NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Tue Jul 29, 2014 11:51 am

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 462 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 27, 28, 29, 30, 31
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 9:26 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:33 am
Posts: 282
Location: Austin, Texas
BePcr07 wrote:

I assumed Purdue was an honest mistake as well as perhaps North Carolina St and Wake Forest.

MAC teams have made Top 10 noise a couple times in history, but not much.

I would love to see a three-tiered division 1 football system with 3 championships (I-A, I-AA, I-AAA or FB(owl)S, FP(layoff)S, FC(hampionship)S)


Purdue was....the others not so much. I could be wrong about NC State...but, Wake should go. If it weren't for Duke's recent season....I would have said they would be the one to go.
There are some tough cuts getting down to 96. Dropping below 96 would be very difficult.

I really like the three championship idea. Excellent thought! Much better than my idea of Private and Public. Although, I would really like to see the best private vs. the best pubic...as some sort of bowl game maybe?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 10, 2014 6:32 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 10:45 am
Posts: 192
ncaanopaawaa2000 wrote:
BePcr: Interesting format of pods you posted. But what would happen if it's grouped into divisions? You know find two pods to make a permanent division (for geographic and rivalry reasons)? Here's a sample formula:

Conference: Pac-16

Division A:

Pod A-1: Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State
Pod A-2: California, Stanford, UCLA, USC

Division B:

Pod B-1: Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah
Pod B-2: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

BePcr07 wrote:
Scheduling: play all 3 teams in own pod, play 2 teams in each other pod (home/away with every team in conference every 4 years), 3 non-conference games; divisions: rotate pods every year to form 2 8-team divisions and best team from both 2-pod divisions meet in conference championship


And like your scheduling format. But I have my own (based on that formula): each team plays all 3 teams within their own pod within the same division, plus playing all 4 teams of other pod within that same division; and then 2 games against non-division teams (one on each pod on that basis, with home/away basis for every 8 years; which is nearly similar to the current NFL scheduling format, minus the round robin part on same pod and the other part where teams face other pods based on standings).:

Here's a sample team: I'll choose Stanford (this year's Pac-12 tournament bowl champions).

a.) They'll face intra-pod intra-division teams in Cal, USC and UCLA every year on a home/away basis for 2 years.
b.) Their non-pod intra-division team are Oregon, Oregon St., Washington and Washington St.
c.) Their non-division teams will be the following: Arizona and Texas on Year 1; Arizona St. and Texas Tech on Year 2; Colorado and Oklahoma on Year 3; and Utah and Oklahoma St. (each will face once for every 4 years, with home/away basis for every 8 years).

Lemme know your thoughts.


I didn't quite understand point "b.)" that you made. Are they playing their non-pod intra-division opponents on any type of rotating basis? What would the overall schedule look like for a sample year? I do like the idea of playing "different schools" as non-divisional games (ex. Arizona and Texas instead of Texas and Texas Tech).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 21, 2014 11:49 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:14 pm
Posts: 1006
Location: Ciales-Manatí-Bayamón, Puerto Rico
BePcr07 wrote:
I didn't quite understand point "b.)" that you made. Are they playing their non-pod intra-division opponents on any type of rotating basis? What would the overall schedule look like for a sample year? I do like the idea of playing "different schools" as non-divisional games (ex. Arizona and Texas instead of Texas and Texas Tech).


To be honest, about my "point b.)", the only rotating basis would be the home/away series for every two years, because that other pod belongs to the same division as on the pod that the school is at. Unless (if you let me) I can try to re-configure it a bit as the following:

Let's go with Stanford again, but fixes on the other pods:

a.) They'll face intra-pod intra-division teams in Cal, USC and UCLA every year on a home/away basis for 2 years.
b.) Their non-pod intra-division teams will be the following are Oregon and Oregon St. on Year 1; and Washington and Washington St. on Year 2 (each will face once for every 2 years, with home/away basis for every 4 years)
c.) Their non-division teams will be the following: Arizona/Arizona State and Texas/Texas Tech on Year 1; and Colorado/Utah and Oklahoma/Oklahoma State on Year 2 (each will face once for every 2 years, with home/away basis for every 4 years).

