NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Fri Oct 24, 2014 2:06 am

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3193 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206 ... 213  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 10:12 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1460
TBC - Like I said above, Texas isn't scheduling Houston anytime soon.

Size of the school has nothing to do with who you schedule. It has a lot to do with who you invite to your conference.

If Texas was put in a position where they had to invite either Houston or Rice into the conference, I'm not sure who they'd pick as the ties with Rice run deep but Houston is the most logical choice in every reason except history, academics, and baseball.

Rice is a school UT considers its peer. Rice is an easy win. Rice gives UT 3 home games to 1 game in the city Houston is played at Reliant Stadium despite having a stadium that seats 70K (though its upper deck is reportedly in bad shaped).

The only way I see Houston/SMU on UT's schedule in the next 20 years is if...

UT/Tech move to the PAC16 and to get legislature approval they have to promise to play home/home-s with at least one Big 12 Texas school each year which will likely include Houston/SMU in addition to TCU/Baylor (though even then I'm sure UT would rather just play Baylor/TCU).

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 10:40 am 
Offline
Senior
Senior
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:33 am
Posts: 312
Location: Austin, Texas
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
You wonder if Rice would eventually get booted from UT's schedule for Houston because of the updated venues and the sheer size of the institution.

I look at the size of some of these non-majors and wonder if, while expenditures unfortunately exude a perception of athletic commitment, does the value of a school's overall "enrollment footprint" factor at all into future affiliation considerations? I might poo-poo on Rutgers a lot, but a school that boasts 60K enrollment and was, before the directional Florida schools, the Big East's biggest school, 60K is a student body one simply can't ignore. But, has that really ever played into affiliation considerations?

The last couple of movements by enrollment:
Nebraska: 24.2K
Colorado: 31.7K
Utah: 32K
Pitt: 35K
Syracuse: 21.2K
TAMU: 58.8K
Missouri: 34.K
West Virginia: 29.4K
TCU: 9.9K
Notre Dame: 12K
Maryland: 37.2K
Rutgers: 58.7K
Louisville: 22.3K

Overall, there's nothing really to laugh at; there are some considerably sized schools selected. But, here's who's still out there below those top conferences:

Cincinnati: 42.6K
BYU: 34.4K
UConn: 30.4K (system-wide, Storrs is 22-25K)
USF: 41.3K
UCF: 59.7K
Houston: 39.5K
SMU: 10.9K
UNM: 27.2K
CSU: 31.2K
SDSU: 32.7K
Rice: 6.6K
Tulane: 13.4K
UMass: 28.5K (Amherst)
Temple: 37.6K
Buffalo: 28.9K
Utah State: 27.8K
SJSU: 31K
Ohio: 38.2K (I did not know this school had a system this large)

Some of these are academic heavyweights, some are parts of sizable systems, and some are just big on their own. While I don't think there's a spot for all of them with the "adults," I have a tough time swallowing none of them getting in when the following "big statey" ones are:

Ole Miss: 19.4K
GT: 21.5K
Mississippi State: 20.1K
Clemson: 21.3K
UVA: 21.1K

With "institutional likeness," "athletic likeness," and "cultural likeness" justifications looking like swiss cheese these days, I don't see how constriction happens with all in play.



You raise some great points.


The Bishin Cutter wrote:
You wonder if Rice would eventually get booted from UT's schedule for Houston because of the updated venues and the sheer size of the institution.


With this specific part of your post I say....
UT isn't recruiting the players from Rice or UofH.
They are using the trip to Houston to recruit high school players....as well as, give their alumni in Houston a chance to watch their school.

So, to answer the question....Will UofH eventually pry Rice off the schedule, every few years, ....No, because it's not about who...it's about where. And the 'where' is already taken care of....no need to change the 'who'.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 11:37 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1125
mozilla wrote:
So, to answer the question....Will UofH eventually pry Rice off the schedule, every few years, ....No, because it's not about who...it's about where. And the 'where' is already taken care of....no need to change the 'who'.


tkalmus wrote:
Rice is a school UT considers its peer. Rice is an easy win. Rice gives UT 3 home games to 1 game in the city Houston is played at Reliant Stadium despite having a stadium that seats 70K (though its upper deck is reportedly in bad shaped).


