Texas A&M regents authorize realignment moves
Anyone doubt now that the SEC is going to 16 teams?
http://eye-on-collegefootball.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/24156338/31330932
August 16th, 2011 at 11:09 AM ^
the SEC is driven by football primarily (not academics, or well rounded athletic programs). The only ACC school that fits the bill is Florida State really. If the SEC wanted to make a splash with a non-football school, they'd try (but not succeed) to get UNC & Duke to instantly raise the profile of the SEC as a basketball conference (think Kentucky, UNC, & Duke in the same hoops conference would be like having Michigan, Ohio St, and Notre Dame in the same football conference). Plus without going to 16 teams, and not wanting to split up traditional rivals which the conference voting blocks are based on (Bama-Auburn, Tenn-Vandy, OleMiss-MissSt), you're looking at an eastern school to go with TAMU so as to put one in the SEC East and one in the SEC West.
August 16th, 2011 at 10:23 AM ^
The faculty of Maryland would be very, very unhappy with a switch to the SEC and all that it implies for the athletics/academics balance. That's not how they see their institution, at all. Faculty governance by no means drives any of this, but an unhappy faculty senate can make life pretty miserable for university administrators if their wishes are explicitly ignored.
August 16th, 2011 at 10:44 AM ^
I agree. I can't see Maryland going to the SEC. Maryland being north of the Potomac is a big deal for them, even though they're below the Mason-Dixon. "South" is sort of like a pejorative term. Not to mention, the ACC is en elite academic and basketball conference. Maryland is trying hard to boost football, though.
I can definitely see VT, though. I don't think the legislature would be a big hurdle. As mentioned earlier, since BC and Miami were already leaving the Big East, VT would be left to flounder with WVU and Pitt being the only other notable football programs. If VT were to go to the SEC, they'd be in good hands and the ACC would be able to survive as well, so UVA wouldn't be screwed. And if UVA somehow landed in the Big Ten, they'd be in good hands as well.
August 16th, 2011 at 11:21 AM ^
Actually, I really can't see VT going. The reason the Va. legislature demanded VT be included in the ACC had nothing to do with being left behind in the Big East, and everything to do with raising the school's academic profile by associating with a conference with an outstanding academic reputation. (UVA, UNC, Duke, WF, etc.) It wasn't about getting on the last bus out of town, it was about seizing an opportunity that was knocking. And VT likes the association just fine. I think the legislature might have a few problems with VT associating with the SEC instead, and I don't think VT particularly cares to.
August 16th, 2011 at 11:29 AM ^
Looking for your perspective as well - does Maryland have an actual sizable fanbase?
I live in DC and I don't even see it here and College Park is 3 miles from downtown.
August 16th, 2011 at 11:34 AM ^
I live in the DC area and Maryland has a sizable, but somewhat apathetic fanbase. Maryland has a sizable out of state contingent, but they don't go there for the football. It also has a lot of commuters who generally spend less time on campus and have less pride. Basketball is a well-known product, so that's where most of the attention goes. I think Edsall will do a good job there, though.
August 16th, 2011 at 11:35 AM ^
Yes, they do, but if you haven't had to deal with it much then consider yourself lucky. People who say Maryland would be a good fit in the Big Ten haven't worn the opposite team's colors in the presence of Maryland fans.
August 16th, 2011 at 11:39 AM ^
I've gone to a few games there and the attendance was pretty piss-poor. I have a few friends that went there but they don't give a shit about UMd sports.
August 16th, 2011 at 12:28 PM ^
This clip from Wedding Crashers pretty much describes most Maryland fans
August 16th, 2011 at 11:41 AM ^
But I think part of the reason the opportunity was knocking was because the ACC was expanding at the Big East's expense. I think if the deal were lucrative enough, VT would leave. It already has a better academic reputation b/c of the higher profile of its football team. I agree that academically, it is better off in the ACC.
August 16th, 2011 at 12:04 PM ^
Agree on VT in the ACC - it makes more sense to me there.
For a destination for SU, the ACC makes more sense with our old rivalry with BC, along with if say, UConn comes as well.
