NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Fri Oct 31, 2014 2:24 pm

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1064 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65 ... 71  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 7:41 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1130
sec03 wrote:
The SEC has had recent gurmblings of how they have now set-up basketball with 14 members.


...yet, they don't want to cut into the non-conference stuff, where they load up on fluff and never leave home?

I think some conferences are more than fine with being this massive collective of schools, but the SEC sometimes...just like UMD in the ACC, one of those older or original SEC members is going to split because things just get so out of hand...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 8:42 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1463
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
sec03 wrote:
The SEC has had recent gurmblings of how they have now set-up basketball with 14 members.


...yet, they don't want to cut into the non-conference stuff, where they load up on fluff and never leave home?

I think some conferences are more than fine with being this massive collective of schools, but the SEC sometimes...just like UMD in the ACC, one of those older or original SEC members is going to split because things just get so out of hand...

Nobody in the SEC is leaving for any other conference except possibly the B1G.

At least until everyone wises up and forms the football division without all the hangers on (like the rumors that Alabama/LSU/UF, tOSU/Mich, Texas/OU, USC/Oregon could all get to together and start their own invite only league) meaing no Wazzu/Utah, no Baylor/TCU, no Vandy/Miss St..

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 10:34 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1572
tkalmus wrote:
SEC + UNC and Duke
Big Ten + KU and UVA
PAC12 + Texhoma 4
ACC + NDfb, UConn, Cincy, WVU and ?Temple?


Good to point to this tkalmus.
Such may have been beyond a suggestion. Some version of this could, perceivably, be a pursuit. Months back, I believe something like this was on the table close to the later stage before the ACC's GoR initiative. Some respectable sports figures in the Carolinas and Georgia were floating the UNC/Duke to the SEC idea during that time period, perhaps to see what reaction happens (or the other incentive, maybe taking a chance to show how clever one could be at predicting).

There was also the impression that after Maryland announced its ACC departure, the B1G was seeking to move too fast and too deep into the ACC. The B1G leadership did not exactly discourage the speculation. It did trigger the ACC's defensive mode, and got the SEC into re-uping their own 'just in case' plan, with a couple of those schools of interest to both the B1G and the SEC. Meanwhile, the Big12 was hoping for nice left-over (but some of the very best fb types) picks in FSU, Clemson, and perhaps more. The FSU and Clemson rumors related to the B12 started before Maryland announced it was leaving. The evidence was weak though. All (B1G and company) this fell short of being a master plan; and if it really was a 'collective initiative' to pursue, the failed effort was poorly executed.

I can see those B12 schools potentially cooperating in the above format. As to ACC schools such as UVA and UNC moving, and separately at that, to the extreme ends of new host power conferences, seems so unrealistic. And, conceiving that ND would go all-sports in the ACC after schools such as UVA, UNC, and Duke left, is difficult to imagine.

The schools that hold the huge play cards to generate major movement: Texas, Oklahoma, UVA, UNC, FSU, Kansas, and Notre Dame. Some of those absolutely don't want to change...for now.

Perhaps the plan now is to create this super-division, and then shift within.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 1:16 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1572
This is something from an interesting perspective that reiterates views that are not uncommon. Though a bit dated from the last spring, it does cover some history of expansion events since 1991, if one scrolls down. The website is focused on the Southeastern Conference, but is not one that I have seen noticeably referenced. While I do not concur with certain predictions within the content, it is generally written well.

Saturday Morning Tailgate
April 12, 2013 by SEC (whomever that may be)

http://www.saturdaymorningtailgate.com/ ... f-the-sec/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 3:40 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 9:04 pm
Posts: 399
sec03 wrote:
This is something from an interesting perspective that reiterates views that are not uncommon. Though a bit dated from the last spring, it does cover some history of expansion events since 1991, if one scrolls down. The website is focused on the Southeastern Conference, but is not one that I have seen noticeably referenced. While I do not concur with certain predictions within the content, it is generally written well.

