This was per a twitter feed from football rumor mill and @jcshurburtt who I hear speaking alot on rivals radio.
OT: texas to join pac 12.
So.... I guess that rumor about UT and ND being a joint deal is now looking grim? I guess my top 2 are now ND and Mizzou.
Says Texas is talking to the ACC, and the ACC will let them keep their Longhorn Network.
Texas in the *Atlantic* coast conference is just bizarre, geographically.
Also Coach K said in a thing on ESPN.com that the ACC is commited to maintaining their geographic boundaries on the east coast/eastern time zone. (He specifically mentioned the time zone.) This makes Texas to the ACC unlikely.
Your NC State neighbor is behind the times. The ACC would've been foolish to not at least talk to Texas, but even more foolish to actually bring them aboard. Besides, the conference has other priorities and Texas doesn't fit. That's a matchup that ain't happening.
Please no to Texas.
I'm happy to be in a true east coast conference now. No reason to screw that up.
the link and preview says it's a possibility (i.e. not a sure thing)
I guess that means we'll have to settle for Penn State and Nebraska. Wait, what's that? We already have Penn State and Nebraska? Sweet. Let's stick with what we have then.
I know there was no real reason to think it was likely, but I also thought that maybe we could get UT and ND. Throw in Mizzou and WVU, and you've got a mega-conference that could keep up with the best of them.
Guess we gotta keep looking for the right suitor . . . .
there is absolutely zero chance from an academic standpoint that the B1G would take WVU. zero.
I really wanna thank you for being so clear about this. The day WVU joins the B1G would be a sad, sad day for us all. Luckily we don't have to face this possibility because it absolutely will not happen.
USC should finally have legit competition in their division of the PAC. I hope!
One team does not make consistent competition. But i was referring to Divisions and not the Conference as a whole:
USC has UCLA, Arizona, ASU, Utah and Colarado. I'm guessing Texas would fall in the "South" division. If you look at Oregon, they play, Stanford, Cal, Oregon State.... that's tougher than the South division, IMO.
Talking about divisions specifically makes sense. My initial reaction was just one of confusion since Oregon has been better than USC for quite a few years running now... But yeah - those divisions are pretty clearly imbalanced.
I forgot how many mediocre teams were in the Pac12.
Other than Mizzou and WVU are scholastic dregs. The ACC grows stronger scholatically and we take a step backwards. No thank you. Delaney may have "smugged" himself into a a problem.
Are you claiming that Mizzou has poor academics, and that they're akin to West Virginia? The answers to those two questions should be 'no' and 'no'.
Mizzou's USNWR ranking is 80, both are well below what Pitt is ranked at (58). Mizzou would have been the lowest ranked school in the B1G until we admitted Nebraska, which is a huge plus in football but not academically, particularly now that they have lost thier AAU ranking, which at least Mizzou has. I am one of those people who believes that academics matter. WVU is not even woth thinking about.
What bothers me is that when it became obvious that things were changing, it seems the B1G did nothing.
That is the best word in your final sentence. Perfect power-plays are made behind the scenes, nobody wants to see the puppet master. Let's hope it really does just "seem" that the B1G did nothing.
Mizzou is a pretty solid school.
Meh, Texas will just blow the Pac-16 up with outrageous demands. Do not want
They bring Texas tech too!
with the "Raider Rash"
The only way we can let ND in is if we can find a comparable school to keep the divisions even. Texas looked like that school, so what do we have now?
We have a comparable school to balance with ND: they're called Minnesota. Neither of them have been relevant since the 1940s.
Except for those amazing teams and NC in the late 80's you mean? I don't mean to be too harsh, but that kind of non-sensical crap logic really, really sounds like an MSU fan.
I thought it was obvious I was being tongue-in-cheek, but apparently not. OK, for the record: Notre Dame is much more relevant today than Minnesota.
Yeah, Notre Dame won a NC in '88 and a Heisman in '87. They also tended to give us hell in the 90s. Not to mention that Notre Dame would bring in the Chicago market better than any current B1G team does.
