Further Conference Expansion Talk

[jimsumner]

"They have a nice little football rivalry with Colorado State, but the funny thing about the state of Colorado is no other school really has D-IA athletic aspirations, so who else do you take?"

Well, the Air Force Academy is in Colorado and they play D-1 sports. Obviously, they get their athletes from a different pool and have a much different alumni base. But they are in Colorado.

As for Duke and the Ivies, Duke never stopped giving scholarships for football, never dropped into a lower division and never stopped scheduling traditional football powers. The Ivies did all of the above, a long time ago, for the specific reason that they wanted to get away from overly-commercialized big-time college football. And none of them, to the best of my knowledge, have ever looked back.

[hurleyfor3]

Well, the Air Force Academy is in Colorado and they play D-1 sports. Obviously, they get their athletes from a different pool and have a much different alumni base. But they are in Colorado.

I know you knew what I meant. I explicitly said D-IA, as in devoting the resources to competing with BCS-type teams and competing in a similar recruiting pool. As in, who is worth taking in this Oceania/Eurasia/Eastasia type megaconference dystopia instead of or in addition to CU? Not USAFA, and not CSU, UNC (the "other" UNC) or UD either.

BTW, where do Coloradoans go who want to go to small private schools, but can't cut the top-tier privates? What's their Emory or DePaul or Davidson? Maybe I should ask this on 14ers.com instead.

[A-Tex Devil]

BTW, where do Coloradoans go who want to go to small private schools, but can't cut the top-tier privates? What's their Emory or DePaul or Davidson? Maybe I should ask this on 14ers.com instead.

Colorado College, Colorado School of Mines, that party school up in Steamboat - Rocky Mountain College or some such, Regent (I think?). There are some.

[jimsumner]

"I explicitly said D-IA, as in devoting the resources to competing with BCS-type teams and competing in a similar recruiting pool."

But that's not what the term means. Actually, there's no such thing as Division 1-A and hasn't been for several years. We have BCS schools and FCS schools. Technically the BCS schools are members of the Division 1 Football Bowl Series. The former 1-AA schools are members of the FCS, Football Championship series.

The Air Force Academy is a BCS/FBS school in football and competes in the NCAA Division-1 in other sports. They are in the highest athletic classification and the school is located in the state of Colorado. Isn't that what I said?

They've played in bowl games the last three seasons and have a lot more overall bowl appearances than Duke. They've also made the NCAA Basketball Tournament as recently as 2006, the NIT as recently as 2007. Neither Colorado nor Colorado State has played in the NCAAs as recently as Air Force.

So, their unusual and limited recruiting pool seems to be placing them at a level at least comparable to that of Colorado and Colorado State.

Is the Pac-10 interested in the AFA? Not likely. Not sure, they're interested in Colorado State either. Then again, Army and Navy keep getting linked with the ACC and neither has had appreciably more overall athletic success recently than has Air Force.

[G man]

(One is that for many fans, CU football is little more than a diversion between hiking and skiing seasons. Man, this team sucks, but hey, Arapahoe Basin opens next week!) Academically and philosophically they're a great fit in the Pac-10.

I love that you have heard of A basin. I assume you have been to colorado. I grew up there and while people will tell you they are Buff's fans i can tell you that they really don't know what being a college sports fan entails. To many pro teams in their market! You are probably right they do fit in with the pac-10 all though some of the mountain west teams would bring more competition.

[sagegrouse]

BTW, where do Coloradoans go who want to go to small private schools, but can't cut the top-tier privates? What's their Emory or DePaul or Davidson? Maybe I should ask this on 14ers.com instead.

A-Tex Devil had a good answer. The well-known liberal arts college in Colorado is Colorado College. He also refers to "that party school up in Steamboat." That would be Colorado Mountain College, a two-year school with about ten locations throughout the Colorado mountains. Some kids are successful in talking their parents into that option.

Those who are looking for access to ski areas in Colorado famously go to CU. CU has about 30% out-of-state students, and as the Colorado budget woes continue to mount, the percentage is certain to rise. Now only 6% of the CU budget comes from the state of Colorado. College students throughout Colorado get bargain-basement rates on ski passes. CSU in Fort Collins is also a good school, although not as popular with the out-of-state crowd.

Knowledgeable skiers who want a good education often attend Montana State in Bozeman. It is less than an hour from Big Sky, a formidable ski mountain. Boulder and Fort Collins are a full three hours from anyplace good to ski, and the traffic on I-70 in the winter is just awful.

