Page 17 of 101 FirstFirst ... 715161718192767 ... LastLast
Results 321 to 340 of 2016
  1. #321
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO

    Talking Circular Reasoning Has a Certain Beauty?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scorp4me View Post
    While I generally agree with what you're saying (and I believe I have pointed out you've been a voice of sanity in this discussion), wouldn't that be generally the same argument the confederacy had during the Civil War? Just because I join and agree to follow your rules doesn't mean I can't decide to leave and not follow them at any time? And if and when they decide to leave won't that ruin college sports in general, splitting it between the 64 in and the rest left out?

    And if they can dictate how many schools a conference must have to have their own conference championship game...wouldn't that seem to indicate that they have a little more say than you're insinuating? If they can say they must have 12 teams...couldn't they also say they can't have any more than 8? I mean that's a conference championship game...not an NCAA championship game...and has no bearing on the post season since there is no playoff system.

    But based on the 12 team requirement alone, if none other, I just don't buy that conference membership is outside the scope of the NCAA.And even if I agree with everything you're saying...the point of my thread is that they NCAA should have more to do with it. They should act to have more to do with it now while they still can...because if they wait it's going to be too late.
    This argument can get circular very quickly. Can we all agree that the universities run the NCAA? I seem to recall that there is a board of presidents for Division I, but the NCAA web site is eerily silent on this matter. Well, the member institutions run the NCAA in the following sense:

    Representatives from the NCAA membership – that is, individuals from member institutions and conferences -- are responsible for regulation of the Association. The membership must approve any changes to NCAA legislation or playing rules through processes identified in the NCAA constitution. The membership also is directly responsible for many other functions, such as the selection of teams for championships and the determination of rules infractions (and any penalties).
    Do we agree that NCAA does not currently have jurisdiction over conferences, conference memberships and related topics? (Ability to approve playoffs for 12-member conferences is a "playing rule.") If so, then the member institutions must decide to give control over conferences, and the conferences themselves must somehow agree. (See, I told you it was getting circular.) Why would the member institutions for Division I give the NCAA control over conference membership (size of conferences, e.g.), if -- in fact -- the member schools want to organize themselves into 16-team monstrosities to get more media bucks?

    I have a hard time imagining why the NCAA organization would be given greater authority in this area, although I think I agree with you that it would be desirable.

    sagegrouse

  2. #322
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    New York, NY
    Quote Originally Posted by A-Tex Devil View Post
    Look, laxbluedevil, I appreciate the discussion and enjoy speculation as much as anyone, but how are you looking to make this Atlantic League happen? ... I can come up with a dream league too --- Texas, OU, Duke, UNC, Michigan, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Kansas,

    Anyway -- as for the LHN, I have the Longhorn Network. I believe that most major carriers will have it by next football season. It's excellent. The programming is a combination of UT olympic sports, football pregame and postgame showsn, a hard knocks style backstage with the football team, and academic related programming. .... There is a vision here, and I trust the leaders at UT to be patient, stay the course, and get it right. I also expect other schools not locked down to conference networks to follow.
    your comments touch on the near sightedness of some of our discussions. I love the idea of being able to watch duke athletes in olympic and suburban sports (golf, swimming, etc) and would pay a premium for it. a league network would be great and could certainly be modeled after ut, which has a vastly broader appeal than duke (or any school in the acc). some of that has to do with the number of alums and the number of fans who follow it bc it's the state's flagship, but some of it is bc Texas has the attitude that it's a national
    school. and i'd think the increasing attention to academic internet programming would be pertinent, as is
    recruiting for students. Do Penn state and notre dame want increased access to Midwestern prospective students--where they're already strong-- or to the huge numbers of smart kids and alums on the eastern seaboard? so we might hook up with carolina and share programming, while ND and TX would be solo, though everybody would have to share the tier one programming.

    so... I'd think your list is a good start, though I'd probably leave out Ohio state and Michigan since you're joking. but, if notre dame and Penn state could be intrigued by an east coast connection and their own rights to independent cable programming, and if we left out wake, Clemson, and state bc they're either small or regional (and we kept ourselves in b/o basketball and bc every conference needs someone to schedule for homecoming--though we're getting better), i could imagine going for schools with good academics, good general sports, and a desire for a national following, preferably with at least a few from the same region.