Chicago is the biggest melting pot of any city in terms of demand for the B1G. There are tons of UM alums and alums from Wisconsin, Ohio, MSU, etc., not to mention the fact that there are two IL schools in the B1G from Illinois. Notre Dame is not needed for the B1G to have success in the Chicago TV market
Yeah, I'm from Chicago and I can tell you that no one gives a crap about Northwestern or Illinois. Go to espnchicago.com and see how deep they cover Notre Dame. Chicago is Notre Dame's city.
Perhaps you are correct with respect to the suburbs but definitely not the city. Ever walk around Lincoln Park or Lakeview on a Saturday in the fall? You will see TONS of fans of UM, Ohio, Wisco, and MSU walking around and there has to be at least 2 dozen different B1G bars in those neighborhoods (and I am not talking about bars or fans for Northwestern or IL).
I definitely think you're right. I mean, every Big Ten team has plenty of its own pubs (hell, even Kansas and Tennessee have their own bars in the City). Maybe my opinion is skewed because I grew up in Arlington Heights (Northwest suburbs) and I was good friends with a future ND football player, but I remember all of us neighborhood kids had ND starter jackets (remember when those were cool?) and we were generally ND fans. I see what the below poster is saying about epanding into new TV markets, but I really don't see how that happens. No one in New York cares about college football, especially not Rutgers/Syracuse/UConn/any of those other not-big-name teams. Notre Dame brings a huge Chicago market that might be apathetic to the B1G now and obviously has national pull (Not that we don't already have that with Michigan, OSU, Nebraska, and Penn State, but you can't ever have enough national names). What other market would we add?
I'm from a couple towns over (Algonquin/Barrington) and graduated high school in 2008. I had a ton of Wisconsin friends, slightly less Iowa, and then M/OSU had a strong presence as well. ND...I'm not sure what to say about ND. Lots of merchendise, but I think it was more along the lines of future sorority girls wearing Cubs shirts because it's the "cool" thing to do.
Wow, OSU? Really? I can't remember any of my friends being OSU fans. Then again, I graduated high school in 2006 so Ohio State had yet to play for those two NC games. People were Iowa fans by default becase a kid from our HS was a backup QB there (and they were usually the people who didn't get into Illinois). I remember senior year, a lot of people became Illinois fans when they decided they were going there for school, however, almost all of my friends that I grew up with were Notre Dame fans. Funny how just a few miles (and years) seems to change so much.
The OSU part might have been exaggerated by having a high school girlfriend (from Naperville, not up by us) who is from a rabid OSU family, but I did have several high school friends who were into Ohio.
I have the exact same impression of Iowa, though. Basically the stereotype is Illinois? Rejected. Okay, Iowa? A) Accepted B) WIU. I'm gonna party every night GO LEATHERNECKS I DIDN'T WANT TO GO TO A BIG TEN SCHOOL ANYWAY WOOO I'M WASTED.
100% correct, additionally - isn't the B1G Network already on every cable package in the Chicago area? We already have the market - if we must expand the conference - then let's expand into new markets.
Yup, B1G took over Chicagoland Galactic Empire style as soon as it was launched. ND would do a good job in NYC though, probably better than anyone else in the country.
maybe they haven't won anything recently but they are going to a BCS bowl this year. How do I know that? you may ask. Well I heard Lou Holtz say it and he would never say that unless it were true.
Why would the divisions have to be even? There have been plenty of examples in sports history where there has been uneven divisions (the current NL Central in MLB has 6 teams while the AL West only has 4, as one example).
That works only because they play enough games. Try drawing up a schedule with uneven divisions playing less than a round-robin. It doesn't work.
Not that the B1G should strive to be more MAC-like, but the MAC has 13 teams.
but they have some teams in the same division not playing each other. I guess that works, but it's not a very good system. They also don't have protected cross-division rivalries. We couldn't either unless someone was willing to be left out.
Why is that? The B1G wants ND. They can't stop at 13. The only question is who else they would take if ND changes their mind.
I'm starting to wonder where Kansas might land. Does anyone better than the Big East want them?
If the ACC takes 4 teams from the Big East I don't think there will be a Big East for Kansas to go to. I personally would like to see the B1G pick up TCU, on the condition that their academics are high enough. If UT, OU, OSU, and TT leave then I would like to see us pick up Kansas and K state as the J-Hawks bring in good round ball. All of that being said if there is no need in adding teams I say why do it. Lets' not be the confrence that adds just to add.
If we expand, ND is pretty much a shoe in. After that, who knows? If the Pac-12 really does take TX, then the dominoes are going to really start falling, especially with the ACC being so proactive in expanding. I still think the B1G bides its time for now. I don't think they want to water down the good product that we have now.
I still think OU to the B10 is the most likely option, with ND as well.
Wherever Texas goes, OU will NOT follow. Neb and OU have the natural rivalry and are cordial to each other. OU brings essentially what Neb brought to the conf.
I know it's never been discussed, and I know OkSt tagging along would be a dealbreaker, and I know ND would never do it, but it makes too much sense.
"The Pac-12 appears to be working out the final details of a deal that would bring Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech to the conference, sources close to the situation told Hookem.com and the American-Statesman on Sunday morning."
than OU-Nebraska especially since the Big 12 killed it
OU comes into the Big Ten. they are still an academic back water outside off engineering and meteorology. Something about tonados....
but what about the longhorn network?
Pac 12 has an espn deal so i'm sure its what espn wants them to do.
The B1G used to have an uneven number of teams, why not again? Just flip them between divisions every year or two.
They'd have to go back to one division, a total round-robin schedule, not play all of their division opponents, or play an unequal number of conference games.
If it gets rid of "Leaders" and "Legends", I'm all for it . . . . .
how about ND and TCU
TCU is far, they bring no audience or markets, and they aren't a great academic school.
So really, they bring absolutely nothing to the table for the B1G. West Virginia would be better, and that's saying something.
It looks like Ken Starr is going to have to sue every school west of the Mississippi now.
...that momentum is too great toward four, 16-team conferences. If that's the case, the Big Ten obviously needs four teams, and the academic side of things almost requires that they make a strong play for Texas. I think a lot of consideration will be given to the Nebraska people and they'll want the Sooners badly. ND just makes a lot of sense.
So, who would be the 16th team? Mizzou? Rutgers? West Virginia? Kansas?
Geographically they make no sense, and they have too much baggage. I would hate to see them in the Big 10.
Missouri does work for the Big 10, barely. They also work for the SEC, and if the Big 10 pursues a wait-and-see approach (which has gotten us a stable conference with Penn State and Nebraska as its latest additions - not too bad) we might not have them as a viable option.
I always thought Virginia Tech was a good option. Could we convince the ACC to take West Virginia in their place? Probably not. In that case, if we have to go to 16 teams, and one addition is Notre Dame, who are the other 3? It seems that there are a couple of pairs (Oklahomas and Kansases, YUK) that we would have to choose from,and without Missouri there is then Iowa State (guh), and West Virginia. In that company, I don't know how bad West Virginia looks. I dunno, maybe we could take the proceeds due from incoming schools' admission and fund the University of Chicago's re-birth. /s (just barely).
There just doesn't seem to be a lot of good options. Given the questionable viability of 16-team conferences, perhaps the best one, then, is to stand pat. I prefer that than to take given liabilities in order to get to 16 teams.
that West Virginia cuts it academically. Ditto for Kentucky, Oklahoma, OK State. These schools would never, ever, be considered.
if the situation is such that it demands 16-team conferences (due to 2nd BCS bid or a berth in a playoff), then the Big 10 has limited options, none of which are either (1) very good or (2) anywhere near realistic.
If the reasons to go to 16 teams is compelling enough, well... never, ever, say never, ever.
Besides, doesn't the most acedemically prestigeous BCS conference, the ACC, have Florida State and Clemson as members????
I guess I'd have to go down through the list school by school, however, it is my impression that the B1G is generally thought of as the premier academic and athletic conference. I would put them above the ACC.
