NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Sat Nov 22, 2014 6:51 pm

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3247 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184 ... 217  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Aug 11, 2013 8:19 pm 
Offline
Junior
Junior

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 9:56 pm
Posts: 126
Notsellingjeans,
Here is what happened to the 2010 falling-out with the PAC10 from what I understand. Texas A&M flatly refused to go to the PAC10, they wanted in the SEC if any changes were to occur. Texas argued for waiting and seeing what happens (we now know that they were waiting on the LHN to become finalized). Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma St. were waiting to go with whatever UT and A&M decided. This meant that whatever argument the PAC10 came up with, the B12 schools were not leaving (except Colorado) but instead adopting a wait and see approach. So it was a no-go from the beginning.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 12, 2013 7:04 am 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 7:38 pm
Posts: 28
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
Notsellingjeans wrote:
@ctx48c: The problem for the Pac is that there is no "non-Texas" scenario that moves the needle enough financially for the Pac-12 to consider it. If the rumors are true, it's pretty revealing that the Pac rejected the Ok/Ok St. combo by themselves.


Yup. I've taken heat for saying the same thing elsewhere: without Texas, the PAC becomes the far distant third conference. Should Notre Dame ever fully park its entire AD into the ACC, the PAC could even become the fourth.

I never thought that highly of the Utah grab, and to hear of their issues with other eastern schools nibbling into the Utes' California access, it kind of makes them a big problem in these realignment sagas. The PAC didn't need them (they did need Colorado), and now with them, get a school who already asserts its power, which it only had at a minor scale before (big difference between stiffing UTEP and stiffing OU-oSu), upon programs much bigger than it. It's kind of like Utah is a the new Seton Hall. Not good for the PAC.

To an extent, I fear Rutgers will do the same thing once in the B1G (forget about it, Pitt, Syracuse, and UConn). And it sounds like WVU wants to make sure any Big XII movement bridges them back to the heart of the conference.

The political baggage the Big XII schools have attached to them hurt their chances in a lot of places. That these alternative, future homes have scorned ex'es within them (PAC, B1G, SEC), may make it even harder for anyone to move as freely. It may just keep things in the Big XII "as is" just because. Even a school like Kansas, who is said to not be tied to KSU the same as OU is to oSu and Texas is to TT (and what happens in the B1G were ISU invited), made for sure that Kansas City was involved as a major venue for conference doings. KC will not be of value to the B1G, PAC, or SEC.


I've done as much research as can be done via the internet, and I can find no legal or political issues to keep OU and OSU in the same conference. The schools' admins and various state legislators are adamant about that. They all describe the relationship as family. Two of many examples given are David Boren's wife is an OSU alumna, while OSU president Hargis is an OU alumnus. Many, many other examples of cross relationships in the schools' administrations, athletic departments and faculties were given. They stay together because they want to be together.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 12, 2013 11:13 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm
Posts: 1731
Agree that there is likely not a "law" that they be in the same conference.

However, the legislators have a vested interest in seeing the "lesser" school use the "greater" school's coat-tails to gain admission to a better confernece,
since this results in more revenue for the "lesser" school, and as a reslt, presumably less subsidy from the state government.

No better example of these political machinations, than the Governor of Virginia dictating the voting (on ACC expansion) by the U of Virginia's President in 2003,
and the resultant manipulations that got Virginia Tech into the ACC (when Swofford et. al. really weren't targeting them at all....).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 12, 2013 11:37 am 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 7:38 pm
Posts: 28
The Oklahoma legislator claim they have no interest in trying the schools together. I could not find any evidence that any legislator has ever suggested that there should be. The schools can go there separate ways but choose not to. They also choose to stay with Texas, if possible. So far, Texas has chosen to stay with OU, if not OSU.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 12, 2013 12:59 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1572
tute79 wrote:
Agree that there is likely not a "law" that they be in the same conference.

However, the legislators have a vested interest in seeing the "lesser" school use the "greater" school's coat-tails to gain admission to a better confernece,
since this results in more revenue for the "lesser" school, and as a reslt, presumably less subsidy from the state government.

No better example of these political machinations, than the Governor of Virginia dictating the voting (on ACC expansion) by the U of Virginia's President in 2003,
and the resultant manipulations that got Virginia Tech into the ACC (when Swofford et. al. really weren't targeting them at all....).


Good point. Legislators may not dictate sister state schools be in the same conference, but a number of states have passed bills that major sister schools play each other, largely in fb, but some other sports as well. Legislators, some places, shall meddle into athletic scheduling. They do this stuff when they often accomplish little else, or neglect real priorities in higher education. Some places, there has been pressure for bigger state schools in a state, to play some of the smaller state schools at times. It doesn't always need to go to legislation, but it can come up as a point of discussion during negotiations on funding bills.

