NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Wed Dec 17, 2014 7:45 pm

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2066 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122 ... 138  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 9:19 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1174
I think anyone who puts the UNL-B1G thing only through the AAU thing hasn't a clue how the B1G operates or operated. Nebraska has history with the Big Ten, and it goes back about 100 years. For most of that time, it was UNL chasing the Big Ten. Only in the last 25 or so years did it turn the other way. Yes, the Big Ten stood pat for nearly 20 years after adding Penn State to acquire Nebraska. Maybe if Notre Dame did join in the late 90's, the Cornhuskers' story would be different, but even during all of that time, UNL's academic reputation was sagging. UNL was still unanimously invited into the conference, its AAU future all but sealed, and despite Wisconsin and Michigan voting to boot them out of the AAU.

People just don't seem to remember the University of 'Nowledge was a model land grant institution. If those schools further east of UNL run in a similar way to each other, rest assured they were merely copying what was being done in Lincoln.

Missouri was passed over, repeatedly, for various reasons, depending on the time. For a long while, athletically, it was easy to dismiss them. Culturally, there was the factory vs. farm mentality of an industrialized, union-heavy midwest to the more rural, agrarian Missouri. Academically, I don't think they were ever respected, and I think, over the years, with certain schools really wanting no part of Missouri, finding ways to diminish the importance of the school only became easier. Obviously, as Missouri, the state, grows, and its programs further improve, the bias, if it still exists, diminishes or becomes harder to defend without looking like a snob.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 12:11 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 10:45 am
Posts: 231
That being said about Missouri, I still don't see them as an SEC-type of school. I'm not full of explanations about it, I just simply don't think they fit in. I think they're more B1G than SEC, if anything. Whatever conference lands Kansas, I would put Missouri.

As far as further B1G expansion, as the Commissioner has eluded to in the near future, I don't think they'll raid the SEC for Missouri or Vanderbilt. They clearly don't want Missouri. Vanderbilt would make a disconnected geographical footprint without Missouri, which they won't go for. However, in the case they take Missouri, Vanderbilt would make a weird geographical footprint with the peninsular shape the state of Tennessee would make with the absence of a Kentucky program.

If/when the XII dissolves, Kansas will be the B1G's primary target (geographical footprint, basketball, academics, basketball). I don't see the B1G going any more northeasterly with the exception of Boston College for the Boston market. They will already be on televisions in Washington DC and Baltimore by picking up Maryland and New York City by picking up Rutgers (despite not being a New York school). I don't think they'd add much picking up Syracuse, Connecticut, or Pittsburgh. The B1G is already a strong basketball conference, so they need to pick up some football programs. I could definitely see a bridge involving Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. The ACC route with Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia Tech just seems a lot less likely with the fact the ACC is more stable than the XII. I am curious with how many schools the B1G is considering adding. I'd assume 2 more for 16, but what if it's 4 more for 18? Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and ????


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 12:21 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1574
To add on the Nebraska vs Mizzou question...
Nebraska had been lobbying the Big10 for years, and the pace accelerated shortly after the old Big 8 & Texas 4 combined. Osborne at Nebraska and in Congress and back at Nebraska had a goal to accomplish. Remember, many thought the Big10 was going to move east first, and Big10 officials were putting out signals they may add 1, or 3, or go to 16 or more.
The politics settled on Nebraska for #12. Beyond advantages previously mentioned, Nebraska had cultivated the personal contacts, and positioned themselves, athletically and diplomatically for the move. Nebraska was relatively silent about the progress in efforts to gain Big10 admissions, and the Big10 was not particularly open pertaining to discussions with the school over an extended period. The big advantage, I see Nebraska had over others, was their 'national profile brand' in fb, extending particularly from the late 60s' onward. While Nebraska certainly had 'down periods', their national championships and the famous OU-UN games remained a fundamental part of their persona.