    syracuse may not be especially huge, but it's journalism is strong, and it's the only game in town upstate. rutgers hasn't historically had a huge alum following, but i'd think it's changing, especially if they got access to big schools, and their games would allow member schools to do a NYC trip. rice is smaller then duke, but houstonians would watch, and they could contribute to the academic programming and legitimacy and to the other team's won/loss record and to texas having at least one bus trip for athletics. I could care less about missouri/Kansas, but THEY care. same goes for Penn state/Pitt or Texas/OU (or whichever regional school makes sense--I bring up TX last since it's apparently most in play and has the least obvious regional partner since I can't imagine the Oklahoma schools or ttech heading east or--despite what i just said--us being interested in rice, Baylor, Houston, etc.

    and most importantly, if you can pick which games/lectures you watch, and you spread across the two major time zones (west coast is dead for bball for most of us out east), you'd have a very valuable commodity.

  3. #323
    Quote Originally Posted by sagegrouse View Post
    This argument can get circular very quickly. Can we all agree that the universities run the NCAA? I seem to recall that there is a board of presidents for Division I, but the NCAA web site is eerily silent on this matter. Well, the member institutions run the NCAA in the following sense:

    Do we agree that NCAA does not currently have jurisdiction over conferences, conference memberships and related topics? (Ability to approve playoffs for 12-member conferences is a "playing rule.") If so, then the member institutions must decide to give control over conferences, and the conferences themselves must somehow agree. (See, I told you it was getting circular.) Why would the member institutions for Division I give the NCAA control over conference membership (size of conferences, e.g.), if -- in fact -- the member schools want to organize themselves into 16-team monstrosities to get more media bucks?

    I have a hard time imagining why the NCAA organization would be given greater authority in this area, although I think I agree with you that it would be desirable.

    sagegrouse

    Agree or disagree, they certainly don't have the backbone to do anything about it so it's a moot point I guess, lol. But basically you're saying that the NCAA only has power because the conferences give it. And yes I can agree with that. Of course schools go on probation, banned from post-season, etc. mainly because enough of the other schools support such practices. So I have two questions that seem to follow.

    If we move forward with these 4 mega-conferences, which is as you stated is all about money and media rights, do you see college sports remaining one entity?

    Second, since there is alot more who do not want these (even if many are smaller schools) than do, could they advance this as an issue for the NCAA?
    Actually now that I think about it, this is much ado about nothing. We've tried 16 team conferences in the past and it hasn't worked. It's staggering that so many are enamored with it now. So forget the second question

  4. #324
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    New York, NY
    Approaching it differently, let's look at the fastest growing regions and make it the Growth Conference. From this link (
    http://www.newgeography.com/content/...-of-the-decade). Here are the top 26

    Las Vegas-Paradise, NV 575,504 41.83% 103,800 14.88%
    Raleigh-Cary, NC 333,419 41.83% 59,500 13.62%
    Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX 466,526 37.33% 93,800 13.94%
    Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC 427,590 32.14% 34,000 4.43%
    Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 970,030 29.80% 122,800 12.42%
    Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL 489,850 29.79% 92,300 10.15%
    Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, AZ 941,011 28.94% 108,400 6.87%
    Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX 1,231,393 26.11% 278,600 12.38%
    San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX 430,805 25.17% 96,200 12.91%
    Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA 1,020,879 24.03% -30,900 -1.35%
    Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 1,210,229 23.45% 101,400 3.67%
    Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, TN 278,145 21.20% 34,900 5.00%
    Jacksonville, FL 222,846 19.85% 15,900 2.81%
    Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville, CA 352,270 19.60% 10,700 1.34%
    Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO 364,242 16.71% -20,000 -1.65%
    Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 785,987 16.39% 285,700 10.67%
    Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL 387,246 16.16% -42,000 -3.63%
    Salt Lake City, UT 155,339 16.03% 41,600 7.36%
    Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA 298,128 15.46% -7,800 -0.80%
    Indianapolis-Carmel, IN 231,137 15.16% 16,600 1.95%
    Richmond, VA 161,294 14.70% 14,000 2.38%
    Oklahoma City, OK 157,566 14.38% 20,500 3.83%
    Columbus, OH 223,842 13.88% -11,400 -1.25%
    Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA 395,931 13.01% -10,700 -0.65%
    Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL 557,071 11.12% 27,900 1.29%
    Kansas City, MO-KS

    I'll delete the ones that are completely ridiculous for the ACC, leaving:
    Raleigh
    Austin
    Orlando
    Houston
    San Antonio
    Atlanta
    Dallas
    Nashville
    Jacksonville
    DC
    Tampa
    Oklahoma City
    Miami
    Kansas City

    Not all of those are major metropolitan areas, but if we're anticipating 16 team super conferences that will be more-or-less set in stone for the next 50 years (multiple big IF's), then we should be thinking of going west rather than north.