In some cases, it may be a good thing. We've seen situations (Tex.-T A&M for example) whereby university administrators and board executives are in conflict and acting childish.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 1:38 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:47 am
Posts: 749
Location: Columbus, OH
The current Big 12 is such an oddity--it can't grow but at the same time no one can leave due to the intense political pressures to keep the "little sisters" with their higher revenue generating siblings. Furthermore, the Big Ten and SEC don't have the room to accommodate the little sisters in order to land a big fish. The PAC 12 has room to admit 4 schools but they have made it clear that the deal is Texas, Oklahoma, Tech, and Okie St and no one is going to get special treatment when it comes to Tier 3 rights.

This league holds together as long as Texas is able to make money that is on par with what members of the big money conferences are getting but if their television partners get tired of overpaying for Iowa St, Kansas St, Baylor, and TCU games then the dominoes start to fall. Texas has the benefit of being able to play 3 different conferences against each other should they decide to move.

What do you all think: if Texas were picking between the big ten, SEC, and PAC 12 who do they chose, what is the deal, and who else is part of the move?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 2:27 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 10:45 am
Posts: 225
fighting muskie wrote:
The current Big 12 is such an oddity--it can't grow but at the same time no one can leave due to the intense political pressures to keep the "little sisters" with their higher revenue generating siblings. Furthermore, the Big Ten and SEC don't have the room to accommodate the little sisters in order to land a big fish. The PAC 12 has room to admit 4 schools but they have made it clear that the deal is Texas, Oklahoma, Tech, and Okie St and no one is going to get special treatment when it comes to Tier 3 rights.

This league holds together as long as Texas is able to make money that is on par with what members of the big money conferences are getting but if their television partners get tired of overpaying for Iowa St, Kansas St, Baylor, and TCU games then the dominoes start to fall. Texas has the benefit of being able to play 3 different conferences against each other should they decide to move.

What do you all think: if Texas were picking between the big ten, SEC, and PAC 12 who do they chose, what is the deal, and who else is part of the move?


If Texas goes then the conference is pretty much done.

Texas: I don't think the SEC would ever want Texas. The SEC is already in the state and don't want to deal with the perceived arrogance of Texas and the LHN. The B1G has said they'd like to have Texas, but I don't think either the B1G or Texas would want Texas to be on an island away from the rest of the conference. Building a bridge would suffice, but the B1G would admit non-AAU members along the way and have at least 17+ members. The PAC would be the only option for conferences for Texas as long as theirs a package deal (see island concept with B1G). Also, Texas has the ability to go Independent. For this project, I'm assuming Texas joins a conference and that conference is the PAC. Now who goes where...

PAC add: Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, Oklahoma St (stay at 16)
BIG add: Kansas, Kansas St (stay at 16)
ACC add: West Virginia (add 1 more for 16 - Cincinnati or Connecticut)
SEC add: none (could add 2 for 16, but not necessary - would probably only pick up ACC defects if ACC imploded which isn't in this scenario)
AAC add: TCU, Baylor, Iowa St (wouldn't add 1 more for even number because with either Cincinnati or Connecticut leaving for the ACC, the AAC needs to add an odd number)

Next conference to implode (assuming the XII does) would be the ACC. In that scenario...

SEC add: Virginia Tech, North Carolina St (stay at 16)
B1G add: Virginia, North Carolina (stay at 18)

With ACC/AAC leftovers:

SEC add: Louisville, West Virginia
MWC add: Houston, SMU, TCU, Baylor (stays at 16)
PAC add (greedy for 18): New Mexico, UNLV (stays at 18)
MWC (dropped to 14, wants 18): Tulsa, Tulane, Iowa St, Memphis
ACC (new version) - 16 members: Navy, Temple, Connecticut, Cincinnati, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Boston College, East Carolina, Central Florida, South Florida, Miami FL, Georgia Tech, Duke, Wake Forest, Clemson, Florida St; wants 18: adds Southern Miss, Marshall

All because of Texas' decision...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 2:43 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1476
BePcr07 wrote:
If Texas goes then the conference is pretty much done.

Texas: I don't think the SEC would ever want Texas. The SEC is already in the state and don't want to deal with the perceived arrogance of Texas and the LHN. The B1G has said they'd like to have Texas, but I don't think either the B1G or Texas would want Texas to be on an island away from the rest of the conference. Building a bridge would suffice, but the B1G would admit non-AAU members along the way and have at least 17+ members. The PAC would be the only option for conferences for Texas as long as theirs a package deal (see island concept with B1G). Also, Texas has the ability to go Independent. For this project, I'm assuming Texas joins a conference and that conference is the PAC. Now who goes where...

