Anyone doubt now that the SEC is going to 16 teams?
Peppers at 10, which seems low.
Anyone doubt now that the SEC is going to 16 teams?
Hide your kids, hide your wife.
What does this mean for the B1G?
The SEC could very well have wanted A&M to be the ones to breach their new contract with the BXII before inviting them. Not saying that's definitely what's happening, but it's being talked about on the intenet and sounds plausable.
The internet is a series of tubes.
The internet is a series of tubes.
The internet is a series of tubes.
they will take no action at this time b/c the aggies are still in the big 12 and they don't want to be the bad guys
if the aggies leave the big 12 then maybe they can talk
this vote by the chancellors was the first step on the aggies part
That article pretends to do a legal analysis, but its discussion of "tortious interference" has a MAJOR GAPING hole, so don't trust it.
Basically, tortious inference is a common-law civil liability claim where a third party (C) can be liable for encouraging one party (A) to breach its contract with a second party (B) -- B would sue C for tort damaages. BUT, to be liable -- and this is the hole in that article -- C's conduct must be "wrongful" (it's stated in a number of different words in various states) -- meaning, C must do something immoral, illegal, and/or separately tortious (e.g. fraudulent), etc.
The law ALLOWS third parties to present better business offers. C going to A and saying, hey I can cut you a better deal, even after you pay off B. That is entirely permissible, and in fact, sort of encouraged. It's called capitalism. Market economics. The law allows parties to breach contracts, you just have to pay off breach damages. If it's better economically for A&M to join the SEC even after paying breach damages to the BigXII, then, the law allows that. The SEC does nothing "wrongful" by trying to present a better deal to A&M.
So while I do think the SEC is trying to protect itself from lawsuits, there's nothing stopping the SEC from making an offer to A&M. It would merely be unseemly, perhaps, but not illegal or tortious.
better article without the bad legal analysis
Here's what happened:
Texas A&M approached the SEC
The SEC did their research and determined they'd be liable if they poached A&M while they were in the Big 12
The SEC voted not to extend an invite, but Silve's comments on the vote contained at leat 100 instances of the words "at this time" and "right now"
A&M votes to leave the Big 12, placing all liability on them
Now the move can proceed
Although I wouldn't be too surprised. I am confident they will go to 14.
They might even just stop at 13
But ask yourself... if you truly believed that 16 team conferences were the future (and it seems like most ADs do), why would you stop at 14? A&M leaving is going to create a domino effect, it will be even worse if the SEC poaches an ACC team. There will be so much up for grabs, you're asking ADs and Commissioners to just stop instead of going all the way and trying to carve out the biggest pie slice for themselves.
Well this don't mean shit until the SEC actually extends an invitation to A&M
I'll believe it when it happens.
Agreed. Unless Florida is okay with putting themselves in the same conference as FSU and Miami, there aren't any more teams that add a lot of value to the SEC.
Virginia Tech. Increases academics and adds media exposure to the Virginia/DC area.
Already have markets in Florida, so Miami and Florida State wouldn't add that. Plus, would add recruiting competition for Florida (ACC style of ball is different from SEC style).
I don't think the SEC gives a damn about academics, the new market is okay and all, but there have to be viability issues after Beamer is gone. I also don't think there's any way in hell that FSU and Miami are brought into the SEC, even though I disagree about the money they would bring in. Nobody disputes the financial viability ND brings to the table even though the BTN is all over Indiana already.
The problem is, who are the other dance partners? Apparently each SEC team is blocking their instate rival, for example Florida blocking Florida State.
The SEC is going after B1G rejects
West Virginia! Please...
Rumor has it that they are looking to expand into the VA/DC television markets. That means that a school like UMd or VPI would be the next selection.
They wouldn't take Maryland. It would be Virginia Tech, which should be of some concern because if the Big Ten is forced to expand, Tech would be the most promising target, in terms of all around suitability.
Supposedly there are difficulties involved in VT leaving UVA behind. I've seen a number of SEC blogs advancing the theory that the state isn't cool with VT leaving UVA behind.
There would be problems. Virginia twisted UVA's arm to make them accept Tech into the ACC. On the other hand, the Texas gov. isn't ok with A&M leaving. There is a balance of power issue here. The state can only go so far in dictating who stays and goes, although I have no notion how happy Tech is in there current situation. The good news for us is, we'd probably take UVA if it means getting Tech, and that would give us the "Virginia Footprint" for sure.
