Next up: Michigan State to the Big East.
this may be of some local interest
Next up: Michigan State to the Big East.
I think that would be the only way that conference could take another step down.
I feel like I need carnival music everytime I read about a school going to another conference.
...of music more like Yakety Sax, but either one works.
But if you could have found some plate spinning TO the sabre dance, I would have been really impressed.
Looking pretty solid.
They still have West Virg- no wait, um Rutg- oh, no... hmmm, Pittsb- shoot... Well they've got Boise State, Tulane, and Navy
Boise State is backing out.
It's a sitting duck. The big east is weak. It's feeble. I think it's time to put the hurt on the big east.
Big East is game to you?!
UConn to B1G next? The Big East in on life support. I think Cincinnati and UConn would be great gets.
Athletically, yes. Academically, hellllllllll no.
It's all about brand(on)ing. UConn's market is tiny. We are already in Ohio. If it wasn't about expanding the footprint, Pittsburgh would have been an ideal addition.
Its interesting you bring up Pittsburgh. I wonder if they had waited before making the decision to join the ACC whether they would have been added to the B1G this time around. They really are a perfect match geographically and athletically. Academically too (at least moreso than Nebraska). I'm bummed it didn't shake out that way - the PSU-Pitt rivalry could be renewed and new cross-border ones like Ohio-Pitt could begin.
would have been a great addition:
-academically they are right there with ohio, in front of purdue, minnesota, msu, indiana, etc
-good grad programs too. UPMC is internationally recognized.
-pitt is a great city and would have been a fun road trip. Only 4 hours from ann arbor.
The problem is they cant even get on local tv – they don’t bring eyes. No one cares about pitt– it’s a professional sports town. also, I’ve never been to Rutgers, but pitt would immediately come in as the worst stadium in the big ten (professional stadium, tailgate under a highway).
Agreed. The stadium situation absolutely sucks. I was at the last game in the old Pitt Stadium (where the newer basketball arena now sits) and it was a fun place. Kind of like a mini Big House but right in the middle of campus and Oakland. Too bad they couldn't keep it but they made a deal with the Steelers when they built the new Heinz Field and new practice facility on the South Side. Real bummer for the students who now have to take a bus to games. But the Pitt-WVU game at Heinz Field was a fun atmosphere (if you like a bunch of WVU fans geared out in camoflauge and bright orange hunting jackets yelling in your ears behind you).
Old Pitt Stadium:
Your last paragraph is flat out wrong.
Pitt has never had any issues with being aired on local TV. They would have absolutely brought eyes to the B10 market had Penn State not already done so (which is the ONLY reason they will never be invited).
People in Pittsburgh care about the Pitt teams--more so basketball than football--but as mentioned earlier, the fact that the football games are played at Heinz and the team is annually mediocre isn't much of an incentive for fans to go watch them live.
Basketball on the other hand is huge. Pittsburgh doesn't have an NBA team which means Pitt is the only basketball team people follow. Tickets at the Pete aren't easy to come by.
Yes, Pittsburgh is a professional sports city first, but that doesn't mean there's a loss of interest in the college teams. They would have been an excellent get for the B10 if the invitation qualifications didn't mandate opening a new TV market. Holding off on the ACC offer would have done nothing to increase their chances of getting in.
I understand your point but I think the initial point is definitely valid. The Steelers rein supreme in Pittsburgh. Plus, Pitt football doesn't really have a die-hard following like its basketball team does. Nevertheless, I have heard what you hint at - that Paterno was instrumental at making sure Pitt was not invited to join two years ago. Even more sad for Pitt fans given what transpired at PSU thereafter . . .
Absolutely. Paterno basically blacklisted Pitt from anything Penn State was involved in strictly out of spite. Bitter old man indeed.
What would UConn and Cincinati bring to the B10? Neither UConn nor Cinci bring any new markets to the table for the BTN. Neither are AAU schools (a seamingly important factor) and don't bring much to the table athletically.
The only things UConn has going for it is that it's a flagship school (in a small market) and a recent (last 15 years) basketball power. Now that Calhoun is gone, I think they will recede in basketball relevence history.
Cinci is a large research based school, but again, not an AAU school. They bring very little to the table as far as sports go and, with OSU, the BTN already has the Cinci market.