Saturday Morning Tailgate
April 12, 2013 by SEC (whomever that may be)

http://www.saturdaymorningtailgate.com/ ... f-the-sec/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


The writer obviously did not think highly of Louisville's value, had a low opinion of the SEC's appreciation for academics, saw the ACC's deal with Notre Dame for what it was, sees the ACC as falling apart with the B12 getting all the high-powered fb from there, and seemed to champion B1G initiatives. Gordon Gee would be proud of this blogger. If this is really a cheerleading source fond of the SEC, it's not the message SEC Presidents would seek to embrace. The projections were at the time when such rumors were abuzz. Also, the Maryland-ACC lawsuit was based on the exit fees (52 million) earlier adapted, but prior to the enacting of the GoR. It's not a GoR test directly, which could be a huge difference in implying the outcome would set a pattern for any potential, near future ACC defections.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 7:50 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1463
sec03 wrote:
This is something from an interesting perspective that reiterates views that are not uncommon. Though a bit dated from the last spring, it does cover some history of expansion events since 1991, if one scrolls down. The website is focused on the Southeastern Conference, but is not one that I have seen noticeably referenced. While I do not concur with certain predictions within the content, it is generally written well.

Saturday Morning Tailgate
April 12, 2013 by SEC (whomever that may be)

http://www.saturdaymorningtailgate.com/ ... f-the-sec/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good read, other than the unsubstantiated Texas blame (which is par for the course ;) ) but lol at these points...

Quote:
Texas - subject to the KFGSCTA the Horns will never be voted in the SEC.

If Texas said they'd join tomorrow, A&M couldn't do a damned thing to stop them as political pressure (our next Gov is likely a Longhorn, Greg Abbott, and the UT/Tech/Baylor/TCU voting bloc could easily defund the crap out of A&M if they wanted to play hard ball) from the state and Texas A&M alums would even demand it to restart the rivalry. Plus they'd love to forever claim that UT "followed" them as someone else state on the Big Ten board...if anything the argument against Texas ever joining the SEC is the fact that we have 3 tag-a-longs now which would be hard to just ditch w/o bringing at least Tech along (which is a non-starter) and below...

Quote:
The Academic Rule, or Lack There of in the SEC: The academics of the SEC does not match the standards of the following institutions:

University of North Carolina - The academics of the Southeastern Conference does not fit the University of North Carolina standards.
Duke University - The academics of the SEC does not fit the Blue Devil’s standards.
Wake Forest - The academic prowess of the SEC does not fit Wake’s standards.
University of Virginia – The academic prowess of the Southeastern Conference does not fit the standards of the University of Virginia.

I lol'd at UNC/Duke (who according to reports already wanted to join the SEC after MD left) and literally almost died when I saw Wake on the list. Seriously, Wake Forest knows they are screwed and aren't going anywhere better unless somehow they squeeze into his version of the new Big 12 if the SEC came calling they'd jump in a heartbeat.

Virgina might be the only one on that list that's true. I do think UVA is more of an Big Ten type school than the SEC as most of the urban/sububan areas in VA have been trending towards a more Northern demo, and away from their Southern roots (ironically WV has been doing the opposite over the last 100 years, was Northern now seems more Southern).

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 2:56 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1572
I started to elaborate earlier on the post, but decided to wait. The above couple of posts mentioned a number of points from the content that I also found questionable and odd.

Tkalmus, I had not heard anything before that the SEC would blackball Texas if the school sought SEC membership. Granted, the SEC being now in the State of Texas, with Texas A&M, may have already met a basic need to be there, and thus the desire to pursue the Longhorns could now be less of a strategic objective; I have not seen elsewhere any indication some SEC grouping, inclusive of Texas A&M, has some unspoken agreement to exclude Texas if such became a future possibility. That would be stupid on the SEC's part, given the worth of Texas in comparison to the limited number of schools that could be given serious consideration. If looking west, I cannot see the SEC being interesting in anybody outside OU, Texas, and maybe OSU if options were very narrow and some even number balance was seen as a must.

The unspoken group was led by the Presidents of Florida and South Carolina, and it mainly had to do with considering FSU and Clemson at the time when the SEC was expanding to #13 and then #14, knowing at least Texas A&M was the prime target. The conference had to say something why they were not expanding with in-footprint schools. I suppose the thought could be carried to include all of FSU, Clemson, GT, Miami, and Louisville. At the time, Louisville was not even in the ACC, and really not of any interest to the SEC. The blogger took liberties to include Texas with the mix based on a stance that was exercised earlier.

