Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
Inbox
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 10  Next >

Realistic future realignment

Avatar

Posted: 7/10/2014 1:57 PM

Realistic future realignment 


As a piggyback to the crazy realignment thread, I just wanted to share what I think will actually happen. Not what I hope will happen, what is most likely in my eyes. You're not going to agree, but if you do disagree, then post how you think things will actually unfold.

The hierarchy of this is pretty plain to me. The SEC and B1G are on top, unlikely to poach each other, but able to draw from the ACC or XII. The B1G requires AAU membership and the SEC requires a good football program- both are expanding their footprint.

The PAC is the isolated middle-tier. They value academics and all-around sports programs. They're in no danger of being poached, but have little to draw from. They are in the most unique position.

The ACC and XII are the bottom of the big 5. They will be poached. It's unlikely both will survive long-term as 'haves'. They can only poach the now lower-level conferences. Because of this, neither can strengthen. One will weaken and one will fold.

The XII is dominated by Texas, to the detriment of the conference's overall health. It has fewer schools. It has OU and OKST tied together-another obstacle. The ACC is dominated by the state of NC. They're tied together, to the detriment of the conference. However the ACC is larger, more academic, and already has divisions. I don't prefer the ACC over the XII, but it's a fact that they're closer to where they want to be (16 schools, 2 divisions, larger footprint, etc).

I believe we will end up with 4 conferences of 16 each. We 'll still have a playoff selection committee, largely because of one school- not ND. The playoff will not be conference champs only, again, largely to accommodate 1school.

The SEC and B1G will do what they just did. The SEC will poach the little brother schools of new states (a la A&M). They'll add NC State and Oklahoma St. The OU/OKST pairing exists to protect OKST because OU is the sexy school. I don't think the pairing goes the other way. I think OKST would jump at the offer. NC State is in a similar boat.
The B1G surprisingly took Rutgers and will continue to surprise by poaching Virginia and Kansas. Both are AAU members, expand the footprint both ways, and are the state schools. They're plus basketball programs and one is east, one west.
The ACC reacts to being poached by adding Cincinnati from the AAC, and WV from the XII. This is the tipping point of the ACC/XII issue, and the XII members see the writing on the wall. They all freak out except for one: Texas. Texas sits back. Texas doesn't mind all the jostling and tectonic shifts. They know the playoff will accommodate them. The rest of the XII scrambles.
The ACC unexpectedly gets ND to join. The Irish are less confident than Texas and joins a conference, but keeps it's money. Texas is basically the new ND.
The PAC takes Oklahoma and another academically-strong XII school like TCU or whoever. I think the PAC will stand pat at 14 schools for a some years....until the others pressure them into adding 2 more. They'll take 2 more XII remnants or SMU or Houston or whoever. Proactive schools will immediately up their academics as soon as all this begins, which will give them 6-8 years in order to look more appealing to the PAC.

The national playoff won't jump to 8 schools anytime soon. And even with a pretty, linear 4 super conferences with champions, the committee will simply pick the top 4 as they see fit. So if Texas goes 12-0, they'll be in. They'll get the special treatment ND has enjoyed all these years.

He fixes the cable?

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 7/10/2014 2:40 PM

Re: Realistic future realignment 


Yep...  I disagree.

I can tell you some problems with your scenario given my point of view as a former Big XIIer.

1.  Texas has no desire to go independent... even though at times it may have seemed that way.
2.  Texas and OU will not be separated.
3.  The OU/oSu partnership will not be broken.

Those three things I believe to be pretty firm.  I COULD be wrong about one or two... but I highly doubt it.

The most likely larger scale realignment will involve Texas, Texas tech, OU and oSu going to the Pac 12 to create a 16 team league out west.   They almost did it once already. And the idea of morphing the LHN into a Texas sub network similar to the ones they have out there in the pac12 network just makes too much sense.  The Pac 12 would then have a pacific and southwest division... would expand their footprint... and they'd be sitting pretty.

