BlackGold, thanks and thought you would have the info on Big 12 commissioner quotes.

Thanks Black Gold.

Yes, it seems there are no hints there of the Big 12 expanding. Just wanting to know how they compare to the other conferences.

Sportgeog, Black and Gold provided the article I was referring to in USA Today.

Please I was not referring that Texas would reuite with its old SWC buddies, I am thinking Texas would have its sights set much higher for that western academic based Pac 10 if the Big 12 every became unstable.

As for TCU and Baylor, attendance is just one aspect of a stable conference member. 26,000 to me is just border line mid major. If it were up to me, every BCS school would have to average 40 thousand + to qualify. No grand fathering would be permitted. Wake Forest, Duke, Rutgers, Balyor all would not be eligible to partipate in a BCS bowl or BCS conference until attendance improved to 40 thousand +. Of course politics keeps these schools in the BCS and keeps other deserving teams like BYU out.

Since college sports are becoming more like corporate America, non performers get the boot every day. Why not have non performing colleges get the boot from the BCS. Money is driving this thing. Big East booting Temple is just in step with the new type of college sports politics.

From a geographical and culture sense, there is no resemblance of Texas with Iowa or Missouri unless you think all ranches or farms look alike. Both Iowa and Missouri are more related to the Big 10 type states. I have been to all those states many times each so not sure culture and geography makes a difference any more with college conference.

No matter the Big 12 is basically two confernce in one and the ACC attendted to replicate the same with BC and Syracuse and Va Tech kind of nick that one in the bud. So ACC became a conference and half in one.

BC could not be any more different than tobocco road. When the Catholics and Baptist clash it may seem more like Northern Ireland of course without the physical violence (I think).

The above reasons are why I have a difficult time with your thory on Big East NorthEast footprint.

The Big East may be best served by becoming a two conference in one by merging with the best of Conf USA.

Mountian West merges with the best of the WAC and you finally have 7 big time BCS Conferences that are basically 14 conference group into 7.

This allows more at large BCS bids which is what the fuzz is all about with admitting non BCS conference representation.

How much have you really been to Iowa and Missouri? I lived in Iowa for 3 years, both urban and rural. I have been to every single county in Iowa, all 99 of them. I am certain that I know that region more than you. I have also been to about 1/2 of all Missouri's counties. I have spent time in downtown KC and downtown St. Louis. I have spent time on the University of Missouri campus and the Iowa State campus. After Nebraska, those are the two campuses I have spent the most time in in the Big 12 region. Obviously I have spent quite a bit of time on the U of Mich campus, as thats where I live. I also have been to every Big 10 campus. Missouri and Iowa State are not Big 10-like. I went to graduate school with someone on the Faculty at the University of Missouri. I have worked with many Iowa State grads. I have been to every metro center in both states, which includes:

Des Moines (lived in the downtown for 1.5 years, the most urban spot of Iowa)
Cedar Rapids
Iowa City (I oftern stop here on trips fromAnn Arbor to Lincoln and Lincoln to Ann Arbor -- many many times).
Davenport (stayed here more than 20 times in my life)
Waterloo
Dubuque (drove through this city on trips to Madison, WI)
Ames (went to the Iowa State campus many times for research at their library for work)
Sioux City (know it so well I can picture the obelisk that is dedicated to Seargent Floyd that is located on a rising valley bluff above the Missouri River flowing nearby--the only casualty of the Lewis and Clark expedition of the great Expedition of the Missouri River 200 years ago)
Council Bluffs (cross-river city, basically Omaha was spurned out of this settlement, spent many many times shopping in this city when I lived in Atlantic which is 50 miles to the east)

Kansas City (been to this city a dozen times in my life)
St. Louis (been to this city about 10 times in my life)
St. Joseph
Columbia (again went to grad school with a person on the faculty and have spent time on the U of Missouri campus, going to their library for some research)
Jefferson City (the state capital on the Missouri River)
Joplin
Springfield

Plus many rural areas of that state, including the very historic town of Hannibal (Mark Twain's home town), Maryville (NWMSU), Kirksville (Truman State University).

