NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Thu Aug 21, 2014 5:03 pm

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1028 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57 ... 69  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Sep 22, 2013 2:05 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1072
sec03 wrote:
The question is: are the GoRs' in the ACC and B12 going to get tested? I think so within a few years.


I think the Big XII is a goner. Ten schools, only three or four of which fit that standard profile of a "big flagship," and that small conference footprint...there is no way the networks look into this contract and find more money to throw at them when other conferences with at least 2-4 more schools start are fighting for the same thing. And, frankly, if the B1G, ACC, and SEC all saw a benefit for 14 (and maybe more), I'll trust their instincts for finding revenue streams more than a conference who basically needs to go on the defensive EVERY time the opportunity arises to defend themselves.

The problem is Baylor. Looking over the withdrawal procedures, there's that clause that opens up institutions to these damages...that's going to be Baylor's "ace up their sleeve." If you don't like the way things are going, sue 'em.

With the ACC, I just don't see the matters getting tested other than the conference network. I don't think you'll see UNC or UVA giving their souls away to a Michigan-centered conference, and until there's a sweeping overhaul in the administration at Florida State, FSU is an ACC'er for a good long while, even if they really are a SEC school. BC's the only school that looks like they could be a B1G target, but it's really only for the market and the hockey program...I doubt there's anything really going on there, other than self-preservation.

I don't think either conference endures as is for next twenty years, but I think the ACC survives and looks most like itself into the future. Too many of those schools so desperately wanted to be there...I think that's what keeps them with each other, mostly.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 23, 2013 10:25 am 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 10:45 am
Posts: 201
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
I think the Big XII is a goner.


I think most, if not all, would agree. The only question is where does each school go. The Texoma-4 will all find a home in a major conference. Kansas will find a home in a major conference. Then we're left with Iowa St, Kansas St, West Virginia, Baylor, and TCU. West Virginia is likely to find a home in the ACC, with the SEC as a deep long shot. Kansas St would probably go to the PAC if the PAC gets Kansas, but it's hard to believe the B1G would take both Kansas schools. I doubt the SEC would consider Kansas St. Too far west and the SEC already has the Kansas City market. Iowa St would fit in the footprint of the B1G and are AAU, but Iowa would "block" them and the B1G doesn't want schools already in states the B1G has presence. Plus what would they gain from two schools in Iowa? Baylor is usually decent to strong in basketball and is on the rise (as of late) in football, but being a private, religiously-affiliated school, they will have a hard time finding a major conference home. The only options would be the PAC (who will deny them) and the SEC (who will deny them as well). Baylor will probably end up in either the AAC or MWC. TCU will not be in the PAC because of its religious ties. The SEC would be a deep long stretch because it does clearly have the DFW market. The only issue is that the SEC already has Texas A&M. I see TCU either ending up in the AAC or the MWC again. The MWC would benefit from readding TCU and BYU, and maybe bring on Houston from the AAC.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 23, 2013 11:37 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1423
BePcr07 wrote:
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
I think the Big XII is a goner.


I think most, if not all, would agree. The only question is where does each school go. The Texoma-4 will all find a home in a major conference. Kansas will find a home in a major conference. Then we're left with Iowa St, Kansas St, West Virginia, Baylor, and TCU. West Virginia is likely to find a home in the ACC, with the SEC as a deep long shot. Kansas St would probably go to the PAC if the PAC gets Kansas, but it's hard to believe the B1G would take both Kansas schools. I doubt the SEC would consider Kansas St. Too far west and the SEC already has the Kansas City market. Iowa St would fit in the footprint of the B1G and are AAU, but Iowa would "block" them and the B1G doesn't want schools already in states the B1G has presence. Plus what would they gain from two schools in Iowa? Baylor is usually decent to strong in basketball and is on the rise (as of late) in football, but being a private, religiously-affiliated school, they will have a hard time finding a major conference home. The only options would be the PAC (who will deny them) and the SEC (who will deny them as well). Baylor will probably end up in either the AAC or MWC. TCU will not be in the PAC because of its religious ties. The SEC would be a deep long stretch because it does clearly have the DFW market. The only issue is that the SEC already has Texas A&M. I see TCU either ending up in the AAC or the MWC again. The MWC would benefit from readding TCU and BYU, and maybe bring on Houston from the AAC.