On a side note, I have another sample from one of my previous posts on this topic. This time, involving the Big TEN (B1G):

Division A:

Pod A-1: Penn State, Ohio State, Maryland, Rutgers
Pod A-2: Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue

Division B:

Pod B-1: Illinois, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Mizzou
Pod B-2: Minnesota, Nebraska, Iowa, Iowa State

_________________
Florida State Seminoles fan for life (mostly on football, basketball and baseball)! 2013 ACC football Atlantic Division champions; 2013 ACC football regular season champions; 2013 ACC football conference bowl tournament champions; 2014 NCAA D-I FBS BCS national champions!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 21, 2014 12:24 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 10:45 am
Posts: 192
ncaanopaawaa2000 wrote:
BePcr07 wrote:
I didn't quite understand point "b.)" that you made. Are they playing their non-pod intra-division opponents on any type of rotating basis? What would the overall schedule look like for a sample year? I do like the idea of playing "different schools" as non-divisional games (ex. Arizona and Texas instead of Texas and Texas Tech).


To be honest, about my "point b.)", the only rotating basis would be the home/away series for every two years, because that other pod belongs to the same division as on the pod that the school is at. Unless (if you let me) I can try to re-configure it a bit as the following:

Let's go with Stanford again, but fixes on the other pods:

a.) They'll face intra-pod intra-division teams in Cal, USC and UCLA every year on a home/away basis for 2 years.
b.) Their non-pod intra-division teams will be the following are Oregon and Oregon St. on Year 1; and Washington and Washington St. on Year 2 (each will face once for every 2 years, with home/away basis for every 4 years)
c.) Their non-division teams will be the following: Arizona/Arizona State and Texas/Texas Tech on Year 1; and Colorado/Utah and Oklahoma/Oklahoma State on Year 2 (each will face once for every 2 years, with home/away basis for every 4 years).

On a side note, I have another sample from one of my previous posts on this topic. This time, involving the Big TEN (B1G):

Division A:

Pod A-1: Penn State, Ohio State, Maryland, Rutgers
Pod A-2: Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue

Division B:

Pod B-1: Illinois, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Mizzou
Pod B-2: Minnesota, Nebraska, Iowa, Iowa State


I like that plan a lot! I think it solves a couple glaring issues: 1) how to have a conference championship with 4 pods, and 2) how to fairly schedule a 16-team conference

On a side note...

You have Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma St going to the PAC with Missouri and Iowa St going to the B1G. How would set the rest of realignment based on these moves?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 21, 2014 12:30 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:14 pm
Posts: 1006
Location: Ciales-Manatí-Bayamón, Puerto Rico
BePcr07 wrote:
ncaanopaawaa2000 wrote:
BePcr07 wrote:
I didn't quite understand point "b.)" that you made. Are they playing their non-pod intra-division opponents on any type of rotating basis? What would the overall schedule look like for a sample year? I do like the idea of playing "different schools" as non-divisional games (ex. Arizona and Texas instead of Texas and Texas Tech).


To be honest, about my "point b.)", the only rotating basis would be the home/away series for every two years, because that other pod belongs to the same division as on the pod that the school is at. Unless (if you let me) I can try to re-configure it a bit as the following:

Let's go with Stanford again, but fixes on the other pods:

a.) They'll face intra-pod intra-division teams in Cal, USC and UCLA every year on a home/away basis for 2 years.
b.) Their non-pod intra-division teams will be the following are Oregon and Oregon St. on Year 1; and Washington and Washington St. on Year 2 (each will face once for every 2 years, with home/away basis for every 4 years)
c.) Their non-division teams will be the following: Arizona/Arizona State and Texas/Texas Tech on Year 1; and Colorado/Utah and Oklahoma/Oklahoma State on Year 2 (each will face once for every 2 years, with home/away basis for every 4 years).

On a side note, I have another sample from one of my previous posts on this topic. This time, involving the Big TEN (B1G):

Division A:

Pod A-1: Penn State, Ohio State, Maryland, Rutgers
Pod A-2: Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue

Division B:

Pod B-1: Illinois, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Mizzou
Pod B-2: Minnesota, Nebraska, Iowa, Iowa State


I like that plan a lot! I think it solves a couple glaring issues: 1) how to have a conference championship with 4 pods, and 2) how to fairly schedule a 16-team conference

On a side note...

