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 21st, 2011 at 1:04 AM ^
Instead of pursuing service academies, the Big East should add UCF. Put the War on I-4 in the Big East to give USF a nearby conference foe and rival. While those two schools lack tradition, history, and loyal fanbases, they are ENORMOUS public universities and can breed real fanbases over time if they are relevant and successful. Both schools already draw about 40,000 fans for most home games, better than UConn and Cincinnati, while just a bit fewer than West Virginia and Louisville. With room to improve and the nation's most fertile state for high school football, don't be surprised if 10 years down the road USF and UCF are the class of Big East football.
For a 10 year old FBS program, USF has already been pretty successful. In past 5 years, the Bulls have wins @Auburn, @Florida State, @Miami, vs Clemson, and @Notre Dame. UCF lacks the signature wins but has similar capabilities and has won 2 of the past 4 C-USA titles. A move to the Big East would boost recruiting for the Knights and allow them to compete within a couple years.
September 21st, 2011 at 1:17 AM ^
I think their run is pretty incredible, and I agree that the USF-UCF rivalry is a good one. I certainly don't want to dog on them - or any of the Big East schools for that matter, who are mostly all "build from the ground up" projects that have done a fairly good job of turning around.
That said, there are already three major football powers in the state of Florida - and one of them, Miami, has notoriously fair weather fans. Is Florida an oversaturated market? I'm not saying it is - Texas (the state) does a decent job of getting folks to Baylor, TCU, SMU, UH and Rice games. But then again, ECU, Central Michigan, and Nevada draw pretty well too. But they're still mid-major programs - very good mid-majors, but mid-majors nonetheless.
If that were USF's fate, it's not really such a bad one. And unlike WVU, I wouldn't feel bad for them for getting knocked off the BCS mountain - because West Virginia has fans now, who care deeply now. To me, it's tantamount to Iowa losing their BCS status because they're in a small state in a vulnerable conference. (Or imagine that ISU drew as many fans to Jack Trice as the Hawkeyes do to Kinnick. Now wouldn't you feel worse for them if the B12 breaks up?)
September 21st, 2011 at 12:37 AM ^
The confrence talk is all about football. Basketball really does not need confrences at all except for the confrence tourney at the end. With March Madness slowly expanding to include every team that can put 5 players on the court, it does not matter who you play in conference. If your confrence sucks, you schedule tough non confrence teams and if you play in a tough conference you schedule cupcakes.
All of this realingment stuff is only about football. All of it will make the marginal teams like Rutgers that pop up from year to year totally irrelevant and all of the power will rest with the traditional power house schools.
September 21st, 2011 at 12:46 AM ^
Since the formation of the BCS, realignment has actually opened the BCS up to more teams, rather than fewer. Think about it, when the BE lost 3, they gave 3 C-USA teams a table at the party. The Pac-12 gave Utah a table, and BYU has a better shot at the BCS if they run the table as an independent than they did running the table in the Mtn West. (Of course they'd need to get good again). This latest happenings, with the SEC and ACC taking away 3/4 total teams from the BE and B12 will almost certainly see both conferences add more mouths to feed from the BCS.
Rather than reducing the number to the "inevitable" 64 teams in four mega-conferences, we're seeing more and more schools get a slice of the BCS pie. And why not?
September 21st, 2011 at 1:18 AM ^
that's not fair to schools like Louisville, Cincinnati and USF who have proven themselves worthy of being in a BCS conference. Who cares where they were 10 years ago? Louisville and USF in particularly have invested a lot of money into being real football programs... vanquishing them back to CUSA seems incredibly cruel. The Air Force thing, though... one hopes that cooler heads prevail and UCF is picked instead.
September 21st, 2011 at 12:07 AM ^
"Wait, this means i can get TWENTY teams" - Mike Slive
September 21st, 2011 at 12:17 AM ^
How could you sit back and do nothing while you should have been recklessly and irresponsibly pulling triggers on unnecessary expansion deals? You made the average message-board-reading fan look shockingly uninformed, dick.
September 21st, 2011 at 12:31 AM ^
Interesting take I just read:
The question was asked on a UVA board: did the ACC move too soon on expansion? Natural question to ask, now that it looks like perhaps things just may settle down.
