Page 10 of 101 FirstFirst ... 891011122060 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 200 of 2016
  1. #181
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Dev11 View Post
    I understand Kansas because of basketball, but why Baylor? They are not generally competitive in either revenue sport and captivate (I think) little interest even in their own state.
    Baylor certainly doesn't have a great hoops tradition but they've been pretty solid the last few years and figure to be a top-10 team going into this season. And their football team just beat TCU. Women's hoops is elite but I'm sure how much--if any--that matters.

    Whether this is sustainable for any length of time is another matter entirely. And we are talking about a private school, without a huge fan base. I don't seriously expect Baylor and Duke to ever be in the same conference but I don't think we should dismiss their current competitiveness, either.

  2. #182
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Quote Originally Posted by jimsumner View Post
    Baylor certainly doesn't have a great hoops tradition but they've been pretty solid the last few years and figure to be a top-10 team going into this season. And their football team just beat TCU. Women's hoops is elite but I'm sure how much--if any--that matters.

    Whether this is sustainable for any length of time is another matter entirely. And we are talking about a private school, without a huge fan base. I don't seriously expect Baylor and Duke to ever be in the same conference but I don't think we should dismiss their current competitiveness, either.
    Baylor has potential to be a strong, strong private school. They are very large for a private school and as mentioned have been strong in basketball of late. Football may be coming on as well.

    And I disagree about fan base. If anyone doubts the number of Baylor alumni that exist, just look to Houston 2010 Elite Eight. Baylor has probaly one of the largest alumni organizations of any private school, and they have very powerful alumni, at least in the state of Texas. They aren't, and will never be, a national draw like Notre Dame, but frankly Baylor brings much much more to the table than say, Wake Forest, or even Vanderbilt, who have the luxury of being in much more stable conferences.

    Unfortunately I do think they will be an odd man out. Their Athletic Dept turned things around about 3 years too late.

    And as an aside --- if you love college football -- watch RG III, Baylor's QB. He enrolled early in December and placed in the Big XII 440 hurdles that spring. I'll wager (and this is coming from a UT fan) that he will take the dual threat QB position to the next level in the NFL. If he was on Auburn last year, the national championship game wouldn't have been close.

  3. #183
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by A-Tex Devil View Post
    Baylor has potential to be a strong, strong private school. They are very large for a private school and as mentioned have been strong in basketball of late. Football may be coming on as well.

    And I disagree about fan base. If anyone doubts the number of Baylor alumni that exist, just look to Houston 2010 Elite Eight. Baylor has probaly one of the largest alumni organizations of any private school, and they have very powerful alumni, at least in the state of Texas. They aren't, and will never be, a national draw like Notre Dame, but frankly Baylor brings much much more to the table than say, Wake Forest, or even Vanderbilt, who have the luxury of being in much more stable conferences.

    Unfortunately I do think they will be an odd man out. Their Athletic Dept turned things around about 3 years too late.

    And as an aside --- if you love college football -- watch RG III, Baylor's QB. He enrolled early in December and placed in the Big XII 440 hurdles that spring. I'll wager (and this is coming from a UT fan) that he will take the dual threat QB position to the next level in the NFL. If he was on Auburn last year, the national championship game wouldn't have been close.
    Thanks for the up-close look at Baylor. By small fan-base, I was referring to their status as a private school. Other than Notre Dame and their famous subway alumni, it's hard for any private school to match large, state-supported schools in that area.

  4. #184
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO

    What is Going On with Conference Realignment?

    I feel like I have wandered into the middle of a Fellini film and don't know what's going on. (Heck I had trouble following Boccaccio 70 and 8 1/2 seeing them from the beginning.)

    Let me try a couple of things--

    I earlier wrote of four factions in the conference realignment discussions:

    The Purists, who love their conferences and their rivalries and would be really reluctant to change. (The ACC members who met at Sedgewick Country club nearly 60 years ago, I maintain, is in that group.)

    The Theorists, who believe that the nature of the media market dictates four 16-team conferences, and I don't believe it is as simple as CBS, ABC/ESPN, NBC/Comcast, Fox. Some of these appear to be in conferences -- some are commentators.