In fairness to Mizzou, they openly wanted out of the B12 when they saw others taking initiatives to leave. And I am sure, Mizzou, as others, had informally talked with the Big Ten and the SEC well before the near implosion of the Big12. When Delany formally announced the Big10 was openly exploring expansion candidates, perhaps Mizzou did get too verbal in their own lobbying efforts, thus ending up being dissed with the, then, Governor and a few others having a bit of egg to wipe off their faces. But strategies can be gambles; and if they acted otherwise, they could have been blamed for not trying enough. Maybe the Big10, in retrospect, would have done the approach differently had it been later. But internal cooperation have its challenges, and the Big10 could not predict fully, what major moves other top conferences would puruse. Mizzou getting the #14 invite from the SEC was logical and smart, though the real determination period was short compared to Texas A&M coming into the SEC. Mizzou coming into the SEC-east may look a bit odd, but it really impacts basically fb. It may be some advantage for Mizzou regarding recruiting and exposure. I confidently believe Mizzou shall be in the SEC for the long-haul. They may not become dominant in SEC fb, but is that much different than what was shown in the B12, and what could have been displayed in the B10? In fact Mizzou may develop a stronger characterization in fb because of the SEC focus. Mizzou has been to major bowls multiple times over multiple decades, so they are not some 'upgrade' trying to prove themselves worthy of inclsuion. It may take a bit of time to fully adjust to the new conference, but they'll get ingrained with it. Similar stuff was said about South Carolina years ago, and SEC competition forced them to become better. The Mizzou-Kansas rivalry would have diminished, at least temporarily, even if Mizzou left for the Big10. And, Mizzou is contiguous to the SEC on the southern flank, as much as some may want to be a bit stereotypic about regions. It certainly is not a B12--WVU situation. And for the SEC, it's taking and connecting to the flagship in a new, significant state whereby that school is the only high-profile, all-sports college program in the state. Missouri has two major cities on each end, and the SEC garnering more direct and enhanced coverage from those media outlets is a real plus for the SEC.

Agree, Notre Dame was the #1 target for the Big10. The Big10 may still have that mission despite what had transpired last year.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 1:28 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm
Posts: 1753
Living here in St. Louis, I do think Mizzou would've been a better fit in the Big Ten.

But Delany was the one who went public with the Big Ten looking to expand to 12, wiht a public annoncement.
This in turn PREDICTABLY created a circus atmosphere.
One could conclude after the fact, that Mizzou should have used the quiet back-door approach to let Delany know of their interest.

But consider this - why did Delany need to go public with the expansion announcement in the first place ?
Was it because he was tired of Barry Alvarez blabbing everything to the press ?
If Nebreaska had been lobbying to switch conferences for 10 years
(I'll say it was likely AT LEAST since the Big XII championship game where they were hosed by the referees, trying to sneak COlt McCoy and texas into the NCG),
and their main target was Notre Dame, couldn't Delany have simply told Notre Dame "I'm offering you guys the first shot, otherwise we're inviting Nebraska" ?

When Penn State, Maryland, and Rutgers were added, everything was done on the QT and there was very little publicity before an announcement made of a fait accompli.
So why did Delany act so much more publically in this instance ?


I don't know how good of a cultural fit Missouri is with the other SEC schools right now, but all things considered, Mizzou came out smelling likie a rose.
Getting invited to the SEC solidifies their athletics department's future in terms of both finances and stability.
Will Mizzou be able to compete in football in the SEC ? I'm not a betting man, but I think they will gravitate to the middle of the pack.
They don't appear to be going nuts in terms of financing their program the way Alabama, Florida, LSU do right now.
But football isn't the only sport that matters to Mizzou. They are perennially in the NCAA BB tournament.
They bucked up for a $55 million rec facility that features on of the top 10 swimming centers in the country.
And the SEC probably has 5 of the top 15 swimming programs in the nation.

So the question is: If the Big Ten came knocking on Mizzou's door in 5-10 years, would Mizzou be interested ?
If they were to switch, the Big Ten would whack them with an entrance fee and / or force them to go through a "vesting period" (see Nebraaska),
during which they'd get less than a full cut of TV / BTN proceeds.
If the SEC network is up and running successfully by then, Mizzou's answer may be "No thanks !"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 1:30 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1174
With Missouri back during the search that eventually produced Nebraska, that rumor that surfaced about Missouri, Notre Dame, Pitt, and Rutgers all having these supposed Big Ten invites really hurt MU in the worst way. They got beat up at the Big XII meetings, all the while Nebraska started making the right phone calls bolstering their candidacy. Total deer-in-the-headlights moment for MU.