I can tell you that Iowa State and Missouri are aligned with the conference that fits the best for them geographically. I have said this before, Missouri is a Midwestern state with the most southern characteristics. It is too far north to be in the south. Oklahoma and Texas are not typical southern states. All three of these states are outtakes of the south, as they fit with the Great Plains. I have a geography prossefor at the University of Nebraska that wrote an Ecylopedia of the Great Plains. He has an entry in it talking extensively about KC being the hub of the Great Plains, despite it being on the edge of the Great Plains. KC is viewed in Missouri as a western influenced town. It is grouped often with Omaha, Wichita, Des Moines, and Denver.

The four states of Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, and Missouri are intertwined with KC. There are many federal agencies that serve these four states that are headquartered in KC as regional offices. Iowa, though also not far from the Twin Cities (DM 250 miles), Chicago (DM 350 miles, IC 250 miles, and Davenport 200 miles), KC is the closest large city to Des Moines the state capital. KC is a hub for these 4 states.

Iowa and Missouri are not Great Lakes states. the rest of the Big 10 is. That is the identity that all of the Big 10 states share, except Iowa for U Iowa (which was originally grouped with the Big 8 states, while also being a member of the Big 10).

KC intertwines Kansas and Missouri. Both states history, especially the settlement of Kansas is related to Missouri. People from Missouri tried to influence the settlers of Kansas to be a slave state. That is what the Lawrence uprising is all about, and John Brown. A Jayhawk is a mythical bird that describes the enemy in these slave./free territory wars, which involved Missouri. Its a hybrid of a Blue Jay and a Hawk. Meaning this preying bird is out to prey on the children or the minds of the masses in Kansas to convert them to there cause. Its a unique bird that interelates to Kansas' history, which includes Missouri's involvement. These states are very intertwined. If you go into a restaurant on a lunch hour anywhere in KC and sit down and hear professional talk, they will sometimes get in an argument as some will say they went to KU and they are going to kick Mizzou's keester, and the Mizzou allums would say the same to the KU allums.

The alliance of the Big 8, through the schools of NU, KU, Mizzou, ISU and KSU, as well as OU is very long, and MU and ISU's rivals lie mainly in that alliance.

Missouri is not a Great Lake state
Iowa is not a Great Lake state
Missouri is a Midwestern state, that has southern characteristic (a southern outtake), and is the Gateway to the West (Gateway Arch in St. Louis where the Lewis and Clark expedition and the Oregon Trail, and the Pony Express all began, and head through most of the northern Big 12 states, and KC is the hub of the 4 states of Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, and Nebraska, and overlaps into both Missouri and Kansas)
The history of Kansas is intertwined with Missouri.
Missouri shares this southern outtakeness with the two states of Oklahoma and Missouri, thus being in the same conference makes sense.
St. Louis shares a relationship with Chicago and perhaps Indy, but not much with Detroit, Cleveland, the Twin Cities (other than being on the Mississippi, but these two cities don't have a complete and direct interstate between them, not good access) and Cincinnati is a very marginal relationship. KC shares in common with Dallas and so does St. Louis. KC also has a strong relationship with Denver.

I can tell you from experience of working and interacting with graduates and faculty of both schools that Iowa State and Missouri find the Big 8 and the Big 12 as the right alliance for them. So I think you are wrong. If the Big 10 expanded, ND is on the short and long list of expansion. Missouri may be an aferthought, but an afterthought after Syracuse. Reason, New York is a great lake state, and Syracuse is slightly better academically than Mizzou. New York is also a way bigger market. But I don't see the Big 10 expanding unless they get ND. If they don't, their traditional tendancies might keep them from taking anyone.

So I think you are wrong about Missouri and your understanding of where Missouri and Iowa State belong is not based on enough information.

Texas is in this alignment with A & M, as well as for OU, as well as TTU. OSU and Baylor add to the character of that alignment, as well as CU, KU, and Mizzou. Nebraska is an additional piece.

They won't go to the Pac 10 unless they can get approval from the Texas legislature. There are hardly any possible natural rivals in the Pac 10, except for UC-Berkeley and Stanford. Texas is a misfit with Pacific Coast states. It might have some in common with Arizona schools and perhaps the California schools. But Texas vs. Oregon State or Washington State doesn't make sense. Texas would be a misfit there. The Big 12 offers UT and A & M with the most rivals.

