I've posted some things similar to this in the past, but I just wanted to outline a way for ESPN to essentially control the content of the Power leagues.

It would involve a strategic plan to use both the SEC and PAC to break up the Big 12. The key here is that the PAC is vulnerable. Their network isn't making big money, their markets aren't that interested in college sports, and the size of the league is a disadvantage.

Fortunately for the PAC, the only league in a position geographically to take advantage of their weakness is the Big 12. The Big 12 is in an even weaker position, however.

Step 1: ESPN needs to purchase the PAC Network and the bait here is Texas. That's what the PAC needs badly and they should be willing to work with a network partner more closely given their financial difficulties. So ESPN could buy the PAC Network for a bargain price in exchange for ensuring that Texas goes West.

Once ESPN gets control of the network then they can trim the fat and make it more efficient in operation. They can also use this agreement as leverage to eventually get the full or preponderance of PAC rights. One of the reasons the SEC Network is so successful after all is because content can be exchanged freely between channels.

Step 2: Take the other core members of the Big 12 and park them in the SEC. West Virginia would be a good fit for the ACC, but other than that you need the SEC and PAC to take the majority between them.

Culturally speaking, much of Big 12 territory isn't that different from SEC territory so the two will mesh pretty well together. The meshing would be much more effective than trying to send most of these schools to the PAC.

Step 3: Leverage each network together so that you can get each conference network into more markets.

------------------

SEC takes TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Iowa State, and South Florida

PAC takes Texas, Texas Tech, Houston, and Kansas State

ACC takes West Virginia and UConn

This way, the only one left out is Baylor and I doubt there would be any great political fallout from leaving them on the outside.

While FOX would probably cement their relationship with the B1G to an even greater degree, the key here is setting up the next play.

Step 4: Now that ESPN controls 3/4 of the college football world, there will come a time where the B1G might want to get back into the ESPN family so as to have opportunities to grow. Otherwise, they'll be stuck in limbo to some degree for at least a generation.

There may come a time where it's necessary to break up the ACC in order to lure the B1G in, but controlling the other 3 conferences will make any deal ESPN cuts that much more beneficial because of all the leverage they'll have.

Why take the SEC to 20 & add 2 G5's? Couldn't ESPN accomplish this more efficiently by putting Texas, TT, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas State & Iowa St in the PAC? Kansas & TCU in the SEC? The SEC, PAC & ACC vote in multiple division lineups & a champs only CFP. This forces ND into the ACC with WV & keeps ND away from the B1G forever. Only Baylor is left out & we have 3 conferences of equal size, important for CFP payouts.

SEC
Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas, TCU

A&M, LSU, Ole Miss, Miss State

Alabama, Auburn, Kentucky, Vanderbilt

Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, SC

PAC
Colorado, Utah, Iowa State, Kansas St

Texas, TT, Arizona, Arizona State

UCLA, USC, Cal, Stanford

Oregon, Washington, Oregon St, Washington State

ACC
ND, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, BC

Louisville, WV, NC State, WF

NC, Duke, VT, Virginia

FSU, Clemson, GT, Miami


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(10-29-2017 08:48 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I've posted some things similar to this in the past, but I just wanted to outline a way for ESPN to essentially control the content of the Power leagues.

It would involve a strategic plan to use both the SEC and PAC to break up the Big 12. The key here is that the PAC is vulnerable. Their network isn't making big money, their markets aren't that interested in college sports, and the size of the league is a disadvantage.

Fortunately for the PAC, the only league in a position geographically to take advantage of their weakness is the Big 12. The Big 12 is in an even weaker position, however.

Step 1: ESPN needs to purchase the PAC Network and the bait here is Texas. That's what the PAC needs badly and they should be willing to work with a network partner more closely given their financial difficulties. So ESPN could buy the PAC Network for a bargain price in exchange for ensuring that Texas goes West.

Once ESPN gets control of the network then they can trim the fat and make it more efficient in operation. They can also use this agreement as leverage to eventually get the full or preponderance of PAC rights. One of the reasons the SEC Network is so successful after all is because content can be exchanged freely between channels.

Step 2: Take the other core members of the Big 12 and park them in the SEC. West Virginia would be a good fit for the ACC, but other than that you need the SEC and PAC to take the majority between them.

