NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Thu Oct 02, 2014 9:33 am

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5198 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 342, 343 ... 347  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jun 02, 2014 10:22 am 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:26 pm
Posts: 399
yes


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 02, 2014 10:56 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:14 pm
Posts: 1022
Location: Ciales-Manatí-Bayamón, Puerto Rico
ctx48c wrote:
yes


Damn! It sucks to know on a certain part that Cincy is in the East but NOT geographically in the West. Hope Commish Aresco knows what he's doing for the future and beyond.

_________________
Florida State Seminoles fan for life (mostly on football, basketball and baseball)! 2013 ACC football Atlantic Division champions; 2013 ACC football regular season champions; 2013 ACC football conference bowl tournament champions; 2014 NCAA D-I FBS BCS national champions!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 02, 2014 11:02 am 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 9:04 pm
Posts: 396
It's hard to say how deep this goes on in each situation, but it happens. A school fights to keep another close-by school out of a conference due to old grudges and fear they will lose some potential recruits or get over-shadowed in the media if one is accepting. In absurd cases, it may show a weakness on the part of the conference's leadership or other members failing to take a stance for the good of the whole.
There certainly can be over-saturation in a tight locale. There is also the most deserving or in a position to give it a good shot.
Villanova worked against Temple. BC wants to keep other schools in all of New England diminished for access. UTEP doesn't want NMSU in the same conference. Houston to Rice; TCU to SMU; the ACC to WVU; etc.
Even major conferences don't want to add certain in-state addition due to marketing and recruitment competition. That's more understandable when the chase is new TV markets.
There are schools hanging and trapped. I don't know a better example than UConn. BYU is another, but much of it is their own doing. And WVU's nearest conference rival is Iowa State? These conferences have expanded/not expanded with selfishness and often pettiness in their decisions. And while Notre Dame has refused to be a conference football member, they certainly have helped shape what some conferences look like and not all of it has been good.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 02, 2014 2:14 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1097
A lot of "the problem" left when the C7 split from the football schools, as well as Louisville thereafter, and the 'Cuse, Pitt, and WVU bloc preceding that. So much politics and old feuds. Heck, I had to wonder if Memphis and ECU were EVER going to make it into this one. And even then, poor USM...

It's obviously not going to stop now, as it seems between schools like UConn and UMass, ECU and perhaps Charlotte (who makes so much sense for this conference), Cincinnati and the Ohio MAC'ers, Memphis and Arkansas State, and maybe SMU and Houston against Rice. It's amazing UCF, Temple, Memphis, and ECU even made it through.

So, if there is a "where do we go from here?" moment, maybe it's into that "forbidden" pool. Or maybe not. I think this conference needs consistency in the national relevancy conversation to last. I think you get that by "making peace with the enemy." The viability financially isn't very strong, and dipping out west for football-only adds are not a very realistic solution.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 07, 2014 8:48 am 
Offline
Senior
Senior
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:33 am
Posts: 308
Location: Austin, Texas
ctx48c wrote:
I understood that the divisions for AAC are as follows:
East:UCONN,Temple,CINN,ECU,UCF,USF
West:Memphis,Tulane,Tulsa,Houston,SMU and Navy(football only)
the 13th member likely to be StLoius or Witchita St for other sports


Did I miss something?
I can't find SLU or WSU mentioned anywhere about being inline for advancement into the AAC. Was there an article regarding this I can read?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 07, 2014 8:54 am 
Offline
Senior
Senior
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:33 am
Posts: 308
Location: Austin, Texas
louisvillecard01 wrote:
It's hard to say how deep this goes on in each situation, but it happens. A school fights to keep another close-by school out of a conference due to old grudges and fear they will lose some potential recruits or get over-shadowed in the media if one is accepting. In absurd cases, it may show a weakness on the part of the conference's leadership or other members failing to take a stance for the good of the whole.
There certainly can be over-saturation in a tight locale. There is also the most deserving or in a position to give it a good shot.
Villanova worked against Temple. BC wants to keep other schools in all of New England diminished for access. UTEP doesn't want NMSU in the same conference. Houston to Rice; TCU to SMU; the ACC to WVU; etc.
Even major conferences don't want to add certain in-state addition due to marketing and recruitment competition. That's more understandable when the chase is new TV markets.
There are schools hanging and trapped. I don't know a better example than UConn. BYU is another, but much of it is their own doing. And WVU's nearest conference rival is Iowa State? These conferences have expanded/not expanded with selfishness and often pettiness in their decisions. And while Notre Dame has refused to be a conference football member, they certainly have helped shape what some conferences look like and not all of it has been good.


