NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Thu Jul 24, 2014 9:12 am

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3060 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186 ... 204  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Sep 30, 2013 11:57 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1406
hendu1976fl wrote:
It is great to read what some of you have written, whether it be in the SEC, Big 12 or the Big 10 forums. I am feeling a little depressed tonight, my UCF Knights lost a tough one to South Carolina this afternoon.

My first question is whether or not UCF has a chance at getting into the conference expansion conversation? I think if there are 5 conferences of 16 teams or more, I think we have a chance with either the ACC or the Big 12. Do you agree?

But if there are only 4 conferencs of 20 teams, I am not certain. In my opinion, UCF is better than a lot of teams that would be included in those 4 conferences (I am talking about football success here). We are talking about 80 teams. UCF is certainly better than a lot of teams when we are talking about 80 schools. We are in a relatively large market with an incredibly fertile recruiting ground. We have a huge enrollment in a college football crazy state, the average age of a UCF alumni is 35. The amount of money from alumni contributions is only going to grow over the next 20 years or so.

Tkalmsu, SEC, Bishon Cutter, fighting Muskie, and so many of the other great posters on this site, should I be worried about the future of my Knights? Don't sugar coat it for me.

1st, congrats on such a great coming out season in the AAC. Most of us here have been in favor of the Big East adding UCF for a long time now, and yall are living up to most of our expectations.

As far as UCF's chance go it depends on the setup of the next round it all comes down to the ACC/FSU/Miami.

Most of us (including me) think the Big 12 won't survive the next round leaving the ACC "in" the new system, however the ACC will not hold its current configuration either.

If the Big Ten and SEC add FSU and Miami then I think there is a very good shot that USF/UCF may be added to the new ACC. If just FSU is poached then I think its unlikely that USF makes it in, and even less likely that UCF does unless yall have a Boise St type decade between now and then.

As a UCF fan you should be rooting for the Big 12 to get servely raided (UT/TT/OU/OSU/KU/WVU) and for the ACC to lose FSU and Miami, and for the conference to expand past 16 (18 or 20).

PAC12 + UT/TT/OU/OSU/KU/KSU
SEC + FSU/Miami/UNC/Duke
B1G + ND/BC/UVA/GT
ACC +WVU/UConn/Cincy/USF/UCF/Temple/UMass

I know it seems weird to root for teams to leave a conference you want to join but unless, UNC/UVA/FSU leave there is almost no chance that UCF will get invited.

That being said, its a 100 to 1 longshot for sure, but who knows many of us didn't see Rutgers as a B1G Ten schools either. But the more UCF invests in growing its athletics and academics the better chance it in about 10 years from now.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 30, 2013 12:41 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 10:45 am
Posts: 189
tkalmus wrote:
PAC12 + UT/TT/OU/OSU/KU/KSU
SEC + FSU/Miami/UNC/Duke
B1G + ND/BC/UVA/GT
ACC +WVU/UConn/Cincy/USF/UCF/Temple/UMass


I think it's all but guaranteed that if/when the XII goes under that Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma St are going to the PAC. Kansas and Kansas St? That's bit tougher of a prediction assuming that Kansas may rather be in the B1G. Kansas St will only go to the PAC if Kansas also goes, but Kansas St will not be invited to the B1G.

The SEC adding both Florida St and Miami? I know there's bad blood between the conferences and those schools, but I see that one (not both) will eventually wiggle their way into the SEC. My money would be on Miami. Opposite side of the state from Florida, great tradition, and strong football/basketball.

Same with North Carolina and Duke. If any conference is going to take both, it'll be the B1G. I know the SEC would like to add North Carolina, but not with Duke. Stadium is too small, attendance is sub-par, and football is not their primary sport.

I would rather see Notre Dame football go to the ACC for various reasons, but one being that I don't like the idea of three Indiana schools in the B1G. Might as well write off Purdue/Indiana recruiting (not like there was much to begin with, but still...). Boston College is a good prospect, as well as Virginia and Georgia Tech (but only they can squeeze North Carolina.

