(03-26-2014 10:39 AM)bluesox Wrote:  I think it would be a total disaster for the big leagues to mess with the current hoop setup. Giving access to all types of school's is very important.

Exactly. The biggest thing the NCAA tournament has is the brackets. The biggest appeal of the brackets are the unknown, and the unpredictability. Taking out the mid majors takes out a lot of that. It is hard for most of us here to realize it because we are all die hard sports fans, but the NCAA tournament is a much bigger deal outside of the die hard world the first weekend, then it is the rest of the tournament, when only the bigger names survive.

That is not something you want to mess with. If you want to change the corporate structure to make it by invitation (so you can still keep everyone) then fine, but a pure P5 NCAA tournament with teams with losing records and a bunch of 0.500 teams would be a disaster.

(03-26-2014 10:42 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 10:09 AM)bullet Wrote:  I think people overestimate the value of the mid-majors. Dayton isn't going to get the best ratings in the sweet 16. We've got 12 P5 schools, 2 AAC (1 a future P5), 1 MWC and Dayton. Ratings would probably be better if Dayton was replaced by Ohio ST. or Syracuse.

Underdogs don't have to be mid-majors. Jim Valvano's NCSU was an underdog. Iowa St. or Baylor or UConn or Tennessee or San Diego St. could play the role this year.

You might be right, but I think that's a really bad example. Dayton is consistently in the Top 10 for college basketball ratings on ESPN. They were #7 this year at a 1.9 rating. Even non-Dayton fans in the market will tune in to watch the team.

I'd argue Stanford is more the problem than Dayton. You have a school not all that highly interested in basketball, and a country of neutral fans that sees this game as a 'meh' game because an underdog is facing a school not highly regarded in basketball. Put Dayton against Kansas and I guarantee you would have a very highly rated game. If there is one thing a neutral fan loves about the tournament, its an underdog to root for.

You have a link for those ratings? I find it hard to beleive.

(03-26-2014 02:26 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 10:39 AM)bluesox Wrote:  I think it would be a total disaster for the big leagues to mess with the current hoop setup. Giving access to all types of school's is very important.

Exactly. The biggest thing the NCAA tournament has is the brackets. The biggest appeal of the brackets are the unknown, and the unpredictability. Taking out the mid majors takes out a lot of that. It is hard for most of us here to realize it because we are all die hard sports fans, but the NCAA tournament is a much bigger deal outside of the die hard world the first weekend, then it is the rest of the tournament, when only the bigger names survive.

That is not something you want to mess with. If you want to change the corporate structure to make it by invitation (so you can still keep everyone) then fine, but a pure P5 NCAA tournament with teams with losing records and a bunch of 0.500 teams would be a disaster.

I haven't heard anyone suggest that. The tournament would be better at 48 or 52 teams with 12-16 fewer conferences. Baylor probably has more tournament wins in the last 3 years than most of those conferences have in their history.

(03-26-2014 02:26 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  If you want to change the corporate structure to make it by invitation (so you can still keep everyone) then fine

I agree that's the way to go, I've suggested it here before. No autobids. To ensure the field isn't packed with sub-.500 P5 teams, have a rule that to be eligible for selection, a team has to be at least .500 in conference games including the conference tournament. Give bonus points in the selection process to any team that wins its conference regular-season title.

Or, to be creative, give autobids only to the regular-season champs of the 16 best-rated conferences (there are 32 D-I conferences).

Either way, one beneficial result would be replacing teams that have no shot at beating a #1 seed, and almost no shot at beating a #2 seed, with teams that are definitely capable of knocking off a #1. And the #13 and 14 seeds would be better teams and more likely to beat #4 and 3 seeds in the first round, etc.

Found this link:
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=283^sid=29206863

#16 has never won a game in 120 tries.
#15 has won 8 and only one has made it to the sweet 16 (FGCU last year).
#14 has won 20 and only two have made it to the sweet 16 (Chattanooga 97 and Cleveland St. 86).
#13 has won 31 and only six have made it to the sweet 16 (Richmond 88, Valpo 98, OU 99, Bradley 06, Ohio 12 and La Salle 13)
#12 has a lot of upsets with a 68-140 record, but only 1 (surprisingly the NCAA inept Missouri in 2002) has made it to the regional finals.

