The Conference Realignment Vigil- Update: Terps to Big10?

[Olympic Fan]

I'm not saying that Villanova hasn't applied for membership -- heck, Durham Tech could APPLY for membership in the ACC -- but I am as certain as I can be in this crazy world that the ACC is not going to take basketball-only members (or basketball and Olympic sports). The ACC policy has been and will remain, only fulltime, equal partners (the mix of football and basketball-only schools is what has ultimately destroyed the Big East).

Look, why would the ACC consider Villanova as non-football member when they could have gotten Notre Dame or Texas if they were willing to accept partial members?

Now, what's possible is that Villanova included in its application plans to move up to the FBS. If so, that makes it remotely possible -- as a basketball first guy, that would be fine with me, but with football driving expansion, I find it hard to imagine the ACC would invite a school that adds to its basketball image while detracting from its (already shaky) football status.

I also think the posters who keep dreaming of Penn State are fooling themselves. Absolutely no chance that Penn State leaves the Big 10-12-whatever to take less money in the ACC. The last two ACC teams will come from the crumbling Big East or perhaps the exploding Big 12-10.

I keep saying to forget georgraphy everybody else has (TCU to the Big East ... Texas to the Pac 12?) and math (if the Big 10 can play with 12 teams and the Big 12 can play with 10 teams) then the ACC can take a team from the midwest. I still say Kansas and Missouri are my two favorite candidates ... I'd rather have Louisville and Cincinnati than UConn and/or Rutgers. Heck, I'd rather have West Virginia (as useless as they'd be) before I'd take Rutgers.

[ChillinDuke]

I'm not saying that Villanova hasn't applied for membership -- heck, Durham Tech could APPLY for membership in the ACC -- but I am as certain as I can be in this crazy world that the ACC is not going to take basketball-only members (or basketball and Olympic sports). The ACC policy has been and will remain, only fulltime, equal partners (the mix of football and basketball-only schools is what has ultimately destroyed the Big East).

Look, why would the ACC consider Villanova as non-football member when they could have gotten Notre Dame or Texas if they were willing to accept partial members?

Now, what's possible is that Villanova included in its application plans to move up to the FBS. If so, that makes it remotely possible -- as a basketball first guy, that would be fine with me, but with football driving expansion, I find it hard to imagine the ACC would invite a school that adds to its basketball image while detracting from its (already shaky) football status.

I also think the posters who keep dreaming of Penn State are fooling themselves. Absolutely no chance that Penn State leaves the Big 10-12-whatever to take less money in the ACC. The last two ACC teams will come from the crumbling Big East or perhaps the exploding Big 12-10.

I keep saying to forget georgraphy everybody else has (TCU to the Big East ... Texas to the Pac 12?) and math (if the Big 10 can play with 12 teams and the Big 12 can play with 10 teams) then the ACC can take a team from the midwest. I still say Kansas and Missouri are my two favorite candidates ... I'd rather have Louisville and Cincinnati than UConn and/or Rutgers. Heck, I'd rather have West Virginia (as useless as they'd be) before I'd take Rutgers.

Agree wholeheartedly with this post. I don't see any way the ACC will get Penn State. Notre Dame is more possible but highly unlikely in my view.

But I ask you, why Kansas over someone like UConn? I'm no UConn advocate on the court/field, but I don't see why Kansas brings anything more to the table than UConn?

In fact, I wonder if the addition of UConn adds to the value of both Syr and BC and enhances the visibility of the ACC in both NYC and Boston. Yes, these are largely pro sports towns, but these schools have a huge percentage of alumni that feed into both Boston and NYC (not to mention CT with the addition of UConn).

I can't help but think the addition of Syr/UConn/to some extent Pitt + the already strong bases of schools like Duke/Wake/BC (and others) in the northeast has greatly improved the ACC's footprint in this region to the point where an ACC network is much more likely to grab TV audiences in NY/CT/MA/RI/PA. Previous to the Syr/Pitt move and hypothetical UConn addition, I'm not sure the ACC would have had enough sway to sell a network in this region.

Hate them or love them, I see UConn as a financial plus. And it seems that's really the only thing that matters.