Funny that the only one to ever come out of that cluster was the school least deserving of the inclusion. I guess that's kind of why I never took much stock in the UVA/UNC rumors when they surfaced. If you HAVE to take Rutgers, it's because others aren't taking your calls.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 3:22 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:47 am
Posts: 783
Location: Columbus, OH
The rumor that Bishin Cutter talking about definitely threw a big wrench in the expansion carousel--if that was indeed the Big Ten's original plan it was a darn good one especially if Nebraska would have been the last addition to round out the membership at 16. I think when it came out it completely caught Missouri off guard and they didnt know how to respond and rather than deny the rumor like everyone else did they started campaigning even harder which turned off the Big Ten and ensured that Missouri would not be added. On a retrospective sidebar I would have loved that group of 16.

I can still see Missouri as being a Big Ten option somewhere down the road particularly if get a really radical expansion round that produces 20 member conferences that would consolidate/eliminate the Big 12 and ACC reducing the landscape of college football to 3 leagues--the Pac 12 (with Texas/Oklahoma additions), the Big Ten, and the SEC. To bring the Big 10 up to 20 the adds could be Pitt, Syracuse, Notre Dame, Missouri, Kansas, and Iowa St. The SEC would then need 7 members to match them and I think Florida St, Clemson, Miami, GT, VT, UNC, NC St, Duke, WVU, and Louisville making up the pool from which to grab--I don't see UVA or WF having real strong candadacy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 5:32 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 10:45 am
Posts: 231
fighting muskie wrote:
I can still see Missouri as being a Big Ten option somewhere down the road particularly if get a really radical expansion round that produces 20 member conferences that would consolidate/eliminate the Big 12 and ACC reducing the landscape of college football to 3 leagues--the Pac 12 (with Texas/Oklahoma additions), the Big Ten, and the SEC. To bring the Big 10 up to 20 the adds could be Pitt, Syracuse, Notre Dame, Missouri, Kansas, and Iowa St. The SEC would then need 7 members to match them and I think Florida St, Clemson, Miami, GT, VT, UNC, NC St, Duke, WVU, and Louisville making up the pool from which to grab--I don't see UVA or WF having real strong candadacy.


If they 20-team conference idea were to come to fruition, I agree for the most part with some exceptions (assuming the SEC/B1G schools let go of the blockades on schools within current SEC states)...

PAC (current 12 +) : Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Kansas St, UNLV, New Mexico, Hawaii
- Northwest Pod: Washington, Washington St, Oregon, Oregon St, Utah
- Pacific Pod: California, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Hawaii
- Southwest Pod: Arizona, Arizona St, Colorado, New Mexico, UNLV
- Central Pod: Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Kansas St, Texas Tech
SEC (current 14 +) : (-Missouri), Miami, Florida St, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Louisville, Virginia Tech, North Carolina St
- Atlantic Pod: North Carolina St, Virginia Tech, South Carolina, Clemson, Georgia Tech
- Bluegrass Pod: Kentucky, Louisville, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Alabama
- Gulf Pod: Texas A&M, Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St
- Southeast Pod: Georgia, Auburn, Florida, Miami, Florida St
B1G (current 14 +) : Kansas, Missouri, Pittsburgh, Notre Dame, North Carolina, Virginia
- Plains Pod: Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota
- Midwest Pod: Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue
- Great Lakes Pod: Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh
- Eastern Pod: Penn St, Maryland, Rutgers, Virginia, North Carolina


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 7:41 pm 
Online
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1509
fighting muskie wrote:
I don't see UVA or WF having real strong candadacy.


UVA will make it in, AAU flagship school if for no other reason.

The B1G and SEC would take them.

Totally agree on Wake Forest.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 8:21 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1574
tkalmus wrote:
UVA will make it in, AAU flagship school if for no other reason.

The B1G and SEC would take them.

Totally agree on Wake Forest.


Agree. UVA would not just be taken, but would be among the priority choices due to name, location, and academics; if UVA sought to move.

