NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Fri Oct 24, 2014 5:21 am

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2015 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 3:45 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:47 am
Posts: 727
Location: Columbus, OH
I would argue that 16 is a great number for a mega-conference, provided the conference neatly and naturally divides into 2 8-team divisions or 4 4-team pods. That's what makes the Pac-16 model so logical. They could use either of these models and natural rivalries would remain preserved.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 29, 2014 10:25 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm
Posts: 1716
It breaks down nicely geographically, but the minute you add 4 OK/TX schools,
it's clear that the divisions will be:

Old Pac 8 (CA, OR, WA schools)
Other (AZ, UT, CO, OK, TX schools)

Go to 4 pods and it wil be:

California 4
OR 2 + WA 2
AZ 2 + Utah + Colo.
TX 2 + OK 2

All of these schools do a ton of recruiting in California and that is being destroyed.
With 2 8's you have disconnected AU, ASU, Utha, and Colorado from the California schools.
If you go to 4 pods, you have disconnected the 2 Oregon and 2 Washington schools as well.

THEREFORE, you have quite a few "No" votes, enough to effectively block the addition of the "Texahoma 4".
I believe that is what happened in 2012.
Larry Scott had two problems to overcome - how to resolve the LHN situation, and getting the Pac 12 Presidents on board.
It may have been possible to turn the LHN into a regional PAC12 Network branch and redistribute some income from that (Texas might have agreed to a little of that).
But apparently at least 4 PAC12 member schools (Utah and Colorado had voting rights at that point) shot it down.
There is a fear that such a PAC16 would become overly California- and Texas-centric.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 29, 2014 1:34 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1568
ncaanopaawaa2000 wrote:
westwolf wrote:
Absolutely, SEC03, As has been stated many times:

1. B1G does not want UConn
2. SEC does not want WVA
3. Missouri does not want to join the B1G any longer
4. 16 is not a good number for a conference.


Logical points. However, why not having a maximum number of schools for a conference to have? Like either 12 or 14.


OK, I'll add some comments here. I didn't want to sound too blunt about B10 expansion. These things often unfold over extended time and given results are not always as anticipated.

Agree, the B1G is not wanting UConn, at least not right now. As said, I concur the B1G prefers AAU affiliates. That certainly narrows options, and even among AAU membership in the ACC and the B12, nothing is fluid at this time, and even if it was, there would be limits as to whom was in play and to where interests lie.

If circumstances arose that the SEC expands again, going into the states of North Carolina and Virginia would be a priority. However, that territory is closed for now. ECU, ODU, ASU, are not developed or attractive enough to be considered. Only the ACC has plausible options.

WVU and the B12 had to know the geographical divide when they decided to bond. The B12 passed on any bridge work in that regard. While the ACC can be pointed at as the reason for WVU's isolation, that's too simple in assigning blame. It really goes back to the old BE in not making good proactive decisions in a timely manner. WVU, Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Miami, VPI, ND, etc. were all part of the decision-making that led to the staggered exodus. The ACC just exploited it the most.

The SEC often gets stereotyped about academics when one wants to press for certain negative comparisons. They are who they are---flagships and major land grants plus one major private school in the growing deeper south and a couple of border states. If the SEC somehow did take WVU, it would only embolden SEC detractors and snobbery. That's certainly a degree of unfairness to WVU to be cast in that way, because WVU has some distinguishable athletic accomplishments, shows enthusiastic fan support, and is a flagship school at the crossroads to multiple regions.

WVU hired E. Gordon Gee again as President. During his late tenure as President at Ohio State, he jokingly, but driven with attitude and frustration, implied the SEC was illiterate. He's probably not the guy to be approaching the SEC about near-term membership. He also referred to Louisville in a disparaging way. Louisville is now an ACC member of which WVU would dearly want to belong. Ohio State had quickly came to the conclusion words can lead to strained relationships. On the other hand, Gee was right-on about dealing with Notre Dame and other related factors; he just got careless in where and how he delivered disses.