You laid it out pretty well but I'll add to you points.

Iowa State and Baylor are out of luck.

K State best hope is for the PAC18 to grab them along with Kansas or they're out of luck too.

WVU is likely ACC bound....eventually (may have to hang out in the frankenstien hybrid of the B12/AAC for a bit).

Texas/Oklahoma and Kansas will find homes PAC/B1G/SEC.

Tech/OkSU will likely find homes PAC w/2 UT/OU or SEC w/o (if the above three go to the B1G), the only way I see these schools getting cut out is if UT/OU go to the SEC then they'd be out of luck.

With the exception of the major players, the most interesting case has to be TCU. A&M help the SEC claim Houston along with LSU, but without UT/OU/TT/OSU the SEC is really not "in" DFW.

Assuming that they don't get any of the Texhoma 4, TCU may be a nice get for the SEC. I don't see them as a real candidate for any other conference, but the market straved SEC could really lay claim to Texas' 2 major markets, and along with Arkansas/LSU they could go toe to toe with the Texhoma 4 in coverage/market penetration.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 23, 2013 12:38 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1072
I see WVU finding a good spot should things south in the Big XII. Part of what kept them out of the ACC was UMD, who is no longer a part of that collective, and that WVU lost to Missouri for SEC spot #14 isn't saying anything bad for the 'Eers. I think a conference would take Missouri over WVU 10 out of 10 times. It's an easy choice. So, if there's expansion (or refilling) in the SEC, WVU would work.

I don't know if I like TCU's options so much. And part of what puts TCU in such a rough place are schools like South Carolina and Florida, who have to deal with potential strife in their home states when schools like Clemson and FSU get told they aren't worth it to the SEC, despite being these big public schools with big ADs and good bases, lose out to the small private school in Ft. Worth.

It's the same with Iowa State and the B1G. People think Iowa would instantly block them...Iowa's got allies in Ohio and PA with big schools who've been staved off by that whole "they add no additional value" excuse. All three of them would say "no."

The ACC might absorb a Texas school if it meant something favorable for the Longhorns or expanding the footprint for recruiting. I kind of think that makes it Rice, but who knows...maybe this is where TCU fits.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 23, 2013 6:28 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1535
I tend to agree with the last several posts.

It would be logical for the ACC to seek WVU as #16 after pressing ND to be #15 all-sports. But, I don't want to accuse the ACC of operating logically. The ACC adding WVU would make the conference contiguous again. Athletically and geographically, WVU would fit really well in the ACC.

Would the SEC take WVU? They have had two or three open opportunities to do so since 1990, and said no for what was seen as more preferred options. The SEC would want the 'ace jewel' choices, but if they thought they needed to expand again, I suppose it would depend on the acceptable options. The SEC has made it evident that it wants to 'enhance' its academic profile, and they achieved some of it during the last expansion. Just guessing here, in part, but top preferences would appear to be schools such as UNC and UVA in the east, or the University of Oklahoma and the University of Texas in the west. The one that may be most willing to come is the University of Oklahoma; but so far, Oklahoma State has been presented as a 'bring-along'. The SEC did not bite on this during the extended period when adding Texas A&M and Mizzou. To me, the PAC10 would have gained more by taking the Oklahoma duo. The SEC really wants into North Carolina, but not just anybody.
The ACC is not going to break in North Carolina and Virginia anytime soon. So, serious potential "backups", frequently mentioned, such as NC State and VPI (or VPI/WVU together) don't look feasible either. FSU and Clemson, maybe Miami if wanted, could be acceptable if the blocking stuff is reconsidered. Adding a school such as FSU, even within the footprint, could be better added value than adding schools more on the fringe and less SEC-looking from other shared markets.