    Alternatively, here are the biggest regions in the US (acc to the trusty wikipedia)
    New York
    Los Angeles
    Chicago
    Dallas–Fort Worth
    Philadelphia
    Houston
    Washington
    Miami
    Atlanta
    Boston
    San Francisco–Oakland
    Detroit
    Riverside–San Bernardino
    Phoenix
    Seattle
    Minneapolis–St. Paul
    San Diego
    St. Louis
    Tampa–St. Petersburg
    Baltimore
    Denver
    Pittsburgh
    Portland
    Sacramento
    San Antonio
    Orlando
    Cincinnati
    Cleveland
    Kansas City
    Las Vegas
    San Jose
    Columbus, Ohio
    Charlotte
    Indianapolis
    Austin
    Virginia Beach–Norfolk
    Providence
    Nashville
    Milwaukee
    Jacksonville

    Deleting the ones that seem impossible leaves:
    New York
    Dallas–Fort Worth
    Philadelphia
    Houston
    Washington
    Miami
    Atlanta
    Boston
    St. Louis
    Tampa–St. Petersburg
    Baltimore
    Pittsburgh
    San Antonio
    Orlando
    Kansas City
    Charlotte
    Austin
    Virginia Beach–Norfolk
    Nashville
    Jacksonville

    Combining these two lists would yield:

    New York
    Dallas–Fort Worth
    Philadelphia
    Houston
    Washington
    Miami
    Atlanta
    Boston
    St. Louis
    Tampa–St. Petersburg
    Baltimore
    Pittsburgh
    San Antonio
    Orlando
    Kansas City
    Charlotte
    Austin
    Virginia Beach–Norfolk
    Nashville
    Jacksonville

    The very complex math comes in the next post.

  5. #325
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    New York, NY
    This leaves the following regions that are both large and fast growing:
    Dallas
    Houston
    San Antonio
    Austin
    Kansas City
    Charlotte or Raleigh
    Nashville
    Atlanta
    Washington DC
    Jacksonville
    Orlando
    Tampa
    Miami

    Then just fill in the schools:
    Texas
    Baylor/SMU/TCU/Houston/Texas Tech,Oklahoma/Oklahoma State
    Kansas
    Missouri
    Duke
    Carolina
    Vanderbilt
    Georgia Tech
    Virginia
    Maryland
    Florida State
    Miami

    If you want 12 schools, pick one additional school from the Baylor list. If you want 16, take 4.
    Vanderbilt might take a pay cut to leave the SEC, but which universities does it see itself allied with: Bama and Mississippi State or Texas and Duke?


    If you take 16 and have 8 of them be from the old Big 12, you'd have very natural and regionally-acceptable mini-conferences.
    Last edited by johnb; 09-16-2011 at 10:45 AM.

  6. #326
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    New York, NY
    Leaving these East/West conferences with plenty of metropolitan areas and plenty of great football and basketball schools.

    Duke
    Carolina
    Vanderbilt
    Georgia Tech
    Virginia
    Maryland
    Florida State
    Miami

    Texas
    Baylor
    TCU
    Texas Tech
    Oklahoma
    Oklahoma State
    Kansas
    Missouri

  7. #327
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Asheville, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by laxbluedevil View Post
    Bottom line is Penn State tried to join ACC and was turned down, tried to join Big East and was turned down, tried to start an allsports Atlantic League with the likes of Syracuse, BC, and UMD before Pitt killed it, and everyone at PSU hates B10 which they joined out of desperation to avoid being left out in the cold. PSU football won nat titles with easy scheduling just like FSU and Miami, and all 3 and more got killed by being in tougher FB conferences. B10 has 1.5 FB nat titles in 43 years and just made things much worse adding Nebraska! Why wouldn't any team leave Big 10, PAC 10, or SEC for a better league? PSU has every reason to leave and join their traditional and geographic rivals Syracuse, UConn, BC, UMD, UVA, Duke, UNC, GT, FSU, more money, better academics, better and cheaper travel, more prestige and success, etc.
    That one sentence is wrong in so many ways. I don't want to hijack but I had to point it out. You can go to here and review the national championship seasons for those schools.