Given that certain schools would be the target of more than one conference, and what to do with a 4th NC school such as WF for example; therein lies the problem that these major conferences are not going to get together and collectively divide-up a more vulnerable conference(s)among them to come up with 4 super-doopers. It could happen by some form of natural
selection, each doing their own pick-offs, over time, but I don't see the cooperation to agreeingly place 'the chosen' and dump the rest. That said, some criteria shall be presented to create the super division and it certainly won't look perfect and without controversy.

The SEC, for example, with L'ville, GT, Clemson, etc., could have done that without the cooperation from certain other conferences, and would not pursue such to open more choiced opportunities for another major conference. They are not going to '20' or so with a large majority of the newbees in the existing footprint, and new turf additions are second tier picks among the elite. As Cutter indicated, think Rutgers in this regard. It would dilute payouts and strain in-state recruiting to a greater level. The super division is to enhance distributions; but massive expansion for 4 conferences among the lot may not be the end result.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 10:24 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm
Posts: 1753
Excluding schools that have already made it into the Power 5 wil be very messy.

Lots of politics and moaning and whining and threatened law suits.

If they go through with creation of this new D-1 subdivision, it's all about control of big bucks. Honestly, I think they are already DO control 90% of the big FB TV $$$).
These big boys will NOT want the whole grand plan to collapse over a suit brought by Wake or Iowa State or whomever.

If they need to add or subtract a few schools to get to an even multiple of 4 or 8 or whatever, look for them to ADD, not subtract.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 1:37 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 10:30 am
Posts: 1378
Location: Baltimore, MD
Why do they need to force five conferences into 4 or to have multiples of 4, 8 , etc. They can expand the CFP to 8, or continue with 4 and use the same selection process. The SEC , and perhap others, will never go for conference champions only. It would be fitting and orderly IMO if they did, but it ain't happening.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 2:24 pm 
Online
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1509
Why does it have to be messy? If everyone waits until the GORs expire and...

the PAC12 takes Texas, TX Tech, Oklahoma, OkSU...

the Big Ten takes ND and Kansas...

the SEC takes UNC and UVA...

the ACC replace their losses with WVU and UConn and possibly Cincy and Temple...

Then we have 4 conference of 16.

Who does Baylor/TCU/Kansas St/Iowa St sue? How can it be messy?

Yes politics may get invovled but Texas/Tech could have left last time around, I don't see why they couldn't now (though adding TCU did make it harder). Kansas may have trouble leaving K State but I' pretty sure the state won't allow KU to be held back by KSU's academics if push came to shove and the PAC16 was happening and the Big Ten wanted KU.

ND is basically a free agent, as are UConn, Cincy, Temple, and WVU (once the GOR expires).

Iowa State has no leverage...

The only issue I could see is the SEC pulling UNC and UVA (or Duke or VPI) because of politics there haven't weakend unlike the ones in the state of Texas/Big12. But if that's the case maybe the SEC settles for FSU or Clemson but either way I don't see what could make this "messy."

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 2:25 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 10:45 am
Posts: 231
westwolf wrote:
Why do they need to force five conferences into 4 or to have multiples of 4, 8 , etc. They can expand the CFP to 8, or continue with 4 and use the same selection process. The SEC , and perhap others, will never go for conference champions only. It would be fitting and orderly IMO if they did, but it ain't happening.


It's clear that the PAC, B1G, and SEC are safe. The XII or ACC would be one of the 5 power conferences to implode.

My money would be on the XII. If they had to keep every XII team in the remaining power 4 conferences, who would go where? This would only occur if the NCAA and all the power 4 conferences left were willing to force certain conferences into taking certain teams.

PAC: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St - to 16
B1G: Iowa St, Kansas - to 16

With the exception of Iowa St, I don't see any of these "former" XII teams having trouble finding a home. Iowa St is AAU which helps, but, as well all know, isn't everything.

That leaves TCU, Baylor, Kansas St, and West Virginia to be split among the SEC and ACC. I would place West Virginia in the ACC as they already are in the ACC general footprint and have rivalries with current ACC members like Pittsburgh. Of the remaining 3, the SEC would take Kansas St. Large state school, usually good football, strong basketball, and contiguous with Missouri that doesn't already have a team in the SEC. This leaves TCU and Baylor. This is why I don't think the power conferences would force the power conferences to take all the teams.

