NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Wed Oct 01, 2014 9:25 am

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2005 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123 ... 134  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 8:18 pm 
Offline
Sophomore
Sophomore

Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 12:07 pm
Posts: 65
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.

Yes and no. When the GoRs expire, both the Big 12 and ACC surely will lose some schools to the other 3 power conferences, but I don't think either will necessarily implode.

I think that when the dust settles, the PAC, B1G, and SEC will have from 14 to 18 schools each. In aggregate, the other two probably will have from 16 to 20 schools remaining. The latter could just form a football-only conference (which I'll call the Remnants Football Conference, or RFC), and split into two divisions (perhaps the Big 12 division and the Atlantic Coast division?). So the RFC likely stretches from Baylor to Boston College, and from Iowa State to Miami, with BYU a definite possibility as well.

CFP v. 2.0 then reduces to a highly-structured, 8-team playoff.
Round 1: 4 CCGs
Round 2: PAC champ vs. B1G champ in Rose Bowl, SEC champ vs. RFC champ in, say, Sugar Bowl
Round 3: NCG

This way, no schools get expelled from their conference, and no P5 conference is forced to add any schools it doesn't want.

G5 schools each continue to receive their $1 million per year bribe. They might also choose to set up a G5 playoff.

Remaining bowl system continues as before.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 9:07 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1450
New Frank the Tank's Slant on D4 and B1G expansion (KU/OU)
me/2013/09/11/frank-the-tank-mailbag-part-i-im-not-in-the-realignment-business-im-in-the-empire-business/

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 12:13 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm
Posts: 7423
Article out of Raleigh(previously posted in another thread) with update on Maryland/ACC exit fee lawsuit at http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/09/14/ ... ht-in.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2013 6:34 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm
Posts: 7423
NCAA release reporting on Penn State sanction reductions at http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/pub ... holarships


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 11:47 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm
Posts: 1709
Let me just say "WHAT A PILE OF CRAP !".

I'm not convinced that this isn't exactly what was outlined in the consent decree signed by the PSU interim president last year, which stated
that PSU would have FB scholarshps re-instated to the full 85 over the course of 4 years.

SO WHY THE ANNONCEMENT ?
This "announcement" is some lame CYA attempt by the NCAA to make themselves look rosy in the face of pending lawsuits.

Full disclosure - I grew up in PA, Pitt fan, not a huge PSU fan, but this hatchet job by Emmert and NCAA WAY OVER-STEPPED THE BOUNDS of regulating sports.

The Sandusky affair is a matter for the criminal courts, and did not relate to a football program doing something to gain advantage in any way.
Then the piling on, and Eddie Robinson's cronies launching a hatchet job on recently deceased Paterno. PLEASE !
Paterno's involvement in the affair IS subject to investigation, but he most certainly was NOT granted any kind of "Due Process",
by the NCAA (who seems to have no understanding of the concept).

Emmert needs to be run out of the NCAA for his kangaroo court handling of Miami, PSU , and others.

By the way, my son's dorm room at Mizzou was a mess the last time I saw it. He blames his roommate.
I think it's "a lack of institutional control exercised by University of Missouri - Columbia".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 12:37 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1555
tute79 wrote:
.

"and did not relate to a football program doing something to gain advantage in any way."


Good post there, tute79.

The above quote is really what the NCAA was suppose to investigate, and thus determine what rules were violated in this context. They over-reached, got excessive, and acted pre-maturely to serve their own interests during the media frenzy, and to deliver a formidable statement for the domain of public opinion.

If the, then, University's chain-of-command, starting with athletics, covered up the disclosures reported to them, with the intention to avoid embarrassment and negative publicity, to protect their own job securities, and to protect the image and funding of their athletic programs; thus successfully suppressing knowledge about alleged criminal acts. Such would provide Penn State athletics an advantage in a significant way. That needed to be the scope of inquiry and the framework to determine sanctions.

The NCAA is not a court extension for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the discovery and prosecution of individuals who allegedly have violated child welfare laws. And the NCAA is collecting, in part, 60 million dollars from Penn State (Pennsylvania taxpayers in reality) to help fund child abuse prevention programs in other states, wherever the NCAA officials decide? While it is very noble to give to this cause, is it appropriate to extort such a sum from just a lone institution for the purpose during deep turmoil? Forced charitable contributions, minus a reasonable due process, from one school, and administered totally by the NCAA is now a recognized sanction? How about the NCAA collects from every member of the organization to give to the specific cause or related charities?

The NCAA has turned into a mess on a number of fronts.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 27, 2013 8:59 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1096
Even as an alum, I think PSU was lucky enough not to have its entire athletic program ripped to shreds. It's simply not known (yet) how much of this stuff was known among the sports programs at the school.

I think the NCAA owed it everyone to do their own report, separate from Freeh, that would have sunk its teeth into matters that could have justified the actions against the football program, if not deeper. That they didn't, and just stood at the podium looking all tough, writing themselves into this mess and making it worse, well, the NCAA deserves this kind of ire.