A new school needs to bring expanding markets in new areas (Mid Atlantic or South) or tremendous athletic prestige (ND). With the exception of ND, the school must be a current member of the AAU. Since ND is a no go, that leaves UVA, UNC, Duke, GTU, Kansas, Pitt, amd Mizzou. Since Kansas leased it's rights to the Big12, Mizzou isn't leaving the SEC, and Pitt is already in the BTN footprint, that leaves UVA, UNC, GTU, and Duke. UVA and UNC would be home runs, but UVA and GTU would be pretty good as well.
UConn and Cinci would be a 3 pitch strike out looking.
What about VT? I thought that UVa was tied to VT and that UNC was tied to NC State (and to a lesser extent Duke, granted there could be protected OOC games). Wouldn't that pose a problem of trying to bring in the flagship University of two schools? I'd think that state legislators from either VA or NC would pretty much require that UVa or UNC pull along their siblings to make sure they're not lost in the college football musical chairs (less likely for VT, more likely for NC State).
VT and UVA aren't attached at the hip, it's more that the state wants both schools to be in stable, successful (i.e., BCS) conferences. If the ACC starts to crumble, VT would likely be the first choice for the SEC to expand to 16 with. The NC schools would be tougher to move around, as I think the B1G and SEC would fight over UNC with Duke as the consolation prize. I can't see either conference wanting NC State (or wanting to go beyond 16 teams), so the only way UNC/Duke go anywhere is total dissolution of the ACC.
The only way UVA and TV are together is that they both need a landing spot. If the rumors are correct, the SEC wants to get into the Va and NC markets for their new SEC network. My impression is that UVA will not go to a conference like the SEC due to academics. VT, on the otherhand, looks to be the target of the SEC. If UVA went to the B10, that would leave each with a secure landing place.
UNC/NCST are trickier, but the same principle applies. They have the same Board of Trustees/Regents, so each needs a safe landing place as well. Those fans want to go to the SEC, but my guess is that the big cademic and athletic donors will have their say. The problem is where will NCST go. Their non-AAU status likely means they don't have a spot in the B10. Some think that the B12 might be a spot. I don't think Duke will prevent UNC from joining a power conference. UNC will try to take Duke with them but, in the end, they a spot if the ACC is truly dying as a footbal conference.
It's my useless opinion that UNC will go only if needed. They are not short money and love thier little ACC fiefdom (much like Texas and the B12). They will stay until the end with Duke until they have to leave. They will always be welcome in a power conference. That's why I believe it's UVA and GTU to the B10 as #15 and #16.
as the two best gets for the B1G. Strong geographic contiguity, extending across the Mid-Atlantic, two very strong schools academically, powering the bball thing and women's programs much more fully. Politics (no polo) also comes into play, with state legislatures that would be more sympathetic to the B1G than, say, Missouri's was.
People keep forgetting that the Big Ten is not just an athletic conference. It's also an academic organization composed entirely—with the exception of Nebraska—of members of the Association of American Universities, a consortium of leading research universities. And Nebraska was a member of the AAU from 1909 until 2011, when it was booted out of the AAU over its assessment of Nebraska's credentials. The University of Nebraska's research and academic medical center is in Omaha, and the fact that it's not on-campus in Lincoln led the AAU to exclude it from its evaluation criteria. The AAU also disregarded Nebraska's USDA-funded agricultural research in its metrics.
Notre Dame has received sporadic solicitation from the Big Ten despite its non-membership in the AAU because of its unique prominence as a midwestern program and its undeniable quality as an undergraduate education institution. Supposedly, if ND had accepted the invitation, it would have resulted in a substantial augmentation of its research activities.
While I believe that the ultimate goal of the Big Ten is to become a 16-member conference, the AAU-membership standard limits the number of institutions that are eligible, which is why Cincinnati and UConn have no chance at being invited, completely aside from their athletic merit. The AAU membership standard is why I think that Pitt is a logical addition to the conference, regardless of the fact that it doesn't expand the footprint and is slated to join the ACC in 2013. The problem with adding other schools like UVA and UNC is that the legislatures in Virginia and North Carolina are going to be extremely resistant to seeing those schools peeled off from their pairings with VaTech and NC State, and those latter two are not AAU members. I still think that Missouri is also a logical candidate to the west, since it's not hampered by any historic ties to another in-state school. The obvious problem is its new membership in the SEC; personally, I think Mizzou's leadership blew it in not waiting for the Big Ten, which is a conference that Missouri was far more interested in joining for academic reasons.