The ACC would be too weak and unimportant in this scenario: West Virginia, Cincinnati, Connecticut, South Florida, Central Florida, Temple, Massachusetts, Clemson, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest, North Carolina St, Louisville, Syracuse, and Pittsburgh. I just don't know if I could call the ACC a "power" conference with this line-up.

All that being said, the point above was valid in that Central Florida would need a lot of help to make a power conference.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 30, 2013 1:00 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1040
You might be asking the wrong guy where it concerns UCF, because, along with USF, I thought they were the two top beneficiaries of the political acrimony among that Big East cluster. Who knows where UCF would be if Miami never left the Big East, or if WVU and Louisville didn't have a big stick up their butts about Memphis and ECU.

Still, it helps that UCF is big, has its own stadium, has the right kind of money going through it (Disney!), has come a long way, has the right market, good recruiting region, and, most important to them, is now at the same level as USF.

I don't know how much more time the Big XII walks the earth, but I think that's the only conference UCF can gain entry. Still, with the prior relationship and support between WVU and USF, I don't know where it puts the Knights on that list of candidates. I still think the schools that help keep the conference together are the flagships, landgrants, or elite academic/service schools still out there. Beyond that, maybe work whatever magic one can with BYU and any other programs that want to splinter into a better conference? UCF seems ripe for that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 30, 2013 8:41 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1512
BePcr07 wrote:


The SEC adding both Florida St and Miami? I know there's bad blood between the conferences and those schools,....

I would rather see Notre Dame football go to the ACC for various reasons, but one being that I don't like the idea of three Indiana schools in the B1G. [/quote]
______________

A couple of interesting comments there, BePcr.

The SEC was in discussions with both FSU & Miami around the 1990 period. FSU opted for the ACC. The, then, SEC Commish when he visited Miami, did not find mutual interests emerging, with certain compatability questions, and Miami committed to the BE. It's been nearly two and half decades ago, but there are still some that have not forgotten.

On the second line, that has some very dated history to it. A number of years back, and it was not from the Internet, I read a piece that Indiana University came very close to being an SEC member. I am trying to remember if it was when the SEC formed or was doing early expansion; OR, if it pertained to the time period when Michigan led the effort to not include Notre Dame in the Big Ten. I would assume that having three State of Indiana schools in the Big Ten would have been a part of the discussion then, and not everyone would have liked it beyond Michigan's leading effort against it. Indiana University is further south than Purdue and ND, as well as other Big Ten schools of the time. I tend to think it related to the later scenario, but I could be mistaken. Again, what all transpired then was so very long ago.
______________

Hendu, the financial divide between the earnings of the AAC and the so-called power 5 conferences is so wide, and it looks as if it shall get even wider if a new division develops, and as new TV networks develop and other TV contracts become re-negotiated along with the ever changing criteria for playoffs/bowl placements. That's troubling for the conferences that would fall below the upper bigtime line. I think the AAC, along with a new name and structure, could continue to be receiving less than they are actually worth for some time ahead. Several of those schools in the AAC, including UCF, could hang well with many in the 'bigger time', if given the opportunities of access. Certainly, UCF is one of those schools that could advance into another conference association if expansion/re-alignments takes a certain direction. Something could happen as it relates to future B12 changes, but predicting is too open-ended right now, given the unsettling variables. It's easier to have confidence in what shall not happen, as opposed to stating how matters shall unfold.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 30, 2013 11:14 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1406
sec03 covered what I'm leaving out so well that I have have nothing else to add on those points but for these...

BePcr07 wrote:
I think it's all but guaranteed that if/when the XII goes under that Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma St are going to the PAC. Kansas and Kansas St? That's bit tougher of a prediction assuming that Kansas may rather be in the B1G. Kansas St will only go to the PAC if Kansas also goes, but Kansas St will not be invited to the B1G.

Kansas if offered a PAC18 spot w/ KSU would have to take it. Its not even an option for them to say "No thank you, we'll leave KSU out of the major conferences and join the Big Ten." Take my word, it wouldn't happen.