Opinion given by Brad (the UVA Rivals guy) was that the ACC's move to get Pitt and Cuse actually settled things down. It put a wall around the ACC, giving the SEC fewer options and allowing the Pac-12 to play hardball with Texas re: the LHN, knowing the ACC was no longer entertaining the Texas possibility. Therefore, things fizzled out a bit instead of heading forward.
I don't know if it's the full truth, but at least I think the Pac-12/Texas thing is dead on.
September 21st, 2011 at 12:48 AM ^
Was talking with a UVA grad about this and he pointed out that the move basically assured the ACC's survival as a BCS level league even if the four super conferences thing happened, so he saw it as a good move at the time. Adding two schools with decent football and basketball programs (and solid tradition in both) isn't really a negative. The only hit I could see is that the league loses some of its identity, but that had already begun to happen some with the addition of FSU, Miami, VPI, and BC.
His only remaining concern is that Virginia will get put in an expanded northern division with Maryland, Rutgers, UCONN, Pitt, 'Cuse, and the Hokies. If that happens he has vowed to set many dwellings and abodes on fire.
September 21st, 2011 at 10:56 AM ^
In that respect - regarding a potential north/south dividing of the ACC - your UVA grad friend is joined by legions upon legions of furious fellow Hoos. Torch-and-pitchfork stores around the state will be sold out. We would form an unholy alliance with our Maryland neighbors that they might grow the numbers of our mob and teach us the ways of fiery mayhem. Seriously, there are many ideas thrown around as to how a 16-team ACC might be divided and the north-south idea is the one that has everyone (UVA-aligned) unanimously against it.
The only silver lining I can see is that I think a northern division would be an easier path to the ACCCG than the southern division. But in that case we might as well have joined the Big East in 2005 instead of the other way around.
September 21st, 2011 at 11:29 AM ^
So one of two things happen, either an ACC north/south which would look like:
Maryland, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Syracuse, Boston College, Pittsburgh, Miami (since Miami and FSU want to be in separate divisions)
North Carolina, NC State, Duke, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Florida State
or...
Some sort of Leaders and Legends smorgasbord.
I'm betting on north/south, and I wouldn't lump UMd into the pitchfork sale, they have no use for the tobacco road schools outside of what they perceive as a basketball rivalry with Duke (and there won't be basketball divisions).
I'd wager that BC, SU, Pitt, UNC, WF, NC St, GT, Clemson, Miami FSU, Miami will be in favor of a north/south arrangement and that the wants of UVa and VT won't even matter.
September 21st, 2011 at 11:36 AM ^
We already have "some sort of Legends and Leaders smorgasbord" called the Atlantic and Coastal, so it's not like that would be all that big of a change.
Nor would it be a particularly hard sell to most of the conference to have an Old and New division where the eight old-school ACC teams are in one and the Big Easters plus FSU are in another.
And then you have the pod system idea where the teams are split into groups of four, which has the undeniable appeal of not having teams wait six years between games against each other.
Don't join the conference less than a week ago and then be all like "you guys who've been here for sixty years don't even matter cause we're going all Texas on you telling you how to run the show." North-south would be just one of a thousand ideas.
September 21st, 2011 at 3:08 PM ^
Oh we don't have any delusions that we run the show, I think we all know that this conference is run down on tobacco road.
I think the ACC stays at 14 which cuts out the pod system. Atlantic and Coastal works, and splitting SU and Pitt would be an easy fix. I think north/south makes the most sense, but we'll see.
I'm just happy to be out of that shitshow and laugh at UConn and Rutgers stuck in purgatory now that it looks like major-conference expansion is winding down. I hope they have fun in Conference USA II.
September 21st, 2011 at 3:17 PM ^
If we sit at 14 I have no doubt that the ACC will just drop Cuse into one division and Pitt into the other and make them permanent cross-division rivals. What I hate though is the length of time between games against teams in the other division and I REALLY hope they go to a nine-game schedule.
September 21st, 2011 at 3:23 PM ^
Agree on a 9-game schedule, I'd rather see another conference game than a 1-AA baby seal to club.
If I had to choose, I think I'd rather the Atlantic with Boston College and Maryland. BC has said they want to go back to playing SU as the last game of the season, and that's what SU wants as well. My interest is playing BC, Pitt, and developing a rivalry with UMd. If they can do that, great.
