Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

[FriendlySpartan]

IF UNC and NCST are tied together as rumored, the SEC would take both. And assuming Virginia is a lock to the B1G, the SEC might take Va Tech due to their fan support and getting into the Virginia market as well.

I disagree, I don’t think those ties actually exist and if they do i don’t know if either conference would take the hit to add them. VaTech is not going to the SEC by themselves. They just don’t add anything.

Now if schools go the Washington/routes or the SMU route and take significantly reduced payments that changes the math.

 

[snowcraig2.0]

I don't think there's an obsession with a particular number. I don't think the SEC will feel compelled to have 20 teams just because the Big 10 does. Especially if they aren't financially additive, and I don't think that any of the 4 you listed would be financially additive to the SEC.

The Big 10 is saddled with a ton of dead weight. Out of that hypothetical 20, at least 12 are more akin to the Big 12/ACC level than they are the top end of the Big 10. The SEC is less that way.

Maryland, Rutgers, Purdue, Indiana, Iowa, Illinois, Northwestern, Minnesota, UCLA, and Nebraska are much more like us than they are Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, and USC. Oregon, Washington, Michigan State, and Wisconsin are kind of in between.

I agree with you there. Some of what I am saying is going along with the 20+ team league narrative that is floating around. I am not entirely sure that conferences will go that big.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

Once you get to 16 or more it’s not really a “conference” any more, it’s like two conferences with a scheduling agreement.

What I want to know is if conferences are trying to get away from divisions, how the hell do you determine a conference champion when you’ve played just over 1/3 of the conference teams? How do you actually determine your two conference champion contestants if they haven’t played over a dozen of the teams in that conference?

24 teams - 23 besides you - 9 conference games - 23-9=14​

You’d have to do divisions, then have your division winners meet. And before you yell out, “But have you considered pods?” pods are just divisions by another name. You’re still not playing anything like comparable schedules if you’ve got 24 teams; heck, it doesn’t work that well if you go with 12-team divisions and only play within your division (you still miss two teams).

The ideal thing would be 20 teams, two divisions of 10, play 9 conference games only in your division, division champions meet for the conference championship. Mix up the divisions every other year so you get to play everybody (eventually). Or, if you gotta have 24, three divisions of eight, seven games in division plus one game vs each of the other two divisions, three division champs and one wild card have a two-week playoff to get the conference champion.

Or, pods, which is just what I’m recommending with extra steps.

The current scheduling rotation where you will play every team except your rivals every 3 years at the most is nice.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see confr come championship games expand to a mini tournament, 4-6 teams, at some point.

 

[snowcraig2.0]

I disagree, I don’t think those ties actually exist and if they do i don’t know if either conference would take the hit to add them. VaTech is not going to the SEC by themselves. They just don’t add anything.

Now if schools go the Washington/routes or the SMU route and take significantly reduced payments that changes the math.

That is why I used a all caps IF, lol.

If they aren't tied together I think you can write in stone Virginia and UNC to the B1G. However, if they are, I do disagree with you, I think the SEC would take NCST to get UNC.

 

[exCyDing]

You should look into it. Wrestling is the model that football will be following. One conference (or two for football) dumps so much money into their programs that no one outside that conference can even compete for national titles. And the interest in the sport outside that conference craters.

On one hand, I get that line of thinking. But on the other hand, it's not like there's much churn at the top of college football. In any given year, there's maybe 5-10 programs that have even a decent shot at a title, and those programs are almost all or are exclusively blue bloods.

When was the last time a program won their first natty? FSU in 1993? Oregon is the only one I can think of that's recently played in a title game without having previously won one. TCU won one in the 1930s, everyone else (ie Michigan, Texas) had one or more in the trophy case even if it was from decades ago.

The point is, college football has been hugely popular even with more than half of the power conference teams rarely having a real shot at winning a national championship and a handful of programs enjoying immense advantages over others across the board. How much really changes if the top 20 or so programs open up a larger advantage? The only difference would be if they stop playing everyone else, and even then, how much would really change?

