(01-26-2019 10:44 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 06:36 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 03:26 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 02:26 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 03:38 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  Agreed. In the bowl era prior to CCGs, those first-place "ties" had tie-breaking rules that helped determine which of the teams tied for first went to the major bowl of said conference. So, with division-less, simply incorporate something similar to determine who the opponents will be in the CCG.

As an ACC fan, the reason why I believe division-less is the way to go for the ACC is because so many TV attractive match-ups are only happening twice every 12 years - Clemson-Miami, FSU-VT, FSU-GT, Clemson-VT, Miami-UL, VT-UL, etc. And overall, it's just insane that each league member has 6 conference mates they play less often than they do Notre Dame over a 12 year period (2-4).

Cheers,
Neil

Well if you went to geographic divisions and 9 game schedules, you wouldn't have that problem. You would play everyone at least 6 times in 14 years.

The idea is to play a full conference members more times than the Irish and also increase the number of content driven games. Not to mention strictly geographical divisions of 7 in the ACC are also not conducive to content driven games, imho. The Big East/ACC Old guard divisions (which are not strictly geographical) is certainly better than the current set-up for content driven games. But the problem with that said format is ultimately it would likely lead to a break-up similar to the Big 12.

As for 9 games versus 8, not sure how this helps any conference outside maybe the B12. And I believe the early returns on the CFP are making a case for other leagues to consider going back to 8 rather than continue on with 9. Would definitely benefit the PAC to go back to 8 and take the Big Ten up on that scheduling alliance they almost had back in the early part of this decade.

Cheers,
Neil

Why would such an alignment necessarily lead to a breakup?

That's a bit of hyperbole.

Miami, VT, and Louisville are not OLD Big East schools even though they played some years in the OBE. VT has always been a SoCon school blackballed out of the ACC and pining to be readmitted - they only spent 4 years in the league for all sports. Miami is a football school that had to put it's football in the OBE in order to give a home to the other sports, but was looking to follow Florida State from the moment they moved to the ACC and they only spent 13 years.


Both VT and Miami have spent more time in the ACC than they ever did in the OBE.

Louisville is something of it's own thing and only spent 8 years in the OBE.

The only dyed in the wool OBE schools are BC (27 years), Syracuse (35 years), and Pitt (30 years).

When the Southern football schools complain about playing someone in the North, the complaint is solely directed toward BC and Syracuse, not Pitt and even then it's not so much personal as it is weak recruiting area and playing in the Carrier Dome or outside in the cold in Boston sucks.

BC has spent more time in the ACC in football than they ever did in the Big East football league.

Miami and VT were charter Big East football conference members.

Charter Big East Football Conference Members sounds like an oxymoron and playing one sport with a certain conference is not really conference membership, more like a loose scheduling agreement.

IIRC Rutgers and WVa were kept out of the Big East for basketball for at least 4-5 years. VT was kept out for almost a decade and Temple almost 15 years. It's almost as if the Old Big East was part of the great and wonderful 1950's - something that existed in the collective memory but not in reality or under close inspection.

(01-26-2019 06:36 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 03:26 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 02:26 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 03:38 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(01-20-2019 03:18 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  The old way of doing it was a good approach. The difference being that no one was playing a conference championship game in those days so that adds a layer of complexity to it.

In the old days, schools could even tie for the conference title. I don't think we'd be going that direction though. The CCGs make money for some leagues.

Agreed. In the bowl era prior to CCGs, those first-place "ties" had tie-breaking rules that helped determine which of the teams tied for first went to the major bowl of said conference. So, with division-less, simply incorporate something similar to determine who the opponents will be in the CCG.

As an ACC fan, the reason why I believe division-less is the way to go for the ACC is because so many TV attractive match-ups are only happening twice every 12 years - Clemson-Miami, FSU-VT, FSU-GT, Clemson-VT, Miami-UL, VT-UL, etc. And overall, it's just insane that each league member has 6 conference mates they play less often than they do Notre Dame over a 12 year period (2-4).