I understand that some schools don't like other schools for various reasons. But, many of the schools you listed...play each other just about every year.
UTEP plays NMSU in almost every sport, every year.
Rice, TCU, Houston, SMU, Texas State, Baylor, A&M, Texas, Tech, UTSA...all play each other(w/ the exception of UT and Houston/A&M).

So, I don't know that I totally follow that there is a real biased between ALL of these schools.
Maybe, you were talking more specifically about being in the same conference, rather than just scheduling?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 16, 2014 1:31 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1097
mozilla wrote:
louisvillecard01 wrote:
It's hard to say how deep this goes on in each situation, but it happens. A school fights to keep another close-by school out of a conference due to old grudges and fear they will lose some potential recruits or get over-shadowed in the media if one is accepting. In absurd cases, it may show a weakness on the part of the conference's leadership or other members failing to take a stance for the good of the whole.
There certainly can be over-saturation in a tight locale. There is also the most deserving or in a position to give it a good shot.
Villanova worked against Temple. BC wants to keep other schools in all of New England diminished for access. UTEP doesn't want NMSU in the same conference. Houston to Rice; TCU to SMU; the ACC to WVU; etc.
Even major conferences don't want to add certain in-state addition due to marketing and recruitment competition. That's more understandable when the chase is new TV markets.
There are schools hanging and trapped. I don't know a better example than UConn. BYU is another, but much of it is their own doing. And WVU's nearest conference rival is Iowa State? These conferences have expanded/not expanded with selfishness and often pettiness in their decisions. And while Notre Dame has refused to be a conference football member, they certainly have helped shape what some conferences look like and not all of it has been good.


I understand that some schools don't like other schools for various reasons. But, many of the schools you listed...play each other just about every year.
UTEP plays NMSU in almost every sport, every year.
Rice, TCU, Houston, SMU, Texas State, Baylor, A&M, Texas, Tech, UTSA...all play each other(w/ the exception of UT and Houston/A&M).

So, I don't know that I totally follow that there is a real biased between ALL of these schools.
Maybe, you were talking more specifically about being in the same conference, rather than just scheduling?


It's one thing to schedule, but it's another to want someone enough to be at the same conference level and whatever benefits those allow. The "equal" status. Maryland kept West Virginia and Penn State on the schedule for some time, but UMD didn't want either of them in the ACC. Rice historically blocked Houston, so who knows how karma works on the Owls. East Carolina played a Big East-lite football schedule for much of the 90's. It didn't do them much good; nobody really went to bat for them (including schedule staples Virginia Tech and West Virginia).

UNM-UTEP-NMSU might as well be BC-UConn-UMass of the southwest, minus the lawsuit. That's sort of the dynamic between the three. UNM (among others) didn't want UTEP in the MWC and stuffed them, and UTEP doesn't want to give NMSU common ground. UNM and NMSU "work together," but UNM isn't doing much for the Aggies where it concerns the conference affiliation. I suspect that's intentional.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 16, 2014 2:45 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1556
Good points about willing/wanting to play vs embracing somebody into the conference.

When college conferences first formed and going into the early 70s' or so, the focus was mostly having 'like-minded' and 'geographical close' members and expansion was approached with these factors at the forefront. Growth with TV, competition for recruits, and growing competitiveness between conferences over markets, certainly have altered much of the focus and priorities.

I still think conferences generally function more effectively having contiguous members and are identified mostly with one particular region. There can be too great of a spread to have strong cohesiveness. Also, there can be too much clustering, such as the NC4 and at one time the Louisiana-somethings. Actually, clustering has often worked very well in basketball. In football, not so much whereby there is too much splitting in fan base mass and/or the competitive levels obviously differ.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 8:13 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1097
This is getting some play over on CSNBBS: if the Big XII did collapse to the PAC, SEC, and B1G, the Big East was ready to absorb the leftovers, with UCF (gotta love that UL and WVU love for Florida recruiting).