You have Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma St going to the PAC with Missouri and Iowa St going to the B1G. How would set the rest of realignment based on these moves?


Yup. And based on those moves, I would put TCU back to either the MW or C-USA; Baylor, Kansas and Kansas St. in the SEC; and West Virginia in the ACC.

_________________
Florida State Seminoles fan for life (mostly on football, basketball and baseball)! 2013 ACC football Atlantic Division champions; 2013 ACC football regular season champions; 2013 ACC football conference bowl tournament champions; 2014 NCAA D-I FBS BCS national champions!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 21, 2014 12:49 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 10:45 am
Posts: 192
ncaanopaawaa2000 wrote:
Yup. And based on those moves, I would put TCU back to either the MW or C-USA; Baylor, Kansas and Kansas St. in the SEC; and West Virginia in the ACC.


West Virginia will end up in the ACC if its perfect timing: the ACC must say they want to expand to 16 for football AND the XII/WVU relationship is stale. I think it's likely that WVU could sneak out of the XII even under the GoR if the XII has viable candidates for replacement. I would love to see West Virginia in the ACC, however.

TCU would likely find its way back in the Mt West with former member BYU. The Mt West may expand on to 16 with additions like Baylor, Kansas, Kansas St, or Iowa St if they don't find homes elsewhere. I personally would like to see UTEP and Baylor in the Mt West if TCU and BYU make their way there too.

Kansas and Kansas St are tricky for me. I believe the B1G definitely would like a piece of the Kansas pie, but the XII GoR may be a tough obstacle depending on the Maryland case. The SEC would take Kansas in a heartbeat if it still had Missouri. Without Missouri, I'm not sure. The benefit of Kansas is that its kind of a big deal. If I could make a "dream conference" of 16 teams based on name alone, Kansas would get strong consideration. Kansas St, on the other hand, is not Kansas. Honestly, I have no idea where they'll go. I think keeping the XII intact is most beneficial for them, TCU, Baylor, and Iowa St. Kansas St is not AAU like Kansas, doesn't have a BCS bowl win like Kansas, and doesn't have the basketball prowess like Kansas. It does have a better football brand than Kansas which is beneficial. What hurts Kansas St is that the state of Kansas is not big in any respect. They are definitely the #2 in the state. Basketball-wise they could be #3 if Wichita St keeps it up. If not for the XII, I'd say Kansas St must hope the PAC goes to 18 and adds Kansas/Kansas St, the B1G takes Kansas and Kansas says Kansas St is a must, the SEC extends a friendly gesture, or else I think its the Mt West or American for Kansas St.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 21, 2014 12:56 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:14 pm
Posts: 1006
Location: Ciales-Manatí-Bayamón, Puerto Rico
BePcr07 wrote:
ncaanopaawaa2000 wrote:
Yup. And based on those moves, I would put TCU back to either the MW or C-USA; Baylor, Kansas and Kansas St. in the SEC; and West Virginia in the ACC.


West Virginia will end up in the ACC if its perfect timing: the ACC must say they want to expand to 16 for football AND the XII/WVU relationship is stale. I think it's likely that WVU could sneak out of the XII even under the GoR if the XII has viable candidates for replacement. I would love to see West Virginia in the ACC, however.

TCU would likely find its way back in the Mt West with former member BYU. The Mt West may expand on to 16 with additions like Baylor, Kansas, Kansas St, or Iowa St if they don't find homes elsewhere. I personally would like to see UTEP and Baylor in the Mt West if TCU and BYU make their way there too.

Kansas and Kansas St are tricky for me. I believe the B1G definitely would like a piece of the Kansas pie, but the XII GoR may be a tough obstacle depending on the Maryland case. The SEC would take Kansas in a heartbeat if it still had Missouri. Without Missouri, I'm not sure. The benefit of Kansas is that its kind of a big deal. If I could make a "dream conference" of 16 teams based on name alone, Kansas would get strong consideration. Kansas St, on the other hand, is not Kansas. Honestly, I have no idea where they'll go. I think keeping the XII intact is most beneficial for them, TCU, Baylor, and Iowa St. Kansas St is not AAU like Kansas, doesn't have a BCS bowl win like Kansas, and doesn't have the basketball prowess like Kansas. It does have a better football brand than Kansas which is beneficial. What hurts Kansas St is that the state of Kansas is not big in any respect. They are definitely the #2 in the state. Basketball-wise they could be #3 if Wichita St keeps it up. If not for the XII, I'd say Kansas St must hope the PAC goes to 18 and adds Kansas/Kansas St, the B1G takes Kansas and Kansas says Kansas St is a must, the SEC extends a friendly gesture, or else I think its the Mt West or American for Kansas St.