PAC add: Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, Oklahoma St (stay at 16)
BIG add: Kansas, Kansas St (stay at 16)
ACC add: West Virginia (add 1 more for 16 - Cincinnati or Connecticut)
SEC add: none (could add 2 for 16, but not necessary - would probably only pick up ACC defects if ACC imploded which isn't in this scenario)
AAC add: TCU, Baylor, Iowa St (wouldn't add 1 more for even number because with either Cincinnati or Connecticut leaving for the ACC, the AAC needs to add an odd number)

Next conference to implode (assuming the XII does) would be the ACC. In that scenario...

SEC add: Virginia Tech, North Carolina St (stay at 16)
B1G add: Virginia, North Carolina (stay at 18)

With ACC/AAC leftovers:

SEC add: Louisville, West Virginia
MWC add: Houston, SMU, TCU, Baylor (stays at 16)
PAC add (greedy for 18): New Mexico, UNLV (stays at 18)
MWC (dropped to 14, wants 18): Tulsa, Tulane, Iowa St, Memphis
ACC (new version) - 16 members: Navy, Temple, Connecticut, Cincinnati, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Boston College, East Carolina, Central Florida, South Florida, Miami FL, Georgia Tech, Duke, Wake Forest, Clemson, Florida St; wants 18: adds Southern Miss, Marshall

All because of Texas' decision...

:lol:

If Texas parts with the LHN they can go anywhere and would make every conference better.

As for your last point...

Yes because of Texas, not the Big Ten or Nebraska, PAC12 or Colorado, or the SEC and A&M/Mizzou...just greedy greedy Texas.

The Big Ten could have added Pitt or Syracuse or Maryland or Rutgers and stayed at 12, the ACC had plently of replacement options as did the Big East on down.

The PAC12 could have just added Utah and BYU and stopped and the MWC would look just like it does now and the Big 12 would still be intact.

Everyone would have 12 with a CCG, but they didn't and then to add insult to injury the SEC/ACC/BigTen all expanded to 14.

But once again Texas gets all the blame. :mrgreen:

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:13 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1150
fighting muskie wrote:
What do you all think: if Texas were picking between the big ten, SEC, and PAC 12 who do they chose, what is the deal, and who else is part of the move?


I've often wondered if Texas could get away with Rice tagging along. For the B1G, I think that's their only shot at getting UT because politics will get involved, no matter how hypocritical aTm was able to skip out without baggage. I think the PAC isn't in a position to be as picky, and would take TT. I think the PAC's the most likely. The question I would have would be...what if OU and oSu don't follow and they go to the SEC? What does the PAC do? Go to just 14 with Texas and Tech, or go to 16 with Texas, Tech, and two others (to anticipate the Big Ten likely taking Kansas and someone else)?

Or...what happens if the SEC gets the 'Homas and the B1G its Texas twosome. Where does the PAC go now?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:55 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 10:45 am
Posts: 225
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
Or...what happens if the SEC gets the 'Homas and the B1G its Texas twosome. Where does the PAC go now?


I've been wondering "What if the Texoma-4 aren't available for the PAC?" as well. Does the PAC try to "partner" up Colorado with Colorado St and Utah with Utah St? Try and do something new with New Mexico? Try to get into Las Vegas with UNLV? Pick up the Kansas duo? Maybe they go a new direction with a different attitude on BYU and Boise St? Possibly secure California with Fresno St and San Diego St (blatantly disregarding San Jose St)? What if they just stay at 12? While I don't see them staying at 12, I don't see many options for the PAC without upgrading some non-AQ schools to AQ status.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 4:59 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1476
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
fighting muskie wrote:
What do you all think: if Texas were picking between the big ten, SEC, and PAC 12 who do they chose, what is the deal, and who else is part of the move?


I've often wondered if Texas could get away with Rice tagging along. For the B1G, I think that's their only shot at getting UT because politics will get involved, no matter how hypocritical aTm was able to skip out without baggage. I think the PAC isn't in a position to be as picky, and would take TT. I think the PAC's the most likely. The question I would have would be...what if OU and oSu don't follow and they go to the SEC? What does the PAC do? Go to just 14 with Texas and Tech, or go to 16 with Texas, Tech, and two others (to anticipate the Big Ten likely taking Kansas and someone else)?

Or...what happens if the SEC gets the 'Homas and the B1G its Texas twosome. Where does the PAC go now?

The SEC needs markets, OU by itself may drive numbers and has some markets (OKC/Tulsa and DFW ties) but OSU would make it worse than adding WVU or Clemson who bring little to the table.

Texas would be the best get, then FSU, UNC/Duke, UVA/VPI (Two TX/FL/NC/VA schools bring more demos to the table than OU does alone), after them OU (though alone they are pretty attractive similar to Nebraska), KU, Clemson, WVU.