14 vs 16? For the SEC, 14 took a lot of adaptation. I didn't hear Mizzou complaining, but LSU made a little fuss about the cross-division rivalry set-up. And a couple of others, such as Alabama, were seeking the 9-conference game format. Of course, posturing from somewhere gets involved whenever change is contemplated. 16 may be more appealing for basketball structuring and tournament equity/placements; but for football, it's more addition and time extension for everyone in the conference to get around to playing everyone else. As the number of conference fb games may be increased, there's still the question of incorporated non-conference rivalry games into schedules for certain schools. And to mess with changing divisions, every conference member is going to look at it from how it may impact their individual interests. A selling job is always involved.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 30, 2014 8:33 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1125
sec03 wrote:
As the number of conference fb games may be increased, there's still the question of incorporated non-conference rivalry games into schedules for certain schools. And to mess with changing divisions, every conference member is going to look at it from how it may impact their individual interests. A selling job is always involved.


That first sentence is very true. The Big Ten is probably the most collectivist conference of the P5, and that has had its effects on its expansion endeavors, as the conference (or at least, some within it) would be happy playing ONLY a conference schedule, and don't see the value of the non-conference games, rivalries or not. Any future Big Ten institution is going to have to either drink that Kool-Aid and cut its rivalries, or demand the conference to lighten up in its constrictive scheduling demands. But, of the latter, I think only a handful of entities could make that request: Texas, Notre Dame, and the PAC in its entirety if B1G-PAC is to ever happen.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 30, 2014 10:01 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1568
Oh Bucknuts, Ohio State's fb spouse, Shelly Meyer, is now tangling with Mike Bianchi of all people.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/201 ... elly-meyer


Last edited by sec03 on Wed Jul 30, 2014 6:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 30, 2014 6:01 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 9:04 pm
Posts: 399
Urban won with Ron Zook's recruits. It's a pattern whereby a school has a coach whose recruited very well, but fans are impatient and then he gets canned, then in comes Urban. UF was very generous and accommodating to Urban, but allowed what played out there to happen. It's another situation of allowing a coach free reign as long as wins are coming. The Myers' acting like victims of fan resentment, is absurd given the oodles of bucks carried away and the business they're in. Best to keep the mouth shut in this case unless it is to express regret.

Of course Louisville has given a coach another chance after leaving a program at another school in disarray though he took an interim stop.

Even Lane Kiffin has rebounded, becoming Saban's new offensive coordinator.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 9:22 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1125
louisvillecard01 wrote:
The Myers' acting like victims of fan resentment, is absurd given the oodles of bucks carried away and the business they're in. Best to keep the mouth shut in this case unless it is to express regret.


I'd put Ohio State fans up there with any of the SEC bases. The words should be watched. I find that if people are dumb enough to express themselves publicly like that, they'll do it again.

I wonder if there will be a new kind of battle waged between the SEC and Big Ten: the coach-swapping and taddling to the NCAA about recruiting violations. Urban's wife might have said too much to have some sour grape at a SEC school snitch on something Ohio State-relevant. I know Joe Paterno's reputation is finally sullied, but Franklin is no saint in the least...what he was doing down in Georgia, breaking that "unspoken rule" about working camps and whatnot? PSU football may only just come out of its violations and punishments to find...more punishments. And it wouldn't surprise me if another "hammer" was dropped on PSU after Franklin skipped town. I suspect he's pro bait just like the last one, just not as polished for it as Bill was.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2014 9:53 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1125
Here's a piece from CBS about the BTN president "monitoring the landscape."

2017's going to be an interesting one. The B1G starts to collect on their new deal, the SEC further distances itself from others with their arrangement, and the ACC has this potential deadline to get their network done. All the while, all of the majors have about 2-3 cycles of the new playoff structure under their belts.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 9:56 am 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 9:04 pm
Posts: 399
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
Here's a piece from CBS about the BTN president "monitoring the landscape."

2017's going to be an interesting one. The B1G starts to collect on their new deal, the SEC further distances itself from others with their arrangement, and the ACC has this potential deadline to get their network done. All the while, all of the majors have about 2-3 cycles of the new playoff structure under their belts.


Indeed, 2017 shall be interesting, and that is really not a long time away. I do think the B1G would add then IF something desirable is available. The comment about having '5' eastern teams may be a suggestive clue. Where shall two more come from if that is the case? The B1G is going to be the nucleus of the north and mid-west, the SEC the larger south, and the PAC12 the pacific/west.