Quote:
In September 2011, the Big East was stunned by the departures of Pitt and Syracuse, and the Big 12 was in danger of losing four schools to the Pac-12.

"My favorite story that hasn't been written," Luck said. "After Syracuse and Pittsburgh (announced they were leaving for the ACC), that was in the same time frame that Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State were playing footsie with (Pac-12 commissioner) Larry (Scott) and the Big East was a mess."

So Luck began cold-calling athletic directors at Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State and Iowa State with a proposal.

"I didn't know those guys from Adam," Luck said. "I knew the schools. I told them, 'Your conference may fall apart. You guys look like you might get left behind. Why don't we take all of you and TCU, which was kind of homeless."

Luck's plan, which also had the support of Louisville athletic director Tom Jurich, was also to add UCF for a 12-team Big East divided into two divisions: West: Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, TCU and Louisville; East: UConn, Cincinnati, Rutgers, West Virginia, South Florida and UCF.

"I remember thinking: 'That's not a bad conference,'" Luck said. "And we would have kept the affiliation with the (Big East) basketball schools, because they loved the addition of Kansas. They (the Big 12 schools) also liked it. They were nervous as hell, too. We had a series of phone calls. That was sort of our best option."

Luck said he had three or four phone discussions with the Big 12 schools. Then-Big East commissioner John Marinatto was not involved in the discussions and no formal offer was extended, but the Big 12 schools -- if left behind by the schools headed to the Pac-12 -- were prepared for the merger.

"At that point in time, we were ready to flip the switch," Currie said.


Currie is KSU's AD.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 8:27 am 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 10:45 am
Posts: 211
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
This is getting some play over on CSNBBS: if the Big XII did collapse to the PAC, SEC, and B1G, the Big East was ready to absorb the leftovers, with UCF (gotta love that UL and WVU love for Florida recruiting).

Quote:
In September 2011, the Big East was stunned by the departures of Pitt and Syracuse, and the Big 12 was in danger of losing four schools to the Pac-12.

"My favorite story that hasn't been written," Luck said. "After Syracuse and Pittsburgh (announced they were leaving for the ACC), that was in the same time frame that Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State were playing footsie with (Pac-12 commissioner) Larry (Scott) and the Big East was a mess."

So Luck began cold-calling athletic directors at Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State and Iowa State with a proposal.

"I didn't know those guys from Adam," Luck said. "I knew the schools. I told them, 'Your conference may fall apart. You guys look like you might get left behind. Why don't we take all of you and TCU, which was kind of homeless."

Luck's plan, which also had the support of Louisville athletic director Tom Jurich, was also to add UCF for a 12-team Big East divided into two divisions: West: Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, TCU and Louisville; East: UConn, Cincinnati, Rutgers, West Virginia, South Florida and UCF.

"I remember thinking: 'That's not a bad conference,'" Luck said. "And we would have kept the affiliation with the (Big East) basketball schools, because they loved the addition of Kansas. They (the Big 12 schools) also liked it. They were nervous as hell, too. We had a series of phone calls. That was sort of our best option."

Luck said he had three or four phone discussions with the Big 12 schools. Then-Big East commissioner John Marinatto was not involved in the discussions and no formal offer was extended, but the Big 12 schools -- if left behind by the schools headed to the Pac-12 -- were prepared for the merger.

"At that point in time, we were ready to flip the switch," Currie said.


Currie is KSU's AD.


Talk about a conference of misfits! Not a bad plan had the Texoma-4 headed west. I bet the basketball schools would've eventually split off anyways. If so, would these football schools have considered expansion with the programs that now make up the American Conference? They would've already had 12. Maybe go to 14 with the addition of Houston and East Carolina? Who knows!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 8:56 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1450
BePcr07 wrote:
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
This is getting some play over on CSNBBS: if the Big XII did collapse to the PAC, SEC, and B1G, the Big East was ready to absorb the leftovers, with UCF (gotta love that UL and WVU love for Florida recruiting).

Quote:
In September 2011, the Big East was stunned by the departures of Pitt and Syracuse, and the Big 12 was in danger of losing four schools to the Pac-12.