The Big 12 is a stable conference. The only way I see that a potential for realignment is that the NCAA allows for 14-game schedules would be the thing that would cause for a major realignment. But with 11 or 12, there is no room for Texas to go anywhere, and they can't go without A & M and also TTU. This is not likely, and even if it is, OU is a strong pull for the Texas schools to remain in the Big 12.

If you went to the 40,000 rule, than a large share of the Big East would not be BCS worthy. Only Syracuse, West Virginia, and Pitt, and maybe Louisville. So the Big East would disolve as a conference.

Again, I don't think one team having 28 K for an average attendance being booted makes sense nor what is good for the game. Programs that have a demonstrated track record may be down for the moment and could be brought back. Look at KSU, Va Tech, even Miami and FSU prior to 1980. That rule would be way too draconian for the well being of the game.

While I think there are changing paradigms for College football, and some may be good for the game. I think college football is good because it holds on to some traditions. This is what makes it different from the pros and I think college football isn't going to just dive in and kick out a bunch of teams. The academic alliances and peer schools run deep with most of the BCS conferences. This is what makes them different than the pros and why noone can really just take all the 119 teams or all of them with 40K in attendance and say throw them up and arrange them geographically. Those historic alliances are fairly strong.

My argument continues to be that if the BE takes more teams out of the Northeast footprint, it will lose visability. For TV coverage. It needs to be outfront, like the MWC, or it does become a mid-major, because the schools that you are looking at are mid-major/secondary college sports markets and do not make sense. History demonstrates this with such conference foibles as the WAC-16, or CUSA itself as it currently exists.

BC is the lone "outpost" of the ACC. It is not unusual or a comprimise of a footprint. Miami proved this with the BE and Hawaii proves it with no matter what conference it chooses to be in. TCU in the MWC is just an outpost, not a separate wing or an amoeba.

If the BE merges with more SEC-located and ACC-located CUSA teams, it will be what that 1999 ATS Consultants Football Annual predicited. A defacto CUSA. It will not be the Big East. Rutgers vs. Memphis on a Tuesday night in November on ESPN2 is not the image of a major conference or a BCS conference. The only team that has demonstrated that it can increase the BE ranking among the CUSA candidate that are closeby is Marshall. ECU has had terrible seasons recently. UCF had a losing season and near-.500 seasons for a while and has yet to go to a bowl. Memphis had its first winning season last year in a long time, and went to their first bowl in 30 years. All these markets are secondary, and don't demonstrate enough that all your doing is kicking out Temple to make room for another Temple. What are you picking up?

Only Marshall works nearby. USM would be the only other consistent program to look at, and thats fairly out of the BE footprint. Then you would have to look at a Texas school or Tulsa. The BE in Tulsa is a WACKED-OUT alignment, way too much of an outpost, and history shows that the more geographically convoluted a conference gets beyond one outpost, that those fall apart. WAC-16, Missouri Valley, Big West, etc.

The BE needs to stay where its at, as none of these CUSA teams can't prove they are the next Temple, except Marshall, and USM. The BE should only consider a team that maintains this outfront character and ones that can improve their rating and demonstrate so. Not just a team that's on a hot streak. A northeast team contributes to the variable of being out front and garnering the most market, as the Northeast, like the Mountain West are both the most virgin area of the US that have the most room for teams to claim the most of a market that they are in, and not be in the shadows of many teams and conferences, and for this I argue that becoming a defacto CUSA would make the BE a shadowed, mid-major conference and potentially to its unravelling, and for that its the reason why the BE becoming the defacto CUSA is a mistake.

You think Texas and Oklahoma, Kansas, and Nebraska are all ranches. You have no sense of geography. Iowa, Nebraska, and Missouri are all Cornbelt and Soybeanbelt states, and I just drove through Kansas in July, I mean completely through it, and it is not as much as a Wheat state as it once was. It had more Corn and Soybeans. Immediately east of Denver I noticed less and less sagebrush and consistent crops, all the way to the foothills of the Appallachian Mtns.