The B1G could take Kansas if the B12 broke again. Maybe they would dip further down for Oklahoma and Texas. For Texas, I don't know what they would want to do geographically. Statements have been made they don't want to go west (PAC12); but if enough of their B12 brethern went along, that remains an option I expect.

I get the idea that the PAC12 wants to keep that "West Coast/Pacific" look, and some of the schools in the PAC12 are very reluctant to expand deeper in the country's interior. Yet, they don't see much value with adding some of the more western MWC schools.

There are not non-secular private schools in the PAC10, SEC, and the B1G. I suppose that could change; after all, the B1G has sought ND, but that's an exception and an identity that could be embraced more readily. I don't see TCU and Baylor as favorable picks with the other power conferences. Even the ACC, if they lost several in a future re-shuffling, could have options such as UConn, Cincy, Temple, USF, etc., before having to reach into Texas.

I can understand the ACC's GoR, because most of them seem to really want to hang together. Even FSU knows better options are not available right now. However, the B12 coming off an exodus of 4, and adding TCU and far-away WVU, look comparatively more as a conference of convenience, with some that would be desirable elsewhere, and others knowing they could only do worse. That's going to be conflict and the big barrier for movement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 23, 2013 7:23 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1072
I think the watershed moment between the ACC and ND would be who would it take for ND to finally park its football somewhere, and I think going into Texas for any of the current P5 schools in it or Rice or SMU (ok, no shot on those two) calls ND completely out on the key issues. The ACC would have the largest footprint in the country (doesn't it already?), and gives Notre Dame ALL it wants for recruiting, and offer the Irish an almost national schedule in just the conference alone. Boston to Miami, Chicago and Texas...if ND would still balk, would it be time to cut them loose?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2013 1:43 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm
Posts: 1705
This Notre Dame independence thing isn't driven by any logic relating to recruiting or something like that.

The adminstration was all set to have ND join the Big Ten in 1998, lock, stock, barrel, and football....
then a bunch of influential alum / boosters went berserk about "Notre Dame's Independence".

It's not rational, and it's not like ND can be "bought" into changing their position.

However, their AD Swarbick let it be known that if notre dame's insistence on independence would force Notre Dame to be relegated
to something other than the highest level of football, (i.e. left behind if the Power 5 move on), Notre Dame would change their positioin in a heartbeat.

I think they see the handwriting on the wall, that that day is coming, and they may "ease" their way into a full FB commitment to the ACC....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 8:00 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1072
tute79 wrote:
This Notre Dame independence thing isn't driven by any logic relating to recruiting or something like that.


It depends on the day, if you ask the fans. The whole "we play and recruit nationally" is very much about the rigidity of geographically-minded regional conference schedule and its impact on scheduling and recruiting. Even ND leadership has strongly defended the benefits of independence for those reasons.

Yet, where it concerns the Big Ten, it's on Fielding Yost. Where it concerned the Big East, it was parity and resource/facility disparity ("we can't play in New Brunswick!"). In the ACC, it's about "tradition."

I think Notre Dame is one of the most disingenuous programs in all of college athletics. That's why I think the ACC even adding one of the more "lowly" Texas programs would put the screws to the school, and that they'd have to drum up yet another excuse why it simply can't park its football into a conference...even if the conference footprint extends from the Atlantic to the western shores of the Gulf and past the Mississippi.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 11:01 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm
Posts: 1705
They are rather manipulitive schemers, I'll give you that.

I think they live up to their contractual obligations, but we all get so tired of their football program being so "special".
It's why so many of us root againt them and hope they suck, to further tarnish their "specialness".

We all owe Alabama a debt of gratitude for runnning them over in the NCG earlier this year.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:24 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1535
Notre Dame will play a maximum of home home games as much as anyone. And they do so-called neutral sites when the cooperation is there and the payout favors them.
There are Mountain West and Sunbelt schools that travel further than ND on average, though their locations may be less grand.
While tradition is a factor, it's about having control and not taking risks with the current money flow to them.
The media disproportionally features ND well beyond quite a number of schools that perform consistently better.

The only way to change the ND attitude is to stop the enabling. This means the power conferences.