 

[FriendlySpartan]

On one hand, I get that line of thinking. But on the other hand, it's not like there's much churn at the top of college football. In any given year, there's maybe 5-10 programs that have even a decent shot at a title, and those programs are almost all or are exclusively blue bloods.

When was the last time a program won their first natty? FSU in 1993? Oregon is the only one I can think of that's recently played in a title game without having previously won one. TCU won one in the 1930s, everyone else (ie Michigan, Texas) had one or more in the trophy case even if it was from decades ago.

The point is, college football has been hugely popular even with more than half of the power conference teams rarely having a real shot at winning a national championship and a handful of programs enjoying immense advantages over others across the board. How much really changes if the top 20 or so programs open up a larger advantage? The only difference would be if they stop playing everyone else, and even then, how much would really change?

That’s an interesting point about first time championships, I forgot Clemson had won in the 80’s, I’d have to go back but I wonder if any team outside or Oregon even made the playoff that hadn’t won a championship before? TCU’s was almost a century old but still probably counts

 

[Gorm]

No idea how reputable this source is but it wouldn’t be surprising if Yormark is trying to build a relationship with Duke in advance of the ACC getting picked apart.



Former Salt Lake City-based radio host Tim Montemayor reported on “The Monty Show” Monday that the Big 12 is pursuing Duke.

“Well-placed sources told us that the Big 12 is being aggressive with ACC basketball membership and has their eyes solely set on Duke to pair with Gonzaga,” Montemayor said.

Report: Big 12 pursuing Duke to join the conference

Duke has been a member of the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) since its founding in 1953.

www.yardbarker.com

The Monty show might as well be the Mhver3 show.

 

[Al_4_State]

it is possible the BIG could add arz and colo, but only if they drop deadweight like rutgers and northwestern. I think terps were a good add, and id be shocked if the BIG ever drops them. There was an article by a noted sports writer that said the SEC could, if the ACC goes sideways, add texas tech and WVU. He said markets for those 2 are not good, but theyre both strong brands for TV and a culture fit.

I think that never happens, but it does show no one knows anything at this point--except that the sec and BIG both want UNC.

I don't believe for a second that the Big 10 or SEC will add any of those schools. If they wanted them, they've had them sitting on a tee for a very long time.

KU fans seem to have a pipe dream that the Big 10 might take them someday. Look, if you're currently in the Big 12, you are never going to one of those leagues. If they wanted you, they'd take you, and what happens in the next decade won't erase whatever has happened for the previous 100 years to make them not want you.

 

[CysRage]

I don't believe for a second that the Big 10 or SEC will add any of those schools. If they wanted them, they've had them sitting on a tee for a very long time.

KU fans seem to have a pipe dream that the Big 10 might take them someday. Look, if you're currently in the Big 12, you are never going to one of those leagues. If they wanted you, they'd take you, and what happens in the next decade won't erase whatever has happened for the previous 100 years to make them not want you.

This. The Big Ten and SEC had MULTIPLE chances to get any Big 12 team (including KU) at a huge discount after the UT OU departure but chose not to. I think the administrators at all of the CURRENT Big 12 understand this which is why they are now committed to making the Big 12 the best it can be. I can’t speak for the 4 new Pac schools, I wouldn’t be shocked if they are still thinking they can get a Big Ten or SEC invite since they haven’t been in the realignment cycle near as long as the current Big 12. The way Utah and AZ State’s admins have acted, I wouldn’t be shocked if they continue to flirt around. It would be best if they commit with the rest of the Big 12 to make it the best conference that retains the true spirit of college sports.

 

[Nolaeer]

I don't believe for a second that the Big 10 or SEC will add any of those schools. If they wanted them, they've had them sitting on a tee for a very long time.

KU fans seem to have a pipe dream that the Big 10 might take them someday. Look, if you're currently in the Big 12, you are never going to one of those leagues. If they wanted you, they'd take you, and what happens in the next decade won't erase whatever has happened for the previous 100 years to make them not want you.

I agree 100 percent. if you make 100 million per team, why add teams that pull in half of that or less?