It would be so cool if Chicago was willing to get back to big time athletics. The Cook County Championship would only have about six fans, but dammed if they wouldn't have a median income of eleventy billion dollars.
Bring back the Maroons!
It's too bad it will never happen. Chicago was my first choice school out of high school and the culture there is bordering on anti-athletics.
It would also be completely impractical given the size of the student body and alumni base, but eff it, let's renew the rivalry. On that note, I wonder if people bitched about Chicago not being the season ending game and putting OSU in its place back in the day...
Chicago was a power for a long time early in the century, and they had great tradition. Sorry you didn't get in, it really is one of the best in the country.
How big is Chicago as compared to Northwestern, Stanford, Duke and Rice? At least they are in a big city in the heart of the Big 10 to draw fans. Well one can dream.
It's about 5,000 undergrads, so slightly bigger than Wake, the smallest BCS school. Basically they would have all the problems that Northwestern has, plus no momentum.
And yea...oh well. Turns out that the program I ended up in isn't available at UChicago (or my first destination), so I don't have any idea where I would be had that worked out. Tough to take at the time, but in hindsight, Chicago, while a great place, probably wouldn't be the best place for me.
Between our return to the Big Ten in 1917 and 1935, we didn't have a consistent end of season rival. But I do wonder why Michigan and Ohio were originally placed on that date - it was clearly a conscious decision, and maybe it was because Ohio was a relative geographic outlier with Michigan the closest school to it, and that our traditional rivals (Chicago and Minnesota) had their own geographic games (Northwestern and Wisconsin). I'm not sure but it would be interesting to see what folks thought of it at the time.
Wait and see? We got Nebraska and PSU by being proactive, not reactive. We initiated the entire shakeup last year. PSU was the FIRST major independent to join a conference, spurring the other dominoes to eventually fall.
There is zero chance that we don't have a plan and that Delaney doesn't have his finger on the button. I think the plan involves watching the Big East dissolve and then offering Notre Dame refuge, then filling out the conference with the likes of Mizzou.
"proactive" towards has been Notre Dame; the Big Ten has approached them, not the other way around (at least post 1940). Two teams gained in, what, 70 years?
I may be wrong, but I was always under the impression than Penn State and Nebraska both initiated things (i.e., were the proactive ones) and approached the Big Ten and not the other way around. If that is the case, the Big Ten has been reactive, not proactive. Do you have any information that the Big Ten initiated discussions with either school?
Maybe I'm not very smart, but the combo of those 4 teams going to the PAC-12 strikes me as odd. If I'm OU or Okie State, I'm trying to escape Texas - not stay in bed with them. Might as well stay in the Big-12.
And if I'm Texas, why would I want to give up the Longhorn Network? I could be independent, still schedule the Aggies, Sooners, Huskers, whoever and probably tie-in to the BCS just like Notre Dame.
If we go to 16 team super conferences, with two BCS bids per conference, would there be any room left for TX, or ND for that matter, to get a sweetheart tie-in deal with the BCS? I agree that they both are appealing schools to BCS bowls, but more so than a champion and runner-up of a deep conference? Plus, with the advent of these conferences, are schools going to want to schedule TX for an out of conference game? Especially if all the conferences go to 9 conference games? I think TX is feeling they might get left out in the cold, and are trying to make their move now.
Why have a conference title game?
because the current system as we know won't exist
simply put, all those thinking of two 8 team divisions are going to be surprised when the Pac-16 officially announces that it will be split into four 4 team pods.
But is there a scenario where the big ten stays at 12 with 3 other 16 team conferences? I know that the idea of 16 teams is a big footprint for tv dollars, but if the footprint can't be grown with quality, the big ten would have a tie in to whatever develops just through sheer mass and reputation.
Oklahoma supposedly isn't trying to escape Texas. They're looking for stability. There's not a lot of stability when your conference will fall apart if one school leaves, especially when you know they've been looking around. Being a part of the PAC-16 with TX >>>>>>> staying in the Big XII.