You're right on KSU only getting an invite if KU comes along which is why I included them in the 100 to 1 scenario.

BePcr07 wrote:
Same with North Carolina and Duke. If any conference is going to take both, it'll be the B1G. I know the SEC would like to add North Carolina, but not with Duke. Stadium is too small, attendance is sub-par, and football is not their primary sport.

The SEC was (from most reports) going to take Duke if the Big Ten got UVA (in addition to MD).

Take with it what you will but UNC/Duke moves the needle in bball which is one of the few areas the SEC is somewhat lacking. But if adding Duke got you UNC, the SEC would do it (plus on a smaller scale of importance, it allow Mizzou to join the West).

BePcr07 wrote:
All that being said, the point above was valid in that Central Florida would need a lot of help to make a power conference.

Good discussions, but yeah that line up was strictly what would need to happen to get UCF an invite to the BCS/AQ/WTF you wanna call it/Power 4 party which I put out as 100 to 1 meaning very VERY unlikely (as you as pointed out) but still technically possible as sec03 and I just laid out which is why I didn't say 1000 to 1.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 11:49 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 10:30 am
Posts: 1368
Location: Baltimore, MD
Yes, it's too bad about UCF. They have plenty of credentials and potential, but it looks like they are stuck in that AAC mess for the forseeable future.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 12:02 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1512
Appreciate the comments, tkalmus.

I see where Texas AD, DeLoss Dodds has announced he'll be retiring. This is in addition to the on-going pressure on Mac Brown. The two circumstances may not be directly related.

So, Texas shall be having multiple personnel changes. Texas shall seek to maintain their top revenue stream, yet they have to be assessing if the current B12 situation is best for them in the long-run. I wonder if ESPN's investment with the LHN shall be sustained. That's so much programming to fill based on one school, though they have tried to branch into some level of auxiliary coverage that serves the basic objective.

Does the B12 really offer Texas what it needs in terms of future high profile games? While the Oklahoma rivalry is marquee, and OSU has been appreciable competition; the in-state competition with TTU, Baylor, and TCU doesn't generally match the greater interest that was shown in the long series with T A&M (and valued games with UN & Mizzou, when ranked, showed decent national appeal). However though, TTU, Balyor, and TCU are showing ranked success. Many talk about Texas being a big winner in the current B12 configuration due to protection mechanisms of their financial assets. However, I believe the biggest winners in all this are TTU, Balyor, and TCU----not because they draw revenue on the level Texas does (which they don't), but because another situation would offer them so much less.
ISU, KSU, OSU, and KU for the most part, are also thankful they remain in the more northern reaches of this power conference with a rivalry group, given that greater options have not been presented. And WVU, despite the travel and geographic isolation, knows it's the best situation available to them for now.

I have to believe there are basically only three schools in the B12 that can produce a real game changer. Texas and Oklahoma are the obvious two. Kansas is the third, particularly as it would most impact the northern tier of the conference.
If WVU would leave, the B12 may not care that much because of their location. Others, outside Tx, OU, and KU, initiating leaving on their own, just would not happen.

Impressive OOC scheduling has been an option, but what's available in-conference is a sticking label. Granted, the B12 has some very fine schools that are athletically successful in multiple dimensions. But does Texas, and a couple of others, see this "collection" as whom they most want to play in multiple sports, year in and year out?
Again, there are at least 3 that may have the opportunity to ponder the question, seriously, down the road.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 10:43 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 10:45 am
Posts: 189
The big prizes are clearly Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas (who all have their sister schools wanting to tag-along: Texas Tech, Oklahoma St, and Kansas St - respectively). West Virginia would also be a "minor prize" to the ACC as they would re-bridge the ACC and reignite a couple rivalries. Iowa St, TCU, and Baylor are the loners who would fight for an extension of the GoR (Baylor especially) and they would also probably be the most active in recruiting for expansion to 12. They know a CCG would boost the money, and as long as the money is big for Texas, what do they care? They crave a power conference home.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 10:50 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1040
sec03 wrote:
Impressive OOC scheduling has been an option, but what's available in-conference is a sticking label.