Rick Perry is definitely on board with A&M leaving for the SEC
Perry isn't the problem, it's the legislature that might try and stop them.
Heard a number of Texas politicos on Rivals radion Sirius yesterday talking with Mike Leach during his show and the basic stance down there is that the whole "Texas legislature won't let Texas A&M leave" meme is a bunch of hooey since most TAMU alums are Ok with this, Houston would likely be invited to fill that void in the Big 12, and if the Big 12 really wants to reconsitute, they could invite more of the Texas schools currently in Conf USA (SMU, UTEP, Rice) to beef up the Big12 numbers wise without UTexas losing a dime. The only real political lever the Tex Leg has is restricting TAMU access to the oil field land grant fund that is already disproportionately weighted toward UTexas, and that, to most of the polticos that called in, would be political suicide for any legislator that tried to introduce that.
Well, based on their actions, I'd say A&M doesn't think the legislature can stop them. I also agree that Texas (Imean, the Big 12) should invite more than one team. I think they should aim for three, if they can get the right three. You are right, since they don't really share revenue it isn't much skin off Texas' nose, but it still needs to have value to the brand.
While Houston is a possibility, I don't think they benefit from adding Rice or SMU back into the fold. I doubt TCU would be in the mix. If I were Beebe I'd try to get Houston, which would come in a heartbeat, BYU (whi I suspect would cross over) and Boise State, which would be...more problematic. Builds for the future.
That's all just..."if I were god" stuff.
Yep, and in that scenario they probably go after NC State (the only NC school where basketball isn't a bigger deal than football and probably not as tied to the other ACC schools in state as VT is to UVA), Mizzou and another Texas school, probably Texas Tech.
If they can only land one of those, it would probably be Tech and they'd probably stop there.
Stranger and stranger...Aside from the, SEC playing innocent theory, which I suppose is sound, one might also conclude two other possibilities: 1.) A&M is simply showing that they REEEAALLLLYYY don't want to stay with Texas or 2.) They want to leave and ARE leaving and they'll figure out where they land once they're gone. There is a nice ESPN write up on how the students at A&M are really getting behind the move.
Just a matter of time......Money drives everything in this world..
The whole SEC statement from this weekend was for two reasons: 1) Legally, they could get in trouble if they extended an invitation before A&M applied, and 2) It was a way to 'pump the brakes' so to speak, in that since everything broke last week, things have gotten incredibly hectic. It gives A&M time to get their stuff in order, and if it hasn't already happened, it gives the SEC time to secure a 14th team.
If the regents have approved the president to explore and act on any potential conference changes, that should tell you all you need to know. A university would not pubcilally acknowledge that unless they had an agreement in place beforehand. I am not foolish enough to think there isn't still a chance everything could fall through, but I would be damned surprised if this didn't happen at this point.
As for the B10, I don't know if this has been posted already, but there was a rumor that OU, OkSt., and two other B12 teams (speculated to be Kansas and K St.) approached the B10 and were told no for academic reasons. I suspect financially that move also doesn't work out for the B10, so no surprise that they were turned down.
Now this next bit is mostly pure speculation, but I suspect the B10 is talking behind the scenes to the big fish: Texas and ND. I suspect ND is starting to realize that they could be left out to dry if they don't join a conference once the dominoes start to fall. The logical choice is the B10. I know a lot of people are saying that if Texas is to leave the B12, that the PAC 12 is probably the destination, but I can't help but think that if Texas wanted to be in the PAC, they would have been last year. Again, I feel like the Big 10 is the logical choice. The financial windfall both athletically and academically would be huge. You can also bet that the B10 is selling the idea of adding both those teams to both Texas and ND. Adding those two could be enough to get the BTN on every basic cable package in the nation, and that equates to huge $$$.
Again, these are just my thoughts on the whole thing. I realize there are lot of things that could hold up adding those two teams (the LHN chief among them), but those things could be worked out if the parties are truly interested. I don't know if the B10 would go beyond 14, though I suspect they would if the right candidates are there (say Oklahoma and Maryland/Syracuse/Mizzou?). Either way, I'm sure the next few weeks will be very exciting beyond the usual buildup to kickoff.
which would pave the way for TX and ND + 16?
