Who will be the other team to even things out in the SEC... The start of power conferences? Things will get crazy if it's true!
Tennessee is not recruiting well just because they got 18 dudes
Who will be the other team to even things out in the SEC... The start of power conferences? Things will get crazy if it's true!
SEC and PAC 12 will battle it out for Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech and Baylor. Everyone not picked is screwed(Kansas, K State and Iowa State)
I wouldn't be surprised to see the ACC lose either Clemson of FSU and then the ACC poach someone from the Big East.
I also think there would be a strong possibility of the Big XII staying together with nine teams. ESPN doesn't want mega conferences. Texas won't be happy anywhere, and there would be so many questions for the rest of the conference that I could see them staying together.
OP, for dramatic effect, can you also add that sources are saying FSU to SEC in the title?
If you want ND in the Big 10, you better hope The SEC takes either Clemson, VaTech, or FSU. You want the ACC to pluck one of the big football hitters in the conference. With the BCS contract p in a couple of years, it's possible that the Big East could lose it's auto bid pushing ND out of the BCS consideration. WVU, Syracuse, or Pitt might do the trick. It's a stretch, but possible.
times. I can't make heads or tails of it. If Big 10 fans want ND, we're to hope the SEC plucks an ACC team? And then we want "the ACC to pluck one one of the big hitters in the conference" ... what conference would that be?
The Big East could lose its BCS auto bid after the contracts up, and that would push Notre Dame out of BCS consideration? How does the Big East potentially losing an auto bid have anything to do with Dame and its position with respect to the BCS?
WVU, Cuse or Pitt might do the trick? Okay. Seems like an possible solution to something. Perhaps.
I love the last sentence. Excellent summary of ... well, again, I don't know what.
This made me laugh.. Excellent summary of his post..
The gist is that if Big East loses someone (and thus their autobid), they would then try and force ND's hand by telling them all or nothing (ND competes in Bog Easy,except football). The conventional thinking is that ND would then end up in big ten (better football, natural rivalries, etc. ).
Clemson seems like the best fit, possibly FSU. I don't know if the SEC is putting a premium on expanding their markets like the B1G.
If they're going to raid the Big XII it could get interesting. OU and Ok St were supposed to be a package deal, Missouri looks likes a good candidate if they only want one.
...since they are poaching a Texas team. Clemson or FSU make more sense geographically and from a rivalry standpoint, but I would imagine they want to expand geographically by adding Missouri or one of the Oklahoma schools.
Well who does the B1G bring in to counter?? We sure as hell don't want the SEC being the first mega conference!! I vote either K-State n Kansas for the basketball or Oklahoma n Ok St for baseball n football. I kinda fear round 2 of expansion....
Missouri is probably a lock right?
Most likely but I also think this really pressures Notre Dame to get into a conference. If there are say 4 super conferences (PAC 12, B1G, SEC, and ACC/Big East) then Notre Dame will really be left out.
It will depend on the new BCS contracts coming up in a few years. I would stay independent if I were them. They have had pretty easy schedules lately because of their independance, so why would they want to give that up and go to a murder's row of a conference? Notre Dame is a national brand, and if they go undefeated, they'll most likely be in the NG game, especially if every other good team gets into a super conference where they have to play 9 game schedules where they will most likely suffer more losses. It'll be good buisness for ND to stay independent in that senario. Now, let's say the BCS wises up and basically says "you need to play a tough schedule, or you're not getting into the BCS", they they will need to get into a conference. I don't see that happening, but I would love to be wrong.
Don't Michigan, USC, Purdue, Sparty, and BC all have to tell ND to get blanked? If the B1G added Texas, Pitt, Mizzou, and Syracuse, (just for argument's sake), I don't think any B1G team can keep ND on the schedule.
And even ND can't survive without these marquee match-ups
Ok, that's a good point. I suppose if the advent of super conferences meant that teams would have to play like 10 or 11 conference games, then OOC match-ups would take huge hit. In that senario (which would be sad in my opinion), I can see teams telling ND to get stuffed, and that would really hurt them. But if the super conference means you still just play a 9 game schedule or something like that, there's still room for those games against ND.
I'm not sure how the math works with 16 teams, but no one is going to 10-11 games in conference and giving up home games needed for revenue. Nine games in conference is a real stretch for most athletic departments.
I actually think the reverse is true. Let's just say we went back to a round-robin with ten teams. A non-conference schedule of two cupcakes and Notre Dame every year wouldn't really make anyone happy. Add in more teams, different regions and added variety in conference schedules. That's fewer of your traditional rivals and having ND on the schedule every year makes more sense, at least to me.
If mega conferences come about then the NCAA will probably add a 13th or 14th game to increase the conference games with the added teams.
The way the system is structured, Mega Conferences probably helps ND unless the BCS entry rules are changed. Any Big 12/Big East teams left without a home will need opponents and could use their combined muscle to make the independent teams a little more powerful.
That said, I don't think it'll happen.
Would Mizzu come to B1G since we left them like fat girl after she falls asleep??
About to be single. Of course they'd come back for more.
What actually changes for the Big Ten? We could have gone to 16 last round, but evidently decided if we couldn't add ND/Texas it wasn't worth it. I can't see the calculation changing just because the SEC is suddenly up to 13/14. And frankly, who cares if the others go to the Pac-12? That converence is never going to be worth as much money just because of the culture out there.