  8. #328
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO

    Talking NCAA as a Reform Organization?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scorp4me View Post
    Agree or disagree, they certainly don't have the backbone to do anything about it so it's a moot point I guess, lol. But basically you're saying that the NCAA only has power because the conferences give it. And yes I can agree with that. Of course schools go on probation, banned from post-season, etc. mainly because enough of the other schools support such practices. So I have two questions that seem to follow.

    If we move forward with these 4 mega-conferences, which is as you stated is all about money and media rights, do you see college sports remaining one entity?

    Second, since there is a lot more who do not want these (even if many are smaller schools) than do, could they advance this as an issue for the NCAA?
    Actually now that I think about it, this is much ado about nothing. We've tried 16 team conferences in the past and it hasn't worked. It's staggering that so many are enamored with it now. So forget the second question
    I did download the NCAA's constitution and bylaws (see www.ncaa.org). The governing body for Division I athletics is an 18-member board consisting of university presidents and chancellors -- one each from 11 major conferences plus seven selected from 15 "lesser" conferences on a rotating basis. There is also a Leadership and a Legisltative Council with representatives who are athletic administrators (including faculty advisors), where every conference is represented, although small conferences haveing less voting power (1.5 or 1.2 vs. 3 for the BCS conferences plus Conference USA).

    Uh,... this is not a revolutionary body. Moreover, the conferences have a strong hand in appointing members of the various bodies (although one would guess that is done on a rotating basis). Any measure that tilted the competitive balance would have a hard time passing. So the outdated ideas (my term) about amateur athletics and payments to athletes will likely continue. I expect that a proposal to pay small cash stipends is capable of passing. I don't know about sharing of royalties with players, inasmuch as the big name programs will have the bulk of the money to distribute and could pay their players more.

    sagegrouse

  9. #329
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim3k View Post
    Actually, as an AAU (American Association of Universities) member, Kansas fits quite well with the ACC insofar as academics is concerned. AAU universities all have extensive research capabilities and usually offer a medical school.

    My review of the current AAU universities seems to suggest that the ACC has fewer AAU members than in the past. I had thought that BC and Wake had been members. If so, they are not now. I know that NCSU, Clemson, VPI and FSU have not been. Not sure if Miami ever was.

    So, UMd, UVa, Duke, CHUNC, and GATech are the ACC's only current AAU members.

    Aside: Nebraska was recently expelled from the AAU and Syracuse recently withdrew. Query: Would the Big 10+ have taken Nebraska if it had not been an AAU member?
    Yes, Nebraska sure stands out as the lone non-AAU (American Association of Universities) member.

    Those B12(9) AAU members Missouri, Texas, KU and Iowa St (or K-State if a package deal with KU) are no longer football powers, add a lot of Bball appeal. They would be attractive not only to ACC, but also attractive geographically to B10. Since it dilutes football, not sure B10 would go that route, but for sake of discussion assume MO, KU, K-St and Iowa St are the 4 that join B10, as this avoids the Texas Longhorn Network issue.

    Then ACC could increase its AAU membership by adding Texas plus Pitt and Rutgers and either Syracuse or Baylor (who is not AAU but has high academic standing and renowned medical center) .

    If AAU were king though, why not Atlantic and Pacific coast teams? Atlantic (Duke, UNC, UVA, MD and GA Tech) plus Pitt, Rutgers and [Texas or Syracuse]) and Pacific (UCLA, USC, Cal, Stanford, Wash, Oregon, Arizona and Colorado) would not be a football powerhouse in Atlantic, lose FSU and VA Tech but add Pitt and Texas or Syracuse, but still decent overall with Stanford and Oregon, USC and Wash in Pacific, plus lots of basketball tradition.