As long as VT and NCST have landing spots, they will move if need be.
There isn't some inexorable gravitational command to reach 16 teams. Every add needs to be revenue positive, as well as meeting the Big Ten's geographical and academic standards.
As you note, UConn and Cincinnati fail on academic grounds. Pitt fails on revenue grounds: it doesn't add much, given that the Big Ten already has Pennsylvania's major football school. (Even with crippling sanctions, Penn State had a better football season this year than Pitt, as it practically always does.)
You are right that UVA and UNC will have a lot of trouble splitting up from their in-state sister schools, even assuming they'd want the Big Ten (and that the Big Ten would want them) if that issue evaporated. But I don't think Missouri had any choice. No one passes up the chance to join the SEC. Sure, they coveted a Big Ten invite, but when Kate Upton has the hots for you, you don't hold out for Jennifer Aniston.
It wasn't even 10 years ago that VT was in the Big East, separate from UVA. As long as VT is in a good situation, than it'll be fine. The state legislature was resistant to VT being on what was then thought of as being a sinking ship, the Big East. And, at that time, VT was still on a positive trajectory as far as name recognition goes with Vick having just been there and doing well in the NFL and good post-Vick Beamer years. The ACC will stick around in some form and be alright, and if it's not than VT could go to the SEC or Big 12. They have good enough athletics, academics, and media market importance to land in a good situation.
There isn't some inexorable gravitational command to reach 16 teams.
+1'd for that alone. 16 teams is thoroughly, 100%, an artificial construction of message board denizens. Many UVA fans are talking about how UVA should throw itself at the B1G's door right now before the bus leaves. To which I say: let's say UVA and UNC found themselves in a severely depleted, Big-East-ified ACC, and wanted to go to the B1G. But the B1G already has 16 teams. Does anyone truly believe the presidents in the B1G would say, gee, I know those are two of the best schools in the country and we'd love to increase our collaboration with them, but we already have 16 teams so we can't?
was strongly resistant to going to the B1G, liked the SEC--for political reasons--better.
Read from where? The Mizzou fan message boards? My guess is the fans wanted the SEC while the administration wanted the Bi10. I could be wrong, but I think that's what took so long for Mizzou to join the SEC, they were waiting on the B10.
Missouri had wanted the B1G, but we weren't interested. This story was pretty commonly known:
I am aware that there was strong desire of the U admin to come to us. They could ultimately prevail. I probably read it at sportsline, but it was asserted as fact--namely, that there was strong antagonism among state legislators.
It's only a guess, but I would think that the Big Ten Network is integrated into the basic TV packages for much of Missouri's cable network system, and that good old Mizzou really added little to the revenue stream.
I just checked on Columbia, which is centrally located and home to Mizzou, and the BTN is available on DISH, DirectTV, and one of the other local providers. That would indicate your guess is correct.
It goes beyond the question of being available, but whether Big Ten Network programming is included within "basic" service or something akin to that where the B1G is receiving a part of each month's cable payment from all or almost all of the cable/satellite provider's customers. If I remember right, that was the big sticking point when the B1G went live and various networks were slow to provide coverage. Guessing again, I would think that it is included.
I would also have to believe that while available, Big Ten Network programming is not part of the basic package in much of the DC-Baltimore Metro area, nor is it in NJ and NYC, which is why Maryland and Rutgers are now Midwestern schools.
You are only talking about bandwidth. How those channels are packaged is very different and has regional differences. You need to look no further than how DirecTV deals with local programming which has major regional differnces.
But I'd take them just to fuck with Ohio State.
This is not your father's college football anymore. Too bad.
Louisville went from C-USA in 2004/5 to ACC in 2014(?). That is an incredible leap in a short time period.
I do wonder how Kentucky (Louisville in particular) is in any way associated with the Atlantic Coast?
Kentucky is associated with the Atlantic Coast in the same way that the Big Ten is associated with 14 teams.
The Big East picks up Boise State, SDSU, Houston, and SMU... and you've got a problem with Louisville going to the ACC because it's not near the coast?
ends with Champions of the WEST!