Culturally speaking, much of Big 12 territory isn't that different from SEC territory so the two will mesh pretty well together. The meshing would be much more effective than trying to send most of these schools to the PAC.

Step 3: Leverage each network together so that you can get each conference network into more markets.

------------------

SEC takes TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Iowa State, and South Florida

PAC takes Texas, Texas Tech, Houston, and Kansas State

ACC takes West Virginia and UConn

This way, the only one left out is Baylor and I doubt there would be any great political fallout from leaving them on the outside.

While FOX would probably cement their relationship with the B1G to an even greater degree, the key here is setting up the next play.

Step 4: Now that ESPN controls 3/4 of the college football world, there will come a time where the B1G might want to get back into the ESPN family so as to have opportunities to grow. Otherwise, they'll be stuck in limbo to some degree for at least a generation.

There may come a time where it's necessary to break up the ACC in order to lure the B1G in, but controlling the other 3 conferences will make any deal ESPN cuts that much more beneficial because of all the leverage they'll have.

That would seem like enough value for each league and then every deserving home in the Big 12 is split up. I just wasn't sure Texas was willing to go to the PAC without OU and without A&M, its a little bit of a risk being on the West Coast. If Texas or OU doesn't go to the PAC that conference really seems to have a hard time competing as an equal 4th league over time.

Actually, if the SEC was adding that group I think the play would be to try and get Nebraska from the B1G instead of South Florida.

If the academics don't have the final say and the B1G doesn't add some type of pipeline of recruiting to a state like Texas or California, I'm not sure Nebraska to the B1G is a 50 year decision like Tom Osborne talked about when they left. I know they thought it was but the question is if its a mistake 7 years in do you make it a 50 year mistake?

(10-30-2017 08:45 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Why take the SEC to 20 & add 2 G5's? Couldn't ESPN accomplish this more efficiently by putting Texas, TT, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas State & Iowa St in the PAC? Kansas & TCU in the SEC? The SEC, PAC & ACC vote in multiple division lineups & a champs only CFP. This forces ND into the ACC with WV & keeps ND away from the B1G forever. Only Baylor is left out & we have 3 conferences of equal size, important for CFP payouts.

SEC
Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas, TCU

A&M, LSU, Ole Miss, Miss State

Alabama, Auburn, Kentucky, Vanderbilt

Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, SC

PAC
Colorado, Utah, Iowa State, Kansas St

Texas, TT, Arizona, Arizona State

UCLA, USC, Cal, Stanford

Oregon, Washington, Oregon St, Washington State

ACC
ND, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, BC

Louisville, WV, NC State, WF

NC, Duke, VT, Virginia

FSU, Clemson, GT, Miami


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I like these, they are not equal size though you forgot OU & OSU in the pods. Again, I am not convinced pods are the way to go. I think you have a single set of standings and only lock in 4 games and rotate the rest around the league. It also doesn't have to be equally the B1G tries to match up the higher ranked West and East teams more often currently for better matchups.

I'm not sure the SEC thinks they get enough value in this but I could be wrong.

(10-30-2017 12:12 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 08:45 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Why take the SEC to 20 & add 2 G5's? Couldn't ESPN accomplish this more efficiently by putting Texas, TT, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas State & Iowa St in the PAC? Kansas & TCU in the SEC? The SEC, PAC & ACC vote in multiple division lineups & a champs only CFP. This forces ND into the ACC with WV & keeps ND away from the B1G forever. Only Baylor is left out & we have 3 conferences of equal size, important for CFP payouts.

SEC
Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas, TCU

A&M, LSU, Ole Miss, Miss State

Alabama, Auburn, Kentucky, Vanderbilt

Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, SC

PAC
Colorado, Utah, Iowa State, Kansas St

Texas, TT, Arizona, Arizona State

UCLA, USC, Cal, Stanford

Oregon, Washington, Oregon St, Washington State

ACC
ND, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, BC

Louisville, WV, NC State, WF

NC, Duke, VT, Virginia

FSU, Clemson, GT, Miami


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I like these, they are not equal size though you forgot OU & OSU in the pods. Again, I am not convinced pods are the way to go. I think you have a single set of standings and only lock in 4 games and rotate the rest around the league. It also doesn't have to be equally the B1G tries to match up the higher ranked West and East teams more often currently for better matchups.