32/35 champs have been top 4 seeds (lowest #8)
116/140 final 4 have been top 4 seeds (5-7, 6-6, 7-1,8-5, 9-3,11-3)
Out of 480 teams 13 and below, only 9 have won 2 games in the tourney.
And out of 620 teams 12 and below, only 1 has won more than 2 games in the tourney.

And cold, hard math kills the supposed magic of the tournament!

(03-26-2014 02:50 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 10:42 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 10:09 AM)bullet Wrote:  I think people overestimate the value of the mid-majors. Dayton isn't going to get the best ratings in the sweet 16. We've got 12 P5 schools, 2 AAC (1 a future P5), 1 MWC and Dayton. Ratings would probably be better if Dayton was replaced by Ohio ST. or Syracuse.

Underdogs don't have to be mid-majors. Jim Valvano's NCSU was an underdog. Iowa St. or Baylor or UConn or Tennessee or San Diego St. could play the role this year.

You might be right, but I think that's a really bad example. Dayton is consistently in the Top 10 for college basketball ratings on ESPN. They were #7 this year at a 1.9 rating. Even non-Dayton fans in the market will tune in to watch the team.

I'd argue Stanford is more the problem than Dayton. You have a school not all that highly interested in basketball, and a country of neutral fans that sees this game as a 'meh' game because an underdog is facing a school not highly regarded in basketball. Put Dayton against Kansas and I guarantee you would have a very highly rated game. If there is one thing a neutral fan loves about the tournament, its an underdog to root for.

You have a link for those ratings? I find it hard to beleive.

Sorry, should have included it the first time. Dayton was in the Top 10 last year as well, and I believe the year before that. Those who haven't been there would be surprised at how many fans UD has for basketball. I still maintain they would be a valuable addition to the Big East with Saint Louis.

http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releas...ason-ever/

(03-26-2014 03:02 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 02:26 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  If you want to change the corporate structure to make it by invitation (so you can still keep everyone) then fine

I agree that's the way to go, I've suggested it here before. No autobids. To ensure the field isn't packed with sub-.500 P5 teams, have a rule that to be eligible for selection, a team has to be at least .500 in conference games including the conference tournament. Give bonus points in the selection process to any team that wins its conference regular-season title.

Or, to be creative, give autobids only to the regular-season champs of the 16 best-rated conferences (there are 32 D-I conferences).

Either way, one beneficial result would be replacing teams that have no shot at beating a #1 seed, and almost no shot at beating a #2 seed, with teams that are definitely capable of knocking off a #1. And the #13 and 14 seeds would be better teams and more likely to beat #4 and 3 seeds in the first round, etc.

I don't even think it would hurt to let both the regular season and tournament champs from all conferences in the tournament and expand to 96 schools. However, the first round would be a massive "play-in" like they do in Dayton now. The top 32 schools essentially get a bye. Teams 33 through 96 are still seeded and grouped in packs of 8 (i.e. there would be eight #9 seeds). Let them all play another team in their seed, and the winner moves on to play the corresponding top 32 team that received a bye. Those bottom 64 schools would reduce to 32 schools after the first round, thus creating the field of 64 that we all know and love. Those 32 play in games could all easily be played on the Tuesday and Wednesday after Selection Sunday as long as the winners advanced to there Thursday or Friday tournament site somewhere pretty close in the region. If we want to be all inclusive, that would be worth a look. Plus, it basically creates a whole week of non-stop tournament basketball that first week. Offices around the country might as well shut down.

In terms of sensibility, the SEC could checkmate Big 10 with additions of Kansas, Virginia, UNC and Duke. I would call that a superconference.[/align]

SEC right now has a push for better basketball. All four of these schools would contribute to that, making the SEC an 6+ bid team each year (Florida, Kentucky, Kansas, Virginia, UNC, Duke). Toss in TN maybe and possibly Auburn if Pearl works out. So 8+ teams. The 3 division format works well for scheduling too.

Big 10 would have to make every effort to get something like Texas and Miami/Florida S. to compete, or they would have to go Georgia Tech is the Texahoma 4 went to PAC. ACC would wind up a combo of Old Big East schools and Big East would backfill starting the dominos all the way down again.

