It is at least a large school in a large state. Do we look at East Carolina for market expansion as they do have a well supported program? I don't think we take Memphis having Vanderbilt and Tennessee already in a medium sized state. Tulane as an academic re-addition? likely not. Houston? This would be fine except Baylor and A&M cover this area of Texas fairly well.

I think my lean here would be both Florida schools each of which has upside although right now their numbers aren't SEC level. With SEC money that might well change in a few years.

So the SEC looks like this:
Arkansas, Baylor, Louisiana State, Missouri, Texas A&M, T.C.U.
Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Central Florida, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, South Florida

The ACC adds Notre Dame all in, Cincinnati, West Virginia, and Temple.

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

Here comes your problem child, the Big 10. They get paid to add Iowa State, they pick up a school in New York, Army. They add another school in Maryland, Navy. And they add Colorado to their footprint just not with the Buffaloes, Air Force.

It is kind of an academic fit, it contains the Commander in Chief's trophy and picks up the Armed Services Network audience. With their academic requirements that's the best that can be done for them given the merger of the PAC and Big 12 which in this case makes sense.

San Diego State, Houston, and other deserving schools are merely victims of geography and market duplication. But those are realities.

Now adjustments could be made for the Big 10 giving them Iowa State, Kansas, and Oklahoma and sending Baylor and T.C.U. to the PAC but who is #4? Is it Missouri? If so the SEC would want some serious consideration for either Texas or Oklahoma? Does the ACC give up a school to the SEC to make this work? Why would they as it would only diminish their value.

So realistic? Marginally. My point is sending Oklahoma and Texas to the PAC with their other in state schools is logical in this scenario, but it leaves the Big 10 few options. So if one of the two top conferences isn't pleased then how does this work? It doesn't.

This gets us back to why 60 is workable, reasonable, and realistic as it satisfies all of the criteria of the Big 10, the SEC, and the Networks.

The Big 12 and PAC do merge but culling the weakest schools. Drop Oregon State and Washington State. Add the 7 state schools of the Big 12 not named West Virginia. Add B.Y.U.. Add T.C.U. and Baylor both of which have athletic departments that rank above many of the remaining PAC schools. Now you have 20 solid financially strong athletic departments. Put B.Y.U. with the Big 12 grouping and you have a balance in politics as well.

The Big 10 expands out of the ACC. North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, Notre Dame, Georgia Tech and Pittsburgh.

The SEC expands out of the ACC. Clemson, Florida State, Louisville, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, and Miami

There's your best 60. There are schools that fit their conferences. There's a group that the networks like because of the market vs market games to be played.

Add to that breakaway group the best basketball only schools in the nation, about 20 of them. The Big East picks up Syracuse and B.C. and possibly even Wake. A new Basketball only conference is founded with the rest.

There's a marketable breakaway that pays.

Now if the networks and conferences decide together that the win/loss records don't work then build another 20 member football conference of the best of the G5 and possible remnants of the old P5 (Oregon State, Washington State) and call it a day. But no more. Now we are right there at 100 schools in the breakaway. 3 super conferences, 1 access conference for football schools and 2 basketball only conferences with the best of the rest. If the networks will pay for that access conference everybody wins and this with variation is what ATU has done. But the obstacle that cannot be overcome easily will be the Big 10's insistence upon AAU or Academic leader additions. That virtually assures us they will have to take from the Big 12 or ACC or both and there's the monkey wrench in the machine that the SEC will have to respond to. And when that happens simply picking off a school or two to get to 16 or 18 or 20 is no longer viable because those 2 conferences aren't just going to take what's left and networks aren't going to want to pay UCF, USF, Cincy, or whomever whatever the going rate is in the SEC or Big 10 or ACC. So to expand the football playing schools an access conference almost assuredly must be formed and for less overall revenue. And since symmetry and structure of the conferences will be essential in designing a playoff into the system 5 conferences isn't going to work. So the current 5 are much more likely to be reduced to 3 so that the 4th, the access conference, can be formed and built into the structure.
(This post was last modified: 06-01-2020 01:05 PM by JRsec.)
05-31-2020 09:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


CoastalJuan Offline
Business Drunk
*

Posts: 6,900
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation: 517
I Root For: ECU
Location: Right near da beeach
Post: #4
RE: What if the P5 absorbed a few G5 schools in a breakaway
(05-31-2020 12:11 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  The SEC adds TCU and South Florida

East: Central Florida, East Carolina, Temple, West Virginia

Swap USF and ECU and you've got our vote. USF needs to be paired with UCF to maintain the War on I4 anyway.
(This post was last modified: 06-02-2020 07:00 AM by CoastalJuan.)
06-02-2020 06:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OdinFrigg Offline
Gone Fishing
*

Posts: 1,791
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 397
I Root For: Canine & Avian
Location: 4,250 mi sw of Oslo
Post: #5
RE: What if the P5 absorbed a few G5 schools in a breakaway
(05-31-2020 09:55 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-31-2020 08:43 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  
(05-31-2020 12:11 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Reading Dodd's article from the other day, I would agree with commenters that 90-100 schools seems a little steep. Competitively speaking, that number would probably work, but I think you'll start dragging down the payments with that sort of number.

Let me propose though a way to incorporate some additional schools without too many alterations being made to the current system.

I make this proposal because I think 48-60 is probably too small. The money is more efficiently spent, but you'll have a problem with balancing competition on the lower rung. Some of the P5 schools in the lower grouping won't have anyone to beat with any consistency and I'm concerned that may cause some instability. So I'd like to create an additional rung of schools for that reason as well as including some large flagship schools around the country so that the politicians don't get too antsy with their respective constituencies.

So what if the current P5 simply adds a few members to each league?

I don't see the infrastructure of the current P5 being done away with. There's a lot of risk in officially dissolving these conferences once and for all. What I see instead is a cartel of sorts where the P5 have equal authority in the leadership of the overall organization. Given that framework, I don't think you'd want to add a bunch of new conferences to that alignment anyway because it monkeys with the Power dynamics.

The Big East would be an exception to that rule, but their decisions don't affect football so it shouldn't be a big deal.

So how about this?

We have 5 Power conferences so why not have 16 members each?

Now, here's the tricky part. The PAC 12 and the Big 12 are smaller than the rest so their product would be too diluted if they added 4 and 6 respectively. In this scenario, they are allowed to merge in some respects. I'll call it the Pacific Western Conference because I've always liked that name.

The PWC adds Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State. They now stand at 16.

The SEC adds TCU and South Florida

Notre Dame agrees to enter the ACC fully and the league finishes up by adding Cincinnati

The Big Ten adds Kansas and Iowa State

Now what is left of the Big 12 will have their choice in rebuilding their league. I would suggest a bevy of schools from across the country so that their league is well represented. Note here that this league will still receive equal authority and money within the framework of the new organization. This is key because there are a ton of marginal schools that would be able to compete from to time. Their inclusion will make things a little more interesting while at the same time providing a little more canon fodder for the lower run of the established P5.

Add to that, some of the postseason tournaments would lose the casual fan if they didn't have Cinderella stories and underdog battles to follow. TV time slots are important too. This league can fill them in multiple time zones when the big boys don't necessarily want to play. This league of upstarts fills a lot of roles.

Baylor, Kansas State, and West Virginia have been left behind. The small number of selectors here should make it easy to build a new league...fewer sets of priorities to meet.

West: San Diego State, UNLV, BYU, Boise State
Mountain: Wyoming, Colorado State, New Mexico, Kansas State
Central: Baylor, SMU, Houston, Memphis,
East: Central Florida, East Carolina, Temple, West Virginia

So all in all, you have 80 schools inside a P5 framework. We've included key members from the AAC and the MWC without taking the whole of the leagues. We've included some quality basketball and baseball teams that will add to the overall competitiveness of the new organization throughout the year.



This is actually realistic and could work.

If there is a breakaway regionality and structure will be very important to the networks paying the money to make it happen. Content value will also be paramount.

Therein lies what is realistic and could work.

The structure would have to yield the playoff participants to make the regular season games more meaningful. Wild cards would probably be employed sparsely for this number to keep fan bases energized deeper into the season. Markets would matter, but I seriously doubt Wyoming makes that cut given their demographics don't move needles in anything, although I like their school and their football team and if my heart was leading the selection they'd be in.

So when you think about a breakaway the best structure is symmetrical and like with features on the human face most people find anything with symmetry more appealing. It is an innate prejudice that is profitable to pursue.

Therefconferences making sureore if there is a breakaway I look for four regional that each main regional grouping has games of interest locally all year long and that their representative(s) in the playoff structure will likely draw the interest of their entire region because the network's push will be to help everyone in that region buy into that season's winners, which is what they do now only less efficiently because of the structure.