August 16th, 2011 at 12:21 PM ^
August 16th, 2011 at 12:35 PM ^
You're obviously unfamiliar with "the Flutie effect". http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/11027/athletic-success-leads-to-admissions-influx/p2
It may well be that joining a good academic conference has a bigger effect, but athletic success has a definite effect on academics.
August 16th, 2011 at 12:41 PM ^
My causation isn't wrong. Michael Vick taking VT to the NC game and their continued success afterwards raised the visibility of the school and they saw more people apply and admissions standards increase. VT is not the only case like this. Florida and USC had the same thing happen with their success despite not having changed conferences, and I'm not sure about OSU and Texas, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were the case for them as well. George Mason had a spike in applicants after they went to the Final Four. I'm not saying that being in the ACC doesn't help, but with VT, it was Michael Vick, and then them going to the ACC.
August 16th, 2011 at 12:50 PM ^
August 16th, 2011 at 12:58 PM ^
That may be the case, but it is a factor nonetheless. If more people apply, and you need to be more qualified to get in, it should reflect positively on the academic standing and reputation of the school. With prolonged success and notoriety in sports, it can have a substantial impact. I hope we can capitalize on this effect when/if Brady Hoke is successful.
August 16th, 2011 at 10:02 AM ^
The only way in which Texas fits in the Big Ten is in academics. Otherwise, the cultural fit is horrible—Texans in general regard the Yankee north with derisive contempt—it doesn't make any more cultural sense for Alabama or Georgia to join the Big Ten, and both are closer to Ann Arbor than Austin is.
UT is never going to agree to the revenue sharing that is at the heart of the Big Ten's financial arrangement. Big Ten athletic directors have a large number of men's and women's teams who travel every season in every sport, and travel costs are not an insignificant part of the budgets they have to manage. Austin is over 1300 miles away from Ann Arbor, a distance that is double or triple the distance to virtually every other conference school; the next longest trip is to Lincoln, around 800 miles.
If I were a Big Ten athletic director, I'd rather have a rusty spike in the temple than have to deal with the incredible arrogance that Texas has historically displayed in dealing with all of its conference partners.
August 16th, 2011 at 10:10 AM ^
Don is absolutley right. After reading all the crap that UT has given the B12 there is no reason to think that they would be a healthy addition to the team. They have no inclinaton to work towards common goals, only those that benefit UT. Neb would NEVER go for it, ever. And UT would NEVER budge on sharing LN revenue. Discussing UT to the B10 at this time, given all the info and track record they have, is pointless.
I still think OU is the most logical, assuming they won't be tied to OkSt (which at this point is a pretty bad assumption, I admit). Entertain OU & Mizzou to get 14 and consider ND and eastern schools in the future to get 16.
August 16th, 2011 at 11:05 AM ^
their academic profile is just not up to par with the rest of the B1G. Mizzou is more in line and with a 'CIC bump' would get into the range of other B1G schools. Pitt, Syracuse, ND, Maryland, Rutgers, or UVa & VT in a package deal are probably more in line with B1G culture and desires for market expansion.
August 16th, 2011 at 10:20 AM ^
But by no means is it out of the question.
From a cultural stand-point, I would say Texas to the PAC-X would be in the same ballpark in terms of different mentalities. I could be wrong here, but that is my opinion. As we all recall, that marriage almost happened.
I agree that the biggest carrot for Texas is academics. Inclusion in the CIC could mean tens or perhaps hundreds of millions more per year in research funding for Texas. The CIC is huge money. Travel costs are expensive, no doubt about that, but how much money would be made by having both Texas and ND in the conference? I don't have the numbers, but I feel like the additional travel costs would be offset.
I don't have a response for your last point, because I would feel the same way if I personally were an atheltic director, but I am not and therefore do not have access to the information they have. Like I said in my previous post, if both sides are committed, a deal could be worked out.
August 16th, 2011 at 10:27 AM ^
THIS is how far Texas has its own head up its ass:
"If Texas A&M was to leave the Big 12, sources in the Big 12 say the league would only expand by one school (to replace the Aggies).