Cheers,
Neil

Well if you went to geographic divisions and 9 game schedules, you wouldn't have that problem. You would play everyone at least 6 times in 14 years.

The idea is to play a full conference members more times than the Irish and also increase the number of content driven games. Not to mention strictly geographical divisions of 7 in the ACC are also not conducive to content driven games, imho. The Big East/ACC Old guard divisions (which are not strictly geographical) is certainly better than the current set-up for content driven games. But the problem with that said format is ultimately it would likely lead to a break-up similar to the Big 12.

As for 9 games versus 8, not sure how this helps any conference outside maybe the B12. And I believe the early returns on the CFP are making a case for other leagues to consider going back to 8 rather than continue on with 9. Would definitely benefit the PAC to go back to 8 and take the Big Ten up on that scheduling alliance they almost had back in the early part of this decade.

Cheers,
Neil

Why would such an alignment necessarily lead to a breakup?

History tells me that is the most likely outcome. Miami and VT wanted out of the Big East before playing a down in it. They always preferred the ACC. Louisville I suspect is the same thing had they the choice, but could be wrong there. Now throw all three back into a division that keeps them from playing the likes of playing FSU, Clemson, and GT more often (with the possible exception of the Miami-FSU game being preserved) and then add on top of that the strictly geographical divisions (with the standard Miami exception) would likely throw UVA into the north (BE) division and imho you have all of the elements necessary for virtually guaranteeing a future fracture.

Division-less doesn't prevent a future fracture. But it divides things up in smaller chunks while allowing each program to play all full members at a minimum twice every four years. It is the best solution I have seen for a conference which needs to increase content driven match-ups (which gives the conference its best chance to increase its monetary value to TV) as well as the best path forward to make the programs in this stitched together conference feel more like they are in a true conference by playing each other way more often than they do now. Those two factors to me provide the necessary ingredients to bring cohesiveness or at minimum keep it from going nuclear. A third factor is the league is able to retain an 8-game conference schedule under this model while keeping in tact its ND scheduling alliance and its annual SEC match-ups which greatly assists in its current TV value.

This division-less solution though is not a one size fits all. Which is why the rule change needs to be flexible enough to allow other conferences to do what is right and best for them (which includes keeping divisions if they want) with only minimum requirements that keep each part from being too dissimilar to each other - meaning a standard minimum of conference games played and no special rigging for partial members (which we know the only partial member in place at the moment does not want anyway).

Cheers,
Neil

(01-27-2019 04:54 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 06:36 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 03:26 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 02:26 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 03:38 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  Agreed. In the bowl era prior to CCGs, those first-place "ties" had tie-breaking rules that helped determine which of the teams tied for first went to the major bowl of said conference. So, with division-less, simply incorporate something similar to determine who the opponents will be in the CCG.

As an ACC fan, the reason why I believe division-less is the way to go for the ACC is because so many TV attractive match-ups are only happening twice every 12 years - Clemson-Miami, FSU-VT, FSU-GT, Clemson-VT, Miami-UL, VT-UL, etc. And overall, it's just insane that each league member has 6 conference mates they play less often than they do Notre Dame over a 12 year period (2-4).

Cheers,
Neil

Well if you went to geographic divisions and 9 game schedules, you wouldn't have that problem. You would play everyone at least 6 times in 14 years.

The idea is to play a full conference members more times than the Irish and also increase the number of content driven games. Not to mention strictly geographical divisions of 7 in the ACC are also not conducive to content driven games, imho. The Big East/ACC Old guard divisions (which are not strictly geographical) is certainly better than the current set-up for content driven games. But the problem with that said format is ultimately it would likely lead to a break-up similar to the Big 12.

As for 9 games versus 8, not sure how this helps any conference outside maybe the B12. And I believe the early returns on the CFP are making a case for other leagues to consider going back to 8 rather than continue on with 9. Would definitely benefit the PAC to go back to 8 and take the Big Ten up on that scheduling alliance they almost had back in the early part of this decade.

Cheers,
Neil

Why would such an alignment necessarily lead to a breakup?

