Pac-12 Not expanding
Pac-12 has decided not to expand to 16 teams. According to SportsCenter interview with Andy Katz, no link.
Edit: Courtesy of Blue in South Bend who courtesied the vanquished links of same-time poster Jaggs:
Andy_Staples Andy Staples
September 20th, 2011 at 11:16 PM ^
impossible...I thought everone was going to 16 teams leaving the bigten nothing but doom as we add northern michigan, anchorage community college and Minnesota state, never getting that 16th team. damn you rich rod!
September 20th, 2011 at 11:23 PM ^
I did undergrad at NMU, it's a nice place. The Superior Dome is awesome. Football team isn't too bad, either (in terms of D-2).
September 21st, 2011 at 7:55 AM ^
NMU is a great school, a lot of people do not give it enough credit!
September 21st, 2011 at 6:11 PM ^
Yeah I did my undergrad there as well. It's a good school and a really beautiful area. The superior dome is definitley a cool place to watch a game.
September 21st, 2011 at 1:30 AM ^
Which Minnesota State? Mankato? Moorhead? The fictional Screaming Eagles?
September 21st, 2011 at 3:13 AM ^
Settle down Dobber
September 21st, 2011 at 7:16 AM ^
Delaney blew it! Just sat their and did nothing! S/
September 20th, 2011 at 11:18 PM ^
Cooler heads have prevailed. Enjoy no shot at bcs bowl games pitt and cuse.
September 20th, 2011 at 11:49 PM ^
Exactly. This also might be the beginning of the end of regular elite level competitiveness for both of their basketball programs, as well. Both are heavily dependent on NYC talent and now, having no games being played in the NYC area (at best they'll have the tournament there on occasion), it's going to be a really tough draw to keep all of those NYC kids interested in leaving NYC. At least, when they were in the Big East, Pitt and Syracuse could make the pitch that by playing Rutgers, St. John's, Seton Hall, Providence and Connecticut (plus the Big East tournament) that the players from NYC would at least play some games in (relatively) close proximity to home. In the new ACC the closest they will come to NYC for a regular season conference game will be Boston. That's going to be a much tougher sell.
September 21st, 2011 at 12:13 AM ^
Pitt has exactly one player on roster from NYC right now. There are a few more from suburban NY/NJ, but Pitt football has traditionally recruited that area well with no games closer than Rutgers. Pitt is much more dependant on Philly than on NYC.
In recent memory, Levance Fields is the only NYC standout from Pitt that I can recall.
September 21st, 2011 at 12:48 AM ^
First, I should have been more clear that when I said NYC, I meant the NYC area and not NYC itself. Sorry about that. Second, as a quasi-Pitt basketball fan (by way of having lived there for a number of years and having a substantial number of friends who watch Pitt basketball religiously), I have to disagree with you. I have no idea how you can claim that "Pitt is much more dependant on Philly than on NYC." Dixon's biggest, and most fertile, recruiting ground has always been the NYC area, with the Philadelphia area second, followed by Baltimore/D.C.. The current roster has five players from the NYC area and two (four, if you consider Harrisburg and Lancaster, to be in the Philadelphia area, which some would, but I don't...) who are from the Philadelphia area. That's more than half of the team from two major areas that Pitt won't be playing in anymore (or will be playing in very rarely). Those numbers are pretty much the norm over the Howland/Dixon eras at Pitt. Also, for what it's worth, I would add Carl Krauser and Brandin Knight to your list of NYC standouts at Pitt.
As for football and NYC recruiting, I think that's a bit different since there are no real major players in the NYC area, which opens up those to travelling a bit further from home to play, by necessity. There really isn't a true hometown option in football for NYC area kids like there is in basketball.
September 21st, 2011 at 1:04 AM ^
True, and you do make good points. A simplified version of what I believe is that if Pitt keeps winning, they won't have a problem recruiting anywhere. M football gets kids from California because they want to play for an elite program, same for other ACC basketball powers. If kids are seeing Pitt ranked in the top five and competiting nationally, they should be able to pull from anywhere.
