On a different note I have to agree with sagegrouse. I think there is alot of sabre rattling going on, but the ACC is alot more stable than the rest of the world would like to admit. We may ultimately add some in the end, but I don't see anyone getting taken from us. I was thinking the other day how nice it would be if the 4 Carolina schools stuck together and said we're not going anywhere without the others...then I thought, how nice it would be for an entire conference to say that...what a novel idea huh. Well, I'm not sure about the rest of the conferences, some of them seem pretty stable, but I think that is what we have in the ACC. If one were to leave I think they would leave behind a pretty coveted and easily fillable spot.
Just heard on a sports talk show here in the Detroit area that there are some internet reports that Texas and Notre Dame have presented a proposal/conditions for joining the Big 10 conference to the Big 10. Here is the link that they read a report from: http://northwestern.rivals.com/showm...id=901&style=2 .
No one here knows how true these reports are but it would be very interesting if the Big 10 were able to get these two schools. These were the 2 schools that I wanted for the ACC. Has anyone heard anything about these reports? TexDevil?
The Big XII "discussed" adding Arkansas and Notre Dame earlier this month. Didn't mean it was going to happen. So, I don't doubt the Big Ten is brainstorming scenarios to get out ahead of this, but I'd be shocked if anything like this happens now or even before the beginning of next football season.
On the SEC/A&M front, the SEC's conservatism is the only thing holding the A&M deal up. Contrary to reports, no one has threatened suit. Baylor, and others, have simply not agreed to release any potential claims. No conference or school has ever been required to release claims as part of a realignment. The Aggies need to start moving their ever-pointing fingers at the SEC now. It's in the SEC's court to get this deal done.
Part of the problem with these expansions seem to be a lack of planning and collaboration towards a long-term goal from the major conferences. There really are not 72 teams that can run BCS-level football and creditable programs in other sports, much less the more that would be needed with 5 or 6 super-conferences. More BCS teams have been added, making it more difficult to easily go to 4 conferences of 16. The Big 12 will be unstable as long as it has fewer than 12 teams even without other factors like the Longhorn Network. The Big East continues to grow and grow once you add in the non-football playing schools and they approach a critical period for the negotiation of a new broadcast deal. Unfortunately, I am sure that the conference offices do not really want dissolve themselves, but this is really the last best opportunity to end the Big 12 and split the football and non-football part of the Big East. Assuming the same 10 total BCS Bowl spots, each conference could be given 2 automatic slots, while the other 2 could be conditionally filled by Notre Dame/other non-BCS or have a 3rd bid for a superconference.
Here would be one somewhat feasible 4 conference setup: I am not saying I like everything about this arrangement, but it would mostly be logical, address major concerns of some schools, and nobody would lose out (well except for TCU... Ideally I could find a home for South Florida and Cincinnati that is not the ACC, but I am trying as hard as possible to get all 66 current teams somewhere)
+North Carolina State
There are plenty of problems with this "solution" but it would give everybody a home and in my opinion it would create the possibility of long-term stability, which as a fan is a big priority for me. I know that some people would object to State moving to the SEC in this setup, but I truly believe it would be a mutually beneficial arrangement. They could easily be switched back with one of the teams that I added to the ACC, out of which I would be willing to give up Cincinnati, then South Florida, then Pitt. If we could stick to 16 in the ACC, I would also like to see Notre Dame and either Georgetown or Villanova's non-football teams in the conference.
Here were the things I considered in making this:
-No current BCS schools without a conference
-No religious schools in the Pac 12
-No new non-AAU teams in the Big Ten
-No new teams in current SEC states for the SEC
-Minimal poaching by any conference of teams in the 4 remaining conferences (only NC State, which could be easily reversed)
-Baylor no longer has a reason to be mad at Texas A&M
-General preservation of rivalries
The Notre Dame conundrum continues. Obviously they want to preserve their special schedule, which most closely resembles a Big Ten one, but the rest of their sports programs are really not very Big Ten-like and are pretty similar to Duke and some other ACC schools. I figure the system has to still allow for some independents although there will be some weird leftovers (like what will become of the WAC, even under the current conditions?). I dislike this conference shuffle as much as anyone else, but I at least tried to come up with some kind of system that would encompass everything.