But they do fit academically. I think it would be difficult for them to sell a move to the Big Ten with how their base has embraced the possible move to the SEC. It would be funny to see A&M on BTN while Texas still doen't have a carrier for the Longhorn Network.
Actually, they DO fit in academically. They are a good school, comprably ranked (higher than Nebraska) and are AAU (unlike Nebraska, now). I agree that they are not a cultural fit, though. Their mentality is much more suited to the SEC.
They'd probably be from the 2d to 4th best school in the SEC, depending on how you feel about Georgia and Florida.
I still think that texas is a snobby, not-that-attractive, rich girl who thinks everyone should listen to them and like them. I think that if texas wants to join the big ten, they need to be a team player and all indications are that they don't care about anyone but themselves. i dont want them
Yeah all true but... let's all admit it, we'd all still bang Texas if we had the chance.
Not if I were in charge. Herpes is incurable.
Texas would never agree to full revenue sharing
Unless the Pac-12 or us are willing to let them basically run the show by themselves, they'll probably end up in the Notre Dame situation... independent in football, in C-USA for other sports. Becuase C-USA would be fine with the Longhorn Network and getting none of that.
The only good thing that could come of 16 team conferences is if 2 of the big 6 die. That way a playoff can be easily set up. Conference Championship, Regional Championship, National Champs. No more bitching. But I would like everyone to stay at 12 but that is very unlikely.
If they went to a playoff with only teams from 4 conferences eligible we will hear an unprecendented level of bitching.
If you locked all teams not in those conferences out, you would get sued. For that reason, it makes me wonder if the formation of 4 super conferences would be a prelude to those conferences breaking away from the NCAA to form their own league. That eliminates all legal issues (I believe).
IF the super conferences happen, my ideal scenario for a playoff would be that each conference has 4 divisions, then there is a mini playoff within the conference between the 4 division winners, then the conference winners play each other for the championship.
This is a garbage rehashing from Dennis Dodd, aka the worst writer on the internet. Sources have led to nothing in the last week. A&M is in the Big 12 for the long haul. Just like last year there will be minimal, if any, significant movement
They wouldn't take Maryland. It would be Virginia Tech
The Virginia legislature put enormous pressure on UVa to refuse to vote for any ACC expansion that didn't include VPI. One would think that pressure would be shifted to VPI should they choose to bolt.
Maryland, on the other hand, has a long standing gripe with the ACC. They believe that it's the Big Four (NCSU, UNC, WFU, and Dook) and everyone else. They'd split in a heartbeat.
Pressure was put on UVA because Virginia Tech was stuck in the Big East and they really wanted to leave. VT to the SEC would leave both schools happy.
Yes, the point is not whether Maryland would want to go, on which I have no notion, it's that the SEC would not want Maryland. Whereas the Big Ten looks at a laundry list of desires in a school which is virtually impossible to entirely fulfill, the SEC wants three things: 1.) Football, 2.) Money 3.) FOOOOTTTBBBALLLLLL!!!
Maryland isn't an SEC football program, and it isn't a huge brand name which would make them the money they want. It would be a new market area, but it doesn't bring the kind of package the SEC wants. Maryland doesn't have an A&M rabid following, and it's fans are more pumped up over basketball than football. It's just not a good fit.
the SEC is driven by football primarily (not academics, or well rounded athletic programs). The only ACC school that fits the bill is Florida State really. If the SEC wanted to make a splash with a non-football school, they'd try (but not succeed) to get UNC & Duke to instantly raise the profile of the SEC as a basketball conference (think Kentucky, UNC, & Duke in the same hoops conference would be like having Michigan, Ohio St, and Notre Dame in the same football conference). Plus without going to 16 teams, and not wanting to split up traditional rivals which the conference voting blocks are based on (Bama-Auburn, Tenn-Vandy, OleMiss-MissSt), you're looking at an eastern school to go with TAMU so as to put one in the SEC East and one in the SEC West.
The faculty of Maryland would be very, very unhappy with a switch to the SEC and all that it implies for the athletics/academics balance. That's not how they see their institution, at all. Faculty governance by no means drives any of this, but an unhappy faculty senate can make life pretty miserable for university administrators if their wishes are explicitly ignored.