The ACC line is that "Notre Dame is giving us 5 rotating fb games a year and play us in the other sports". Instead, the line should be, "why are we (the ACC) obligating our schools to rotate in giving ND 5 OOC games a year, while we graciously provide ND a prime home for their bb and other sports?"

It would cost some schools a bit in the short-run, but they would gain in the long run, if the other power-conferences said:

1. At the power 5 Commissioner meetings, stop including ND AD Swarbrick . If he wants representation, then he asks Mr. Swofford to do his bidding.
2. Don't enter into any new bowl agreements whereby ND is a prime option.
3. Don't schedule ND in football and some other sports as OOCs'. Let ND have their 5 ACC games, and fill in 7 games with Navy, UNLV, BYU, etc., those outside of the other power 4.
Schools such at USC, Michigan State, and Stanford that may refuse to cooperate, let them know also, they too could pay a certain price.
4. Complain to the sports media about the promotion of one school above all others.
5. Have more of the Spurrier and Coach 'K' types speak their minds. More from within the ACC would be even better.
6. No more special cuts of post-season revenue for Notre Dame, particularly when they don't make it. The payout would be the same as if Army got into the playoffs. No ranking promises either, that would not be given to another independent.
7. Pressure NBC where possible.

Of course, the major conferences have to be legal about all this. But coming down on individual schools and conferences is nothing new. The mindset of seeing ND in 'awe' needs to stop unless it is from the FCS or lower. For someone such as Clemson fb coach Dabo Swinney, with the number 3 or 4 currently ranked team, viewing playing future games with ND as fascinating and awesome, is part of the enabling problem. If Dabo checked back some years, he could note Clemson has beaten ND before at South Bend. Better to treat one as a peer than as superior in the power game.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 8:01 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1423
The problem is people care about the name, ND, Texas, tOSU, Bama, USC, Georgia, Neb, Oklahoma, South Carolina, UNC, FSU, LSU, Miami, Oregon, Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin, VA Tech, Arkansas, PSU, UCLA, West Virginia, Washington, and Tennessee (even still)

If you see one of those on the schedule it is cool. (I'm a Texas fan and I love that we're playing ND, tOSU, and USC over the next few years).

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 6:50 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1072
sec03 wrote:
3. ... Schools such at USC, Michigan State, and Stanford that may refuse to cooperate, let them know also, they too could pay a certain price.


Team ND 1, The Field 0.

Quote:
"We recently learned from Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott that the complications associated with coordinating a nonconference football schedule for 24 teams across two conferences proved to be too difficult. Those complications, among other things, included the Pac-12's nine-game conference schedule and previous nonconference commitments.(")


USC derailed B1G-PAC because of the Notre Dame game, and Stanford was said to be against it, too, and the B1G was more than fine airing out that it wasn't the Big Ten side who couldn't make this work.

A weak conference opens its arms for useless olympic sports and a more than favorable football arrangement for the interloper. Another but only less weak conference walks away from an arrangement that would have likely added millions per team just because of mainly one school's grip on the conference.

You have the entire ACC, Michigan State, Purdue, Navy, BYU, USC, Stanford, and Texas all willing to go to bat for their games with the Irish (if not envy the model). I'm not entirely sure what leverage the nay-sayers have, though I agree with the idea.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 9:50 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1423
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
A weak conference opens its arms for useless olympic sports and a more than favorable football arrangement for the interloper. Another but only less weak conference walks away from an arrangement that would have likely added millions per team just because of mainly one school's grip on the conference.

You have the entire ACC, Michigan State, Purdue, Navy, BYU, USC, Stanford, and Texas all willing to go to bat for their games with the Irish (if not envy the model). I'm not entirely sure what leverage the nay-sayers have, though I agree with the idea.


To be fair,

Navy/BYU don't count in the "lock them out of big time games" since neither are in an AQ conference.

Purdue and Michigan State supposedly (by most accounts) were willing to sell the Irish game for an annual PAC12 matchup.