"My favorite story that hasn't been written," Luck said. "After Syracuse and Pittsburgh (announced they were leaving for the ACC), that was in the same time frame that Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State were playing footsie with (Pac-12 commissioner) Larry (Scott) and the Big East was a mess."

So Luck began cold-calling athletic directors at Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State and Iowa State with a proposal.

"I didn't know those guys from Adam," Luck said. "I knew the schools. I told them, 'Your conference may fall apart. You guys look like you might get left behind. Why don't we take all of you and TCU, which was kind of homeless."

Luck's plan, which also had the support of Louisville athletic director Tom Jurich, was also to add UCF for a 12-team Big East divided into two divisions: West: Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, TCU and Louisville; East: UConn, Cincinnati, Rutgers, West Virginia, South Florida and UCF.

"I remember thinking: 'That's not a bad conference,'" Luck said. "And we would have kept the affiliation with the (Big East) basketball schools, because they loved the addition of Kansas. They (the Big 12 schools) also liked it. They were nervous as hell, too. We had a series of phone calls. That was sort of our best option."

Luck said he had three or four phone discussions with the Big 12 schools. Then-Big East commissioner John Marinatto was not involved in the discussions and no formal offer was extended, but the Big 12 schools -- if left behind by the schools headed to the Pac-12 -- were prepared for the merger.

"At that point in time, we were ready to flip the switch," Currie said.


Currie is KSU's AD.


Talk about a conference of misfits! Not a bad plan had the Texoma-4 headed west. I bet the basketball schools would've eventually split off anyways. If so, would these football schools have considered expansion with the programs that now make up the American Conference? They would've already had 12. Maybe go to 14 with the addition of Houston and East Carolina? Who knows!

While close, this scenario is leaving out that A&M was also heading to the PAC12 (or so most thought at the time) and that Mizzou was also considered an outcast as well.

Their divisions would have looked like this...

West: Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, TCU and Mizzou; East: UConn, Cincinnati, Rutgers, West Virginia, South Florida and Louisville

Swap Rutgers with UCF (logical move after B1G move) and possibly ECU for Louisville (who still leaves for the ACC)

West: Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, TCU and Mizzou; East: UConn, Cincinnati, UCF, West Virginia, South Florida and ECU

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 9:04 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:14 pm
Posts: 1022
Location: Ciales-Manatí-Bayamón, Puerto Rico
Interesting predictions you guys posted related with of conference realignment before the 2013-14 season, involving the old Big East and the Big XII. But would it be better if it consisted the following?

Big XII would add Louisville and Cincinnati from old Big East (along with West Virginia), and TCU from the MW:

Big XII North: Kansas, Kansas St., Iowa St., West Virginia, Louisville, Cincinnati
Big XII South: Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St., TCU

Old Big East (now AAC) would NOT have lost Syracuse and Pitt (leaving the ACC and the B1G with 12 still); but would have gained Houston, SMU, UCF, Temple, and Memphis:

AAC: Syracuse, Pitt, UConn, USF, Rutgers, Houston, SMU, UCF, Temple, Memphis

Later for 2014-15, the AAC would have a CCG with additions of East Carolina, Tulsa and Tulane (maybe another school like Marshall), and Navy as a fb-only member out of the question:

AAC North: Syracuse, Pitt, UConn, Rutgers, Temple, Marshall, East Carolina
AAC South: Houston, SMU, UCF, USF, Memphis, Tulsa, Tulane

_________________
Florida State Seminoles fan for life (mostly on football, basketball and baseball)! 2013 ACC football Atlantic Division champions; 2013 ACC football regular season champions; 2013 ACC football conference bowl tournament champions; 2014 NCAA D-I FBS BCS national champions!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 12:50 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:33 am
Posts: 308
Location: Austin, Texas
tkalmus wrote:
BePcr07 wrote:
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
This is getting some play over on CSNBBS: if the Big XII did collapse to the PAC, SEC, and B1G, the Big East was ready to absorb the leftovers, with UCF (gotta love that UL and WVU love for Florida recruiting).

Quote:
In September 2011, the Big East was stunned by the departures of Pitt and Syracuse, and the Big 12 was in danger of losing four schools to the Pac-12.