WRT to other four-year liberal arts, students from Colorado will have to travel: Grinnell and Coe in Iowa, Macalester and Carleton in Minnesota, or the Claremont Group in California. Not surprisingly, the American west is public university territory.

And windy Wyoming is an extreme case of limited higher education choice. The only four-year college in the entire state is the U. of Wyoming in Laramie (enrollment of 12,000+), unless you want to count Wyoming Catholic College with its massive student body of 361.

sagegrouse

[Indoor66]

A-Tex Devil had a good answer. The well-known liberal arts college in Colorado is Colorado College. He also refers to "that party school up in Steamboat." That would be Colorado Mountain College, a two-year school with about ten locations throughout the Colorado mountains. Some kids are successful in talking their parents into that option.

Those who are looking for access to ski areas in Colorado famously go to CU. CU has about 30% out-of-state students, and as the Colorado budget woes continue to mount, the percentage is certain to rise. Now only 6% of the CU budget comes from the state of Colorado. College students throughout Colorado get bargain-basement rates on ski passes. CSU in Fort Collins is also a good school, although not as popular with the out-of-state crowd.

Knowledgeable skiers who want a good education often attend Montana State in Bozeman. It is less than an hour from Big Sky, a formidable ski mountain. Boulder and Fort Collins are a full three hours from anyplace good to ski, and the traffic on I-70 in the winter is just awful.

WRT to other four-year liberal arts, students from Colorado will have to travel: Grinnell and Coe in Iowa, Macalester and Carleton in Minnesota, or the Claremont Group in California. Not surprisingly, the American west is public university territory.

And windy Wyoming is an extreme case of limited higher education choice. The only four-year college in the entire state is the U. of Wyoming in Laramie (enrollment of 12,000+), unless you want to count Wyoming Catholic College with its massive student body of 361.

sagegrouse

A good summary. WRT U of Wyo, that 12,000 students does represent approximately 2.4% of the total population of Wyoming, so it is a very large school...

[A-Tex Devil]

So in the midwest, talks are heating up that Nebraska and Mizzou will bolt to the Big Ten if invited - could be as early as end of the month (doubtful, but possible). Mizzou made an illusory request to the Big XII last week that it revisit its revenue sharing policies knowing the answer would be "No." Big Ten shares revenue equally, Big XII does no. UT, A&M, OU and Nebraska make a lot more each year than Mizzou. Many feel this request was made to bolster the argument among the alumni and legislature that the move is a good thing for the school if they get the invite (Duh!).

If the Big Ten strikes out west first, I think this is good for the ACC. In the event the ACC were to ever lose teams to the SEC (and I'm not sure it would unless the SEC wants to split the pie more ways), there are still teams like Syracuse, UConn and WVU it could go after to fill back up to 12. If the Big Ten had struck out east and picked up several Big East schools, then that leaves less attractive options for the ACC to fill up to 12 if the SEC raids it.

One sports guy on the radio this weekend (I think it was Criqui), purely speculatively, said if the SEC was really greedy, it would go after UNC. That gets them a new market, a powerhouse university, etc. etc. For UNC, that move is only good from a $$ perspective (and it would be good from a $$ perspective even if their athletic programs got run over by the SEC schools). I doubt they'd leave the ACC behind as one of the flagship universities, but $$ has made people and entities do some surprising things in the past. And if the ACC ended up on the bad end after conference realignment (which I don't see), who knows.

Anyway -- this is purely speculative, but I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility for the SEC to at least offer should they choose to expand.

[Bluedog]

One sports guy on the radio this weekend (I think it was Criqui), purely speculatively, said if the SEC was really greedy, it would go after UNC. That gets them a new market, a powerhouse university, etc. etc. For UNC, that move is only good from a $$ perspective (and it would be good from a $$ perspective even if their athletic programs got run over by the SEC schools). I doubt they'd leave the ACC behind as one of the flagship universities, but $$ has made people and entities do some surprising things in the past. And if the ACC ended up on the bad end after conference realignment (which I don't see), who knows.

Anyway -- this is purely speculative, but I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility for the SEC to at least offer should they choose to expand.

