NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Wed Jul 23, 2014 1:06 pm

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1958 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124 ... 131  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 11:33 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1512
lew240z wrote:
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.


lew240z, you delivered a very good post above.

Delany had to deal with all the B1G Presidents, so those schools he really wanted to add personally, and when, was not real clear.
Agree, I expect Nebraska did not want to come into the B1G with certain others from the B12, particularly Mizzou.
It was no secret that Texas A&M and the SEC had been talking for a long time. Maybe Delany thought, just go to 12, the same number the SEC had then, and the SEC would not have the impulse to expand. But with the B12 schools all looking around, and the BE becoming even more shaky with ACC moves, one has to wonder if the B1G was thinking they could extract whomever they wanted on their own timeline. You are right, it was the B1G, itself, implying before Nebraska was officially added, that they may add multiple schools at the time.
The SEC had said, they were monitoring the landscape, and if other major conferences pursued expansion, the SEC would respond to maintain their own positioning with extended markets and added values.

After Delany added Nebraska, the B1G turned to the east. Contrary to many being suprised, Rutgers had been a B1G target longer than many had suspected. After the last ACC raid on the BE, Rutgers folks were all discouraged they were not moving. I remember their administration then, conveying to Rutgers constituents, that 'things shall be fine for Rutgers'. This was not a statement that Rutgers shall make the best of the status quo. They had a promise in the works from the B1G. I remember posting an article about this on this site at the time. Also, the Maryland initiative was not a 'spur of the moment' matter either. The ACC probably knew that Maryland was in talks with the B1G, but could have been a bit in denial that Maryland would actually move. Maryland (and FSU) voting against a huge exit fee jump was certainly a late indicator. The B1G certainly made a power statement about the ACC's deal with Notre Dame, following the addition of more former BE schools to the ACC.

I see posts here frequently, implying that the B1G can take schools from whatever conference they want, and whenever they want, through their power, prestige, and money. It hasn't worked that way in several situations. The preferable ACC schools said 'no', the SEC had their own counter-plan if need be, and the GoR initiatives took effect. Notre Dame had repeatedly declined B1G all-sports membership offers.
The SEC can't take just anybody they may seek either. But they have largely avoided suggesting they can. The SEC has been quite methodical with their prior expansions. That does not mean, in certain situations, the process was slow as to certain schools.

Fans often think conference Commissioners and their Presidents make real smart moves. But schools within a conference are not always on the same page about when to add and who to add. And, some of these university Presidents can be real fickle on this subject matter.

Concur, if the B1G really wanted Mizzou, the conference really screwed that up with a dismissive attitide and posturing to appear even more elite. Mizzou is a high quality flagship in an extraordinary strategic location. The SEC was not slow in recognizing this in the expansion sweepstakes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 1:03 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1039
Well, I won't believe the "the B1G lost out on us" stuff regarding MU until the next expansion. Both sides really bungled the matter, and I'm not one to dismiss how badly Missouri played its cards when the rumors emerged they had their ticket in-hand. They so literally blew it at the Big XII meetings and got so flustered in the aftermath and following year, one simply can't dismiss just how tacky and undeserving Missouri came off when its state legislators smothered the entitlement of the school to the conference, publicly, with the school not rebuffing or rebuking a word of it. That kind of desparation...it's pretty bad.

I don't think Nebraska stopped anyone further coming with them. I think the plan was always to get another eastern school, with the hopes of Notre Dame and Rutgers eventually becoming UMD and Rutgers. The luster of the old Big 8 and Texas gang just wasn't that attractive beyond the "triple threats" (sports, size, and academics) as Texas, Nebraska, and Colorado. Adding Missouri and Kansas was to sweeten the deal for those "chasers." But, I think it's obvious Missouri wasn't a priority over the likes of Nebraska, Colorado, Texas, and Notre Dame at that time. Maybe the real insult (and it would be one if true) was the value of Rutgers over Missouri, too. The value of Rutgers over...anyone. Like, ever.

lew240z wrote:
BTW, Colorado was never going to go east when there was a possibility of going west.


I don't disagree, but the Big Ten thought they should at least ask.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:20 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1512
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
Well, I won't believe the "the B1G lost out on us" stuff regarding MU until the next expansion. Both sides really bungled the matter, and I'm not one to dismiss how badly Missouri played its cards when the rumors emerged they had their ticket in-hand. They so literally blew it at the Big XII meetings and got so flustered in the aftermath and following year, one simply can't dismiss just how tacky and undeserving Missouri came off when its state legislators smothered the entitlement of the school to the conference, publicly, with the school not rebuffing or rebuking a word of it. That kind of desparation...it's pretty bad.