If only the Big TEN hadn't add Maryland and Rutgers, or even before those were revealed, then Kansas ans Kansas St. would have join Mizzou and Iowa St. to be the next 4 teams for the Big TEN to expand upto 16, without a doubt.

_________________
Florida State Seminoles fan for life (mostly on football, basketball and baseball)! 2013 ACC football Atlantic Division champions; 2013 ACC football regular season champions; 2013 ACC football conference bowl tournament champions; 2014 NCAA D-I FBS BCS national champions!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 21, 2014 7:23 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 10:45 am
Posts: 192
ncaanopaawaa200
0 wrote:
If only the Big TEN hadn't add Maryland and Rutgers, or even before those were revealed, then Kansas ans Kansas St. would have join Mizzou and Iowa St. to be the next 4 teams for the Big TEN to expand up to 16, without a doubt.


I agree! I'm aware that the B1G doesn't want to add within states already in its footprint, but I think they would make an exception to bring on both Missouri and Kansas. Kansas St would add power in football (way more than Maryland/Rutgers combined) and add power in basketball (way more than Rutgers/Maryland combined - note that Maryland has been relatively weak in recent years.) Iowa St is an AAU school that adds power in basketball (more than Rutgers/Maryland combined) but not so much in football which may have been the lynchpin in not including them. However, Kansas and Missouri may have wanted to keep Iowa St with them as a rival.

As per your scheduling technique:

Division A
Pod 1 - Missouri, Kansas, Kansas St, Nebraska
Pod 2 - Iowa, Iowa St, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Division B
Pod 3 - Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue
Pod 4 - Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St

Would Pod 3 be too weak and Pod 4 be too strong?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:43 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:14 pm
Posts: 1006
Location: Ciales-Manatí-Bayamón, Puerto Rico
BePcr07 wrote:
ncaanopaawaa200
0 wrote:
If only the Big TEN hadn't add Maryland and Rutgers, or even before those were revealed, then Kansas ans Kansas St. would have join Mizzou and Iowa St. to be the next 4 teams for the Big TEN to expand up to 16, without a doubt.


I agree! I'm aware that the B1G doesn't want to add within states already in its footprint, but I think they would make an exception to bring on both Missouri and Kansas. Kansas St would add power in football (way more than Maryland/Rutgers combined) and add power in basketball (way more than Rutgers/Maryland combined - note that Maryland has been relatively weak in recent years.) Iowa St is an AAU school that adds power in basketball (more than Rutgers/Maryland combined) but not so much in football which may have been the lynchpin in not including them. However, Kansas and Missouri may have wanted to keep Iowa St with them as a rival.

As per your scheduling technique:

Division A
Pod 1 - Missouri, Kansas, Kansas St, Nebraska
Pod 2 - Iowa, Iowa St, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Division B
Pod 3 - Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue
Pod 4 - Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St

Would Pod 3 be too weak and Pod 4 be too strong?


Now that would be interesting, according to your scheduling technique format. I believe that Pod 4 would be the strong pod of the 4, while Pod 3 would be the weak pod. But at least you managed to keep it as East (Division B) and West (Division B).

_________________
Florida State Seminoles fan for life (mostly on football, basketball and baseball)! 2013 ACC football Atlantic Division champions; 2013 ACC football regular season champions; 2013 ACC football conference bowl tournament champions; 2014 NCAA D-I FBS BCS national champions!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 22, 2014 11:13 am 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 10:45 am
Posts: 192
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootbal ... ball-union

This CBS article by Jeremy Fowler discusses the private school - unionization issue (which may give an advantage to private schools monetarily and athletically as someone on Frank the Tank's website mentioned). There are 17 private schools. If Notre Dame remained independent, would the rest consider forming a conference of their own? (a hair short of never, but what if??)