Thank you both for these.

I've wondered what's happening down in Texas politically now because of the UT-ATM rift and if there was any kind of outcry for a strong intrastate connection to rebuild what could potentially (someday) be a significant series of pipelines out of the state academically and athletically (and Texas is beginning to see a migration to it by young ex-urbanites). To "keep up appearances," of sorts, but more because Houston, institutionally, is becoming more the common site in higher education: big, non-traditional student based schools in urban hubs. And those schools are "moving up" in the ranks of Division 1: Louisville, Cincy, USF, UCF, Temple...other than UL, the core fans of these schools are few compared to their overall enrollment and alumni base, but if schools have potential of turning that on its ear, like UL did and as UCF, Cincy, and Houston are doing...do you both think UH's only chances are had well after Texas moves onto the next conference arrangement (not just as a conference spot-filler, but as a "keeping appearances" game in a conference where Texas could be alone or with only one true intrastate neighbor in the new digs)?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 1:23 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1460
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
I've wondered what's happening down in Texas politically now because of the UT-ATM rift and if there was any kind of outcry for a strong intrastate connection to rebuild what could potentially (someday) be a significant series of pipelines out of the state academically and athletically (and Texas is beginning to see a migration to it by young ex-urbanites). To "keep up appearances," of sorts, but more because Houston, institutionally, is becoming more the common site in higher education: big, non-traditional student based schools in urban hubs. And those schools are "moving up" in the ranks of Division 1: Louisville, Cincy, USF, UCF, Temple...other than UL, the core fans of these schools are few compared to their overall enrollment and alumni base, but if schools have potential of turning that on its ear, like UL did and as UCF, Cincy, and Houston are doing...do you both think UH's only chances are had well after Texas moves onto the next conference arrangement (not just as a conference spot-filler, but as a "keeping appearances" game in a conference where Texas could be alone or with only one true intrastate neighbor in the new digs)?

Houston/Tech are both benefitting greatly from Texas and A&M basically capping out on enrollment. Both UT/A&M can't take anymore students in a state where population is exploding from many transplants from California to New York as well illegal immigrants (whose children are eligible to enroll at a state college#no politics/just facts) and just in general people in Texas are having more kids than many others places in the US.

Texas/A&M can't take all the smart kids that can't afford private schools, so Tech/Houston's enrollement is growing quickly as well as their academics (Houston recently acheived Tier 1 status and Tech should also in the next 5 years).

Houston is doing everything right, they likely should be included in a major conference but unfortunately they were likely to late too be included in the P4, but if the Big 12 manages to hang around they might be included. There stadium is "keeping appearances" up with Baylor and TCU. They want in that club badly and if the opportunity comes they don't want to look apathetic like Rice or SMU, they want to be at top.

I don't see a scenario where Houston will come to the Big 12 with Texas still in it, and that has nothing to due with the bad blood between them. 4 Texas schools is enough and Tech/TCU/Baylor aint going anywhere else. If the Big 12 expands it'll be for the big names (BYU, Cincy, UConn) or big locations (Tulane, Memphis) not in Texas.

But personally (as I've said many times) I'd like to see Rice and Tulane added to the conference. This would move the Oklahoma schools North and solidify the Big 12 in Houston which is probably the only real TX market the SEC can lay claim to and into Louisiana with a great road trip city plus boost academics 10 fold.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 1:25 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1568
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
Some of these are academic heavyweights, some are parts of sizable systems, and some are just big on their own. While I don't think there's a spot for all of them with the "adults," I have a tough time swallowing none of them getting in when the following "big statey" ones are:

Ole Miss: 19.4K
GT: 21.5K
Mississippi State: 20.1K
Clemson: 21.3K
UVA: 21.1K

All of these southern schools have been in the college sports business a very long time. None of them are fundamentally commuter schools in the traditional sense. Even with GT being in downtown Atlanta, they still retain a significant residential profile. By your premise, which I am not sure you are advocating given your keen knowledge, the thought would be to give way to Georgia State. When I lived once in Atlanta, Georgia State was the place to go to take a class during your lunch hour. They've grown immensely with adult nontraditional students and convenience, but certainly not in Tech's academic and research league.
It seems everybody outside of Mississippi wants to pick on Mississippi. MSU and Ole Miss are not commuter schools by a longshot. For a State with comparatively limited resources, they actually have a sensible higher education system. They try not to duplicate programs and each has a clear mission. USM could be tossed in there in terms of size. The State of Mississippi had the highest percentage of tax dollars off income earmarked for higher education (and for a time- k-12) in the U.S. Medium family income is low in Mississippi, but the point is about proportion, not negligence. Other campuses, such as Delta State, are strategically located. Major growth and development in Mississippi has been in the southern/gulf part of the state. That's not where UM and MSU are located. USM has benefited from that. Jackson State, has grown substantially out of necessity. Oxford, and particularly Starkville, are off the beaten path. For Miss. State, if one was looking at land vs enrollment, they have among the biggest property holdings in the nation---acres and acres of forests, pastures, cattle and poultry farms, etc.
Clemson two decades back, deliberately decided to constrain enrollment growth. Then they accepted more as the upstate has boomed in population.
I wouldn't want to see a fine school such as UVA sidelined for a USF.

To me, enrollment concerns matter more on the short end rather than the high end. Rice and Wake Forest, for example, show that as private schools.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 2:13 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1125
I think the matter becomes one of "what happens to the commuter school when it realizes its athletic potential as a major?" Like Louisville. With UL, though, it's not terribly big. Houston, UCF, Cincy, Temple, and some of the others, though...when they enroll as much as they do, and potentially have the infrastructure or mission to accommodate more students, where is there place among the majors? Would there be external pressure, state or federally, to conferences and schools to work with each other more cooperatively?

I think the same could be asked of some of these other flagships who weren't deeply involved in the game, but have come a long way, enrollment-wise and athletically, to demand some attention. UMass, the SUNY's, Utah State, the Cal State schools...if I point to GT, UVA, and the Mississippi schools, it's only because the missions now appear similar, and the enrollments favor the "n00bs" more than old guard institutions.

I agree, sec, that UVA shouldn't sit alongside UCF, but if UCF's overall alumni base dwarfed UVA's, or it turned out that UCF had more fans than UVA, and could self-generate revenue for major athletics better than UVA...but won't get a sniff from UVA or any other major like them, what can/should UCF do?

I think it's this new core or type of school that readily sit below the majors and have no way of getting into the big time for some reason or another. In the Big XII's case, you have some schools listed from those mid-majors that greatly outnumber the size of the public school members, share a similar academic mission, and may even be more prestigious than the major school (BYU, Cincy, and Colorado State, for example...). But nobody really wants them. However, like tk, I look at Tulane and Rice and think these are the guys who probably will or should move on. I don't think Rice deserves to be a major conference member...but being a southern Ivy like that probably opens doors for them that poor Houston won't ever budge.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 4:13 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1460
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
I think the matter becomes one of "what happens to the commuter school when it realizes its athletic potential as a major?" Like Louisville. With UL, though, it's not terribly big. Houston, UCF, Cincy, Temple, and some of the others, though...when they enroll as much as they do, and potentially have the infrastructure or mission to accommodate more students, where is there place among the majors? Would there be external pressure, state or federally, to conferences and schools to work with each other more cooperatively?

I think the same could be asked of some of these other flagships who weren't deeply involved in the game, but have come a long way, enrollment-wise and athletically, to demand some attention. UMass, the SUNY's, Utah State, the Cal State schools...if I point to GT, UVA, and the Mississippi schools, it's only because the missions now appear similar, and the enrollments favor the "n00bs" more than old guard institutions.

I agree, sec, that UVA shouldn't sit alongside UCF, but if UCF's overall alumni base dwarfed UVA's, or it turned out that UCF had more fans than UVA, and could self-generate revenue for major athletics better than UVA...but won't get a sniff from UVA or any other major like them, what can/should UCF do?