It was the Western Conference. There wasn't much travel west of the Mississippi yet, and the other powers were all East Coast teams.
only got to see Michigan on tv 2-3 times per year growing up. Unless he wanted to watch ND he could only get 1 game on tv a week.
Does Louisville add to the ACC?
A better football and basketball program than Maryland?
Post from ACC message board a little over a week ago:
"Does Rutgers add to the Big Ten?
It also makes me sad. But I realize we'd never, ever add Louisville, as they are not nearly strong enough academically.
That's exactly what UVa fans said... and look what happened. The ACC is very comparable to the B1G academically and they've accepted UofL, what makes you think the B1G wouldn't stoop in the future (granted we're on more stable ground), especially if a school presented "a bigger footprint for the BTN". $ > Academics
The ACC gave away its dignity to bring in ND as a quasi-member. That move demonstrated that its ambitions were quite a bit different from ours.
I certainly can't see the SEC saying "everything but football? Come on down!" And I doubt the Pac-12 would do it either. The new Big-12 might, since they're just Texas and the 9 dwarfs now. But I don't think the old Big 12 would have.
As far as I can tell, AAU membership is REALLY important to the B1G. Clemson, NC State, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest, Florida State and soon-to-be member Syracuse might be fine universities (certainly better than Louisville), but they are not AAU members. I think the only one of the B1G 14 not in there is Nebraska, which was a recent removal.
I do agree $ > than academics, but the $ portion for Louisville would not be that great. It doesn't add a big TV market for the all-important BTN. It DOES add an excellent b-ball program and a good football team (certainly both better than UMD and Rutgers), but the B1G has shown they really don't care about that, no matter what they say, with their recent expansion. Which is why the B1G expansion is stupid to me, but they don't care about what their fans/alums want, so it doesn't matter.
That football program has to keep Strong to stay good long term. No body believes that will happen, despite the Louisville saying they will pay him the highest salary in the country. They can say that all they want, but the fact is if a big school like Texas or USC comes calling he is gone. Kentucky isn't that big of market and the fact is that the Wildcats own it any way.
Then have them play Florida in the Awkward Bowl.
ACC comes out as big winners here - lose Maryland, gain Louisville. Someone remind me, why did we pick up Maryland and Rutgers?
Because this is Jim Delany.
I didn't know he moonlighted as Brutus Buckeye
And TV Money. Newscorp owns Fox (And 49% of BTN) and they also just bought the YES Network (FSDetroit, but for New York. They show Knicks, Yankees, etc.)
Newscorp can bundle BTN and YES to cable providers and there's the leverage to get BTN into every home in the NY area. And the cash that comes with it.
If this is true, I am further confused as to why Rutgers was a needed piece to get this thing going. What % of New Yorkers are fans of Rutgers athletics? 2-3%? I don't see why those 2% of people would be needed when you have ~70% of the market clammoring to watch the Yankees and willing to take the BTN along with YES. Likewise, I'd be willing to bet there are more Michigan fans in NY than Rutgers, and combined with the rest of the B1G schools with sizeable alumni bases in the area, the argument for Rutgers is further weakened.
Stupid add which I think is going to hurt the brand in the longrun. Who needs another.... well shit, even Indiana is good at basketball and Minnesota at hockey.... Purdue? Congrats Delaney, you just added a school which will be the worst athletic school in the B1G, with no academic benefits either!
To be fair, Rutgers is a good academic school. The rest of your comments have merit, however.
Academically, it's fine at best, on the high end of commuter schools. But it's nothing to write home about.
I am confused as to why being a commuter school automatically makes people turn up their noses at a place
it's better than Nebraska, State and Indiana in most academic ratings.
Your comment on more Michigan fans than Rutgers fans in NY is way off. Rutgers has, by far the largest follwing of college football in the NYC.
About 14% of New Yorkers consider themselves college football fans. That may seem small, but it's the largest market population wise with almost 3,000,000 people citing they are fans. Rutgers is, by far the largest share of that group (~21%) or slightly over 600,000. PSU is next for B10 schools with a share of 6.5% while UM is third with a 5% share. Add in OSU and they have close to 1,000,000 B10 fans, not enough to get on the basic cable for over 20,000,000 people (about 5%). Throw in the forced bundle with YES and they can charge more, and you have big bucks for both Fox and the B10 schools.