[sagegrouse]

Yeah, cause things are soooo much better today than they were in 08-09

-Jason

Jason et al.:

It seems to me there is a “micro” picture, focusing on conference memberships of individual schools and a “macro” picture that looks at how the overall college basketball market is organized.

There are 69 schools in the six BCS conferences plus ND and BYU. A very few events may determine if we have essentially five BCS conferences, six conferences, or a prolonged period of uncertainty. We should know this week -- maybe even today.

The “Five Conference Case” results if Texas, Texas Tech, OU and Oklahoma State leave the Big 12, presumably but not necessarily for the PAC-12/16. Then, I suppose, the SEC picks up another school to make 14 (Mizzou or WVa). There are only 11 members remaining from the Big East and Big 12. I suggest that most of these combine to form a new conference, the memorable Big 12 East.

It is also possible that Notre Dame gets so confused by the changes that it joins the Big Ten, which then adds another member to get to 14. If the "new conference" needs another couple of members, it could add BYU or find some candidates in Conference USA -- Houston, Rice, SMU (all SWC orphans) or even in the Big East. And the ACC adds two more teams, probably from the Big East.

The “Six Conferences Case” occurs if the four Big 12 schools remain in the Big 12. Then the Big 12 has nine members and survives. It can easily add three more members, receiving applications from a number of teams. The Big East survives but probably not as a BCS Conference. ND sits tight. Someone gets to give up a school to the SEC. I might bet on WVa, since I think Mizzou has made strong moral commitments (do these count for anything?) to the Big 12 if only Texas A&M departs. I suppose the ACC sits tight at 14, but it could add two more, which might change this picture.

The "Uncertain Case" occurs if only two of OU/Ok State/Texas/TTech join the PAC 12 (or ACC). Oooohhhh, boy! This is a mess. The Big 12 is down to seven teams -- really six, since Mizzou would likely apply to the SEC. The question is, would it make sense to unify the Big 12/ Big East (13 schools, I suppose)? I can't imagine that OU or Texas would see much use in a conference with USF, Louisville, Rutgers, Cincinnati, etc. I suppose that TCU, BYU and the SWC "orphans" would be possibilities. But, it is hard to see how both the Big 12 and the Big East survive in any recognizable form. Anyway there might be a prolonged period of uncertainty.

sagegrouse

[loran16]

I don't think the BEast has ownership of the Garden for the BEast tournament. They may have the arena booked for a couple years in advance, but not forever. The folks who own the Garden, at some point, have the choice of who they allow in there for 4 or so days in early March for a conference tournament. If they think the ACC will being more fans and excitement to the arena, they could go that way.

--Jason "ain't saying it will happen, but it could" Evans

The Contract apparently ends in 2016, which in reality isn't that far away (2012 and 2013 tourneys are already booked).

[Scorp4me]

I keep saying to forget georgraphy everybody else has

I got it. What do you say we forget geography, accept schools with no football team, and accept independents who only play the Olympic sports, but not Football. We can take UConn and Rutgers, poach the remaining 8 basketball only schools, accept ND and Texas, which brings Texas Tech. Not to mention Kansas and Kansas St. We'll be the first conference to...28. Cause I want the ACC to be proactive in this.

[sagegrouse]

I keep saying to forget georgraphy everybody else has (TCU to the Big East ... Texas to the Pac 12?) and math (if the Big 10 can play with 12 teams and the Big 12 can play with 10 teams) then the ACC can take a team from the midwest. I still say Kansas and Missouri are my two favorite candidates ... I'd rather have Louisville and Cincinnati than UConn and/or Rutgers. Heck, I'd rather have West Virginia (as useless as they'd be) before I'd take Rutgers.

I think geography is very important to the ACC. I see the selection of schools that fit into our broad (actually narrow) geographic profile. Pitt and Syracuse help link BC better into the conference. I think geographic fit is important because of (a) rivalries, (b) logistics, and (c) -- most important -- cohesion. I think the problem with Texas, OU or even Kansas is my sense that they would be "NFL" additions -- Not Fer Long.