(03-26-2014 10:09 AM)bullet Wrote:  I think people overestimate the value of the mid-majors. Dayton isn't going to get the best ratings in the sweet 16. We've got 12 P5 schools, 2 AAC (1 a future P5), 1 MWC and Dayton. Ratings would probably be better if Dayton was replaced by Ohio ST. or Syracuse.

Underdogs don't have to be mid-majors. Jim Valvano's NCSU was an underdog. Iowa St. or Baylor or UConn or Tennessee or San Diego St. could play the role this year.

NC State's role as an underdog is somewhat overplayed. State had a great team that year but Derrick Whittenburg broke his foot early in the season against UVa and NC State lost several games they would have won with him in the lineup.

When they got into the NCAA they were something like a 6 seed and they beat a good UNLV and a great UVa team again to make it to the final 4. State had the game with Georgia, while Houston had the game with Louisville and Houston and Louisville ran up and down the court in a dunk fest. After the Houston semi-final, the media concluded that State had no chance despite having 5 top 10 wins over UVa twice, UNC twice, and UNLV.

(03-26-2014 04:02 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 02:50 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 10:42 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 10:09 AM)bullet Wrote:  I think people overestimate the value of the mid-majors. Dayton isn't going to get the best ratings in the sweet 16. We've got 12 P5 schools, 2 AAC (1 a future P5), 1 MWC and Dayton. Ratings would probably be better if Dayton was replaced by Ohio ST. or Syracuse.

Underdogs don't have to be mid-majors. Jim Valvano's NCSU was an underdog. Iowa St. or Baylor or UConn or Tennessee or San Diego St. could play the role this year.

You might be right, but I think that's a really bad example. Dayton is consistently in the Top 10 for college basketball ratings on ESPN. They were #7 this year at a 1.9 rating. Even non-Dayton fans in the market will tune in to watch the team.

I'd argue Stanford is more the problem than Dayton. You have a school not all that highly interested in basketball, and a country of neutral fans that sees this game as a 'meh' game because an underdog is facing a school not highly regarded in basketball. Put Dayton against Kansas and I guarantee you would have a very highly rated game. If there is one thing a neutral fan loves about the tournament, its an underdog to root for.

You have a link for those ratings? I find it hard to beleive.

Sorry, should have included it the first time. Dayton was in the Top 10 last year as well, and I believe the year before that. Those who haven't been there would be surprised at how many fans UD has for basketball. I still maintain they would be a valuable addition to the Big East with Saint Louis.

http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releas...ason-ever/

That says that the Dayton market is a top 10 market for basketball ratings. It does not say that University of Dayton nor the city of Dayton draw top 10 total viewers.

Here is a link to basketball ratings on the major sports outlets this year it isn't broken down by team but you can see clearly see that Dayton isn't the top draw:
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2014/03/...14-season/

If the top schools break away, they could theoretically purchase the NIT. At worst, the NIT would have an existing contract (probably still with ESPN) that could be modified. At best, a new contract could be drawn up from scratch. Those left behind in the NCAA would probably gladly take the money to get the additional tournament off their hands.

Southern Conference:
merger of b12, acc, & sec

East:
wvu, uva, vtech, duke, wake forest, ncsu, unc, vandy, clemson, Scar.

Central:
Miami, FSU, florida, georgia, gtech, kentucky, louisville, tennessee, alabama, auburn

West: Ole Miss, Miss St. LSU, Arkansas, Texas, texas A&M, Ttech, OU, Okie St. Kansas st.

you can rename the divisions southwest, southeast, & atlantic coast as a tribute to their past history. personally I think it breaks down extremely well and wouldn't piss off a whole lot of schools with this setup.

it is 3 divisions of 10 which pretty much means that unless they want to go to 10 games....this setup is really 3 separate conferences who have their champions play each other.

conference playoffs 3 "division" winners + an at large

FYI: I don't see the SEC expanding like this without the b10 poaching mizz hence the reason I didn't include them. but if you did want to include them swap em for KSU.

I don't place much credence in this rumor except with the following contingency. If ESPN felt that there was a weakness in the Maryland case what other option would they have to protect their investment in the ACC than to consider settling the Maryland case for a reduction in cost and then sheltering their properties through a merger with the SEC. Under those conditions that permits them to place the largest market and the most watched product together, allows them to renegotiate the contract of the ACC and SEC one last time, and offers them a way to blunt the offers of the Big 10 to key ACC properties. Of all of the ACC claims the one that likely is the truest is that the Virginia and North Carolina schools would like to keep an association. Merger accomplishes that. At the same time it permits them to park, if they so desired, Texas and Kansas in the new entity along with any other Big 12 school of value.