History tells me that is the most likely outcome. Miami and VT wanted out of the Big East before playing a down in it. They always preferred the ACC. Louisville I suspect is the same thing had they the choice, but could be wrong there. Now throw all three back into a division that keeps them from playing the likes of playing FSU, Clemson, and GT more often (with the possible exception of the Miami-FSU game being preserved) and then add on top of that the strictly geographical divisions (with the standard Miami exception) would likely throw UVA into the north (BE) division and imho you have all of the elements necessary for virtually guaranteeing a future fracture.

Division-less doesn't prevent a future fracture. But it divides things up in smaller chunks while allowing each program to play all full members at a minimum twice every four years. It is the best solution I have seen for a conference which needs to increase content driven match-ups (which gives the conference its best chance to increase its monetary value to TV) as well as the best path forward to make the programs in this stitched together conference feel more like they are in a true conference by playing each other way more often than they do now. Those two factors to me provide the necessary ingredients to bring cohesiveness or at minimum keep it from going nuclear. A third factor is the league is able to retain an 8-game conference schedule under this model while keeping in tact its ND scheduling alliance and its annual SEC match-ups which greatly assists in its current TV value.

This division-less solution though is not a one size fits all. Which is why the rule change needs to be flexible enough to allow other conferences to do what is right and best for them (which includes keeping divisions if they want) with only minimum requirements that keep each part from being too dissimilar to each other - meaning a standard minimum of conference games played and no special rigging for partial members (which we know the only partial member in place at the moment does not want anyway).

Cheers,
Neil

The easiest solution is to go ahead and break up and re-form into 6 "P" conferences.
NorthEastern-9 includes ND
ACC-11
SEC-12
B1G-10
Big 12-12
PAC-11...12 with BYU as a football only, pairs with Utah for PAC network

(01-28-2019 05:46 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-27-2019 04:54 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 06:36 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 03:26 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 02:26 PM)bullet Wrote:  Well if you went to geographic divisions and 9 game schedules, you wouldn't have that problem. You would play everyone at least 6 times in 14 years.

The idea is to play a full conference members more times than the Irish and also increase the number of content driven games. Not to mention strictly geographical divisions of 7 in the ACC are also not conducive to content driven games, imho. The Big East/ACC Old guard divisions (which are not strictly geographical) is certainly better than the current set-up for content driven games. But the problem with that said format is ultimately it would likely lead to a break-up similar to the Big 12.

As for 9 games versus 8, not sure how this helps any conference outside maybe the B12. And I believe the early returns on the CFP are making a case for other leagues to consider going back to 8 rather than continue on with 9. Would definitely benefit the PAC to go back to 8 and take the Big Ten up on that scheduling alliance they almost had back in the early part of this decade.

Cheers,
Neil

Why would such an alignment necessarily lead to a breakup?

History tells me that is the most likely outcome. Miami and VT wanted out of the Big East before playing a down in it. They always preferred the ACC. Louisville I suspect is the same thing had they the choice, but could be wrong there. Now throw all three back into a division that keeps them from playing the likes of playing FSU, Clemson, and GT more often (with the possible exception of the Miami-FSU game being preserved) and then add on top of that the strictly geographical divisions (with the standard Miami exception) would likely throw UVA into the north (BE) division and imho you have all of the elements necessary for virtually guaranteeing a future fracture.

Division-less doesn't prevent a future fracture. But it divides things up in smaller chunks while allowing each program to play all full members at a minimum twice every four years. It is the best solution I have seen for a conference which needs to increase content driven match-ups (which gives the conference its best chance to increase its monetary value to TV) as well as the best path forward to make the programs in this stitched together conference feel more like they are in a true conference by playing each other way more often than they do now. Those two factors to me provide the necessary ingredients to bring cohesiveness or at minimum keep it from going nuclear. A third factor is the league is able to retain an 8-game conference schedule under this model while keeping in tact its ND scheduling alliance and its annual SEC match-ups which greatly assists in its current TV value.