Vereor non magnus nocens lupus

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 7/10/2014 2:43 PM

Re: Realistic future realignment 


Beyond that.... regarding the SEC.... the most likely targets for expansion for the SEC remain NC State and Virginia Tech.  I don't see NC State as firmly entrenched in the North Carolina mafia of schools as the rest are... and VaTech is a no brainer.

With the ACC being poached and the Big XII dissolving as a result of what I posted previously.... West Virginia heads to the ACC where they belong.  

I do think Kansas could somehow find it's way into the B1G but not sure who their dance partner would be.

The rest of the Big XII (yes that means you baylor)... goes bye bye.

Vereor non magnus nocens lupus

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 7/10/2014 4:08 PM

Re: Realistic future realignment 


The Virginia and North Carolina footprints are the largest for potential revenue gain.  Kansas' dance partner would be Texas, IMO.

Shiner1 wrote: Beyond that.... regarding the SEC.... the most likely targets for expansion for the SEC remain NC State and Virginia Tech.  I don't see NC State as firmly entrenched in the North Carolina mafia of schools as the rest are... and VaTech is a no brainer.

With the ACC being poached and the Big XII dissolving as a result of what I posted previously.... West Virginia heads to the ACC where they belong.  

I do think Kansas could somehow find it's way into the B1G but not sure who their dance partner would be.

The rest of the Big XII (yes that means you baylor)... goes bye bye.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/10/2014 7:04 PM

Re: Realistic future realignment 


If not for the "Tech Problem", aTm and Texas would be in the B1G today.

It was that close.

I'm not so sure the PAC wants that "problem" either. They already have some of those.

Tech Problem


Although at the time, the T schools were joined at the hip, the tipping point came after the LHN hatched and aTm had enough and started looking to the East.

Things would look different today otherwise.
U-Rah-Rah   Wis-Con-Sin
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 7/10/2014 7:46 PM

Re: Realistic future realignment 



847badgerfan wrote: If not for the "Tech Problem", aTm and Texas would be in the B1G today.

It was that close.

I'm not so sure the PAC wants that "problem" either. They already have some of those.

Tech Problem


Although at the time, the T schools were joined at the hip, the tipping point came after the LHN hatched and aTm had enough and started looking to the East.

Things would look different today otherwise.
It's possible. Then again, lots of deals have been close to happening, or rumored to be close to happening, and then never did during the realignment saga, so it's obviously hard to know for sure (A&M's dislike of Texas and long-standing SEC preference could very well have been B1G issues too).
 
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 7/11/2014 1:21 AM

Re: Realistic future realignment 


To help us determine B1G and PAC futures, here are the top 100 Divison-1 football-playing schools, as per US News Report overall rankings.  (AAU members in bold)
1 Stanford
2 Duke
3 N'Western
4 Vandy
5 Rice
6 ND
7 Cal
8 UCLA
9 USC
10 Virginia
11 WF
12 Michigan
13 UNC
14 BC
15 GT
16 Penn St
17 Illinois
18 Wisconsin
19 Miami-FL
20 Florida
21 Ohio St
22 Tulane
23 Texas
24 Washington
25 UConn
26 SMU
27 Georgia
28 BYU
29 Clemson
30 Syracuse
31 Maryland
32 Pitt
33 Purdue
34 Rutgers
35 Texas A&M
36 Minnesota
37 VT
38 Michigan St
39 Iowa
40 Baylor
41 Indiana
42 Miami-OH
43 TCU
44 Alabama
45 Colorado
46 Tulsa
47 Auburn
48 Florida St
49 Missouri
50 Iowa St

He fixes the cable?