Going independent is a big risk for Texas. The Longhorn network is just getting off the ground, it's in very few markets. Filling in schedules from scratch might not be that easy. It's unlikely they can schedule the Aggies and Huskers. Recruiting might take a hit when their main recruiting rivals are moving to strong conferences with better exposure. Then they need to find a home for all their other sports.
Right now Texas has options if they want to join another conference. That could change quickly if conferences go to 16.
And to think that I bought NCAA Football 12 because I wanted the new conferences...
Your title implies this is a done deal. You deserve a serious neg-bang.
your post is fucking stupid....you deserve a neg bang
Tulane is more than willing to be the new northwestern of the b10....wishful thinking
....how many hours do we have to get to the Big 12's funeral in time?
I live in Columbus and have been trying to buy a legacy jersey for over a week. All the stores are sold out and wont be getting more and mden won't get more until February. Does anyone know of any other site that has an XL #16 in stock. I would have started a thread hut can't on my phone.
Have fun shipping your athletes to Seattle, WA to play games Texas.
Austin is only 200 some miles further from Seattle than Los Angeles
The southern Pac-12 schools are ALL closer to Texas than the nearest B1G school, Illinois
Hmmm, that doesn't sound quite right.. so I checked out the air mileage.
SEA to Austin is 1,771 air miles; LA to Austin is 1,227 air miles -- so it's around 544.
Austin to ILL is 866 miles, Iowa City is 859 miles, and AA is 1,136 miles -- so less than the distance to LA. The Arizona schools are closer though.
Big picture wise, I don't think PAC or B1G make sense, just too far.
Would the big ten ever consider adding Iowa State? I know they suck, but it makes geographical sense
But not financial sense. What kind of income/exposure would Iowa St. bring?
Your right. I was just wondering. Besides ND who else is left assuming the big ten will add either 2 or 4 more teams?
As much as I would love to see Texas and it would make buying season tickets easier to swallow, I kind of like teams that are in the conference to be in the region.
your earthquake in college athletics in is room 2. Jim Delany has sent a fruit basket.
Wow, that would be big... Insane if they have both Texas and California in their recruiting/network areas...
The Big Ten stuck at 11 teams for 20 years. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO ADD ISU or RUTGERS JUST BECAUSE OTHER SCHOOLS ADD MORE TEAMS.
Please. Fucking. Stop.
There are alot of things happening in college football that nobody would have dreamed of 20 years ago. I never said I wanted ISU, but if teams are expanding to 16 + teams I don't see the big ten sitting back and getting left behind.
Left behind in what way? What would the B1G get less of with fewer teams?
Which is what this is all about.
What teams, other than UT or ND, actually add more money per team to the B1G?
Good question. I don't know for sure. But adding teams opens the possibility of more tv exposure, more bowl games, ncaa tournament appereances, etc..
What is your opinion on the big ten adding teams?
I know I am starting to hate some of the changes, but it is what it is.
You add a team if adding that team would increase/maintain the conferences prestige academically while increasing per school revenue.
My opinion: http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/where-bigten-all-realignment#comment-1245350
Man, can we dick punch the next person that suggests any of the following in the B1G:
1. ANY BIG EAST TEAM
2. ANY Big XII team not named Texas.
It's irritating to hear things like "let's add Pitt and ISU and that'll give us just as many teams!" There's all of 4 schools that could add enough value to justify their addition:
2. Notre Dame
3/4. UNC/Duke combo pack.
Since 3/4 is NEVER HAPPENING, 2 will only happen at the end of the earth, and 1 will only come once the Pac-12 says no to LHN and the ACC also says no. Ergo, it's not happening.
The B1G isn't expanding just to have more teams. Stop thinking it's some arms race. It's not. No one wants to fucking watch Pitt play Purdue while Rutgers and Indiana battle it out. So just stop people. Just. Please. Fucking. Stop.
this is the most retarded thing ive ever seen.The B1G would NEVER add Duke and UNC. All this expansion is fueled by fball does Duke and UNC even have fball ?Bball is not enough to justify adding these schools.Not to mention they are geographically retarded.
the ACC just grabbed a bag full of shit to try and ensure that they'll have a place at the bargaining table when the whole thing is done. I'm not saying the Big 10 will bring in ISU and Cincy or whatever just because WE NEED 16, but it should be pretty obvious at this moment that everyone else is doing what it takes to make sure they're in the best possible position when the shit finally hits the fan.
