Smoke your cigars and enjoy the band while you can....

[sonofdaxjones]

Setting aside that guys lean towards WVU it does tend to make some sense.

I think the winds are changing for schools like Clemson and Virginia Tech.    They're fan bases more in line with SEC and Big 12 fan bases, and they're definitely football first schools.   What would be interesting is how the SEC views the ACC football powers.   I doubt Florida would be all that fired up about either Miami or FSU joining the SEC, and I can't see Georgia, Tenn and SC being fired up about one day waking up and realizing that there's 3 brand new SEC schools in the neighborhood and they all are pretty decent at football.    

[Rams]

Do not want to be in the same conference as Atlantic Coast teams.

Oh how far we've come.

[Panjandrum]

Setting aside that guys lean towards WVU it does tend to make some sense.

I think the winds are changing for schools like Clemson and Virginia Tech.    They're fan bases more in line with SEC and Big 12 fan bases, and they're definitely football first schools.   What would be interesting is how the SEC views the ACC football powers.   I doubt Florida would be all that fired up about either Miami or FSU joining the SEC, and I can't see Georgia, Tenn and SC being fired up about one day waking up and realizing that there's 3 brand new SEC schools in the neighborhood and they all are pretty decent at football.    

I think the next 'round' of realignment, I think we're going to see different types of targets starting to pop up.  So far, with the exception of A&M (and stupid Big East expansion), all of the lateral BCS moves have been schools that are the only BCS program in their state (Colorado, Nebraska, Missouri, West Virginia).  There are limited political entanglements, maximization of TV audience, etc.

The next set of schools in this evolutionary process are those that share states with other BCS conference teams, but exist in a conference that will make far less in television revenue, or have a perception of playing in a much inferior conference.  Georgia Tech, Clemson, FSU, and Miami are all prime targets for this right now.  Every single one of these teams are playing second fiddle to their SEC conference counterparts that they share a state with in terms of television exposure, revenue, etc.  Unless they make some sort of move, over time, they will be seen as the 'little brothers' because of how progressive the SEC is in marketing and promoting football, while the ACC sits on it's heels in Tobacco Road wondering if they can get more basketball games scheduled in MSG.

Because the Big Ten and Pac-12 have allied realizing that they've already found ways to maximize their revenue and exposure through fantastic TV contracts and their networks, they're most likely done for quite some time.  The symmetry in how they've now aligned themselves means that they're most likely going to dig in and maximize that arrangement.   This means that there are three conferences out there who are viable, and two of them take football seriously.  If you're an ACC school that cares more about football than basketball, I could see the Big 12 as a very attractive option, especially if we are able to manipulate those TV contracts by getting into bed with NBC.

I think, if we were able to take the four ACC teams I mentioned above, it would cause the ACC to reach out to take a few teams from the Big East and kill that conference once and for all.  Then, if Notre Dame wanted to join a party, the scramble will be on.  If we have an arrangement with NBC, that probably wouldn't hurt.

[bakerman]

So would we do a pod system with something like:

Pod 1:
Texas
TCU
Baylor
Tech

Pod 2:
OU
OSU
KU
KSU

Pod 3:
FSU
Clemson
Miami
GT

Pod 4:
WVU
ISU
VT
ND/Rutgers/other Big East Reject


?

[Panjandrum]

I'd remove VT.  I'd love to have them, but I don't think you'll be able to wrench them away from UVA.  The SEC was also heavily after them earlier this year, and they said no.  So, I think they realize that they have a great thing going in the ACC right now, and the odds of them going elsewhere are low.

These are pods as I see them:

Texas Pod:
Texas
Texas Tech
TCU
Baylor

Great Plains Pod:
Kansas
Kansas State
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State

Southeast Pod:
Clemson
Florida State
Georgia Tech
Miami

Northeast Pod:
West Virginia
Pitt
Iowa State
Notre Dame*

I put in Notre Dame because I think we'd only be able to work 16 teams, financially, with them in the equation.

The pod system could work like this in football:
3 games against your pod every year
Rotate pods on a two-year basis after a home/away series (4 games)
One permanent cross divisional rival (1 game)
Conference Title game participants could rotate based on the pods scheduled against each other on the two year basis (Texas/Great Plains Pod vs. Northeast/Southeast Pod, Texas/Southeast Pod vs. Great Plains/Northeast Pod).