True, but where inter-conference rivalries reside (think the Notre Dame games and the ACC-SEC rivalries), it's added substance for both conferences. The Big XII has had a way of burning a lot of bridges with programs now outside of the conference though once within. The sort of "spite" that emerges once splitting company, it's been really bad on the Big XII. UT-TAMU, OU-UNL, KU-MU, Pitt-WVU, TCU-Utah/BYU...the only things going for the conference on a yearly basis are games like ISU-Iowa.

A lot of the lost games above would only add to the value and perception of the conference. Maintaining tradition like that, I don't know if it ever gets Arkansas back with that cluster like they wanted, but maybe maintaining some of them, or allowing a lot more freedom with scheduling could have been enough to extract an ACC school. Like, if the Big XII would have given FSU a green light to secure Miami and UF on their respective calendar spots, which I don't think the Big XII offered, maybe THAT could have secured them.

This conference needs another school like Kansas or West Virginia in order to survive. I think it's something only BYU can really fill of what's out there, but there seems to be no interest or motivation to make it happen.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 10:58 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:14 pm
Posts: 1003
Location: Ciales-Manatí-Bayamón, Puerto Rico
Should West Virginia join the ACC, the Mountaineers and revive several rivalries from their old Big East days, like Pittsburgh and their Backyard Brawl, or with Syracuse or Boston College, Miami and Virginia Tech, and possibly Notre Dame.

_________________
Florida State Seminoles fan for life (mostly on football, basketball and baseball)! 2013 ACC football Atlantic Division champions; 2013 ACC football regular season champions; 2013 ACC football conference bowl tournament champions; 2014 NCAA D-I FBS BCS national champions!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 11:22 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1406
ncaanopaawaa2000 wrote:
Should West Virginia join the ACC, the Mountaineers and revive several rivalries from their old Big East days, like Pittsburgh and their Backyard Brawl, or with Syracuse or Boston College, Miami and Virginia Tech, and possibly Notre Dame.

Sure, I'd let them go if I was in charge, but I'm not and they can't until 2025 assuming they have an invite.

The Bishin Cutter wrote:
sec03 wrote:
Impressive OOC scheduling has been an option, but what's available in-conference is a sticking label.


True, but where inter-conference rivalries reside (think the Notre Dame games and the ACC-SEC rivalries), it's added substance for both conferences. The Big XII has had a way of burning a lot of bridges with programs now outside of the conference though once within. The sort of "spite" that emerges once splitting company, it's been really bad on the Big XII. UT-TAMU, OU-UNL, KU-MU, Pitt-WVU, TCU-Utah/BYU...the only things going for the conference on a yearly basis are games like ISU-Iowa.


You have a valid point but, A&M and Mizzou screwed over the conference, and both Texas and Kansas said if you leave its over and they did after both pledging their loyalty to the conference less than a year before. And before any start the LHN stuff, that was clearly jst an excuse as FOIA showed that A&M never stopped talking to the SEC, even on the day they made their loyalty pledge. Mizzou didn't have to leave even then, the SEC could have taken WVU, but after everyone running their mouths off about the Big Ten a year before they really REALLY wanted to save face and get out of dodge.

A&M was easily replaced by TCU (not saying its the same, just that they filled right in with no issues) but Mizzou really put the Big 12 in a bind, with no other realistic candidates nearby (Lville, WVU, BYU). So to say that the Big 12 burned those bridges is disengenuous a best when it was really A&M/Mizzou burning the bridges.

And BTW I don't think OU/NU are the same as UT/A&M or KU/MU, most would be in favor of OU/NU being an annual game again but I think Nebraska is trying to distance its self from the Big 12. I don't think many Big 12 fans hold much of a grudge against them (though they were the one's who opened the floodgates) because Colorado was likely gone at that point anyways.