    The God Squadders, like Texas and to some extent Notre Dame and Oklahoma, who believe that they are so wonderful they would improve any neighborhood they inhabit.

    The Malcontents, like Texas A&M now and Nebraska last year, who are primarily unhappy at being screwed around by the GSers.

    I now wonder whether this is, fairly simply, a Texas Longhorn-generated problem. Maybe a soap opera, or a Fellini film, "Can Texas Find True Happiness Without Wrecking Every Conference?"

    • Remember that Texas and Texas A&M engineered the demise of the Southwest Conference in the mid 1990s. They felt they were supporting the entire conference and were not getting enough help from the other schools. After flirting with the Pac-10, they settled for the Big Eight plus Four. Bringing along Texas Tech and politically powerful Baylor left the SWC with only four schools.
    • The relatively one-sided deal that Texas has with the Big 12 (which doesn't share revenues equally) made Nebraska and Missouri eager for another place to reside. Mizzou was stiffed by the Big Ten, but when Nebraska changed conferences, Colorado, who has always seen the Huskers as their main rival, had little reason to remain and decamped to the Pac-10 plus Two. Texas A&M, tired of trailing around Texas, is now trying to strike out on its own (and may, in fact, "strike out").
    • Now, having made a wreck of the Big 12, Texas is "blaming the victim" and saying it doesn't want to be a partner with the remaining schools.
    • I suppose the next victim for the Longhorns may be the Pac-12. Good luck to them!!!


    So what's with Oklahoma? Its quest for an independent voice and decision has two parts: (a) OU doesn't want Texas negotiating for them, and why should they? (b) OU REALLY doesn't want to play, or be seen as playing, the dufus sidekick Pancho to Texas's heroic Cisco Kid.


    Are there remaining built-in instabilities among the conferences that would exist without Texas (plus A&M and Oklahoma) strutting their stuff? Well, yeah. No one can possibly believe that the 17/9 Big East is a stable conference alignment for either football or basketball, much less both. But its instability is less likely to affect other conferences than moves by Texas or Oklahoma or even Notre Dame.

    Now, does anyone else think that Mark Cuban is right (linked on the Front Page)? Says Marco (paraphrase), "It's the law of unintended consequences. Everyone thinks they will be better off with 16-team conferences, but in fact, there will be FEWER attractive games for TV not MORE. Therefore, there will be less money per school."

    Stay tuned--

    sagegrouse

  5. #185
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by sagegrouse View Post
    Now, does anyone else think that Mark Cuban is right (linked on the Front Page)? Says Marco (paraphrase), "It's the law of unintended consequences. Everyone thinks they will be better off with 16-team conferences, but in fact, there will be FEWER attractive games for TV not MORE. Therefore, there will be less money per school."

    Stay tuned--

    sagegrouse
    I think Cuban is right here. In college sports so much is dependent on rivalries and those rivalries tend to produce games that fans can actually attend without having to travel 2,500 miles. How are either Texas or Oklahoma well-served by moving to different conferences? Will Oklahoma fans be able to afford road trips to Los Angeles and Oregon to see their team? Will Texas fans make a couple of trips east every fall? Dont rivalry games still draw ratings even when teams are not highly ranked? I see intensity on the part of fans dropping withe super-conferences and no regional congruity.

    All of this of course ignores basketball where "student-athletes" will miss a lot more class going on longer, mid-week road trips. In a 16 team conference you will barely know half of your opponents and your fans will react accordingly.

  6. #186
    Quote Originally Posted by jimsumner View Post
    Baylor certainly doesn't have a great hoops tradition but they've been pretty solid the last few years and figure to be a top-10 team going into this season. And their football team just beat TCU. Women's hoops is elite but I'm sure how much--if any--that matters.
    Yowza.

    Baylor '09 = NIT
    Baylor '10 = Elite 8
    Baylor '11 = Preseason top 10 ranking to 18-13, no NCAA, no NIT.

    Sorry, they are much more likely to end up on probation than a perennial contender.

