jlog3000

My thoughts exactly. Although I miss the endzones when it had the helmets on both sides with the wordmark in the middle. The ones I could remember that were fairly well-done was SB XXX (where it had today's facemask styles, although it was on helmets since the mid-80s) and something similar with SB's XXXVIII and XXXIX (with one helmet on one side and only the conference logo on the other). And before at least SB XLVIII, I was hoping that they would use the modern helmet with its facemask variation, such as: * or *

That's totally understandable. But DESPITE the fact that Dallas would still needed to make travel expenses in order to maintain said rivalries within the NFC East (same applying with Miami within the AFC East)?

Not gonna lie, but that would make more logical sense. Plus, teams like Dallas or Miami would not have to face the other East Coast teams twice; same with Carolina with the other Southeast teams. And it's more travel expense friendly instead of major costs for those teams.

Basically the bigger schools within the now-defunct SWC wanted some exposure and power or what not, so that the lesser schools would not get involved. Hence these big schools of Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech and Baylor joined with the Big VIII schools to form the Big XII (effective fall 1996). While the remaining schools (being Rice, SMU and TCU) joined the WAC, except Houston who joined Conference USA a year prior for non-football sports with football following suit.

I hear ya. Also the nerd in me would love for the end zone format to return like it was from SB XXX (30) to SB XLIX (49), with the wordmark in the middle (although there were rare exceptions with teams having their city/region name in smaller text font over team name wordmark: being the Seahawks with the Seattle name over it for SB XL (40) and the Cardinals with the Arizona name over it for SB XLIII (43), and alongside either: * the helmets on the sides with today's facemask shown * the team logo on one side and the conference logo on the other * the conference logo on one side and the NFL shield logo on the other.

Even better if it's alongside the Montana schools and the other 2 Dakota schools (i.e. UND and USD).

Should the Big XII actually want to expand 3-4 more teams to go beyond 12, then the following should be Memphis, Tulane and USF (South Florida), while I'm trying to figure out a 4th one for #16 (which would be either SMU or East Carolina).

I'm aware that this is strictly and only for conference realignment related things involving within NCAA Division I. But as of late, there have been surprises or shocks within other sub-levels of college sports like Division II or Division III at least, or the NAIA. For instance, two D-III conferences will merge together to somehow form a new conference, but will also retain their statuses (making reference to the Colonial States Athletic Conference (CSAC, formerly the Pennsylvania Athletic Conference), who has 10 members; and the United East Conference (UEC, formerly the North Eastern Athletic Conference (NEAC), who will have 7 members by 2023); due to both conferences fell victims to the still-new Atlantic East Conference (AEC or AtEast) due to that league having past members from the CSAC and the UEC. Also I hadn't heard any updates or news in regards with the New England Collegiate Conference (NECC). Because during the 2022-23 school year alone, it has only 4 member schools, but 3 of them will leave after the season ends; with Lesley moving to the North Atlantic Conference (NAC), while Mitchell and New England College will be heading to the Great Northeast Athletic Conference (GNAC or GNeAC). Thus leaving only one full or core member school in Eastern Nazarene, which might become a D-III Independent should it not find a new primary conference home. Maybe the GNAC or the Commonweath Coast Conference (CCC) would fit them if given the chance for an invite. So far the NECC is like not planning or intending to make any moves after losing almost everyone for other conference. The only thing the conference has that would remain 'alive' or 'stable' is their eSports program. But for any other intercollegiate varsity sport, they are way under the minimum amount of member schools to maintain an automatic qualifying bid. In D-II and D-III it's 7 (I believe) as the minimum.

So what if I am? Hence I have a reason for it cuz it's my opinion. And it's cuz I don't personally like the idea of two D-I conferences (whether FCS or FBS alike or non-football if it's just for other sports within D-I alone) merge just for one sport only (being football in this case, just for one bid for the postseason), when they have potential to expand candidates to get to the needed or required amount of schools. As if now leagues from the FCS for football want to follow the FBS method; hence the super-conference method of attempting to go over 16, and eventually a possibility to shrink smaller leagues into bigger ones within college sports. It would had been better like the old times when only expansion had a maximum amount of schools to like stay at 10 members (leading to a full round-robin conference-play schedule of 9 games for each team) or at 12 members (with or without 2-division play [even if it's pseudo-technical for scheduling purposes] with 8 conference-play games [facing 5 'intra-division' foes plus 3 'non-division' foes for 2 years on a home-and-home basis on a 4-year span]) instead of going past 12. Hence no wonder not every team would face everyone in a yearly basis. Plus, what happened to agreeing to disagreeing on certain things just because one has an opinion than others. Or what, you guys are willing to impose me to deal with it by force without my consent?

