Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

Why would it take so long to play all the teams? With 16 it should be every other year with 9 conference games.

I know everyone hates pods, but if you have 4 pods of 4, you play everyone in your pod, 2 teams each of the other pods, rotating every year. You then play everyone in 2 years. If you rotate every other year, you play everyone each 4 years.

I know I know pods suck, but do they? Protected rivalries are fine too, but if you look at it, ISU might be better of scheduling wise if we do 4 pods. I just havent seen in a 16 team conference quite how protected rivalries is better and easier than pods. Outside of 16, Yes, Protected rivalries are for sure better, but with 16 not so much.

Now if we end up going to 10 game schedule that changes things, too.
Agree. With 16 teams. The teams closest are probably your rivals so pods and protected rivals are almost the same thing.
 
Why would FSU, Clemson, UNC, Miami and UVA, the most certain to get B10/SEC invites, possibly vote to add two teams that need to keep the ACC together as their only liferaft?

Why would they vote for any change in the conference that doesn't let them free, let alone one that could lock them down more strictly?
 
Why would FSU, Clemson, UNC, Miami and UVA, the most certain to get B10/SEC invites, possibly vote to add two teams that need to keep the ACC together as their only liferaft?

Why would they vote for any change in the conference that doesn't let them free, let alone one that could lock them down more strictly?

Only way I can see it is if they got some kind of concessions. But that could toxify it for everyone else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CascadeClone
Why would FSU, Clemson, UNC, Miami and UVA, the most certain to get B10/SEC invites, possibly vote to add two teams that need to keep the ACC together as their only liferaft?

Why would they vote for any change in the conference that doesn't let them free, let alone one that could lock them down more strictly?
After reading Forde's article, how could he think what he wrote makes sense?

ESPN would open up the ACC deal to add 2 teams that can play late on Saturday night. So a Cal v UVA game that starts at 10:30p ET. For the UVA kids, they could be playing until 2a ET!!

Would most UVA fans really want to stay up that late to watch a football game against Cal or Stanford.

A lot of focus on football, but the 3 hour difference might be a bigger issue for Cal/Stanford in sports that play 2x weekly.
 
After reading Forde's article, how could he think what he wrote makes sense?

ESPN would open up the ACC deal to add 2 teams that can play late on Saturday night. So a Cal v UVA game that starts at 10:30p ET. For the UVA kids, they could be playing until 2a ET!!

Would most UVA fans really want to stay up that late to watch a football game against Cal or Stanford.

A lot of focus on football, but the 3 hour difference might be a bigger issue for Cal/Stanford in sports that play 2x weekly.
I didn’t read the article but did listen to their pod today.

You are right about the value of a 10:30p kick for east coast team fan bases. With gambling so prevalent I think the networks just look at games as inventory without any regard to who might watch.

That sheer guy said today the Arizona fans are liking that maybe they’ll actually have road games that start at a decent time instead of always playing in the late night windows.

I usually like Forde, but his daughter swam at Stanford so he might be a little butthurt they got left out in the cold in realignment
 
After reading Forde's article, how could he think what he wrote makes sense?

ESPN would open up the ACC deal to add 2 teams that can play late on Saturday night. So a Cal v UVA game that starts at 10:30p ET. For the UVA kids, they could be playing until 2a ET!!

Would most UVA fans really want to stay up that late to watch a football game against Cal or Stanford.

A lot of focus on football, but the 3 hour difference might be a bigger issue for Cal/Stanford in sports that play 2x weekly.
The same argument applies to the B1G. Their new west time zone teams will have trouble playing early/late in New York and vice versa unless the east and west coast teams never travel further than the mid-west.


Will the B1G rename itself the Canadian Border Conference?
 
A few miscellaneous (and insane thoughts):

Should the B1G be renamed the Canadian Border League?

A few ideas for the new Big 12:
Central Coast Conference
Coast to Coast Conference
Bigger East Conference
National Collegiate Conference
Great Plains Conference
Mountain Coastal Conference
Rocky Waters Conference
We Hate O-UT Conference
Or add 4 more and be the
Big-XX Conference
or Super XX (or 20)
(perhaps still use it if we are 16 today)

Wait for the ACC to cave to Florida State and pick off their best BB schools plus one from Florida to give CF a traveling partner.

Go Clones
Go Chiefs
Let's just call the new Big 12, "The Best Conference. " That would sound nice broadcast on ESPN.
 
Dude, they fuckoff into jars... that's not normal. Well at least in my experience.
Well said, Texas is plenty big enough to hate more than one school from there. I’ve got room for at least three, aTm, UT an Baylor. Probably part of our problem as the old Big 12. B10, SEC mostly cheer for their own against outside opponents. I always rooted for those three to lose. Throw in Nebby for loose change and you have my Quad of hatred. And let us not forget, they didn’t do it to help the Big 12.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ISUalways

Help Support Us

Become a patron