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!
Pac-12 Not expanding
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).
NMU is a great school, a lot of people do not give it enough credit!
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.
Which Minnesota State? Mankato? Moorhead? The fictional Screaming Eagles?
Settle down Dobber
Delaney blew it! Just sat their and did nothing! S/
Cooler heads have prevailed. Enjoy no shot at bcs bowl games pitt and cuse.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Courtesy of vanquished same-time poster Jaggs:
"we have a strong conference structure and culture of equality that we are committed to preserve."
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.
Why does this make me feel tingly inside?
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.
Honestly, without Texas being Texas, this whole superconference mess probably never even starts.
is probably still at 11 teams, searching to see if there's a Big East member worthy of our 12th slot.
may have thought it was stupid, or detrimental to student athletes, or would lower their bottom line. Or all of the above.
I think the PAC-12 presidents are less interested in expansion than their commissioner.
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
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.
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.
So they aren't going to 16 teams until they get 4 teams they like, got it.
certainly an interesting series of events.
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.
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,
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
South Carolina used to be in the ACC? I never knew that. Why did they leave?
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
(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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?)
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.
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?
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.
"Wait, this means i can get TWENTY teams" - Mike Slive
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
ESPN's scroll is reporting that they'll stay, but they want Beebe out.
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.
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.
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....
Cal doesn't shave or bath often. Seems to really be eyeing up Colorado lately. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
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.
Fuk no we don't want those Texas a-holes either
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?
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?
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
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.
Je ne sais quoi.
There are nearly as many people in the Louisville metro area as in the entire state of West Virginia
Have you seen the stands at a Louisville game?
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.
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).
Proof positive that nobody wants to deal with Texas' issues.
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.
. . . 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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!"
Thanks be to God. Hallelujah.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Like MaizeandBlueWahoo was saying, I think the ACC was the big winner. Locking down most of the larger schools on the East Coast is a plus, but even bigger was being able to stabilize the ACC so that the B1G or SEC wouldn't pick off teams.
Before Syracuse and Pitt went to the ACC, there was talk of FSU/Miami/Clemson/GaTech being SEC targets, and speculation that Maryland/UVa/wild-ass dreams of UNC+Duke heading to the B1G.
I don't think anyone realistically envisions any ACC school dishing out a $20 mil buyout for the B1G or SEC now.
Kudos to the ACC comish.
B1G should stay put unless they can get ND + Texas. Only two that will expand revenue. All others individually (usual AAU suspects of Rutgers, Mizzou, KU, Maryland, UVa, UPitt etc) are an unenthusastic 'meh' in terms of athletics they bring, fanbase and/or revenue contributions.
Pitt is probably the best fit by far....
It's still going to happen eventually...and if I was the czar of the NCAA...here's how it'd go down:
#1) Naturally, the Big 10 gets first choice of free agent Big 12, Big East and other schools. First round draft choice, Texas. The most powerful college football program in the land (in terms of $value$). Fits in very well academically as well. Put them in OSU's division! Second round draft choice, Notre Dame. Probably still a top 5 or 10 program (in terms of $value$). Very nice academically. About freaking time. We'll take them in our division. Third and fourth round draft choices, UConn and Rutgers. Make ESPN country Big10 country. Nice academically as well. Makes us more of a...well...sophisticated conference, as opposed to continuing on into the great plains. We get exactly what we want.
#2) Fine, SEC can pick second. They'll probably just take the best of what's left in the Big 12 - Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Missouri. Makes them even more powerful on the playing field. That's all they care about anyways. Moving on.
#3) Pac-10 gets third choice. Unfortunately, all they can do to get to 16 is take the left-over left-overs of the Big 12. Say hello to Kansas, Kansas State, Texas Tech and Baylor, probably.
#4) Time for the ACC to add one. And it's the best remaining Big East team on the board - South Florida and WVU or TCU (they'll probably go WVU).
Now you get to the rest of the leagues. How about this for an idea. We've already got 4 major 16 team conferences. Why not make 4 mid-major 14 team conferences. 8 team playoff featuring all of the conference champions?? Seems kind of sweet in an NCAA Bball tourney kind of way.
#1) Combine the WAC and Mountain West Conferences. That leaves you with 1 16-team conference, so a couple of cuts will need to be made. I won't bother speculating who gets cut, because I know nothing about it.
#2) Conference USA is the next best mid-major. Give them all of the BCS rejects - Iowa State, West Virginia/TCU, Louisville, Cincinnatti, Navy and Army. That gives you an 18 team conference. 4 teams will need to be cut. Don't know/care who.
#3/#4) Take the 6 cuts from the WAC/MW and Conf USA. Spread them amongst the MAC and Sun Belt. Bam. You've got 4 16-team major leagues and 4 14-team mid major leagues.
...How's this look for a playoff structure?
#1 SEC Champ v. #8 Sun Belt Champ
#4 ACC Champ vs. #5 WAC/MW Champ
#2 Big 10 Champ v. #7 MAC Champ
#3 Pac 10 Champ v. #6 Conf USA Champ
Word on the street is that ACC expansion is either ND and they add UConn, or nothing further.
Sucks to be you Rutgers.