In basketball, you can schedule it pretty easily.  Two games, home and away, against teams in your pod (6 games).  12 games alternate annually, home and away, with teams in the other pods.  18 game conference schedule.

Cross-divisional rivals can be determined by the schools and conference.  Texas will probably pick OU, FSU and Notre Dame (Maybe?).  It may end up being a free for all because most of the traditional rivalries are maintained within the pods.

It's pretty workable, really.

[WildcatNkilt]

I'd remove VT.  I'd love to have them, but I don't think you'll be able to wrench them away from UVA.  The SEC was also heavily after them earlier this year, and they said no.  So, I think they realize that they have a great thing going in the ACC right now, and the odds of them going elsewhere are low.

These are pods as I see them:

Texas Pod:
Texas
Texas Tech
TCU
Baylor

Great Plains Pod:   
Kansas
Kansas State
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State

Southeast Pod:
Clemson
Florida State
Georgia Tech
Miami

Northeast Pod:
West Virginia
Pitt
Iowa State
Notre Dame*

I put in Notre Dame because I think we'd only be able to work 16 teams, financially, with them in the equation.

The pod system could work like this in football:
3 games against your pod every year
Rotate pods on a two-year basis after a home/away series (4 games)
One permanent cross divisional rival (1 game)
Conference Title game participants could rotate based on the pods scheduled against each other on the two year basis (Texas/Great Plains Pod vs. Northeast/Southeast Pod, Texas/Southeast Pod vs. Great Plains/Northeast Pod).

In basketball, you can schedule it pretty easily.  Two games, home and away, against teams in your pod (6 games).  12 games alternate annually, home and away, with teams in the other pods.  18 game conference schedule.

Cross-divisional rivals can be determined by the schools and conference.  Texas will probably pick OU, FSU and Notre Dame (Maybe?).  It may end up being a free for all because most of the traditional rivalries are maintained within the pods.

It's pretty workable, really.

[MadCat]

#TeamPodPeople

[michigancat]

Panj post

[Skipper44]

Conference Title game participants could rotate based on the pods scheduled against each other on the two year basis (Texas/Great Plains Pod vs. Northeast/Southeast Pod, Texas/Southeast Pod vs. Great Plains/Northeast Pod).

I like this part, would keep conference unified and help avoid the North v South divisiveness of last years of the old Big12

[star seed 7]

Wouldn't you basicly need perm rivals from each pod then for rotating pod schedules?  Making 9 conf games a year (3 pod, 4 other pod, 2 other rivals)

If you didn't have rivals in each pod, then there would be 2 year spans where you would only have 7 conf games compared to other teams having 8.

[CyberToothCat]

Wouldn't you basicly need perm rivals from each pod then for rotating pod schedules?  Making 9 conf games a year (3 pod, 4 other pod, 2 other rivals)

If you didn't have rivals in each pod, then there would be 2 year spans where you would only have 7 conf games compared to other teams having 8.

This is how I would work it.  In the Great Plains pod, K-State would play KU, OU and OSU every year.  We'd also have one permanent rival from the Texas pod, one permanent rival from the Southeast pod, and one permanent rival from the other pod.  We would also have one rotating opponent from each of the other three pods.  With that system, you'd go through one complete schedule rotation every six years.

Years 1 and 2
Great Plains: KU, OU, OSU
Texas: UT (perm), TCU (rotate)
SE: Clem (Perm), GT (rotate)
Other: ISU (Perm), WVU (rotate)

Years 3 and 4
Great Plains: KU, OU, OSU
Texas: UT (Perm), TT (rotate)
SE: Clem (Perm), FSU (rotate)
Other: ISU (Perm), Lville (rotate)

Years 5 and 6
Great Plains: KU, OU, OSU
Texas: UT (Perm), Bay (rotate)
SE: Clem (Perm), Miami (Rotate)
Other: ISU (Perm), ND (rotate)


I also like Pan's idea of realigning the pods every few years.  Based on the above, I would probably realign the pods every six years.  Years 1-6, the Great Plains and Texas pods are in the same division.  Years 7-12, the Great Plains is paired with the Southeast pod.  Then years 13-18, the Great Plains is paired with the Ohio Valley pod (or whatever it's called).

[Stevesie60]

Panjandum is really smart.

The thing that would suck about the Great Plains pod is that we would never win it in either sport.