ND is, and always be the big prize for the Big 10. If things change enough, ND may want to find the shelter of the Big 10. Swarnrick has in so much said that if things get too unstable as an indy, they will find shelter in a conference.
Yep, it's ND or nothing. Texas is on the road to independence and, like I said above, everyone else was attainable last time around and we determined it wasn't worth it. The thing is, I don't see ND being affected at all by this move. In fact, adding another independent power probably makes their scheduling easier, and I doubt they'd mind if another few schools got left out of conferences. Even if the Big East folds as a football conference, as long as the basketball side is still viable, ND will be happy, especially if there are suddenly a few Big 12/Big East schools that are independent making it easier to schedule.
Shit just got real
I should add that I don't really mind conference reallignment as long as there are no independents. And this probably means Texas is going to become indepndent. And that sucks for the rest of college football.
Texas becoming independent would suck, no question. More so now that they have their own TV network in which they can basically do what they want on (or would be able to in the event of this happening). They would essentially become Notre Dame; just more southern and relevant.
There are so many aspects of this that beg to be discussed.
Will this affect Texas by bringing the SEC closer to home? How many recruits will want to gear up for a solid SEC team, rather than a B12/Indy team that may need to make a reactionary move to stay on top? Not saying they'd become irrelevant but they may lose some gusto.
Will this trigger the mass exodus away from the Big12? If so does Texas stay independent, or is there a conference fist fight for their services?
How would this change the climate of the other conferences? Mizzou to the Big 10? Does it put more pressure on ND to find a stable roost?
All in all, this has been quite an amazing offseason for football...
I hope Texas ends up screwing themselves into the same hole ND is in. Good luck in SECC A&M you are going to need lots of it.
I would say Texas going independent is quite good for them, just as it is for ND. They can make easier schedules, make good contracts that get them into the BCS, and thus have more opportunities at championships. Not that they weren't doing bad for themselves in recent history, but this still makes things easier for them. They also don't need to worry about money because their fat TV contract has them sitting pretty.
Not so well because ND keep making moronic coaching hires. But Texas has a great coach in a fantastic recruiting area and has won 10 or more games like 9 times in the past 10 years or something like that. And now they get to pretty much make their own schedules? Looks good for them. Granted, I'm sure they would keep some marquee games against OK and A&M. But in today's system of the BCS, strength of schedule doesn't matter nearly as much as it used to for big time programs. Just go undefeated and you're basically garuenteed a spot in the NC game, especially if everyone else is kicking the shit out of each other in super-conferences.
you mean, lately? Or like, ya know...overall
They made two BCS bowls under Weis with two-loss teams that probably would have had more losses if they were in a good conference. The easier schedule allowed them to be in range to be picked by the BCS and they were because they are ND. Those are big payday's for an independent that doesn't need to share the money with a conference.
How many years have they been trying it?
I really don't like this idea, but Texas is reportedly in talks with the B1G. Some points of interest. Most importantly, Texas would still have LongHorn Network, but would not share in the profits of the BigTen Network.
Wouldn't surprise me. However, that is a year and a half old.
I linked the wrong artilce... FAIL! But can't edit now that it's been replied to. Sorry guys.
Well, you can always add it right below here. If there's a new article about it, I'd love to see it.
Well, you can always add it right below here. If there's a new article about it, I'd love to see it.
I swear... this totally never happens to me...
Blah you suck we all knew this when they were discussing expansion in the first place
EDIT: My post is now redundant, and so is this.
He's been talking about this for the last two days. It seems like there are legs to this rumor.
Did you happen to notice the date of the article you linked to?
I still think Texas to the B1G is going to happen sooner or later.
MGoBlog user of the week". If you think it's dumb give a reason for why you think it's dumb instead being a douche about it.
bc it isn't going to happen....You want Reasons...
THE LONGHORN NETWORK...Period!
If you want other reasons...baseball, culture, travel distance, lack of natural rivalries...
The only reason it ever made sense was the money was great, but now they have their own cash cow. Why would they give that up to join ours?
Hello: Notre Dame
Conservatively, ND is part of the B1G by 2020. Non-conservatively, ND to the B1G by 2015.
Crazy non-conservative=ND has been in the B1G since 2010.
Mark Gottfried is tweeting something about FSU to the SEC too.
i dont know if this means anything for the B1G. we've got a solid 12. who are we gonna pursue who adds much (other than ND)? i dont think we'd go to 13 just for ND and i'm not convinced the big ten cares much for mizzou
ND would be huge for the B1G. They'd bring mega-bucks in. We'd go to 13 for Texas too.
Recruiting yes. Not sure how it helps with tv since they just got their new Longhorn Network.
I don't like ND but to say they are irrelevant on the national scale is an absurd misreading of the reality of the situation. They make a TON of dough, and love it or hate it have put together a nice little TV package for themselves with NBC...they join the B1G and all of a sudden ginormous bucks are flying in instead of humungous bucks.
always just kick MSU out if we wanna stay at 12 :P
I think addition for the B1G depends on the BCS contracts. If the conferences fall apart and you have a few super conferences, they are going to push for two auto bids to the BCS, which is what the PAC was saying they wanted when they were trying to get 16 teams. That of course would mean that 8 teams are competeing per BCS bid. The B1G would have 12 teams competeing for a bid. Not good odds. So they may need to push for 16 teams to get an extra auto bid and maintain national presence in the BCS. Of course, if Delaney works some black magic manages to get two auto-bids for the current B1G, then we will all cackle with glee and stay right at 12, giving the other conferences the middle finger.