  7. #187
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    The bigger the conferences, the fewer the teams who actually win conference championships each year as well, and more than likely the fewer teams even in contention to win them. Certainly a potential for more fans of particular schools losing interest earlier in each season. Meanwhile the minor sports could get absolutely crushed in the increased travel expenses and time lost involved with geographically sprawling conference footprints. Much to find repugnant in this trend. In a society that seems to demand winning more and more out of their icons, allowing for fewer and fewer winners seems senseless to me, yet the other driving force of current society, blind greed, looks to be sending us in that direction. I see all this as a confluence of stupidities.

  8. #188
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    New York, NY
    The PAC conference is at least smart about admitting geographical partners. If OU, OSU, TX, and TxTech join the PAC 16 East, then they'll presumably have 3 conference games with the relatively local teams plus perhaps 4 or 5 more against western schools, including a presumably annual one with COlorado--which probably thought it wouldn't have to get crushed anymore by OU and Texas. That would be 2 or 3 trips to the coast, tops, every year for football. And, yes, there are plenty of rich boosters who would LOVE an annual trip to San Francisco or Seattle after having survived another brutal Texas summer--and many/most would much rather travel to LA or Portland than Tuscaloosa or Biloxi or wherever A&M fans would have to travel. And flying Dallas to LA is pretty cheap these days. But traveling visitors is hardly a major emphasis, is it?

    My 2 cents about Duke's ideal situation (probably plagiarized from somewhere--the lax guy?):

    Create a new league with Duke, Carolina, Miami, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Virginia, Maryland, and BC (ie, jettisoning VaTech, Clemson, Wake, State, and possibly switching BC for a southern school). That's 8 teams. I can imagine adding Rutgers, UConn, 2 others from Yankeeland and trying to get to 12, but I can also imagine keeping it at 8, having no playoff but having a reasonable chance at maximizing $ and getting football teams into the national mix (not our team, of course; our team is another story).

  9. #189
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Quote Originally Posted by sagegrouse View Post
    [*]Remember that Texas and Texas A&M engineered the demise of the Southwest Conference in the mid 1990s. They felt they were supporting the entire conference and were not getting enough help from the other schools. After flirting with the Pac-10, they settled for the Big Eight plus Four. Bringing along Texas Tech and politically powerful Baylor left the SWC with only four schools.[*][*]The relatively one-sided deal that Texas has with the Big 12 (which doesn't share revenues equally) made Nebraska and Missouri eager for another place to reside. Mizzou was stiffed by the Big Ten, but when Nebraska changed conferences, Colorado, who has always seen the Huskers as their main rival, had little reason to remain and decamped to the Pac-10 plus Two. Texas A&M, tired of trailing around Texas, is now trying to strike out on its own (and may, in fact, "strike out").[*][*]Now, having made a wreck of the Big 12, Texas is "blaming the victim" and saying it doesn't want to be a partner with the remaining schools.[*][*][*]I suppose the next victim for the Longhorns may be the Pac-12. Good luck to them!!![/LIST]

    So what's with Oklahoma? Its quest for an independent voice and decision has two parts: (a) OU doesn't want Texas negotiating for them, and why should they? (b) OU REALLY doesn't want to play, or be seen as playing, the dufus sidekick Pancho to Texas's heroic Cisco Kid.


    Are there remaining built-in instabilities among the conferences that would exist without Texas (plus A&M and Oklahoma) strutting their stuff? Well, yeah. No one can possibly believe that the 17/9 Big East is a stable conference alignment for either football or basketball, much less both. But its instability is less likely to affect other conferences than moves by Texas or Oklahoma or even Notre Dame.

    sagegrouse
    First. I agree with everything Mark Cuban says, but that's beside the point because no one is listening to him. Four 16 team conferences IS a zero sum game. Schools will lose more than they are used to. Cross-sectional games like LSU-Oregon and Florida St.-OU may cease to exist (especially if there is a 7 in division/4 inter division schedule with 1 non-conference game). While I enjoy the politics and the game theory, the potential outcome and what it means doesn't sound to great to me.

    All that said, I have to defend Texas.

    Some history (which I've posted some of before). Texas went to A&M 3-4 years ago to do a lone star network for all sports. A&M balked. The Aggies are putting out revisionist history now like it was to be a 70/30 split and Texas gets all syndication. This is all false. A&M thought it would fail (and maybe it will, but I doubt it. And Texas already has the first 2 years guaranteed so at least $24MM is coming its way). Anyway, when the Big XII stuck together last year EVERYONE knew Texas was trying to get its own network, but no one had any idea it would pay out so much. So the contract gets signed and the Aggies have their panties in a wad because of the "unfair advantage" it gives Texas -- -when EVERYONE knew it was coming down the pike.