"My favorite story that hasn't been written," Luck said. "After Syracuse and Pittsburgh (announced they were leaving for the ACC), that was in the same time frame that Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State were playing footsie with (Pac-12 commissioner) Larry (Scott) and the Big East was a mess."

So Luck began cold-calling athletic directors at Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State and Iowa State with a proposal.

"I didn't know those guys from Adam," Luck said. "I knew the schools. I told them, 'Your conference may fall apart. You guys look like you might get left behind. Why don't we take all of you and TCU, which was kind of homeless."

Luck's plan, which also had the support of Louisville athletic director Tom Jurich, was also to add UCF for a 12-team Big East divided into two divisions: West: Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, TCU and Louisville; East: UConn, Cincinnati, Rutgers, West Virginia, South Florida and UCF.

"I remember thinking: 'That's not a bad conference,'" Luck said. "And we would have kept the affiliation with the (Big East) basketball schools, because they loved the addition of Kansas. They (the Big 12 schools) also liked it. They were nervous as hell, too. We had a series of phone calls. That was sort of our best option."

Luck said he had three or four phone discussions with the Big 12 schools. Then-Big East commissioner John Marinatto was not involved in the discussions and no formal offer was extended, but the Big 12 schools -- if left behind by the schools headed to the Pac-12 -- were prepared for the merger.

"At that point in time, we were ready to flip the switch," Currie said.


Currie is KSU's AD.


Talk about a conference of misfits! Not a bad plan had the Texoma-4 headed west. I bet the basketball schools would've eventually split off anyways. If so, would these football schools have considered expansion with the programs that now make up the American Conference? They would've already had 12. Maybe go to 14 with the addition of Houston and East Carolina? Who knows!

While close, this scenario is leaving out that A&M was also heading to the PAC12 (or so most thought at the time) and that Mizzou was also considered an outcast as well.

Their divisions would have looked like this...

West: Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, TCU and Mizzou; East: UConn, Cincinnati, Rutgers, West Virginia, South Florida and Louisville

Swap Rutgers with UCF (logical move after B1G move) and possibly ECU for Louisville (who still leaves for the ACC)

West: Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, TCU and Mizzou; East: UConn, Cincinnati, UCF, West Virginia, South Florida and ECU


If A&M went with Texas....then what happened to Texas Tech? They aren't mentioned.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 1:25 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1450
mozilla wrote:
If A&M went with Texas....then what happened to Texas Tech? They aren't mentioned.

Tech was coming too...

The original proposed PAC16 include Colorado, Texas, A&M, Tech, OU, OSU.

Baylor got worried and started screaming to cut out Colorado and add them, so Colorado left quickly to ensure their spot.

Then A&M delayed the movements by asking the SEC for an invite, which they preferred over joining the PAC16.

This delay gave ESPN enough time to review everything and decide that keeping the Big12 intact was in their interest, and they knew that if Texas would stay then so would the rest, so they brokered a deal for the LHN.

After Texas proclaimed their commitment to the Big 12 (follow by everyone else other than Nebraska/Colorado) the PAC12 added Utah to even out the numbers and get a CCG.

The new PAC16 (now that A&M/Mizzou have moved to the SEC) is the same as before just replace A&M with Utah.

The only variance I have seen is with Kansas who could replace Tech (if they are considered unworthy) or Texas if they decide to go independent.

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 1:58 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1097
tkalmus wrote:
While close, this scenario is leaving out that A&M was also heading to the PAC12 (or so most thought at the time) and that Mizzou was also considered an outcast as well.


The six the PAC were getting were supposedly Texas, TAMU, Tech, OU, OSU, and Colorado.

Missouri, the K's, ISU, and Baylor were the leftovers. TCU was in flux and UCF was the "next in."

The math's kind of fuzzy, though. There seems to be one "leftover." People speculated that was Iowa State or Baylor, iirc...


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5198 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 342, 343 ... 347  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
 

 

cron




Looking for College Sports apparel? Support our partner:








Support Our Partners: Search Engine Marketing - Search Engine Optimization - Search Engine Training - Online Marketing for Restuarants

Subway Map Shirts - Food and Travel

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group