Sorry, but UNC would NEVER got to the SEC. That's a complete joke in my mind. There is a reason that Duke and UNC were the only two schools to vote against conference expansion in the first place. They're basketball schools so attempting to make football better while sacrificing the round robin home-and-away in basketball wasn't worth it for those two. Not only that, but they'd be going to a far inferior conference from a basketball perspective, clearly UNC's cash cow. On top of that, the SEC is definitely weaker from an academic standpoint. I realize that conferences are purely for sports, but being associated with schools like Duke, Wake, UVa, Boston College, etc. has to help UNC somewhat from an academic/recruiting (both athletes and non-athletes) standpoint as opposed to Ole Miss, Alabama, Miss St. (I realize the SEC has Vandy and Florida, but that's about it.) In addition, it's rare for a founding university of a conference to leave as it's part of their identity (I realize south carolina left the ACC, though.) On top of that, they'd be giving up the Duke rivalry! Are you kidding me? Give up that cash cow and something the two universities have been doing for the past 90 years?!? Not going to happen. UNC would never accept an invitation to the SEC. It's almost like Duke accepting an invitation to the SEC. Can you imagine us doing that? hahaha, it's just funny thinking how absurd it is. Not saying the SEC wouldn't try to poach ACC schools if certain scenarios play out, just that losing UNC is completely out of the realm of possibility.

[roywhite]

So in the midwest, talks are heating up that Nebraska and Mizzou will bolt to the Big Ten if invited - could be as early as end of the month (doubtful, but possible). Mizzou made an illusory request to the Big XII last week that it revisit its revenue sharing policies knowing the answer would be "No." Big Ten shares revenue equally, Big XII does no. UT, A&M, OU and Nebraska make a lot more each year than Mizzou. Many feel this request was made to bolster the argument among the alumni and legislature that the move is a good thing for the school if they get the invite (Duh!).

If the Big Ten strikes out west first, I think this is good for the ACC. In the event the ACC were to ever lose teams to the SEC (and I'm not sure it would unless the SEC wants to split the pie more ways), there are still teams like Syracuse, UConn and WVU it could go after to fill back up to 12. If the Big Ten had struck out east and picked up several Big East schools, then that leaves less attractive options for the ACC to fill up to 12 if the SEC raids it.

One sports guy on the radio this weekend (I think it was Criqui), purely speculatively, said if the SEC was really greedy, it would go after UNC. That gets them a new market, a powerhouse university, etc. etc. For UNC, that move is only good from a $$ perspective (and it would be good from a $$ perspective even if their athletic programs got run over by the SEC schools). I doubt they'd leave the ACC behind as one of the flagship universities, but $$ has made people and entities do some surprising things in the past. And if the ACC ended up on the bad end after conference realignment (which I don't see), who knows.

Anyway -- this is purely speculative, but I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility for the SEC to at least offer should they choose to expand.

Thanks for your info on this, A-Tex.

From what I am reading, Notre Dame still seems determined to maintain their independent football status. They are at the top of the B10/11 shopping list, but reluctant to make the change. There was some talk about UTexas, but not seeing that much now.

Seems like the B10/11 could go to 14, with Nebraska, Missouri, and Rutgers being possible additions.

[sagegrouse]

If the Big Ten strikes out west first, I think this is good for the ACC. In the event the ACC were to ever lose teams to the SEC (and I'm not sure it would unless the SEC wants to split the pie more ways), there are still teams like Syracuse, UConn and WVU it could go after to fill back up to 12. If the Big Ten had struck out east and picked up several Big East schools, then that leaves less attractive options for the ACC to fill up to 12 if the SEC raids it.

One sports guy on the radio this weekend (I think it was Criqui), purely speculatively, said if the SEC was really greedy, it would go after UNC. That gets them a new market, a powerhouse university, etc. etc.

I agree that the Big Ten taking Nebraska and Mizzou reduces the risks to the ACC, by shifting the center of gravity of the Big Ten to the west rather than the east (by adding, say, Pitt and Syracuse).

If Nebraska and Mizzou go to the Big Ten, I would think that the SEC would probably go after the four Texas schools or maybe Texas, A&M, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. If the Big 12 begins to fracture, the financial attraction of the conference to current members will be less.

FWIW, I think the academic side of UNC would be totally opposed to SEC affiliation, not to mention the football coach . UNC, along with Duke, was totally opposed to ACC expansion. Also, the NC government would likely be unsympathetic: the Big Four is an asset for the state of North Carolina. And what would Calipari say?

sagegrouse

[theAlaskanBear]

I agree that the Big Ten taking Nebraska and Mizzou reduces the risks to the ACC, by shifting the center of gravity of the Big Ten to the west rather than the east (by adding, say, Pitt and Syracuse).

If Nebraska and Mizzou go to the Big Ten, I would think that the SEC would probably go after the four Texas schools or maybe Texas, A&M, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. If the Big 12 begins to fracture, the financial attraction of the conference to current members will be less.