The B1G is the one power conference that stays suggestive that future expansion by them may happen. There's no "we're done" statements without a caveat to it. And the B1G not being too precise as to where they intend to go, doesn't leave any other a true feeling of closure about near future expansion.

The ACC would be wise to go ahead and take UConn---and continue to sell basketball as their prime feature. Waiting for a full commitment on Notre Dame is going to lead to disappointment and costly frustration.

ESPN doing both the SEC network and the planned ACC network will have some very intriguing aspects developing. ESPN knows the SEC is going to be their prime bread-n-butter feature when it comes to fb. Pressure could be placed on the ACC to compromise regarding SEC interests to expand in, say, North Carolina, in exchange for future security, scheduling deals, and a monetary reward. If the ACC was using another major network for their TV-ACC initiative, the avenue for bargaining would be all external. The movement toward an ACC network is being called encouraging, but the slowness may not be all about caution.

The ACC appears to be uncompromising in their lawsuit battle with Maryland. So far, Maryland is not caving to ACC demands and has prepared to counter for the long-haul. Mediation may not resolve this, and after the North Carolina court rules, it may be taken-up elsewhere. For the ACC, it's not just about money, they fear being vulnerable.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 10:49 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1568
louisvillecard01 wrote:
I do think the B1G would add then IF something desirable is available. The comment about having '5' eastern teams may be a suggestive clue. Where shall two more come from if that is the case? The B1G is going to be the nucleus of the north and mid-west, the SEC the larger south, and the PAC12 the pacific/west.

For the ACC to have more members transition out, even if there wasn't a GoR, it would have to begin with ones other than UNC and UVA. B1G and/or SEC money may not be enough. A target would need to be a school that is at least ambivalent about being in the ACC to one that really wants to go. UNC, Duke, UVA, VPI, and WFU---very doubtful any of them would do 'a Maryland'. NCSU is bonded with them but have shown some past, but slight, indicators of a bit of the 'Texas A&M syndrome'. But NCSU's political and governing situation differs and could be more be complicated. Clemson would listen to the SEC, but otherwise are 'all ACC'.

If things turned sour again for FSU, they would bolt to a better situation if the avenue is open. Also, Miami would bolt anywhere that served their purpose better. GT would be willing to go for a higher pay-check from the B1G or the SEC; but GT would not relish being a B1G geographic island. The BIG haven't wanted Pitt, Syracuse, and BC, so they stay with the ACC whatever it becomes. Louisville would stay ACC. Notre Dame? ---they latch on to whomever best gives them their way.

Thus, these may be among the pool of schools from the ACC with any possibility of being 'next' to move:
FSU - if conditions were right with a grander offer
Miami - bond with the ACC is not that deep - open to top offer
GT - open to straight to the SEC (not coming) or to B1G w/ AAU brethren
Clemson - probably the SEC (not coming, but better odds than with GT)
NCSU - could be a targeted breakaway to the SEC, but immense hurdles to do so

Breaking the B12 may be easier and come first. The PAC12 would be an added player in that. Even with the B12, there's multiple sister schools and sub-bonding.

Any of these places, it has to be that the money is so big, one can't refuse. We'll see if ESPN and other networks shall pony-up.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 4:34 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1125
I agree, sec...what Maryland pulled was a complete and utter mess. From gagging the BoT with NDA's, to not returning ACC phonecalls, to completely keeping the alumni, students, and fans out of the mix (and having to spend millions to a PR firm to justify the move with them)...some schools administratively will see what Maryland did as an acceptable way to execute something unpopular. Others, hopefully though unlikely, will try for something more direct and transparent with its stakeholders and community.

I don't see what Maryland did ever happening at UNC, Duke, or even Virginia...the true core of the ACC. And certain schools, like Clemson, FSU, and Pitt...probably could "sneak out the back door" without stakeholder grievances. It's schools like Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech, and North Carolina State...maybe they try. And maybe stakeholders are "meh" about the whole thing, unlike what happened in Maryland, depending on the destination. Any school that considers bolting, though, be it the ACC or Big XII, is going to have to deal with the legal department. Have any of these major realignment switches happen without some kind of heat? It sounded like the PAC got their two pretty easily.