This division-less solution though is not a one size fits all. Which is why the rule change needs to be flexible enough to allow other conferences to do what is right and best for them (which includes keeping divisions if they want) with only minimum requirements that keep each part from being too dissimilar to each other - meaning a standard minimum of conference games played and no special rigging for partial members (which we know the only partial member in place at the moment does not want anyway).

Cheers,
Neil

The easiest solution is to go ahead and break up and re-form into 6 "P" conferences.
NorthEastern-9 includes ND
ACC-11
SEC-12
B1G-10
Big 12-12
PAC-11...12 with BYU as a football only, pairs with Utah for PAC network

The following New Big East might have worked well:

Football Division - ND, BC, Syracuse, Penn State, Pitt, Rutgers, West Va
Basketball Division - Providence, UConn, UMass, GT, St. Johns, Seton Hall, Villanova

Football has just 6 conference games. Basketball plays a round robin in division and then the other division once for 19 games.

Oh well.

(01-28-2019 04:08 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 05:46 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-27-2019 04:54 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 06:36 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 03:26 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  The idea is to play a full conference members more times than the Irish and also increase the number of content driven games. Not to mention strictly geographical divisions of 7 in the ACC are also not conducive to content driven games, imho. The Big East/ACC Old guard divisions (which are not strictly geographical) is certainly better than the current set-up for content driven games. But the problem with that said format is ultimately it would likely lead to a break-up similar to the Big 12.

As for 9 games versus 8, not sure how this helps any conference outside maybe the B12. And I believe the early returns on the CFP are making a case for other leagues to consider going back to 8 rather than continue on with 9. Would definitely benefit the PAC to go back to 8 and take the Big Ten up on that scheduling alliance they almost had back in the early part of this decade.

Cheers,
Neil

Why would such an alignment necessarily lead to a breakup?

History tells me that is the most likely outcome. Miami and VT wanted out of the Big East before playing a down in it. They always preferred the ACC. Louisville I suspect is the same thing had they the choice, but could be wrong there. Now throw all three back into a division that keeps them from playing the likes of playing FSU, Clemson, and GT more often (with the possible exception of the Miami-FSU game being preserved) and then add on top of that the strictly geographical divisions (with the standard Miami exception) would likely throw UVA into the north (BE) division and imho you have all of the elements necessary for virtually guaranteeing a future fracture.

Division-less doesn't prevent a future fracture. But it divides things up in smaller chunks while allowing each program to play all full members at a minimum twice every four years. It is the best solution I have seen for a conference which needs to increase content driven match-ups (which gives the conference its best chance to increase its monetary value to TV) as well as the best path forward to make the programs in this stitched together conference feel more like they are in a true conference by playing each other way more often than they do now. Those two factors to me provide the necessary ingredients to bring cohesiveness or at minimum keep it from going nuclear. A third factor is the league is able to retain an 8-game conference schedule under this model while keeping in tact its ND scheduling alliance and its annual SEC match-ups which greatly assists in its current TV value.

This division-less solution though is not a one size fits all. Which is why the rule change needs to be flexible enough to allow other conferences to do what is right and best for them (which includes keeping divisions if they want) with only minimum requirements that keep each part from being too dissimilar to each other - meaning a standard minimum of conference games played and no special rigging for partial members (which we know the only partial member in place at the moment does not want anyway).

Cheers,
Neil

The easiest solution is to go ahead and break up and re-form into 6 "P" conferences.
NorthEastern-9 includes ND
ACC-11
SEC-12
B1G-10
Big 12-12
PAC-11...12 with BYU as a football only, pairs with Utah for PAC network

The following New Big East might have worked well:

Football Division - ND, BC, Syracuse, Penn State, Pitt, Rutgers, West Va
Basketball Division - Providence, UConn, UMass, GT, St. Johns, Seton Hall, Villanova

Football has just 6 conference games. Basketball plays a round robin in division and then the other division once for 19 games.

Oh well.

You wouldn't need to split them into football/basketball groups.