[TheHamburglar]

Pan, are you thinking that the NCAA would allow us to add an additional game, i.e. conf semi is game 13 and final is game 14.  If there is a big push back from that I like your set up, but have a 9-game conf. schedule where the last week is open for everyone.  Since it would be predetermined that say it would be Texas vs Plains and NE vs. SE, you could say Texas and NE would all be home that last weekend with Texas 1 playing Plains 1, 2 vs. 2, 3 vs. 3, and 4 vs. 4.  Any changes could be made to eliminate rematches outside the 1 vs. 1.  Also this way the teams could sell season tickets knowing if they would be home or away that last weekend ahead of time.

(Edit: Nevermind, I re-read your post and mis-read that there wouldn't be conf. semi games, but rather rotating 8-team divisions.)

[CyberToothCat]

Pan, are you thinking that the NCAA would allow us to add an additional game, i.e. conf semi is game 13 and final is game 14.  If there is a big push back from that I like your set up, but have a 9-game conf. schedule where the last week is open for everyone.  Since it would be predetermined that say it would be Texas vs Plains and NE vs. SE, you could say Texas and NE would all be home that last weekend with Texas 1 playing Plains 1, 2 vs. 2, 3 vs. 3, and 4 vs. 4.  Any changes could be made to eliminate rematches outside the 1 vs. 1.  Also this way the teams could sell season tickets knowing if they would be home or away that last weekend ahead of time.

(Edit: Nevermind, I re-read your post and mis-read that there wouldn't be conf. semi games, but rather rotating 8-team divisions.)

Not Pan (and probably not even an answer to your question).

I think the NCAA would have to make two concessions in order to allow the pod arrangement.

1) Allow a 13th game for four teams, and 14th game for two teams (before the bowls/national playoff).  Each school would play 12 regular season games.  Then the Great Plains pod winner would play the Texas pod winner, while the Southeast pod winner plays the Northeast pod winner.  Then the winner of those two games face off for the conference championship.  It's a mini-playoff in the conference, which the NCAA currently doesn't allow.

2) Under the current rules, in order to have a championship game, you have to play everyone in your division.  If the Great Plains and Texas pods are matched up, then you would have to play everyone in those two pods in order for the conference to legally have a title game.  IMO, this would not be a difficult concession.  The MAC (with 13 teams) currently ignores this rule.  It's the first concession above that would be the sticking point with the university presidents (who are currently balking at the idea of a 4-team national playoff... if they can't even get on board with that, why would they get excited about multiple 4-team playoffs within a conference?).

Beyond these concessions, and beyond the fact that you have to somehow make the money work for a 16-team super league (which no one has ever done yet), no conference is ever going to create an arrangement like this unless ALL conferences are doing it.  Why should Texas have to play OU in the first round of the Big 16 playoff and then play FSU in the championship game, while LSU only has to play UGA in the SEC championship game?  It dramatically decreases the conference's chance of getting a team into the national title game.  It would only be fair if ALL conferences are doing it.  Or at least, all BCS level conferences.  And the only way that would happen is if all of the BCS conferences expand to 16.  With the big 10 and PAC appearing pretty satisfied, I think a group of 16-team conferences is pretty far off.

[Panjandrum]

Wouldn't you basicly need perm rivals from each pod then for rotating pod schedules?  Making 9 conf games a year (3 pod, 4 other pod, 2 other rivals)

If you didn't have rivals in each pod, then there would be 2 year spans where you would only have 7 conf games compared to other teams having 8.

This is how I would work it.  In the Great Plains pod, K-State would play KU, OU and OSU every year.  We'd also have one permanent rival from the Texas pod, one permanent rival from the Southeast pod, and one permanent rival from the other pod.  We would also have one rotating opponent from each of the other three pods.  With that system, you'd go through one complete schedule rotation every six years.

Years 1 and 2
Great Plains: KU, OU, OSU
Texas: UT (perm), TCU (rotate)
SE: Clem (Perm), GT (rotate)
Other: ISU (Perm), WVU (rotate)

Years 3 and 4
Great Plains: KU, OU, OSU
Texas: UT (Perm), TT (rotate)
SE: Clem (Perm), FSU (rotate)
Other: ISU (Perm), Lville (rotate)

Years 5 and 6
Great Plains: KU, OU, OSU
Texas: UT (Perm), Bay (rotate)
SE: Clem (Perm), Miami (Rotate)
Other: ISU (Perm), ND (rotate)


I also like Pan's idea of realigning the pods every few years.  Based on the above, I would probably realign the pods every six years.  Years 1-6, the Great Plains and Texas pods are in the same division.  Years 7-12, the Great Plains is paired with the Southeast pod.  Then years 13-18, the Great Plains is paired with the Ohio Valley pod (or whatever it's called).