So, if geography is key, how does the 'ol Sagegrouse explain the previous expansion to include VT, Miami and BC. Well, there is something to adding new markets. I think Miami and VT are easy, but BC is a head-scratcher. Why BC and not Pitt? Dunno. Maybe academics, or maybe Pitt wasn't interested. BC over Syracuse is easier because Boston Logan is a lot easier to get to and, the "The Hub" is a top ten metro area.

sagegrouse

[RepoMan]

Schools that I bet get targeted by the BEast -- Temple (for sure!), Xavier, Memphis, ECU, Tulane, Houston, Army?, Navy?

-Jason "Temple would be at the top of my wish list-- great hoops tradition and football has been decent in recent years" Evans

Wasn't Temple booted from the Big East, for being generally sucky, about 5 years or so ago?

[throatybeard]

The boosters and alums I know at Penn State are far more concerned with the coaching staff situation of their football team than they are with conference affiliation.

It's a sticky situation.

[throatybeard]

Wasn't Temple booted from the Big East, for being generally sucky, about 5 years or so ago?

In 2004. Their decent football of late is two winning seasons in the MAC. I'm not sure whether Temple really delivers the Philly TV market, or whether it's another Rutgers. The good news is we might get more commercials about Jel-lo pud-ding.

There's another problem with Notre Dame besides their bullheadedness and their NBC contract. A day or two ago I was saying somewhere else, for team sixteen, you approach Notre Dame, and you say, hey, we'll let you keep all the loot from your NBC football contract, and we'll even let you continue to negotiate that separately after it's up in (what is it, I'm not sure) 2015. But you have to join in all sports, and you have to give us one TV game in our local package.

There's yet a further problem. Every year, Notre Dame plays Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, USC, Navy, and I think Stanford either every year or pretty often. Welll that's half your football schedule. If they join the ACC, they do...what? Keep the first four, lose Navy and Stanford, and never have any scheduling flexibility? I don't think they're grooving on that.

This is why, if they ever land in a conference, the B1G has a huge advantage over us. Three of their fixed opponents become conference games. Hell, the schedule is already imbalanced in the Big Ten. I bet the conference would be so pleased to get them that they'd allow them to keep those three every year and just work it into the scheduling algorithm somehow.

[A-Tex Devil]

I think geography is very important to the ACC. I see the selection of schools that fit into our broad (actually narrow) geographic profile. Pitt and Syracuse help link BC better into the conference. I think geographic fit is important because of (a) rivalries, (b) logistics, and (c) -- most important -- cohesion. I think the problem with Texas, OU or even Kansas is my sense that they would be "NFL" additions -- Not Fer Long.

So, if geography is key, how does the 'ol Sagegrouse explain the previous expansion to include VT, Miami and BC. Well, there is something to adding new markets. I think Miami and VT are easy, but BC is a head-scratcher. Why BC and not Pitt? Dunno. Maybe academics, or maybe Pitt wasn't interested. BC over Syracuse is easier because Boston Logan is a lot easier to get to and, the "The Hub" is a top ten metro area.

sagegrouse

I believe this is true too more than any other conference. The Texas +3 pod from the Big XII always seemed like an ESPN arranged marriage to me, and I am still pretty convinced it was a ploy to get the Pac 12 to be more flexible on third tier rights and the LHN. We'll see. As a UT and Duke and ACC fan, I am glad the ACC apparently stood up and said no, and instead took the two most appealing and sensible schools available to it. Tarheel or not, Swofford should be commended. If the ACC loses a couple of schools to the SEC or Big Ten, we still have 12. If it doesn't we are a power broker and our next contract is going to be sweet.

[ForkFondler]

Villanova does have a football program, Final 2010 Sagarin Ratings:

FINAL College Football 2010 through games of 2011 January 10 Monday the BCS uses the ELO_CHESS from here
13 Virginia Tech A = 86.10 11 3 72.41( 40) 0 2 | 2 2 | 85.94 15 | 85.83 13
14 Florida State A = 85.19 10 4 75.17( 18) 0 1 | 2 3 | 83.04 18 | 87.59 11
18 NC State A = 82.85 9 4 72.96( 32) 0 0 | 1 1 | 80.64 25 | 85.28 15
19 Notre Dame A = 82.47 8 5 74.76( 22) 0 1 | 2 1 | 81.19 22 | 83.54 18
32 Pittsburgh A = 78.76 8 5 72.62( 38) 0 0 | 0 2 | 76.48 40 | 81.15 28
38 Maryland A = 77.85 9 4 70.07( 64) 0 0 | 1 1 | 77.26 36 | 78.06 35
40 Miami-Florida A = 76.91 7 6 75.27( 16) 0 1 | 0 4 | 74.49 47 | 79.45 33
41 North Carolina A = 76.77 8 5 73.30( 29) 0 1 | 1 3 | 76.99 38 | 76.10 41
48 Syracuse A = 73.68 8 5 68.86( 73) 0 0 | 0 1 | 75.15 45 | 71.82 55
49 Boston College A = 73.10 7 6 73.03( 31) 0 0 | 0 5 | 74.04 49 | 71.73 56
50 Penn State A = 73.05 7 6 72.41( 41) 0 2 | 0 4 | 73.57 51 | 72.09 54
53 Clemson A = 72.82 6 7 73.63( 27) 0 1 | 1 3 | 69.88 65 | 75.93 43
56 Connecticut A = 72.68 8 5 69.98( 65) 0 1 | 0 1 | 74.18 48 | 70.81 59
57 Villanova AA = 72.42 9 5 63.39( 100) 0 0 | 0 0 | 70.52 62 | 74.13 48
66 Temple A = 69.08 8 4 62.63( 102) 0 0 | 0 0 | 69.52 66 | 68.19 67
70 Georgia Tech A = 68.32 6 7 69.50( 69) 0 0 | 0 2 | 66.91 76 | 69.38 66
87 Virginia A = 65.00 4 8 70.88( 59) 0 0 | 0 3 | 64.24 90 | 65.34 85
90 Rutgers A = 64.47 4 8 69.72( 67) 0 0 | 0 0 | 64.87 86 | 63.62 92
95 Duke A = 63.61 3 9 72.64( 37) 0 1 | 0 2 | 63.56 96 | 63.21 94
102 Wake Forest A = 61.63 3 9 73.73( 26) 0 1 | 0 4 | 61.76 108 | 61.06 105

[A-Tex Devil]

Villanova does have a football program, Final 2010 Sagarin Ratings:

Unfortunately, they do not have a football stadium. They have a soccer stadium in which they play football.

[roywhite]

Unfortunately, they do not have a football stadium. They have a soccer stadium in which they play football.

Yeah, I think current capacity is about 12,000.

Didn't run across figures for 2010, but for 2009 their total home attendance was 52,717 counting a playoff game, or an average of 7,531 per game.

Just saw something that Villanova has applied to the ACC.

[ForkFondler]

There's yet a further problem. Every year, Notre Dame plays Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, USC, Navy, and I think Stanford either every year or pretty often. Welll that's half your football schedule. If they join the ACC, they do...what? Keep the first four, lose Navy and Stanford, and never have any scheduling flexibility? I don't think they're grooving on that.

This is why, if they ever land in a conference, the B1G has a huge advantage over us. Three of their fixed opponents become conference games. Hell, the schedule is already imbalanced in the Big Ten. I bet the conference would be so pleased to get them that they'd allow them to keep those three every year and just work it into the scheduling algorithm somehow.

Notre Dame schedule, 2011:

Sat, Sep 3 South Florida L 20-23 --
Sat, Sep 10 at Michigan L 31-35 --
Sat, Sep 17 (15) Michigan State W 31-13 --
Sat, Sep 24 at Pittsburgh 12:00 pm --
Sat, Oct 1 at Purdue 8:00 pm --
Sat, Oct 8 Air Force 3:30 pm --
Sat, Oct 22 (23) USC 7:30 pm --
Sat, Oct 29 Navy 3:30 pm --
Sat, Nov 5 at Wake Forest TBA --
Sat, Nov 12 Maryland 7:30 pm --
Sat, Nov 19 Boston College 4:00 pm --
Sat, Nov 26 at (5) Stanford 8:00 pm --

ACC 4, B1G 3.

[ForkFondler]

Unfortunately, they do not have a football stadium. They have a soccer stadium in which they play football.

Right, Temple is probably a better choice.

[Atlanta Duke]

Ahh, The University of New Jersey at Newark (and New Brunswick and Camden). Has that certain "air" about it.