I don't think Nebraska stopped anyone further coming with them. I think the plan was always to get another eastern school, with the hopes of Notre Dame and Rutgers eventually becoming UMD and Rutgers. The luster of the old Big 8 and Texas gang just wasn't that attractive beyond the "triple threats" (sports, size, and academics) as Texas, Nebraska, and Colorado. Adding Missouri and Kansas was to sweeten the deal for those "chasers." But, I think it's obvious Missouri wasn't a priority over the likes of Nebraska, Colorado, Texas, and Notre Dame at that time. Maybe the real insult (and it would be one if true) was the value of Rutgers over Missouri, too. The value of Rutgers over...anyone. Like, ever.


I don't believe the problem was so much Mizzou campaigning at the time for Big Ten admissions. Some schools have done such successfully. The problem was the manner in which it was done, too verbose in the public domain, and too much in the open with the political pressure tactics. But the major mistake was the Governor, then, naming schools such as Texas Tech and Oklahoma State as not meeting their academic and peer expectations. That's unneccesarily burning bridges within their current conference of the time, with no signed contract in hand to go elsewhere. And why diss comrades and intentionally damage relationships with individual schools in such a situation? How Mizzou looks compared to others is something any major commissioner and his team would know already. When trying to gain something positive, don't rely on the negative.

When the SEC accepted Mizzou, I recall Mizzou waffled a couple of months in terms of the process, not the desire to head there. Mizzou's President was at some conference in India or wherever. More drama was not needed. They just needed to get the dang papers signed and finish the terms for exiting with the Big12 which the SEC required them to declare before extending the formal invitation. That said, it worked out fine for the SEC and Mizzou. Mizzou is not in play for the next expansion; and having been on a wish list, as Gordon Gee implied about them and others, doesn't assure realization of objectives. Mizzou leaving an excellent and secure conference, and hooking back up with a group of old B12 schools that they openly and successfully escaped from, for a collective entrance into the B1G, to play the B1G's rookie criteria for a few years, may not be attractive in Mizzou's situation. And being so new to the SEC, and then jump again, would be a stigma placed on Mizzou that lasts. Rather than thinking it is some form of upward mobility, which would get questionable, the outcome would be the impression that Mizzou could not show success as an SEC member. Hopefully Mizzou's governance now understands the lessons from some recent experiences.

There's also the protocol element. Any savvy Commisioner knows where to mess around and where not to mess around. Every move has consequences, and not all are good in a chess game.

Well, back to Gordon Gee. How interesting, or perhaps ironic, it was to see a Mormon reflect on the inflexibility and the financial protectionism displayed by the controlling Roman Catholic operatives at Notre Dame. Could it be BYU methodology minus the gross enabling? And while Gee delivered disparaging remarks about others as illiterate and inferior, he certainly got revealing, through frustration, as to what had been happening with certain B1G expansion efforts. That makes what he said, informative.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:58 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1039
There's just so much about Missouri that I think keeps them on the table, even if it makes them look slimy and desperate were they to move. But I think I put them so far up the list because of the SEC's lack of a GoR, as well as a small hunch Vanderbilt might actually bolt, depending on how the matter of student athlete compensation/subsidizing falls. I don't see Vanderbilt EVER trying to compete for kids the same way some SEC schools would, and maybe this is what flushes them out. By acquiring Missouri and Vanderbilt, you also practically surround and peripherally impermeate Kentucky, as well as parts of southwestern Virginia (Norva kind of having UMD nearby). When B1G people speak about getting into the southeast...that is, technically, one way to do it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:36 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm
Posts: 1695
Why would Vanderbilt EVER leave the SEC ?

Granted, they don't throw enough resources into football to compete with Alabama, LSU, Florida, Georgia, etc.
They're OK with that ! Baseline - they want to compete without being embarrassed....

Belonging to a Power 5 conference (especially the SEC - where stability is NOT as issue) gives you a beautiful annual cash flow - $30 million-ish !
Regardless of what place you want to carve out for yourself in the NCAA sports hierarchy, you just DO NOT trhow away $30 million / year (and probably set to steadily increase).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:36 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1406
tute79 wrote:
Why would Vanderbilt EVER leave the SEC ?