Last edited 7/11/2014 1:31 AM by OrangeAfroMan

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 7/11/2014 1:26 AM

Re: Realistic future realignment 


51 NC State
52 Kansas
53 Nebraska
54 Oklahoma
55 Tennessee
56 Oregon
57 South Carolina
58 Arizona
59 Kentucky
60 Colorado St
61 Temple
62 Utah
63 Arkansas
64 Washington St
65 Kansas St
66 LSU
67 Ohio U
68 Cincinnati
69 Arizona St
70 Miss State
71 Oklahoma St
72 Oregon St
73 Ole Miss
74 San Diego St
75 UAB
76 Hawaii
77 Texas Tech
78 Idaho
79 Louisville
80 Wyoming
81 UCF
82 South Florida
83 West Virginia
84 Northern Illinois
85 Ball St
86 Bowling Green
87 East Carolina
88 Nevada
89 New Mexico
90 WMU
91 CMU
92 LA Tech
93 New Mexico St
94 Houston
95 Utah St
96 Kent St
97 FAU
98 FIU
99 GA State
100 Middle Tenn St

He fixes the cable?

Last edited 7/11/2014 1:34 AM by OrangeAfroMan

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 7/11/2014 8:16 AM

Re: Realistic future realignment 



847badgerfan wrote: If not for the "Tech Problem", aTm and Texas would be in the B1G today.

It was that close.

I'm not so sure the PAC wants that "problem" either. They already have some of those.

Tech Problem


Although at the time, the T schools were joined at the hip, the tipping point came after the LHN hatched and aTm had enough and started looking to the East.

Things would look different today otherwise.
ummm...... no.  A&M was never going to the B1G..... and frankly the horns weren't likely heading there either.

Now.... The Pac10 offer was very seriously considered.  And had A&M not gotten cold feet, we'd be there.

Vereor non magnus nocens lupus

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 7/11/2014 6:36 PM

Re: Realistic future realignment 


Conferences seem to have found a stable equilibrium for the time being. Give the new conference arrangements a bit of time to get to know each other- and to develop their inevitable asymmetries- before we see what moves they'll feel need to get made.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 7/12/2014 10:44 PM

Re: Realistic future realignment 


That's a great way for either the XII or the ACC to end up broken and out. Whichever one is proactive will survive.

He fixes the cable?

Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/14/2014 6:27 PM

Re: Realistic future realignment 





---------------------------------------------
--- Shiner1 wrote:

The most likely larger scale realignment will involve Texas, Texas tech, OU and oSu going to the Pac 12 to create a 16 team league out west.   They almost did it once already. And the idea of morphing the LHN into a Texas sub network similar to the ones they have out there in the pac12 network just makes too much sense.  The Pac 12 would then have a pacific and southwest division... would expand their footprint... and they'd be sitting pretty.

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

This is the only result that could be argued based on where we are now. But I still give it less than 50% chance of happening. Somebody may get discontent with this large conference idea. Or else Division 4 is just declared one huge conference (NFL) and geographical divisions are drawn up.

Nebraska recruiting is screwed right now. Arkansas' chances of ever being relevant are marginal. If Arkansas wants to go .500 every year chanting SEC SEC SEC, then so be it. A&M joining the SEC did not help Arkansas' calling card in Texas.

Much could still happen. I don't see Texas selling out for the western time zone unless all else fails. And although all else has failed right now, time has a magical way of fixing things.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/15/2014 9:09 AM

Re: Realistic future realignment 



Texas95 wrote:


---------------------------------------------
--- Shiner1 wrote:

The most likely larger scale realignment will involve Texas, Texas tech, OU and oSu going to the Pac 12 to create a 16 team league out west.   They almost did it once already. And the idea of morphing the LHN into a Texas sub network similar to the ones they have out there in the pac12 network just makes too much sense.  The Pac 12 would then have a pacific and southwest division... would expand their footprint... and they'd be sitting pretty.

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

This is the only result that could be argued based on where we are now. But I still give it less than 50% chance of happening. Somebody may get discontent with this large conference idea. Or else Division 4 is just declared one huge conference (NFL) and geographical divisions are drawn up.

Nebraska recruiting is screwed right now. Arkansas' chances of ever being relevant are marginal. If Arkansas wants to go .500 every year chanting SEC SEC SEC, then so be it. A&M joining the SEC did not help Arkansas' calling card in Texas.