Explanation of Geography and Realignment
Wait - you think Louisville is better than Maryland?
Its really not even close in my view. But, then again, we all know that this has nothing to do with athletics...
Even if you look at it from a purely athletic perspective, I still don't know. In football, Louisville has been lucky to have two good coaches use them as a stepping stone. When Petrino was there, they were pretty good, but then he left. They're OK with Charlie Strong, but still not that good, and he'll leave them soon enough. Outside of those two small windows, Louisville is basically Toledo. If Louisville was in the ACC, they'd be struggling to be .500 every year.
Louisville has a very good basketball coach right now, but Maryland has a very strong basketball tradition and a recent National Championship (more recent than any Big Ten team, IIRC).
Point is - if anything, they're a push athletically, but I don't even think that's true. In every other category, it's a blowout. And I'd be much more excited to watch my team play Maryland than Louisville.
refuse to look at the upside of these deals rather than just what schools are doing in the immediate present. . . is frustrating. Everyone knows there is good HS football in MD and NJ, but they're rather just narrowly keep slagging the two schools. And I say this as someone who would be AGAINST the expansion if they don't bring in two more schools that complete the equation in solid fashion (NC and UVA being my choices).
Louisville has been a much more successful bball program than Marlyand. It's not even that close. Louisville is in the Top 10, all-time, in terms of NCAA tourneys, wins, final fours and winning percentage.
I mean Louisville has 9 Final Fours; Maryland has 2.
In terms of football, it's a wash. They are both very coach-dependent (well, all schools are coach-dependent, but them more than others).
You can certainly get more excited about watching UM play the Terps than Louisville; whatever floats your boat. But Louisville in basketball coming to the B1G would have been humongous in that sport (not that it would have ever happened due to academics and not being a big market). In terms of history, along with the present & near future, adding UMD is adding a second-tier player in basketball (behind MSU, UM, OSU and IU, at least).
Maryland is a much better school than Louisville. Trading a flagship state institution for a commuter school isn't a great deal.
the ACC became the Big East and the Big East became Conference USA.
Anyone still confused?
EMU to the Big East. They want to get the Big East footprint in that Ypsilanti market.
I try my best to follow NCAA sports but I am totally lost now as to who is in what conference for the secondary schools that I don't care as much about (i.e. anyone not in the Big Ten, Big 12, Pac 12, or SEC). Between the switching and the switching back and everything else, I am totally lost. I think I'll just wait until we have 4 16 team superconferences and then I'll bother relearning all of the affiliations.
I am pretty much there with you. At this point, they should just have all the ADs meet, create the four mega-conferences and have done with it. The traditions of the conferences have basically been killed off at this point. Lets just have done with this.
Kudos Delaney! You just made the ACC stronger. Vengeance burn on ND aborted.
"But multiple sources said the conference is comfortable with Louisville because the ACC is too strong academically to have its reputation significantly altered by one new member." - from the Yahoo! article on the move
I think this might be a polite way for the ACC to say, "We added Louisville because people will actually watch and/or attend Louisville athletics events."
Nonetheless, I cannot wait for the Big East to counter with a move to add Brigham Young, UNLV, FIU, tanning beds and a drive-thru pharmacy.
Big East looking to bring Hawai'i into the fold as a recplacement...book it.
Hawaii is, after all, east of Guam.
so if this trend continues is the Big East going to have to surrender it's status as a BCS conference in order to let a stronger conference in... like the MAC
They have one more season in the BCS. In the new deal, which begins in 2014, they have the same status as the MAC, C-USA, Sun Belt, and Mountain West.
Louisville is a commuter school. Academically, it's way, way, way, way below every other school in the ACC, even ClemPson.
So this move is strictly, 100% about football and basketball. There is absolutely no other way that the high-brow academic heavyweights in the ACC would ever associate with academic drivel like Louisville.
Yet more confirmation of what this is really ALL about.
SRSLY, maybe Mexico's UNAM has it right. That's the major public university in Mexico City. It has a professional soccer team, which plays in Mexico's top-flight team. But the players aren't students; they are professional players, like every other pro soccer player in Mexico's top league, it's just that the team happens to be owned by the university.
Frankly, that's where D-1 should head. Let's stop pretending this has anything to do with "student athletes." I'm growing so sick of this BS that academic institutions spin out, all in the name of chasing the almighty dollar.