I agree. I can't see Maryland going to the SEC. Maryland being north of the Potomac is a big deal for them, even though they're below the Mason-Dixon. "South" is sort of like a pejorative term. Not to mention, the ACC is en elite academic and basketball conference. Maryland is trying hard to boost football, though.
I can definitely see VT, though. I don't think the legislature would be a big hurdle. As mentioned earlier, since BC and Miami were already leaving the Big East, VT would be left to flounder with WVU and Pitt being the only other notable football programs. If VT were to go to the SEC, they'd be in good hands and the ACC would be able to survive as well, so UVA wouldn't be screwed. And if UVA somehow landed in the Big Ten, they'd be in good hands as well.
Actually, I really can't see VT going. The reason the Va. legislature demanded VT be included in the ACC had nothing to do with being left behind in the Big East, and everything to do with raising the school's academic profile by associating with a conference with an outstanding academic reputation. (UVA, UNC, Duke, WF, etc.) It wasn't about getting on the last bus out of town, it was about seizing an opportunity that was knocking. And VT likes the association just fine. I think the legislature might have a few problems with VT associating with the SEC instead, and I don't think VT particularly cares to.
Looking for your perspective as well - does Maryland have an actual sizable fanbase?
I live in DC and I don't even see it here and College Park is 3 miles from downtown.
I live in the DC area and Maryland has a sizable, but somewhat apathetic fanbase. Maryland has a sizable out of state contingent, but they don't go there for the football. It also has a lot of commuters who generally spend less time on campus and have less pride. Basketball is a well-known product, so that's where most of the attention goes. I think Edsall will do a good job there, though.
Yes, they do, but if you haven't had to deal with it much then consider yourself lucky. People who say Maryland would be a good fit in the Big Ten haven't worn the opposite team's colors in the presence of Maryland fans.
I've gone to a few games there and the attendance was pretty piss-poor. I have a few friends that went there but they don't give a shit about UMd sports.
But I think part of the reason the opportunity was knocking was because the ACC was expanding at the Big East's expense. I think if the deal were lucrative enough, VT would leave. It already has a better academic reputation b/c of the higher profile of its football team. I agree that academically, it is better off in the ACC.
Agree on VT in the ACC - it makes more sense to me there.
For a destination for SU, the ACC makes more sense with our old rivalry with BC, along with if say, UConn comes as well.
I think you're causation is confused. Their academic rep is up b/c of their association with a conf of strong schools. Football doesn't play any part in it. Otherwise, boise state would have seen their academic standing shoot up over the past decade.
See also Penn State's rising academic profile and decline or stasis in football success since joining the Big 10
You're obviously unfamiliar with "the Flutie effect". http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/11027/athletic-success-leads-to-admissions-influx/p2
It may well be that joining a good academic conference has a bigger effect, but athletic success has a definite effect on academics.
My causation isn't wrong. Michael Vick taking VT to the NC game and their continued success afterwards raised the visibility of the school and they saw more people apply and admissions standards increase. VT is not the only case like this. Florida and USC had the same thing happen with their success despite not having changed conferences, and I'm not sure about OSU and Texas, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were the case for them as well. George Mason had a spike in applicants after they went to the Final Four. I'm not saying that being in the ACC doesn't help, but with VT, it was Michael Vick, and then them going to the ACC.
Higher application numbers are a thin reed upon which to rest measure of academic standing. Measure of school's noteriety, sure, but they have precious little to do with the actual quality of the school. (This could be extended to a broader critique of how techniques to game application numbers that have nothing to do with quality of education can be used to increase USN rankings).
That may be the case, but it is a factor nonetheless. If more people apply, and you need to be more qualified to get in, it should reflect positively on the academic standing and reputation of the school. With prolonged success and notoriety in sports, it can have a substantial impact. I hope we can capitalize on this effect when/if Brady Hoke is successful.
The only way in which Texas fits in the Big Ten is in academics. Otherwise, the cultural fit is horrible—Texans in general regard the Yankee north with derisive contempt—it doesn't make any more cultural sense for Alabama or Georgia to join the Big Ten, and both are closer to Ann Arbor than Austin is.
