OT: WVU applies to the SEC, Rutgers in contact with the ACC and Big 10, & UConn looking to the ACC

Submitted by hart20 on September 18th, 2011 at 6:49 PM

It's being reported that WVU sent paperwork in to the SEC today, Rutgers is in contact with the Big 10 and ACC, and UConn is also in contact with the ACC.  I checked the "Texas to join Pac-12" thread but didn't see anything about any of this, so apologies if this has already been discussed. 










September 18th, 2011 at 6:54 PM ^

If the Big East dissolves at the end of the year and somehow UCONN joins the B1G instead of the ACC, would that make our game against them a conference game or how would that one work out?

The FannMan

September 18th, 2011 at 8:04 PM ^

Why?  The "echos" haven't exactly been woken up for a long time.  They were invited to come along about the same time Penn State came in.  They said no because they felt they were too good for us.  We could have had 15+ years of Big Ten championship games already.  They preferred to sit on the outside and fill their schedules with us, MSU and Purdue as it suited them.  Now they are a "must add?"  Sorry, but I have no problem with the B1G leaving them on the outside looking in.  Like Bo said, "To hell with Notre Dame."

Unless it's just about money and how many Domers will sign up for the BTN.  Then I get your point.  Oh wait.  Of course, its just about money.  Never mind.


September 19th, 2011 at 10:42 PM ^

is my personal criterion, that doesn't really matter in the big scheme of things.  But the Big Ten does boast some of the best music programs in the U.S.--Michigan, Northwestern, Indiana--and getting a school with a true SoM would be cool, as opposed to ND, which only has a Department of Music (and therefore does not have the same breadth of graduate programs and resources as a School of Music or Conservatory).  
I don't know much about Rutgers's performing arts apparatus.  My specialty was clarinet, and we never talked about Rutgers in studio class.


September 19th, 2011 at 10:59 PM ^

It's an all-important conservatory, closely linked to the Rochester Symphony Orchestra.  It gives our musical footprint added depth and breadth in the New York market.  It is suprising how many Michigan clarinetists wind up in New York City.  
Rochester might be mad that we're stealing their semi-affiliated school, but I'm sure periodic charitable donations, paid through exhibition games against Rochester (the source of the athletic apparatus on Eastman's behalf) would more than assuage any hurt feelings or innate distrust on the part of the Rochester Board of Regents.


September 19th, 2011 at 1:34 AM ^

That's all well and good, and I absolutely loathe Notre Dame and its pathetic fanbase, but the reality is that money talks louder than anything else. ND has a national following and is a huge TV draw. The BTN would instantly gain a foothold in virtually every TV market in the country. They still generate a lot of revenue, notwithstanding their failure to be relevant for 20+ years. For any other school, thanks but no thanks. But if ND is willing to talk, we talk.


September 18th, 2011 at 6:55 PM ^

4-16 team conferences.
<br>SEC is already at 14
<br>ACC is already at 14
<br>PAC-12 going to 14
<br>Eventually it'll be 4 super conferences of 16 teams and an 8 team playoff with the conference championships being first round.
<br>Anyone saying the B1G doesn't HAVE to expand is looking at the trees and not the forest.
<br>Need to get 2 big fish and then it won't matter who else we add.


September 18th, 2011 at 11:50 PM ^

With a 16 team conference, even with 9 conference games, you only play 2 cross-over games against the other half of the conference. Assuming it's set up as home-and-home games in consecutive years, you'd go 6 years between playing those teams. And that's only if there aren't protected cross-over games which would make it substantially worse.

Also, if each 16-team conference gets 2 spots in the BCS, those presumably goes to the winner of each half of the conference, and the only purpose to a conference championship game is determining which bowl game you're in. The champions can't feed into a national championship tournament because they'd run into antitrust issues from keeping other teams out, so you can't have that be a reward for winning the conference.

With all that separation, that's barely four 16-team conferences, that's essentially eight 8-team conferences.

Frank Drebin

September 19th, 2011 at 7:55 AM ^

This may not necessarily be true. I have seen a few division allignment discussions, and it appears that the PAC1? conference will use a 4 pod with 4 teams each approach. You would play all three of your divisional teams, and then 2 from each of the other pods. The other games will rotate yearly, either by dropping one or both from that division, so you would only have a few years off from each team. This wlll most likely be a requirement of PAC1? teams, as they all demand that trip to one of the LA schools for recruiting purposes. If UT, TT, OK and Okie St join today or this week, expect them to be in a pod, Utah, CO, AZ and AZ st in one, the Cali schools in one and the NW schools in one. This is pretty competitive, maintains rivalry's and allows for some creative scheduling. I can't see any conference saying that schools only play other teams in the other division once per decade. That would kill so many rivalry's and kill the conference, just like the WAC. In the B1G situation, I would think in a similar situation UM would have to be in a division with OSU, MSU and for MSU's sake, IU because it is their "protected rivalry" game (/S, maybe). Depending on who else the B1G adds, give PSU some other Eastern schools in their division, put some plains teams together and everyone is happy. I think this would have to be the approach when super conferences happen.