O and TCU/UTah or TCU/BYU or TCU/BSU was never really a rivalry, they were just all dominate programs in the same conference, it takes more than that to really classify it as a rivalry.

sec03 wrote:
Appreciate the comments, tkalmus.

I see where Texas AD, DeLoss Dodds has announced he'll be retiring. This is in addition to the on-going pressure on Mac Brown. The two circumstances may not be directly related.

So, Texas shall be having multiple personnel changes. Texas shall seek to maintain their top revenue stream, yet they have to be assessing if the current B12 situation is best for them in the long-run. I wonder if ESPN's investment with the LHN shall be sustained. That's so much programming to fill based on one school, though they have tried to branch into some level of auxiliary coverage that serves the basic objective.

Does the B12 really offer Texas what it needs in terms of future high profile games? While the Oklahoma rivalry is marquee, and OSU has been appreciable competition; the in-state competition with TTU, Baylor, and TCU doesn't generally match the greater interest that was shown in the long series with T A&M (and valued games with UN & Mizzou, when ranked, showed decent national appeal). However though, TTU, Balyor, and TCU are showing ranked success. Many talk about Texas being a big winner in the current B12 configuration due to protection mechanisms of their financial assets. However, I believe the biggest winners in all this are TTU, Balyor, and TCU----not because they draw revenue on the level Texas does (which they don't), but because another situation would offer them so much less.
ISU, KSU, OSU, and KU for the most part, are also thankful they remain in the more northern reaches of this power conference with a rivalry group, given that greater options have not been presented. And WVU, despite the travel and geographic isolation, knows it's the best situation available to them for now.

I have to believe there are basically only three schools in the B12 that can produce a real game changer. Texas and Oklahoma are the obvious two. Kansas is the third, particularly as it would most impact the northern tier of the conference.
If WVU would leave, the B12 may not care that much because of their location. Others, outside Tx, OU, and KU, initiating leaving on their own, just would not happen.

Impressive OOC scheduling has been an option, but what's available in-conference is a sticking label. Granted, the B12 has some very fine schools that are athletically successful in multiple dimensions. But does Texas, and a couple of others, see this "collection" as whom they most want to play in multiple sports, year in and year out?
Again, there are at least 3 that may have the opportunity to ponder the question, seriously, down the road.


I'm running late for a meeting but these are great points/questions that I'll address later today/tonight, but quickly let me just say that not only has UT's conference schedule gone downhill with the loss of the 4 former Big 12 schools, but also the loss of the divisional format is forcing UT to play KU/KSU/ISU/WVU every year instead of 2 out of 4 years. Its getting old quick, and while I would enjoy getting home/homes with KU every year (if our bball program could win again) most fans don't enjoy it. But I'll go into more detail later.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 2:39 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1040
tkalmus wrote:
And BTW I don't think OU/NU are the same as UT/A&M or KU/MU, most would be in favor of OU/NU being an annual game again but I think Nebraska is trying to distance its self from the Big 12. I don't think many Big 12 fans hold much of a grudge against them (though they were the one's who opened the floodgates) because Colorado was likely gone at that point anyways.

O and TCU/UTah or TCU/BYU or TCU/BSU was never really a rivalry, they were just all dominate programs in the same conference, it takes more than that to really classify it as a rivalry.


I think TCU-Utah was starting to become one. It was Utah's most attended home game in 2010 (outdrew the Holy War), second highest in '08 (still over capacity), and TCU's in '09 (nearly 6K over capacity).

All of the games had at least strong regional interest, even if they weren't all national. I don't care about the politics or fighting over who spited whom, it's just bad business to lose good games that should have been preserved. It's lost inventory that does have an impact on overall worth.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 4:02 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1512
The B12, by not expanding, may present itself as looking stable and secure, and a desire to not to risk upsetting the apple-cart. They note (as most do) that greater pie-splitting is not desired unless the added schools enhance net revenue for the existing members. But there is also a flip-side to the status-quo stance. Certain schools in the conference know they could be attractive to other power conferences. Therefore, for now, the plan is to accept the minimum needed, as is currently. Then perhaps, future departing opportunities, when desired, shall be less complicated in achieving. There's also the "wait-and-see" factor about the playoffs and if the super-division idea come to fruitation.