Clemson is a pretty good school. Out in the sticks for sure, but a decent school nonetheless.
I still don't see why "commuter school" is supposed to be an insult or a reflection of academic quality. It's a reflection on the makeup of the student body, perhaps, in that they mostly live off campus. And many if not most of them are mediocre to poor schools, but that doesn't necessarily reflect on the nature of the university itself. UL isn't a poor school because it's a commuter school, it's a poor school because it doesn't offer an education on par with top end institutions.
Hey man, I have a degree from Louisville. I agree it's not Harvard but "academic drivel?" Not called for.
So, after all of the posturing is finished, the ACC will still have the same number of teams, but will be $50 million richer from Maryland's buyout fee.
I wish I could find a job like this. I would "work" at least once a year.
They won't ever see the full 50 million. Losing the Under Armour guy also isn't a positive for the ACC either. Don't think the Pac12 isn't thrilled to have Knight bankrolling Oregon
If Plank really bankrolled Maryland the way Knight does Oregon, they might still be in the ACC and certainly wouldn't be in as much debt as they are.
I doubt Plank cashing in all that stock the around the time Maryland decided they were leaving the ACC was a coincidence. He obviously wanted them in the BIg10. He won't bankroll them like Knight does (but other then Pickens at Ok St. who does), but based on the fact that he is obviously funding some/ all of the buyout I'd expect him to become more involved.
As a current resident of Louisville I could not be more excited. Unless of course things worked out perfectly and UofL joined the B1G... we were that close. Delany is a MORANS.
I'd love for your city to get more B1G games but Louisville in no way qualifies for B1G status academically. No way.
I absolutely agree with you on that point. I was purely thinking in an "awesome Michigan coming to Louisville so I can see them more" sort of way. UofL is poor academically, but I will say they are getting better.
The rumor was that Louisville was the preferred choice of certain theoretically-less-fully-committed-to-the-conference schools in the southern echelons of the conference. If so, smart choice.
I agree. It is a smart choice from an athletics perspective. And, for the basketball-oriented programs in the conference, I'm sure they were less reluctant about this. When we talked Big Ten expansion, I'd always thought that while Louisville wouldn't be a target for us, it would be a good get for another BCS conference, whether it's the Big 12, SEC, or ACC, which I thought was the least likely, although that was before Pitt and 'Cuse joined.
Another rumor I have heard is that a certain ACC school about 100 miles away from the University of Connecticut fought pretty hard to keep the Huskies out of the conference.
Yes, and I believe that has even more substance to it than mere rumor; it was something that came up last year when Cuse and Pitt were added.
Would Penn St. have been opposed to Pitt joining the Big10?
Yes, I think that is likely. The two athletic departments are not on very good terms with each other, and Penn State certainly wouldn't appreciate the competition for recruits in western Pennsylvania.
I've been wondering if that would be the biggest behind-the-scenes roadblock to Pitt's inclusion, aside from the much-discussed footprint issue and their move to the ACC.
It's too bad—they're as natural a pair of in-state rivals as are UNC and Duke.
How does that jibe with the complaining by Penn State they're they're out on an island in the East and felt we should expand in that direction?
Paterno even campaigned for it a little:
Let’s get a 12th team -- Syracuse, Rutgers, Pitt -- we could have a little bit of a playoff.
We have to save the Big East!
. . . that can't count,
concerned about academics ?
GT to the B1G is the next domino...per a very well connected SMU fan
As posted on an SMU blog by an unsourced annoumous tip.
Yep...seems pretty credible to me.
make it stop
He says that GT is waiting on the hiring of an Athletic Director to make a decision. Does that sound even remotely plausible?
From a source close to the President's office at GT. The source said that they are waiting to hire an AD and then decide.
That's not how the B1G operates. Remember how things went with Nebraska? Offers are not made to schools that "wait and then decide." The B1G won't ask the question if it doesn't already know the answer is yes, and there's no way a school would go, "hey, new AD, do you want to join the B1G? Oh, you don't? OK, let's not do it then." There's no need to have a new AD's input on this.
if we make any more acc additions, i just hope it will be UVA and Va Tech. Ga Tech is a great school and will give the B1G access to the hotbed of Georgia recruiting, but football-wise, they don't add much. its also a complete cultural mismatch.