September 18th, 2011 at 7:03 PM ^

Pac 12 is going to 16 I thought. Werent they already 12, plus Texas, Oklahoma, and the other 2 discussed this morning? Either way, I think the SEC, PAC 12, and ACC will all hit 16 before the end ofthe season. The Big Ten is the wild card; do we go after ND, Missouri, and 2 others to hit 16 too? Or are we really ok at 12? The next big thing this offseason will be BCS reshaping the bowl system to adjust. A playoff is looking likely at this point, imo.

Mr Miggle

September 18th, 2011 at 8:04 PM ^

This will not happen easily. Suddenly nearly half of the BCS gets disenfrachised and there will be a lot of repercussions. Congress and state legislatures will get involved, There will be legal challenges all over the place. I'll be very surprised if it ever happens. But if it did I wouldn't mind being the last conference to go to 16. You could dictate terms to multiple applicants in ways that Texas can only dream of.


September 18th, 2011 at 11:10 PM ^

I'm pretty sure the B1G has already tried dictating the terms to any team they would want right now, and they passed. We aren't getting Texas right now without bending to their terms, which is something no one in this conference wants to do. And seeing as our terms are what have made this conference the strongest in the country, and Texas' terms have blown up two conferences, I think that's a good thing.


September 18th, 2011 at 11:09 PM ^

I thought that with the Texas or Rutgers to Big Ten talk several years ago.  As a college football fan and a fan of the six power conferences, seeing the Big East and Big 12 dissolve in a matter of days is truly disheartenting, but I saw this coming years ago and I figured Nebraska and Colorado splitting from the Big 12 was the first domino to fall.

biakabutuka ex…

September 18th, 2011 at 7:41 PM ^

I would actually consider a 16 team conference if they would split it into two autonomous 8 team divisions and increase the number of rivalry games we get to play. Michigan, MSU, OSU, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, and Northwestern/ND would be a pretty sweet mini-conference. But, since they would never do it this way, F it.


September 19th, 2011 at 4:56 AM ^

Why is it inevitable?  Most of the attractive members of the Big 12/Big East have already been taken.  Why does the Big Ten take on a team like Iowa State (Victory over Iowa nonwithstanding) or Louisville?

Let's talk about schools the Big Ten could reasonably pick up:

1. ND.  With the Big East dying, the only conference they'd probably join is the Big Ten.  That's probably the only reason to accept a new team.

2. Missouri.  Currently left in the cold.  The Big Ten would probably only take it to match with another member, aka ND.  After ND, probably best geographic/academic fit.

3.  Rutgers/Uconn.  Decidedly Meh

4. Anybody else left in the Big12/Big East:  ISU, KSU, Kansas, Baylor, TTech, USF, Cincy, Louisville.  The only school that looks halfway decent on that list is Kansas, and only for basketball.

At most the Big Ten would only go to 14 teams, assuming ND decides to join and needs to bring a dancing partner.


Meanwhile, who's going to leave the Big Ten?  The schools rolling in money (Michigan, OSU, PSU, Nebraska, Wisconsin) obviously are fine.  The other schools are still making lots of money, and most of them field either a competitive football or basketball team.  Why would any of them flee to join what looks like an already solidified 14 team ACC, SEC, or Pac14  to be their version of NC State, Kentucky, or Oregon State?


September 18th, 2011 at 6:57 PM ^

The writing seems to be on the wall that the Big East as a football conference is not going to last long-term.  With the potential for the Big 12 also folding, there's a potential for a lot of moving pieces - Conference USA could swap teams in and out, some remnants of the Big East and Big 12 could form a new conference - tons of possibilities.

I don't think that the Big Ten should consider Rutgers - yes, good school academically but they've had all of 2 decent years at football?  We have enough teams in our league already that perenially underperform - we don't need another Northwestern or Indiana on the football field.  I can't imagine that adding the New Jersey market to the Big Ten Network would really result in all that much extra money.


September 18th, 2011 at 7:13 PM ^

Out of eight million New Yorkers, how many are going to call and demand the BTN because Rutgers is a part of the Big Ten now and they'll miss seeing games if they don't have it? My guess would be "not enough".

It seems like ND is literally the only school in the country that can deliver NYC.


September 18th, 2011 at 7:33 PM ^

I live in NJ, used to live in NY. Hardly anyone in NJ or NY cares about Rutgers. It's the biggest state school, but really, no one goes around saying I'm a Rutgers fan because I grew up in NJ. Most people around here are either:

a) Fans of the school they went to

b) Fans of the school a family member or close friend went to

c) Just not a college sports fan at all

Rutgers will really do nothing in NJ, and even less in NY. Also, living in NJ I already have BTN with Verizon.


September 18th, 2011 at 7:39 PM ^

The biggest two schools here are UCONN and Cuse, both obviously just for basketball. ND is up there too. You're FAR more likely to see a Michigan fan than a Rutgers fan.

Also, at least Verizon already gets the BTN as part of its normal package, which I know because I have it.

biakabutuka ex…

September 18th, 2011 at 6:57 PM ^

This situation is everything that's wrong with the old claims that college football is about student-athletes and not about profits.

The SEC will initially want to add WVU because it has had good teams for the last 10 years, but won't add them because they do not bring any large media markets with them. And they won't consider their academics for one second.