Who out there, outside the other power conferences, would bring added value in terms an appreciable mass of fans? And it would need to be a school with athletic pedigree. The obvious one is BYU.
While there are issues about compromise and flexibility concerning BYU; have the B12 and BYU really gotten serious in engaging with each other about B12 expansion? Obviously they have talked over many years at certain points including recent times. But have they really, really tried to work something out? I don't think neither the B12 or BYU have delivered a 100% all-out initiative for it. Last year and a little before when the BIG12 Commish, and Dodd, according to press commentaries, were trying to lure Notre Dame with a partial deal that went nowhere, I believe that was a strong signal to BYU that interest in the Cougars had waned.

What's left that's most plausible are the AAC and MWC types, and the geographic questions of whether to look east (Cincy and/or USF/UCF) or west (types such as UNM, CSU, SDSU) or both. Thus, if the B12 does expand by 2, or 4, or even 6, they need to figure out what direction. To me, the west has better possibilities for congruence. What's plausible in the east, would be another 'spread' but no major flagships or top private schools. There is no real geographic fix for WVU as an outpost.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 7:30 pm 
Offline
Sophomore
Sophomore

Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:01 pm
Posts: 59
tkalmus wrote:
hendu1976fl wrote:
It is great to read what some of you have written, whether it be in the SEC, Big 12 or the Big 10 forums. I am feeling a little depressed tonight, my UCF Knights lost a tough one to South Carolina this afternoon.

My first question is whether or not UCF has a chance at getting into the conference expansion conversation? I think if there are 5 conferences of 16 teams or more, I think we have a chance with either the ACC or the Big 12. Do you agree?

But if there are only 4 conferencs of 20 teams, I am not certain. In my opinion, UCF is better than a lot of teams that would be included in those 4 conferences (I am talking about football success here). We are talking about 80 teams. UCF is certainly better than a lot of teams when we are talking about 80 schools. We are in a relatively large market with an incredibly fertile recruiting ground. We have a huge enrollment in a college football crazy state, the average age of a UCF alumni is 35. The amount of money from alumni contributions is only going to grow over the next 20 years or so.

Tkalmsu, SEC, Bishon Cutter, fighting Muskie, and so many of the other great posters on this site, should I be worried about the future of my Knights? Don't sugar coat it for me.

1st, congrats on such a great coming out season in the AAC. Most of us here have been in favor of the Big East adding UCF for a long time now, and yall are living up to most of our expectations.

As far as UCF's chance go it depends on the setup of the next round it all comes down to the ACC/FSU/Miami.

Most of us (including me) think the Big 12 won't survive the next round leaving the ACC "in" the new system, however the ACC will not hold its current configuration either.

If the Big Ten and SEC add FSU and Miami then I think there is a very good shot that USF/UCF may be added to the new ACC. If just FSU is poached then I think its unlikely that USF makes it in, and even less likely that UCF does unless yall have a Boise St type decade between now and then.

As a UCF fan you should be rooting for the Big 12 to get servely raided (UT/TT/OU/OSU/KU/WVU) and for the ACC to lose FSU and Miami, and for the conference to expand past 16 (18 or 20).

PAC12 + UT/TT/OU/OSU/KU/KSU
SEC + FSU/Miami/UNC/Duke
B1G + ND/BC/UVA/GT
ACC +WVU/UConn/Cincy/USF/UCF/Temple/UMass

I know it seems weird to root for teams to leave a conference you want to join but unless, UNC/UVA/FSU leave there is almost no chance that UCF will get invited.

That being said, its a 100 to 1 longshot for sure, but who knows many of us didn't see Rutgers as a B1G Ten schools either. But the more UCF invests in growing its athletics and academics the better chance it in about 10 years from now.