Texas and Oklahoma are also not all ranches. You ever see the Movie "What's Eating Gilbert Grape?"? That was a movie in which the story took place in Iowa, just outside Des Moines, but it was filmed just outside of Austin, TX. Did you ever see the movie Twister. That was a movie that took place in Central Oklahoma. Part of it was filmed in Iowa, right outside Des Moines. I can tell you both looked like their settings.




Va Tech is in Virginia, the ACC footprint. Syracuse didn't end up there. Duke and UNC didn't want the extra travel --hence a geographic hangup. They weren't voted in. BC is just one outpost, and the best candidate left marketwise, footballwise, and academic wise.




While BC vs. Clemson, and BC vs. FSU are odd. as is BC vs. NCSU. BC vs. Ga Tech isn't -- Boston vs. Atlanta (big eastern cities). BC vs. Miami isn't (BE and NE relationships), BC vs. Duke (academics), BC vs. Wake (academics), BC vs. UNC (academics, high tech corrdors Boston vs. Research Triangle), BC vs. Virginia (academics), BC vs. Marlyland (Boston vs. Washington, and academics and sorta NE relationship), and BC vs. Va Tech (BE relationship). So the most oddball is BC vs. Clemson and BC vs. FSU, and BC vs. NCSU. The rest aren't too odd.




The WAC schools are in the same footprint as the MWC schools. It makes sense for a merger. Fresno used to be algined with these schools. So did Hawaii. Boise St and Nevada are natural fits with UNLV and BYU and CSU.

There are no demonstrated Boise States, Fresno States, nor Hawaii's near the BE in CUSA except Marshall and the more far-distance USM.

sportsgeog, the more we debate the more distance both of us become in our views.

My comment on farms and ranches was a point being made that farming has nothing to do with the north and south of the Big 12.

Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri were all border states during the Civil War and to a great extint have some of the same characterists that divide the north from the south today.

If you think the culture of Texas is similiar to Iowa and not closer to Illinois, then you have not been to the Quad cities, Iowa City. Sometimes Minnesota does add some fun play with jokes about Iowa, however, Iowa and Missouri at least the north east and Mississippi border are more closely related to the Big 10. No question about that.

If you think that academics bridge the gap between the bible belt and the northeast catholic groups, you obvouis have not spent much time in the south. Born again christians are very set in their ways and have little room for any other opinions.

The question that begs to be ask do these issues matter when it comes to college conference alignments? no!

So , I planning to post another Big East Model thread for 16 football alignment that deals with the eastern Conf USA teams and Temple.

You are talking to someone who has lived in Nebraska and Iowa.

I didn't say that Iowa was less like Minnesota and Illinois when compared to Texas. You are drawing conclusions. LOOK AT MY PREVIOUIS POST!

Iowa IS like Nebraska, Missouri, and Kansas. Iowa State and Missouri belong in the Big 12 because of these long alliances. Missouri is not a Great Lakes state. Missouri is a Prairie state and an Ozark state.

LOOK at what I said about Kansas City (KC). You do not know what you are talking about. KC is the Hub of the Great Plains and has more in common with Denver, Omaha, Des Moines, and Wichita, as well as Oklahoma City and Tulsa than it does with Minneapolis-St. Paul. Cleveland, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, and Detroit.

You talk as if the Big 12 IS and Only Is the State of Texas and don't recognize the long-time alliances of the schools located in Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Misssouri, Oklahoma and Colorado, schools that do have geographic relationships with Missouri and Iowa State.

But yes, I do think Missouri fits in with Oklahoma and Texas. Look at your Rand McNally. Missouri borders Oklahoma. Texas is only 1 state away and these 3 states don't fit in with the core of the south, like Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, Georgia. I've already discussed Kentucky. West Virginia is a border state with coal and shares mining issues with Pennsylvanis as much as Kentcuky, but is easy to fit in the Northeast. Maryland could go into the south or north, but is in a east coast conference alignment.

St. Louis I have already talked about and has some relationships with Chicago and Indy, but falls off when comparing to Detroit, Cleveland, Milwaukee, and Minneapolis-St. Paul. It doesn't have the Big 10 character.