    In reality? A&M is under tremendous financial pressure to get their athletic department back in the black. They are a top 10 directors' cup school but needed the Big XII money last year (more on that in a second) to pay off a loan they took out from the general fund. Their power base was FURIOUS about the LHN not because Texas got it, but because it was a missed opportunity by A&M. So A&M plays a somewhat successful PR war and is now moving to the SEC which has equal revenue sharing (or does it... again, more in a second) under the auspices of "equality is better". And it is a good move for them at this point as their donations and season ticket base is booming in the past couple of week. But all because they had the lack of foresight to join Texas. Also --- and I told you I'd get back to this: A&M benefited the most from the Big XII sticking together, took a larger share of the CU/NU payoff than the other schools (even Texas who shared it equally). NU was the same way. They BENEFITTED from unequal revenue sharing and are blaming Texas? Please. "I'm so pissed off at you for causing me to make more money!" Please again.

    I can get into why the Big XII most uniquely should have unequal revenue sharing if you'd like, but let's look at the SEC for a second. In reality, it's not much different than the Big XII. Yeah the big SEC and CBS contracts are shared equally, but tier 3 rights aren't. Look it up. SEC teams aren't equal, and A&M is likely to be in the bottom half for a while. And that's all Texas wants. They are willing to share the big network equally, but after ESPN/FOX/CBS pick up the first 2-3 good games every week, if those games aren't Texas games, Texas can get the game on the Longhorn Network and get those Tier 3 revenues. I still think either the Pac 10 or the Big Ten may end up giving on this at some point.

    Anyway, long story short --- this is all happening because A&M failed several years ago to have the foresight to create a network with Texas (something OU has also been working on), and now that the LHN is reality, they need to react for the sake of maintaining donations and season ticket levels to stay in the black. It's a mismanaged athletic department at a very good school that is getting bailed out by a potential SEC invite and making UT the scapegoat.

  10. #190
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Quote Originally Posted by johnb View Post

    My 2 cents about Duke's ideal situation (probably plagiarized from somewhere--the lax guy?):

    Create a new league with Duke, Carolina, Miami, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Virginia, Maryland, and BC (ie, jettisoning VaTech, Clemson, Wake, State, and possibly switching BC for a southern school). That's 8 teams. I can imagine adding Rutgers, UConn, 2 others from Yankeeland and trying to get to 12, but I can also imagine keeping it at 8, having no playoff but having a reasonable chance at maximizing $ and getting football teams into the national mix (not our team, of course; our team is another story).
    The problem with your scenario is football. All the on going realignment talks are being driven by football just like the previous ACC expansion was driven by football. Any new league, whether it be an eight team league or a 12 team league will be centered on football and the idea a league would keep Duke while jettisoning Virginia Tech, Clemson, State or BC is a stretch.

    Duke needs the ACC and the ACC needs Duke so I hope the ACC can survive intact as a 12 team conference or expand to 16 by pulling in Big East football schools if absolutely necessary.
    Bob Green

  11. #191
    All this speculation is entertaining and interesting. Great points and prognostications. One point that I would like to mention that we all are cognizant of is, how well-respected and well-connected the ACC is throughout the country. Our conference has likely been in touch with more schools than we would guess...and probably has been for some time now. I trust that the ACC will emerge from any consolidation in positive shape and will have a bright future, whether we come out as a Super-National Conference or Regional Conference (more likely, with a caveat or two). Only my opinion.

  12. #192
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington DC

    Assuming we lose no schools...

    ...and we HAVE to go to 16 in a more football oriented conference with more un-touched (by the ACC that is) tv markets, who are the ideal target schools?

    I'd go with Penn State because they touch the DC, Philly and Pittsburgh markets and have a lot of loyal fans out there.

    Next, I'd go after the duo of Oklahoma and Texas. You could sell them on the east coast tv markets.

    Finally I'd go after either Tennessee or Syracuse. Cuse would probably make more sense for tv markets (although TN is growing more rapidly).

