The Conference Realignment Vigil- Update: Terps to Big10?

[Duvall]

I think the coaches, even a Coach K, will have very little say in realignment matters. It's pretty much all Presidents, ADs, Regents/Trustees and big donors. So I don't think you'd have much to worry about from Roy if something like the ACC came to pass as an option for KU.

That may be true at most schools, but I think Duke and UNC may be unique in this regard at this time - UNC has a lame duck athletic director an a interim football coach, and the Chancellor is less than popular at the moment. There really isn't any voice in UNC athletics right now to outweigh Williams, and Mike Krzyzewski is Mike Krzyzewski.

That said, that's only two votes out of twelve.

[ForkFondler]

I imagine one of three things will happen to KU. (1) OU decides to stick around and work on its own network and the Big XII stays together, (2) KU is part of a Texas package to the ACC or (3) UT goes to Pac XII with OU or independent, and KU gets picked up by Big East or ACC.

If KSt isn't part of the package, I don't understand why no one ever mentions the possibilty of KU to the B1G. Decent football, decent TV market, great basketball, great geographic fit, and AAU to boot.

[A-Tex Devil]

A-Tex Devil, you seem well connected and knowledgeable with regards to all things Texas. I was wondering if you've heard whether or not any of this was true' and if the Texas to the ACC is really picking up steam or is it just Texas using the ACC to sweeten a possible deal with the PAC-12 or Big-10.

The Texas to ACC thing is real in the sense that Texas will weigh EVERY option. It's perfect for ESPN, and it creates a conglomerate of top 30 metropolitan areas unrivaled by any conference. That said, I do think it's a play to either force the Pac XII to fold on Tier 3 rights and the LHN, or to call OU's bluff that they would leave without Texas and keep OU in the Big XII as they don't want to lose a foothold in Texas recruiting. As someone else mentioned (sagegrouse, I believe), the ACC is likely more of a stalking horse bidder for Texas.

That said, there is more misinformation out there than you see prior to the NFL draft and lots of chess being played (other than by the Big East).

[throatybeard]

An interesting account of the WAC's utter failure to keep a 16-team league coherent. There are some differences, mainly that few of the schools were one of the power brokers in their state.

http://collegefootball.rivals.com/co...sp?CID=1264788

Still, you've got to wonder about stretching to 16 teams, and especially the silliness of the idea of stretching the Big East to 20, 12 of whom play FB.

[loldevilz]

What exactly is the appeal to Kansas? Its conspicuously not near the atlantic coast. It is not really an ACC caliber academic school.

It has a good basketball team, but it doesn't quite have the national appeal that Duke, UNC or Kentucky has and the ACC doesn't need more credibility as a basketball conference (it has 5 or the last 11 championships ect).

They don't really make the ACC anymore competitive with the SEC, BIG ect which Texas most definitely would.

I would like to see Duke play in Phog Allen like everybody else, but that doesn't mean they should become an ACC member.

[Duvall]

What exactly is the appeal to Kansas? Its conspicuously not near the atlantic coast. It is not really an ACC caliber academic school.

What's the difference between the University of Kansas and an "ACC caliber" school? In real terms, not arbitrary magazine rankings.

[Class of '94]

What exactly is the appeal to Kansas? Its conspicuously not near the atlantic coast. It is not really an ACC caliber academic school.

It has a good basketball team, but it doesn't quite have the national appeal that Duke, UNC or Kentucky has and the ACC doesn't need more credibility as a basketball conference (it has 5 or the last 11 championships ect).

They don't really make the ACC anymore competitive with the SEC, BIG ect which Texas most definitely would.

I would like to see Duke play in Phog Allen like everybody else, but that doesn't mean they should become an ACC member.

Kansas brings a football team which along with possibly Texas and some other schools would help to solidify the ACC in football while addng IMO a historical top 5 program in basketball, which would strengthen the ACC in basketball. And no offense, but the ACC could use some strengthening in basketball with the recent results of teams overall [not named Duke and Carolina] and not just rely on Duke and Carolina to carry the ACC nationally.

[Jim3k]

What exactly is the appeal to Kansas? Its conspicuously not near the atlantic coast. It is not really an ACC caliber academic school.

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?

[laxbluedevil]

Penn State to ACC not going to happen.

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.

TCU isn't anywhere near the other Big East schools, Memphis would be a better fit. With Miami, USF, Clemson, NCSU, Wake, Memphis, in BE South, and VT, Louisville, Cincinnati, WVU, Pitt, Rutgers, in BE North, new 12 team Big East would have plenty of football powers and wouldn't need TCU. Big East recently had zero ranked football teams so must have panicked and added a barely ranked TCU which usually isn't ranked or good at sports or academics or fans or TV, etc. Big East is ridiculous, this is the same league that turned down Penn State when it wanted to join. If they want TCU instead of Memphis that's up to them.

[laxbluedevil]

Why is anyone talking about Kansas or Texas to ACC, but not UConn or Penn State, which are on the Atlantic Coast close to ACC schools, with better academics too? Do some people just not like UConn because they beat Duke or not like yankees or what?