Northeastern Conference:
Notre Dame, Boston College, Syracuse, Rutgers, Penn State, Pitt, Maryland, West Virginia and Louisville (9). If you needed 10 for balance....add Cincinnati.

(01-28-2019 04:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 04:08 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 05:46 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-27-2019 04:54 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 06:36 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Why would such an alignment necessarily lead to a breakup?

History tells me that is the most likely outcome. Miami and VT wanted out of the Big East before playing a down in it. They always preferred the ACC. Louisville I suspect is the same thing had they the choice, but could be wrong there. Now throw all three back into a division that keeps them from playing the likes of playing FSU, Clemson, and GT more often (with the possible exception of the Miami-FSU game being preserved) and then add on top of that the strictly geographical divisions (with the standard Miami exception) would likely throw UVA into the north (BE) division and imho you have all of the elements necessary for virtually guaranteeing a future fracture.

Division-less doesn't prevent a future fracture. But it divides things up in smaller chunks while allowing each program to play all full members at a minimum twice every four years. It is the best solution I have seen for a conference which needs to increase content driven match-ups (which gives the conference its best chance to increase its monetary value to TV) as well as the best path forward to make the programs in this stitched together conference feel more like they are in a true conference by playing each other way more often than they do now. Those two factors to me provide the necessary ingredients to bring cohesiveness or at minimum keep it from going nuclear. A third factor is the league is able to retain an 8-game conference schedule under this model while keeping in tact its ND scheduling alliance and its annual SEC match-ups which greatly assists in its current TV value.

This division-less solution though is not a one size fits all. Which is why the rule change needs to be flexible enough to allow other conferences to do what is right and best for them (which includes keeping divisions if they want) with only minimum requirements that keep each part from being too dissimilar to each other - meaning a standard minimum of conference games played and no special rigging for partial members (which we know the only partial member in place at the moment does not want anyway).

Cheers,
Neil

The easiest solution is to go ahead and break up and re-form into 6 "P" conferences.
NorthEastern-9 includes ND
ACC-11
SEC-12
B1G-10
Big 12-12
PAC-11...12 with BYU as a football only, pairs with Utah for PAC network

The following New Big East might have worked well:

Football Division - ND, BC, Syracuse, Penn State, Pitt, Rutgers, West Va
Basketball Division - Providence, UConn, UMass, GT, St. Johns, Seton Hall, Villanova

Football has just 6 conference games. Basketball plays a round robin in division and then the other division once for 19 games.

Oh well.

You wouldn't need to split them into football/basketball groups.

Northeastern Conference:
Notre Dame, Boston College, Syracuse, Rutgers, Penn State, Pitt, Maryland, West Virginia and Louisville (9). If you needed 10 for balance....add Cincinnati.

Who's the 11th in your ACC? TCU?

(01-28-2019 04:53 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 04:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 04:08 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 05:46 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-27-2019 04:54 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  History tells me that is the most likely outcome. Miami and VT wanted out of the Big East before playing a down in it. They always preferred the ACC. Louisville I suspect is the same thing had they the choice, but could be wrong there. Now throw all three back into a division that keeps them from playing the likes of playing FSU, Clemson, and GT more often (with the possible exception of the Miami-FSU game being preserved) and then add on top of that the strictly geographical divisions (with the standard Miami exception) would likely throw UVA into the north (BE) division and imho you have all of the elements necessary for virtually guaranteeing a future fracture.

Division-less doesn't prevent a future fracture. But it divides things up in smaller chunks while allowing each program to play all full members at a minimum twice every four years. It is the best solution I have seen for a conference which needs to increase content driven match-ups (which gives the conference its best chance to increase its monetary value to TV) as well as the best path forward to make the programs in this stitched together conference feel more like they are in a true conference by playing each other way more often than they do now. Those two factors to me provide the necessary ingredients to bring cohesiveness or at minimum keep it from going nuclear. A third factor is the league is able to retain an 8-game conference schedule under this model while keeping in tact its ND scheduling alliance and its annual SEC match-ups which greatly assists in its current TV value.