FWIW, I think the academic side of UNC would be totally opposed to SEC affiliation, not to mention the football coach . UNC, along with Duke, was totally opposed to ACC expansion. Also, the NC government would likely be unsympathetic: the Big Four is an asset for the state of North Carolina. And what would Calipari say?

sagegrouse

I can only pray that SEC expansion doesnt take place and it doesnt go West to the big Texas schools. The last thing we need is an SEC-superconference to dominate the college football culture more than it already does.

[Duke of Nashville]

I can only pray that SEC expansion doesnt take place and it doesnt go West to the big Texas schools. The last thing we need is an SEC-superconference to dominate the college football culture more than it already does.

However, that may be the closest we ever get to a playoff system.

[A-Tex Devil]

I agree that the Big Ten taking Nebraska and Mizzou reduces the risks to the ACC, by shifting the center of gravity of the Big Ten to the west rather than the east (by adding, say, Pitt and Syracuse).

If Nebraska and Mizzou go to the Big Ten, I would think that the SEC would probably go after the four Texas schools or maybe Texas, A&M, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. If the Big 12 begins to fracture, the financial attraction of the conference to current members will be less.

FWIW, I think the academic side of UNC would be totally opposed to SEC affiliation, not to mention the football coach . UNC, along with Duke, was totally opposed to ACC expansion. Also, the NC government would likely be unsympathetic: the Big Four is an asset for the state of North Carolina. And what would Calipari say?

sagegrouse

Texas has the same feelings toward the SEC that UNC does. Believe me. Texas does not go to the SEC unless the Big XII collapses and it can't get into the Big Ten or PAC 10, or alternatively create a super conference/alliance with a TV network with leftover Big XII and Pac Ten (a real possibility). OU and Okie St. are more likely to be in the SEC than Texas.

I agree that UNC to SEC is nigh impossible. The scenario that was laid out on the radio, though (again, purely speculative on what the SEC should at least kick the tires on if they look at expansion), was one where the ACC gets raided in realignment with no viable options to add teams that would make it competitive in football. UNC could be the Texas of the East Coast if Butch Davis can turn the football program around. They have real loyalties to the ACC, though, that Texas doesn't have to the Big XII, so people aren't talking about them. The SEC would certainly realize this, but if you don't think the SEC has the hubris to at least ask... well...

Did UNC vote against expansion? I didn't remember it that way, especially with Swofford leading the charge.

[sagegrouse]

Did UNC vote against expansion? I didn't remember it that way, especially with Swofford leading the charge.

Ah, yes. This has been one of the legendary themes of DBR posts.

Duke and UNC were opposed to expansion. However, if expansion were to occur, they preferred Miami, BC and Syracuse over any other combination. The expansion required votes from three-fourths of current members, or seven schools and, in fact, seven schools supported expansion. UVa, however, because of in-state politics was required to hold its nose and vote for Virginia Tech. Thus, the only expansion plan that could get seven votes involved VT and not Syracuse.

Duke and UNC managed to confuse principle and outcome. By refusing to compromise, they got the worst possible solution. Very dumb of Nan Keohane and her counterpart at UNC. John Nash ("A Beautiful Mind") won a Nobel Prize for his work on strategy taking account of the actions of others. Maybe Duke and UNC didn't offer the course.

sagegrouse

[Class of '94]

Sorry, but UNC would NEVER got to the SEC. That's a complete joke in my mind. There is a reason that Duke and UNC were the only two schools to vote against conference expansion in the first place. They're basketball schools so attempting to make football better while sacrificing the round robin home-and-away in basketball wasn't worth it for those two. Not only that, but they'd be going to a far inferior conference from a basketball perspective, clearly UNC's cash cow. On top of that, the SEC is definitely weaker from an academic standpoint. I realize that conferences are purely for sports, but being associated with schools like Duke, Wake, UVa, Boston College, etc. has to help UNC somewhat from an academic/recruiting (both athletes and non-athletes) standpoint as opposed to Ole Miss, Alabama, Miss St. (I realize the SEC has Vandy and Florida, but that's about it.) In addition, it's rare for a founding university of a conference to leave as it's part of their identity (I realize south carolina left the ACC, though.) On top of that, they'd be giving up the Duke rivalry! Are you kidding me? Give up that cash cow and something the two universities have been doing for the past 90 years?!? Not going to happen. UNC would never accept an invitation to the SEC. It's almost like Duke accepting an invitation to the SEC. Can you imagine us doing that? hahaha, it's just funny thinking how absurd it is. Not saying the SEC wouldn't try to poach ACC schools if certain scenarios play out, just that losing UNC is completely out of the realm of possibility.