Reason #1
tute79 wrote:
Granted, they don't throw enough resources into football to compete with Alabama, LSU, Florida, Georgia, etc.
They're OK with that ! Baseline - they want to compete without being embarrassed....

you said it, but don't gloss over it, in the SEC East they have UGA, SC, and UF on the schedule every year and get abused by nearly everyone in the West not in states the begin w/ "M".

In the Big Ten West w/ Mizzou, they would really only have Nebraska and Wisconsin as top teams.

Also in the Big Ten, they can sell themselves as the Southern most state of the Big Ten and likely recruit better as a Big Ten schools in the South competing against schools in the North.

#2 Academics: Besides A&M (whose academics are trending down thanks to Perry's online push that Texas turned down), Mizzou (who also might join the Big Ten), Florida and possibly Georgia (not AAU yet but may be soon); the SEC is far far FAR below the Big Ten.

Vandy doesn't have a true peer in the SEC (not only as the only Private schools but also the as an elite academic institution), but the Big Ten has Northwestern, and 12 other AAU schools, plus a CIC relationship with John's Hopkins and the University of Chicago.

#3 Money:
tute79 wrote:
Belonging to a Power 5 conference (especially the SEC - where stability is NOT as issue) gives you a beautiful annual cash flow - $30 million-ish !
Regardless of what place you want to carve out for yourself in the NCAA sports hierarchy, you just DO NOT throw away $30 million / year (and probably set to steadily increase).

All true, that's why they won't join any other conference...except possibly the Big Ten, who will in all likelihood will make more money the SEC after their upcoming TV negotiations.

#4 Little Brother Syndrome: Just like A&M, Vandy is overshadowed by the major public university of Tennessee, and while that never likely never change moving out of Tennessee's shadow will bring them new exposure and a different identity much like A&M has done (though while it has been very intense, I don't think its permanent).

#5 They want to see the dynamics of college football change: While this is a long shot at best (I repeat I think this is very unlikely), I can see a day where the Big Ten (16) and PAC16 eventually merger forming an uber super conference and striking a complete/over arching media deal that will change the face of college football. And while I don't many/most of the SEC schools being left out, I do think that they could trim down a few duplicate programs w/ questionable tactics/academics (Auburn and Mississippi State) before joining up into an NFL style system, that covers most major competitive sports (fb, mbb, wbb, volleyball, softball, baseball, w soccer). And Vandy either wants to make sure that they don't get cut (as the #2 in TN) and would like to distance themselves from some of the shadiness going on around them in the $EC.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 7:37 am 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 7:38 pm
Posts: 28
sec03 wrote:
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
Well, I won't believe the "the B1G lost out on us" stuff regarding MU until the next expansion. Both sides really bungled the matter, and I'm not one to dismiss how badly Missouri played its cards when the rumors emerged they had their ticket in-hand. They so literally blew it at the Big XII meetings and got so flustered in the aftermath and following year, one simply can't dismiss just how tacky and undeserving Missouri came off when its state legislators smothered the entitlement of the school to the conference, publicly, with the school not rebuffing or rebuking a word of it. That kind of desparation...it's pretty bad.

I don't think Nebraska stopped anyone further coming with them. I think the plan was always to get another eastern school, with the hopes of Notre Dame and Rutgers eventually becoming UMD and Rutgers. The luster of the old Big 8 and Texas gang just wasn't that attractive beyond the "triple threats" (sports, size, and academics) as Texas, Nebraska, and Colorado. Adding Missouri and Kansas was to sweeten the deal for those "chasers." But, I think it's obvious Missouri wasn't a priority over the likes of Nebraska, Colorado, Texas, and Notre Dame at that time. Maybe the real insult (and it would be one if true) was the value of Rutgers over Missouri, too. The value of Rutgers over...anyone. Like, ever.


I don't believe the problem was so much Mizzou campaigning at the time for Big Ten admissions. Some schools have done such successfully. The problem was the manner in which it was done, too verbose in the public domain, and too much in the open with the political pressure tactics. But the major mistake was the Governor, then, naming schools such as Texas Tech and Oklahoma State as not meeting their academic and peer expectations. That's unneccesarily burning bridges within their current conference of the time, with no signed contract in hand to go elsewhere. And why diss comrades and intentionally damage relationships with individual schools in such a situation? How Mizzou looks compared to others is something any major commissioner and his team would know already. When trying to gain something positive, don't rely on the negative.