I'm not sure the SEC thinks they get enough value in this but I could be wrong.

It is definitely not enough value for the SEC. Kansas subtracts value from us as does T.C.U. Either of those would be fine as a partner with Oklahoma or Texas, but not alone and certainly not together.

I didn't think they would provide enough value. I really wish CFB would just pick 72-80 teams and negotiate 1 unit for tier 1,2 & 3 money and networks and grow the brand collectively, equalize the leagues, preserve rivalries and have a real CFB playoff.

CFB is not the NFL and leaving too many schools and areas out don't give their fans a reason to tune into games and why not watch the highest level of football the NFL instead. The other thing to keep in mind is if the final product involves too few teams like 60 or even 56 or I have even seen some arguments for 48, less teams are going to have 9 & 10 win seasons. The common fan doesn't get as excited about rooting or following his team when they are 7-5 versus 10-2. The common fan doesn't really look to see if the overall product is at as high of a level they just want to see their team have a good record and I think you can also look to national ratings. If the teams that normally draw well nationally have a few more losses they could be perceived to be having a worse season even if that's not the case and less tune in.

I think the academics of the B1G, the anti-religious bigotry of the PAC make it harder to have this work and maybe both of those to a lesser extent from the ACC as well.

(10-30-2017 01:52 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  I didn't think they would provide enough value. I really wish CFB would just pick 72-80 teams and negotiate 1 unit for tier 1,2 & 3 money and networks and grow the brand collectively, equalize the leagues, preserve rivalries and have a real CFB playoff.

CFB is not the NFL and leaving too many schools and areas out don't give their fans a reason to tune into games and why not watch the highest level of football the NFL instead. The other thing to keep in mind is if the final product involves too few teams like 60 or even 56 or I have even seen some arguments for 48, less teams are going to have 9 & 10 win seasons. The common fan doesn't get as excited about rooting or following his team when they are 7-5 versus 10-2. The common fan doesn't really look to see if the overall product is at as high of a level they just want to see their team have a good record and I think you can also look to national ratings. If the teams that normally draw well nationally have a few more losses they could be perceived to be having a worse season even if that's not the case and less tune in.

I think the academics of the B1G, the anti-religious bigotry of the PAC make it harder to have this work and maybe both of those to a lesser extent from the ACC as well.

I think it works much better if you have 4 conferences of 16 to 18 teams each.

And to try to keep it relevant to the OP let's assume that the Big 12, SEC and PAC are the goals of ESPN. Would they not be better off with an alignment like this:

SEC:

Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Texas A&M

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Clemson, Florida State, Kentucky, N.C. State, South Carolina, Virginia Tech

B1G:

Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Penn State, Virginia

Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, Rutgers

Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

B12:

Boston College, Cincinnati, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

Baylor, Houston, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech

Central Florida, East Carolina, Georgia Tech, Miami, South Florida, Wake Forest

PAC:

Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech, Utah

Arizona, Arizona State, Brigham Young, San Diego State, U.S.C., U.C.L.A.

California, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State

Sub Nevada, UNLV, Wyoming, or New Mexico for either B.Y.U. or San Diego State if need be. It's too bad but B.Y.U. would add to their bottom line. And San Diego State gives an 18 member PAC more access to California.

With this division 3 conference have access to North Carolina, 3 conferences have access to Texas, and the Big 10 gets to keep their academic standing.

ESPN leverages the use of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Tech to convert the LHN and present PACN into an ESPN operated PAC18N.

ESPN controls half of the rights of the remaining Big 12 schools, and FOX picks up 50% interest in the AAC & ACC schools that become part of the B18.

ESPN picks up more content from the Big 10 when N.D., Duke, UNC, and UVa head their way.

And ESPN bids on and wins the CBS contract with the SEC. (but even if they don't they have much more valuable brands to pit Clemson, F.S.U., and Virginia Tech against, and NCSt starts landing more, and better, recruits in their home region.

Texas, Kansas, and OU stick together. West Virginia is reunited to the old Big East schedule that energized them before. There is more access to Florida with 3 schools from the state in the conference. The SEC consolidates the Southeast and lands brands best suited to it. The Big 10 shores up control over markets in Northern cities with N.D. and picks up two crucial states in Viriginia and North Carolina and they all are academic fits.