    If we lost any teams I'd try to poach LSU and Florida from the SEC and Illinois and Indiana from the Big 11.

    I'd be much less excited about having to go after UConn but maybe that's my own personal hangup. Maybe we should do a poll...

  13. #193
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by superdave View Post
    ...and we HAVE to go to 16 in a more football oriented conference with more un-touched (by the ACC that is) tv markets, who are the ideal target schools?

    I'd go with Penn State because they touch the DC, Philly and Pittsburgh markets and have a lot of loyal fans out there.

    Next, I'd go after the duo of Oklahoma and Texas. You could sell them on the east coast tv markets.

    Finally I'd go after either Tennessee or Syracuse. Cuse would probably make more sense for tv markets (although TN is growing more rapidly).

    If we lost any teams I'd try to poach LSU and Florida from the SEC and Illinois and Indiana from the Big 11.

    I'd be much less excited about having to go after UConn but maybe that's my own personal hangup. Maybe we should do a poll...
    I hope you're joking....exactly 1 of those teams (syracuse) would be remotely enticed by an ACC offer...and they likely won't come until after their dream of going to the Big10 is crushed by the big10 hitting 16.
    1200. DDMF.

  14. #194
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Verga3 View Post
    All this speculation is entertaining and interesting. Great points and prognostications. One point that I would like to mention that we all are cognizant of is, how well-respected and well-connected the ACC is throughout the country. Our conference has likely been in touch with more schools than we would guess...and probably has been for some time now. I trust that the ACC will emerge from any consolidation in positive shape and will have a bright future, whether we come out as a Super-National Conference or Regional Conference (more likely, with a caveat or two). Only my opinion.
    I wish I could completely agree with you, but at this point I think it's impossible to say anything definitive about the future of the ACC, let alone any other conference. While I do not doubt that ACC administrators are doing their best to prepare for the impending chaos, there is only so much confidence one can have in their ability to control the outcome. I mean, take a look at this thread; you could find at least 15 detailed, reasonable predictions for how this all could play out, and not a single one of them is any more likely than the rest. The way I see it, this is a ship sailing without a captain, and a whole mob of people are fighting to get their hands at the helm. There are just so many different parties with so many different interests, all trying to get their share -- the conferences, the NCAA, the schools themselves, the tv networks. Everyone is trying to steer the ship's wheel in their own direction, and as a result, nobody has any control. All we can do is wait and see where we end up.

  15. #195
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX

    Fellini may be right...

    Sooooo... apparently last week when it looked like A&M was gone and the Big XII would pick up 1 to 3 more teams the Big XII was ready to smooth A&M's exit and signed a release of claims against the SEC, A&M and Mike Slive. I have no idea why they would sign this unless they were happy with the outcome of exit fee negotiations.

    Anyway, Chip Brown is reporting the SEC voted 10-2 (which is unusual for a league that is generally unanimous) to accept A&M and A&M is planning a press conference for this afternoon or tomorrow. BUT!!!

    While the Big XII signed the release, the individual schools did not. And now that it looks like OU may lead 4 schools to the Pac 10 and the Big East might snap of the Kansas schools (and mayne Mizzou if they aren't the SEC's 14, 15 or 16) Baylor and Iowa St. are left in the cold. Baylor, which has a law school that pumps out strong Texas trial lawyers and whose president is former Solicitor General and Special Prosecutor, Ken Starr, maybe gearing up to sue. Add this to the fact that Chip Brown is also reporting that the SEC offer is contingent on no litigation (again, seems odd, but Chip Brown has been all over this) and things are getting very interesting. Back to another uneasy peace in the Big XII perhaps?

    I follow Chip Brown (an SMU grad and a real reporter -- but works for a UT site) and Billy Liucci (A&M homer, but well sourced throughout this) on twitter and usually Billy Liucci scoffs at all of these potential roadblocks to the SEC. Not so last night. Baylor looks prepared to ensure the Big XII sticks together, and if that means looking like a petulent child and preventing A&M from leaving, so be it. Remember, A&M took a portion of Baylor, ISU, KU, etc.'s exit fees from CU and NU in order to keep the Big XII together last year. They committed to the Big XII and signed a contract. I think the powers that be in the Big XII were ready to let A&M go, but it looks like Baylor may flex its rather strong litigious muscles to gum up the works here a bit.