By comparison the PAC offers some of the least viewed product. And the Big 10 finds itself at a competitive disadvantage athletically. If the Mouse had a single move that could cement a slipping grip on its product such a move would likely accomplish their ends. And in that scenario such a move makes some sense.

And if you think all of this stuff is about the networks more than it is the conferences, and I do, then looking at it from such a perspective also makes sense. A successful Maryland suit, even a partially successful one, could open up ESPN product to FOX. Merger and new contracts to reflect the value of such keeps familiar entities together, reduces overhead in promised networks, and solidifies the product line of ESPN.

(03-26-2014 06:07 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 04:02 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 02:50 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 10:42 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 10:09 AM)bullet Wrote:  I think people overestimate the value of the mid-majors. Dayton isn't going to get the best ratings in the sweet 16. We've got 12 P5 schools, 2 AAC (1 a future P5), 1 MWC and Dayton. Ratings would probably be better if Dayton was replaced by Ohio ST. or Syracuse.

Underdogs don't have to be mid-majors. Jim Valvano's NCSU was an underdog. Iowa St. or Baylor or UConn or Tennessee or San Diego St. could play the role this year.

You might be right, but I think that's a really bad example. Dayton is consistently in the Top 10 for college basketball ratings on ESPN. They were #7 this year at a 1.9 rating. Even non-Dayton fans in the market will tune in to watch the team.

I'd argue Stanford is more the problem than Dayton. You have a school not all that highly interested in basketball, and a country of neutral fans that sees this game as a 'meh' game because an underdog is facing a school not highly regarded in basketball. Put Dayton against Kansas and I guarantee you would have a very highly rated game. If there is one thing a neutral fan loves about the tournament, its an underdog to root for.

You have a link for those ratings? I find it hard to beleive.

Sorry, should have included it the first time. Dayton was in the Top 10 last year as well, and I believe the year before that. Those who haven't been there would be surprised at how many fans UD has for basketball. I still maintain they would be a valuable addition to the Big East with Saint Louis.

http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releas...ason-ever/

That says that the Dayton market is a top 10 market for basketball ratings. It does not say that University of Dayton nor the city of Dayton draw top 10 total viewers.

Here is a link to basketball ratings on the major sports outlets this year it isn't broken down by team but you can see clearly see that Dayton isn't the top draw:
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2014/03/...14-season/

I'm confused by your point. I said Dayton was Top 10 in ratings, as in the city. I never said the university was top 10 in total viewers. Of course not all those people in the Dayton market are UD fans. Just like not everyone in the Louisville market are UofL fans, or everyone in the Kansas City market are KU fans, etc. If you made a top 10 list of total viewers, it would be a who's who of the top media markets period. Louisville, Kansas City, etc wouldn't sniff the Top 10. These ratings are percentage points, not measured by total viewers. It is a good measurement for how intense a market is at watching college basketball.

I never said UD was some untapped basketball ratings powerhouse. I was simply saying when it comes to basketball, UD has a nice little niche in their market, which happens to be a very rabid market for college basketball, which means its a bad example for bullet's mid-major argument, which was completely fine.

(03-27-2014 09:36 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 06:07 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 04:02 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 02:50 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 10:42 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  You might be right, but I think that's a really bad example. Dayton is consistently in the Top 10 for college basketball ratings on ESPN. They were #7 this year at a 1.9 rating. Even non-Dayton fans in the market will tune in to watch the team.

I'd argue Stanford is more the problem than Dayton. You have a school not all that highly interested in basketball, and a country of neutral fans that sees this game as a 'meh' game because an underdog is facing a school not highly regarded in basketball. Put Dayton against Kansas and I guarantee you would have a very highly rated game. If there is one thing a neutral fan loves about the tournament, its an underdog to root for.

You have a link for those ratings? I find it hard to beleive.