Notre Dame could be a top target to replace the Aggies based on comments Texas athletic director DeLoss Dodds made last week.
But if the Irish said no, Brigham Young would get strong consideration, sources said, along with TCU and Houston." (As per rivals)
So...whuile the second group of lists is more probable, uTexas thinks it's sooooo great that Notre Dame will just sashy down on their command. Huh. That takes some real cajones of brass.
August 16th, 2011 at 10:35 AM ^
Remember, the usual killer of re-alignment deals is when people tip their hand too early. While reveal your hand when you don't have to? Yes, I realize that A&M has effectively tipped their hand, but it appears that the opposition that was previosuly there isn't going to do anything this time around, which may be why they might get away with it.
It isn't like the individual schools are going to come out and say "Well, since TAM left, we are going to try to leave as well". I guarantee you though that all the schools are figuring out their options as we speak, including what conferences would take them.
As far as the list goes, why woulnd't ND top it? They are the biggest fish in the sea, and you have to do your due diligence to see if they are interested. I don't take this as arrogance as much as common sense.
August 16th, 2011 at 10:42 AM ^
It's arrogant because its absurd. Notre Dame isn't joining anyone unless they have to. If they do, it will be the Big Ten, because: Why not? What possible advantage would they have in aligning themselves with the "Big 12" over the Big Ten? The Big Ten wants them, its a geographic and educational fit, and they have natural rivalries there. What does the Big 12 have to offer?
The thing is, UT thinks bears the legitimate belief that they are the king of the world, and that all around them will bow before their holy presence. To them, it would only be natural that Notre Dame would come down and kiss their ring, and bask in their glory.
Which, in summation, is a good example of why the Big Ten should avoud UT like the plague.
August 16th, 2011 at 1:58 PM ^
In answer to your question the Big XII can offer Notre Dame two things the B1G can't. They could make their own broadcast deals and they would have a far easier road to the BCS. If the Big XII were to add BYU and Houston, ND could be offered a spot in the north division and the easiest road to a championship game of anyone.
I don't see ND joining anyone. They see themselves as a national team and don't want to be in a regional conference. Texas may be arrogant, but talking about offering ND doesn't demonstrate it to me. I'd hate to be one of the other schools in that conference with two big dogs expecting special treatment.
August 16th, 2011 at 4:34 PM ^
Yes athletically it could make sense. However, they're not going to tie themselves to crappy schools like TexasTech and Iowa State.
August 16th, 2011 at 5:33 PM ^
Iowa State isn't so bad and the Big East has a lot of worse schools, worse that TT too. The academic association with the B1G should be very attractive to ND but they've already proven they make their decisions solely based on football.
August 16th, 2011 at 10:29 AM ^
Texas doesn't have any problems drawing research money on its own and many of the benefits of the CIC rest on proximity to member institutions that Texas would be functionally excluded from (reciprocal graduate class enrollment, regular research workshops, etc.) I don't see the academic benefits as that much of a draw for UT that they'd be willing to give into what would certainly be the Big 10s demands for shared revenue. (If UT was allowed to keep the LHN as part of Big 10 membership, you'd see OSU-TV in a heartbeat, and then the whole conference would start flying apart in much the same way the Big 12 is flying apart).
August 16th, 2011 at 10:22 AM ^
While you say 1300 miles is too far, did you realize that Nebraska to Penn State is nearly 1100 miles? Or what if we were to add Syracuse... that would be 1200 miles. Or better yet, Rutgers is 1300 miles. But I don't hear an arguement against adding those schools b/c of distance. Although my own logic is flawed too b/c I'm only using the farthest school whereas adding some of the latter teams would still be geographically close for some of our eastern most schools. However, I'm still putting it out there that the distance can be overcome. TCU did.
August 16th, 2011 at 10:31 AM ^
Like you said, you're just comparing Nebraska (the most isolated school) to everyone else but Nebraska isn't fantastically far for anyone really except maybe PSU but Texas is far for every single school (except Nebraska). Just find a US map, look at the big ten footprint, and then look at Austin.