    The non AAU ACC-B12-BE would form a football conference second only to SEC slightly ahead of B10 and Coastals with (Oklahoma, Okie St, Baylor, Texas Tech) plus (VA Tech, FSU, Miami, Clemson, NC State, Wake and BC) plus (USF, Cincy, UCONN, Louisville, [Syracuse or Texas]) assuming West VA is SEC 14th team.

    TCU who changes conferences every year anyway is left hanging as are Wash St, Oregon St, Arizona St and Utah, or latter 4 join BYU as independents in football and WCC in Bball.

    TCU is an alternate for non-AAU and Notre Dame plus other of [Texas and Syracuse] are alternates for Coastals, would be the pick list if SEC goes all the way to 16 by adding two more Coastal or non-AAU teams in addition to A&M and presumably West VA.

    The basketball only teams Nova, Marquette, G-town, Notre Dame, St John's, Providence, Seton Hall and DePaul would also need to find a conference, perhaps a small one like the Patriot League, or Bball only conference with Memphis, Zaga, Xavier, and Temple, plus Wash St, Oregon St, Arizona St and Utah, or latter 4 join Zaga, BYU and St Mary's in West Coast Conference.

    In basketball, the weaker or rebuilding teams are spread across the conferences Atlantic (UVA, MD, GA Tech and Rutgers), Pacific (USC, Stanford, Oregon and Colorado), non-AAU (Okl, Okie St, Tex Tech, Clemson, Wake, BC and USF), B10+ (Iowa, Iowa St, Penn St and Nebraska) and SEC (Auburn, LSU, So Carolina, ole MS, Tennessee, Georgia and Arkansas).

  10. #330
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Chicago

    Sigh . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by laxbluedevil View Post
    Bottom line is Penn State tried to join ACC and was turned down, tried to join Big East and was turned down, tried to start an allsports Atlantic League with the likes of Syracuse, BC, and UMD before Pitt killed it, and everyone at PSU hates B10 which they joined out of desperation to avoid being left out in the cold. PSU football won nat titles with easy scheduling just like FSU and Miami, and all 3 and more got killed by being in tougher FB conferences. B10 has 1.5 FB nat titles in 43 years and just made things much worse adding Nebraska! Why wouldn't any team leave Big 10, PAC 10, or SEC for a better league? PSU has every reason to leave and join their traditional and geographic rivals Syracuse, UConn, BC, UMD, UVA, Duke, UNC, GT, FSU, more money, better academics, better and cheaper travel, more prestige and success, etc.

    Check out what's actually broadcast by the Big Ten Network every week during football season, the ONLY thing they show is recaps of B10 football almost all day, a few coaches shows, and a few games nobody else wanted to show like Northwestern vs SE Arkansas Tech. When the short football season is over, they'll probably show 24/7 curling. BORING! And Texas thinks they can carry a whole network all by themselves even after NCAA ruled out showing HS games on it, showing what, 23.5 hours of infomercials followed by the Mack Brown show rerun 7 days a week?! Rest of the B12 should not allow any of their teams from being on UT's little network nobody wants to carry unless UT paid them big money, or agree to not schedule UT in all sports unless UT does whatever the others want. Atlantic League Network would show the best league in USA in mens and womens hoops, soccer, lacrosse, baseball, softball, field hockey, volleyball, tennis, golf, fencing, rowing, swimming, diving, track, cross country, etc., coaches shows and recaps. PAC 12 just signed the best TV contract ever by far and they have 2 ranked football and zero ranked basketball teams with a tiny fraction of the Atlantic League's fanbase. Atlantic League would triple any other conference's revenue and make more than ten times what the ACC 12 has been making even with fewer schools that can all play each other in football and home and home in hoops.
    Always true to your modus operandi, you apparently believe that repetition of the same idea, no matter how many holes and problems there are with the idea gives is some credibility and weight. I don't know why I feel compelled to respond because (1) you won't respond substantively and (2) you'll just keep posting the same thing over and over again, but still, I must rebut.

    Your Atlantic League will not work and has exactly zero chance of happening.

    (1) Penn State was the third most profitable athletic department in DI last year, and the most profitable in the Big 10. That was, in large part, thanks to the Big 10 Network,and even with the arguably increased travel costs that come from being the Eastern most member of the Big 10. Penn State is not going to leave the security of the lucritive Big 10 for any conference, let alone your Atlantic League, becuase . . .