I think it's this new core or type of school that readily sit below the majors and have no way of getting into the big time for some reason or another. In the Big XII's case, you have some schools listed from those mid-majors that greatly outnumber the size of the public school members, share a similar academic mission, and may even be more prestigious than the major school (BYU, Cincy, and Colorado State, for example...). But nobody really wants them. However, like tk, I look at Tulane and Rice and think these are the guys who probably will or should move on. I don't think Rice deserves to be a major conference member...but being a southern Ivy like that probably opens doors for them that poor Houston won't ever budge.


I think schools like the ones you mentioned need to sit tight and wait. I feel for UCF/USF as they are in a bad geographic location but for the others I think the Big 12 is the answer.

If the Big 12 loses Texas, Tech, OU, OSU and Kansas they'd have at least 4 spots (likely 6) to fill.

Houston, SMU, Tulane and Memphis replace the Texhoma 4, Cincy and UConn get added to appease WVU, and the last school is likely BYU.

Eventually if the ACC is raided and WVU, Cincy, UConn get those long awaited invites, I could see UCF/USF getting those spots but that's still a longshot.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 5:53 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1568
We're a handful of people talking college conference expansion when most anyone else sees it as dormant for a long while. Give it time, and some rumor shall surface. ;)

While I am partial to the SEC, and give more attention to the major conferences, I am not an enthusiast for the self-contained, super-conference idea. That does not mean opposition to expansion among the major conferences; rather it concerns me the movement has shifted to become more exclusionary. Certainly reform is warranted and new adaptations are necessary. However, I believe enhancing the divide between the "haves" and the "have-nots", particularly regarding access to revenue, and the ability to generate such, is a troubling direction to go. The new playoff structure, and the dandy bowls, have become more exclusionary by design. The hurdle for just one outside the Power5 to break through for just one year is immense.

Looking at this pragmatically, and it pertains to TBC's point, colleges do change in size, resources, and demographics. And certainly among the power5, there are some there, that demonstrate less productivity, fan support, and resources, compared to several of the aspiring schools. Agree, it is not a clean-cut divide. A whole group of schools are basically cut-off from upward mobility. Yes, schools such as Louisville, TCU, and Utah, are among the lucky ones. But that was a few years ago; now, the access is much tighter.

Does this mean a school such as UCF belongs in the SEC or the ACC? No, unless there is a proven need. But that does not mean that schools such as UCF, USF, Cincinnati, Houston, UConn, etc., should be held down either. Must the AAC, for example, be more constrained by the system in efforts to develop appreciable revenue growth that could approach at some point what the ACC or another power conference earns? The way the power conferences are going, led by their network financiers, the answer is no. So the constraints are not just about limiting the spectrum of competition on the fields and courts, but also the marketplace. The networks and power conferences have already defined the marketplace. Thus, for schools such as UCF or BYU, the outlet to reach greater heights should not be limited to whether or not a particular power conference wants and takes them; rather, to have other alternatives available in facilitating their reasonable aspirations through proven accomplishments and dedication. Again, the system has established formidable barriers in this regard. That's what needs addressed by the NCAA and the leagues.

TK, I do think Texas, OU, and a couple or so more from the B12 do need to move on at some point. Maybe being a pod in the Pac12 is the best option. The current situation just looks too temporary and unresolved.

With the UT/OU/OSU/TTU perhaps headed for another and bright pasture in the future, I'd like to see the Southwest conference reconstituted, of course with the appropriate modifications in membership. There's a load of viable schools (public and private) that are old time participants or growing competitors on the cusp of the big time, that could be placed together in a more concentrated geographic region. Kansas, and maybe KSU and ISU too, could find more plausible homes as well.

The power5 has not only limited movement for those externally, they have also boxed themselves in to where they are now. In the quest for establishing 'protectionism', they've also terminated their own flexibilities in terms of membership.