It's probably been vaguely mentioned earlier in the thread, but no one has yet elaborated on how problematic it will be to schedule conference opponents when the conference has 16 teams. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the ACC keeps its 12 teams, and adds 4 more: West Virginia, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, and Syracuse.
The conference might be divided into two 8-team divisions. Going by geography, it would look like this:
ACC North: Boston College, Syracuse, Rutgers, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Maryland, Virginia, Virginia Tech
ACC South: Duke, UNC, NC State, Wake Forest, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Miami
Not bad, for what it is. The 4 North Carolina schools stay together. But how does the football schedule work? There are 12 games in a regular season. If we use Pittsburgh as our point of reference, there would be 7 games against the rest of the ACC North, leaving 5 regular season games. Requiring them to play 4 games against the ACC South would mean that Pitt has only one nonconference game, which seems harsh and inflexible. Some may suggest 3, but the logistics of evenly distributing 8 teams (3 per season) would give me a headache. This leaves 2 teams, which looks like a sensible schedule if you isolate it to one season: 7 ACC North games, 2 ACC South games, 3 nonconference games.
The problem arises when you look beyond one season. Over the course of 4 years, Pitt's ACC South schedule could look like this:
Year 1: vs Duke, at Miami
Year 2: vs Georgia Tech, at NC State
Year 3: vs Florida State, at Clemson
Year 4: vs Wake Forest, at UNC
Or like this:
Year 1: vs Duke, at Miami
Year 2: vs Miami, at Duke
Year 3: vs Georgia Tech, at NC State
Year 4: vs NC State, at Georgia Tech
In the first scenario, a healthy 4-year player would at least face every ACC opponent, but would not experience any home-and-home series. The reverse is true of the second scenario. In both scenarios, that player would travel to Florida only once in his college career. Looking at it from a coaching or recruiting perspective, I doubt Pitt would find that appealing. What's the point of playing ACC football if your exposure to the Sunshine State is so limited?
Basketball footnote: if Pitt played every ACC North opponent twice and every ACC South opponent once, that's 22 conference games.
Another alternative is creating four 4-team divisions.
ACC Trenchcoat: Boston College, Syracuse, Rutgers, Pittsburgh
ACC Fleece: West Virginia, Maryland, Virginia, Virginia Tech
ACC T-Shirt: Duke, UNC, NC State, Wake Forest
ACC Sandals: Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Miami
This makes more sense for basketball. Play division opponents twice and everyone else once: 6 + 4 + 4 + 4 = 18 games. But it solves none of the football problems above and adds a particularly thorny one for Pittsburgh -- it no longer gets to play West Virginia every year.
I don't think it would take long for a group of schools to find a way to make more money in a smaller conference. I feel like that's happened in the past before
Small leagues of 8-10 are best, playing everyone every year in every sport, and home and home in hoops, only way to determine true champs, and preserve real rivalries, in regions that make sense.
Atlantic League, 10: UConn, Syracuse, Penn State, BC, UMD, UVA, UNC, Duke, GT, FSU. Dominates the entire east with half the population and media and money, and ideal competition in football for PSU, FSU, as well as Duke, to play for national titles or bowls, since none of them could do that in B10 or ACC 12. Best in mens and womens hoops, lacrosse, soccer, baseball, softball, field hockey, etc. broadcast on Atlantic League Network, and the best network TV deals by far to make the PAC 12's best ever (despite 2 ranked football and zero ranked hoops teams) look tiny by comparison.
Big East, 10-12: VT, NCSU, Wake, Clemson, WVU, Pitt, Rutgers, Louisville, Cincinnati, USF, maybe Memphis and ECU.
Big East basketball schools, all catholic, form own league of 8.
See "a new ACC" thread for why this is the best thing for all schools involved.