    (2) There's no football value in the conference. None. There's not a great deal of good football in the league, and there's also not a conference championship possibility given the small size of the conference.

    (3) Without high end football or a championship game, the conference would lag WAY behind the Big Ten in terms of TV revenue. Hence, Penn State's going to lose a lot of money on this deal. Rivalries are great, but money drives this, and Penn State's making a killing in the Big 10.

    In short, your Atlantic League is NOT a better conference than the Big Ten. At least not in the ways that count in this equation. Penn State's staying the Big Ten. Get that fantasy out of your head.

    As to some of your other points:

    ++ I don't know that the Atlantic League has better academics than the Big Ten. At the graduate level, it's not. At the undergrad level, it's pretty close. Regardless, it's not a reason for Penn State to move.

    ++ Sports other than football and men's basketball are absolutely irrelevant to almost all of this discussion. Baseball *might* be important to Texas when it joins a conference. That's it.

    ++ The Big Ten network shows women's soccer, men's and women's basketball, men's and women's hockey, wrestling, softball and baseball in addition to the repeats it shows and the produced content it broadcasts. That being said, football, and the availability of alums across the country getting to see every Big Ten football game is what drives the revenue the network generates.

    Given the strength of the Big 10 and SEC, I think what the ACC needs to do is move first to stabilize the conference -- as it apparently is with Texas and should be doing with ND -- or accept that the SEC and Big 10 will poach some of its members, and figure out where the remaining ACC members will fit with the Big East.

  11. #331
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by Chicago 1995 View Post
    Given the strength of the Big 10 and SEC, I think what the ACC needs to do is move first to stabilize the conference -- as it apparently is with Texas and should be doing with ND -- or accept that the SEC and Big 10 will poach some of its members, and figure out where the remaining ACC members will fit with the Big East.
    Has there be any substantiation of the Texas>ACC deal, or is it only just a fun rumor that got put up on some blog and DBR has run with it?
    1200. DDMF.

  12. #332
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Chicago

    Texas and the ACC

    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    Has there be any substantiation of the Texas>ACC deal, or is it only just a fun rumor that got put up on some blog and DBR has run with it?
    Seems like it is one of those rumors that there's so much smoke that there's something to it. Now it might just be a someone from the ACC and someone from Texas having a little chat or it might just be someone from ESPN trying to play matchmaker, or it could be Swofford and the Texas AD meeting.

    But no, there hasn't been any official confirmation. It makes sense, nonetheless, that Texas is exploring all its options, especially with Oklahoma potentially bailing on the Big 12 as early as Monday.

  13. #333
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    Has there be any substantiation of the Texas>ACC deal, or is it only just a fun rumor that got put up on some blog and DBR has run with it?
    It has been substantiated that Texas and the ACC are talking about 4-team pods, but that is all. Texas is also undoubtedly talking to the PAC and B1G.

    Regarding pod makeup, it's all speculation, but from most to least plausible that I've heard:

    1) The mini-SWC option: Four Texas schools; UT, TT, Baylor and TCU
    2) The BB option: Texas, Kansas, KSt/Mizzou, TT/Baylor
    3) The keep Miami and FSU separate option: FSU + UT + two more from Texas, + 1 in the NE (e.g. Pitt)
    4) The not-PAC16-after-all option: UT, TT, OU, OkSt
    5) Not-going-to-happen: Texas, Kansas, ND, Pitt

  14. #334
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by ForkFondler View Post
    It has been substantiated that Texas and the ACC are talking about 4-team pods, but that is all. Texas is also undoubtedly talking to the PAC and B1G.

    Regarding pod makeup, it's all speculation, but from most to least plausible that I've heard:

    1) The mini-SWC option: Four Texas schools; UT, TT, Baylor and TCU
    2) The BB option: Texas, Kansas, KSt/Mizzou, TT/Baylor
    3) The keep Miami and FSU separate option: FSU + UT + two more from Texas, + 1 in the NE (e.g. Pitt)
    4) The not-PAC16-after-all option: UT, TT, OU, OkSt
    5) Not-going-to-happen: Texas, Kansas, ND, Pitt
    what about the atlantic league with PSU???? where does that one fit...must be the most plausible which is why you left it out.

    Its a really cool speculation, I think, and from a basketball perspective, having two incredibly strong basketball leagues on the east coast is very enticing, but I don't think the ACC option is any more or less plausible than the other places texas could go from what we know ATM.
    1200. DDMF.