The SEC already has two schools in Mississippi which do very little for their TV deal. OSU won't get in for the same reason Clemson and Lousville won't get in.

By the numbers the SEC should want to add Texas as #15 and FSU or UNC as #16/17, UVA as #18, then OU as #19 and KU or VPI/Duke/GT/WVU as 20.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 7:04 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1572
Back in March, 2013, the UF President commented that the SEC would not expand again for a 16-team super league unless the two would be "ace jewels". There's been some discussion on whom he may be referring to:
Possibilities?:

Texas - expect would be among the group. While adding T A&M places the SEC in the State of Texas with a major campus; still, Texas is a very big state. While the SEC had a long courtship with T A&M, that did not happen with Texas. While Texas looks like a great SEC fit considering some multiple factors, there does not seem any vibes Texas is following T A&M into the SEC. There's all this pride stuff going on, along with other issues relating to broadcasting, tier rights, etc. DeLoss Dodd did convey at a gathering months back that Texas would look "east" for the future---whatever that meant at the time.

Notre Dame - The SEC will not do a BE/ACC kind of deal with ND. ND would not want into the SEC, with other preferred options at their disposal. ND playing Bulldogs in Athens and Starkville in the heat won't happen. Culturally, not an SEC institution type. Notre Dame does, however, recruits the south. Recently heard it's now their top region in pursing recruits. Perhaps it's one of the motives having that special deal with the ACC.

North Carolina - This is unquestionably an interest of the SEC. The SEC and UNC have talked well before the B1G showed their interest. Earlier this year, it was rumored the SEC was positioning to take a UNC-Duke combo to land UNC if the ACC shattered. Talking about the ACC core here, schools that want to hang together and the ACC means all to them; influence, et. al. Would take unbelieveable money for them to move on their own.

Virginia - In an ideal sense, it may assume a UNC-UVA combo. UVA would be a strategic add on their own though. B1G expansion interest would be dampered in the mid-atlantic/southeast if UVA was not a part of it. UVA is focused on a 'comfort level' regarding their sports, and the ACC provides that, for now.

Oklahoma - The SEC had a shot at Oklahoma but it came with OSU. The PAC allegedly turned down the same duo. OU with their rich tradition, would fit geographically well with the A&M and Mizzou additions.

No need to list any dreamy stuff, like current B1G schools.
______________

While FSU, Clemson, GT, Miami, L'ville are quality schools, they are in SEC states whereby footprint additions were recently resisted. NC State and VPI are also quality schools and would be new states for the SEC. They are not the flagships of the first order of pursuit. Duke, with bb pedigree & a lofty academic reputation, would be a largely unwanted tag-along, and not up to par with fb. Kansas turf is too way off and not that attractive. WVU has been declined more than once. For the SEC, maybe having a viable ACC for right now, is thought to be better than risk having the B1G aggressively deep into the region with added broadcasting and competition for recruits.

I expect the B12 will hold awhile. They can get to 12 if they decide on the CCG. They do have a configuration problem with WVU way out there. We'll see how clever they would be willing to get; but they sound very locked-down on the status quo.

For the biggies, looks like stalemate right now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2013 6:24 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 9:04 pm
Posts: 402
No doubt, basically the schools the Big Ten would be interested in first on the next go, would be the same ones the SEC could pursue. The ACC would know this, as does the Big Twelve. It makes the stakes higher with any attempted deal. 'Ya want me, ya gotta take so-and-so also, and keep talking more about more cash and promises while we keep thinking about it'.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 11:59 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1572
Could Bowlsby be chatting with Cincinatti, LA Tech, BYU, and UNLV? LA Tech, but not Tulane?

Here's a viewpoint (July 27th) from a Yahoo Contributor:

http://voices.yahoo.com/four-big-12-con ... tml?cat=14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 2:01 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1150
sec03 wrote:
Could Bowlsby be chatting with Cincinatti, LA Tech, BYU, and UNLV? LA Tech, but not Tulane?

Here's a viewpoint (July 27th) from a Yahoo Contributor:

http://voices.yahoo.com/four-big-12-con ... tml?cat=14" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


I'm not surprised by La Tech. They've been doing things there better than Tulane. And considering they were the eastern-most member of a west coast conference, their football attendance numbers are far better than what CUSA schools were posting.

Not a "big statey" by enrollment size, but still a public research university, like some of these conferences desire...

I wonder if BYU would try to "+1" for USU.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3247 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184 ... 217  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
 

 




Looking for College Sports apparel? Support our partner:








Support Our Partners: Search Engine Marketing - Search Engine Optimization - Search Engine Training - Online Marketing for Restuarants

Subway Map Shirts - Food and Travel

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group