The PAC lands the umph it needs to improve. And the best of the present G5 in terms of football and all around sports are promoted.

I have thrown this out before and I will even try and tie this in to ESPN controlling 3 leagues. Since FOX has the B1G and ESPN is all sports and may be letting MNF with the NFL go they may need more content and maybe they get the 3rd Power conference of 4 and still lock down the state of Texas, and maintaining half of the existing PAC school content by both ESPN & FOX encouraging the PAC to be split among the Big 12 & B1G, with Nebraska deciding to go back to the Big 12. The PAC schools maintain their main rivalries as OOC games. Both FOX and ESPN then have West coast content for later games. The Big 12 then is a league that is viable for a network also from ESPN which they could use the PAC & LHN structure as a starting point.

B1G/Big 12
USC/UCLA
Stanford/Cal
Wash/WSU
ASU/AZ (these can flip either way)
Oregon/Colorado (these can flip also)
Big 12 also has Nebraska, Utah, Oregon St.
The B1G & Big 12 each have 18 members.

The ACC picks up ND & UConn
The SEC adds WVU & Cincy - I know that's not great value but ESPN doesn't dilute your payments because of what they were able to do with the Big 12 and create value for themselves there.

If this is about ESPN owning 3 leagues, I think this is the way for them to have 3 equally strong leagues, in your scenario that 4th one lacks a lot. FOX may want Texas but it does very well in this scenario by adding USC & the West Coast to the B1G and their network. CFB also does very well we have 4 pretty balanced leagues and regain one of the biggest rivalries ever that has been lost is revived.

(10-30-2017 04:41 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  I have thrown this out before and I will even try and tie this in to ESPN controlling 3 leagues. Since FOX has the B1G and ESPN is all sports and may be letting MNF with the NFL go they may need more content and maybe they get the 3rd Power conference of 4 and still lock down the state of Texas, and maintaining half of the existing PAC school content by both ESPN & FOX encouraging the PAC to be split among the Big 12 & B1G, with Nebraska deciding to go back to the Big 12. The PAC schools maintain their main rivalries as OOC games. Both FOX and ESPN then have West coast content for later games. The Big 12 then is a league that is viable for a network also from ESPN which they could use the PAC & LHN structure as a starting point.

B1G/Big 12
USC/UCLA
Stanford/Cal
Wash/WSU
ASU/AZ (these can flip either way)
Oregon/Colorado (these can flip also)
Big 12 also has Nebraska, Utah, Oregon St.
The B1G & Big 12 each have 18 members.

The ACC picks up ND & UConn
The SEC adds WVU & Cincy - I know that's not great value but ESPN doesn't dilute your payments because of what they were able to do with the Big 12 and create value for themselves there.

If this is about ESPN owning 3 leagues, I think this is the way for them to have 3 equally strong leagues, in your scenario that 4th one lacks a lot. FOX may want Texas but it does very well in this scenario by adding USC & the West Coast to the B1G and their network. CFB also does very well we have 4 pretty balanced leagues and regain one of the biggest rivalries ever that has been lost is revived.

While it is highly unlikely in the short term, the growing disparity between PAC income and everyone else's has got to have an impact sooner or later.

When that time comes I would think that USC, Stanford, Cal, Washington, Colorado, and Oregon would head to the Big 10. The other six are there for the Big 12 and that's not bad. Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, and U.C.L.A. are no brainers. The question is does anyone pursue Washington State and Oregon State.

(10-30-2017 05:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 04:41 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  I have thrown this out before and I will even try and tie this in to ESPN controlling 3 leagues. Since FOX has the B1G and ESPN is all sports and may be letting MNF with the NFL go they may need more content and maybe they get the 3rd Power conference of 4 and still lock down the state of Texas, and maintaining half of the existing PAC school content by both ESPN & FOX encouraging the PAC to be split among the Big 12 & B1G, with Nebraska deciding to go back to the Big 12. The PAC schools maintain their main rivalries as OOC games. Both FOX and ESPN then have West coast content for later games. The Big 12 then is a league that is viable for a network also from ESPN which they could use the PAC & LHN structure as a starting point.

