The premise behind adding teams like Oregon and Washington and Stanford to your roster that includes Clemson, FSU and Miami is that those teams play and you have something to sell. Separating 24 teams into 3 large divisions ensures you lose out on marquee games. Unless you go Tier A, Tier B, Tier C, (Example: Tier A would be Clemson, Oregon, Miami, FSU, Washington, Louisville, UNC and maybe Stanford) which then promotes unequal revenue sharing and, ultimately, collapse. A better way to separate 24 teams but ensure they all play each other in a reasonable amount of time is breaking them into four 6-team divisions, so you have 5 rivals every year. Then there are 18 teams left. So....play 6 home/away every two years. That way, you play everybody at least twice in a 24 team conference in a 6 year span. Now, this means 11 conference games. Which honestly, I could see major conferences moving towards. Fox and ESPN ain't paying $100M a year to a school to go play Samford. If you have a 12-game season, you could schedule one game versus another power conference. the imbalanced 11 game conference schedule means you in turn schedule your home/away non conference games accordingly to ensure 6 home games a year. Thus, a better way to split that 24 team conference would be to first go get two Texas schools instead of Arizona. You only need 6 schools on the West Coast in this layout, and Arizona just doesn't fit geographically. East BC, Syracuse, Pitt, WVU, Cincinnati, Louisville Atlantic UVA, UNC, Duke, NC State, WF, VT Southern FSU, Miami, GT, Clemson, Baylor, Ok State Pacific Oregon, Washington, Stanford, Cal, Utah, Colorado