You have such a tendancy to ignore relationships in your post and draw outrageous conclusions. The relationship of Iowa and Missouri to the Big 12 is its strong realtionships with Nebraska and Kansas as well as the importance of KC to these states as well as its importance to Denver and the nearby cities of Omaha, Des Moines, and Wichita. There is a reason why the Big 8 played their bball championships in KC, the Big 12 continues to alter in KC for the championships in bball and lately has been playing fball championships there. KC, like Dallas is one of two hubs for the conference, and its the city that has strong relationships with all of the Big 12 north states and Oklahoma. Also Omaha has a strong relationship with KC, as Omaha, located 200 miles to the north is the home of the Omaha Royals AAA minor league team. Minor league AAA team to the KC Royals. Also the Sacremento Kings were once the Kansas City Kings. In the mid-1970's the KC Kings were called a hyphenated name, the Kansas City-Omaha Kings, playing 1/3 of their home games in Omaha. Omaha is a sister city and a geopraphical connected city to KC.

BC is relatively speaking an outpost and would fit better with Northeast teams. But I make the arguement that except for Clemson (a very deep south school), FSU (another deep south school), and relatively speaking NCSU ( a deep south school, that is also in the Research Triangle), BC is not in a greatly outrageous alignment in the ACC, although it does fit better in the Big East.

Boston College is an academic school. The Boston metro area is an identified High Tech area. This means the Research Triangle is often a peer comparable region to it. We here in Ann Arbor often compare the Ann Arbor metro area (part of Detroit) to the Research Triangle. A whole constituency from Chappel Hill once came to Ann Arbor to compare themselves with the metro area so they could base growth and economic development on a comparable city. If Ann Arbor is a comparable to the Research Triangle, Boston is not much too out of the way to at least have something in common with that metro area, even though Boston is a Northeast City and the Research Triangle is in the south.

Duke and Wake are also academic schools comparable to BC, so that is their comparable, not necessarily the geographic region other than being a East Coast. Maryland and Virginia are near-Northeast Cities. Urban Planners and geographers often talk about the Bos-Wash Megalopolis of the Northeast. They state that it runs from Portland, ME to Richmond, VA. I rented a car when I was is Boston once. They told me that I could only drive the car in the Northeast states, which they defined as ME, NH, VT, MA, CT, RI, NY, NJ, PA, MD, WV, DE, and VA. This is why Va Tech fit in the BE, and why Maryland, Virginia and Virginia Tech fit together, and BC is not that far away and all are integrated in states that contain the Bos-Wash Megalopolis.

Miami is an old BE opponent, and South Florida has NE characteristics, so Miami and BC fit together. Georgia Tech is a tech school and highly academic and is located in one of the 14 super metros of the US (3.5 million people or greater). This is something both Atlanta and Boston share together.

So to me, while not being the best fit for BC, and they would be better in more of a Northeast alignment, BC is unusual in the ACC, but only extremely unusual in its matchups with Clemson, FSU and maybe NCSU. Now if BC was aligned with South Carolina, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ole Miss, and Mississippi State, then yes, a totally and unquestionable misfits. Just like Memphis, UAB, USM, UCF, and ECU are to the Big East.

Now all these BCS conferences want to emulate one another. The Big 10 pretty much sets the standard in college football, as does the SEC. The Big 10 is an academic alliance and wouldn't let in WVU as a member. The Pac 10 and the ACC emulate this. The Big 12 does too. Houston wouldn't ever be taken by the Big 12 because of academic quality. The SEC as well. The BE also. When they formed, they could have taken Louisville, Cincy, and ECU, but they didn't. Probably because they weren't academically good enough. They took Temple, because its a slightly better academic school and the market, but its success in football is comparable to the history of these teams at that point in time. Those 3 schools weren't taken at that time because of academics, northeast footprint and they are buried in other conference footprints, which is what the CUSA is.

Schools that are below in academics are characteristics of a mid-major team. Because it indicates they are most likely non-flagship public schools and non-flagships get relatively and considerable less amount of public dollars for support. If they are non-flagship state schools, they have less of a statewide noteriety and market. So there is a corelation to academic reputation and performance to academic funding and statewide identity, as well as mid-major college football market and status. To become a conference with a large percentage or a majority of these teams is to become a mid-major conference, not a major conference, because you contain mid-major college football markets that don't go statewide and their following is metro-regional with competition with state flagship schools.