I don't necessarily see us reacting to the SEC by forming a super-conference. Additionally, let's wait and see where the SEC goes next. If they just add one more team with A&M, I doubt we'll care. If they go all the way to 16, I'm still not convinced we'll reflexively jump to 16.
If BCS contracts change then that forces our hand a bit - and it's probably back to looking at Rutgers, Syracuse, Notre Dame, and other schools that add television markets. But if only the SEC goes to 16, what incentive is there for us to keep up with the joneses? Also, who does the SEC take next? OU? or someone from the Big East, like WVU, or even Pitt? Or all 3? Those are the key questions.
All in all though, I'm shocked. This really catches me off guard - I'm not convinced that there will be an immediate shake-up, let alone have any inkling what that shake-up may look like. But still, wow.
Pitt won't be going to the SEC. Actually I could definitely see WVU going; state flagship in a state crazy about football (lousy academics too) and all. I'm being a homer here, and there are some problems with "fit" but I do think Pitt is the most attractive Big East to Big Ten candidate.
Can we start playing a dirge for the Big 12 now?
Here we come.
Or Leaders; you could be our second protected rivalry!
Discussion question only, but if Texas A&M goes to SEC w/o Oklahoma, they seem to be the biggest fish out there. Why not Oklahoma to the B1G? Id rather have ND, or Texas, and I know oklahoma was rumored to SEC in the last round of expansion but why not? Rather them than missouri, plus they have a built in mega rivalry with Nebraska.
I like the idea of Oklahoma to the Big 10. Their rivalry with Nebraska could be said to be second to only ours with ohio - at least until the Big 12 ruined that rivalry with not having them play every year.
On another note why not just make all Big 10 teams stop playing ND after 2015. That is the only thing that will force their hand.
There are tons of schools that would happily play Notre Dame. If you think you could “punish” the Irish by blackballing them, you are mistaken.
Meanwhile, Michigan State and Purdue gain tremendously by playing Notre Dame, and frankly, so does Michigan. Would Denard Robinson’s performance last year, or Tate Forcier’s two years ago, have made the same kind of headlines against any other opponent?
And Notre Dame gains just as much from playing the B1G teams as well. If super conferences are made, that means tougher schedules and more marquee in-conference games. That really cuts down on the need for good OOC games. I could easily see the B1G teams (or for that matter USC/BC if they end up in a super conference) flip ND the bird because their schedules would be tough enough, or don't need them as much. As a poster previously noted, ND would not be able to survive if all they played is the service acadamies and BYU or something.
He made the same kind of headlines against Indiana.
OU and OSU are a package deal required by their state legislature.
People need to start to understand once again that the Big Ten has higher standards for schools than Big Time Football Program. OU will not get in because, like many southern schools, they have lower academic standards than we would like. If we take more schools, they have to either 1. Be high quality schools or 2. willing to invest heavily to improve the quality of the school. I'm not sure if they will have to be AAU, but that always has been the standard in the past. Now that Nebraska was voted off the island, who knows if that holds true.
I think SEC/B1G/PAC go14 for a couple of years unless BIG XII/Big East fall apart with this round. We have to get our wish now and have M and OSU in the same division.
This is a good list to start with. I think they really were considering Rutgers, but really aren't now. The idea that Rutgers could be relevant has imploded again, and they proved last year that their teams are perpetually irrelevant. The myth that Schiano was a coach leading a rising program fairly well imploded, and I think we'd all like to think we're done with this trvesty of an option.
Mizzou would actually be good, but the son of a booster told me last time around they refused to invest in improving their academics (which is why I didn't think we would take them uin the first place). Maybe that will change with the Big 12 going down the drain.
Virginia Tech might be another good option people aren't floating enough- It's actually a good school, AAU, land-grant public university, football team which has gained real relevance, new territory (which I don't care so much about, but hey)...I actually think they would be the best get for us if the shit really does hit the fan.
OU doesn't have the academics to really fit in the B1G. If the Big 12 is going to collapse, then Mizzou and ND would be my top 2 picks (in that order) for expansion. Mizzou would join in a heartbeat, and if ND doesn't join, Pitt or TCU (assuming their academics are good) would fit best. Texas isn't going to join a conference that forces revenue sharing, and I doubt we'd let them keep their Longhorn Network.
IMO, Texas goes independent, the remaining Big 12 schools expand with C-USA and MWC teams, and OU/OSU go to the Pac 12+.
I'm pretty sure TCU is an academic backwater. I like their football, though. :)
They certainly don't fit the research profile that the Big Ten wants.
There's also the fact that, even with a top 10 team, TCU struggles to sell out it's smallish stadium.... in Texas. There's a reason they got left behind when the SWC collapsed. I lived in Dallas for a year and there was zilch about TCU in the DMN, and this was after their current improvement. No one outside of alums and people in Ft. Worth care about TCU. They certainly won't bring the television sets that the Big Ten would want in order to move into Texas.
TCU: poor academics, private religious institution, low profile in all sports but football (maybe not such a big deal anymore), largely eclipsed in its own home by other in-state schools.
No, sir. Don't see it as a good fit for the Big Ten.