That's why i think Big 12 is on solid footing. But my point is there is no certainty what, if any, ACC teams the SEC wants outside od UNC. it may want more, but no one knows, and even if it wants 4 more, will ESPN pay for them? SEC isnt adding any team that dilutes the current deal.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

I agree 100 percent. if you make 100 million per team, why add teams that pull in half of that or less?

That's why i think Big 12 is on solid footing. But my point is there is no certainty what, if any, ACC teams the SEC wants outside od UNC. it may want more, but no one knows, and even if it wants 4 more, will ESPN pay for them? SEC isnt adding any team that dilutes the current deal.

I think they could want Clemson but will regret it in a few years when they sink back towards the bottom

 

[SolterraCyclone]

I disagree, I don’t think those ties actually exist and if they do i don’t know if either conference would take the hit to add them. VaTech is not going to the SEC by themselves. They just don’t add anything.

Now if schools go the Washington/routes or the SMU route and take significantly reduced payments that changes the math.

Virginia Tech has some advantages for the SEC (assuming B10 would take UVa). Namely, it gets the SEC into a new, geographically-southern state and it is historically good in football (though down recently). Culturally, Blacksburg and southern Virginia are similar to other SEC states (Kentucky, Tennessee) too

I don’t think the Hokies are currently additive, but if they came at half price or an SMU like deal, who knows.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

Virginia Tech has some advantages for the SEC (assuming B10 would take UVa). Namely, it gets the SEC into a new, geographically-southern state and it is historically good in football (though down recently). Culturally, Blacksburg and southern Virginia are similar to other SEC states (Kentucky, Tennessee) too

I don’t think the Hokies are currently additive, but if they came at half price or an SMU like deal, who knows.

Yeah if they come in at a major discount that’s fine but the SEC doesn’t have a network they are trying to get into houses so the market doesn’t really matter although I agree with the region similarities.

 

[2speedy1]

Looking at the ACC, I think there are some distinct divisions of value in teams. Inside those divisions the schools are very similar in value, and 1 school may be more desirable to one conference than the other for 1 particular reason or another, ie. AAU, Location, Culture etc.
Here is my guess at value overall.

1. ND, grand prize, more value than any in ACC.

2. FSU
3. NC
4. Clem
These 3 are probably very close in value overall, and could be reordered depending on several factors and conferences.

5. UVA
6. Miami
7. Stan
8. NCSt
9. Vtch
Probably the next division, I doubt the SEC or B1G go below this group and really any here are probably not as likely to get in to the top 2, without significant discount.

10. Pitt
11. Louis
12. Duke
13. GT
Here is the next group of similar value, and I would doubt the B12 goes below this group unless needing 1 team, and very doubtful any here get into the top 2.

14. Syra
15. Cal
16. Wake
17. BC
18. SMU
These are Probably SOL just like OSU and WSU. Just not enough overall value.

 

[Al_4_State]

I agree 100 percent. if you make 100 million per team, why add teams that pull in half of that or less?

That's why i think Big 12 is on solid footing. But my point is there is no certainty what, if any, ACC teams the SEC wants outside od UNC. it may want more, but no one knows, and even if it wants 4 more, will ESPN pay for them? SEC isnt adding any team that dilutes the current deal.

The SEC and Big 10 aren't adding anyone without ESPN or Fox greenlighting the acquisition.

 

[exCyDing]

That’s an interesting point about first time championships, I forgot Clemson had won in the 80’s, I’d have to go back but I wonder if any team outside or Oregon even made the playoff that hadn’t won a championship before? TCU’s was almost a century old but still probably counts

Cincinnati and Oregon are the only two programs to make the CFP that don't have at least one claimed natty.

The consolidation of success is really staggering. The last 75 years (1948-2023):

• 28 schools have at least one NCAA-recognized title.
• 16 of those schools have multiple titles.
• Auburn (2010) and Washington (1991, split with Miami) were the last two schools to win only one title in that time frame.
• Colorado and Georgia Tech (split in 1990) are the last two schools who don't have at least a plausible argument for blue blood status to win a title. BYU (1984), Pitt (1976) and Arkansas (1964), Mississippi and Minnesota (split in 1960), Syracuse (1959), Iowa (1958), UCLA (1954), Maryland (1953) round out the list of everyone else who has won one.

