Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Question: Do the groups you propose ever change or is this Group/Pod set up permanent? I’m going to assert that you can’t have 4 continuous Kings in a conference. We will have the Tennessee effect, they got stuck playing Alabama every year and has Alabama has become a Titan (Something bigger than a King) Tennessee has fallen, big time. If we force the Historical Kings to keep playing each other one or more will fall from grace.

In my setup you have 3 geographic pods, and 3 performance pods. If One or Two of them they fall from grace, they don’t continue to be OSU’s (or whoever’s) punching bag. In my Performance Pod that resets every 6 years, you take the actual best performing teams and have them playing each other. I think that is what America would rather see that (or learn to) than to see a washed up helmet clinging to glory while getting pounded on the field week in and week out (a la Tennessee.)

I see the groups as being semi-permanent for several reasons:

• It isn't just about the "helmets" it is also about everybody else.  Look, a Minnesota fan would MUCH rather watch their team beat a bad Michigan team than a bad Purdue team.  Beating a helmet, even if they happen to suck when you beat them still carries a certain cache that you just don't get from beating a non-helmet even if they are pretty good.  
• The helmets have a tendency to rebound so I think that six years is way too short.  If you had reset based on 2005-2010 Michigan certainly would not have been in the top group.  Over those six years they went 7-5, 11-2, 9-4, 3-9, 5-7, and 7-6.  I do believe that a "helmet" could eventually be surpassed but it would take a lot more than six years for me.  Wisconsin, for example, has been a lot better than Nebraska over the past six years but I still consider Nebraska to be at least a borderline helmet while Wisconsin isn't.  If Wisconsin continues to excel while Nebraska continues to suck for the next 20+ years, then maybe.  

ok, this is what I expected

then of course it's not my favorite because I feel it's needed to play each and every year to develop the relationship(rivalry)

the Huskers playing the Sooners home and home in 2000 & 2001, skipping 2002 & 2003, then playing in 2004 & 2005 ruined the rivalry and would for any teams

pods only make this worse - only 3 other teams played each and every season

I'd much rather have two 8 team division that play the other 7 teams each season - adding 2 protected annual cross overs would be great, 9 games every season against a conference foe - if you never play a particular team from the other division so be it.

Going to 10 conference games would be better yet

ok, this is what I expected

then of course it's not my favorite because I feel it's needed to play each and every year to develop the relationship(rivalry)

Well in what I proposed each team would have six "every-year" rivals.  The oddity of it is that they aren't a group of seven because the pods and groups overlap.  
Nebraska, in my proposal, would have three "geographic" every-year rivals (IA, UW, MN) and three "helmet" every-year rivals (M, PSU, tOSU).  

Prior to going to the tOSU game at VaTech I would have vehemently disagreed.  Two things have changed:

• I looked into Tech's academics.  Everyone knows that UVA is a fantastic undergrad school but I was quite surprised to learn that Tech is about as good in research as UVA.  That surprised me.  You are absolutely right that Graduate Research is a MUCH bigger priority for the B1G than undergrad ranking.  That is one reason that I don't think ND would be a good fit.  ND fans are incredulous when I tell them that ND doesn't have the academics to fit in the B1G, but they don't.  They are a great undergrad school which is why their fans literally think I am joking when I say it, but their Graduate/Research programs would be dead last in the B1G by a pretty big margin.  Tech would fit in nicely.  
• I was impressed with VaTech's fanbase when we were in Blacksburg.  

What I think makes UVA more valuable is that they are closer to DC which is the source of most of the Graduate/Research funding.  FWIW, I also think that is why we were so interested in Maryland.

What I'm not sure is taken into account with respect to schools in Virginia and North Carolina is that the local legislatures are VERY protective of one school being left out.  VT and NC State are not going to be allowed to be left in the cold by UNC and UVa gaining prestige, money, etc.  If/when conference expansion picks back up, this will be a point of contention worth noting very much at the state gov't level.  

What I'm not sure is taken into account with respect to schools in Virginia and North Carolina is that the local legislatures are VERY protective of one school being left out.  VT and NC State are not going to be allowed to be left in the cold by UNC and UVa gaining prestige, money, etc.  If/when conference expansion picks back up, this will be a point of contention worth noting very much at the state gov't level.  

Agreed, but if the B10 works in concert with another conference (say, the SEC), then the states of VA and NC would be halved by each conference.  I'm not sure why NC has 4 P5 schools to begin with, but if they're assured 2 of them would be picked up by big-boy conferences, they'd probably sign off on it, as long as they signed an agreement to play each other OOC (UVA-VT and UNC-NCST or whoever).

The interesting thing about the 4x4 pods system that hasn't been brought up is that it can either incorporate a conference championship game....or not.  There's no need for one.  Best record (w/ tiebreakers) would be perfectly fine, with the diversity of schedules - it's more unlikely for the schedules to be that radically different, quality-wise than what we currently have in smaller conferences.

14 school conference now - play everyone in your division, play either a permanent rival + 1 rotating spot from the other division or 2 rotating spots.  Either way, it's potentially unfair to play a top team from the other division every year or even the top 2 at times.  

Having the play the top 2 from a pod doesn't mean as much because that's only the top 2 out of 4.  All 4 may suck.  A school could dominate its pod and still merely be an average team (losing the other 5-6 other conf games).  Yes, the stars could align against you, and you end up playing the top team in each of the other 3 pods, but again, each of them isn't guaranteed to be a big-boy team, like the top 1-2 of a 7-team division would almost certainly be.

Honestly, the more I explore the possibility of it, the better it looks.  Funny how 16 being a square number really opens up interesting outcomes - better outcomes than what we have with a smaller, 14-school conference.

I agree.  I think the ideal number is 9-10 where you play each other team on an 8-9 game schedule but if you don't have that (and we don't), then I think 16 makes more sense than 14.  
I also agree with your earlier comment that it makes no sense for North Carolina to have four P5 teams.