I agree laxdevil, so here's a thought. Assuming we go to the four 16 team mega conferences...what does the rest of the world do? Think the NCAA is going to sit by and do nothing? Think the BCS schools are going to be content listening to the NCAA? Think the other schools (and there is alot more of them) are going to simply sit by?
If this happens it has much bigger implications down the road. As I've said, everyone is so worried about tomorrow they aren't considering a few years from now. I think this easily has the potential to change, ruin, split, however you see it, the college landscape completely. This won't just be about conference realignment if it takes place.
Honest questions too for anyone's thoughts. Everyone is talking about the teams that are in, but what about the teams that are out. Do we end up with two different systems, the BCS and the rest of the NCAA? I don't know the answers, but I'd love to hear from some who are more in the know than me. I might not know what they are going to do, but I know they aren't going to do nothing.
things to do this weekend:
1) watch duke
2) chip in to iron dukes for the average cost of one cleaning bill for "gatorade stain removal"
In another thread I posted a link about Notre Dame and Texas overtures to B10(12). Notre Dame wanted only 8 B10(14) foes so it could retain its 3 traditional rivals. I am sure Texas would still want to play OU every year in Dallas. In that case there were only 7 in each division, so 6 inter division and 2 intra division, plus 3 OOC. So 3.5 year rotations rather 4 but still a long time to feel like you are in the same football conference unless you meet in championship.
ACC right now is a joke. Unbalanced unfair football divisions with Coastal crushing Atlantic, and crushing Duke football and even Miami and everyone other than VT. Duke has a cross division football rival with Wake playing every year, so plays NCSU every 2 or 3 years?? Scheduling home and home in hoops, and playing everyone every year in football is the only way to determine true league champs, and preserve real rivalries, in regions that make sense.
Forgot about Miami in my new Big East. Also forgot a BCS league wouldn't want ECU on top of NCSU and Wake and Clemson.
5 ACC and 6 Big East football schools would add Memphis to make 12. 2 Big East divisions perfectly balanced in both football and basketball:
Big East South: Miami, South Florida, Clemson, NCSU, Wake, Memphis
Big East North: VT, Louisville, Cincinnati, WVU, Pitt, Rutgers
8 former Big East basketball schools are all catholic, could replace Notre Dame if needed with St Louis: Depaul, Georgetown, Marquette, Providence, St Johns, Seton Hall, Villanova, Notre Dame
Atlantic League, 10: BC, UConn, Syracuse, Penn State, UMD, UVA, Duke, UNC, GT, FSU
Big 10: should go back to original 10, or replace PSU with Notre Dame and rename itself Big 12
Big 12: should go back to 12, or rename itself Big 10
PAC 10: should go back to 10, or stay at PAC 12
Last edited by laxbluedevil; 09-12-2011 at 10:03 AM.
On the if I have to ACC part, no way USF fits at all, and would be problematic for FSU as well. So instead of West VA, Louisville, Cincy and USF and a conference of 18, add only Baylor and Rutgers (as the if I have to) and not go past 16 in ACC.
SEC with A&M already would need another non-Texas team besides NC St and West VA and not sure who that would be without VA Tech, perhaps Missouri or Pittsburgh whom in this alignment ACC could replace with TCU. Not sure who B10 would add if not Missouri, perhaps Notre Dame and Texas per that rumor plus the two Kansas teams if 16 is desirable, stay at 14 if not.
USF and TCU are ranked in football and a lot of the 64 with homes in these alignments are not. Ditto for Louisville and Cincy in Bball. May have to add some of these teams to C-USA that has some football as decent as a lot of these major conference teams (UCF beat BC, Rice beat Purdue, ECU played VA Tech close, Houston has a few votes in USA Today poll, as did So. Miss last week, etc.)
Need to figure out which conference would annex the 8 BE basketball but not conference football schools Marquette, Notre Dame, St. John's, Nova, G-town, Seton Hall, Providence and DePaul. Five have some appeal in Bball and three do not. These four 16 team superconferences could not, perhaps a small league like the Patriot where Notre Dame plays Army and Navy in football could.
