OT: WVU applies to the SEC, Rutgers in contact with the ACC and Big 10, & UConn looking to the ACC
It's being reported that WVU sent paperwork in to the SEC today, Rutgers is in contact with the Big 10 and ACC, and UConn is also in contact with the ACC. I checked the "Texas to join Pac-12" thread but didn't see anything about any of this, so apologies if this has already been discussed.
WVU
http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/2011/9/18/2433625/sec-expansion-west-virginia-football-2011
http://twitter.com/#!/colin_dunlap/status/115505893356998656
Rutgers
http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2011/09/rutgers_remains_in_contact_wit.html
UConn
September 18th, 2011 at 10:57 PM ^
It's not as crazy as it sounds. I grew up in PA and my whole family went to PSU except me. PSU folks have never been 100% comfortable with being in the Big Ten. They miss being competing on the east coast with east coast rivals - Pitt, Syracuse, Maryland, even Miami.
But the Big Ten was always the best deal around for them. If that is no longer the case, and there are other deals just as good from a money and exposure point of view, I would think they would at least consider it.
September 18th, 2011 at 10:46 PM ^
B1G just added Nebraska and they haven't even played a conference game yet. Texas destroyed the Big 12 with their network rights and "forced" Colorado to accept a deal with PAC 10. IMO - the SEC gains nothing from adding A&M ... Texas controls everything in that State. WVU adds zero to the SEC but since they added an A&M zero already ... what the hell?
The Big East is a basketball first conference and a 18 game conference schedule is easy to arrange in basketball. The ACC is also a basketball first conference, so adding Syracuse and Pitt even strengthened the best basketball conference.
ND is too pompous to join any conference. They will be begging to get in a conference when the BCS folds and the NCAA (or whatever body) takes over college football and a playoff system doesn't allow ND to create their "own" way into a playoff ... which will be hilarious!
Go Blue!
September 18th, 2011 at 11:09 PM ^
I'd be favor of expanding to 16 if we broke up into four four-team divisions with a four team playoff to determine the champ. Otherwise adding just for the sake of adding is worthless.
September 19th, 2011 at 1:58 AM ^
IMO we will eventually see 4-20 team conferences. 4 divisions per conference. Which also works out perfect for 9 conference games. Get rid of one out of conference game and you can do a +1 conference championship game and than a 4 team playoff for the NC game.
<br>
<br>You would have 80/120 teams competing which is better than 64/120. And it puts a lot of pressure on schools like Notre Dame and Texas(if they go independent) to get in a conference or get left out. And before we added Nebraska, Jim delaney made a remark about possible 20 team conferences. IMO it's the future of college football.
September 19th, 2011 at 3:03 AM ^
I think its the closest thing to playoffs, and once these 4 mega conferences dump the bcs they will be forced legally to expand the playoffs to include the smaller teams. which isnt a bad idea at all.
home playoffs games, who wouldnt like florida state in the big house in late november, or alabama in the horseshoe in november. clearly with the hockey game as evidence, fans arent opposed to games being played in the cold. texas at pennstate in december.
this would be awesome.
September 19th, 2011 at 9:35 AM ^
One of my professors recently brought up the fact that he thinks the power conferences that are inevitable will break away from the NCAA and create a separate league claiming that they will no longer need to NCAA to bring in major amounts of money, and even paying players their stipened amount. Thoughts?
I think it's an interesting point and have yet to even consider this at the point. The conferences then could go playoff system, paying players, etc. and create their own governing system really creating another division in major college sports.
September 19th, 2011 at 10:23 AM ^
Good luck keeping the anti-trust exemption, then.
September 19th, 2011 at 10:51 AM ^
I guess best of luck to these teams becoming irrelevent in major conferences versus being moderately successful in irrelevant conferences.
September 19th, 2011 at 10:55 AM ^
According to Andy Staples of SI, Missouri is apparently making a play for the SEC which like what? From what I know of them, they'd be a better cultural and geographic fit in the Big Ten, while WV would make more sense in those regards in the SEC. Then again, TCU in the Big East and Colorado in the Pac-xx, so yeah.
As for rivalries, they say TAMU-Mizzou, but Mizzou-Illinois would be a nice one for the Big Ten b/c it's an actual rivalry, unlike the manufactured PSU-msu land grant "rivalry" game.
Also, let's be honest. While we like to tout U-M as an elite university (and rightly so), it's not like Missouri is a bad school. It is, in fact, a very good school. To denigrate a school because it's barely top 100 of the USNWR (or whatever else) rankings is ridiculous. This whole issue is, frankly, a purely first world "problem." If you actually feel superior to someone else in the real world because they went to a lower-ranked school, that's just sad.
September 19th, 2011 at 11:04 AM ^
Well, that's the logical move for them given the situation today.
Their conference is falling apart and there doesn't seem to be any space in the Pac - 16 lifeboat. The Big 10 already Heisman'ed them last year when they begged to get in. The SEC needs another school and other institutions are queuing up. It seems that its the SEC or the Big Leftovers conference for Mizzou.
September 19th, 2011 at 2:17 PM ^
Mizzou needs to play their cards with SEC. They already asked to join the B1G last time and were left out. They've obviously had discussions with B1G since. If they are genuinely looking at SEC it is because the B1G has said/is going to say 'no". That means one of two things: ND and UT are joining to make 14. ND and an current ACC school(s) are joining to make 14 or 16.
September 19th, 2011 at 11:01 AM ^
I don't even know who the Big Ten takes to get to 16. The ACC upped it's exit fee to $20 million so don't count on any of those schools.
Assuming the Texas, Oklahoma, Ok State, Texas Tech deal to the Pac-12, who is there?
So from the BCS conferences you have Kansas, K-State, Baylor, Iowa State, Missouri, Notre Dame, UConn, Rutgers, West Virginia, Louisville, Cincy, USF, and I'm sure I may be missing some others.
So I'd figure the ones you have any shot to go anywhere would be: Kansas, Missouri, ND, UConn, Rutgers, WVU.
If WVU goes SEC, and UConn goes ACC, you have Kansas, ND, Rutgers.
So how does the Big Ten go to 16? How does the ACC if Rutgers or UConn don't come?
Who does the SEC take to go to 16? If they do get someone from the ACC, who do they take?
September 19th, 2011 at 11:13 AM ^
I think you're absolutely right that all the ACC schools are off the table, as is anyone leaving the Big 10 (there are some fantasy situations where PSU joins the ACC, which may be written by literally crazy peole.)
I don't think the Big 10 does anything unless ND wants to join. That's the only home run, and to this point, Big 10 expansion has only happened when it's a home run. The conference, after all, remained at 11 members for almost 20 years.
If ND to the Big 10 happened, I think the choice of partner would depend a lot on whether or not ND alone would get the BTN on NYC cable systems. The only path in for Rutgers or UConn is if Time-Warner or Cablevision indicates they would go to the digital basic tier with a ND-Rutgers or ND-UConn combination.
If they'd put the BTN on basic digital with ND only, then I think they go either Mizzou or Kansas, with an outside chance of adding both along with one of Rutgers or UConn.
But the most likely scenario is the Big 10 remains at 12 and relies on the strength of the massive alumni bases of UM, OSU, PSU, UW, and the strange national pull of Nebraska to guarantee profitability.
September 19th, 2011 at 12:17 PM ^
I really hope UConn and Rutgers are left out in the cold with the "Left-Behind Conference".
As a Big Ten, and now ACC alum, they bring absolutely nothing. Nobody cares in New Jersey, the ACC is already talking MSG for the conference tournament given the exposure now in the NY market.
The ACC doesn't need Rutgers, the Big Ten doesn't need them, especially if ND joins, who does deliver a national audience which will be enough to get the BTN on in NY.
September 19th, 2011 at 2:12 PM ^
I agree about Rutgers, but I dunno what you have against UConn other than a rivalry. Most fans I know of that aren't crazy-eyed about Texas, Notre Dame, or Penn State (none of which are ever happening) think UConn would be a perfectly good addition if we decide to expand again. Their academics are solidly in line and you can't tell me they bring "absolutely nothing" when they're sitting there as national champions in basketball.
I'm not really against the idea of Rutgers, though I agree they don't bring much to the table except a large and apathetic alumni base. Rutgers sounds better than USF or UCF, though. And I think Swofford hinted at the future of further ACC expansion when he talked in yesterdays teleconference about the ACC owning the northeast as well as the southeast. Rutgers and UConn would solidify that and there's something to be said for your brand for having a well-defined territory.
September 19th, 2011 at 4:28 PM ^
Yeah, I just plain don't like UConn or their asshole fans (and yes, I know our fans are assholes too, but more of a funny type of asshole rather than just a plain dickish asshole). So prt of it is now that we have a better home, not allowing them a piece of the pie and letting them die away in the Left-Behind Conference.
I just plain don't understand anyone putting any value in anything about Rutgers.
September 19th, 2011 at 11:28 AM ^
My new 16 team B1G conference acquisitions are:
Maryland-ACC
Rutgers-Big East
Missouri-Big 12
Notre Dame-Independent
The former three are AAU member institutions and all are ranked 90th or better according to USNews.
I'd separate them into four pods:
Minnesota/Iowa/Nebraska/Missouri
Wisconsin/Northwestern/Illinois/Indiana
Michigan/Michigan State/Notre Dame/Purdue
Ohio State/Penn State/Rutgers/Maryland
You'd be able to protect any inter-pod rivalries you wish, provided you play each team once every three years and schedule all four pods every year.
Thoughts?
September 19th, 2011 at 11:41 AM ^
$20 million buyout and two new significant additions to the ACC, Maryland's not going anywhere (before the Pitt and Syracuse to the ACC move they were one of my favorites too).
The only way I see the Big 10 going to 16 is if cable execs tell the BTN they'll put the network on the basic digital tiers in NYC, but only with the addition of Rutgers and UConn. Then I think the conference might hold their nose and bring them in along with Mizzou and ND or Kansas depending on how stubborn ND is about maintaining independence (which is their version of The Game, as someone said).
By far the most likely outcome is no change.
September 19th, 2011 at 12:12 PM ^
Kansas isn't going anywhere without Kansas St. and we don't want KSU or their academic standards.
If we went to 16, assuming Texas is out. It would be: ND, Missouri, Rutgers and maybe we'd take UConn before the ACC could. You'd think they'd want PITT but that shipped seems to have sailed.
Maryland ain't happening with a $20 million buyout, and Maryland isn't as attractive as people think. It doesn't really give you the DC market and their athletic department is struggling HORRIBLY right now...I used to work there actually. Kansas and Oklahoma aint happening because we don't want KSU or Okla St., Plus Kansas brings you jack shit...it's a basketball school, this is about money, football drives the ship.
Really the B1G has no reason to go to 16 other than just to go to 16. Notre Dame is the only school that adds value. Everyone else just makes you divide the pot even more. Financially they're likely better off getting Notre Dame and Rutgers because they bring academics and TV (Rutgers is Rutgers, but it's still NYC). The only way you need Mizzou is if the BTN is going to pay you more because they think they're going to get the St. Louis market. Not sure this happens.
Long story short, it's the TV dollars that are driving this expansion...not geography, competitive structure or common sense.
September 19th, 2011 at 11:40 AM ^
it only remains with 12 teams. No need to panick about adding teams, unless they actually bring value to the B1G. Just adding schools to get to a specific number makes no sense at all!
Go Blue!
September 19th, 2011 at 11:56 AM ^
If you're the Big Ten and you have Notre Dame as #13...who do you take as #14 if it comes down to those two schools?
September 19th, 2011 at 12:10 PM ^
I would have rather had Pitt than Rutgers :-(
Both Missouri and Rutgers have their flaws. Mizzou is a better football team but a *worse* academic school. The NJ market is overrated, as well.
September 19th, 2011 at 12:16 PM ^
Turn this double post into something productive:
I'd rather have four pods of four teams than two divisions of seven teams.
I have this crazy exciting idea of having the *top eight* teams face off in a championship weekend, with the four pod winners as well as the next four best conference records being eligible to participate.
September 19th, 2011 at 12:21 PM ^
but that's not the question...so please answer the question or make your own thread with your ideas (which aren't bad, they're just not relevant to the question as stated).
September 19th, 2011 at 12:25 PM ^
It was implied that Missouri and Pitt>Rutgers and that 16>14.
September 19th, 2011 at 12:48 PM ^
I think you sit down with Time Warner and Cablevision and say "We're adding ND. Will that get us on basic digital in NYC?" (obviously more persuasively than that). If they say, no, but with Rutgers you do, then Rutgers (though I doubt this happens). Otherwise Missouri.
The NYC market is literally the only thing Rutgers has going for it, and I'm doubtful how compelling Rutgers is going to be for the cable execs. Their AD is a mess, stealing money from the general fund. They don't sell out their stadium. They have no following outside of the Rutgers campus. I think UConn has a better case in the same market, even if Rutgers academics are better. At least UConn basketball is regularly good and has a significant following (even if Calhoun is an odious slug).
But absent either school being a make or break for NYC (and again, I have yet to see anyone in NYC really care about either school), Missouri's the better choice. Missouri's had good football recently with at least some historical indication that they can continue the same. Good basketball. Good regional following. Pretty good tv markets. And we'd get to have Jon Hamm doing ads for the BTN.
September 19th, 2011 at 3:56 PM ^
I lived in NYC for many years. Outside of maybe some alumni no one in the tri-state area gives a rat's ass about Rutgers. I'd bet that most people don't even realize that it's the state university of NJ. It'd be like the ACC bringing Wayne State aboard to capture the Michigan market. Just about the only thing Rutgers has going for it is its membership in the AAU.
UConn at least has some cachet, but they seem like a better fit for the ACC - more basketball-centric, more East Coast, etc.
September 19th, 2011 at 12:31 PM ^
The word on the street is that Syracuse and Pitt approached the ACC a while ago (as they had conversations with the Big Ten as well), but Florida State rattling that sabre to form a conference-alignment exploratory committee got the ACC off its ass and go for the best two candidates on the east coast.
Word is that the ACC gave them a now-or-never ultimatum and they both jumped. Neither SU nor Pitt was going to wait around for the Big Ten to make a move. And ND is pissed because they thought that they were connected to SU and Pitt and would all three go somewhere together (stay in the BE, go to the Big Ten if the situation necessitated it).
Swarbrick is pissed and I say, to hell with Notre Dame.
September 19th, 2011 at 12:41 PM ^
Hahahahah @ ND. I really hope that's true. Serves them right for the ridiculous deal they got from the Big East (hey, take all our sports, except for the one that makes money).
September 19th, 2011 at 12:44 PM ^
depending on if the Texas, Oklahoma schools go to the Pac16, that will result in;
1) Killing of the Big12: A&M gets a free pass to the SEC..what's left for Baylor, Mizzou, Kansas and KState?
2) SEC needs #14: WVU? If so, losing Pitt, Syracuse and WVU will effectively kill off BigEast football, putting Rutgers and UConn in play somewhere
3) ACC WILL expand to 16: Rumor is UConn, Rutgers. Again, killing off BigEast football (and possibly basketball, thus the olympic sports program goes to hell). Bringing Kansas, KState, Mizzou and Baylor won't keep it a BCS football conference
4) Big East dies, ND needs a conference. B1G awaits with a sh*t eating grin. Mmm schadenfreude
5) Who would be B1G #14? No one is leaving the ACC. $20 mil is a LOT of money, and the ACC stabilized by taking a pound of flesh out of the BigEast. The only AAU schools left in the BigEast/B12 wreckage are Kansas and Mizzou. Rutgers would turn it's back on the ACC for the B1G in a heartbeat (some RU blogs state that Rutgers tried to one-up PSU's admission in the 90s).