This division-less solution though is not a one size fits all. Which is why the rule change needs to be flexible enough to allow other conferences to do what is right and best for them (which includes keeping divisions if they want) with only minimum requirements that keep each part from being too dissimilar to each other - meaning a standard minimum of conference games played and no special rigging for partial members (which we know the only partial member in place at the moment does not want anyway).

Cheers,
Neil

The easiest solution is to go ahead and break up and re-form into 6 "P" conferences.
NorthEastern-9 includes ND
ACC-11
SEC-12
B1G-10
Big 12-12
PAC-11...12 with BYU as a football only, pairs with Utah for PAC network

The following New Big East might have worked well:

Football Division - ND, BC, Syracuse, Penn State, Pitt, Rutgers, West Va
Basketball Division - Providence, UConn, UMass, GT, St. Johns, Seton Hall, Villanova

Football has just 6 conference games. Basketball plays a round robin in division and then the other division once for 19 games.

Oh well.

You wouldn't need to split them into football/basketball groups.

Northeastern Conference:
Notre Dame, Boston College, Syracuse, Rutgers, Penn State, Pitt, Maryland, West Virginia and Louisville (9). If you needed 10 for balance....add Cincinnati.

Who's the 11th in your ACC? TCU?

ACC:
UVa, Virginia Tech, Duke, NC State, Wake Forest, Carolina. South Carolina, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida State, and Miami.

SEC:
Kentucky, Tennessee, Vandy, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Arkansas, Texas A&M, Ole Miss and Mississippi State

Big 12:
Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Nebraska, Colorado and Missouri.

(01-28-2019 05:11 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 04:53 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 04:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 04:08 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 05:46 AM)XLance Wrote:  The easiest solution is to go ahead and break up and re-form into 6 "P" conferences.
NorthEastern-9 includes ND
ACC-11
SEC-12
B1G-10
Big 12-12
PAC-11...12 with BYU as a football only, pairs with Utah for PAC network

The following New Big East might have worked well:

Football Division - ND, BC, Syracuse, Penn State, Pitt, Rutgers, West Va
Basketball Division - Providence, UConn, UMass, GT, St. Johns, Seton Hall, Villanova

Football has just 6 conference games. Basketball plays a round robin in division and then the other division once for 19 games.

Oh well.

You wouldn't need to split them into football/basketball groups.

Northeastern Conference:
Notre Dame, Boston College, Syracuse, Rutgers, Penn State, Pitt, Maryland, West Virginia and Louisville (9). If you needed 10 for balance....add Cincinnati.

Who's the 11th in your ACC? TCU?

ACC:
MD, UVa, Virginia Tech, Duke, NC State, Wake Forest, Carolina. South Carolina, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida State, and Miami.

SEC:
Kentucky, Tennessee, Vandy, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Arkansas, Texas A&M, Ole Miss and Mississippi State

Big 12:
Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Nebraska, Colorado and Missouri.

If South Carolina comes home, MD can come home. They certainly do not want to be part of a Big East, although it may take another decade or so to wipe away Kirwan's and Loh's mistakes.

(01-26-2019 03:26 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  The idea is to play a full conference members more times than the Irish

I fail to understand why that is such a big deal. If two teams really want to play each other then do what UNC and Wake have done and play OOC.

(01-28-2019 05:57 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 05:11 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 04:53 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 04:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 04:08 PM)Statefan Wrote:  The following New Big East might have worked well:

Football Division - ND, BC, Syracuse, Penn State, Pitt, Rutgers, West Va
Basketball Division - Providence, UConn, UMass, GT, St. Johns, Seton Hall, Villanova

Football has just 6 conference games. Basketball plays a round robin in division and then the other division once for 19 games.

Oh well.

You wouldn't need to split them into football/basketball groups.

Northeastern Conference:
Notre Dame, Boston College, Syracuse, Rutgers, Penn State, Pitt, Maryland, West Virginia and Louisville (9). If you needed 10 for balance....add Cincinnati.

Who's the 11th in your ACC? TCU?