West: USC, Stanford, BYU, Baylor, TCU, SMU, Rice, Tulsa
East: Tulane, Miami FL, Duke, Wake Forest, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Syracuse, Boston College

Is this too crazy of an idea in the sport of money?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 22, 2014 12:19 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1406
BePcr07 wrote:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24534813/players-as-employees-looking-at-the-real-costs-of-a-college-football-union" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This CBS article by Jeremy Fowler discusses the private school - unionization issue (which may give an advantage to private schools monetarily and athletically as someone on Frank the Tank's website mentioned). There are 17 private schools. If Notre Dame remained independent, would the rest consider forming a conference of their own? (a hair short of never, but what if??)

West: USC, Stanford, BYU, Baylor, TCU, SMU, Rice, Tulsa
East: Tulane, Miami FL, Duke, Wake Forest, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Syracuse, Boston College

Is this too crazy of an idea in the sport of money?


For a similar reason, there is a lot of smoke for the University of Texas to become a private school, as I wrote in another thread, they only receive 8% of their budget from the state and was willing to give up the PUF in order to eliminate the tuition freeze as it would more than make up for the loss of the PUF money.

Also on a semi-related note, this is from a message I got from a freind of mine about UT and players union/paying player...

"I’m told the plan is to endow all of the football scholarships and have a 1 billion dollar endowment for general use. I don’t know the legalities involved or whether its preventive in nature or if its being done in anticipation of what’s coming down the pike, all I know is that the athletic department is planning and being proactive. We proclaim that we are the Jones’, so this may be a way to finally prove it, both legally and compliantly. I don’t know how Title IX comes into play here, and I don’t know how this will affect conference partners, future conference alignment, or our standing as an institution (remaining public or becoming private), all know is that we’re gearing up and we have a cogent strategy for compensating players if it comes to that."

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 22, 2014 4:31 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 10:45 am
Posts: 192
tkalmus wrote:
For a similar reason, there is a lot of smoke for the University of Texas to become a private school, as I wrote in another thread, they only receive 8% of their budget from the state and was willing to give up the PUF in order to eliminate the tuition freeze as it would more than make up for the loss of the PUF money.

Also on a semi-related note, this is from a message I got from a freind of mine about UT and players union/paying player...

"I’m told the plan is to endow all of the football scholarships and have a 1 billion dollar endowment for general use. I don’t know the legalities involved or whether its preventive in nature or if its being done in anticipation of what’s coming down the pike, all I know is that the athletic department is planning and being proactive. We proclaim that we are the Jones’, so this may be a way to finally prove it, both legally and compliantly. I don’t know how Title IX comes into play here, and I don’t know how this will affect conference partners, future conference alignment, or our standing as an institution (remaining public or becoming private), all know is that we’re gearing up and we have a cogent strategy for compensating players if it comes to that."


I can definitely see Texas going private for various reasons. Realistically, they will still a massive ton of applicants from within the state. If they went private, out-of-state applicants wouldn't pay more than in-state applicants which may (or may not) drive up non-Texas applicants. Also, not being a public institution, Texas wouldn't have to follow the "top 10% rule" - which states that the top 10% of any public high school's graduating class gets automatic acceptance to any state school they choose. This way Texas wouldn't have to accept the top 10% from a high school that is not academically competitive where the Valedictorian would only be top 25% at a top high school. This could boost Texas' academic rankings up dramatically. From a football perspective, being a private school - if the players are allowed to unionize and get compensation - Texas may draw more top-tier recruits who want the paycheck as well as the opportunity to play for Texas. As far as other major state universities, if Texas does this and it works out incredibly well for them, others may follow - hence Texas is the Jones'. For other schools within the XII, I'm not sure what would follow. As far as conference realignment goes, it might be a way to get Notre Dame into the PAC if the PAC say they only want privates as expansion targets. But its all speculation.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 462 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 27, 28, 29, 30, 31

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
 

 




Looking for College Sports apparel? Support our partner:








Support Our Partners: Search Engine Marketing - Search Engine Optimization - Search Engine Training - Online Marketing for Restuarants

Subway Map Shirts - Food and Travel

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group