Yeah, well played on the cross-pod rival thing.  I didn't catch that when I just spit it out there.

Someone smarter than me can make that work.

I personally like a nine game conference schedule.  However...I think it would be a positive thing if we were to create an annual arrangement with someone like the SEC (similar to the Pac-12/Big Ten thing), and that's essentially a 9th conference game.

You also have to take into consideration if you're going to get ND, you're going to have to free up at least a spot or two for some combo of Michigan, USC, Michigan State, and Purdue.

[puniraptor]

Jesus I am running out of cigars.

[sys]

that all sounds horrible.  #stay@10

[Panjandrum]

Beyond these concessions, and beyond the fact that you have to somehow make the money work for a 16-team super league (which no one has ever done yet), no conference is ever going to create an arrangement like this unless ALL conferences are doing it.  Why should Texas have to play OU in the first round of the Big 16 playoff and then play FSU in the championship game, while LSU only has to play UGA in the SEC championship game?  It dramatically decreases the conference's chance of getting a team into the national title game.  It would only be fair if ALL conferences are doing it.  Or at least, all BCS level conferences.  And the only way that would happen is if all of the BCS conferences expand to 16.  With the big 10 and PAC appearing pretty satisfied, I think a group of 16-team conferences is pretty far off.

There are no playoffs.  You missed my concept of rotating divisions based on the pod schedules.  Basically, the divisions would change every two years with one CCG.

The money part is the kicker.  A few things have to happen for it to work:

1) We'd need a killer Tier 1 deal -  This is a key.  We need someone to see that list of schools and open the checkbook.  There is no reason you can't get two marquee matchups every week.  Notre Dame/Texas, ND/FSU, ND/OU, OU/UT, Miami/FSU, Texas/Miami, etc.  I mean, the combinations are endless.

2) A conference network would HAVE to be created - Based on this arrangement, you'll have eight conference games every week, and 64 on the schedule.  That's going to overflow the Tier 1 and Tier 2 schedule by a heavy margin.  There are probably anywhere between 100-115 games of inventory from your conference that could be televised on any given year.  If we gave 30 to the Tier 1 platform (which is high), 40 to Fox for Tier 2, that would still leave around 35-45 games for a network to televise per year, which is what the Big Ten currently has.  No other conference in the country would have that kind of inventory at the quality we can provide with THAT lineup.  And with the geographical reach of the conference, well, it would get on every carrier BTN is on.

And don't even get me started on the number of basketball games you could televise on a Big 12 Network.  With that many schools in the Eastern Time Zone, you could double up and have Big Tuesday, Big Wednesday, Big Thursday, etc.  6:00 PM tip CST for the Eastern schools, 8 PM CST tip for the Central schools.  I mean there would be basketball Nirvana.  All of that crappy Big 12 Network stuff on Saturday afternoons that's syndicated?  Gone.  All on the Big 12 Network.  Every conference game.  Nationally televised.

I have a million ideas here, but whatever, I'll save that for another time.

3) Notre Dame has to be involved.  Has to be.  No exceptions.  Otherwise, it doesn't work.

[SwiftCat]

Consider me on #team10 or #team12

No offense to Pan, of course.

[BMWWcat]

12 or 14.

less than 12 is too few...jmo.

[mcmwcat]

that all sounds horrible.  #stay@10

please stay at 10.  if we expand i would prefer 16 to 14 or 12.  if we are going to blow up the schedule again might as well go the distance with 16 teams.

[steve dave]

lol at the idea that the Big 12 is going to add good teams

[SkinnyBenny]

lol at the idea that the Big 12 is going to add good teams

[ben ji]

If we do expand its a 75% chance its Louisville and Cincy. I am however excited as crap that we can at least ponder what that other 25% holds!!!!

[Panjandrum]

lol at the idea that the Big 12 is going to add good teams

You must be that mean owner lady from Major League in Pete's musical.