Yes, a great set of teams. A great TV contract. But big mega conferences have a history of imploding for one reason: teams that want to play each other a lot actually don't end up playing each other very much. It's why both the ACC and the SEC are splinter conferences from the original super conference, the Southern Conference. When the WAC imploded, it wasn't because a bigger conference came raiding them, it was because Air Force and Wyoming and Colorado State were about be separated and they got BYU and Utah on board for splintering from the rest.

When Texas doesn't play Alabama enough, they're going to get angry and form their own splinter conference.

On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 10:21:29 PM UTC-5, JGibson wrote:
> Yes, a great set of teams. A great TV contract. But big mega conferences have a history of imploding for one reason: teams that want to play each other a lot actually don't end up playing each other very much. It's why both the ACC and the SEC are splinter conferences from the original super conference, the Southern Conference. When the WAC imploded, it wasn't because a bigger conference came raiding them, it was because Air Force and Wyoming and Colorado State were about be separated and they got BYU and Utah on board for splintering from the rest.
>
> When Texas doesn't play Alabama enough, they're going to get angry and form their own splinter conference.

No, because there is a solution.

Sankey has addressed these concerns numerous times in talking about how to do this over the last several weeks. They are going to change the system, and it *won't* be a situation like it is now where you only meet teams in the other division who arent your permanent rival rarely.

In fact there may not even be divisions, or there may be 4 4 team divisions.. Regardless,the framework is likely
to be that there is a 9 game schedule, and you always have 3 permanent opponents. So in Georgia's case for example these would be Florida, Auburn, and then one other team. Then you have 6 remaining games and 12 possible opponents. It seems pretty clear that under such a system you would average playing teams who aren't your annual 3 opponents once every other year. Which means every four years Georgia would end up playing Texas once in Austin and once in Athens.

Sankey has specifically referenced that system, and it would solve the issue you bring up. (which is one a lot of people complain about now)

So the solution that will be enacted to fix your problem is to add 1 conference game to go to 9 and then have a system where you only play 3 annual opponents every year as opposed to 6 now.

Additionally, the language we even use to discuss 'conferences' now needs to be overhauled. There is no 'power 5'. There is a power 2, and the sec is at the center of that and then below it you have the bigten which has value and meaning as well.

This idea of whether or not the Big12 will remain a 'power 5 conference' misses the whole point. There is no power 5.....now the question they are trying to ask is whether or not the big12 will be on a fairly equal plane as the pac and Acc. And the answer to that is no, as long as the pac and acc still have an anchor team or two. The big12 has no anchor team now, so they cannot be considered on that plane. I'm using the term 'second tier' of conferences to describe the ACC and Pac now.

But the use of this 'power 5' nonsense after the texas and OU news is silly.. We have a power 2(with a pecking order within that), and then we have the next tier of conferences(pac and acc) and then you have the collection of random teams that
is mostly trying to bolt but nobody will take them....the irate 8 plus 4 group of five type teams to form what is called the big12 for now.

But note that the ACC and Pac only maintains that distiction as second tier conferences above the big12 as long as
they still keep their anchor teams. If USC eventually goes to the bigten, for example, they drop down(as long as the acc avoids the same sort of loss with its anchor teams)

> In fact there may not even be divisions, or there may be 4 4 team divisions. Regardless,the framework is likely
> to be that there is a 9 game schedule, and you always have 3 permanent opponents. So in Georgia's case for example these would be Florida, Auburn, and then one other team. Then you have 6 remaining games and 12 possible opponents. It seems pretty clear that under such a system you would average playing teams who aren't your annual 3 opponents once every other year. Which means every four years Georgia would end up playing Texas once in Austin and once in Athens.
>
> Sankey has specifically referenced that system, and it would solve the issue you bring up. (which is one a lot of people complain about now)
>
> So the solution that will be enacted to fix your problem is to add 1 conference game to go to 9 and then have a system where you only play 3 annual opponents every year as opposed to 6 now.

And then, when the NCAA whines that the SEC doesn't follow the "each team in a division has to play every other team in its division in order for the conference to get to play a championship game that doesn't count against each team's 12-game limit," just reply, "Is this the same bylaw that says a conference that has fewer than 12 schools, like, oh, I don't know, say, the American, has to have every team play every other team - and if it is, then by all means, tell us how Navy could possibly play the other 10 AAC teams plus Army, Air Force, and Notre Dame?"

The only thing that might cause the SEC to "implode" is that proposed "superconference" - I seriously doubt anything close to every SEC team would be invited to be in it, and I also doubt Alabama, Georgia, or Florida would refuse to be in it just because it wouldn't include Vanderbilt as well. Besides - even then, there will always be a need for SEC baseball pretty much as it stands now.

michael anderson <mianderson79@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 10:21:29 PM UTC-5, JGibson wrote:
>> Yes, a great set of teams. A great TV contract. But big mega conferences
>> have a history of imploding for one reason: teams that want to play each
>> other a lot actually don't end up playing each other very much. It's why
>> both the ACC and the SEC are splinter conferences from the original
>> super conference, the Southern Conference. When the WAC imploded, it
>> wasn't because a bigger conference came raiding them, it was because Air
>> Force and Wyoming and Colorado State were about be separated and they
>> got BYU and Utah on board for splintering from the rest.
>>
>> When Texas doesn't play Alabama enough, they're going to get angry and
>> form their own splinter conference.
>
> No, because there is a solution.
>
> Sankey has addressed these concerns numerous times in talking about how
> to do this over the last several weeks. They are going to change the
> system, and it *won't* be a situation like it is now where you only meet
> teams in the other division who arent your permanent rival rarely.
>
> In fact there may not even be divisions, or there may be 4 4 team
> divisions. Regardless,the framework is likely
> to be that there is a 9 game schedule, and you always have 3 permanent
> opponents. So in Georgia's case for example these would be Florida,
> Auburn, and then one other team. Then you have 6 remaining games and 12
> possible opponents. It seems pretty clear that under such a system you
> would average playing teams who aren't your annual 3 opponents once every
> other year. Which means every four years Georgia would end up playing
> Texas once in Austin and once in Athens.
>
> Sankey has specifically referenced that system, and it would solve the
> issue you bring up. (which is one a lot of people complain about now)
>
> So the solution that will be enacted to fix your problem is to add 1
> conference game to go to 9 and then have a system where you only play 3
> annual opponents every year as opposed to 6 now.

This is the right solution which should have been implemented years ago by
the conferences with more than 12 teams, and will likely work as long as
the SEC doesn’t get bigger.

In response to JGibson, the SoCon had well over two dozen teams and only
like a 6 team conference schedule when it splintered. I do think 16 with
this kind of pod system is the maximum practical conference size, and may
actually be ideal.

The ACC’s challenge is ND’s hybrid status. Sure we can add WVU but that
would get us to 15.5 teams. Adding two teams would have us at 16.5. As long
as ND has that hybrid status the ACC can never get to that ideal 16 team /
4 pods of 4 status. In the long run that will be its biggest survival
challenge IMO, for the reasons JGibson gave.

--
“I usually skip over your posts because of your disguistng, contrarian,
liberal personality.” — Altie