B1G/Big 12
USC/UCLA
Stanford/Cal
Wash/WSU
ASU/AZ (these can flip either way)
Oregon/Colorado (these can flip also)
Big 12 also has Nebraska, Utah, Oregon St.
The B1G & Big 12 each have 18 members.

The ACC picks up ND & UConn
The SEC adds WVU & Cincy - I know that's not great value but ESPN doesn't dilute your payments because of what they were able to do with the Big 12 and create value for themselves there.

If this is about ESPN owning 3 leagues, I think this is the way for them to have 3 equally strong leagues, in your scenario that 4th one lacks a lot. FOX may want Texas but it does very well in this scenario by adding USC & the West Coast to the B1G and their network. CFB also does very well we have 4 pretty balanced leagues and regain one of the biggest rivalries ever that has been lost is revived.

While it is highly unlikely in the short term, the growing disparity between PAC income and everyone else's has got to have an impact sooner or later.

When that time comes I would think that USC, Stanford, Cal, Washington, Colorado, and Oregon would head to the Big 10. The other six are there for the Big 12 and that's not bad. Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, and U.C.L.A. are no brainers. The question is does anyone pursue Washington State and Oregon State.

Maybe that could be the split but Stanford would already cover the northern Cal market for the B1G and ASU would give them Phoenix then both Stanford vs Cal and ASU vs Az. are non conference rivalries. I would think it gives more markets that way. Maybe Colorado would want to go with the B1G but if the Big 12 had 2 California teams they would fit in a lot better geographically with the Big 12 especially if Nebraska came back as I described, which in that scenario I believe it could become plausible.

WSU & OSU are not important but if was engineered in the next 4-5 years maybe everyone finding a home could be a sticking point and I think if the Big 12 could get the other teams it would be worth taking those two. Because if it was only taking who you had to take, I doubt Utah is a better brand than BYU even though BYU has its quirks.

Just spitballing;

B1G takes USC, Stanford, Oregon & Washington.

B12 gets UCLA, Cal, Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah, Washington St & Oregon State.

Or perhaps add Utah & Colorado to the B1G to build a bridge & then add BYU & Houston/Colorado St to the B12.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(10-31-2017 09:16 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Just spitballing;

B1G takes USC, Stanford, Oregon & Washington.

B12 gets UCLA, Cal, Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah, Washington St & Oregon State.

Or perhaps add Utah & Colorado to the B1G to build a bridge & then add BYU & Houston/Colorado St to the B12.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cal to the Big 12? Really? The sponsors of everything left will join a collection of Red Staters? Don't think so!

(10-31-2017 08:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-31-2017 09:16 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Just spitballing;

B1G takes USC, Stanford, Oregon & Washington.

B12 gets UCLA, Cal, Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah, Washington St & Oregon State.

Or perhaps add Utah & Colorado to the B1G to build a bridge & then add BYU & Houston/Colorado St to the B12.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cal to the Big 12? Really? The sponsors of everything left will join a collection of Red Staters? Don't think so!

No Cal doesn't fit in politically but Cal isn't exactly the engine that drives the bus financially for the PAC either. If it was done when a GOR expired, they may not have a lot of choices. I think it would work a lot better for both leagues to have 2 California teams and each have a team in Arizona for markets.

In my scenario, I suggested Nebraska would entertain going back to the Big 12 so the B1G needed a 5th team anyway.

(11-01-2017 11:41 AM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(10-31-2017 08:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-31-2017 09:16 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Just spitballing;

B1G takes USC, Stanford, Oregon & Washington.

B12 gets UCLA, Cal, Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah, Washington St & Oregon State.

Or perhaps add Utah & Colorado to the B1G to build a bridge & then add BYU & Houston/Colorado St to the B12.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cal to the Big 12? Really? The sponsors of everything left will join a collection of Red Staters? Don't think so!

No Cal doesn't fit in politically but Cal isn't exactly the engine that drives the bus financially for the PAC either. If it was done when a GOR expired, they may not have a lot of choices. I think it would work a lot better for both leagues to have 2 California teams and each have a team in Arizona for markets.

In my scenario, I suggested Nebraska would entertain going back to the Big 12 so the B1G needed a 5th team anyway.