Last edited by sec03 on Mon Jul 21, 2014 6:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 6:16 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:47 am
Posts: 727
Location: Columbus, OH
When the Texlahoma 4 do finally leave I definitely see Houston and SMU getting the call up. Cincinnati will be in the expansion unless there is movement in the ACC that gives them an opportunity to slip into that league. If there is only one more spot I think its a dog fight between Memphis and Tulane.

UCF and USF present an interesting quandary for the Big 12. Its a big reach outside of the footprint for the depleted Big 12 but I think if it comes down to grabbing the best available program then the Knights and Bulls enter the conversation if we are talking about a 12 or 14 member Big 12. There is also the possibility that the ACC will simultaneously get raided by the SEC/Big Ten and if the SEC wisely chooses to take Florida St then that puts the U_Fs in consideration for the ACC as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 6:29 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1125
sec03 wrote:
We're a handful of people talking college conference expansion when most anyone else sees it as dormant for a long while. Give it time, and some rumor shall surface.


I'm sure...but the stuff writes itself. PAC access to more east coast-friendly time slots, Big XII without a CCG, and the Big Ten saying they prefer 16+ to the fourteen they have...maybe the Dude gets a breather, but there's still a dryness in the air to kindle a spark. And that doesn't even go into player compensation/stipends, unions, and governance/autonomy.

For me, I won't stop beating the dead horse until I see schools dropping their checkbooks on some of these facility projects. Colorado State is one I've been spying on a bit, to which something may be looming (but probably not). It's do or die time in Ft. Collins.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 8:56 pm 
Offline
Sophomore
Sophomore

Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 12:07 pm
Posts: 66
tkalmus wrote:
If the Big 12 loses Texas, Tech, OU, OSU and Kansas they'd have at least 4 spots (likely 6) to fill.

Houston, SMU, Tulane and Memphis replace the Texhoma 4, Cincy and UConn get added to appease WVU, and the last school is likely BYU.

Eventually if the ACC is raided and WVU, Cincy, UConn get those long awaited invites, I could see UCF/USF getting those spots but that's still a longshot.

Quote:
TK, I do think Texas, OU, and a couple or so more from the B12 do need to move on at some point. Maybe being a pod in the Pac12 is the best option. The current situation just looks too temporary and unresolved.

With the UT/OU/OSU/TTU perhaps headed for another and bright pasture in the future, I'd like to see the Southwest conference reconstituted, of course with the appropriate modifications in membership. There's a load of viable schools (public and private) that are old time participants or growing competitors on the cusp of the big time, that could be placed together in a more concentrated geographic region. Kansas, and maybe KSU and ISU too, could find more plausible homes as well.

So the B12 becomes the new SWC; but much like the BE becoming the AAC, the result is most definitely not a Power conference. Looks to me like rearranging the deck chairs . . .

I think the best the remnants could hope for is to pull together the best 8 or 9 schools and form the western division of the 4th and final Power conference (by 2027).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 9:21 pm 
Offline
Sophomore
Sophomore

Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 12:07 pm
Posts: 66
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
sec03 wrote:
We're a handful of people talking college conference expansion when most anyone else sees it as dormant for a long while. Give it time, and some rumor shall surface.


I'm sure...but the stuff writes itself. PAC access to more east coast-friendly time slots, Big XII without a CCG, and the Big Ten saying they prefer 16+ to the fourteen they have...maybe the Dude gets a breather, but there's still a dryness in the air to kindle a spark. And that doesn't even go into player compensation/stipends, unions, and governance/autonomy.

For me, I won't stop beating the dead horse until I see schools dropping their checkbooks on some of these facility projects. Colorado State is one I've been spying on a bit, to which something may be looming (but probably not). It's do or die time in Ft. Collins.

Count me as one who believes no major P5 realignment will occur until the GoRs expire in 2025 (B12) and 2027 (ACC). The B12 might add two schools in the interim, but likely for football only, and BYU would be one of them.