Like I said before people, B1G adds ND, Mizzou, Iowa State and Pitt and change the name to the Midwest Conference. West Division: Iowa,Iowa State,Michigan,State,Minnesota,Missouri,Nebraska & ND. East Division: Illinois,Indiana,Northwestern,Ohio,Penn State,Pitt,Purdue & Wisconsin.
No, just no!
Iowa State? Really??
So the BTN can gain all of zero extra viewers it doesn't already have in the sparsely populated state of Iowa?
If the B1G expands, it'll target ND and major universities out east (Maryland, Rutgers, UVA?, UNC?).
Or you could put Wisconsin in the West and add Syracuse or Rutgers to the east.
Iowa state is rarely competetive in anything, they bring zero marketing exposure, and they have mediocre academics at best. Please God no.
Yep, I'd much rather Kansas. New state, Great basketball tradition. But unlikely.
A few years ago, Sean from the Sean and Terp show said that Iowa State was the best fit if the BigTen expanded, I was so amazed by the nonsense that I almost wrecked my car. It is better to be safe and not listen to that show on my commute.
for a compass.
i would LOVE to see Oklahoma in the B1G. Add in ND and Texas and someone else ( i have no idea who ) and you have the best football conference in the country.
Man, WTF. I hope people realize that this isn't good for college football or college athletics in general.
I think it could be good for college football.
Move to 4 mega conferences, create a playoff system, drop the other teams down a division, and pay less money down to the smaller teams to keep propping up their unsolvent finances.
But it moves in a direction that we've seen coming - larger conferences, less rivalries and trophy games, less out of conference competition, starker difference between haves and have nots.
I'm not entirely comfortable with this change either. Frankly, I don't like it. But who knows? It could be okay. So many people have wanted playoffs, this moves us closer to that as well.
Although I definitely agree with your have/have-not concern, I'll go with anything that forces a playoff system. The bowl system is sham. Playoffs will take the sport to a higher, more democratic, and more exciting level.
True, but I just don't like mega-conferences. A conference isn't a conference if teams don't play 40% of the other teams. Plus, Texas and Oklahoma do NOT belong in the B1G (nor do they really belong in the Pac-12, for that matter). Nothing against them, but this is a Midwestern conference. This realignment will not have been a good thing if it creates geographic outliers and cultural anomalies. IMHO, the Big 12 really screwed up when it didn't invite TCU to fill the void left by Nebraska and Colorado; that would have prevented its collapse even if Texas A&M does decide to leave.
Im hearing A&M and Oklahoma to follow. Then VA Tech and WVU. Just hear say. I personally havent heard anything except A&M but it they go there will be more.
I can't see the SEC passing up FSU and Miami, for WVU and VT.
Little East + ACC
Playoffs. Antitrust lawsuits etc.
Hugely flawed but in concept this makes sense to me.
That site is funny...Like hell we drop Northwestern for any of the options in there...
confusing 2 sentences huntrt1.
How were these pics voted offtopic when they're the exact topic of this thread...
I'm going to guess that they are huge and annoying...
Holy mother of God dude......can you resize the monster GIF's just a smidge?
If the BigTen must add teams, I would probably go after teams that open up new markets, have decent academics, and decent football tradition or potential.
I'd probably rank them as follows:
1) Notre Dame - obvious
2) Maryland - borders PA, Baltimore/DC markets
3) Syracuse - borders PA, New York is a big state, old tradition
4) Connecticut - good east coast imprint
5) Virginia - great academics, Virginia is a growing state, DC Market
6) Rutgers - New Jersey is a densely populated state, although they prefer pro-sports
7) Missouri - not a fan of the school, but St. Louis/Kansas City markets would be nice, I'd also rather move east into the population density
1) Iowa State - I can't think of a single positive
2) Pittsburgh - wouldn't be horrible, but what would they add? PSU is the big fish in that state.
3) Kansas/Kansas State - no thanks...
4) Cincinnati - although it would be intersting to give OSU a stronger in state competitor
After Virginia legislators pushed VT into the ACC, I have a hard time seeing them let UVA leave that conference without VT. I also think VT is a school that belongs on your list, now that I think about it. But I don't think the ACC is as unstable as the B12 or the Big East, anyway. The Big12 had some serious cultural problems with Texas' hegemony over the entire conference, and the Big East has always been a schmorgasbord of a conference. I have a hard time seeing any of the Carolina or Virginia schools leaving the ACC for anybody. I have an easier time of seeing GT, BC, Maryland, FSU or Miami leaving, but not by a whole lot.
It's pretty obvious the SEC wants an even number of teams. IF A&M bolts for the SEC, then the SEC must decide if they want to go to 14 or 16 teams. If just 14, they probably try to pull another Big 12 team in. If they go to 16, they very well might try to raid the ACC. If they do, depending on which teams the ACC as a football conference could be in trouble.
My brother-in-law went to BC. People in the ACC are very worried about expansion, and what it might do for their conference. At the end of the day, only the Florida schools and Virginia Tech are ever within spitting distance of being relevant, so the loss of any of those would be, how you say? a "big deal."
I'd say all three of these are basketball first schools and strongly associate with their conference because of basketball. I'd have a hard time seeing any of these teams leave for the Big 10 unless the conference they are in completely falls apart.
Dude with "good sources" from Oklahoma no less saying the BIG 10 to make offer to take Texas and A&M as a package next week before the A&M regents vote on the 22nd based on the fact that the SEC will not take Texas.