September 21st, 2011 at 12:34 AM ^
The University of Oklahoma is sitting on the couch drunk and pissed off at the TV (LHN) after her loaded prince charming date from the west coast stood her up and she's stuck with that Big 12 commisioner she just puked on but has to get back together with now.
Does OU win the TWIS sweepstakes next week?
It's so hilarious that Utah and Colorado get into the Pac-12 and OK and TX don't
September 21st, 2011 at 12:47 AM ^
ESPN's scroll is reporting that they'll stay, but they want Beebe out.
<br>
<br>Which is hilarious because a year ago he was being called a genius for holding the Big 12 together. Now he'll likely be out of a job.
September 21st, 2011 at 12:51 AM ^
Well that's because Texas is off of the hot/crazy scale in both directions (LHN). OU has an ugly friend on OkSU.
Meanwhile Utah and Colorado were the cute girls next door that were clearly wife material.
Meanwhile if we're going to expand this girl metaphor to all Pac12 schools:
USC - hot, spoiled, rich
UCLA - old money with a cocaine addiction
Stanford - nerdy smart late blooming hot girl who is just realizing that she's attractive
Cal - nerdy smart girl who thinks she's more attractive than she is.
Oregon - recently became vested in the trust fund she didn't know about
Oregon State - is there. Has an unfortunate nickname.
Arizona/ASU - average in all respects. Probably freaky in bed (looking at you, ASU)
Washington/WSU - Kind of like Utah and Colorado, are also hipsters.
September 21st, 2011 at 8:23 AM ^
They're Oklahoma's little sister that has to tag along with them everywhere. And if you want to date OU, you better have a friend for her.
And why do I just know that Oregon changes her hair color, like, every week....
September 22nd, 2011 at 12:27 PM ^
Cal doesn't shave or bath often. Seems to really be eyeing up Colorado lately. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
September 21st, 2011 at 12:42 AM ^
Did that quote come from Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny? What they really meant is "as soon as they can escape without a major lawsuit, we are going to do exactly what the SEC did with TAMU."
In other words, the Pac 16 is still happening: just not right now.
September 21st, 2011 at 12:42 AM ^
Fuk no we don't want those Texas a-holes either
September 21st, 2011 at 1:03 AM ^
I wonder if this makes Mizzou think twice? It's well known that they prefer the B1G to all other options, so I wonder if they'd ditch the SEC to keep playing the game? And if so, what would the SEC do without them, having turned down WVU? This is far from over, though it looks like the worst has passed.
Who would have imagined yesterday that the Big 12 would be alive at the end of the season?
September 21st, 2011 at 1:12 AM ^
They seem to be the ones who will decide how all this plays out. I really have no clue what they are thinking or who they want to go after (it seems like they were pretty quick to shoot down the Mizzou rumors). Do they cave and take a school like WVU or Louisville to even the divisions up? Do they try to poach a name ACC football program (Clemson, FSU, Miami)? Do they try to poach three and go to 16 teams? Do they make a run at Texas which starts this whole clusterfuck over again?
September 21st, 2011 at 1:27 AM ^
There have been low key rumors that the SEC wants Louisville to keep things even geographically and that they just need time to sell Kentucky on it. I honestly have no idea what might be going on. I can't imagine that there's no interest in Mizzou, though, given that their board of controllers are meeting this week. I wonder if they'd want stability today and no chance of ever getting into the B1G or riding the carousel again in the hope of eventually ending up here. There's still no promise that the ACC doesn't go to 16. I think they feel extremely threatened and want to be absolutely certain that they have a place at the table... even if expansion fever dies down for a few years, they will do what it takes to make sure they're there when and if the final dominoes fall
September 21st, 2011 at 9:32 AM ^
I can't imagine why they'd take Louisville over West Virginia, though. Does the SEC East need another doormat? It's already got Vandy and Kentucky. And as Spencer said at edsbs, WVU may not bring a bunch of tv sets (though they've got to bring more than Louisville) they do bring a certain je ne se quoi
When you think of MIssouri football, do you think of burning couches, and insane devotion, and of cameras panning a sea of bourbon fumes and howling hoi-polloi while an announcer lets the roar do the talking for them? Despite the tv eyeballs, are any of them watching with a gun in their hands, ready to shoot the tv if the defensive coordinator they want fired so desperately appears on the screen, and thus makes them shoot the thang for its tarnated insolence?... We know West Virginia had this, at least. They would go to all of these extremes including tree poisoning and beyond in the name of amor sportis, and would then quite possibly set that rivalry tree on fire just to finish the job.
http://www.everydayshouldbesaturday.com/2011/9/20/2438266/sec-expansion…
September 21st, 2011 at 3:47 PM ^
Je ne sais quoi.