Now look at this picture on this City of Memphis website. What do you see? Its a filled Liberty Bowl stadium in Memphis for the Memphis vs. U Tennessee football game a couple of years ago. Notice something in this filled stadium? About 1/2 of the crowd is decked-out in orange -- U Tennessee Orange. Memphis and all these SEC-buried and ACC-buried CUSA teams are secondary, mid-major markets that compete in their own market with these major-state-flagship schools:

http://www.cityofmemphis.org/navigate.asp?sessionID=&sec=COMMUNITY&opt=PARKSERVICES_FAIRGROUNDS_SPORTS

<<Texas is in this alignment with A & M, as well as for OU, as well as TTU. OSU and Baylor add to the character of that alignment, as well as CU, KU, and Mizzou. Nebraska is an additional piece.
They won't go to the Pac 10 unless they can get approval from the Texas legislature. There are hardly any possible natural rivals in the Pac 10, except for UC-Berkeley and Stanford. Texas is a misfit with Pacific Coast states. It might have some in common with Arizona schools and perhaps the California schools. But Texas vs. Oregon State or Washington State doesn't make sense. Texas would be a misfit there. The Big 12 offers UT and A & M with the most rivals.>>

I agree Texas is a better fit in the Big 12, but you are wrong about the legislature. Texas does not need any approvals. Now Baylor and TT were guaranteed spots in the Big 12 because of Texas politics, but that was because the governor, Lt. governor and speaker of the house at the time all had Tech or Baylor ties and threatened retaliation (Most importantly the Lt. governor). All of them are out of Texas politics. The legislature is dominated by Texas grads. The current governor is an Aggie.

Its unusual pre-BE era. The two teams have been aligned in the same conference for a decade. That's a long-enough alliance to not make that unusual. They've probably played each other for every year for about a decade. Might of had a couple of years in the early 90's where they didn't play, but a consistent series for 10 years. That's a long enough time to not make this really unsual. The other thing is a statewide school like Va Tech, its identity is statewide. It has an identity with the Northern Virginia area and DC like UVa. I used to work with a Va Tech grad, and he talked about how he went to DC to find a job. That fits in with the Bos-Wash Megalopolis. Its certainly a lot less unusual than Clemson vs. BC and FSU vs. BC, and somewhat BC vs NCSU.




The Research Triangle being high tech and the Boston metro area being high tech is the relationship that Boston has with the Research Triangle.




I'd say that its only 3 that are really a problem, Clemson, FSU and NCSU (though a Research Triangle school, but a land grant and slightly less on academics, though a good school).

The only way the ACC will take more teams is that the NCAA allows 13 or 14 game seasons. Otherwise a conference bigger than 12 is impractical in college football. Rivalries don't get nurtured and the schools lack interaction with one another, and its not about a true one-conference at that size. Its not realistic. Syracuse, while strong in support, and UConn, also being strong will not be able to go to 60K in the stands until they expand both of their stadiums. Syracuse plays in a dome, thats difficult to expand (what do you do, get 4 big giant cranes to hold the roof up, while the stadium is expanded?). UConn is also difficult, because building that stadium was quite a feat, to find more ability to expand further requires some time for the program to grow. I think they will be a strong program in the BE, but it will be a long time before they could find the resources and justification to expand their stadium by another 20,000 seats.




That might be true.




Its impractical, very impractical. The NCAA will have to allow a 13 or 14 game schedule for a conference that exceeds 12 to be practical. Otherwise you play no OOC games or only 1 or 2. Just wouldn't be feasible until more games are allowed. If a playoff ever happens, there may be less season games, probably reduced back down to 11 or even 10.




Missouri has southern relationships, that is true, but it is a southern outtake in the Midwest. Missouri is a Great Plains-Midwestern state more than it is southern. Oklahoma and Texas, are also southern outtakes, but they are and have some different characteristics that don't make them typical southern states. Oklahoma has a large Native American population. This is not typical for most of the south. Texas has a large Latino population, which makes it different from Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, as well as the states of Tennessee and Kentucky.