No love lost between Texas and a&m based on their comments. Also, A&M has a very good looking class coming in.
Interesting boards to check out if you're a few beers/drinks into this.
I have no interest in Texas or even ND unless they agree to be equal partners as is the tradition. If Texas agrees to be an equal partner, then I'd see doing this.
They seem like the hot girl who is a total biatch. Initially, you can deal with the attitude but after a while the attitude over rides the looks.
Texas seems to have too much 'baggage' to be considered:
1) poor geography
2) not a team player in terms of conference schools
3) already has their own network
4) Nebraska was happy to leave them, this might be a nightmare for them
5) Their baseball team is important to them (just like hockey for us) and they would hate the switch
...but who knows.
while the geography is poor, they would probably bring 2 of the largest TV markets - Houston and Dallas.
There's no way that the Texas leg would allow that to happen without Baylor as a tag along.
Pittsburgh would add to academics.
I guess I meant to say that they do not add anything in terms of $, markets, and something, but not much for football.
Pitt would only sort of add to academics. You don't get CMU just because it's nearby. Market-wise, it's a good move for basketball, but Pitt football is a distant fourth (or, man, fifth wth the Buccos right now). Good luck ever filling Heinz Field unless they are playing Penn State or OSU. No thanks.
Heinz Field sells out for big games, and Pitt does an okay job of filling up seats. In 2010 (probably the biggest disappointment for me since Michigan 2008 or 2009 basketball) they averaged 86.22% of capacity. That would just edge out Illinois (86.19%) for eighth, assuming Nebraska is up with us and OSU.
Pitt also has a bigger venue than NU/ IU/ Purdue/ Illinois/ Minnesota.
As for academics, Pitt is a top twenty research institution in science, engineering and medicine. This wouldn't change with a move to the Big Ten.
I'll give you medicine, especially UPMC. But Pitt isn't top 20 for engineering or sciences. They're just outside of the top 50 for almost all engineering and science grad programs according to US News. That's not bad (and much better than many competitors), but it just makes them a peer institution, not a place that gets to use academics as a primary reason.
The probelm with using capacity measurements is it does nothing to show actual totals. They may have edged out Illinois, but U of I put 10,000 more people in their stadium on average (and people at U of I barely care about football in the first place, so that number is surprising to me). Pitt has 2.3 million people in it's metro area and Illinois has 200,000. Something is wrong there. If we're adding someone else, I want a big draw for football, or I guess a big name for basketball. Both would be ideal.
I was talking research expenditures, not US News rankings. Pitt gets stupid amounts of money for its research in those areas (yes, all skewed towards medicine, but nobody cares about Purdue being skewed towards aero, they're both very good).
As far as attendance goes, Pitt is a little like Northwestern, the size of Pittsburgh is a big detriment. I'm not trying to claim that Pitt football = Michigan football, but other than ND/Texas, they could be the best "available".
With UPMC there (they employ, what, like 1/4 of the city), I'm not surprised. I guess I just don't see them having the same academic name pull as a Texas or ND, though admitting that ND has academic name pull sort of makes me want to throw up.
I'd agree that Pitt is one step below the main contenders, but that field is so big and lackluster, I just can't get behind any of the options. Fuck it, let's just go after Point Park University.
You have to admit that ND is a very good school. Douchey? Yes. But still a good school, that just happens to be full of douchenozzles.
I don't see why anyone would want Texas. They completely go against the principle of equality in revenue-sharing amongst all schools. And academically, you can't possibly put it on the same plane as a school like ND.
Well, you can because Texas is a big research university. Texas also is just as much of a name as ND. Their alumni power is also incredibly strong.
Of course, I grew up in Chicago, so you're looking at the wrong person if you want concessions about ND's greatness.
Texas has a recognizable name because it's in a large state, and has the largest enrollment of any university.
Ohio State is also recognizable with a large alumni base, and they can barely read.
ASU, UCF, OSU, and Minnesota all come in ahead of Texas, but point taken. I think you're too harsh on Texas though, as they actually tied with Wisconsin this year in university rankings and have a pretty huge research footprint.
Pittsburgh plays at Heinz Field with a capacity of 65050.
Home Game Attendance for 2010:
New Hampshire - opening home game of season - 50,120
#19 Miami (YTM) - ranked opponent at time of game - 58,115
Florida International - not a big OOC opponent - 45,207
Rutgers - 50,425
Louisville - 48,562
West Virginia - "Big Rivalry" and it isn't even sold out - 60,562
I would argue that these attendance #s hurt the school's chances to join. Only 6 home games, including your #1 rival and a ranked out of conference opponent and you still can't sell a game out?
I do like the city of Pittsburgh.
SEC to hold emergency meeting this Saturday (Aug 13) to discuss A&M.
A&M Regents to vote regarding joining the SEC on Aug 22.
how many mutually exclusive predictions did he make regarding where UT would end up last year? I guess if you make enough predictions, you'll be able to say you were right after the fact...
His predictions were fed to him by the schools athletic director. You don't make the PAC16 prediction without inside information bc they came from nowhere
the fact that most of his predictions didn't come true doesn't strike you as a reason to pause? Didn't he say, unequivocally, that Texas was not in talks with the Big 10? Something we know to be false?
Jim Delany just got a blowjob without actually getting a blowjob.