No way UNC would leave the Duke rivalry; its just too big of a rivalry. I could see SEC pitching Kentucky or Florida as the new basketball "rival" to UNC; but it still wouldn't compare to the Duke rivalry; more over, Duke and UNC are rivals in every sport (not just basketball); and that's another aspect the SEC could not effectively counter. And you can't forget about the rivalry UNC has with NC State as well. Just too much "triangle" history for the SEC to counter.

[Atlanta Duke]

Interesting speculation by college football columnist Tony Barnhart in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution regarding how the ACC could be vulnerable if the Big Ten goes to 16 teams, which would blow up the Big East as a football conference. And these potential expansions are all about football, since the major TV $$ in basketball go through the NCAA for the tournament, not through the conferences.

ACC needs an expansion plan–right now
http://blogs.ajc.com/barnhart-colleg...lan-right-now/

If that happens the SEC might expand from 12 to 16 teams as well - Texas and Oklahoma would be the crown jewels if Missouri and Nebraska go to the Big Ten and the Big 12 falls apart like the old Southwest Conference. Barnhart also mentions rumors of a Pac-10/Big 12 joint TV contract that A-Tex Devil references above.

Barnhart mentions Florida State as a likely ACC candidate to be grabbed by the SEC, but I would add Miami and Clemson as additional potential defectors that do not have a great basketball tradition. At that point the ACC might be left picking up Big East football schools that did not make the cut with the Big Ten (Pitt, WVU and Syracuse being my likely suspects for Big East football schools the Big Ten may not covet).

As Barnhart notes, this avalanche could be triggered in the near future.

[theAlaskanBear]

Ah, yes. This has been one of the legendary themes of DBR posts.

Duke and UNC were opposed to expansion. However, if expansion were to occur, they preferred Miami, BC and Syracuse over any other combination. The expansion required votes from three-fourths of current members, or seven schools and, in fact, seven schools supported expansion. UVa, however, because of in-state politics was required to hold its nose and vote for Virginia Tech. Thus, the only expansion plan that could get seven votes involved VT and not Syracuse.

Duke and UNC managed to confuse principle and outcome. By refusing to compromise, they got the worst possible solution. Very dumb of Nan Keohane and her counterpart at UNC. John Nash ("A Beautiful Mind") won a Nobel Prize for his work on strategy taking account of the actions of others. Maybe Duke and UNC didn't offer the course.

sagegrouse

I dont think the expansion that took place was the worst of all outcomes. My preference would have been if ACC swapped Boston College for Syracuse. I actually really like the fact that Vtech is in the league. They field tough, good ball teams every year and provide some geographical rivalry.

[Class of '94]

Interesting speculation by college football columnist Tony Barnhart in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution regarding how the ACC could be vulnerable if the Big Ten goes to 16 teams, which would blow up the Big East as a football conference. And these potential expansions are all about football, since the major TV $$ in basketball go through the NCAA for the tournament, not through the conferences.

ACC needs an expansion plan–right now
http://blogs.ajc.com/barnhart-colleg...lan-right-now/

If that happens the SEC might expand from 12 to 16 teams as well - Texas and Oklahoma would be the crown jewels if Missouri and Nebraska go to the Big Ten and the Big 12 falls apart like the old Southwest Conference. Barnhart also mentions rumors of a Pac-10/Big 12 joint TV contract that A-Tex Devil references above.

Barnhart mentions Florida State as a likely ACC candidate to be grabbed by the SEC, but I would add Miami and Clemson as additional potential defectors that do not have a great basketball tradition. At that point the ACC might be left picking up Big East football schools that did not make the cut with the Big Ten (Pitt, WVU and Syracuse being my likely suspects for Big East football schools the Big Ten may not covet).

As Barnhart notes, this avalanche could be triggered in the near future.

I think you also have to seriously consider the possibility of G-tech leaving for the SEC if asked due to Tech's rivalry with Georgia.

I think the ACC needs to be proactive and look to add quality teams as a way of keeping the south eastern teams (like Clemson, Fla. State, Miami, etc.) in the ACC fold.

[Dukeface88]

Barnhart mentions Florida State as a likely ACC candidate to be grabbed by the SEC, but I would add Miami and Clemson as additional potential defectors that do not have a great basketball tradition. At that point the ACC might be left picking up Big East football schools that did not make the cut with the Big Ten (Pitt, WVU and Syracuse being my likely suspects for Big East football schools the Big Ten may not covet).

Hopefully we could ship Maryland off to the BE as part of the deal. Then they could get a real rival (Georgetown probably) and stop bothering us.