UT is never going to agree to the revenue sharing that is at the heart of the Big Ten's financial arrangement. Big Ten athletic directors have a large number of men's and women's teams who travel every season in every sport, and travel costs are not an insignificant part of the budgets they have to manage. Austin is over 1300 miles away from Ann Arbor, a distance that is double or triple the distance to virtually every other conference school; the next longest trip is to Lincoln, around 800 miles.
If I were a Big Ten athletic director, I'd rather have a rusty spike in the temple than have to deal with the incredible arrogance that Texas has historically displayed in dealing with all of its conference partners.
Don is absolutley right. After reading all the crap that UT has given the B12 there is no reason to think that they would be a healthy addition to the team. They have no inclinaton to work towards common goals, only those that benefit UT. Neb would NEVER go for it, ever. And UT would NEVER budge on sharing LN revenue. Discussing UT to the B10 at this time, given all the info and track record they have, is pointless.
I still think OU is the most logical, assuming they won't be tied to OkSt (which at this point is a pretty bad assumption, I admit). Entertain OU & Mizzou to get 14 and consider ND and eastern schools in the future to get 16.
their academic profile is just not up to par with the rest of the B1G. Mizzou is more in line and with a 'CIC bump' would get into the range of other B1G schools. Pitt, Syracuse, ND, Maryland, Rutgers, or UVa & VT in a package deal are probably more in line with B1G culture and desires for market expansion.
But by no means is it out of the question.
From a cultural stand-point, I would say Texas to the PAC-X would be in the same ballpark in terms of different mentalities. I could be wrong here, but that is my opinion. As we all recall, that marriage almost happened.
I agree that the biggest carrot for Texas is academics. Inclusion in the CIC could mean tens or perhaps hundreds of millions more per year in research funding for Texas. The CIC is huge money. Travel costs are expensive, no doubt about that, but how much money would be made by having both Texas and ND in the conference? I don't have the numbers, but I feel like the additional travel costs would be offset.
I don't have a response for your last point, because I would feel the same way if I personally were an atheltic director, but I am not and therefore do not have access to the information they have. Like I said in my previous post, if both sides are committed, a deal could be worked out.
THIS is how far Texas has its own head up its ass:
"If Texas A&M was to leave the Big 12, sources in the Big 12 say the league would only expand by one school (to replace the Aggies).
Notre Dame could be a top target to replace the Aggies based on comments Texas athletic director DeLoss Dodds made last week.
But if the Irish said no, Brigham Young would get strong consideration, sources said, along with TCU and Houston." (As per rivals)
So...whuile the second group of lists is more probable, uTexas thinks it's sooooo great that Notre Dame will just sashy down on their command. Huh. That takes some real cajones of brass.
Remember, the usual killer of re-alignment deals is when people tip their hand too early. While reveal your hand when you don't have to? Yes, I realize that A&M has effectively tipped their hand, but it appears that the opposition that was previosuly there isn't going to do anything this time around, which may be why they might get away with it.
It isn't like the individual schools are going to come out and say "Well, since TAM left, we are going to try to leave as well". I guarantee you though that all the schools are figuring out their options as we speak, including what conferences would take them.
As far as the list goes, why woulnd't ND top it? They are the biggest fish in the sea, and you have to do your due diligence to see if they are interested. I don't take this as arrogance as much as common sense.
It's arrogant because its absurd. Notre Dame isn't joining anyone unless they have to. If they do, it will be the Big Ten, because: Why not? What possible advantage would they have in aligning themselves with the "Big 12" over the Big Ten? The Big Ten wants them, its a geographic and educational fit, and they have natural rivalries there. What does the Big 12 have to offer?
The thing is, UT thinks bears the legitimate belief that they are the king of the world, and that all around them will bow before their holy presence. To them, it would only be natural that Notre Dame would come down and kiss their ring, and bask in their glory.
Which, in summation, is a good example of why the Big Ten should avoud UT like the plague.
In answer to your question the Big XII can offer Notre Dame two things the B1G can't. They could make their own broadcast deals and they would have a far easier road to the BCS. If the Big XII were to add BYU and Houston, ND could be offered a spot in the north division and the easiest road to a championship game of anyone.