Mizzou and either Syracuse or Maryland not only because of their TV markets but they might add more competivness in the conference in more then one sports.
It's actually kinda funny, cause I could see it happening where the conferences get so big (20 teams), they will just split into 2 divisions of 10 and schedule where you get 9 games against teams in your division, then maybe 1, 2, or 3 games against teams from the other division. Basically, it would be like smaller conferences again with guaranteed OOC games against teams from other division and a revenue sharing agreement.
I'd take us reverting to the Big Ten as one division then PSU, Nebraska, Texas, ND, Missouri, etc in the other division...
Time for some long-term predictions...
Texas A&M, Texas to the SEC West, Florida State, Clemson to the SEC East (with the SEC allowing Texas to maintain their Longhorn Network)
Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Baylor to the Pac-12 South with Colorado and Utah moving to the Pac-12 North
Missouri, Notre Dame, Pitt, and Rutgers to the Big 10 with a non-geographical split like so to accomodate those Irish bastards (since Michigan, Purdue, Michigan St, and Pitt are traditional annual games)
Lakes - Ohio St/Michigan/Notre Dame/Pitt/Purdue/Indiana/Michigan State/Rutgers
Plains - Penn St/Nebraska/Iowa/Wisconsin/Minnesota/Illinois/Northwestern/Missouri
The Big East becomes a basketball only conference with West Virginia, Connecticut, Syracuse, South Florida, Cincinnati, and Louisville joining the ACC forming the country's premiere basketball conference and solidifying their spot as a 4th "BCS Playoff" football conference.
For kicks, here's the Big East: Georgetown, Villanova, Providence, Seton Hall, St. John's, Dayton, Xavier, Marquette, DePaul, and possibly 3-5 teams from the Atlantic 10.
So, you have 4 16-team mega conferences in football.
The MAC remains at 14 (including UMass and Temple)...
The Mountain West adds Kansas, Kansas State, TCU (now without a home), and BYU (quickly realizing they are the only independent left) to get to 14.
That leaves Conference USA (12), the Sun Belt (10 once South Alabama begins playing FBS football), and the WAC (at 7 teams), and poor Iowa State.
I see Louisiana Tech, Texas State, UTSA, and New Mexico State leaving to the Sun Belt to get to 14 leaving Iowa State, Idaho, Utah State, San Jose State, Army, and Navy as the odd teams out. My guess would be Army and Navy join Conference USA with Idaho and Utah State joining the Mountain West and San Jose State dropping down to FCS.
Lastly, this is completely crazy and will most likely never happen unless the SEC adds more than A&M and FSU (which the ACC will probably hit up WVU to replace them) , the Pac-12 counters with Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Texas and the Big 12 feels the need to match-up with Notre Dame, Missouri, and Pitt.
Even then, God only knows how the dominoes will fall.
I'm fine with all of that except having Michigan and Ohio in the same division.
You do realize you named the divisions "lakes" and "plains" and then put Wisconsin and Minni in the "plains" division, don't you?
The Texas A&M Board of Regents meets on August 22nd. In an optimal situation, that would be when the university formally decides and announces it's going to join the SEC.
If TAMU joins the SEC, then the minimum possible thing that could happen is one more team joins the conference and it stays at 14 members. The likely candidates for that would be from the ACC (Florida State, Virginia Tech, Clemson) or the Big East (West Virginia, Louisville). There was a tweet by North Carolina State's men's basketball coach that FSU has been contacted by the SEC, but there's no confirmation outside of that.
I strongly suspect it would be a program from the ACC, which then means that conference would be looking at one additional member. Back in 2003, the ACC initially wanted to add Syracuse, Boston College and Miami-FL. Virgnia Tech was substituted for Syracuse because the state legislature essentially strong-armed Virginia into supporting VTech's candidacy into the ACC. Would Syracuse be invited again? If not, would there be some other Big East school that would be a likely candidate to join the ACC?
The Big XII has indicated that if TAMU does join the SEC, it would willing to become a nine-team conference and play eight confernce games. We already know that the Big East is looking for additional football partners since its television contract is up for negotiation in 13 months. If one of their members moves to the ACC, that makes their situation more problematic.
Everything I've written above is the bare minimum that could happen with only a small handful of teams making moves, i.e., something roughly akin to what happened last year.
Things get really interesting in terms of conference realignment if the SEC actually opts to expand to 16 teams. At that point, the number of programs moving increases and the potential for really major change now becomes a greater possibility. One of the key programs is Oklahoma. Does OU decided to stay with the Big XII? Or do they go to the SEC, if invited? Oklahoma will also invariably be approached by the Pac 12--that is another possibility? Will Oklahoma be willing to make a move without Oklahoma State or are they a package deal?
If the SEC and/or the Pac 12 are on the way to super-conference status, I have to imagine the Big Ten will also make its move. Delany and the conference presidents have already examined all the possibilities these past twenty months, so whatever candidates for expansion they invite will already have been thoroughly vetted.
Clearly, the two prime candidates throughout the Big Ten's expansion study process are Notre Dame and Texas. ND is the only college program with enough name recognition to help move the Big Ten Network into basic cable in the mid-Atlantic and northeast states and cities (Washington, DC; Baltimore, Philade;phia, New York, Boston). Texas does the same thing for Houston, Dallas and the other major cities in Texas. Both teams have network obligations (ND with NBC, UT with the Longhorn Network), but in both cases, there are workarounds to these sitatuions. Keep in mind that the three parties behind the LHN are ING, Texas and ESPN--all of them would want to make nice with the Big Ten is any future arrangement (particularly ABC/ESPN seeing that the conference's television rights are up for negotiation in four years time).