Sorry, should have included it the first time. Dayton was in the Top 10 last year as well, and I believe the year before that. Those who haven't been there would be surprised at how many fans UD has for basketball. I still maintain they would be a valuable addition to the Big East with Saint Louis.

http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releas...ason-ever/

That says that the Dayton market is a top 10 market for basketball ratings. It does not say that University of Dayton nor the city of Dayton draw top 10 total viewers.

Here is a link to basketball ratings on the major sports outlets this year it isn't broken down by team but you can see clearly see that Dayton isn't the top draw:
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2014/03/...14-season/

I'm confused by your point. I said Dayton was Top 10 in ratings, as in the city. I never said the university was top 10 in total viewers. Of course not all those people in the Dayton market are UD fans. Just like not everyone in the Louisville market are UofL fans, or everyone in the Kansas City market are KU fans, etc. If you made a top 10 list of total viewers, it would be a who's who of the top media markets period. Louisville, Kansas City, etc wouldn't sniff the Top 10. These ratings are percentage points, not measured by total viewers. It is a good measurement for how intense a market is at watching college basketball.

I never said UD was some untapped basketball ratings powerhouse. I was simply saying when it comes to basketball, UD has a nice little niche in their market, which happens to be a very rabid market for college basketball, which means its a bad example for bullet's mid-major argument, which was completely fine.

Dayton does have a nice niche. But its national ratings that matter. And a more widely recognized school nationally would draw better ratings. Dayton may be one of the top mid-majors, but they are still A-10, not ACC or Big East.

(03-27-2014 09:52 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 09:36 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 06:07 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 04:02 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 02:50 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  You have a link for those ratings? I find it hard to beleive.

Sorry, should have included it the first time. Dayton was in the Top 10 last year as well, and I believe the year before that. Those who haven't been there would be surprised at how many fans UD has for basketball. I still maintain they would be a valuable addition to the Big East with Saint Louis.

http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releas...ason-ever/

That says that the Dayton market is a top 10 market for basketball ratings. It does not say that University of Dayton nor the city of Dayton draw top 10 total viewers.

Here is a link to basketball ratings on the major sports outlets this year it isn't broken down by team but you can see clearly see that Dayton isn't the top draw:
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2014/03/...14-season/

I'm confused by your point. I said Dayton was Top 10 in ratings, as in the city. I never said the university was top 10 in total viewers. Of course not all those people in the Dayton market are UD fans. Just like not everyone in the Louisville market are UofL fans, or everyone in the Kansas City market are KU fans, etc. If you made a top 10 list of total viewers, it would be a who's who of the top media markets period. Louisville, Kansas City, etc wouldn't sniff the Top 10. These ratings are percentage points, not measured by total viewers. It is a good measurement for how intense a market is at watching college basketball.

I never said UD was some untapped basketball ratings powerhouse. I was simply saying when it comes to basketball, UD has a nice little niche in their market, which happens to be a very rabid market for college basketball, which means its a bad example for bullet's mid-major argument, which was completely fine.

Dayton does have a nice niche. But its national ratings that matter. And a more widely recognized school nationally would draw better ratings. Dayton may be one of the top mid-majors, but they are still A-10, not ACC or Big East.

That's true. And at this stage of the tournament, I guess the whole 'cinderella' thing usually starts to wear off. During the first 2 days of the tournament, neutral fans who could care less about college basketball love seeing those 'mid-major' teams take on the powerhouses. I cannot say how true that is at the sweet 16 level. I think that if Dayton were playing Kansas, the ratings would actually be quite good, because there is that David vs Goliath storyline for CBS to sell.

I hate to derail the riveting Dayton discussion, but more tweets from the OP's source went up today.

MHver3 ‏@MHver3 · 3h
Hearing that any talks of conference mergers are not necessarily about $$ but more about survival. Major upheaval coming

MHver3 ‏@MHver3 · 3h
I also heard that the number of schools discussed was 36. Not sure who that leaves out or why.

MHver3 ‏@MHver3 · 3h
6 pods of 6 teams under one conference umbrella and shared TV revenue with the same governing body for all.

(03-27-2014 03:39 AM)john01992 Wrote:  Southern Conference:
merger of b12, acc, & sec

East:
wvu, uva, vtech, duke, wake forest, ncsu, unc, vandy, clemson, Scar.