There's enough evidence that the SEC was in serious talks with UNC and this has gone on at varying levels in previous years. The combination with Duke was allegedly put on the table last year or so by the SEC in case further B1G expansion efforts forced UNC and company to act. UNC and certain brethern wanted to solidify the ACC instead. But the real point is UNC/Duke did not leave for either the B1G or SEC, so to really know what could have happened then, all would have needed to play out.

The blogger talks about UVA was anxious to move to the B1G. Yeah, they wanted the revenue stream the B1G offers; what school would not? But what was publically conveyed by UVA administrators, was that ACC competition was their preference, and they were committed to seeing the newly expanded ACC successful, with UVA included. Whatever the reality, UVA was suggested as the next school, after Maryland, the B1G was hoping to lure, but UVA decided to remain in the ACC.

Georgia Tech may have not been bonded to the ACC as much as certain North Carolina and Virginia schools. The B1G's interest in GT may have been conditioned on a couple of other ACC schools moving first. GT was also hearing vibes that UGA could cancel their rivalry if GT left for the B1G.

I believe the blogger is correct in saying NCSU wanted to get out of the pressing shadow of UNC (w/Duke). But NCSU is under the governance of the University of North Carolina State System of Higher Education. I doubt NCSU can leave for the SEC on their own.

With all the political effort to get VPI into the ACC in 2003, and their decent, geographic centrality to the conference, their motive to leave could largely depend on others leaving.

Wake Forest's interests are so tied to UNC, Duke, etc. The SEC would not pursue WFU, and it's not about some misguided thinking that Wake is too academic. Wake's fan base is too small; their fb stadium is around 33,000 and often shows lower numbers; and their competitiveness in certain sports other than basketball, don't match SEC preferred standards. The value of even Duke for the SEC would directly tie to UNC coming, their lofty academic reputation, and the fact Duke is one of the nation's top bb programs. Otherwise, Duke displays some of the same characteristics as does Wake, who often does a little better at fb than Duke.

If this super-conference division happens, and there are agreements to change within after being established, then I suppose shifts could result. But those GoR commitments may stick in both the B12 and the ACC. Short of a very difficult mass action by one of the conferences involved to lift it, I don't see any opportunity to open it up for major movement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 12:00 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1572
Here is an Oct. 18, 2013 article (Bret Martell, AP) from the Athens Banner-Herald with comments from some SEC coaches & ADs' regarding the expansion additions of Texas A&M and Missouri. Conference personnel sound pleased with the additions. As indicated before, there have been certain concerns about logistics and scheduling.

http://onlineathens.com/sports/college- ... -expansion

_____________________
Fourteen members appears to be 'workable' generally, but not with complete satisfaction. The new SEC model with basketball is a more radical change than what has happened in fb. If sixteen eventually happens, depending on where the new additions would come from, the divisions may end up looking more concise for new, modified scheduling decisions for designated sports. But growth can also further limit cross-divisional play which seems important for retaining certain rivalries and congruence. I expect the SEC, for fb, will eventually adapt 9 conference games a season, particularly if two more end up being added. So far, I believe those schools with annual OOC, but in-state, rivalry games have discouraged, in part, the conference from immediately adapting the 9-game conference model. A school such as Alabama, favors the 9 game model, but 'Bama does not have permanent rivalry games that are OOC. One way to resolve it is for the conference to adapt the 9-model, but insist each member must play at least one opponent from another power-5, regular or otherwise, each season. That would leave two games to schedule whomever, but may discourage other potential, uncommon OOC marquee games from being scheduled. But it could also remove the 3 or 4 cupcakes from being scheduled by some schools to enhance their win records and assure bowl and ranking-related objectives.
The B1G agreed to drop FCS schools in fb scheduling. I doubt the SEC is ready to do that, not entirely because they are mostly easier opponents, but because at some places, the expectations are still there.
Non-power 5 FBS and FCS schools are going to continue feeling the growing financial crunch. This will become one of the factors as the major conferences gravitate to the super-division idea.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 29, 2013 12:58 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1572
Article pertaining to SEC realignment from the Kansas City Star (Blair Kerkhoff, 11/28/2013).

http://www.kansascity.com/2013/11/28/46 ... uding.html" A quote in the article:

"We wanted them to earn their keep, to come in and be the bottom teams for a while,” said Bubba Bonds, an Oxford native who lives in Nashville, Tenn. “I assure you, Mississippi State or Kentucky are wishing Missouri and Texas A&M would have come in 0-8 in the SEC, so there are a lot of fans who resent them because they’ve had success so early.”
...............................
A very good summary as to the main idea and points, but suggest finding a higher diversity around the conference when it comes to soliciting fan quotes. Bubba would know by now Hail State beat Ole Miss last night. Blair rightly did point out Ole Miss has never won the SEC-west, which indicates frequent struggles in competition within the SEC are not limited to just a couple of schools, and showing some perceptual denial does happen.