Missouri's ethnic diversity and differences to southern states, lies with its strong ethnic relationships with Central Great Plains-Midwestern States and the rest of the Midwest. Its differences is that its not a Great Lakes state. Missouri, unlike most southern states has a large % of its population with German ethnic heritage. There are not many people with German ancestory in the south, except for Memphis area, some in Nashville, some in Arkansas, and I believe there are some in Texas and Oklahoma. The large % relates more with the Midwest than these anomoly southern locations.

St. Louis is the home of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. That Synod of the Lutheran Church is made up with a large percentage of people with German heritage. The ECLA and Wisconsin Synods of the Lutherans are mostly Scandanavians and are located in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and North Dakota. Most of the members of that Missouri Synod Church are located in the Great Plains-Midwest and some in Wisconsin, Illinois and Michigan. You can tell its Missouri Synod country if there is a Concordia University nearby, as thats their branch location of churches. Only 1 of these are in the south (Selma, AL). Nebraska has one, Minnesota has two, Wisconsin has one, Illinois has one, Michigan has one, Texas has one, and then there is one in Oregon, California and Alberta. The south doesn't have but one Concordia Universities and Colleges, located in Selma, AL, which reflects there limited amount of German ancestry in the south. The Midwest has a large amount of German ancestry. Missouri is a state with many people with German heritage, just like Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan. What kind of name is Anheiser-Busch? German.

The other thing that makes Missouri different than most states in the south is that relatively speaking they also have a large percentage of people that are Jewish. St Louis has a relatively speaking large Jewish population. Its not as much as the Northeast, or the West Coast, but when you rank states with the level of Jewish population, Missouri pops up as a state with a higher than average Jewish population. One of the best hospitals in the US is a Jewish hospital in St. Louis.

These ethnic differences, plus Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas' historical strong ties to KC and their histories being intertwined (especially Kansas and Missouri and Nebraska somewhat with Missouir), plus the long alliances of the Northern Big 12 states and Oklahoma dating back to 1907, make Missouri the right place in the Big 12. Sure there are relationships with Arkansas and the Ozarks, as well as with Illinois and Chicago, but these other characteristics don't make Missouri a good fit with the SEC, and a better fit in the Big 12 when compared to the Big 10.

Oklahoma State would have strong ties to Oklahoma, and that wouldn't gravitate Oklahoma to the SEC. Texas and A & M belong in the Big 12.

The bottom line with all this is that 12+ members, including 14 team leagues and 16 team leagues will not work until the schedule allows for standard 14 game seasons. That is not practical, and may retreat to 11 games if a playoff is instituted, and even the 5th BCS games makes 13 or 14 game seasons improbable.

I'm not making assumptions. The schools we are talking about here are all qualified academically to be in the ACC. UConn included. Its not based on their academics that they couldn't be in the ACC, its based on the fact that the ACC is at 12 teams and there is no room to grow.


I know about the Hartford-Springfield Metro area and the airport. I had a friend in college that lived in Northhampton, Mass for a few years. Yes, the following is not too good, I've seen the attendance figures. I know there is also Smith, Mt. Holoyoke, Hampshire, and Amherst there. Its an academic hub. I know its only 25 miles from Hartford to Springfield. But so what? There are couple of examples of 2 teams located near and being successful. The Research Triangle is one. Utah and BYU is another. I know those schools have been at it longer. What I propose with UMass is a long term solution. The change in UConn, as you say rally around, isn't much difference in attendance from what UMass has. UMass's attendance has varied from 7,000 to 14,000 in the last 6 or 7 years. Those numbers aren't much different than UConn's. A UMass upgrade would be a 10 to 20 year plan. Its not immediate if it was tried.
The difference with such close proximity of UMass and UConn is the state line and that separates the market. If the marketing was promoted, Springfield, which has 700,000 people plus the whole state of 6.5 million, shared with BC, this would be a good second school for the 13th largest state in population.