ACC:
MD, UVa, Virginia Tech, Duke, NC State, Wake Forest, Carolina. South Carolina, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida State, and Miami.

SEC:
Kentucky, Tennessee, Vandy, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Arkansas, Texas A&M, Ole Miss and Mississippi State

Big 12:
Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Nebraska, Colorado and Missouri.

If South Carolina comes home, MD can come home. They certainly do not want to be part of a Big East, although it may take another decade or so to wipe away Kirwan's and Loh's mistakes.

Nah! Maryland's culture had "moved away" from the ACC even before they left. They now belong "up north" and will fit in perfectly in the Northeastern Conference.
South Carolina thinks they belong in the SEC, but no other SEC school really cares that they are there. South Carolina is included because of geography (there are 6 ACC schools within three hours of Columbia).

(01-28-2019 08:10 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 05:57 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 05:11 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 04:53 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 04:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  You wouldn't need to split them into football/basketball groups.

Northeastern Conference:
Notre Dame, Boston College, Syracuse, Rutgers, Penn State, Pitt, Maryland, West Virginia and Louisville (9). If you needed 10 for balance....add Cincinnati.

Who's the 11th in your ACC? TCU?

ACC:
MD, UVa, Virginia Tech, Duke, NC State, Wake Forest, Carolina. South Carolina, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida State, and Miami.

SEC:
Kentucky, Tennessee, Vandy, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Arkansas, Texas A&M, Ole Miss and Mississippi State

Big 12:
Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Nebraska, Colorado and Missouri.

If South Carolina comes home, MD can come home. They certainly do not want to be part of a Big East, although it may take another decade or so to wipe away Kirwan's and Loh's mistakes.

Nah! Maryland's culture had "moved away" from the ACC even before they left. They now belong "up north" and will fit in perfectly in the Northeastern Conference.
South Carolina thinks they belong in the SEC, but no other SEC school really cares that they are there. South Carolina is included because of geography (there are 6 ACC schools within three hours of Columbia).

I think that South Carolina would eye that lineup like intellectuals hearing about Mao's great leap forward. I don't think there is any desire on the part of the Gamecocks for a Cultural Revolution.

(01-28-2019 05:11 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 04:53 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 04:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 04:08 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 05:46 AM)XLance Wrote:  The easiest solution is to go ahead and break up and re-form into 6 "P" conferences.
NorthEastern-9 includes ND
ACC-11
SEC-12
B1G-10
Big 12-12
PAC-11...12 with BYU as a football only, pairs with Utah for PAC network

The following New Big East might have worked well:

Football Division - ND, BC, Syracuse, Penn State, Pitt, Rutgers, West Va
Basketball Division - Providence, UConn, UMass, GT, St. Johns, Seton Hall, Villanova

Football has just 6 conference games. Basketball plays a round robin in division and then the other division once for 19 games.

Oh well.

You wouldn't need to split them into football/basketball groups.

Northeastern Conference:
Notre Dame, Boston College, Syracuse, Rutgers, Penn State, Pitt, Maryland, West Virginia and Louisville (9). If you needed 10 for balance....add Cincinnati.

Who's the 11th in your ACC? TCU?

ACC:
UVa, Virginia Tech, Duke, NC State, Wake Forest, Carolina. South Carolina, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida State, and Miami.

SEC:
Kentucky, Tennessee, Vandy, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Arkansas, Texas A&M, Ole Miss and Mississippi State

Big 12:
Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Nebraska, Colorado and Missouri.

So, your plan is to make several schools angry by putting them back into conferences they didn't want to be in anymore, and to make a few conferences angry by forcing them to include schools they don't want to include.

(01-28-2019 11:52 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 05:11 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 04:53 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 04:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 04:08 PM)Statefan Wrote:  The following New Big East might have worked well:

Football Division - ND, BC, Syracuse, Penn State, Pitt, Rutgers, West Va
Basketball Division - Providence, UConn, UMass, GT, St. Johns, Seton Hall, Villanova

Football has just 6 conference games. Basketball plays a round robin in division and then the other division once for 19 games.

Oh well.