I think ATU is correct in that 48-60 won't produce the kinds of records conducive to college football fan support. But we only cross that 60 marker if the networks believe it too.

So for the sake argument let's assume they decide that 72 is better. If you want realistic then first work the existing schools into 4 regional groupings. The Big 10 and SEC are gestalt. In this case the ACC stands alone so it stays as is. You would have to merge the Big 12 and PAC. So take the 6 state schools that must stay together Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas and Kansas State join the schools of the PAC. And here we are assuming that none of the 65 are leaving as they all have better numbers than the G5's that would be promoted.

So ATU's PWC is set:
Arizona, Arizona State, California Los Angeles, Colorado, Southern Cal, Utah
California, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State
Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

SEC:
Let's go with both Baylor and T.C.U. even though I'm not sold on Baylor but we are accounting for all current 65 schools and the SEC is best positioned to take them and expand their Texas presence.

I also think there is tremendous upside to South Florida as a promotion school. So add them as well. Now where do we look? Do we take Central Florida as well? It is at least a large school in a large state. Do we look at East Carolina for market expansion as they do have a well supported program? I don't think we take Memphis having Vanderbilt and Tennessee already in a medium sized state. Tulane as an academic re-addition? likely not. Houston? This would be fine except Baylor and A&M cover this area of Texas fairly well.

I think my lean here would be both Florida schools each of which has upside although right now their numbers aren't SEC level. With SEC money that might well change in a few years.

So the SEC looks like this:
Arkansas, Baylor, Louisiana State, Missouri, Texas A&M, T.C.U.
Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Central Florida, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, South Florida

The ACC adds Notre Dame all in, Cincinnati, West Virginia, and Temple.

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

Here comes your problem child, the Big 10. They get paid to add Iowa State, they pick up a school in New York, Army. They add another school in Maryland, Navy. And they add Colorado to their footprint just not with the Buffaloes, Air Force.

It is kind of an academic fit, it contains the Commander in Chief's trophy and picks up the Armed Services Network audience. With their academic requirements that's the best that can be done for them given the merger of the PAC and Big 12 which in this case makes sense.

San Diego State, Houston, and other deserving schools are merely victims of geography and market duplication. But those are realities.

Now adjustments could be made for the Big 10 giving them Iowa State, Kansas, and Oklahoma and sending Baylor and T.C.U. to the PAC but who is #4? Is it Missouri? If so the SEC would want some serious consideration for either Texas or Oklahoma? Does the ACC give up a school to the SEC to make this work? Why would they as it would only diminish their value.

So realistic? Marginally. My point is sending Oklahoma and Texas to the PAC with their other in state schools is logical in this scenario, but it leaves the Big 10 few options. So if one of the two top conferences isn't pleased then how does this work? It doesn't.

This gets us back to why 60 is workable, reasonable, and realistic as it satisfies all of the criteria of the Big 10, the SEC, and the Networks.

The Big 12 and PAC do merge but culling the weakest schools. Drop Oregon State and Washington State. Add the 7 state schools of the Big 12 not named West Virginia. Add B.Y.U.. Add T.C.U. and Baylor both of which have athletic departments that rank above many of the remaining PAC schools. Now you have 20 solid financially strong athletic departments. Put B.Y.U. with the Big 12 grouping and you have a balance in politics as well.

The Big 10 expands out of the ACC. North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, Notre Dame, Georgia Tech and Pittsburgh.

The SEC expands out of the ACC. Clemson, Florida State, Louisville, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, and Miami

There's your best 60. There are schools that fit their conferences. There's a group that the networks like because of the market vs market games to be played.

Add to that breakaway group the best basketball only schools in the nation, about 20 of them. The Big East picks up Syracuse and B.C. and possibly even Wake. A new Basketball only conference is founded with the rest.

There's a marketable breakaway that pays.