So more than half of P5 programs haven't been relevant in 75 years by this metric, other than by playing those very few programs who have been relevant. How is this any different if a few schools split off, but still at least occasionally play the rest?

 

[SolterraCyclone]

Yeah if they come in at a major discount that’s fine but the SEC doesn’t have a network they are trying to get into houses so the market doesn’t really matter although I agree with the region similarities.

True. But unlike Rutgers, and to a lesser degree, Maryland; Virginia Tech actually has a fan base that likes their sports (moreso than UVa imo). So, they could grow SEC viewership incrementally. I agree, that adding them wouldn’t be a play to boost the SEC Network.

 

[Cyclonsin]

Cincinnati and Oregon are the only two programs to make the CFP that don't have at least one claimed natty.

The consolidation of success is really staggering. The last 75 years (1948-2023):

• 28 schools have at least one NCAA-recognized title.
• 16 of those schools have multiple titles.
• Auburn (2010) and Washington (1991, split with Miami) were the last two schools to win only one title in that time frame.
• Colorado and Georgia Tech (split in 1990) are the last two schools who don't have at least a plausible argument for blue blood status to win a title. BYU (1984), Pitt (1976) and Arkansas (1964), Mississippi and Minnesota (split in 1960), Syracuse (1959), Iowa (1958), UCLA (1954), Maryland (1953) round out the list of everyone else who has won one.

So more than half of P5 programs haven't been relevant in 75 years by this metric, other than by playing those very few programs who have been relevant. How is this any different if a few schools split off, but still at least occasionally play the rest?

The biggest mistake in college football was convincing the world that a national championship is every team's goal.

 

[exCyDing]

This. The Big Ten and SEC had MULTIPLE chances to get any Big 12 team (including KU) at a huge discount after the UT OU departure but chose not to. I think the administrators at all of the CURRENT Big 12 understand this which is why they are now committed to making the Big 12 the best it can be. I can’t speak for the 4 new Pac schools, I wouldn’t be shocked if they are still thinking they can get a Big Ten or SEC invite since they haven’t been in the realignment cycle near as long as the current Big 12. The way Utah and AZ State’s admins have acted, I wouldn’t be shocked if they continue to flirt around. It would be best if they commit with the rest of the Big 12 to make it the best conference that retains the true spirit of college sports.

The big advantage of the status quo going forward is the legacy Big 12 (aka Angry 8) has been through this cycle before with programs that carried far more weight and then ultimately left even after everyone else bending over backwards to giving them everything they wanted. Utah and ASU want to be dicks and **** around? Okay, go ahead. Leave. Oh, the B10 and SEC won't give you an invite? Shut up and get on board, or go join Oregon St and Washington St.

If the B10 or SEC extend an invite to a school, they're going to take it. There's nothing a school can do to make them extend an invitation, and there's nothing a conference can do to keep them if an invite is extended. There's zero leverage. If a school (or a few schools) want to throw a tantrum and stomp their feet, let them. Then vote down whatever they want 13-3, 14-2 or 15-1.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

Cincinnati and Oregon are the only two programs to make the CFP that don't have at least one claimed natty.

The consolidation of success is really staggering. The last 75 years (1948-2023):

• 28 schools have at least one NCAA-recognized title.
• 16 of those schools have multiple titles.
• Auburn (2010) and Washington (1991, split with Miami) were the last two schools to win only one title in that time frame.
• Colorado and Georgia Tech (split in 1990) are the last two schools who don't have at least a plausible argument for blue blood status to win a title. BYU (1984), Pitt (1976) and Arkansas (1964), Mississippi and Minnesota (split in 1960), Syracuse (1959), Iowa (1958), UCLA (1954), Maryland (1953) round out the list of everyone else who has won one.

So more than half of P5 programs haven't been relevant in 75 years by this metric, other than by playing those very few programs who have been relevant. How is this any different if a few schools split off, but still at least occasionally play the rest?

Totally forgot about cinci. Good stats