I'm not sure ESPN could sound more biased and self serving if they were trying. Their analysts keep saying the opposite of what everyone who was present at the meeting between OU and Texas. "I think OU would really like to keep the Big 12 together." Fuck off already, you're not going to get to keep your shitty Big 12 and your precious Texas network is only going to be there if they go to the ACC. From day one they've been misreporting this on purpose and it hasn't changed anything except my opinion about ESPN.
I don't get why people seem to think that 16-team "super-conferences" are such a good idea. Okay, I get that 4 of them would equate to 64-teams, the magic # for a postseason tournament. But still, it's a bad idea for other reasons. Each would have two 8-team divisions, which means 7 conference games per team with the division. Which really isn't enough, but there's no way to play all 15 other teams in the conference, so you're stuck with either 5 non-conference games, or playing an unbalanced schedule with a subset of teams from the other division to make up the rest of your conference games. And unbalanced schedules are great if you end up playing weaker teams while your rivals play powerhouses, but not so much if the roles are reversed. That being said, here's a wild idea...with TCU leaving the Mountain West next year, why not merge the remaining Mountain West teams into what's left of the Big 12? Instant 16-team conference with Boise State and Missouri as the powers in the North, OU and Texas as the big boys in the South. Shake out the other schools geographically or whatever.
I of course can't watch ESPN, but the ESPNU podcast has said pretty much exactly what you just said about OU for a week now. Only heard about Texas going to the ACC IOT keep their Network a couple days ago though.
Texas in the ACC. I can see Texas traveling to Boston College or Duke for games. Whose opium dream is that?
Texas seems pretty determined to keep their Longhorn Network and unequal revenue sharing scheme, even though that's what is causing the breakup of the Big 12. The Pac-12 isn't going for it, so they are looking at the ACC. At least that's the current rumor.
Word is the Syracuse and Pitt exodus was in response to WVU submitting paperwork to the SEC. Adding a middling team to the East will help keep division parity with A&M joining the West.
So I'm wondering what the Big 10 will do when the dominos start falling and the Pac-12 and SEC move to 16 teams. Are they gonna expand at all? Seems to me they wouldn't want to be left behind....
Yes, the current thinking is that the ACC, SEC, Big 10 and Pac-12 will all move to 16 teams. That would give you 64 teams, the minimum needed for a playoff.
I heard speculation of four 20 team conferences being the long term goal, split into four pods of 5 teams that are divided mainly by region.
How would that work, you play everyone in your pod first (so four games) and then you play each of the other pod champions (three more games) with the top two going on to a single elimination tournament? I have to say it sounds too.... European to me. What is this the Group Stage in Soccer?
Since when is 64 the minimum # for a playoff? Sure, it's a nice divisible # that brackets well, but it really only works for basketball since you can play the games every other day or so. In football the most you can have for a reasonable tournament without extending the season an ungodly amount would be 16 teams, which would mean up to an additional 4 games (thus 4 weeks) for the best teams. See the beginning of this post for more reasons why 16 teams per conference is a bad idea (Unbalanced schedules!)
From what I've read one theory on the Pac 16 is that it could be a pod system . Say the Oklahoma and Texas schools make up a divisional pod, with the Arizona and mountain schools in the other division. The two pods would play each other every year, with a rotation set up to play the other Eastern Division pod schools, then a broader rotation with the Pac 16 as a whole. I'm not saying this is preferable, I just saw it on a list of possible options regarding conference structure. While it would cut down on travel costs a bit, it would be an extremely unbalanced division.
Oh, and with the 64 teams theory, there is no "playoff". The season is the playoff, with conference champions going to the "final four".
They didn't really detail exactly how it would work. I would think you play your Pod every year and rotate through the other Pods. Example of my idea below: Pod1: 4 Conference games vs Pod 1 2 Conference games vs Pod 2 2 Conference games vs Pod 3 2 Conference games vs Pod 4 2 Non Conference games - These could really be interesting if you required at least one of them to be against teams from the other big 4 Super Conferences. Conference Semi - Pod 1 champ vs Pod 2 Champ Conference Semi - Pod 3 champ vs Pod 4 Champ Conference Championship - Winners of Semi play National Semi - Conference 1 vs Conference 2 National Semi - Conference 3 vs Conference 4 National Championship - Winners of National Semi Play Total games: Most Teams: 12 Pod Semi: 13 Pod Semi winners: 14 National Semi: 15 National Champ contenders: 16 Right now teams with a Conference championship play up to 14 games. This would add 2. That's not the end of the world, especially given the drought of games between Thanksgiving and the first set of Bowls.
If 4 superconferences kill the BCS once and for all, then let's do it and get UConn and Rutgers into the ACC stat.
One possibility is that the leftovers of the Big East merge with the leftovers of the Big 12. I wonder if the new super-conference would let Texas keep the Longhorn Network?
Nautica, I love ya, but you've got to wrap your head around the fact that conference alignment is about TV sets and BCS stroke, not geography.
You would think it would make more sense for Notre Dame to go to the Big [-]10 12 14 [/-]Whatever. But as that article noted, the East Coast has a faster growing population than does the Midwest.
The ACC is setting itself up well, it will be the premiere basketball conference, with the number of TV sets making up for it's lack of football stroke. Word is that the SEC has invited Missouri, and that there is a last ditch effort underway to salvage the Big 12, but only if Texas gets in line. In other words, PAC here we come.
Well, that pretty much ends the Big 12, if it wasn't dead already. Even if OU got the concessions they're demanding, why would they want to stay in a crippled conference? Nebraska gone. Missouri gone. Aggies gone. Colorado gone. Who would replace them? BYU? Notre Dame? Boise St.? I don't see any school other than the most desperate wanting to join an unstable conference whose balance is tipped in favor of Texas.
Tenative agreement between Missouri and the SEC. Report in the Birmingham News Auburn would move to the SEC East.
ESPN reporting right now that PAC-12 has decided not to expand. Have they put the kibosh on the whole thing? Will it make any difference? Will the Aggies & Mizzou still leave for the SEC?
Actually I will believe it when it comes from a legitimate news source. ESPN has been intentionally misreporting about conference realignment since the beginning. Remember when they said the SEC voted not to extend an offer to A&M?