Great insight tkalmus. While I don't disagree that we are probably a longshot, I don't see some of the expansion moves panning out the way you mentioned. I just don't see anyway the B1G goes after BC. From what I have read in several articles, Delaney wants to move south. Whether that be through the plains in an attempt to grab Kansas, OU and Texas, or somehow snake his way down the Atlantic seaboard.

Also, I don't see FSU and Miami in play for the SEC. From a football competition standpoint, expansion would be easy; grab FSU and Clemson and call it a day. But I don't see Slive doubling down in a state as small as South Carolina. Florida would use all of their political muscle to prevent FSU and Miami from joining the conference. I believe that FSU would have to be approved by 75% of the conference to gain admission. I know where Florida, South Carolina, Georgia, and Kentucky sit on that vote. How Texas A&M would vote is the key. But beyond that, it would be over saturation in a market the SEC already dominates. I agree with you 100% about North Carolina and Duke. Slive wants the BBall improved. Adding Duke and UNC accomplishes that. Florida, Kentucky, Duke and UNC sounds like a final 4 to me.

If expansion does continue, and there are 4 power conferences, what are your thoughts in terms of league numbers? 16-20 teams each? I can see the B1G and the SEC each with 20 teams. The Pac with either 16 or 18 teams, and the ACC with about 16 teams.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 8:02 pm 
Offline
Sophomore
Sophomore

Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:01 pm
Posts: 59
sec03 wrote:
The B12, by not expanding, may present itself as looking stable and secure, and a desire to not to risk upsetting the apple-cart. They note (as most do) that greater pie-splitting is not desired unless the added schools enhance net revenue for the existing members. But there is also a flip-side to the status-quo stance. Certain schools in the conference know they could be attractive to other power conferences. Therefore, for now, the plan is to accept the minimum needed, as is currently. Then perhaps, future departing opportunities, when desired, shall be less complicated in achieving. There's also the "wait-and-see" factor about the playoffs and if the super-division idea come to fruitation.

Who out there, outside the other power conferences, would bring added value in terms an appreciable mass of fans? And it would need to be a school with athletic pedigree. The obvious one is BYU.
While there are issues about compromise and flexibility concerning BYU; have the B12 and BYU really gotten serious in engaging with each other about B12 expansion? Obviously they have talked over many years at certain points including recent times. But have they really, really tried to work something out? I don't think neither the B12 or BYU have delivered a 100% all-out initiative for it. Last year and a little before when the BIG12 Commish, and Dodd, according to press commentaries, were trying to lure Notre Dame with a partial deal that went nowhere, I believe that was a strong signal to BYU that interest in the Cougars had waned.

What's left that's most plausible are the AAC and MWC types, and the geographic questions of whether to look east (Cincy and/or USF/UCF) or west (types such as UNM, CSU, SDSU) or both. Thus, if the B12 does expand by 2, or 4, or even 6, they need to figure out what direction. To me, the west has better possibilities for congruence. What's plausible in the east, would be another 'spread' but no major flagships or top private schools. There is no real geographic fix for WVU as an outpost.


SEC, thanks for the response earlier. As a kid I grew up on Big 8 and then Big 12 football. The problem I see for the Big 12 is that they really only have one place to recruit, and that is Texas. All due respect to Texas high school football, they produce a ton of top flight talent. But you already have 9 or 10 teams in your own conference recruiting the crap out of that state. The Arizona schools recruit Texas pretty hard, as well as several other Pac 12 schools. You also have to think some of the SEC schools are going to start recruiting Texas better. By adding CSU and NMU, that is just adding more mouths to feed from the same source. If I were the Big 12 I would want to expand east. Cincinnati would be a strong candidate- fertile recruiting ground, also helps bridge the gap for WVU, solid hoops. USF/UCF- recruiting, large tv markets, hoops- well, did I mention football recruiting.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3060 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186 ... 204  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jbb and 2 guests


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

Search for:
Jump to:  
 

 




Looking for College Sports apparel? Support our partner:








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

Subway Map Shirts - Food and Travel

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