Texas (who first off isn't in the B1G or PAC) only has a home and home scheduled with the Irish in 2015/16 and 2 neutral site matchups in 2019(in Texas but TBD DFW/Hou/SA)/2020 (Chicago) and nothing more as of yet (though much has been rumored) but they've only ever played 10 times before these matchups (mostly through bowls) so they also shouldn't be in this conversation...

The enablers are clearly the ACC and USC/Stanford.

For those who want the Irish to join a conference, the other major conferences need to cut the Irish out of the post season conversation and make them communicate through the ACC (thus giving the ACC more control over the Irish and taking away their influence at these meetings).

Then we need to see the PAC12 go to 16, and the ACC to get raided for at least UNC possibly by the SEC meaning they'd be at 16, and with everyone at 16 obviously the B1G will also be expanding so they just need to grab a 15th members (KU/UVA) and offer ND its final chance to join the conference because when all this happens (around 2025 or so) the GOR would have to be up and so will the new bowl/post season agreements. If ND thinks they may be finally getting cut out of the process, then clearly they would have to end their independent streak and join up with either the B1G or the ACC once and for all. But they'll hold onto it until then so I wouldn't expect any changes for at least the next 10 years.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 27, 2013 12:45 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1072
tkalmus wrote:
To be fair,

Navy/BYU don't count in the "lock them out of big time games" since neither are in an AQ conference.

Purdue and Michigan State supposedly (by most accounts) were willing to sell the Irish game for an annual PAC12 matchup.

Texas (who first off isn't in the B1G or PAC) only has a home and home scheduled with the Irish in 2015/16 and 2 neutral site matchups in 2019(in Texas but TBD DFW/Hou/SA)/2020 (Chicago) and nothing more as of yet (though much has been rumored) but they've only ever played 10 times before these matchups (mostly through bowls) so they also shouldn't be in this conversation...

The enablers are clearly the ACC and USC/Stanford.

For those who want the Irish to join a conference, the other major conferences need to cut the Irish out of the post season conversation and make them communicate through the ACC (thus giving the ACC more control over the Irish and taking away their influence at these meetings).

Then we need to see the PAC12 go to 16, and the ACC to get raided for at least UNC possibly by the SEC meaning they'd be at 16, and with everyone at 16 obviously the B1G will also be expanding so they just need to grab a 15th members (KU/UVA) and offer ND its final chance to join the conference because when all this happens (around 2025 or so) the GOR would have to be up and so will the new bowl/post season agreements. If ND thinks they may be finally getting cut out of the process, then clearly they would have to end their independent streak and join up with either the B1G or the ACC once and for all. But they'll hold onto it until then so I wouldn't expect any changes for at least the next 10 years.


I don't think BYU and Navy's place is overstated in the big picture, though. Both could be major conference members if they wanted to (Navy chooses not to, having avoided the Big East for decades, and BYU runs on a "PAC or bust" philosophy). But, more relevant to Notre Dame: being independents, it resolves scheduling conflicts where they exist when running up against more restrictive conference scheduling (ie: why Notre Dame's Big Ten games are always in the first few weeks of the season, unlike USC, Stanford, Pitt, or BC). Army's just as much of an enabler.

I added Texas because they wanted what Notre Dame got from the ACC, and may still currently desire it. A school like Texas trying to copy the model of Notre Dame is as destructive toward the cause of "reigning in the Irish" as the ACC and the two PAC schools because of the "stroke" Texas has as a national program and within the Big XII (and the Big XII is now a lot more flexible with non-conference scheduling at ten than it was when twelve).

The scheduling issues for indepdents, Notre Dame included, are weeks 6-11, deeper in the conference season. Given a willing crew of various independents, the ACC, and the PAC duo, the Irish really have no reason to budge. With the flexibilities of the Big XII, including their campaign for Notre Dame in an associate membership agreement, I think they, too, can feed into what the Irish desire.

And what about the bowls? Any bowl will probably find a way to fit the Irish in. They're covered in the ACC now, and most believe some of those games the Irish will never see even if 6-6. They just get all the breaks...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 27, 2013 1:47 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:26 pm
Posts: 388
No championship bowls for independents


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1028 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57 ... 69  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