September 21st, 2011 at 4:21 PM ^
There are nearly as many people in the Louisville metro area as in the entire state of West Virginia
September 21st, 2011 at 5:37 PM ^
Have you seen the stands at a Louisville game?
September 21st, 2011 at 7:20 PM ^
have you seen a Louisville bball game? Clay Travis has speculated that the second addition to the SEC would be picked to add either to their academic reputation or their bball conference.
September 21st, 2011 at 9:57 PM ^
Wait, we're supposed to believe Clay Travis now?
September 22nd, 2011 at 3:08 PM ^
The SEC has an academic reputation now?
September 21st, 2011 at 11:52 AM ^
has stated that they are looking to expand the footprint, not add schools in states where they already have a presence. Whether that's what they're thinking privately, who knows but based upon their statements that rules out FSU, Clemson and Miami (FL).
September 21st, 2011 at 1:25 AM ^
Proof positive that nobody wants to deal with Texas' issues.
September 21st, 2011 at 2:08 AM ^
The minute Texas decides that it's willing to play ball, conferences will be falling over themselves to get them. But nobody wants to add a loud voice that shifts the balance of power while simultaneously refusing to pay the piper. I still believe that the best case scenario for Texas is to have a conference surrounded by a bunch of bums where they'll go undefeated every year and get into the NCG annually. Keep their money and recruiting based both on lock.
September 21st, 2011 at 10:48 AM ^
That is how Texas views its best-case scenario too, although you forgot the part where they're surrounded by a bunch of bums who let themselves be run roughshod over by the LHN. That's why Texas says its first priority is keeping the Big 12 together.
The bad news for Texas is that both the Big 12 and the Pac-12 know that's how Texas sees itself.
September 21st, 2011 at 2:16 AM ^
. . . that maybe this turn of events would cause Brodie to chill out. He beat me to the punch by banging his drum like 6 times with other theories about what certain universities are that require the B1G to EXPAND NOW.
I'm sorry I wasn't quicker.
September 21st, 2011 at 5:56 AM ^
Something inside leads me to believe that the Pac-12 was all at intrigued in the first place, and even if they were, Texas would have found a way to be a Dantonio and scew it up for everyone.
If Texas every would care to share revenue or, oh, admit that the Longhorn Network was a Dantionio-y idea, conferences would line up to talk to Texas, even though their essential nature would be, well, you know.
September 21st, 2011 at 8:18 AM ^
Intersting to view this article about the first round of expansion started by the B1G. The context is pretty good, and may foreshadow what Delany has in mind, iwith focus on ND, UT and Florida. http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/8495/could-more-than-just-nebraska-isu-missouri-be-considered-in-super-big-ten
September 21st, 2011 at 9:03 AM ^
that Jim Delaney has spent five seconds seriously contemplating getting Texas into the Big Ten.
This is the relevant sentence: "And another huge target in the Big 12 has been speculated about. Some have theorized that Texas perhaps might be the school that best fits the Big Ten's profile for an additional team."
"Speculated about" by who? Who is the "some" in "some have theorized?"
These are classic weasel words and phrases used by a "journalist" in an attempt to hide the fact that he's the one—along with legions of other "journalists" and drunken fans pounding their laptops in the pursuit of fantasy realignments—who's engaging in the "theorizing." And then, to cover his bases, he then (sensibly) throws cold water on the whole notion of TX coming north into Yankee territory.
September 21st, 2011 at 11:00 AM ^
Florida will become a member of the Big Ten on the same day John Boehner and Barack Obama become the first couple to be married under Alabama's new same sex marriage law.
September 21st, 2011 at 9:03 AM ^
Conference expansion is a conspiracy against conferences with the word BIG in their titles!
SEC: "BIG, hun? we'll show you what's big! No homo"
ACC: "Yeah, let's get 'em."
PAC: "As long as we all agree that conferences with numbers are still cool, as long as said number actually reflects the number of members in said conference."
SEC: "Well, sure, as long as you change the number to match, and hiding the real number in your logo doesn't count!"