I will say I am surprised the Big Ten went to bat the way it did for Maryland financially. The front-loaded payout/back-loaded buy-in, the travel subsidy...the Big Ten really wants to be in the Beltway. So where does it go from there?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 5:36 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1568
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
I will say I am surprised the Big Ten went to bat the way it did for Maryland financially. The front-loaded payout/back-loaded buy-in, the travel subsidy...the Big Ten really wants to be in the Beltway. So where does it go from there?

TBC (or anyone else), do you know what percentage of distributions the B1G withholds from newcomers and for how long? I know the B12 has a withholding policy for a period of time---since WVU is supposedly to be coming out of the 'rookie' period.
With Maryland being front-ended, the B1G supposedly treated that distribution to a special 'travel' line item. Never heard of any such being offered to Rutgers, but the Scarlet Knights were on the train before Delany finished his invite sentence.
I read somewhere recently that when the B1G announced they were exploring expansion several years back, and Nebraska (more silently) and Missouri were vying to be offered, the less pay entry criteria was the cause of conflict developing between the B1G and Missouri. Missouri balked about coming into the B1G and initially receiving less revenue distributions than established B1G members. Nebraska was gladly willing to accept the conditions.
If true, maybe Missouri knew then, there was a potential and near-future SEC invite to fall back on. I am not sure though, if Texas A&M to the SEC was already a sure thing at that particular time because the B12 was just starting to crack open. It was also noted, Missouri reached out to the SEC to prepare a formal invitation, rather than the other way around. The general impression had been, apparently incorrectly, that when the SEC was looking quickly for #14, the SEC surprisingly contacted Missouri because they looked the best in terms of what was available. There had to be some prerequisite activity going on between Missouri and the SEC.
Could Delany have told B1G Presidents that Missouri disagrees with having an initial less distribution, and the B1G Presidents got offended with the school questioning their terms, and thus settled only on Nebraska then (or instead) who displayed a completely cooperative stance?

I do recall that when Penn State joined the B1G around '90 or so, there were some bumpy aspects to it. Distribution issues may have been less pertinent at the time, but a number of schools in the B1G saw Penn State as a 'rookie' then. Penn State winning the B1G right off the bat didn't set well with some B1G members, so much so that Michigan and maybe others voted Nebraska #1 that year. That's hard to vision that kind of scenario nowadays with so much riding on bowl distributions and conference power ratings and titles.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 08, 2014 5:01 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1125
sec03 wrote:
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
I will say I am surprised the Big Ten went to bat the way it did for Maryland financially. The front-loaded payout/back-loaded buy-in, the travel subsidy...the Big Ten really wants to be in the Beltway. So where does it go from there?

TBC (or anyone else), do you know what percentage of distributions the B1G withholds from newcomers and for how long? I know the B12 has a withholding policy for a period of time---since WVU is supposedly to be coming out of the 'rookie' period.
With Maryland being front-ended, the B1G supposedly treated that distribution to a special 'travel' line item. Never heard of any such being offered to Rutgers, but the Scarlet Knights were on the train before Delany finished his invite sentence.
I read somewhere recently that when the B1G announced they were exploring expansion several years back, and Nebraska (more silently) and Missouri were vying to be offered, the less pay entry criteria was the cause of conflict developing between the B1G and Missouri. Missouri balked about coming into the B1G and initially receiving less revenue distributions than established B1G members. Nebraska was gladly willing to accept the conditions.
If true, maybe Missouri knew then, there was a potential and near-future SEC invite to fall back on. I am not sure though, if Texas A&M to the SEC was already a sure thing at that particular time because the B12 was just starting to crack open. It was also noted, Missouri reached out to the SEC to prepare a formal invitation, rather than the other way around. The general impression had been, apparently incorrectly, that when the SEC was looking quickly for #14, the SEC surprisingly contacted Missouri because they looked the best in terms of what was available. There had to be some prerequisite activity going on between Missouri and the SEC.
Could Delany have told B1G Presidents that Missouri disagrees with having an initial less distribution, and the B1G Presidents got offended with the school questioning their terms, and thus settled only on Nebraska then (or instead) who displayed a completely cooperative stance?

I do recall that when Penn State joined the B1G around '90 or so, there were some bumpy aspects to it. Distribution issues may have been less pertinent at the time, but a number of schools in the B1G saw Penn State as a 'rookie' then. Penn State winning the B1G right off the bat didn't set well with some B1G members, so much so that Michigan and maybe others voted Nebraska #1 that year. That's hard to vision that kind of scenario nowadays with so much riding on bowl distributions and conference power ratings and titles.