Much could still happen. I don't see Texas selling out for the western time zone unless all else fails. And although all else has failed right now, time has a magical way of fixing things.
Question. Would Baylor have more political pull than Texas Tech in order to become the fourth member of the group going to the PAC? They certainly had plenty in order not to be left out in the cold when the SWC and Big 8 merged.
***Winner- 2012 SEC Preseason Challenge***
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 7/15/2014 9:22 AM

Re: Realistic future realignment 



ALA2262 wrote:
Texas95 wrote:


---------------------------------------------
--- Shiner1 wrote:

The most likely larger scale realignment will involve Texas, Texas tech, OU and oSu going to the Pac 12 to create a 16 team league out west.   They almost did it once already. And the idea of morphing the LHN into a Texas sub network similar to the ones they have out there in the pac12 network just makes too much sense.  The Pac 12 would then have a pacific and southwest division... would expand their footprint... and they'd be sitting pretty.

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

This is the only result that could be argued based on where we are now. But I still give it less than 50% chance of happening. Somebody may get discontent with this large conference idea. Or else Division 4 is just declared one huge conference (NFL) and geographical divisions are drawn up.

Nebraska recruiting is screwed right now. Arkansas' chances of ever being relevant are marginal. If Arkansas wants to go .500 every year chanting SEC SEC SEC, then so be it. A&M joining the SEC did not help Arkansas' calling card in Texas.

Much could still happen. I don't see Texas selling out for the western time zone unless all else fails. And although all else has failed right now, time has a magical way of fixing things.
Question. Would Baylor have more political pull than Texas Tech in order to become the fourth member of the group going to the PAC? They certainly had plenty in order not to be left out in the cold when the SWC and Big 8 merged.
The answer is not likely.  Baylor had an alum in the governor's mansion when they joined A&M, UT and tech in leaving the SWC.  They have no such luxury now.  

If the Big XII were on the verge of collapse and UT and tech were looking out west.... with the Pac12 showing them interest (and them only from Texas)  I don't see the Texas legislature trying to save Baylor's bacon by somehow forcing them into the group at the risk of blowing the whole deal up for the horns and raiders.    

I could be wrong... but I doubt it.

Vereor non magnus nocens lupus

Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/15/2014 9:49 AM

Re: Realistic future realignment 


Given the overall quality of the academics and the state of Baylor athletics right now vs TTech, why wouldn't the PAC want the Bears over the Raiders?  Not even close by any metric I can think of.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 7/15/2014 10:00 AM

Re: Realistic future realignment 



hawg66 wrote: Given the overall quality of the academics and the state of Baylor athletics right now vs TTech, why wouldn't the PAC want the Bears over the Raiders?  Not even close by any metric I can think of.

Geography... fanbase size... alumni base... football history... etc.  tech wins.

Baylor is enjoying a period of success... good for them.... but it has a ceiling.

Academics keep coming up.... uggh... ohlord

Vereor non magnus nocens lupus

Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/15/2014 10:13 AM

Re: Realistic future realignment 


Baylor ain't all that academically.

There are several schools in Texas that have better academic programs, starting with the 2 flagships.
U-Rah-Rah   Wis-Con-Sin
Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/15/2014 10:14 AM

Re: Realistic future realignment 


You just said football history and Texas Tech in the same post.  roll.gif

In the all-time rankings compiled by CFBdatawarehouse, Baylor is 42nd, TTech 63rd.

http://cfbdatawarehouse.com/da...am_rankings.php

Last edited 7/15/2014 10:22 AM by hawg66

Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/15/2014 10:18 AM

Re: Realistic future realignment 



847badgerfan wrote: Baylor ain't all that academically.

There are several schools in Texas that have better academic programs, starting with the 2 flagships.
that wasn't my question.  There's lots of different places out there that try to rank schools by academics.  Absolutely none of them will say TTech is better than Baylor.  In the list OAM posted, Baylor is 40th, TTech 77th.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/15/2014 10:27 AM

Re: Realistic future realignment 


badger, you have to know the dynamics of Texas football and the history of Baylor to understand Shiner's, and even Longhorn fans' aversion to the Bears.  They've earned a lot of that disdain, but in terms of athletics and academics Baylor trumps TTech.

Last edited 7/15/2014 10:28 AM by hawg66

Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 10  Next >