When the SEC accepted Mizzou, I recall Mizzou waffled a couple of months in terms of the process, not the desire to head there. Mizzou's President was at some conference in India or wherever. More drama was not needed. They just needed to get the dang papers signed and finish the terms for exiting with the Big12 which the SEC required them to declare before extending the formal invitation. That said, it worked out fine for the SEC and Mizzou. Mizzou is not in play for the next expansion; and having been on a wish list, as Gordon Gee implied about them and others, doesn't assure realization of objectives. Mizzou leaving an excellent and secure conference, and hooking back up with a group of old B12 schools that they openly and successfully escaped from, for a collective entrance into the B1G, to play the B1G's rookie criteria for a few years, may not be attractive in Mizzou's situation. And being so new to the SEC, and then jump again, would be a stigma placed on Mizzou that lasts. Rather than thinking it is some form of upward mobility, which would get questionable, the outcome would be the impression that Mizzou could not show success as an SEC member. Hopefully Mizzou's governance now understands the lessons from some recent experiences.


The only problem was our idiot governor's mouth. He can't keep it shut on any issue.

MU was committed to the Big 12 until David Boren shot off his mouth. In mid-August, after TAMU was all but signed with the SEC, David Boren called Brady Deaton to travel with Boren to College Station to try to talk Loftin out of changing conferences. They flew down on August 28th. That failed as we all know. Five days or so later Boren says that OU and, therefore, OSU are looking at leaving and that the preferred destination is the PAC 12. This did not sit will with anyone in the state of Missouri. MU felt betrayed, because they were. Delany and the B1G had already burned their bridge. The SEC needed a 14th. So, MU and the SEC started talking.

MU did not waffle on anything. They signed the invitation the day it was issued. Most of the delay was on the part of the SEC performing due diligence, meaning Mike Slive needed to convince a few members.

MU will not leave the SEC for the B1G. As I said, the B1G burned that bridge. Missouri has torn out the approach and foundation on its side.

BTW, I am not a fan of MU. I went to a small school in the next time zone west. I moved to Missouri about 20 years ago. I am very interested in realignment and its politics.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:45 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1512
lew240z wrote:
MU did not waffle on anything. They signed the invitation the day it was issued. Most of the delay was on the part of the SEC performing due diligence, meaning Mike Slive needed to convince a few members.

MU will not leave the SEC for the B1G. As I said, the B1G burned that bridge. Missouri has torn out the approach and foundation on its side.


It does take time to work out transitions. And circumstances do differ among schools. When the SEC announced the invite, that was the indicator Mizzou was committed to come though the process of doing the formalities would take measured time.

Agree, Mizzou will not leave the SEC. The convincing by Slive of current SEC members had to do with divisional alignment issues. The conference had already agreed to accept Mizzou. Mizzou ending up in the SEC east was an outcome.

Concur with tute79, Vandy is not going anywhere. Some folks can pursue to inject the 'academics' line against the SEC to over-state an unclear B1G initiative. Maybe the B1G really needs that GoR, while the SEC does not.

If, and this is a real 'IF', the SEC had anything to do with stopping a B1G incursion into the ACC's south, then the likelihood of the B1G extracting SEC schools is really farfetched.

The real 'biggies' in the B1G are Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State; and that division is going to have the conference with an even greater eastern emphasis. Among future options could simply be a 'lock'.


Last edited by sec03 on Sat Oct 05, 2013 11:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:56 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1039
tute79 wrote:
Why would Vanderbilt EVER leave the SEC ?


Tk had some good points, and I think the money one extends from just a television revenue standpoint.

What is Vanderbilt's ROI in a football-first conference? Can Vandy football be more competitive in the Big Ten and make similar or more money? Can Vandy maximize revenue in other sports it fields? Can Vandy study fielding programs it doesn't already at the varsity level?

Vanderbilt is kind of like Maryland. A school without a designated "major rival" (Tennessee has Alabama, Florida, and Georgia), residing in a lucrative region utterly insane for college athletics, and a research giant, Vanderbilt is very much the oddball of its conference, though a founding member. I'm not sure what adding schools like TAMU, USC, Arkansas, and Missouri have done for Vanderbilt athletically or institutionally, other than eventually dislodge it from yearly meetings with some of its historic rivals.

