ESPN: "All eyes on 2023 for conference realignment"

Submitted by LLG on June 27th, 2017 at 10:43 AM

"Why 2023? It starts with expiring TV contracts. The ACC and SEC both have long-term media grant-of-rights agreements, running through 2035-36 and 2033-34, respectively. But the other three Power 5 conferences have agreements ending roughly around the same time (the SEC's Tier 1 deal with CBS runs through 2023-24). The Big Ten last summer opted for a shorter agreement with Fox and ESPN, which runs through 2022-23. The Pac-12 deal expires after the 2023-24 sports year, and the Big 12's ends the following year."

LINK

Comments

bluepow

June 27th, 2017 at 11:30 AM ^

Kick out Rutgers and Maryland.  Rename divisions Lakes and Plains (but essentially keep them east/west as is).  Keep 9 game schedule.  That's a conference with style.

war-dawg69

June 27th, 2017 at 9:13 PM ^

Yep, should have never changed the big ten. Sorry but sometimes change and expansion is just not good. Like most things it just used to be better, including people and their values. Old school for sure.

FauxMo

June 27th, 2017 at 10:49 AM ^

As a Pitt grad, I strongly, strongly, STRONGLY approve this message. Having been around a lot other Big Ten schools including UM, I can tell you personally that Pitt is a better "fit" academically than many (definitely than PSU, Nebraska, etc.). It's also closer, has great recruiting territory, and would retroactively slightly enhance the value of my degree! :-D 

NittanyFan

June 27th, 2017 at 11:32 AM ^

Both schools are a land-grant University in a top-10 population state, a school with a focus on research and providing a quality and affordable education to its state's citizens.  (PSU does need to do some work on the "affordable" part, yes)

So the 2 schools are rated similarly academically?  Yep.  No surprise.

Neither PSU or MSU is Harvard or Stanford.  So what?  That's not the mission of either school.  They're still solid enough academic schools, and fit the B1G academic model to a tee. 

reddogrjw

June 27th, 2017 at 11:09 AM ^

is a nice, easy win game to break up the season - since the SEC schedules FCS teams in the middle of their seasons for a break and an easy win we should keep Rutgers and give the illusion of playing a Power 5 school

lilpenny1316

June 27th, 2017 at 3:05 PM ^

While I'd like to see Rutgers be as competitive as at least Vanderbilt, these midseason cupcakes are great to give guys a chance to rest and guys to play that normally don't.

Also, because it's a conference game, it'll look better than an FCS school.

BTW, take a look at when Alabama plays their FCS opponent.  It's usually the week before the Iron Bowl.  I think some of the other schools do the same thing.

stephenrjking

June 27th, 2017 at 10:48 AM ^

Here's an idea how about we stop realigning conferences and just play football or something. 

Not that I don't relish the thought of a brand new Michigan-New Mexico State divisional rivalry... but I don't.

Wallaby Court

June 27th, 2017 at 11:19 AM ^

While good on paper, I think Texas would be a poor fit. My understanding is that Texas has been a pain as a conference mate. Its administrative and financial dominance of the Big 12 directly or indirectly drove Texas A&M and Nebraska to the SEC and Big Ten. I cannot imagine Texas joining the Big Ten and not trying to throw its weight around in a similar fashion.

Jmer

June 27th, 2017 at 11:37 AM ^

I could see Texas and OU in the Big Ten, SEC, or Pac16. While I agree that Texas has shown no respect for their conference mates, if they are willing to drop their Long Horn Network and share profits like the rest of the Big Ten, they are a far better option than most of the other options for adding two teams to the Big Ten.

Obviously ND would come up. But they want to remain independent and if they have to join a conference, they look like they would be ACC bound. So other than Texas and OU, we are left with Iowa St, K-State, Kansas, Pitt, Syracuse, maybe Louisville, or pull from a group of 5 conference.

If those are our options, give me Texas all day.

Don

June 27th, 2017 at 12:51 PM ^

Texas is the undeniably hot but insufferably self-absorbed and ridiculously high-maintenance hot chick (or guy) you meet at the bar. The sex is great for the first month or so, but pretty quickly you get sick and tired of listening to her (or him) prattle on about themselves, and soon after that you want to put a rusty spike into your temple rather than deal with the constant demands for more attention and praise, and their almost-sociopathic need for you to spend money on them.

trueblueintexas

June 27th, 2017 at 2:00 PM ^

This. This. And MORE This. 

Us old folks remember that Texas already destroyed one conference (SWC) because of their oversized expectations for themself vs. their conference mates and they are about to do it again with the Big12.

UMxWolverines

June 27th, 2017 at 11:35 AM ^

Why would we want two more of the winningest programs in college football when there's already us, OSU, Penn State, and Nebraska? The schedule would be ridiculous. I'm not for playing cupcakes all the time, but there at least has to be a balance.

I do wonder what would happen to the Big XII if those two left though. The rest of the conference brings very little value to anyone else.

Jmer

June 27th, 2017 at 11:44 AM ^

If Texas and OU leave the Big12, the Big 12 would cease to be a power 5 conference. The other 4 power conference would all be heading towards 16 teams. Texas and OU would add some much needed credibility to the Big Ten West division. Plus I would much rather see Texas and OU on the schedule every couple of years rather than any other two teams for the remaining carcus of what was the Big12.

lilpenny1316

June 27th, 2017 at 3:11 PM ^

...we want things to stay as-is.  This isn't EA Sports, where guys don't wear down during the season and you can play Top 25 teams each week because it's a CPU.

Now if they bump the CFP up to a 8-team or 16-team playoff, then I could see the fun in a super conference with Texas and OU.  Nobody is going undefeated then.