These 8 with Louisville, Cincy, USF and TCU could form a decent basketball conference, but still need to find a football home for USF, TCU, Cincy and Louisville.
If NC State were to move to SEC and if USF, West VA, Louisville and Cincy were not added, ACC emphasis on Academics is preserved with FSU 16th best, Baylor 15th, UCONN, Pitt, Rutgers and Syracuse sandwiched closer to VA Tech than Clemson.
Even better fits academically would be Rice, Vandy, Notre Dame, Texas and Penn St., to replace NC State and get to 16, but none of those are realistic
Why Memphis who lost to Ark St 47-3 instead of TCU who already jumped to BE next year or UCF who stomped BC or Rice who surprised Purdue at home?
IMO, any attempts between BE and ACC to poach from one another would be offset by movements in other direction in zero sum gain. At end of the day not enough football gain to make it worthwhile vis a vis today.
Seems like BE could strengthen its football by adding decent football teams in same state as an SEC team and therefore not likely to be added to SEC. Already has USF so not sure FSU or Miami would want to join them. UCF and Rice and Houston who has votes this week are potential in state complements to USF and TCU along with Louisville in one football division and Syracuse, UCONN, Pitt, Rutgers, W VA and Cincy in the other.
The 12 team BE though then no longer appropriately named with 3 Texas teams would have bowl teams West VA, USF, TCU, Houston, UCF and Pitt. maybe UCONN, Syracuse, Rutrgers, and some years Cincy, Louisville and Rice may be decent. If BE needs a filler to get to an even number of football teams, perhaps Temple who is MAC in football and A10 in Bball.
The ACC if it remains in tact would have: FSU, VA Tech, MD, GA Tech, perhaps Wake who beat NC St or UNC or Clemson and someday BC, Miami, Virginia, or Duke may resurrect.
So the two basketball conferences would each have a few competitive football teams but nowhere near the power of SEC, B10 and P12 and B12, if it survives.
So I've gotten the gist from the posts on the main board for realignment that TPTB tend to agree with the anti-Texas side of the failings of the Big XII. Look, Texas doesn't want to share equally, and that may end things for the Big XII, but the teams that are complaining about unequal revenue sharing (Nebraska, OU, A&M) all benefited from it, and the teams that should be complaining (Baylor, ISU, KSU) aren't, and are ecstatic to be in the Big XII.
Also -- today's link? Berry Tramel. You might as well linked an article by Art Chansky talking about the evils of Duke and said "Good Point". Please consider the source. Always.
Anyway to respond to Tramel's article:
I'll note that A&M, Nebraska and OU have always voted FOR unequal revenue sharing. I am almost sympathetic to this argument, but lack of revenue sharing is not what drove NU out and it was not what is driving A&M out. It's a red herring for loss of influence (in NU's case) and a cash grab by the athletic department to make up for some seriously fiscally irresponsible years (in A&M's case).To save the conference, Texas might be willing to agree to equitable revenue sharing. Oh, great. Now, the Longhorns want to play nice? Why couldn't UT have been overflowing with the milk of human kindness before Nebraska left? The Longhorn-Cornhusker cage fight is what started the Big 12 on the path to being the Big Mess Conference.
See? Thanks, Berry.A&M and OU have always supported inequitable revenue sharing.
Shadow? OK. Have fun with 5 shadows. Bullying? Example, please. Arrogance? Have you been to college station? Look Texas thinks as highly of its university and its football team as Duke does of its school and basketball team. There is no difference. So is this sentence was some compelling reason as to why Texas is "at fault" we on this site should all look in the mirror.For the Aggies, it's about pride. They're tired of Texas' shadow, tired of Texas' bullying, tired of Texas' arrogance. A&M saw a place to parachute softly and didn't mind one bit that it could put the Longhorns in jeopardy of losing their cushy conference.