I grow tired of this ridiculous logic that if you're critical of the NCAA on this matter, you're clearly covering for Penn State. It's absolutely idiotic. The situation at Penn State is pretty grave and grim, and, frankly, there seems to be some substance for federal intervention (Clery violations), but the NCAA acting in the way in which they did (by which, I mean doing nothing beyond adopting a school-generated report that wasn't meant to explain athletic wrong-doing), well, their place in this fight was in the stands, just like the rest of us. Jumping into the ring and taking a sucker punch was tacky, tasteless, unnecessary, and really, nothing more than self-serving.

How the NCAA acted was wrong. And it simply can't be looked at as a matter of scale. PSU's actions are deplorable. The NCAA going in, waving its stick around, and, naturally, only really hitting student athletes who had nothing to do with this was also wrong. No, the NCAA didn't "just have to do something." No, the NCAA retracting some of these punishments does not devalue the crimes and victims of this matter. No, just because someone has some/any ties to Penn State doesn't make them morally bankrupt or responsible in some way, fully liable to any and all prejudice, ridicule, or naturally deserving of any punishment.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 27, 2013 10:17 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm
Posts: 1709
I would never suggest to cover this up. It needed to be fully exposed and APPROPRIATE ACTION taken.

By this I mean a criminal investigation of Sandusky, Sapnier, Curley, Shultz, Paterno.... WHOMEVER,
and full indictment and criminal prosecution if warranted, for sex crimes, aiding, abetting, cover-up...

But hte NCAA pressuring some lame interim President into a $60 million settlement, courtesy of hte tax-payers of Pennsylvania ?
Where does Emmert get off on that ????

The victims are suing PSU for damges and getting settlements. That seems fair - where is this other $60 million going ?

Is it fair to punish hte PSU athletic department, and strip them of funds ?
Who gets THEIR share of the money first ? THE FOOTBALL TEAM !!!!
When the austerity trickles down, it'll be athletes in volleyball, cross, country, and swimming that take the brunt of the cuts...

Meanwhile Emmert goes before the media, and acts like he is meting out justice like only HE can.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 27, 2013 11:47 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1096
PSU's administration took it from the NCAA, though. They didn't fight a thing. And because the university is state-related (not fully public or private), there was no way of knowing where the fine money was coming from. PSU might publicize their operating budget, but good luck ever getting them to tell you how they move their money. The state going after the NCAA was doomed to fail, simply because the university never supported the suit. PA looked hyper-moronic on that one.

...and if the NCAA overstepped its boundaries, then the Big Ten definitely did. If they pulled the same crap like the NCAA did (any of that rumored "take what we give you or risk everything"), I hope the administration, alumni, and faculty make the issue of future association a consistent one well into the future. I don't think they will...the Big Ten has given Penn State everything it wanted in becoming a top institution...but, I at least hope they made it known that PSU has the kind of worth that keeps the Big Ten well in check academically and athletically.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 27, 2013 3:23 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1555
The Bishin Cutter wrote:

I think the NCAA owed it everyone to do their own report, separate from Freeh, that would have sunk its teeth into matters that could have justified the actions against the football program, if not deeper. That they didn't, and just stood at the podium looking all tough, writing themselves into this mess and making it worse, well, the NCAA deserves this kind of ire.



Absolutely! The NCAA should have done their own fact-finding/focused investigation. And, sinking teeth into matters and looking 'deeper' at specificially athletics would have been appropriate. We have heard from the media (& Penn State interests) throughout the Paterno era, and before the scandal hit, that Penn State was the "model" program that didn't cheat and put 'academics' as the real priority, and do things all the right way. I didn't buy that line back then. I've seen too many examples that may defy that line, once having lived around Happy Valley. Yet with Penn State, beforehand, having this untarnished reputation, to suddenly being one of the most punished programs in NCAA history (thought not the SMU deal-out); begs for objective context to these circumstances.

Paterno and company rode this 'all clean image' all the way to erecting a statue, outdoing Bobby Bowden record wins, and accumulating power that largely ran much of the University beyond athletics. It was in this mindset, that nothing embarrassing must be revealed so the operatives and industry stayed secure.
The NCAA certainly needed to look at athletic oversight as part of its inquiry. And frankly, also the NCAA could have taken a look at all athletic aspects including recruiting matters and academic facilitators. If Penn State was shown to be clean (no confirmed allegations) on most, that's information that could have been positive, rather than a neglected factor. If something is ill in one sector, then other sectors could be contaminated. The NCAA latched onto the outcry for prosecution of child abuse, and made themselves co-prosecutors to deliver their own punishments. Granted, oversight is the key factor, but the purpose for the NCAA needed to be centered solely on athletics.

Indeed, piggy-backing on Louis Freeh, who was not an agent for the NCAA; and who was doing independent, criminal inquiry for the University's governance, had a unique mission that wasn't about sporting teams. Freeh was not investigating whether or not some booster or assistant coach handed some cash to a new recruit from Harrisburg or wherever to commit.