Then there will be a period of major realignment where the P5 consolidates to P4, likely a 4 * 18 model, meaning there will be up to 7 openings for move up of deserving G5 schools. The next 10 to 12 years should determine who those deserving schools are. I think schools that drink the Aresco Kool-Aid and think in terms of moving their entire conference up to P level are screwed. It won't be enough to be merely competitive within their own conference. This needs to be dog-eat-dog for the next decade, in terms of facilities, resources, and winning on the field. No reason a school like Colorado State shouldn't be in the mix, but they need to make decisions and move forward. It all starts next month. Should be fun to watch.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 9:57 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 10:45 am
Posts: 217
Dennis wrote:
Then there will be a period of major realignment where the P5 consolidates to P4, likely a 4 * 18 model, meaning there will be up to 7 openings for move up of deserving G5 schools.


By saying 7 openings, I'm assuming your already including Notre Dame. If so, the 7 I would pick would be (in no particular order):
5 guarantees (for me) --- Cincinnati, Connecticut, BYU, Houston, San Diego St
2 of --- UCF, USF, SMU, UNLV, Boise St, Colorado St, New Mexico, Tulane, Memphis (factors - markets/competition/flagships/academics)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 12:26 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1460
BePcr07 wrote:
Dennis wrote:
Then there will be a period of major realignment where the P5 consolidates to P4, likely a 4 * 18 model, meaning there will be up to 7 openings for move up of deserving G5 schools.


By saying 7 openings, I'm assuming your already including Notre Dame. If so, the 7 I would pick would be (in no particular order):
5 guarantees (for me) --- Cincinnati, Connecticut, BYU, Houston, San Diego St
2 of --- UCF, USF, SMU, UNLV, Boise St, Colorado St, New Mexico, Tulane, Memphis (factors - markets/competition/flagships/academics)

He got seven by assuming its 4*18=72 and includes all the P5 schools (w/ ND)=65.

Personally I don't see that happening, it's far more likely to shrink than expand.

4*16=64

Left out is likely Big 12 and their remaining schools like Baylor, TCU, Iowa St, and Kansas State meanwhile school in the East like UConn, Cincy, and WVU all hit the realignment jackpot and get rescued by the ACC after the 2025 raids by the B1G/SEC. Still there will likely be one spot left in the ACC that may be up for grabs.

P12+Texhoma4; B1G+Kansas+1 ACC school; SEC+2 ACC schools
ACC(14)-3 lost in raids=11+WVU+UConn+Cincy=14+NDfb=15...still 1 shy of the magic number.

Temple is my best guess (growing school, great market also between to huge markets the ACC lost to the B1G in NYC/DC) but it could be Navy fb only (if ND wants them) or a longshot like Memphis (contiguous state, bball, rivalry with LVille/Cincy) or even BYU as fb only.

I don't see the ACC jumping past the Mississippi River for full member schools the leftover Big12 schools as they'd want the map to look somewhat common sense geographically as they Big East and now Big 12 have shown that it's not worth the headache.

Back to the Big 12...assuming it shakes out like I wrote above and the ACC's #16 ends up being Temple...could the Big12 even have a chance to keep their P5 status if they added all remaining fb schools they could muster or do they simply merge with the next best conference for football like the AAC and just add a select school or two to get them over the top?

2027 Big12+best remaining fb schools
West - SDSU, Boise, BYU, CO St (best PAC wannabes)
Texas- TCU, SMU, Baylor, Houston (SWC best leftovers)
North- Memphis KSU, ISU, NIU (best B1G wannabes)
South- Tulane, USF, UCF, ECU (best SEC/ACC wannabes)

2027 Big12/AAC merger
Big12- Boise(fb only), BYU (fb only), TCU, Baylor, Tulsa, KSU, ISU, NIU
AAC- SMU, Houston, Tulane, Memphis, USF, UCF, ECU, Navy (fb only)

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 1:11 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1568
Don't think the B12 not having a CCG shall be immune to a potential fuss per the playoffs? Jimbo Fisher (FSU) and Art Briles (Baylor) are already trading jabs about it during media days:

http://www.thestate.com/2014/07/21/3576 ... 9/181/185/


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3193 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206 ... 213  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