"The Atlanta area is second only to New York in total college football fans according to numbers crunched by influential New York Times blogger Nate Silver....".

It's this activity and thinking that is destroying beloved traditions, regionalism sensibilities, and breaking-up long-time rivalries fans have adored. Instead of relying on pricey consultants and labeled demographic experts who poll where presidential candidates need to spend, or identify where the next forest needs to be demolished for the next Walmart,
simply ask Best Buy (or Walmart) where they sell their TV sets the most.

I'd argue the northeast's inability to unify to an all-sports conference is what got this unfortunate outcome rolling, even more than the 1A/1AA schism. The egos were too big, the focus was too much on one sport (basketball) with a condescending view of football and other sports, and the institutional politics flubbed it all up. When Pitt and Penn State were severed, I think it pretty much made each one thereafter easier to stomach, and more feasible to do in the minds of out-of-touch institutional administrators.

I wish more states intervened in these matters like Virginia, Texas, and Oklahoma. I know it is so out of fashion, but it doesn't fully sever everything, and keeps things in some sort of needed scope and perspective.

ESPN article with comments from MSU AD regarding possible future Big Ten expansion at http://espn.go.com/college-football/sto ... advantages

Of course coming from ESPN sources, the theme is 16! 16! 16!

Sixteen-member, top mega-conferences would actually be more cost effective for ESPN (and others), while more lucrative for the major conferences. It's fewer "biggies" to contract with, and outlet distributions are more expansive which may allow enhanced flexibilitiy for coverages and timing.

Unless mindsets and circumstances change, for the B1G's next next media rights coming for 2017, I would not be suprised to see two more on-board by the time negotiations are in high gear. Conferences may, indeed, be waiting to see how the Maryland exit fee stuff goes.

Could Delany (B1G) and Slive (SEC) be having off-the-record discussions on how and when to conduct further carving-up of the ACC? Going 16 may come first, or at a similar time, from the B1G or the SEC. The PAC12 may not be first, unless that former plus-4 model which includes Texas with a subdued LHN, is placed back on the table. The B12 is just at 10, so them finding six plausible others appears most unlikely for the start. Texas regularly explores for whatever is best to come their way as they see it.

This 16-member stuff is going to happen. And some of the others shall quickly follow suit. Personally, I don't like it.

University Presidents generally seem to be told just two things to get their support for expansion: (a) the picked candidates to be added are "academically enhancing"; and (b) each of their schools shall be getting so much more money because of this expansion.

Even Alabama, traditionally very conservative, protective, and selective about expansion, had a high source say that in-footprint opposition to Florida State (& potentially Clemson) joining the SEC may need to be re-considered if expansion goes further.

If the ACC cannot draw a red line with its core of North Carolina and Virginia schools; an ultimate ouch!

Tulsa World running Wire story with comments from Big Ten Commish regarding possible future league expansion at http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/a ... YRhi164740

The years in my signature are the only years without conference membership changes from the previous season.

_________________
1897-1898 | 1900-06 | 1926-27 | 1929-30 | 1939 | 1942

Nice!

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

Yeah, as you can see, that's 114 of 119 seasons we've had conference realignment.

Granted, most were not seismic changes (for example, UC Davis moving to D-I and joining the Big West), and seasons were ONE CHANGE (then again, we didn't really have many conferences from 1896-1940).

But you get the idea. This has never really started or stopped. Which is why a site like this exists.

_________________
1897-1898 | 1900-06 | 1926-27 | 1929-30 | 1939 | 1942

That will certainly put things into perspective.

For the B1G, Delany said that had the B1G-PAC exchange program not fallen through, it may have made this round of expansion unnecessary. I find the guy so sly and slimy at times, but always interesting. I do believe him on this one (the "may," of course, likely spoke to a money-grab of ND-UMD), as it looked like such a sure thing for the B1G to hit paydirt. So, it was anticipated and projected to make bank, and then didn't happen. Then came Notre Dame. There was not going to be a denial of this huge income boost for Delany.

People are getting quite critical of this little blurb, and while I think the faction of anti-B1G is but a mere vocal few, the logic to rebind the region together could have found play. The "new" Penn State may not be so loyal to a midwestern conference. Hopefully, this will quell any nasty faction looking for play.

But, who do you suppose Alvarez was talking about here:



Whoooooo?!

FSU

UConn

_________________

Even though UConn's the better institution, I can see the B1G hitting them below the belt and not FSU, but if UConn got that far along and it went to the presidents, it's nothing to be ashamed of.

Part of me thinks Missouri reapplied...

I'd think not on the Missouri front as they would fit the academic profile of schools the conference WOULD consider, and Alvarez's comments were that the school that reached out to them was a lower academic school.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

Agree Quinn. Mizzou has the right academic profile. Also, it would seem to be way too early in trying to move again after just having joined the SEC which took a lot of work on Mizzou's part (political, financial, severing ties, etc.) and the conference's part (divisional adjustments, etc.). It would not endear Mizzou within the SEC if the conference got a wiff of such---would be a stupid thing to do unless a sure thing---not talking the BE here.

FSU may have informally inquired, as these Commissioners, Presidents, ADs', chat it up all the time, despite these silly public statements of "no contact, we are happy where we are" stuff. There's many indications that what FSU really wants, is the SEC if they move.

Also, concur with the later part of Cutter's first statement, that it would have made sense for UCONN to try to go to the max to get considered. I absolutely believe it was UCONN. Now wonder, did that act cost UCONN any votes in terms of not being picked for the ACC recently? Just speculation, and certainly would depend on the timing.

The B1G Network publicized their poll of readers regarding divisional realignment. They promised to release the poll results on Tues. night. My recording of that show terminated just before they released those results. Did anyone see the conclusion and learn the results?