I suspect that the Big Ten would add a 15th and 16th team to help solidify the Big Ten Network's efforts to get on basic cable in Texas and the mid-Atlantic/Northeast/New England regions. While UT could probably wrap up the state of Texas, ND might need "help" when it comes to basic cable in cities that are pro-oriented. That's why the last two members of the confernce could come from that area--programs like Virginia, Maryland, Rutgers and Syracuse would make sense in that regard. If ND doesn't need "help" to accomplish those goals, then the Big Ten could cap itself at 14.
In a 14-team conference with nine conference games and a permanent crossover rival, a team would play six games within its division, one with the cross-division rival and two with the remaining six teams in the opposing division. If Texas went into the Legands and Notre Dame into the Leaders and nothing else changed, then Michigan would play the following:
Legends Division (3 Home / 3 Away): Iowa, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Texas
Leaders Division Protected Cross Rival: Ohio State
Leaders Divison: 2 of Illinois, Indiana, Notre Dame, Penn State, Purdue, Wisconsin
We'll see what happens. Until the Texas A&M move is official, we're dealing with informed speculation at this point. But if it has real legs, then you can rest assured that the commissioners from the BCS conferences are going to have a lot of restless nights in the coming months.
I don't see why the SEC would add Louisville. Kentucky isn't a big market and they already have the Wildcats. Also, Louisville has had some good years with football, but isn't that great and the SEC cares most about football. It seems like Va Tech, North Carolina, Oklahoma - would all add more than a Louisville.
I dont no if this has been said but the talk down here is Texas to the B10 and ND will follow.
Why would Texas give up their network? There's not a shot in hell. If anything they go Independent
I agree. Anyone who thinks "Texas to the Big Ten" please tell me how they'll resolve the obvious Longhorn Network/BTN conflict.
There is no way that the Big 10 is going to put up with Texas' shenanigans. The reason that they weren't chosen before, is that Texas expects to be treated differently than the other member institutions. That's not going to hold water in the Big 10, no matter what "rumors" you here down there. It's simply not an option. Texas, for good or bad, has painted itself into an indpendent corner.
...And take it FWIW, but that would be part of the deal. Texas Home athletics would not appear on the Big Ten Network. UT would agree to a smaller percentage of gross from the Big Ten Network, and the Longhorn Network would stay Texas alone.
The Big Ten Network would still recieve its .50 per household on footprint states on basic cable deal, or whatever it is, with the State of Texas as part of that footprint.
UT has 3 options:
1) Become independent, which long term is not a good plan, too much risk.
2) PAC-12 which is fine, however it is kind like the BIG 10 lite.
3) Big Ten.
Honestly staying with the Big 12 w/out A&M is really not an option. You might as well become independent, why give away revenues to 8 other schools if they aren't giving you anything in return?
would stay in Texas alone.
So if you're a fan of a big ten team living in the midwest and they are playing at Texas, you wouldn't be able to watch the game unless it was on ABC or ESPN????
If those are Texas's options, and the Big Ten is obviously their best, then I'd be very disappointed in the Big Ten if they gave any BTN money to UT while they insisted on running the Longhorn Network. You join the conference, you play nice. This isn't the Big 12 that needs Texas to hold things together.
Their football team would probably be fine as an independent. The big question Texas would need to ask/answer is: how would their other sports do as independents? They have one of the top athletic programs in the country. However, whereas ND is independent in football, they were smart to get the rest of their sports into the Big East.
If the Big 12 dissolves, do you think any of the other super conferences are going to give Texas the ok to be independent in football but the ok for their other programs to participant in the conference? The SEC no way. The Big 10 no way and probably doubtful the Pac-10 would either. That leaves the Big East and the ACC.
The question Texas needs to ask about joining the Big Ten is do they think they can make more money as an independent (while maintaining all their athletic programs) than they can make by joining the Big 10?
Anyone suggesting that Pitt or Rutgers would be added under any scenario needs to be punched in the face repeatedly.
But you don't want to see the RichRod bowl as our new staff plays RichRod's old staff?
We're playing Clemson in 2012?
Doesn't want to move. They have it good in the Big 12. Going to any other conference would be a salary cut for them.
But if there is no Big 12 they won't have it so good.
The thought of Texas baseball destroying B1G teams is absolutely hilarious. At least our softball could compete with them.
Maryland has a decent athletics program just not football that would bring the Baltimore/DC tv money to the Big ten. Missouri has a solid football and basketball program that would be able to play old foe Nebraska.
The DC market doesn't care about Maryland. Georgetown, GWU, GMU basketball all operate relatively close by. Plenty of Maryland alums around DC, but the lack of interest in Maryland football games (seriously, I can get a ticket to BC v Maryland or UVA v Maryland for $7 right now) makes this a non-starter.
Two things about this whole mess stand out to me.
1. I can't see Texas going independent
2. I'm not sure the SEC jumps to 16
I see it more like this, SEC moves to 14, and everyone else follows suit. The PAC 12/16 is the only one who moves to 16. At least for a while.
SEC adds Texas A&M and FSU
PAC 12/16 adds Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State
Big Ten adds ND and Syracuse
ACC adds WVU, Connecticut, and USF
Big East and Big 12 go, well we have 5 teams and you have 5 teams and create a ten team conference - Pitt Louisville Cincinnati Rutgers TCU Kansas KSU Missouri Iowa St and Baylor
MWC stays how it is now
The big 4 conferences get 2 bcs bids a piece, big east 12 and mwc get one, and two at large bids.
Sorry, I meant to add, the BCS adds a bowl game, hence the 12 bids
Unless they are able to hold the Big 12 together, Texas is probably going to have to compromise some depending on which conference they go to. And lately it seems Texas is mainly concerned with Texas. I can't see them going to the Big 10 or SEC because I think each of those conferences would want Texas to compromise more than Texas wants. So it would come down to how badly the Pac-10, Big East or ACC wanted Texas and how much that conference was willing to let Texas be Texas.
Here we go again *sigh*. Time to dust off the 'ole B1G wish list.
The usual suspects:
Notre Dame - Texas looks like it will eventually wind up going independent. This may give ND the "courage" to stay independent. Look for TX and ND to ink a long term deal to play each year. I just don't think ND is in the picture for the B1G.
Missouri - Meh. Doesn't add that much geography that Neb and Ill don't already account for. But it does give Neb another playmate.
Rutgers - Double meh. Adding Rutgers will not make NYC Big Ten country. It will make New Brunswick NJ Big Ten counrty.
Pitt - Redundant with Penn State. But it gives Penn State a real rival so that they can still complain about the refereeing.
Syracuse - Personallly, I think we would get more bang for the East Coast buck from Syracuse than Rutgers. And there's hoops as well.
Some new faces:
Maryland - Forget the NYC pipe dream. Look south, young conference. Maryland will make the compelling DC area B1G country. They would be hard to pry away from the ACC. They fancy themselves as a basketball school (legit) and have built up quite a decent rivalry with Duke.
Virginia - Maryland would accomplish the same goals for the B1G (ratings, new markets,etc.), but better than Virginia. Va would probably also have to be twofer with Va Tech which is how it played out in the ACC when Va insisted that Va Tech be brought in.
Oklahoma - What the hell. Neb lost its academic accreditation. So what if Oklahoma never had it in the first place. Maybe we look the other way on this one. Unfortunately, OU would be a package deal with OSU (not that OSU).
Duke & UNC - There's been some chatter that the B1G would go the pure hoop pedigree route if it goes up to 16 teams. I'm not sure I see this one. Football is king for the B1G market and the ACC is not necessarily going to dissolve like the Big East may.
Kansas & KSU - There's been some chatter about this too, but its a watered down version of the above without the cache. It would be ours for the taking if we did want it though.
Ga Tech - apparently there were some informal talks with Ga Tech and the B1G in the past. Big appeal market-wise. Remember all the discussions about the population shifting south from the B1G office during the last round of expansion? Location, location, location. Otherwise, actually pretty meh.
Boston College - Another pure media market play, but with less appeal.
Texas - No. Any conference that invites Texas to join it has not been paying attention.
Texas as an independent: good point about possibly making ND want to stay independent. Couple that with BYU and that's not a bad threesome. The catch is ND and BYU got their other sports into a conference (ND Big East and BYU WAC). What does Texas do with it's other sports?
ACC teams: Other than possibly Georgia Tech, I can't see any of them leaving unless the ACC falls apart. UNC, Duke, Maryland and Virginia are all core members.
To me the school on there that is interesting is Kansas. So-so football school but would be huge for Big 10 basketball.
Agree on a lot of those schools being meh and not really adding to the Big Ten footprint, but I think it's going to be hard to pull a core ACC school and I'd be surprised if Syracuse left the Big East. After that there's not a lot of schools that get me excited, and if Delaney wanted to keep up with the superconferences (even if it's just to 14 teams) it might require at least one addition that isn't that attractive.
Any realignment scenarios that end up with Baylor not having a major conference home should immediately be discarded as pure fantasy. The Texas state legislature will make sure that Baylor has a lucrative and prominent home. They don't deserve it competitively, but it is what it is. Baylor will be protected.
goto Conference-USA where they belong
should add Notre Dame and Boston College.
Nobody cares about BC even in Boston.
Per my constant Syracuse to the Big Ten campaigning, I present Syracuse at MSG in NYC (against other contender Pitt)
At other candidate Rutgers, in NJ.
And for those that are touting the D.C. area, at the Verizon Center.
Of all of the teams mentioned as candidates, Syracuse has the largest fanbase from New York to the mid-Atlantic.
SYRACUSE TO THE BIG TEN!
why hasn't ESPN reported/confirmed the story yet? Everything I've seen (such as on cbssports.com) says that it looks like it 'could' happen. Is it really a done deal? Or are there just technicalities to work out before it can be confirmed.
that ESPN is who held together the Big 12 last year, and that they own a big part of the Longhorn Network, that they don't want it to happen.
It's financially advantageous for A&M to be in the Big 12.
Could we go after Virginia Tech? I get the feeling that UVA and Maryland might be tied to stongly to the ACC.
If we took VT we would need to take UVA as well because of the Virginia legislature.
No, the Virginia legislature didn't want to leave VT in the dying Big East and forced Virginia to veto syracuse to get VT into the ACC. If VT was going to the B1G, they wouldn't object. It's a moot point though, the B1G has 0 interest in VT.