Yes, its located in a southern location in the Appallachian Mtns, but its still a state school that indeed has a statewide overlay following throughout the state. State flagships, like VaTech have this characteristic. The institution has importance statewide, including the North Virginia/Bos-Wash Megalopolis part that includes Northern Virginia and Richmond as well as Norfolk-Va Beach. Look at this extensive statewide VaTech Radio Affiliate listing:

http://www.hokiesports.com/radio/stations.html

They even have affiliates located in both Washington, DC and Baltimore, MD. Its an important U to the National Capital Region and it has a following there. If you were to list the DC-Baltimore college teams, they would be:

Maryland
UVa
Virginia Tech
Navy
and maybe some following for 1-AA Georgetown, James Madison, William and Mary, Richmond, etc. Va Tech is one of the top DC area teams.




Well, that supports my argument even more of it being similar to UNC. Boston College also has a lot of liberal arts.

Here's BC colleges and schools:
http://www.bc.edu/schools/

Here's UNC colleges and schools:
http://www.unc.edu/depts/

Both are liberal arts based.

And the fact that they are national university attracting members from all over the nation makes them fit in with BC, in that BC may only attract in the northeast, but UNC is like U of Mich, and UVa, which are like national universities. UNC is oftent compared to UVa, U of Michigan, Cal-Berkeley, and UCLA as one of the top 5 public universities in the nation. The high tech corridor is big in Boston, but the 3 universities of Duke, UNC and NCSU make the Research Triangle one of the most academic metro areas in the nation. The quality of life is ranked high, as that metro area often has a high ranking. As I mentioned, we had a contingent of people from Chappel Hill that made a visit to Ann Arbor to make comparisons as they used Ann Arbor as a peer community to Chappel Hill based on the similar academic standing of UNC and U of M. The Research Triangle has a National metro market identity, and for that doesn't make it too odd to be playing another school on the east coast that is highly regarded institution and in a National City. I realise Boston is quite a bit bigger, but the high quality of life and national identity doesn't make this as unusual.




I agree. And Delaware is a 2nd Tier National University, and partially private. It would fit in, esp with Rutgers, UConn, Pitt, and WVU.




And neither UConn, for at least awhile. There are so many people here fixated on the "Now". UConn could grow to have an average attendance of 60,000. But its not going to happen 2 years from now, nor 5 years from now, and maybe not even 10 years from now. The state isn't going to turn around and expand this newly constructed stadium overnight. The success of the football team as well as fans attending, sold out games, which requires time to demonstrate, will need to happen first. That maybe 10 to 20 years down the road if it happens. Not saying its not going to happen, but I am also saying that there isn't enough proof that the state of Connecticut is going to fund a stadium expansion that soon after just constructing it.

If the ACC could add two more teams, they would most likely add Syracuse and Pitt, if the Big 10 doesn't end up taking one of them if they can't get ND (I don't think they will go for anyone if they can't get ND).

If the ACC could add 4 teams and become a 16-member league, then they would add Syracuse, Pitt, Rutgers, and then UConn. Why? Because all are academic schools, and would meet what is comparable to schools in the ACC. WVU wouldn't have the necessary academics to get into the ACC, nor would Louisville, ECU, Cincy, UCF, Marshall nor USF. Unless they improved their academic standing. That is why the ACC chose BC over WVU, in addition to the market. WVU would be a better cultural fit, and geographic fit and rival fit, but it doesn't quite have the academics and the market is low, but they do have the following and travel well.

But the ACC wouldn't go to 14 or 16 teams as long as there is only 11 or 12 games played in a season. That is why UConn and Syracuse are not going to the ACC with this constraint.

<<Missouri's ethnic diversity and differences to southern states, lies with its strong ethnic relationships with Central Great Plains-Midwestern States and the rest of the Midwest. Its differences is that its not a Great Lakes state. Missouri, unlike most southern states has a large % of its population with German ethnic heritage. There are not many people with German ancestory in the south, except for Memphis area, some in Nashville, some in Arkansas, and I believe there are some in Texas and Oklahoma. The large % relates more with the Midwest than these anomoly southern locations.>>

Perhaps some of the southern/northern difference does go back to national origin. I saw an interesting map based on 1980 census data that showed the group with the largest %. Except for Mass. (Irish), all of the north had German as the largest national group. Except for Mississippi (African), all of the south had English as the largest group.