I don't see ND joining anyone. They see themselves as a national team and don't want to be in a regional conference. Texas may be arrogant, but talking about offering ND doesn't demonstrate it to me. I'd hate to be one of the other schools in that conference with two big dogs expecting special treatment.
Yes athletically it could make sense. However, they're not going to tie themselves to crappy schools like TexasTech and Iowa State.
Iowa State isn't so bad and the Big East has a lot of worse schools, worse that TT too. The academic association with the B1G should be very attractive to ND but they've already proven they make their decisions solely based on football.
Texas doesn't have any problems drawing research money on its own and many of the benefits of the CIC rest on proximity to member institutions that Texas would be functionally excluded from (reciprocal graduate class enrollment, regular research workshops, etc.) I don't see the academic benefits as that much of a draw for UT that they'd be willing to give into what would certainly be the Big 10s demands for shared revenue. (If UT was allowed to keep the LHN as part of Big 10 membership, you'd see OSU-TV in a heartbeat, and then the whole conference would start flying apart in much the same way the Big 12 is flying apart).
While you say 1300 miles is too far, did you realize that Nebraska to Penn State is nearly 1100 miles? Or what if we were to add Syracuse... that would be 1200 miles. Or better yet, Rutgers is 1300 miles. But I don't hear an arguement against adding those schools b/c of distance. Although my own logic is flawed too b/c I'm only using the farthest school whereas adding some of the latter teams would still be geographically close for some of our eastern most schools. However, I'm still putting it out there that the distance can be overcome. TCU did.
Like you said, you're just comparing Nebraska (the most isolated school) to everyone else but Nebraska isn't fantastically far for anyone really except maybe PSU but Texas is far for every single school (except Nebraska). Just find a US map, look at the big ten footprint, and then look at Austin.
I know, I was just playing Devil's advocate. I really meant to stress more at the end that it's not unheard of, especially b/c teams like TCU are doing it. USF and Boston College. and so on and so forth.
Michigan Stadium to the Carrier Dome in Syracuse is 446 miles.
Michigan Stadium to Lincoln, NE is 749 miles.
Michigan Stadium to Happy Valley is 406 miles.
So Syracuse is 40 miles further than Penn State.
it looks like we're headed towards 4 sixteen team conferences. I would say that would mean the four conference champs have a playoff for the NC, and everyone else in Div 1 should form their own conference. Crazy times we're livin' in...
Cedric Dempsey, former NCAA president, seems to think that some conferences will go to as many as 18 teams, and thinks we will see superconferences within five years. He also seems to think they will form their own new division.
My take: I don't think it's a coincidence that the Big Ten has instructed their teams to "clear their schedules" for a nine-game conference slate in 2017.
Here's a link to Dempsey's quotes:
16 teams in 4 divisions
Play everyone in your own division (3 games)
Play two out of four teams in every other division (2 * 3 div = 6 games)
9 game schedule, everybody plays everybody else at least twice in four years (home & away) with a rotating schedule.
Add a team west of Illinois (Mizzou?), add two eastern teams (Pitt, Maryland?), and a team that thinks they're an east coast school (ND? Syracuse?).. you get 4, 4 team divisions with major rivalries maintained.
Breaking news: Jim Delaney seen purchasing a white cat and a monocle....
There is nothing more asinine than the assumption that four 16-team conferences are completely inevitable. It is one of a thousand possibilities.
I'm wondering how the SEC could go to 16 and have the ACC be able to as well. If Florida State and Clemon or VT left, who would be the other 4-6 schools?
Syracuse? Pitt? UConn? Rutgers?
Four 16-team conferences doesn't seem to make any logical sense when you look at the candidates for each conference.
Could happen if the Big East football schools and ACC merge after FSU and Clemson go to the SEC. Add Cuse, UConn, Pitt, RU, L'ville, and....USF? SEC gets A&M, WVU, FSU, Clemson? Big Ten picks up the Big 12 scraps - Mizzou, KU, KSU, ISU? Pac-12 finishes up with OU, OSU, TT, UT? That's awfully tortured and requires conferences to grab schools they would NEVER consider. And it leaves a few schools out in the cold, like Baylor, which the legislatures won't go for.
The other way to get to 4x16 is to completely ignore geography. Either way it's WAY less likely than so many people assume.