So does tomorrow night's Rutgers-Louisville football game count in the Big Ten-ACC Challenge?
This is actually a pretty good addition to their conference.
to those Louisville/North Carolina, Louisville/Duke games. And nothing else
toward four megaconferences, and subsequently how the Big XII and ACC will fight for survival. Actually, it's only a trend in that it seems like conferences are eyeing 16 teams (talk that the SEC wants VT, the logic that the B1G can't possibly see Rutgers and Maryland as their endgame).
If all the conferences remain at 12 or 14 teams, we could be pretty close to finished. The Big XII could get back to an actual 12 by getting Florida State and Clemson, as has been suggested. The Pac 12 should just stand pat ... not sure adding a BYU, Boise or SDSU really helpts them any. The B1G may simply be done, too. The ACC would add Cincinnati and UConn to replace FSU and Clemson.
But if the SEC and the B1G decide they want to go to 16 or 18, then the only place they have to pull from are the BIG XII and ACC, and I'd expect the Pac 12 to respond to any further expansion by those two with an offer to the four Big XII Texas schools and get themselves to 16.
That move plus the likely solidarity between the four North Carolina schools to stick together and anchor the ACC would mean the end of the Big XII. The ACC would take West Virginia, the SEC would take the Oklahoma schools and possibly Kansas State, the B1G Kansas. In a four-megaconference scenario it seems like ND would be forced to join the ACC permanently, especially if the four CCG's play into the "BCS" semis. And by my count the ACC would also need to add UConn and/or Cincinnati, so it's basically getting to 16 by simply merging together most of the old Big East and ACC. Makes sense.
Oh, and the B1G needs one more team in addition to Kansas, and it will be GT. Book it.
Condolences to Iowa State and possibly Kansas State. Somewhere on the map, someone is going to get screwed because there are really 69-70 "BCS"-level teams and only 64 slots. No conference in this scenario is going to share revenue among 18 teams and totally mess up their schedules while their counterparts share $$ and schedules among 16. Either Iowa State/Kansas State, NC State/Wake, or UConn/Cincinnati is going to get left behind, and Boise and BYU will never even have a chance to get in. Oh ... and USF. Were they ever really seriously considered a BCS school besides in name only anyway? The left-behind Big East will welcome strange bedfellows USF and Iowa State with open arms. Something tells me that Kansas State will end up somewhere, just not sure where ... The Pac 12 may take them instead of TCU.
I think the Texas to the Pac12 ship has sailed. The four Texas schools to the Big12 is a non-starter. Cal won't let Baylor in. They refused to let them in the last and I can't imagine that is going to change. For that same reason BYU to the Pac12 is also highly unlikely to happen. In my opinion the conference to get crushed will be the ACC. FSU voting against upping the exit fee makes pretty obvious that they are not long for the ACC.
I feel bad for Cincy, UConn and USF who took their big time football conference status seriously and invested in their programs. Especially sad is UConn who now has no hope of rescue, at least the other two can dream of Big 12 expansion.
Are we collecting universities from big cities no matter if they are good at athletics or not?
BRING ON GT AND RICE!!!!1!!!
The B1G is the next Big East. Stupid.
I am a huge Michigan fan, but a student at UConn. I ask many of the members of this website to do a little research about us before you question our academic capabilites. We are ranked as a top 20 National public University, which would be in the top half of the B1G academically. http://today.uconn.edu/blog/2011/09/u-s-news-ranks-uconn-among-top-20-pu....
Also our acceptance rate according to http://collegeapps.about.com/od/choosingacollege/a/big-ten-comparison.htm would give us the second lowest acceptance rate in the B1G (we are at 47%) According to other sites the only schools in the B1G that have lower acceptance rates than us are NW and UofM. We are also referred to as a "Public Ivy" as term that Michigan is also viewed as. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Ivy.
Our basketball program is top notch and has won 3 national championships since 1999. The most of any team in the country. Not to mention our womens team who is unbelievable. Our football team lacks however, we usually consistently beat Rutgers and Maryland and even in this down year would have beaten the likes of Indiana, Minnesota, Iowa, and Purdue.
We also have a strong market within New York and we would introduce Boston to the B1G market. (Our campus is roughly an hour away).
I am not saying we should be given a spot in the conference, I just believe people should get their facts together on us.