(Kinda kidding. I think. I grew up in NJ.)

Rutgers joining the conference would provide a companion school in the ACC for what Tar Heels refer to as "University of New Jersey - Durham"

[roywhite]

Right, Temple is probably a better choice.

Seriously doubt Temple is getting any consideration from the ACC.

As noted above, they had lousy FB attendance for years, and were eventually asked to leave by the BigEast.
In the Philadelphia area, Temple is an after-thought compared to the Philadelphia pro teams and Penn State.
Just wouldn't add much to the ACC.

[fan345678]

If you're receiving a lot of anti-ACC vitriol today, here are some talking points:
-The Big East is a classic conference raider. They have picked off teams from the A-10, C-USA, and Mountain West.
-The Big East model was unsustainable. Without revenue sharing and all-sports (or almost all) affiliation, schools who had a few bad years in football were doomed to mountains of red ink, thus putting athletic departments in tight situations regarding which sports to fund (especially in a Title IX world).
-The Big East was built on inequality among members. They bowed to Notre Dame at the expense of the football member schools (ND could take a bowl spot...and its accompanying payout), and forced schools like VT, WV, Rutgers, and Temple to do partial membership while demanding more and more money for increased levels of membership.
-Stability means more than just whether or not a conference remains in existence. The kind of stability that the ACC offers to Pitt and 'cuse is a home for all-sports with full membership and the security of revenue sharing.

[uh_no]

If you're receiving a lot of anti-ACC vitriol today, here are some talking points:
-The Big East is a classic conference raider. They have picked off teams from the A-10, C-USA, and Mountain West.
-The Big East model was unsustainable. Without revenue sharing and all-sports (or almost all) affiliation, schools who had a few bad years in football were doomed to mountains of red ink, thus putting athletic departments in tight situations regarding which sports to fund (especially in a Title IX world).
-The Big East was built on inequality among members. They bowed to Notre Dame at the expense of the football member schools (ND could take a bowl spot...and its accompanying payout), and forced schools like VT, WV, Rutgers, and Temple to do partial membership while demanding more and more money for increased levels of membership.
-Stability means more than just whether or not a conference remains in existence. The kind of stability that the ACC offers to Pitt and 'cuse is a home for all-sports with full membership and the security of revenue sharing.

are there really big east fans that can fault the ACC here? I am/was a huge big east fan and can't fault the acc. They saw an opportunity and seized it. Does it suck for the big east? yeah. Times change in everything. Conferences will always be fluid. Do I think the current ACC will be exactly what it looks like 20 years down the road? probably not. teams that appear strong in sports now may fall off, and other teams may grow much stronger. The big east was great while it was there, but there's no reason to not be excited about a) what the ACC will be in terms of basketball or b)what the remains of the big east/big12 conglomerate could be in terms of basketball.

Rivalries come and go too. while some classic big east rivalries will get broken (and I think cuse/gtwon and uwv/pitt were the two strongest in the big east...and i expect them to continue to play eachother anyway) new ones will certainly come about...especially when syracuse and pitt bring such unique brands of basketball that I don't think any current ACC teams really embody.

For instance, I can imagine a pitt/maryland rivalry being pretty big if maryland were good. What needs to happen, though is the rest of the ACC needs to get up to the level of play that now 4 teams at the top will have. It'll be a bit before cuse and pitt come in, so I think some other teams will crop up, but I think pitt/cuse fans would have to be disappointed if suddenly they went from playing ranked teams every week to playing duke and UNC, and then a bunch of NIT teams. But I also think that the greater parity at the top of the league will help pull the bottom teams up, much like in the past years in the big east, we've seen much improvement in the cellar dwellers in the big east (st johns, providence, seton hall).

[killerleft]

As DBR has just noted on the front page, West Virginia would make a fine addition to the ACC. Too bad money is the great mover here. West Virginia would accept in a heartbeat, I think, and be a real asset to the ACC in the major sports. Their fanbase is strong and loyal. As DBR says, VT, VA, and Maryland would be natural rivals, and travel time for the northern teams wouldn't be bad.

Then again, Florida and Georgia would be logical as members of the ACC as well, but that's not happening, either.