That's what would have to happen - but there's no way that the ACC adds Louisville, USF, or Cincinnati, and I think WVU is a stretch due to academics.
I think the ACC will always be a 12-school conference.J
Just based on the idea that the Big Ten would have to add Kansas State and Iowa State to get to 16 if it doesn't expand east, means that they will expand east.
One of the bottlenecks for the Big East is what do they do with basketball? They already have something like an 18 team league since they have quite a few schools that do not have football programs. Merging with the ACC might work for football but I can't believe they would like to have 20+ teams in basketball.
The Big East will be 17 teams in basketball once TCU joins. Their real dilemma is that they need to expand further to increase the conference's football profile and earn the TV bux, but the basketball schools are quickly going to be alienated at the prospect of an 18, 20 team league. Schools like Providence and DePaul and St. John's, not to mention current basketball powers like Villanova, Georgetown, etc. aren't keen on the idea of such a huge mountain to climb or splitting the revenue so many ways.
ESPN had offered them $11 million per team, which the basketball contingent was ready to absolutely leap at (there's no way Providence would earn that much money otherwise) but the football contingent convinced them to hold off after seeing what the Pac-12 got. Their hope is that a bidding war will drive the price up. If it doesn't, I think you could quickly see a rift in the Big East. I could envision a realistic scenario where some of the Big East's basketball powers and/or non-powers drift away, siphon off a few of the A-10's best schools (Xavier, Temple, Duquesne) and form a new basketball conference.
Even if none of these super-conferences come to fruition, the football schools will split from the basketball-onlies.
It's only a matter of time.
I firmly believe that the east coast BE football schools are leaving anyway for one place or another and that the basketball schools will become the next version of the Atlantic 10.
Personally I think it'll be the basketball schools that split first, because I can't imagine that the Big Ten or ACC will take Big East football teams just because they're asking. The only scenario I can see where the football schools leave first is because the ACC came calling in order to replace one or two SEC-bound programs. Or because the SEC asked WVU directly. I read, for example, that it was Rutgers that pushed hard for TCU's inclusion - I can't imagine the basketball schools appreciated that very much, but assume they went along because it brought the potential for increased TV value.
The only other way I see the football schools initiating the breakaway is if they felt the need to create some kind of monster conference with more western teams like TCU, or, I dunno, Missouri or something thanks to the splintering of the Big 12. But I think the TV contract problem will come home to roost before some of this other stuff does.
I think they pushed for TCU to try to stablizie the conference since I think Rutgers is the most worried of the east-coast schools of being left-behind which is why . I think SU and UConn would be higher up on the ACC's and the Big Ten's list, and they'd be on an island by themselves.
B1G is not going to stuck picking up scraps. If that kind of realignment were to happen the B1G office would be fielding inquiries from a lot of those schools you have going elsewhere, Pitt and Rutgers in particular.
You see why I think the notion of an inevitable 4x16 model is fairly asinine, then?
I don't see these superconferences happening. Limiting top division football to 64 teams would cause a ton of bad blood, state governments would step in, etc, It just doesn't seem workable. Without that scenario I don't see why other conferences would want to go to 16 just because the SEC or PAC-12 might possibly.
you're conflating "this idea sounds really stupid" with "nobody would ever do this"
there's a reason everyone from random ADs to former NCAA commissioners to reporters with otherwise totally credible sources believe it's inevitable: because it's what the Big 3 conferences are working toward. It's the ultimate endgame, as much as I hate the idea. We need to stop denying that it's inevitable and just sigh and play along
Texas A&M, Missouri, Florida State, Clemson gives the SEC 16 teams.
The ACC loses 2 and is down to 10 and then invites Syracuse, Pitt, UConn, Rutgers, West Virginia, Louisville to go to 16.
Big Ten’s options to add four more are down to Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Notre Dame (if you say Texas, then the Pac-12 can't/won't go to 16). If it for some odd reason invites Maryland, VT, or goes with one of the Big East schools above that would be going to the ACC, then the ACC must fill those spots to go to 16.
Kansas State and Iowa State to the Big Ten isn’t going to happen, same with Louisville or West Virginia to the ACC, so that means that someone can’t go to 16, most likely the ACC.
So no, there is pretty much no way to get to 4 16-team conferences.