August 16th, 2011 at 11:32 AM ^
I know, I was just playing Devil's advocate. I really meant to stress more at the end that it's not unheard of, especially b/c teams like TCU are doing it. USF and Boston College. and so on and so forth.
August 16th, 2011 at 11:22 AM ^
Michigan Stadium to the Carrier Dome in Syracuse is 446 miles.
Michigan Stadium to Lincoln, NE is 749 miles.
Michigan Stadium to Happy Valley is 406 miles.
So Syracuse is 40 miles further than Penn State.
August 16th, 2011 at 10:04 AM ^
it looks like we're headed towards 4 sixteen team conferences. I would say that would mean the four conference champs have a playoff for the NC, and everyone else in Div 1 should form their own conference. Crazy times we're livin' in...
August 16th, 2011 at 10:14 AM ^
For those saying A&M = Sparty, yeah....
http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/31776/college-station-overtaken…
Only that article makes it look like inferiority complex on a much larger scale. There's even a "brother" reference.
August 16th, 2011 at 10:23 AM ^
Cedric Dempsey, former NCAA president, seems to think that some conferences will go to as many as 18 teams, and thinks we will see superconferences within five years. He also seems to think they will form their own new division.
My take: I don't think it's a coincidence that the Big Ten has instructed their teams to "clear their schedules" for a nine-game conference slate in 2017.
Here's a link to Dempsey's quotes:
http://eye-on-collegefootball.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/24156338/31327770
August 16th, 2011 at 11:01 AM ^
16 teams in 4 divisions
Play everyone in your own division (3 games)
Play two out of four teams in every other division (2 * 3 div = 6 games)
9 game schedule, everybody plays everybody else at least twice in four years (home & away) with a rotating schedule.
Add a team west of Illinois (Mizzou?), add two eastern teams (Pitt, Maryland?), and a team that thinks they're an east coast school (ND? Syracuse?).. you get 4, 4 team divisions with major rivalries maintained.
Breaking news: Jim Delaney seen purchasing a white cat and a monocle....
August 16th, 2011 at 11:13 AM ^
There is nothing more asinine than the assumption that four 16-team conferences are completely inevitable. It is one of a thousand possibilities.
August 16th, 2011 at 11:25 AM ^
I'm wondering how the SEC could go to 16 and have the ACC be able to as well. If Florida State and Clemon or VT left, who would be the other 4-6 schools?
Syracuse? Pitt? UConn? Rutgers?
Four 16-team conferences doesn't seem to make any logical sense when you look at the candidates for each conference.
August 16th, 2011 at 11:41 AM ^
Could happen if the Big East football schools and ACC merge after FSU and Clemson go to the SEC. Add Cuse, UConn, Pitt, RU, L'ville, and....USF? SEC gets A&M, WVU, FSU, Clemson? Big Ten picks up the Big 12 scraps - Mizzou, KU, KSU, ISU? Pac-12 finishes up with OU, OSU, TT, UT? That's awfully tortured and requires conferences to grab schools they would NEVER consider. And it leaves a few schools out in the cold, like Baylor, which the legislatures won't go for.
The other way to get to 4x16 is to completely ignore geography. Either way it's WAY less likely than so many people assume.
August 16th, 2011 at 12:07 PM ^
That's what would have to happen - but there's no way that the ACC adds Louisville, USF, or Cincinnati, and I think WVU is a stretch due to academics.
I think the ACC will always be a 12-school conference.J
Just based on the idea that the Big Ten would have to add Kansas State and Iowa State to get to 16 if it doesn't expand east, means that they will expand east.
August 16th, 2011 at 12:53 PM ^
One of the bottlenecks for the Big East is what do they do with basketball? They already have something like an 18 team league since they have quite a few schools that do not have football programs. Merging with the ACC might work for football but I can't believe they would like to have 20+ teams in basketball.