Now if the networks and conferences decide together that the win/loss records don't work then build another 20 member football conference of the best of the G5 and possible remnants of the old P5 (Oregon State, Washington State) and call it a day. But no more. Now we are right there at 100 schools in the breakaway. 3 super conferences, 1 access conference for football schools and 2 basketball only conferences with the best of the rest. If the networks will pay for that access conference everybody wins and this with variation is what ATU has done. But the obstacle that cannot be overcome easily will be the Big 10's insistence upon AAU or Academic leader additions. That virtually assures us they will have to take from the Big 12 or ACC or both and there's the monkey wrench in the machine that the SEC will have to respond to. And when that happens simply picking off a school or two to get to 16 or 18 or 20 is no longer viable because those 2 conferences aren't just going to take what's left and networks aren't going to want to pay UCF, USF, Cincy, or whomever whatever the going rate is in the SEC or Big 10 or ACC. So to expand the football playing schools an access conference almost assuredly must be formed and for less overall revenue. And since symmetry and structure of the conferences will be essential in designing a playoff into the system 5 conferences isn't going to work. So the current 5 are much more likely to be reduced to 3 so that the 4th, the access conference, can be formed and built into the structure.

I like your "regional" comments highlighted above, JRsec.

Here is a speculative, fun article about the future nonconference scheduling of football at the USC. While I have a different perspective on some of the more national games espoused, I generally agree on the more regional names suggested.

I do agree, USC, stay away from Navy. Not sure any other school would say that. I was at that shattering 1984 game with Navy in Annapolis.

I would add Georgia Southern as a "sometimes" G5 opponent. Statesboro is only a couple of hours drive from Columbia. GSU also has a nice branch campus (former Armstrong State) in Savannah.

https://www.thestate.com/sports/college/...14996.html
(This post was last modified: 06-02-2020 10:35 AM by OdinFrigg.)
06-02-2020 10:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie Mark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,719
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 1392
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #6
RE: What if the P5 absorbed a few G5 schools in a breakaway
(05-31-2020 12:11 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Reading Dodd's article from the other day, I would agree with commenters that 90-100 schools seems a little steep. Competitively speaking, that number would probably work, but I think you'll start dragging down the payments with that sort of number.

Let me propose though a way to incorporate some additional schools without too many alterations being made to the current system.

I make this proposal because I think 48-60 is probably too small. The money is more efficiently spent, but you'll have a problem with balancing competition on the lower rung. Some of the P5 schools in the lower grouping won't have anyone to beat with any consistency and I'm concerned that may cause some instability. So I'd like to create an additional rung of schools for that reason as well as including some large flagship schools around the country so that the politicians don't get too antsy with their respective constituencies.

So what if the current P5 simply adds a few members to each league?

I don't see the infrastructure of the current P5 being done away with. There's a lot of risk in officially dissolving these conferences once and for all. What I see instead is a cartel of sorts where the P5 have equal authority in the leadership of the overall organization. Given that framework, I don't think you'd want to add a bunch of new conferences to that alignment anyway because it monkeys with the power dynamics.

The Big East would be an exception to that rule, but their decisions don't affect football so it shouldn't be a big deal.

So how about this?

We have 5 Power conferences so why not have 16 members each?

Now, here's the tricky part. The PAC 12 and the Big 12 are smaller than the rest so their product would be too diluted if they added 4 and 6 respectively. In this scenario, they are allowed to merge in some respects. I'll call it the Pacific Western Conference because I've always liked that name.

The PWC adds Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State. They now stand at 16.

The SEC adds TCU and South Florida

Notre Dame agrees to enter the ACC fully and the league finishes up by adding Cincinnati

The Big Ten adds Kansas and Iowa State

Now what is left of the Big 12 will have their choice in rebuilding their league. I would suggest a bevy of schools from across the country so that their league is well represented. Note here that this league will still receive equal authority and money within the framework of the new organization. This is key because there are a ton of marginal schools that would be able to compete from time to time. Their inclusion will make things a little more interesting while at the same time providing a little more cannon fodder for the lower rung of the established P5.

Add to that, some of the postseason tournaments would lose the casual fan if they didn't have Cinderella stories and underdog battles to follow. TV time slots are important too. This league can fill those in multiple time zones when the big boys don't necessarily want to play. This league of upstarts fills a lot of roles.

Baylor, Kansas State, and West Virginia have been left behind. The small number of selectors here should make it easy to build a new league...fewer sets of priorities to meet.

West: San Diego State, UNLV, BYU, Boise State
Mountain: Wyoming, Colorado State, New Mexico, Kansas State
Central: Baylor, SMU, Houston, Memphis,
East: Central Florida, East Carolina, Temple, West Virginia

So all in all, you have 80 schools inside a P5 framework. We've included key members from the AAC and the MWC without taking the whole of the leagues. We've included some quality basketball and baseball teams that will add to the overall competitiveness of the new organization throughout the year.

PLAUSIBLE.
06-04-2020 11:53 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.