If expansion isn't finished for any of the major conferences, I doubt the prospective SEC candidates resemble Vanderbilt. In the Big Ten, it's not terribly different, but to even study private institutions, as they have done in the past with Notre Dame and Syracuse, as well as adding Johns Hopkins, while adding athletic "zeros" like Rutgers...I think the Big Ten and Vanderbilt see a mutual benefit being in each other's company. Though I agree that it's "out there," and feel the Big Ten would be getting the better end of the deal.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:33 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:26 pm
Posts: 383
The B10 is a lot more than an athletic conference.The ACC has 5 its 15 members have AAU status.The SEC has 4 of its 14 members with AAU status.
The new members are AAU schools with medical schools.
Also the B10 has by far the the best tv contracts which will grow with immense Rutgers and Maryland tv markets.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:55 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1512
Yeah aau be the thing. Big get buffalo and up villanova they be arrived..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:29 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1406
sec03 wrote:
Yeah aau be the thing. Big get buffalo and up villanova they be arrived..

Villanova isn't AAU nor is it likely that they will ever be as a non-secular institution.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:24 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1512
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
tute79 wrote:
Why would Vanderbilt EVER leave the SEC ?


Tk had some good points, and I think the money one extends from just a television revenue standpoint.

What is Vanderbilt's ROI in a football-first conference? Can Vandy football be more competitive in the Big Ten and make similar or more money? Can Vandy maximize revenue in other sports it fields? Can Vandy study fielding programs it doesn't already at the varsity level?

Vanderbilt is kind of like Maryland. A school without a designated "major rival" (Tennessee has Alabama, Florida, and Georgia), residing in a lucrative region utterly insane for college athletics, and a research giant, Vanderbilt is very much the oddball of its conference, though a founding member. I'm not sure what adding schools like TAMU, USC, Arkansas, and Missouri have done for Vanderbilt athletically or institutionally, other than eventually dislodge it from yearly meetings with some of its historic rivals.

If expansion isn't finished for any of the major conferences, I doubt the prospective SEC candidates resemble Vanderbilt. In the Big Ten, it's not terribly different, but to even study private institutions, as they have done in the past with Notre Dame and Syracuse, as well as adding Johns Hopkins, while adding athletic "zeros" like Rutgers...I think the Big Ten and Vanderbilt see a mutual benefit being in each other's company. Though I agree that it's "out there," and feel the Big Ten would be getting the better end of the deal.


Vandy's major conference rivals are Tenn., Kentucky, Ole Miss and Georgia. Of course near everybody is a Georgia rival. When Vandy plays at So. Car., the stadium is filled, and Vandy stadium, though not as big, gets filled often with traveling contingents. It's a good trip--Nashville; not a bad location within the conference. So Vandy is private. Northwestern is private too for the B10. There was often talk that Vandy may have fit better with the ACC, given the private schools of Duke, Wake, and others. Vandy is upping it in the SEC and have reiterated they are committed to it. They recruit very broadly, given being private, the school's undergraduate admissions criteria, and the very expensive tuition. But that would be evident in whatever conference they would belong. Frankly, I'd like to see a reduction of fb scholarships across the board; keeping schools such as Alabama and Ohio State having so much star depth. Some schools are at a consistent disadvantage in recruiting (and money) due to location. That includes a number of state schools in major conferences--Iowa State, Mississippi State, Washington State, etc. Even those rise up at times, but the recruiting aspects, comparatively, impact enough to hamper winning records from being sustained multiple years.

There are a number of private schools that claim their main rival is a school that has other schools that claim that the same school is their main rival. Notre Dame? Miami? Wake Forest? Syracuse? Duke? BC? And state schools in addition to Maryland---now WVU, Uconn, Cincy, Mizzou, Wyoming, maybe Nebraska? Maybe Pitt claims Syracuse now, since WVU is no more, and Penn State is an infrequent opponent. And Penn State? That Michigan State game has been a blood drive competition; good cause, but.....
________________________
Tkal. -- the Villanova remark was obviously a joke.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:26 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1406
sec03 wrote:
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
tute79 wrote:
Why would Vanderbilt EVER leave the SEC ?


Tk had some good points, and I think the money one extends from just a television revenue standpoint.

What is Vanderbilt's ROI in a football-first conference? Can Vandy football be more competitive in the Big Ten and make similar or more money? Can Vandy maximize revenue in other sports it fields? Can Vandy study fielding programs it doesn't already at the varsity level?