August 16th, 2011 at 1:19 PM ^
The Big East will be 17 teams in basketball once TCU joins. Their real dilemma is that they need to expand further to increase the conference's football profile and earn the TV bux, but the basketball schools are quickly going to be alienated at the prospect of an 18, 20 team league. Schools like Providence and DePaul and St. John's, not to mention current basketball powers like Villanova, Georgetown, etc. aren't keen on the idea of such a huge mountain to climb or splitting the revenue so many ways.
ESPN had offered them $11 million per team, which the basketball contingent was ready to absolutely leap at (there's no way Providence would earn that much money otherwise) but the football contingent convinced them to hold off after seeing what the Pac-12 got. Their hope is that a bidding war will drive the price up. If it doesn't, I think you could quickly see a rift in the Big East. I could envision a realistic scenario where some of the Big East's basketball powers and/or non-powers drift away, siphon off a few of the A-10's best schools (Xavier, Temple, Duquesne) and form a new basketball conference.
August 16th, 2011 at 3:12 PM ^
Even if none of these super-conferences come to fruition, the football schools will split from the basketball-onlies.
It's only a matter of time.
I firmly believe that the east coast BE football schools are leaving anyway for one place or another and that the basketball schools will become the next version of the Atlantic 10.
August 16th, 2011 at 3:36 PM ^
Personally I think it'll be the basketball schools that split first, because I can't imagine that the Big Ten or ACC will take Big East football teams just because they're asking. The only scenario I can see where the football schools leave first is because the ACC came calling in order to replace one or two SEC-bound programs. Or because the SEC asked WVU directly. I read, for example, that it was Rutgers that pushed hard for TCU's inclusion - I can't imagine the basketball schools appreciated that very much, but assume they went along because it brought the potential for increased TV value.
The only other way I see the football schools initiating the breakaway is if they felt the need to create some kind of monster conference with more western teams like TCU, or, I dunno, Missouri or something thanks to the splintering of the Big 12. But I think the TV contract problem will come home to roost before some of this other stuff does.
August 16th, 2011 at 3:50 PM ^
I think they pushed for TCU to try to stablizie the conference since I think Rutgers is the most worried of the east-coast schools of being left-behind which is why . I think SU and UConn would be higher up on the ACC's and the Big Ten's list, and they'd be on an island by themselves.
August 16th, 2011 at 2:53 PM ^
B1G is not going to stuck picking up scraps. If that kind of realignment were to happen the B1G office would be fielding inquiries from a lot of those schools you have going elsewhere, Pitt and Rutgers in particular.
August 16th, 2011 at 3:08 PM ^
You see why I think the notion of an inevitable 4x16 model is fairly asinine, then?
August 16th, 2011 at 5:42 PM ^
I don't see these superconferences happening. Limiting top division football to 64 teams would cause a ton of bad blood, state governments would step in, etc, It just doesn't seem workable. Without that scenario I don't see why other conferences would want to go to 16 just because the SEC or PAC-12 might possibly.
August 16th, 2011 at 5:14 PM ^
you're conflating "this idea sounds really stupid" with "nobody would ever do this"
there's a reason everyone from random ADs to former NCAA commissioners to reporters with otherwise totally credible sources believe it's inevitable: because it's what the Big 3 conferences are working toward. It's the ultimate endgame, as much as I hate the idea. We need to stop denying that it's inevitable and just sigh and play along
August 16th, 2011 at 3:32 PM ^
Hypothetic Situation:
Texas A&M, Missouri, Florida State, Clemson gives the SEC 16 teams.
The ACC loses 2 and is down to 10 and then invites Syracuse, Pitt, UConn, Rutgers, West Virginia, Louisville to go to 16.
Big Ten’s options to add four more are down to Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Notre Dame (if you say Texas, then the Pac-12 can't/won't go to 16). If it for some odd reason invites Maryland, VT, or goes with one of the Big East schools above that would be going to the ACC, then the ACC must fill those spots to go to 16.
Kansas State and Iowa State to the Big Ten isn’t going to happen, same with Louisville or West Virginia to the ACC, so that means that someone can’t go to 16, most likely the ACC.
So no, there is pretty much no way to get to 4 16-team conferences.