September 21st, 2011 at 9:10 AM ^
Thanks be to God. Hallelujah.
September 21st, 2011 at 9:44 AM ^
The Pac 12's decision doesn't stop the musical chairs for setting up the conference lineups for 2012, but it does probably ensure that the B12 will be around next year. The Big East is another story -- if the B12 adds Louisville and West Virginia and the ACC adds UConn (I don't see them adding Rutgers) then the Big East is all but dead.
Or are they? Can the BCS just "pull" or revoke their automatic bid? I suppose somewhere in those contracts it says something about needing more than 3-4 teams. But hear me out: If TCU remains with the Big East, that leaves the Mountain West with only 7 teams and even fewer if the Big 12 takes Boise State. What if the Big East added Navy, Villanova and/or Temple and 3-4 stronger C-USA schools (pick from UCF, Houston, Memphis, SMU, Rice, Tulsa). THEN, these two eight-team conferences play a full conference schedule plus two "crossover" games with the other, kind of like the B1G-ACC challenge in basketball to round out a couple more games and represent an "alliance" between the Big East and Mountain West.
Then, instead of each conference missing out on a championship game because they don't have at least 12 members, their champions play EACH OTHER for a BCS auto-bid.
Not sure why I'm trying to save the Big East, but it was just an idea.
September 21st, 2011 at 9:51 AM ^
The Big East is now ConferenceUSA once they add Memphis, Central Florida, Houston, and Navy.
Reunited and it feels so good. The Rutgers rivals forum is pure schadenfreude. They really thought they'd have a choice between Big Ten and ACC.
September 21st, 2011 at 11:22 AM ^
Indeed the Big East will become the "upper-echelon C-USA" and C-USA will just be C-USA.
What this DOES do is add more schools (although perhaps fewer conferences, depending on how it all shakes out) to the BCS autobid footprint, not reducing. The talk about four 16-team superconferences removing an unlucky handful of teams seems to be on hold. The movements of Nebraska, Colorado, Utah, Texas A&M, Pitt and Syracuse will only prompt the Big East and Big 12 to ADD teams from non-AQ conferences in order to get to 12 or more. That's where I think it would be smart for the Mountain West to start talking to the Big East, if they haven't already.
September 21st, 2011 at 11:32 AM ^
The thing to watch there is if the basketball and football schools split. The Big East is run by the basketball-side in Providence and if there's a split, they'll keep the Big East name. The remnants would be a new conference and would then have to petition to gain BCS status, and that wouldn't be a slam dunk.
I imagine the B1G, Pac-12, Big-12, SEC, and ACC wouldn't necessarily feel generous.
September 21st, 2011 at 11:33 AM ^
It kind of sucks to be the SEC now. If you look at it:
PAC: Got two programs that are good culturual fits. Colorado isn't the greatest geopraphic fit, but they get along well enough.
B1G: Premier football program added in, good culturual fit and geoepgrahic fit (unless you're PSU).
SEC: Well umh great we need someone to balance out A&M. Someone get Missouri and Louisville on the line...
Big East of course dead, but they deserve to die. Weird ass 22 team conference where most of them don't play FCS football.
September 21st, 2011 at 4:23 PM ^
meh, TAMU is a great fit for the SEC and if not for the ACC being incredibly bold they would have probably been able to land a solid fit from that conference, too.
Honestly, I think they might stay at 13.
September 21st, 2011 at 2:06 PM ^
The Big 12 should be renamed The Unwanted Nine. They are so stuck with one another. It's laughable, really.
The PAC may have thought getting Texas and Oklahoma would be cool, but not with the LHN, the Tech Problem, and Oklahoma State being rammed down their throats.
And Oklahoma did two really stupid things:
Boren went public with the talk of the PAC 12, just like Mizzou did with the B1G, instead of keeping things confidential; and then they pulled a bunch of additional media plays, screwed around in their typical Big 12 way with hemming and hawing and politics, and finally had the PAC shut the door on them.
The whole concept was a non-starter for the B1G.
I still think that eventually, down the road, Oklahoma belongs in the SEC, maybe with Texas, if each school can achieve separation from their instate tagalongs.
Notre Dame? Who cares. The ACC? Same difference. Rutgers? WVU? Come on.
I applaud Delaney for having the smarts to realize that there is no need to grow the conference now. I'll bet he's cackling away in his office, sending champagne bottles to everyone.