You wouldn't need to split them into football/basketball groups.

Northeastern Conference:
Notre Dame, Boston College, Syracuse, Rutgers, Penn State, Pitt, Maryland, West Virginia and Louisville (9). If you needed 10 for balance....add Cincinnati.

Who's the 11th in your ACC? TCU?

ACC:
UVa, Virginia Tech, Duke, NC State, Wake Forest, Carolina. South Carolina, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida State, and Miami.

SEC:
Kentucky, Tennessee, Vandy, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Arkansas, Texas A&M, Ole Miss and Mississippi State

Big 12:
Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Nebraska, Colorado and Missouri.

So, your plan is to make several schools angry by putting them back into conferences they didn't want to be in anymore, and to make a few conferences angry by forcing them to include schools they don't want to include.

Yep! the market model is dead.......regionalism rules.
If super conferences are going to eventually break apart as Neil speculated, then why not place teams in regional conferences where the cultures are closer, hatred is more intense, fans care more and expenses are lower?

(01-29-2019 05:44 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 11:52 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 05:11 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 04:53 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 04:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  You wouldn't need to split them into football/basketball groups.

Northeastern Conference:
Notre Dame, Boston College, Syracuse, Rutgers, Penn State, Pitt, Maryland, West Virginia and Louisville (9). If you needed 10 for balance....add Cincinnati.

Who's the 11th in your ACC? TCU?

ACC:
UVa, Virginia Tech, Duke, NC State, Wake Forest, Carolina. South Carolina, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida State, and Miami.

SEC:
Kentucky, Tennessee, Vandy, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Arkansas, Texas A&M, Ole Miss and Mississippi State

Big 12:
Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Nebraska, Colorado and Missouri.

So, your plan is to make several schools angry by putting them back into conferences they didn't want to be in anymore, and to make a few conferences angry by forcing them to include schools they don't want to include.

Yep! the market model is dead.......regionalism rules.
If super conferences are going to eventually break apart as Neil speculated, then why not place teams in regional conferences where the cultures are closer, hatred is more intense, fans care more and expenses are lower?

I don't recall speculating all super conferences would break apart in this thread. My post was specifically geared toward the ACC and the possible results of that conference's administrators not understanding the old content-driven paradigm coming back to the forefront (which for me necessitates getting more content-driven match-ups taking place more often) mixed in with some fans (both within the conference and outside of it) ignoring this factor while somehow believing the "fix" resides in just simply changing up divisions (with the most popular of these divisional fixes usually being a geographical divide along BE/Old Guard ACC or North/South programs with Miami being the exception).

Now, in the past in other threads it has been my speculation that at some point there will be NO conferences whatsoever, but a league of like 72 programs divided into most likely 8 divisions of 9 teams each and those divisional winners would likely form the basis of a CFP Elite 8 but that was a while back.

Cheers,
Neil

(01-29-2019 05:44 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 11:52 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 05:11 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 04:53 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 04:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  You wouldn't need to split them into football/basketball groups.

Northeastern Conference:
Notre Dame, Boston College, Syracuse, Rutgers, Penn State, Pitt, Maryland, West Virginia and Louisville (9). If you needed 10 for balance....add Cincinnati.

Who's the 11th in your ACC? TCU?

ACC:
UVa, Virginia Tech, Duke, NC State, Wake Forest, Carolina. South Carolina, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida State, and Miami.

SEC:
Kentucky, Tennessee, Vandy, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Arkansas, Texas A&M, Ole Miss and Mississippi State

Big 12:
Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Nebraska, Colorado and Missouri.

So, your plan is to make several schools angry by putting them back into conferences they didn't want to be in anymore, and to make a few conferences angry by forcing them to include schools they don't want to include.

Yep! the market model is dead.......regionalism rules.
If super conferences are going to eventually break apart as Neil speculated, then why not place teams in regional conferences where the cultures are closer, hatred is more intense, fans care more and expenses are lower?

Because in college sports, unlike high school, there's no committee that forces schools to leave their current league and dictates where they go next?