Ideally, which of course means there isn't a chance in hell of it happening, the following would be productive:

Baylor, Wake Forest, Northwestern, and Vanderbilt would spearhead the development of a private conference:

American Private Confernce (or APC)

Brigham Young, Southern California, Stanford, Texas Christian

Baylor, Tulane, Rice, Vanderbilt

Duke, Notre Dame, Miami, Wake Forest

Boston College, *Pittsburgh, Northwestern, Syracuse

*Pitt is a hybrid private/state school.


Big 10:

Maryland, North Carolina, Penn State, Virginia

Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Rutgers

Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Wisconsin

Iowa, Iowa State, Nebraska, Minnesota


SEC:

Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, South Carolina

Alabama, Auburn, Georgia Tech, Mississippi, Mississippi State

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

Kentucky, N.C. State, Tennessee, Virginia Tech, West Virginia



PAC:

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

Colorado, Kansas, Kansas State, Utah

Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State

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


That's 68 schools. We've included Brigham Young, Tulane and Rice in the privates and all of the other state schools are accounted for in a very nice fashion.

The SEC has 20 but that is because it is also in the highest concentration of P schools. By going to 20 it can accommodate Clemson, Georgia Tech, Louisville and West Virginia.

I would think the Big 10 would be well pleased with the Additions of North Carolina and Virginia even if the networks only gave them pro rata for Iowa State.

The PAC picking up 6 central time zone State universities and 3 big brands should be quite pleased.

The American Private Conference should give all of those schools a very satisfying conference schedule. N.D. & U.S.C. & Stanford & Miami are right there with Northwestern & Vanderbilt & Duke & Wake Forest as far as strength of grouping. Tulane, Brigham Young, T.C.U. would be happy for the inclusion. And the New England privates and Pitt round it out for some very nice markets.

I think everyone could win with this alignment.

(11-01-2017 03:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-01-2017 11:41 AM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(10-31-2017 08:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-31-2017 09:16 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Just spitballing;

B1G takes USC, Stanford, Oregon & Washington.

B12 gets UCLA, Cal, Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah, Washington St & Oregon State.

Or perhaps add Utah & Colorado to the B1G to build a bridge & then add BYU & Houston/Colorado St to the B12.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cal to the Big 12? Really? The sponsors of everything left will join a collection of Red Staters? Don't think so!

No Cal doesn't fit in politically but Cal isn't exactly the engine that drives the bus financially for the PAC either. If it was done when a GOR expired, they may not have a lot of choices. I think it would work a lot better for both leagues to have 2 California teams and each have a team in Arizona for markets.

In my scenario, I suggested Nebraska would entertain going back to the Big 12 so the B1G needed a 5th team anyway.

Ideally, which of course means there isn't a chance in hell of it happening, the following would be productive:

Baylor, Wake Forest, Northwestern, and Vanderbilt would spearhead the development of a private conference:

American Private Confernce (or APC)

Brigham Young, Southern California, Stanford, Texas Christian

Baylor, Tulane, Rice, Vanderbilt

Duke, Notre Dame, Miami, Wake Forest

Boston College, *Pittsburgh, Northwestern, Syracuse

*Pitt is a hybrid private/state school.


Big 10:

Maryland, North Carolina, Penn State, Virginia

Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Rutgers

Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Wisconsin

Iowa, Iowa State, Nebraska, Minnesota


SEC:

Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, South Carolina

Alabama, Auburn, Georgia Tech, Mississippi, Mississippi State

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

Kentucky, N.C. State, Tennessee, Virginia Tech, West Virginia



PAC:

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

Colorado, Kansas, Kansas State, Utah

Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State

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


That's 68 schools. We've included Brigham Young, Tulane and Rice in the privates and all of the other state schools are accounted for in a very nice fashion.

The SEC has 20 but that is because it is also in the highest concentration of P schools. By going to 20 it can accommodate Clemson, Georgia Tech, Louisville and West Virginia.

I would think the Big 10 would be well pleased with the Additions of North Carolina and Virginia even if the networks only gave them pro rata for Iowa State.

The PAC picking up 6 central time zone State universities and 3 big brands should be quite pleased.