    Get your popcorn.

  16. #196
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington DC

    Thumbs up

    Thanks A-Tex for the A&M insight.

    To make it to 4 conferences with 16 teams, you have to combine in some combination the ACC (12 teams), Big 12 (10), Big East (8 football), Big Ten (12), Pac 12 (12) and SEC (12). That's 66 teams vying for 64 spots. You've also got Notre Dame and the non-football Big East schools (8).

    It does not seem logical to have three major east coast conferences if we go to super-conferences, so one of the Big East, ACC and SEC will go away. With the SEC as the first mover, pulling in A&M, that would seemingly lead to a zero sum game between the ACC and Big East, right?

    The ACC has better football and tradition and is pretty favorable in basketball. The academics of the schools help too. So you would think the Big East would split. However the ACC always seems to be more reactive in these situations.

    If the Big 12 is going to lose some teams to the Pac 12, then the Big 12 is probably done for. So the ACC, SEC and Big Ten will start looking to poach. The SEC could be done with the Big 12 and might be looking squarely at VT/Clemson/State/GT etc.

    The first movers seems to have the advantage. It would be nice to see the ACC move

  17. #197
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO

    ACC TEams to the SEC ? Nah!

    Quote Originally Posted by superdave View Post

    If the Big 12 is going to lose some teams to the Pac 12, then the Big 12 is probably done for. So the ACC, SEC and Big Ten will start looking to poach. The SEC could be done with the Big 12 and might be looking squarely at VT/Clemson/State/GT etc.The first movers seems to have the advantage. It would be nice to see the ACC move


    The SEC can look all it wants -- but I don't see these ACC teams moving anywhere unless the ACC collapses.

    sagegrouse

  18. #198
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by sagegrouse View Post
    The SEC can look all it wants -- but I don't see these ACC teams moving anywhere unless the ACC collapses.

    sagegrouse
    But what if a school thinks the ACC will collapse? Think George Costanza running over little kids to get out the door first when someone yelled "fire". Would Swofford be able to hold things together during that situation? He better have an offer of an up-graded ACC, right?

  19. #199
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by superdave View Post

    The first movers seems to have the advantage. It would be nice to see the ACC move
    You have that backwards - it's the leagues with the advantage that move first, because they are the ones that can pick and choose.

  20. #200
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by superdave View Post
    Thanks A-Tex for the A&M insight.

    To make it to 4 conferences with 16 teams, you have to combine in some combination the ACC (12 teams), Big 12 (10), Big East (8 football), Big Ten (12), Pac 12 (12) and SEC (12). That's 66 teams vying for 64 spots. You've also got Notre Dame and the non-football Big East schools (8).

    It does not seem logical to have three major east coast conferences if we go to super-conferences, so one of the Big East, ACC and SEC will go away. With the SEC as the first mover, pulling in A&M, that would seemingly lead to a zero sum game between the ACC and Big East, right?

    The ACC has better football and tradition and is pretty favorable in basketball. The academics of the schools help too. So you would think the Big East would split. However the ACC always seems to be more reactive in these situations.

    If the Big 12 is going to lose some teams to the Pac 12, then the Big 12 is probably done for. So the ACC, SEC and Big Ten will start looking to poach. The SEC could be done with the Big 12 and might be looking squarely at VT/Clemson/State/GT etc.

    The first movers seems to have the advantage. It would be nice to see the ACC move
    Not to worry. We have John Swofford on it.

Similar Threads

  1. Baseball Realignment
    By SoCalDukeFan in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 07-06-2011, 11:36 PM
  2. Big East Realignment
    By johnb in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 04-23-2011, 09:29 PM
  3. The Kyrie Irving Toe Vigil
    By diveonthefloor in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 1507
    Last Post: 02-05-2011, 06:25 PM
  4. NCAA Conference Realignment
    By A-Tex Devil in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 78
    Last Post: 03-04-2010, 05:16 PM
  5. Sentinel: 5 Years After Realignment: Are Schools Better Off?
    By gotham devil in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-04-2008, 11:28 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •