re: Conference Cohesion - Cross Divisional opponents

quote:

---

I can see the monetary advantages for A&M...but how would it benefit the conference in a monetary sense, conference wide?

---

Assuming a new TV deal would be negotiated, the amount of money from it could go up for everybody.

quote:

---

I can't see it helping our recruiting as much as it would help A&M's within the state of Texas.

---

It would be very interesting to see what would happen. If we struggled right away, both Arkansas and LSU could benefit a great deal I think, but nobody will know for sure until it actually happens.

quote:

---

I don't see it conflicting with traditional rivalries. We don't have any traditional conference rivalries anyway.

---

I said this more in reference to Bama-UT or Auburn-UGA possibly being broken up.

quote:

---

See we come from a conference where we actually played everyone in the league in one season.

---

Here's an idea: gtfo

The only reason I mentioned Vandy is because we've played them fewer times than we have played any other SEC team since we joined. KY, too.

It has nothing to do with wanting to play Vandy more. Its just an observation about how infrequently we have still played some SEC East teams. Insert Georgia or whoever. That's why I also included the teams Carolina has played the fewest times since joining.

You missed the point waaaay back up at the OP.

Thanks for making my thread go somewhere.

quote:

---

Thanks for making my thread go somewhere.

---

You're welcome.

Now if only we could go back to a 6 game schedule so we wouldn't have to play Arkansas every year.

I don't think Superconferences are as close as some seem to think.

The Pac-12 and B1G are playing their first CCGs this season.

It took them 20 years to follow the SEC model.

If/when someone else expands, A&M is ours.

We don't need to be the ones to start the dominoes, though. Why would the SEC take that risk?

Why risk moving to 14 when the risk is that nothing else happens, the Big 12 stays at 9, and the networks give them equal props in order to make CFB nationally relevant?

If the Pac12 moves on the Big 12, then A&M is ours.

If the B1G moves on Mizzou, then A&M is ours.

There's no need to be proactive here with regards to A&M. They will want SEC no matter what else happens. Let it start with someone else.

For 16 teams, I'd do it like this:

Ok so each conference has two divisions of 8 teams. Each team plays round robin within their division for 7 games. At the end of this, all teams are ranked 1-8 within their division. Teams 1 and 2 play teams in the opposite division in a 4 team playoff. So in division A and B, team 1A plays 2B, and team 1B plays 2A. Winner of that game meets for the conference championship; meaning the game could have participants from the same division. Also the losers of the 1st rd play to establish 3rd and 4th place in the conference.

This would happen for every 2 places within the division (1A, 2A, 1B, 2B) (3A, 4A, 3B, 4B) (5A, 6A, 5B, 6B) (7A, 8A, 7B, 8B) so that is 9 in conference games. The 3 remaining games are viewed as non conference whether they are played across conference or not. (Basically prevents teams from being penalized for playing a tough schedule or having a traditional opponent in the other division they would like to continue to play)

Then you have a 4 team playoff with each conference winner moving on. The rest of the teams play in traditional bowl games.

No more BCS, polls won't mean shite. Pull the plug on computers. Settled on the field.

quote:

---

I'm not yet convinced of this, though I can see it being a method for much larger television contracts and a means to approach something similar to a playoff, with more equality re: the division of potentially generated profits.

---

Magic word right there! It is the definition of Insanity---doing the same thing every time and expecting a different outcome.

I like it because it forces change.