Once a school joins and is in full conference play, nobody signs-on to a probationary period of promising conference opponents assured wins. Resentment does occur though, such as the first season Penn State joined the B10, and that was not limited to fans.

A conference's power sources and their sponsoring network(s), don't wish to see new members come in and deliver 0-8 seasons for awhile. Such would question the sensibilities of those who made the decisions to expand, weaken the conference's power ratings/strength of schedule factors, and detract from a financial investment.

Really, a fan from wherever, may want to have expectations that one's school enhances their winning and positioning, rather than have the expectation one's school performance pattern stays relatively the same, and new members join under that level.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 1:10 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 9:04 pm
Posts: 399
Article from the Lexington Herald-Leader (12/02/2013 by Mark Story) providing a view pertaining to the University of Kentucky fb as to how SEC expansion since 1992 has impacted:

http://www.kentucky.com/2013/12/02/2966 ... to-be.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 10, 2013 12:33 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1572
There's been much discussion on the merits of not having the structured CCG and the unpreferred conference expansion required to have it: a prime B12 subject item. Others, such as Notre Dame in particular, are external to the CCG format as well.

But among those who have it, and expanded-plus to enhance it, what are some of the newer thoughts surrounding such?

Here's a piece from the designation termed 'The Official Site of the Southeastern Conference' (SEC Digital Network).
Article: Southeastern Conference: Gold Standard; update 12/06/2013; Sean Cartell

http://www.secdigitalnetwork.com/NEWS/t ... ndard.aspx


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 10, 2013 1:02 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm
Posts: 1719
Before we have even enacted the first 4-team College Football Playoff, NUMEROUS people are discussing expansing the CFP to 8 teams.

Reasoning: Under the BCS format, there is consistently debate over which 2 teams should be ranked 1 and 2, and have a shot at the title.
Next year, 3 and 4 will have a shot, but #5 may be very worthy of a shot.
Once you get to 8 teams, the 9th ranked team (which is excluded) generally isn't so highly regarded.

The 4 team playoff is slated to run for 12 years, HOWEVER, after year 6 there is an opportunity to add another week on the front end,
and convert the 4 non-semi-final games to a quarter final round (involving 8 teams).

Once you have that, someone will say: Lets expand the CFP to 16 teams ! Here's how....
Set up a bracket with 16 teams.... we'll get rid of the conf. championship games, and have the first round THAT weekend (in early December).
The 5 power conferences will get 2 automatic bids (for their division champs). Big XII by then might have 2 divisions, or they would get auto-bids for their top 2.
That's 10 slots. The other 6 are at-large... a few would go to conf. champs from the Little 5 conferences.

I see this possibly happening, but hard to say how soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 10, 2013 1:20 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1130
If you're in the Big XII, you already want this playoff structure enlarged. Alabama didn't even win one half of the SEC, and people think the Tide would make the four-team one. Baylor's sitting out there with Stanford and the others.

All the SEC has to do is keep having seasons like they've been having down there. With three teams emerging at the end with 11-1, their CCG wasn't just for the SEC, but for who goes to the national championship game. NO conference has that kind of power, and while I think no conference should have that kind of sway, you have to reward the top conferences, especially if those guys play and win that thirteenth game.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 10, 2013 5:56 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1572
Vegas/Line makers said that had 'Bama was to be matched with FSU or Auburn again, 'Bama would be favored vs. both.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 10, 2013 11:33 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1463
sec03 wrote:
Vegas/Line makers said that had 'Bama was to be matched with FSU or Auburn again, 'Bama would be favored vs. both.

Vegas line on Saban to Texas is 4 to 1.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1064 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65 ... 71  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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