The American Private Conference should give all of those schools a very satisfying conference schedule. N.D. & U.S.C. & Stanford & Miami are right there with Northwestern & Vanderbilt & Duke & Wake Forest as far as strength of grouping. Tulane, Brigham Young, T.C.U. would be happy for the inclusion. And the New England privates and Pitt round it out for some very nice markets.

I think everyone could win with this alignment.

I really liked my splitting up the PAC but this is one of the better ones I have seen from a fan interest standpoint and like type schools competing against each other. I have actually seen ND fans that thought private schools would form their own league someday, and that league would be good for them like type schools competing against each other.

If CFB would collectively negotiate as one for T1 & T3 product it would make it easier for this to happen.

Full disclosure I am an ISU fan and if there was one league they could be in it would definitely be the B1G so its personal preference but I do think it is better for CFB if Nebraska switched to the PAC and played OU in a conference game every year and I think Neb. is better off with access to Texas & California for recruiting, it could really help their brand. Maybe a Kansas, Colorado in exchange for Nebraska & ISU could make that work for both leagues. Kansas would love it but I'm not sure about Colorado.

But that was definitely an interesting piece of work JR.

(11-01-2017 04:09 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(11-01-2017 03:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-01-2017 11:41 AM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(10-31-2017 08:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-31-2017 09:16 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Just spitballing;

B1G takes USC, Stanford, Oregon & Washington.

B12 gets UCLA, Cal, Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah, Washington St & Oregon State.

Or perhaps add Utah & Colorado to the B1G to build a bridge & then add BYU & Houston/Colorado St to the B12.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cal to the Big 12? Really? The sponsors of everything left will join a collection of Red Staters? Don't think so!

No Cal doesn't fit in politically but Cal isn't exactly the engine that drives the bus financially for the PAC either. If it was done when a GOR expired, they may not have a lot of choices. I think it would work a lot better for both leagues to have 2 California teams and each have a team in Arizona for markets.

In my scenario, I suggested Nebraska would entertain going back to the Big 12 so the B1G needed a 5th team anyway.

Ideally, which of course means there isn't a chance in hell of it happening, the following would be productive:

Baylor, Wake Forest, Northwestern, and Vanderbilt would spearhead the development of a private conference:

American Private Confernce (or APC)

Brigham Young, Southern California, Stanford, Texas Christian

Baylor, Tulane, Rice, Vanderbilt

Duke, Notre Dame, Miami, Wake Forest

Boston College, *Pittsburgh, Northwestern, Syracuse

*Pitt is a hybrid private/state school.


Big 10:

Maryland, North Carolina, Penn State, Virginia

Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Rutgers

Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Wisconsin

Iowa, Iowa State, Nebraska, Minnesota


SEC:

Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, South Carolina

Alabama, Auburn, Georgia Tech, Mississippi, Mississippi State

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

Kentucky, N.C. State, Tennessee, Virginia Tech, West Virginia



PAC:

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

Colorado, Kansas, Kansas State, Utah

Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State

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


That's 68 schools. We've included Brigham Young, Tulane and Rice in the privates and all of the other state schools are accounted for in a very nice fashion.

The SEC has 20 but that is because it is also in the highest concentration of P schools. By going to 20 it can accommodate Clemson, Georgia Tech, Louisville and West Virginia.

I would think the Big 10 would be well pleased with the Additions of North Carolina and Virginia even if the networks only gave them pro rata for Iowa State.

The PAC picking up 6 central time zone State universities and 3 big brands should be quite pleased.

The American Private Conference should give all of those schools a very satisfying conference schedule. N.D. & U.S.C. & Stanford & Miami are right there with Northwestern & Vanderbilt & Duke & Wake Forest as far as strength of grouping. Tulane, Brigham Young, T.C.U. would be happy for the inclusion. And the New England privates and Pitt round it out for some very nice markets.

I think everyone could win with this alignment.

I really liked my splitting up the PAC but this is one of the better ones I have seen from a fan interest standpoint and like type schools competing against each other. I have actually seen ND fans that thought private schools would form their own league someday, and that league would be good for them like type schools competing against each other.

If CFB would collectively negotiate as one for T1 & T3 product it would make it easier for this to happen.