Central:
Miami, FSU, florida, georgia, gtech, kentucky, louisville, tennessee, alabama, auburn

West: Ole Miss, Miss St. LSU, Arkansas, Texas, texas A&M, Ttech, OU, Okie St. Kansas st.

you can rename the divisions southwest, southeast, & atlantic coast as a tribute to their past history. personally I think it breaks down extremely well and wouldn't piss off a whole lot of schools with this setup.

it is 3 divisions of 10 which pretty much means that unless they want to go to 10 games....this setup is really 3 separate conferences who have their champions play each other.

conference playoffs 3 "division" winners + an at large

FYI: I don't see the SEC expanding like this without the b10 poaching mizz hence the reason I didn't include them. but if you did want to include them swap em for KSU.

That's a good start, but there are some major flaws with this plan. The biggest one is with the Big 12. Their tv deal includes "shared custody" of football between ESPN and Fox. You have also cut out 8 schools, who are likely to keep that tied up in court for a long time.

A solution to that would be to get the Big 12 to legally dissolve (I'm assuming that such an action would void their current contract). I believe that would take 8 votes. If you got all the state schools, you have the votes, and if Baylor and TCU are the only casualties you can stand the political fallout better than if somebody like K State didn't make the cut.

That takes you to 36 schools, which I would divide into four nine team divisions. Here is where I would make an unconventional alignment choice. Instead of making sure that natural in-state rivals are in the same division, I would make sure they aren't. That sounds suicidal, but hear me out. These are my four divisions:

Texas, OU, WVU, Texas Tech, Kansas, Miss St, Missouri, Auburn, LSU

Pitt, Louisville, UVa, UNC, Duke, BC, Miami, Clemson, Vanderbilt

NC State, Wake, Ga Tech, FSU, S Carolina, Tennessee, VT, KY, Syracuse

Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Ole Miss, Arkansas, OK St, A&M, K State, Iowa St

Everybody plays a balanced four home, four away division schedule, which is completed by the week before Thanksgiving. Thanksgiving weekend is set aside for the in-state rivalry games, giving ESPN three days of blockbuster regional programming. You have your Iron Bowl, Texas - TAMU, Florida-FSU, UNC-NCSU, Pitt-West Virginia, Clemson-South Carolina, etc, etc. All 36 schools are paired off this way, and the games would not affect division standings.

The following week, the four divisional champions host the four highest ranked non-champs without regard to division. Since these champs have been decided the week before Thanksgiving, they have two weeks to prepare to host. It would be very rare but possible that a team not ranked among the top 8 would make this conference playoff field.

The next week, two of the four winners play in the Orange Bowl and the other two in the Cotton Bowl. The two finalists meet on New Year's Day in the Sugar Bowl, with the winner to play the Rose Bowl winner between the B1G and PAC 12 for the undisputed national championship.

With this configuration of schools, almost all long-standing rivals would play each other every year in the 8 game division schedule plus the T'giving weekend game, and you still have three games available to schedule however you want. You could even schedule a second team from one of the other divisions as an OOC game if you want. Pitt-Syracuse and UNC-Wake Forest would be options here.

Competitively, you have put both the B1G and the PAC 12 on separate islands. You have the B1G virtually surrounded, and make it very hard for them to compete for recruits in the talent-rich area of Florida, Texas and Louisiana.

As for getting around current NCAA rules about conference configurations and championship games, this mega conference can tell the NCAA what the rules are, not the other way around. Nobody has to leave the NCAA and its lucrative basketball tournament to make it work.

I'm not sure where this leaves ND, championship-wise, but then I'm not sure I care about that very much. Maybe the B1G and PAC would give them a chance to participate in a playoff scenario of their own.

(03-27-2014 11:03 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I hate to derail the riveting Dayton discussion, but more tweets from the OP's source went up today.

MHver3 ‏@MHver3 · 3h
Hearing that any talks of conference mergers are not necessarily about $$ but more about survival. Major upheaval coming

MHver3 ‏@MHver3 · 3h
I also heard that the number of schools discussed was 36. Not sure who that leaves out or why.

MHver3 ‏@MHver3 · 3h
6 pods of 6 teams under one conference umbrella and shared TV revenue with the same governing body for all.

Interesting that 36 is the number. The PAC and Big 12 would have to be involved if that is the number...

ACC - 14 plus partial ND
SEC - 14
Big 12 - 10
PAC - 12
B1G - 14