You want Notre Dame? Cool, you have to bring in someone else just for alignment purposes. You don't need even numbers in a single table, but just plopping ND down in the Leaders or whatever is going to fuck with the entire system. So you have to bring in some filler... just like the SEC is talking about West Virginia and the ACC is considering Rutgers and the PAC is about to take Texas Tech.
All of this "the Big 10 doesn't have to do anything" stuff comes from the same people who were saying "16 team conferences is some shit ESPN made up, no sane person would do that". Now the moment's here and they need to cling to the denial. I don't like the direction college football is going in any more than you, Shock, but let's be pragmatic here. The people who were ranting insane shit about 4 super-conferences and freezing out the NCAA, etc. were right. The world's gone crazy.
That the B1G, the Pac-X, and the SEC were going to be part of a superconference scenario. They're in. The ACC made this play because they want to be assured they are number 4.
No scenario exists where the other 3 conferences are left out of a "new world" alignment, expansion or not.
Why bitch when you could simply not read conference expansion topics?
I don't hate expansion. I hate reading stuff from people that don't know anything about expansion.
If we added ND, there may not be too many who are stellar football schools, but possibilities:
Virginia or Virginia Tech.
Boston College would be an interesting addition to have a rival Catholic school to ND.
UNC or Duke would be an interesting addition, but no way would we be able to grab one without the other.
Maryland might be another possibility.
Rutgers or Baylor are the only others that I could really imagine, strictly from an academic perspective.
Wow, what a controversial idea, I can't believe you would say that ;)
To your point, I don't think any ACC team is available. The conference just voted to raise the buyout, and now with the additions of SU/Pitt/UConn?/Rutgers?, the schools in that conference seem content to stay in a spot where they are comfortable and guaranteed to have a safe place in the Brave New World of conferences.
BC would be interesting as they are already an outlier in the ACC, would be a rival if we add Notre Dame, and would add tons of value to the Big Ten Hockey Conference. I'm not sure if the cultural and academic fit is that strong though, and they don't really add much of a football history.
reaching out to Syracuse and PITT, and likely means someones are leaving the ACC.
It means they created additional stability by adding overall revenue and probably assured that FSU doesn't leave, which was the only school considering leaving anyway.
Penn State and Nebraska have been significant additions to the conference. It doesn't appear that there are 4 schools out there that would add enough in academics, athletics, and tv markets that also are a decent geographic/cultural fit.
I think ND, Missouri, and Pittsburgh would all be decent additions. I would add Missouri if ND is forced to join a conference and settle at 14. Texas, Oklahoma, and Pitt all seem to be off the table now and some combination of Kansas, Rutgers, Iowa State, Maryland, etc does not seem worth moving up to 16.
Lakes: Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue, Notre Dame
Plains: Northwestern, Illinois, Missouri, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska
Your plains division would be horrible.
Historically yes, these are uneven, but ND is nowhere near an elite program right now, Penn State and Ohio State are both at turning points for the future as the next coaching hire at each school will be VERY important to correcting recent problems. Michigan's recent struggles are obvious although we all like to believe we are back on the upswing. Michigan State has gotten more consistent under Dantonio but remains a second tier program without much respect nationally. Indiana and Purdue are doormats until they are able to prove otherwise.
In the other division, Wisconsin seems primed to become one of the B1G's elite programs year-in-year-out. Nebraska is returning to national relevance under Pelini, and we'll know a lot more about the Huskers after their first year in the B1G. Iowa is pretty stable as a 7-10 win team under Ferentz. Missouri has won 10 games three of past four years and has been a NFL QB factory and solid program under Pinkel. Northwestern is interesting and has proven to be a tough out under Fitzgerald. Illinois is an up-and-down program capable of the occasional title team. Minnesota is a doormat until they prove otherwise.
On brand names alone these divisions seemed very unbalanced, but in actuality I would disagree. Take your Leaders and Legends, I'll take my Lakes and Plains.
2 of those plains division teams will probably end up playing each other for the Big Ten championship in it's inaugural year.
the B1G would have legit interest in, the options are pretty small. I think the fact that PITT appears headed to the ACC is also indicative of ACC knowledge that something is awry in ACC country -- meaning a current member or two may be headed to the B1G.
Of the schools B1G might consider (in probable order): 1 and 1A Texas/ND, 3. Virginia. 4. Maryland. 5. Georgia Tech 6. Boston College 7. Mizzou. All save Georgia Tech and Texas are geographically sound choices (particularly if Maryland and Virginia became members at same time). All of these schools would fit academically, unlike some other basement dwelling academic schools like Oklahoma, OKState, Kentucky and so on.
If expansion is going to happen for B1G right now, it's probably b/c ND is on board. I do think that the B1G is probably (albeit quietly) leading the recent rumors by talks with ND, Texas and some ACC schools, which is causing ripple effects in ACC adding PITT and 'Cuse.
I look for B1G to add a combination of ND up to three others in the next 6-8 months. Clearly UT is desireable, and it would probably like to join, if "doable" with ESPN's tv package. ESPN probably calls the decision there. If UT joins, would B1G invite Mizzou to head closer to UT geographically and add the KC/St Louis market or would it head east to the DC/NY markets? Frankly, I don't see Rutgers, UConn etc. as viable candidates over the other schools listed.
My vote: ND, TX, Virginia, and Vandy. More likely: ND, TX, Maryland, BC.
the ACC just added a $20 million buyout clause.
Good point, but 20M is not that big a deal considering the difference in revenue. Also, I wonder whether that's in effect yet, or has been proposed as a method to stop any of the new teams from bolting . . .
It's in effect immediately as far as I know. It won't stop people from thinking the ACC can be raided, but I'm willing to bet nobody's going anywhere.
I know. They say they are not going anywhere. But look the situation they are getting into here. The Big East, where they play all other sports is in trouble. With Pitt and Syracuse gone they are down to 6 teams for football. The SEC is going to add another team to balance adding A&M. West Virginia is very a strong possibility there. It sounds like uconn is desperate to get in the ACC (one wonders if Rutgers goes with uconn to get the ACC to 16, unless we take them.) The Big East is dead as a football conference and damaged severely from a basketball perspective. They will no longer have a BSC auto bid unless they can somehow add 4 or more teams.
Also, it looks like the Big 12 is dead with Baylor, K-State, Kansas, Iowa State and Missouri left hanging. Their BSC auto bid also looks gone. I am almost assuming that we will add Missouri at this point and therefore need another team to get to 14.
So it looks like we will have the SEC, ACC, Pac 12 and maybe the Big 10 with more than 12 teams. All these conferences are going to go to 9 game conference schedules. Do the teams in these conferences really want to play Notre Dame every year along with their 9 game conference schedule? I don’t think we know the answer to this but I assume Notre Dame must be worried about it.
If we look at Notre Dame’s schedule they have the following teams soon to be part of mega-conferences:
- Michigan State
- Wake Forest
- Boston College
That is 9 of 12. Several of these teams are going to see their TV money go up. Additionally their main goal has to be to get to their conference championship game. Why play Notre Dame? It does not really help you. If even half these teams come to this conclusion it does not take much for Notre Dame to have difficulty filling out a decent schedule that does not include conference USA and the mountain west.
It also seems like any of these super conferences are more interesting to NBC in the long run than continuing the Notre Dame Deal. You also have to wonder why the super conferences, which will control that BCS, have any interest in a tie in for Notre Dame.
On top of all this the current home for all of Notre Dames other sports is unstable at best. With all this going on can Notre Dame really just put their head in the sand and stay independent?
Let's see it actually happen before we all jump off the cliff. Texas is a major prima-donna, and going to the Pac-16 means they will have to deal with "big" programs like USC and Oregon as well, who won't feel the need to cow-tow to UT's demands like most of the Big 12 teams.
I'm still waiting for BSU and BYU to join the Pac-whatever. They are an obvious geographical fit. ND to the B1G should be done soon. I'm still trying to figure out who the other teams will be. Kansas, KSU, ISU, and Mizzou are a pretty nice smorgasboard from which to choose.
It's great asking elite teams and all that, but a conference has to have a balance of elite teams and tomato cans for an optimal chance at winning the National Championship. At least, if playoffs are done with conference champions, someone will make it out of even the toughest conference.
That BYU was rejected along with Baylor last year because the Pac 12, mainly Stanford, Cal, and Washington, does not want to have a religiously affiliated university or something.
it has nothing to do with being elite or being in the right region. Boise and BYU play in the middle of nowhere.
One thing I don't understand about these 16-team conferences is how this affects football schedules. If you have two eight team divisions, a team will probably play nine conference games. That gives you seven games in a round robin format with two games to play teams in the other division. If one of those games is a protected rivaly, you end up playing the other schools from that division once every seven years at best. That just makes no sense to me.
I'd tell teams that they get to protect up to four rivalry games (if there exists four rivals that agree) and that they have the freedom to schedule the other six games as they wish, provided they play each conference team at least once every three years. This would give the maxed out rival teams fifteen games to play twelve teams in that time frame.
We would get to play OSU, ND, MSU, and Minnesota every year.
MSU would get to play us, ND, Indiana, and Penn State every year.
OSU would play us, Illinois, and Penn State.
Notre Dame would play us, Michigan State, and Purdue every year. Perhaps a fourth rival would emerge.
The Pac-16 proposal is:
4 pods of 4 teams with 9 conference games
Texas plays every team in pod A and then 2 teams from each of pod B, C and D.
No word on how a champion would be determined, though the "2 BCS/playoff spots" theory would suggest that the champions pods A and B, for example, would play off for one spot while the champions of C and D play off for the other.
For the proposed Pac-16, the breakdown would be simple.
I would love to see boston college,syracuse, mizzou, and ND.BC would add a powerhouse hockey program, decent northern smashmouth style football that would better fit the big ten than ACC and the Boston/New England market .Syracuse adds powerhouse basketball and lacrosse (which is rapidly growing and may be significant in the future), meh football but the NY tv market somewhat (i live in ny).Mizzou adds football and st louis.ND adds football, great basketball, powerhouse hockey, and powerhouse lacrosse.Also creates rival with BC and an often overlooked fact, the NY TV MARKET.ND has a huge population in NY called the "subway alumni" and them and syracuse would certainly capture the NY market and even though NY is a "pro Sports" town, syracuse and ND jerseys are seen everywhere on gameday (no rutgers jerseys thats just BS if people say that).Lastly, adding all these schools would be geographically continous with NY bordering Pa and Mass bordering NY.
If Texas and three other schools go to the Pac-Something, I'll tell you what makes way too much sense as a next step: the remaining Big 12 schools merge with the Mountain West and pick up TCU to make a 16-team conference. The math works perfectly since as of now the MWC is scheduled to be a 10-team conference next year minus TCU. Add the five Big 12 leftovers to the MWC and have them retain TCU since the Big East no longer makes any sense as a football destination, and you have a conference that can hang on to BCS affiliation. The MWC schools ought to be delighted about a merger like that since obtaining BCS affiliation has been their singular purpose for a while now.
ACC buyout (which they voted for) is now $20 million and their true rival is now with them in-conference. Yeah, BC is going nowhere.
The linked blog gives some explanation for why the PAC 10 is going after Big 12 teams:
anybody? Atlanta and GA have many disgrunted SEC and ACC fans. Good school in a big market I would like to see get killed in BIG 10 play in perpetua and loosen vice grip of SEC on the south with respect to recruiting and brand. See also Florida State.