I'm somewhat sympathetic to the concerns of ESPN having conflicts of interest when it comes to Texas. But I'll note, again, that the Sooners are working on their own network. Also, everyone had these same concerns when that massive SEC contract came about regarding ESPN's favoritism to the SEC. I abhor the SEC in a lot of ways, but I have never felt they have had some undue influence from ESPN.If Texas' wants OU's attention, it can start by divorcing ESPN. The Sooners don't mind The Longhorn Network; the Sooners mind ESPN's influence on The Longhorn Network. The Sooners mind ESPN pushing, pushing, pushing for high school content on Bevo TV. The Sooners mind Big Mess games being placed on The Longhorn Network.
I've watched the Longhorn Network. I am currently sitting at my house waiting on the cable guy so I can switch to a provider that carries it. It is absolutely wonderful for all the reasons that would get UT fans excited and none of the reasons that are giving other fanbases/schools fits and causing them to scream "UNFAIR!" It is exactly what was promised -- an outlet for UT sports and sports programming with very little propaganda. Duke should consider the same thing (perhaps paired up with UNC) as it has one of the few commodities in college sports that might draw nationwide.
As far as high school games? I understand the rancor, but the Big Ten network wanted high school games as well (and I don't doubt OU would be running six Jenks games a year on their network once up). Dave Brown of the network came on and made some pretty stupid statements that sunk this idea, but the LHN could have been an outlet to air a dozen or more Texas high school football games a weekend, regardless of where the recruits were from. It's unfortunate that paranoia and jealousy prevented this, but the NCAA ruled for now, and I accept it. But I have little sympathy for OU year and that's compounded by the NCAA's ruling which makes this moot.
I call BS. From the day the network came up as a major player in realignment last summer through the day UT signed the contract with ESPN and IMG, high school games were on the table. Only when Aggie and others, who had "poo-pood" the worth of such a network saw the magnitude of what UT was able to swing did it people go "they got WHAT!! That's unacceptable." With respect to the "second Big XII game" that everyone is up in arms about, Texas have Tier 3 rights and we are compensating KU to play that game on the LHN. What is the concern? That game would have been on some Fox Regional network anyway."That's not what the conference envisioned when individual-school networks were conceived."
Yeah..... so I don't really understand how anything Berry Tramel says substantively puts this on Texas. Everything was fine until A&M saw an opportunity to break their promise from a year before and blame the Longhorn Network for it to try to mask their actual breach.
Last edited by A-Tex Devil; 09-12-2011 at 07:12 PM.
Don't be fooled by OU's stance. If A&M were to stay, OU WANTS the Big XII to survive. It's a clear path to the BCS for Stoops and they just signed a huge TV contract with another one on the way. Plus they get their own network. But if A&M leaves, OU's alumni (much like A&M) will push them to make a move. OU like Texas will be just fine, so I'm surprised at their lack of patience, but I guess I understand.
I am sure everyone heard about the not so secret meeting between senior Oklahoma and Texas officials over the weekend, right? Texas is still trying to keep the B12 together and begged Oklahoma not to leave for the Pac xx. Okie said it would hold off on a move, partly because it wants to being Texas along to the Pac xx (soon to be 16?), but that Texas needs to figure out something soon if it hopes to save the B12.
My gut says the B12 will be gone as a major conference by the start of next football season. Oklahoma and Okie St will be in the Pac 14. Texas A&M and one other B12 team will have joined the SEC (probably Mizzu) giving the SEC also 14 teams. Kansas and KSt will be part of the sprawling Big East, which will be even stronger in hoops, but will be so sprawling and disjointed in football, most folks will recognize that it cannot go on that way.
The ACC will remain the same, probably studying how well the 14 team conference do to see if there is any logic to expanding that way. The Big Ten will also be eyeing the move to 14 team leagues, hoping to pull in Notre Dame and either Pitt or WVa.
-Jason "so let it be written, so let it be done" Evans
Don't ask me why, but my mother is making me Tweet. Says it will be good for my career. So, follow my ramblings, mostly on the film industry, @TVFilmTalk
Eat Mor Jonny.