Conference realignment endgame, part 2: The Lineup

In my first post in this series, I examined the need for a geographically-based promotion/relegation system in college football. Such a system would make no sense, however, with our all-over-the-map conferences arranged as they currently are.

To wit, I have rearranged the top-tier BCS conferences to align them with a specific geography. Basically, instead of having multiple conferences overlapping every state, each state is assigned to only one "stack" of conferences in the promotion/relegation system. I attempted to preserve historical rivalries in the initial organization of this system, but was forced to break a few. For example, LSU is no longer in the SEC, and Georgia Tech and Clemson are cut off from basically the rest of the current ACC.

Because there are far more teams in the eastern and central part of the U.S. than the west, the Pac-12 stack has fewer teams than all the others, but if there's one thing the current system has shown us, it's that it is virtually impossible to draw a completely clean line between conferences. The ACC has also taken over much of the Big East's old footprint, and because there aren't a lot of Division I football teams in the northeast, it covers a large number of states. (In fact, I had to promote two I-AA teams to the second tier just to complete a 12-team second-tier conference.)

Here is the new conference/stack map for the promotion/relegation system:

The stack breakdown by state is as follows. (The total number of schools in the stack is in parentheses.) Every Division I school in each state is in the associated stack, with one exception noted later:

SEC stack (45): GA, FL, AL, MS, SC, TN, KY

ACC stack (49): NC, VA, WV, VA, DC, MD, DE, NJ, CT, RI, MA, PA, NY, NH, VT, ME

Big Ten stack (39): OH, IN, MI, IL, WI, MN, IA, ND, SD

Big XII stack (42): LA, TX, AR, OK, KS, NE, NM, CO, WY

Pac-12 stack (33): CA, AZ, UT, NV, OR, WA, ID, MT, HI

Now, when flaming my conference alignment in the comments below, please remember that I haven't changed the 8-game conference schedule or the 12-game overall schedule, so out-of-conference matchups are always available to teams who are no longer grouped in the same stack or conference.

Also, remember that conference alignment will literally change every year, with the best two performers advancing a level and the worst two performers dropping a level.

NOTE: If you don't care about how each stack breaks down, just jump down to the comments at this point!

Remember the promotion/relegation rules:

- Each of the top two tiers is a twelve-team league with two divisions. The third tier is broken down into two conferences, which are not limited in size.
- At the end of the season, the team in each division with the worst conference record is relegated to the league on the next lower tier.
- At the end of the season, the second-tier team who wins their division is promoted to the BCS league in their stack.
- At the end of the season, the winners of each of the two third-tier conferences is promoted to the second-tier league in their stack. (For the Pac-12 stack, which only has one third-tier conference, the top two finishers from that league are promoted.)

Each stack breaks down initially as follows:

Arkansas and LSU are gone, which was a necessity of the geographically-based classification system. Techies might not be too happy to be in the same conference once again with Georgia, but they'll get over it. I also chose to keep Vandy in the top tier over Kentucky or Louisville, though reasonable minds may disagree about that choice.

Not too much crazy here, tough I did have to promote Appalachian State and Delaware to fill out the Big East.

Penn State is gone, but we finally forced Notre Dame into its natural place. Even in the promotion/relegation system, though, the B1G is still the B1G. What do you want me to do about it?

Unfortunately, I had to separate OU and Oklahoma State into different divisions, but it was the best choice available given the team selections. OU and OSU can still be permanent inter-divisional opponents, though. The Mountain West might need to be renamed, but that's no great loss.

Based on their recent performance, I bumped Boise State up to the BCS conference at the expense of Washington State. Colorado is also gone from the Pac-12, sent back to their Big XII roots. Their spot is filled by BYU.

To fill out the WAC, I had to jump Montana, Eastern Washington (with the blood-red field), and Northern Arizona up to the second tier, but all three programs are I-AA power programs, so I'm not too concerned about them being way out of their league.

Well, that's the lineup, folks! If you actually followed me this far, then God bless you, 'cause you're a heck of a reader. I welcome your feedback below! I think this is an equitable system, and it completely eliminates the threat of further realignment. If a team from the lower tiers wants to play their way up into big-boy football, they have a path with which to do just that!

Did I get it way wrong? Should we avoid being in the same conference as Ga. Tech again at all costs? Let me know below! And...

Go Dawgs!