  15. #335
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    what about the atlantic league with PSU???? where does that one fit...must be the most plausible which is why you left it out.

    Its a really cool speculation, I think, and from a basketball perspective, having two incredibly strong basketball leagues on the east coast is very enticing, but I don't think the ACC option is any more or less plausible than the other places texas could go from what we know ATM.
    I was only listing Texas scenarios -- all of which I'd say are less likely than the ACC a) doing nothing, or b) adding 4 teams between Maryland and BC, none of which are PSU.

  16. #336
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    My understanding is that the ACC is open to the LHN while some other conferences are not. If that is true, and remains true, there is more substance to this than I originally thought.

  17. #337
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    My understanding is that the ACC is open to the LHN while some other conferences are not. If that is true, and remains true, there is more substance to this than I originally thought.
    Well, that's what Texas sources have suggested. No indication yet from the ACC side on whether that is actually the case.

  18. #338
    Quote Originally Posted by sagegrouse View Post
    I did download the NCAA's constitution and bylaws (see www.ncaa.org). The governing body for Division I athletics is an 18-member board consisting of university presidents and chancellors -- one each from 11 major conferences plus seven selected from 15 "lesser" conferences on a rotating basis. There is also a Leadership and a Legisltative Council with representatives who are athletic administrators (including faculty advisors), where every conference is represented, although small conferences haveing less voting power (1.5 or 1.2 vs. 3 for the BCS conferences plus Conference USA).

    Uh,... this is not a revolutionary body. Moreover, the conferences have a strong hand in appointing members of the various bodies (although one would guess that is done on a rotating basis). Any measure that tilted the competitive balance would have a hard time passing. So the outdated ideas (my term) about amateur athletics and payments to athletes will likely continue. I expect that a proposal to pay small cash stipends is capable of passing. I don't know about sharing of royalties with players, inasmuch as the big name programs will have the bulk of the money to distribute and could pay their players more.

    sagegrouse
    Thanks for the detailed response sagegrouse. I followed the link but couldn't find the bylaws from there. Probably right under my nose, but I appreciate the information. It looks like the smaller conferences (and therefore schools) would have a difficult time passing anything. I guess it gets lost in the shuffle, but it's amazing that even when it comes to voting there are 11 "major" conferences and yet all the talk is of 4 "mega" conferences.

    I tend to disagree that the last will be a combination of leftovers from the ACC and the Big East, but that's neither here nor there. What do the other 6 "major" conferences think of all of this? I don't know, I think I'm getting lost in the names and numbers, probably just need to take a step back.

    And whoever suggested adding Texas/ND to the ACC would add stability...might want to reconsider based on recent history

    Oh and found a great article listed on the NCAA website regarding conference realignment for Div III schools. All for different reasons, but it was a great read.
    http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/...musical+chairs

  19. #339
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by Duvall View Post
    Well, that's what Texas sources have suggested. No indication yet from the ACC side on whether that is actually the case.
    Disclosure: I did hear that from a plugged-in TX grad.

  20. #340
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO

    Talking NCAA D-1 Manual

    Quote Originally Posted by Scorp4me View Post
    Thanks for the detailed response sagegrouse. I followed the link but couldn't find the bylaws from there. Probably right under my nose, but I appreciate the information. It looks like the smaller conferences (and therefore schools) would have a difficult time passing anything. I guess it gets lost in the shuffle, but it's amazing that even when it comes to voting there are 11 "major" conferences and yet all the talk is of 4 "mega" conferences.

    I tend to disagree that the last will be a combination of leftovers from the ACC and the Big East, but that's neither here nor there. What do the other 6 "major" conferences think of all of this? I don't know, I think I'm getting lost in the names and numbers, probably just need to take a step back.

    And whoever suggested adding Texas/ND to the ACC would add stability...might want to reconsider based on recent history

    Oh and found a great article listed on the NCAA website regarding conference realignment for Div III schools. All for different reasons, but it was a great read.
    http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/...musical+chairs
    Here is the link. The site offers to sell it to you, but I had no trouble downloading it for free.

    I refuse to read it in detail because of the mind-numbing complexity to give representation to every element of every school -- except, of course, the players.

    sagegrouse

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
  •