As for Philly, I guess I just wasn't thinking past last year with Wanamaker and Robinson. Looking more at their entire rosters from previous years Philly is second, but we've gotten good talent out of Washington (Sam Young) Pittsburgh, obviously and NYC.
September 21st, 2011 at 10:30 AM ^
It's not that big of a deal. Plenty of players from the Northeast go to the ACC and play basketball down there, and for good reason. Duke and UNC are among the most beloved teams in basketball around the country, but especially in the Northeast. If UConn somehow goes to the ACC, it'll be even less of a talking point.
September 20th, 2011 at 11:20 PM ^
Courtesy of vanquished same-time poster Jaggs:
Andy_Staples Andy Staples
September 20th, 2011 at 11:20 PM ^
"we have a strong conference structure and culture of equality that we are committed to preserve."
lol texas
September 20th, 2011 at 11:24 PM ^
IE it makes no sense to have Wazzu playing at Okie State on a Thursday night. Curious where the rest of the chips will fall but I'm happy to see the two leagues I care about acting in a sane manner.
September 20th, 2011 at 11:21 PM ^
Why does this make me feel tingly inside?
September 20th, 2011 at 11:21 PM ^
Only reason this is not happening is Texas wants their own Longhorn Network right? This is the reason it didn't happen the last go around.
September 20th, 2011 at 11:24 PM ^
September 21st, 2011 at 12:40 AM ^
Honestly, without Texas being Texas, this whole superconference mess probably never even starts.
September 21st, 2011 at 12:50 AM ^
is probably still at 11 teams, searching to see if there's a Big East member worthy of our 12th slot.
September 20th, 2011 at 11:49 PM ^
may have thought it was stupid, or detrimental to student athletes, or would lower their bottom line. Or all of the above.
September 20th, 2011 at 11:55 PM ^
I think the PAC-12 presidents are less interested in expansion than their commissioner.
September 21st, 2011 at 12:59 AM ^
There's a number of reasons... some were still skeptical of the LHN, some don't see the benefit and some undoubtedly wanted no part of Texas Tech
September 20th, 2011 at 11:22 PM ^
September 20th, 2011 at 11:23 PM ^
So the Big East says they are committed and now want to go on the offensive. Do they still go out and poach some Big 12ers?
Now that the Pac-12 is staying put, really unsure what will happen next.
September 21st, 2011 at 12:35 AM ^
That would be good for some lols, but probably not going to work out. I could easily see the reverse happening with TCU getting pulled into the Big 12 to replace A&M. That actually makes sense
I think the Big East will look again to CUSA or the Sun Belt, maybe bring back Temple.
September 20th, 2011 at 11:28 PM ^
The WWL isn't shining a bright enough light on it because of their business deal, but this entire conference re-alighnment fiasco can all be traced to the greed and hubris of the University of Texas. No one wants to be in business with those shitkickers and the dominos have been falling since.
Feels like they are going to end up an independent when it is all said and done.
September 20th, 2011 at 11:26 PM ^
So they aren't going to 16 teams until they get 4 teams they like, got it.
September 20th, 2011 at 11:31 PM ^
September 20th, 2011 at 11:31 PM ^
certainly an interesting series of events.
September 20th, 2011 at 11:55 PM ^
Weird, because now we have, what, the Big 12 is sort of back to the Big 8, and the Big East is apparently not losing WVU? At least not as of right now; tomorrow that'll probably change. The Big East and Big 12 are too big to merge but too small to be viable.
September 21st, 2011 at 12:11 AM ^
8 teams is what the old SWC, ACC, and Big 8 were all at before Penn State joined the B1G and the SWC collapsed - those two events lead to the SEC forming the first 12 team "superconference," the Big 8 becoming the Big 12, and all the other major independents (excepting ND) to form the Big East and Conf-USA. And before you say that's the distant past - the BE has been at 8 its entire history, except when it dropped down to 6 after being raided the first time. Now while they've not been the most successful conference over that time, they've certainly been viable.
Another positive about 8 team conferences is the ease with which ND and BYU can fill out their schedules. If the Oklahoma schools stay put and the ACC stops at fourteen, the BE only needs to add one team to sit pretty at 8, along with the Big 12,
September 21st, 2011 at 12:21 AM ^
But it's not like eight teams really made the Big East a truly viable football conference. It's now been raided twice. If it was really viable that way, they wouldn't have needed to add TCU and Pitt and Cuse wouldn't have left. Eight was enough back in the day when everyone was eight, nine, or ten, but the way TV contracts are going, sadly that's just not going to work very well any more. TV companies aren't going to pay as handsomely for an 8-team conference that doesn't have enough eyes watching it.
This way, I'm afraid we're just going to sit around waiting for the eventual demise of the Big 12, unless they can find a way to poach a few more teams or pull off a miracle and keep A&M around after all.
September 21st, 2011 at 12:29 AM ^
I think they survive as long as OU and Texas stay together. They are big enough names and have enough schools in their orbit so to speak (TTU, Baylor, OK State) that the league will always be at worst the fifth best conference. What they should really do is beg A&M to come back and just add TCU and SMU. Create a Texas (SWC) division and an Oklahoma (Big 8) division and I think you'd have a very viable, balanced league.
September 21st, 2011 at 12:40 AM ^
But I think it's time to admit that A&M's gone. instead, beg Mizzou to stay, and add SMU, TCU, and a Houston school (UH or Rice) and now you've got a party. Either way, the major point is it can still work without A&M.
The BE is another story. Hopefully they don't lose another school and manage to limp onwards, until they lose their BCS bid and get raided by Conf-USA or something.
September 21st, 2011 at 1:20 AM ^
Why on Earth would Mizzou stay? They just hit the lottery as far as they're concerned. I think they'd be better off if they can add at least one school from outside Texas. BYU should be their first choice.
September 21st, 2011 at 1:28 AM ^
And you're right they should look outside of texas for a "Big 8" school. Honestly though, if I'm BYU, and I see that the 16 teams conferences aren't happening, so I can still fill out my independent schedule - I'm not touching the Big 12. Not as long as the wheel is held by OU and Texas, two schools who are looking to jump at any second.
September 21st, 2011 at 1:32 AM ^
There's a reason all this Mizzou stuff was conditional... they're hoping that they can play the SEC to get into the B1G, which is an obvious cultural and geographic fit for them. Obviously it's a promise of stability and more money, but it's not what they really want and going there would mean no chance ever at the Big Ten even if we eventually decided to add 4 schools.
Plus, there's always a chance that Oklahoma will step up and turn the Big 12 into a conference worth being in for them.
September 21st, 2011 at 8:43 AM ^
Sure, Missouri would hope this spurs the B1G to offer.I suppose that could even happen. I'm sure that talking to them now. But I see no possible way Missouri would turn down the SEC to stay in the Big XII. It makes sense that the SEC's offer was conditional on A&M's switch going through.
September 21st, 2011 at 9:26 AM ^
I tend to agree, but now Mizzou has the liberty of taking it slow and seeing what happens with the Big 12. If yesterday, they were looking for a liferaft because the boat is going down, man; today, they can wait to see if it can get back into port and then assess whether they should scrap it.
As for the SEC, I think they're comfortable playing next year with 13 if need be. They know that they'll be able to pick off, at the worst, one of Louisville or WVU if the Big 12 miraculously stays intact.
September 21st, 2011 at 10:04 AM ^
as Arkansas is gone from the old Southwest Conference, and as gone as Nebraska and Colorado are gone from the Big 12. And Missouri wants out and are gone the first opportunity they get.
See a common thread there?
Conferences are not poaching the SWC or Big 12, schools are leaving the SWC/Big 12.
In the last 40 years, how many schools left the Pac 8/10? The Big 10? The ACC (South Carolina left in 1971)? The SEC? Zero
Of all of the schools in the SWC, how many are still share the same conference with Texas? Just Texas Tech and Baylor.
I for one am glad that Big ten epansion has been deliberate; we have gotten two prizes and no turkeys, and have a very solid, stable conference. Who wants to bring in the chaos that charactizes the SWC and Big 12?
September 21st, 2011 at 3:42 PM ^
South Carolina used to be in the ACC? I never knew that. Why did they leave?
September 21st, 2011 at 4:16 PM ^
Sayeth Wiki
The Gamecocks left the ACC in 1971, following numerous disputes over the ACC's recruiting regulations and the political dominance of the conference's four North Carolina schools
September 21st, 2011 at 5:12 PM ^
(and likely) accurate story. However, my father has always been a big Duke/UNC fan (yeah, both) and he has maintained that South Carolina left at the time because they had an excellent basketball team/program. Top 5 in the country.
Problem was, they could never win the ACC tournament (which back then, only the tournament champ could go to the NCAA tournament), so in order to increase their chances to win the NCAA, they left the ACC and went independent (at the time, a lot of schools besides Notre Dame were independent, like Georgia Tech, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Penn State, etc). Sounds crazy, but there it is for what its worth.
September 21st, 2011 at 5:24 PM ^
that has some bearing on all of this conference realignment stuff. Clemson was their big in-state rival, last game of the season (I am pretty sure), and they left. They still play each other, but obviously aren't in the same conference.
I suspect if push comes to shove, each school will do what is in its best interest, and if Oklahoma State or Texas Tech is a deal-breaker for OU or Texas to go to another conference, that is not necessarily the last word. Politically, it it makes sense to try to link the weaker with the stronger program, but it doesn't make political sense to have the weaker program drag down the flagship program of the state.
September 21st, 2011 at 12:32 AM ^
Both the B12 and BE are undisputably weak. But they both were schmorgasbord conferences - the BE took a bunch of good independents along with Temple and Rutgers (for their supposed potential) and mixed them with their existing bball schools (BC, Cuse and Pitt) to form a football conference. There was always instability in the league - Miami was always an outlier, the football schools always butted heads with the bball schools, over revenue, expansion, and so forth. And it lasted ten years before a major shakeup made it look even creakier, and made their product on the football field less than BCS-worthy. But the point is, they already don't make a ton of TV dollars off football, and none of the remaining schools (excepting RU and UConn, maybe) are really attractive to anybody right now. They've nowhere to go, so they may as well stick it out.
The B12's problems have been well documented - revenue sharing. But again, as long as UT and OU keep the conference alive, there's nowhere for anyone left to go. KU looks ok, but is awkwardly placed without Mizzou. KSU, ISU, TT, OK St, and Baylor are just hanging on.
I don't think they're strong, but in my eye what makes them weak isn't 8 teams.
September 20th, 2011 at 11:59 PM ^
Big East looks to add service academies :
Thank you to our Rose Bowl brethren. Now, hopefully the Oklahoma schools stay put, the ACC and SEC stay at 14, and this whole drama ends.
September 21st, 2011 at 12:07 AM ^
The league has two teams that were playing major college football a decade ago. One of those teams is Rutgers.
Admit you are a basketball league and just give it up. The BCS thing is done and it makes no sense to be playing a service academy that is 2,500 miles away from the East Coast.
September 21st, 2011 at 12:21 AM ^
If the ACC were to take RU and UConn, then 6/8 teams that formed "Big East Football" in the early 90s would be in the ACC. The two exceptions are WVU and Temple, the latter of whom was kicked out of the Big East.
Really, the end result would not be the ACC "raiding" the Big East - but more like the ACC swallowing/hostile-take-over-ing the conference, and giving a few teams from Conference USA a chance at the big time for a few years (which they did well with).
As for the death of the Big East - I'd feel for WVU. They're a football loving school who just lost their primary rival, and were undisputedly the best football school and culture in the Big East. Their fans care (too much) and show up, their teams actually have a pulse and a positive future ahead of them, and they have some tradition of being a football school. If the BE does dies, I hope WVU finds a home.
But yea, USF, Cincy, Louisville, and even TCU - they're all Conf-USA type schools to me. Good at football, sometimes even great or outstanding. But not really football schools, in the sense that their games feel like a cultural event, and define the identity of the school.