As of having core full members of both types (those with football and those without football).

To some extent. I mean, there are various examples. For instance, look how the Sun Belt did when they added James Madison from the FCS (the CAA to be specific), Marshall, Old Dominion and Southern Miss (all from C-USA) to make it to 16 (at that moment). But due to some proverbial golden rule-style bylaw, that for full membership in an FBS conference, a school must commit for most sports that the conference sponsors (including football and basketball as main focus); compared to those of an FCS conference (with football and basketball as main focus, or basketball as main focus if it's a non-football leauge). But 2 of those 16 members don't sponsor football, which were Little Rock and Arlington (technically Arkansas-Little Rock and Texas-Arlington); since neither are willing or wanting to add the sport at some point in the future, those schools had to find new conference homes based on geographic footprint, thus LR joining the OVC and UTA re-joining the WAC. Hence the Sun Belt got 14 full core members as of this school year. Or back until 2005, when C-USA was the 1st hybrid conference in FBS history (then known as Div I-A), the league made their intentions clear on wanting to become a conference where all of its core member schools must have full membership (including football and basketball and top priority) after adding adding Rice, SMU, Tulsa and UTEP (all from the WAC), UCF (from the A-Sun for most sports and the MAC for only football) and Marshall (from the MAC); after losing Cincinnati, Louisville and USF (plus non-football DePaul and Marquette) to the Big East, TCU to the MW and non-football UNC Charlotte and Saint Louis to the A-10 at that time. Hence C-USA got 12 full core members, plus it debuted its first ever postseason bowl tournament game to determine its conference champion.

I never said that the non-football schools should form a conference of their own. I clearly stated that the remaining ones should find other regional conferences elsewhere (i.e.: Denver to the WCC or Bellarmine to the Horizon or OVC, etc.)

Well that's a true fact. However, at least C-USA didn't and had never become a football-only conference when it was formed. It was an all-sports league that had teams with football like Cincinnati and Louisville and Southern Miss plus teams with basketball spekks such as DePaul and Marquette and Saint Louis, including those without football but would eventually later add them like UNC Charlotte and South Florida and UAB. That's why I would suggest (if I was a staff member of either the WAC or the A-Sun) that the merger should be for full membership instead of just only football. And over time, the non-football schools would need to defect for other regional conferences (because that's also how it occured in C-USA during the 2005-06 conference realignment).

Don't get me wrong. I understand the concept. But I personally don't agree with it, due to the fact that two conferences to merge with each other for one sport just for only one automatic bid and possibly a slim-to-none chance for an extra at-large bid for postseason play.

Let's say that it has successfully fulfilled that task or accomplishment, by reaching to the FBS from the FCS. Which side would win in the end, in a football-only league standpoint and a basketball-spekked all-sports league standpoint? The WAC or the A-Sun? And it can't be both.

Yeah, but why a football-only conference WITHIN the FBS? It seems odd and unheard of. I wonder what will be next, a basketball-only conference?

Here's what I can't understand. Why would it make sense to be an FBS-only conference? Don't the other sports of those schools matter? Like basketball or other Olympic sports such as baseball or soccer, etc. And for what, for just ONE automatic bid and possibly WITHOUT a chance for an at-large?

In other news, outside of the FBS or D-I or the NCAA, there is some realignment news from the NAIA, as former D-III school Iowa Wesleyan will re-join back to the American Midwest Conference (AMC), beginning the 2023-24 school year. https://www.victorysportsnetwork.com/Clip/news/iowa-wesleyan-university-rejoins-american-midwest-conference.htm

If that's a done deal, would the new Pac-12 be ok by just having 11 member schools, without planning to find another school to expand? Or will they revert to become the Pac-11?

That might be possible, if given the chance. But what if the MW somehow implode? Where would those remaining schools be heading to?

But who will the MW would grab to replace Boise State, Hawaii and UNLV (as well as San Diego State)? Plus shouldn't the Big XII get another non-football school to have an even number of member schools?

I agree @nickp91Which makes some sense for each conference to have a team in a similar or identical market.

I'm excluding that part (a.k.a. the CCG or conference championship game), I was referring for other sports that conference sponsors, not just only football.

I wonder if that latest move would somehow give C-USA an opportunity to return back to 12 member schools (which is the bare minimum, with or without division play) in a few years from that point on, and eventually heading upto 14.

To be fairly honest, I'm not sure either. But if I had to guess, I would say the latter scenario. I hope it's the former scenario. Although as of this moment, it's still early due to their own athletic director resigning.