My point, Penn State may have operated much in the fashion that many other bigtime schools have done. However, Penn State did allow too much power to accummulate and center around successful football and their coach. Even Alabama, came to realize the late Bear Bryant could not manage everything let alone most football at a certain point, and was kept awhile in later years as a symbol and figurehead who did practically little hands-on coaching. Paterno and his establishment, on the other hand, were the firm 'deciders' until it all crashed. It was an ingrained structure that hung on too many years longer than it should have. And nothing associated with Penn State had the will and power to have the change much earlier.

I do respect Penn State hanging in there, and the tone articulated by their current coaching. And importantly, their fans have remained loyal.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 30, 2013 4:15 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 10:45 am
Posts: 211
Just a question in case anyone has it, but is there an "official" list of all the schools the B1G has evaluated?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 30, 2013 11:50 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1450
BePcr07 wrote:
Just a question in case anyone has it, but is there an "official" list of all the schools the B1G has evaluated?

Unlike the Sun Belt, the Big Ten know all the in/out of the FOA and keeps these things under wraps pretty good. Best I could give you would be these list...

AAU's in the EST/CST zones:
SEC(all highly unlikely): Florida, Mizzou, A&M, Vandy
Big 12: Texas, Kansas, Iowa St(unlikely)
ACC: GA Tech, UNC, Duke, Pitt(unlikely), Syracuse(former AAU), UVA
Other non realistic options: Buffalo(MAC), Tulane(AAC), Rice(CUSA)

A few "religious" private schools with great AAU like academics:
ACC: Boston College, Notre Dame (fb indy)

A few "crown jewel"ish type schools with above average but not yet great academics:
SEC(once again, all unlikely): Alabama, Kentucky, Georgia
Big 12: Oklahoma, Texas Tech(only if they had to in order to land Texas)
ACC: Florida State, VA Tech, Miami
AAC: UConn(long shot at best)

I think that covers nearly every possibly schools I could think of, though it would obviously need to be trimmed down to realistic candidates which I'm putting below.

SEC: Mizzou, Vandy
Big 12: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas
ACC: GA Tech, UNC, Duke, Syracuse, Pitt, UVA, Boston College, Notre Dame, Florida State, Miami

My gut tells me that the Big Ten wish list would be either 16 with ND + friend (BC/Pitt) or 18+ w/
East: UNC, UVA, GT, FSU(or Miami) OR
West: Texas, Oklahoma, Mizzou, Kansas

plus maybe 2 more for 20 to balance things out...

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 8:02 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1096
BePcr07 wrote:
Just a question in case anyone has it, but is there an "official" list of all the schools the B1G has evaluated?


Which instance or over what span of time?

They "looked into it" on the matter of expansion, after PSU, in '93, '98, and '10 before getting Nebraska. Notre Dame was studied in all of those, and the '98 one was pretty much them exclusively, iirc, to which they rebuffed by not even going to vote in '99.

1993 was the potential "grab" of Nebraska, Texas, Colorado, Missouri, and/or Kansas were the Big XII to have crumbled before ever starting. The B1G, PAC, and SEC all came away empty-handed between '93 and '95. Notre Dame and Rutgers were also tossed around (Rutgers was said to be given an action plan to get themselves "into shape").

For 2010, there's the report that Pitt, Syracuse, Missouri, Notre Dame, and Rutgers were studied, which created that havoc that eventually produced only Nebraska. Maryland's leadership admitted having gotten some calls back then. Texas was said to be in talks.

The recent one, post-UMD and RU, kicked up Vanderbilt, Kansas, and Oklahoma among several others identified. I think Missouri was once again studied, and people believe (though I haven't seen anything to prove it) that this also included those ACC schools (UVA, UNC, GT, etc.).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 10:49 am 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 10:45 am
Posts: 211
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
Which instance or over what span of time?


That's a good question. At the time, I meant only since the Maryland and Rutgers additions. However, after thinking about it, any team the B1G has evaluated in the last 20 years is probably still at least remotely relevant to near-future expansion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 9:50 pm 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 7:38 pm
Posts: 28
Mizzou will not leave the SEC. The B1G had their opportunity, but their hubris screwed it up. Elwood G. Gee said that had they known MU would leave the Big 12, the B1G would have gone ahead with an invitation. But, no, they just had to "punish" MU by making them wait a couple of years because the idiot Missouri governor ran his mouth.

Delany talked about going to 16. The BiG should have done it by inviting MU and KU when they invited NU. That would have put a lot of pressure on Texas. Then invite Texas and OU. If OU still wanted to go west, invite Rutgers. It might have even worked better in 2011 after TAMU announced their move to the SEC and OU said they were looking around, but before MU announced its departure.

Imagine a B1G western division with those former Big 12 schools. Would NU have ever been pissed? :lol:

BTW, Colorado was never going to go east when there was a possibility of going west.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2005 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123 ... 134  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jbb and 4 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