I think at best, Delaney would shoot for ND and RU (I think this adds BTN onto NY/NJ basic cable). Texas ain't coming. Tex Tech is still their tag-along little bro, and LHN is something that I don't see any B1G school putting up with.
September 19th, 2011 at 12:47 PM ^
Losing the football schools will hurt, but the BE would still be an 8 team basketball conference with some big names in it.
September 19th, 2011 at 12:54 PM ^
Granted, the BigEast makes a ton from their b-ball contract. But would Georgetown, St John, Cinci, Depaul, Louisville, Marquette, Providence and Villanova provide enough revenue to fund a viable athletic conference without SU/UConn/WVU/Pitt?
IMHO it would take some mighty defibrillators to get the soon-to-be corpse of the BigEast up on it's feet.
September 19th, 2011 at 1:26 PM ^
The other consideration for the big east as a basketball conference is that Cincy and Louisville (and South Florida, for that matter) may decide to head for greener pastures due to their football situation. The only way they stay in the BE for basketball would seem to be if they go football independent.
But just also wanted to point out that you failed to mention Seton Hall and notre dame for sports other than football. Still doesn't leave them in the best position, although it's not dire for the non-football sports. The BE as a football conference is all but dead at this point. Maybe the BE just goes back to being the private catholic school league.
September 19th, 2011 at 1:34 PM ^
Dunno...without a viable BCS football conference, and without some of the Men B'ball premier programs (UConn, 'Cuse, Pitt), does the BigEast still command the $ to support itself as a viable non-football conference?
My understanding was that the TV money from the revenue sports helped fund the revenue-loss from Olympic sports, women's athletics.
I may have assumed wrong, but IMHO if the BigEast dies as a BCS conference in football, and their B-ball revenue starts withering...
September 19th, 2011 at 1:35 PM ^
The A-10 is a fairly viable conference, it seems. The new BE would be a souped up version of that.
September 19th, 2011 at 2:00 PM ^
Probably in part by poaching the A-10 itself. I do see the Big East as a perfectly viable basketball conference even if Louisville and Cincinnati depart. It wouldn't be a superpower any more but it could hold its own just as well as the CAA and A-10 do.
September 19th, 2011 at 4:05 PM ^
The Big East seems almost certain to survive as a basketball conference. Cincy, Louisville & USF will decamp for someplace that has a home for their football like a newly reconfigured Conference USA. The Big East would probably then expand by poaching the best programs from the A10, probably Xavier and Temple. You could maybe throw in St Joe's or UMass or maybe even a Horizon League team like Butler.
And if the Big East continues, ND's basketball can certainly live on there. Even a complete Big East collapse doesn't really compell ND into a major conference because one of the 2nd tier conferences will take their non-football sports. And their just nuts enough about their legendary independence to ship their hoops off to the Horizon League or whatever.
September 19th, 2011 at 4:36 PM ^
Louisville
Cincinnati
Kansas
Kansas State
Iowa State
Baylor
TCU
Houston
South Florida
etc.
September 19th, 2011 at 4:47 PM ^
I actually feel like the collapse of Big East football will help keep Notre Dame football independent. I can't see them either voluntarily leaving (because any step up from the Big East would demand their football program too) or being kicked out (because the entire basketball wing of the conference is Catholic.)
Temple would seem a logical choice to help rebuild the Big East, albeit a hilarious one. The funny is somewhat lessened by the fact that it was the football schools that engineered their removal.
One possibility not to be discounted: if all the football schools leave and the basketball wing is literally all that's left of the Big East, they could very well desire to put together an all-Catholic basketball conference, which would give them about two dozen schools to choose from within the footprint and make a pretty bad-ass basketball conference besides. If they don't go that route, Butler would probably join in a heartbeat.
September 19th, 2011 at 10:56 PM ^
I cant see the SEC taking WVU over all the schools that would likely join if asked.