UNL, RU, and UMD are on a six-year phase-in it appears. I don't know what the statistical percentage increase is each year...it doesn't appear to be even, according to how ESPN reported UNL's payout.

I don't think they're treating UMD like a rookie. Eventually, they'll be paying more to get into the conference the longer they're in within that six-year phase, but they'll be collecting now, along with the subsidy (which doesn't sound like it was factored into the buy-in's...more like a "signing bonus"). "Future value of money?" They've got a better deal than any new member. The Big Ten really wanted these guys.

As for Missouri...I don't know if they would have balked on taking the same deal as Nebraska. The way Perlman talked about that move, the Big Ten had its schools it was profiling, but when UNL made the call, the ears perked up. The conference wanted Nebraska more. The conference probably could have also taken Missouri and Rutgers immediately thereafter, and they'd still get their "eastern front," sorta, but I think Missouri wasn't high on their list. I think it was Michigan State's AD who said Maryland definitely was, and were approached in '10. I do believe Missouri made the right move...program-wise, they brought more to the table than Rutgers will probably ever bring, so if there were ruffled feathers from the Gateway State, I think they were right to go south.

As for Maryland...as posted on the ACC thread...consider the lawsuit settled. Losers all around.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:56 pm 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman

Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 6:12 pm
Posts: 26
Here are the Big Ten's best case expansion scenarios assuming no loss(es) of current membership:

16 = Notre Dame, Texas
18 = Notre Dame, Texas, Oklahoma, North Carolina
20 = Notre Dame, Texas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Virginia, Miami
22 = Notre Dame, Texas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Virginia, Miami, Georgia Tech, Boston College
24 = Notre Dame, Texas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Virginia, Miami, Georgia Tech, Boston College, Missouri, Syracuse

Of these potential Big Ten members, only one is available right now (Missouri). Two more are available in 2025 (Texas, Oklahoma). The rest are available in 2027.

Since you pretty much need to add members in even numbers, the only realistic way for the Big Ten to reach 16 members between now and 2024 is to add Missouri and a school not on this list. The only school not on this list with a snowball's chance in Egypt is Connecticut. Still, Connecticut is not even the tenth most desired future member for the Big Ten. There are 10 desired members shown in order in this post and even more ahead of Connecticut such as: Kansas, Duke, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, Kentucky/Tennessee/Vanderbilt (I know, I know... just illustrating a point) and then probably Connecticut if University of Toronto falls through.

My overall point is that since the likelihood of the Big Ten raiding the SEC AND taking their eighteenth-most desired candidate between now and 2024 is on par with someone winning the lottery, getting struck by lightning, winning the Super Bowl and time traveling all in the same day...

There is quite literally zero point in discussing Big Ten expansion until 2024. As in no particle of a point whatsoever. As in, no news story is going to break between now and then. As in, there will not be a shred of evidence or tip of the hat until then. As in, even then we might have to wait until 2026 before a Big Ten expansion tremor is felt.

All doom and gloom for P5 expansion buffs like me?

No, I think the Big 12 and ACC have potential moves between now and 2024. Notre Dame in full to the ACC is potentially the biggest move of them all. For a snowball's chance, maybe the Pac-12 says yes to a Go5 between now and then. I suppose in some version of reality, the Pac-12 could add BYU and Colorado State in adherence with the "state pairs" membership they previously enjoyed. Maybe, just maybe, the Pac-12 learns through Texas brass that Texas will never say yes. At that point (in 2024) do they make an undeniable offer to the Oklahoma Brothers?

A Pac-16 of this isn't so bad...

PAC EAST
Oklahoma / Oklahoma State / Colorado / Colorado State / Arizona / Arizona State / Utah / BYU

PAC WEST
California / Stanford / USC / UCLA / Oregon / Oregon State / Washington / Washington State


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 31, 2014 3:51 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:26 pm
Posts: 403
ND is not joining the B10

The Big 10 does want such non-aau schools as miami,syracuse,bc from the ACC

The Big 10 certainly would take ACC aau members UVA,UNC or GaTech.

The Big 10 certainly would take Big 12 members Texas or Kansas.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2015 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135  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