Vanderbilt is kind of like Maryland. A school without a designated "major rival" (Tennessee has Alabama, Florida, and Georgia), residing in a lucrative region utterly insane for college athletics, and a research giant, Vanderbilt is very much the oddball of its conference, though a founding member. I'm not sure what adding schools like TAMU, USC, Arkansas, and Missouri have done for Vanderbilt athletically or institutionally, other than eventually dislodge it from yearly meetings with some of its historic rivals.

If expansion isn't finished for any of the major conferences, I doubt the prospective SEC candidates resemble Vanderbilt. In the Big Ten, it's not terribly different, but to even study private institutions, as they have done in the past with Notre Dame and Syracuse, as well as adding Johns Hopkins, while adding athletic "zeros" like Rutgers...I think the Big Ten and Vanderbilt see a mutual benefit being in each other's company. Though I agree that it's "out there," and feel the Big Ten would be getting the better end of the deal.


Vandy's major conference rivals are Tenn., Kentucky, Ole Miss and Georgia. Of course near everybody is a Georgia rival. When Vandy plays at So. Car., the stadium is filled, and Vandy stadium, though not as big, gets filled often with traveling contingents. It's a good trip--Nashville; not a bad location within the conference. So Vandy is private. Northwestern is private too for the B10. There was often talk that Vandy may have fit better with the ACC, given the private schools of Duke, Wake, and others. Vandy is upping it in the SEC and have reiterated they are committed to it. They recruit very broadly, given being private, the school's undergraduate admissions criteria, and the very expensive tuition. But that would be evident in whatever conference they would belong. Frankly, I'd like to see a reduction of fb scholarships across the board; keeping schools such as Alabama and Ohio State having so much star depth. Some schools are at a consistent disadvantage in recruiting (and money) due to location. That includes a number of state schools in major conferences--Iowa State, Mississippi State, Washington State, etc. Even those rise up at times, but the recruiting aspects, comparatively, impact enough to hamper winning records from being sustained multiple years.

There are a number of private schools that claim their main rival is a school that has other schools that claim that the same school is their main rival. Notre Dame? Miami? Wake Forest? Syracuse? Duke? BC? And state schools in addition to Maryland---now WVU, Uconn, Cincy, Mizzou, Wyoming, maybe Nebraska? Maybe Pitt claims Syracuse now, since WVU is no more, and Penn State is an infrequent opponent. And Penn State? That Michigan State game has been a blood drive competition; good cause, but.....
________________________
Tkal. -- the Villanova remark was obviously a joke.


^should have used the sarcasm font... ;)

I agree with everything you wrote on Vandy but that doesn't mean they would turn down the Big Ten if it meant more money (not just TV, but also grants from the CIC) better academics, and an easier road to a winning season/bowl/conference championship.

I agree that its unlikely but so was Maryland in my opinion who's rivals were UVA and UNC.

Rivals don't matter, if Ole Miss or TN are real rivals then they could schedule OOC like half of the conference does (calling KY/UGA Vandy's rivals is a joke).

Still its unlikely but I wouldn't rule it out, nor Mizzou who if offered a chance to join the Big Ten and everything it offers along with Kansas would likely be very difficult for them to say no with Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, and Kansas all right near them though its a pride thing with them which wouldn't be easy to get over.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 06, 2013 9:20 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1039
Like I said, I don't think Vanderbilt's chances of moving are strong, and I don't feel as confident about them doing so as much as I was UMD, but I do see a chance. Again, I think it hinges on how player compensation/subsidization falls. It's also that the Big Ten is just becoming a more diversified conference. It's not just big jock schools, and it has the likes of Johns Hopkins, Rutgers, and has studied other private schools for inclusion.

I think most of the elite private schools in the country could be in any conference, because of their prestige and national reputation. Private schools don't have to rely on state subsidization to the scale of the public ones, and aren't mandated to take students from their home state. People from around the world seek these schools out. Some are obviously more national, or international, for that matter, than others, but if the SEC is circling its wagons around a certain cultural and athletic identity, it's one I have to wonder will make administrators at Vanderbilt question if it has an impact on enrollment.

If I were to rank what I think likely happens first in the Big Ten in terms of expansion, I feel further affiliate membership is looked into some more, and I'm looking at ice hockey and maybe more lacrosse. I think the Big Ten grabs an ice hockey program north of Penn State to penetrate New England.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1958 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124 ... 131  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 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