Full disclosure I am an ISU fan and if there was one league they could be in it would definitely be the B1G so its personal preference but I do think it is better for CFB if Nebraska switched to the PAC and played OU in a conference game every year and I think Neb. is better off with access to Texas & California for recruiting, it could really help their brand. Maybe a Kansas, Colorado in exchange for Nebraska & ISU could make that work for both leagues. Kansas would love it but I'm not sure about Colorado.

But that was definitely an interesting piece of work JR.

Kansas could be substituted for Nebraska, but I think it would erode the gravitas of that Big 10 West too much to pull the Huskers for either Kansas or Colorado. It may be a decision thy have to live with.

But let's try another workaround, one similar to what I've suggested before:

PAC 18:

Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Texas, Texas Tech, Utah

California, Oregon, Oregon State, U.C.L.A., Washington, Washington State

Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

B1G 18:

Maryland, North Carolina, Penn State, Rutgers, Virginia, West Virginia

Connecticut, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue

Colorado State, Illinois, Iowa, Iowa State, Minnesota, Wisconsin

SEC:

Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, South Carolina

Kentucky, Mississippi, Mississippi State, N.C. State, Tennessee, Virginia Tech

Alabama, Auburn, Arkansas, Houston, Louisiana State, Texas A&M


APC:

Boston College, #Cincinnati, Northwestern, Notre Dame, *Pittsburgh, Syracuse,

Duke, #Louisville, Miami, Tulane, Vanderbilt, Wake Forest

Baylor, Brigham Young, Southern California, Rice, Stanford, Texas Christian

# State School
* Hybrid Private/State

JR - I used your same conferences above and tweaked the divisions a little.

American Private Conference (or APC):
North: Boston College, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh*, Stanford, Syracuse, USC
South: BYU, TCU, Baylor, Vanderbilt, Miami, Duke, Wake Forest
*Hybrid private/state school

Rice/Tulane deleted. The divisions are essentially "Irish & Friends" and "Others".

Big 10:
West: Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Iowa St, Minnesota, Nebraska, Purdue, Wisconsin
East: Maryland, Michigan, Michigan St, North Carolina, Ohio St, Penn St, Virginia, Rutgers

Divisions of 8 make scheduling just as easy as divisions of 4. I prefer the simplicity of 2 divisions than 4.

SEC:
West: Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Texas A&M
North: Kentucky, Louisville, Missouri, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
South: Alabama, Florida St, Georgia Tech, North Carolina St, Tennessee
East: Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina

PAC:
West: Arizona, Arizona St, California, Oregon, Oregon St, UCLA, Washington, Washington St
East: Colorado, Kansas, Kansas St, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Texas, Texas Tech, Utah

(11-01-2017 04:38 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  JR - I used your same conferences above and tweaked the divisions a little.

American Private Conference (or APC):
North: Boston College, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh*, Stanford, Syracuse, USC
South: BYU, TCU, Baylor, Vanderbilt, Miami, Duke, Wake Forest
*Hybrid private/state school

Rice/Tulane deleted. The divisions are essentially "Irish & Friends" and "Others".

Big 10:
West: Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Iowa St, Minnesota, Nebraska, Purdue, Wisconsin
East: Maryland, Michigan, Michigan St, North Carolina, Ohio St, Penn St, Virginia, Rutgers

Divisions of 8 make scheduling just as easy as divisions of 4. I prefer the simplicity of 2 divisions than 4.

SEC:
West: Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Texas A&M
North: Kentucky, Louisville, Missouri, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
South: Alabama, Florida St, Georgia Tech, North Carolina St, Tennessee
East: Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina

PAC:
West: Arizona, Arizona St, California, Oregon, Oregon St, UCLA, Washington, Washington St
East: Colorado, Kansas, Kansas St, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Texas, Texas Tech, Utah

Even better than 2 divisions of 8 or 4 pods of 4/6 is one set of division standings where you only lock in 3-4 games a year and rotate around the rest of the league and not only always equally either. It leaves more flexibility on the scheduling. Also, that way when we go to at least conference semi-finals you pick the highest 4 you don't have to pick a winner of a pod of 4 teams that all have a crappy year.

I think the PAC is a write off from a monetary POV. It's not a knock against the programs and the population is obviously there, but the conference simply can't attract the eyeballs. They are going to have to revisit that scheduling agreement that was floated with the B1G to remain viable.