If the ACC imploded...I don't think it'd work because the PAC would be left at 12 unless the XII and ACC imploded together...

PAC + Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Kansas, Kansas St - to 18
SEC + Virginia Tech, North Carolina St, Miami FL, West Virginia - to 18 (last two are stretches, I know)
B1G + Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia Tech, Boston College - to 18
*new conference* - Iowa St, TCU, Baylor, Florida St, Clemson, Wake Forest, Duke, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Louisville, (Notre Dame) -- (10 + 1) + Houston, Central Florida, Connecticut, Cincinnati, South Florida, East Carolina, Memphis, Temple - to 18


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 2:54 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1174
sec03 wrote:
tkalmus wrote:
UVA will make it in, AAU flagship school if for no other reason.

The B1G and SEC would take them.

Totally agree on Wake Forest.


Agree. UVA would not just be taken, but would be among the priority choices due to name, location, and academics; if UVA sought to move.


Yeah, UVA is the Cal-Berkeley of the east. You take them because, well, they're as close to the Ivy League as a public school can go. Not necessarily big, but surly elite, and probably *the* chaser school of the Atlantic Coast. Even more so than UNC and UFL, imo.

It's not all about athletics, not that UVA is dog dirt or anything.

For anything, you want UVA because of who has gone through it. Talk about a school with "the right people."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 3:18 pm 
Online
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1509
BePcr07 wrote:
westwolf wrote:
Why do they need to force five conferences into 4 or to have multiples of 4, 8 , etc. They can expand the CFP to 8, or continue with 4 and use the same selection process. The SEC , and perhap others, will never go for conference champions only. It would be fitting and orderly IMO if they did, but it ain't happening.


It's clear that the PAC, B1G, and SEC are safe. The XII or ACC would be one of the 5 power conferences to implode.

My money would be on the XII. If they had to keep every XII team in the remaining power 4 conferences, who would go where? This would only occur if the NCAA and all the power 4 conferences left were willing to force certain conferences into taking certain teams.

PAC: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St - to 16
B1G: Iowa St, Kansas - to 16

With the exception of Iowa St, I don't see any of these "former" XII teams having trouble finding a home. Iowa St is AAU which helps, but, as well all know, isn't everything.

That leaves TCU, Baylor, Kansas St, and West Virginia to be split among the SEC and ACC. I would place West Virginia in the ACC as they already are in the ACC general footprint and have rivalries with current ACC members like Pittsburgh. Of the remaining 3, the SEC would take Kansas St. Large state school, usually good football, strong basketball, and contiguous with Missouri that doesn't already have a team in the SEC. This leaves TCU and Baylor. This is why I don't think the power conferences would force the power conferences to take all the teams.

If the ACC imploded...I don't think it'd work because the PAC would be left at 12 unless the XII and ACC imploded together...

PAC + Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Kansas, Kansas St - to 18
SEC + Virginia Tech, North Carolina St, Miami FL, West Virginia - to 18 (last two are stretches, I know)
B1G + Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia Tech, Boston College - to 18
*new conference* - Iowa St, TCU, Baylor, Florida St, Clemson, Wake Forest, Duke, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Louisville, (Notre Dame) -- (10 + 1) + Houston, Central Florida, Connecticut, Cincinnati, South Florida, East Carolina, Memphis, Temple - to 18

The SEC isn't going to take K State. Athletics are fine but they also want AAU schools to raise the academic profile of the conference. They want more schools like Florida, Georgia, Vanderbilt, TX A&M, and Mizzou and less like Mississippi State (no offense to any MSU fans/alum but its true). K State doesn't fit the mold but if they needed just 1 school to round out the numbers they might be a dark horse along with TCU/WVU.

K State's best hope is for the PAC12 to want them to tagalong with KU and the TX/OK quad (like you have above).

And while yes AAU means a lot Iowa State isn't landing in the Big Ten unless the US cOngress somehow gets invovled and forces it (unlikely). Other AAU member are Buffalo (MAC) Rice (CUSA) and Tulane (AAC) and none of them will ever be in the big boy club unless they become the next TCU, Utah or Boise over the next 10 years.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2066 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122 ... 138  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Quinn 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:  
 

 




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