I explained in detail in the "A New ACC" thread why Penn State would join a new Atlantic League which dominates half the US population and media and money, tripling its league revenue. Not only did Penn State try to join BOTH the ACC and Big East, Paterno himself tried to START an eastern all sports conference to counter the basketball Big East. Also, Paterno said that after 1) he failed to start his own all sports league with MD, BC, Syracuse, 2) Big East rejected him, and 3) ACC rejected him, PSU didn't want to be "left out in the cold" so as a desperate last resort to get into a conference, ANY conference, they reluctantly joined the B10/11/12. PSU football has been horrible in B10/11, in 2000-2004, they went 26-33! Paterno's own eastern all sports conference would have included by his own design and invitation, longtime regional rivals Maryland, Syracuse, and BC, and since UConn didn't even have div.IA football at the time he would certainly invite one of the best eastern all sports schools now, and would love to be with former ACC members UVA, Duke, UNC, GT, FSU.


http://www.linebacker-u.com/2011/05/...state-rivalry/

"In the late 70′s when Penn State was a football independent, Paterno (and Penn State) tried to get into the Big East. The Big East never responded (how’s that decision looking today Big East) so Paterno set out to create an eastern all-sports conference. He asked Pitt, Boston College and Syracuse to join PSU. BC and Syracuse didn’t budge because Pitt jumped into the Big East in basketball but remained a football independent, thus crushing Joe’s dream. Paterno never forgave Pitt."


http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_r...l-irks-paterno

"Paterno still harbors hard feelings toward Pitt for wrecking plans for what he described as a "nice little eight-team" league that would have included seven Eastern schools and Atlantic Coast Conference defector Maryland."


Wow, a new eastern Atlantic League would be perfect for PSU as if Paterno designed it himself, because he kind of did, a long time ago: PSU, Syracuse, UConn, BC, MD, UVA, Duke, UNC, GT, FSU.

[laxbluedevil]

The following article says PSU has always hated B10 and vice versa, gets nothing academically or athletically from midwestern exposure and loses a lot from less eastern exposure. Also says PSU football won national titles by easy scheduling in 70s and 80s (just like FSU in 90s!) before being knocked out of title contention in B10. So new eastern Atlantic League would be perfect in all ways for PSU, couldn't possibly be any better.

http://bigtenbugle.typepad.com/bigte...e_warshap.html

"Culture Wars--Happy Valley Vs. The Big Ten

A crisis on the border exists. The new immigrants are not assimiliating peacefully into the native culture, and a tempest is brewing. No, we're not down on the Mexican border with the Minutemen. Rather, the crisis exists on the mythical border Penn State crossed when it emigrated to the Big Ten in 1993. After Saturday, a full-fledged rebellion is brewing...

Talking to Penn State fans, one realizes they can recite the Litany of Big Ten Woe, with the same rhythmic fervor that Catholics recite the Litany of the Sacred Heart. ..

At the bottom of Penn State's Litany of Woe is the simple question--has the change to the Big Ten been beneficial for them? The mindset of Lion Nation appears to be decidedly "no". Are they right?
The negatives of Penn State's twelve-year affiliation are legitimate. When the Lions were added to the conference, they brought added exposure for the conference in eastern markets... Clearly, this was a one-sided trade in favor of the Big Ten. .."


http://blog.pennlive.com/pasports/20...n_big_ten.html


"Penn State comments: Nittany Nation still doesn't feel part of Big Ten family
Published: Wednesday, February 09, 2011, 11:30 AM...

much of the Penn State nation has never felt that they are "part of the family"...

Jones' poll also shows more loyalty toward Atlantic 10 and Big East teams than to the Big Ten."


What's more, of the 33 comments, all but 2 say PSU is eastern and should be in an eastern league and reveal that not only does PSU not consider itself midwestern or part of B10/11/12 but the B10/11/12 screws over PSU. They're still going on about '94 when midwestern writers overwhelmingly supported Nebraska for a national title while ruining the chances of their own so-called fellow conference member PSU (of course these same writers overwhelmingly supported Michigan and OSU's nat titles)! B10 also cost PSU another shot at a national title with refs giving Michigan (the UNC of the B10 to PSU's Maryland!) a phantom extra play in 2005 to ruin PSU's undefeated season. List goes on, bias is clear, just like with ACC and UNC, vs say Clemson's extra probation courtesy of Swofford and ACC ADs and constant screw jobs from refs in Chapel Hill, etc. So the disdain goes both ways, B10 hates PSU and PSU hates B10. Only a couple comments show any kind of support whatsoever towards the Big 10 and even those only talk about how bad the BIG EAST is by comparison, which is irrelevant to a NEW PERFECT eastern league. Obviously, PSU, Syracuse, UConn, BC, MD, UVA, UNC, Duke, GT, FSU, would be far superior in every way, and a perfect fit for 100% of their fans and employees, as if Paterno and PSU fans themselves personally designed it, and just like the eastern all sports league Paterno DID design as PSU's AD.

[A-Tex Devil]

I can almost guarant-damn-tee that no team will leave the Big 10, Pac 10 or SEC unless the whole system gets "blowed up". There may be grudges and pettiness within those conferences, but what those conferences offer now is stability.

The ONLY way teams will leave is if Texas and OU stick together and somehow make the Big XII work (I know your laughing. Stop for a second. Yes it's pretty hilarious, but stay with me for a moment as I go down a rabbit hole.)

The Big Ten and the Pac XII have bundled their schools third tier media rights. This means that the conferences, not the schools, control the branding and messages of the programs. Texas and OU, and all the schools in the SEC, on the other hand, have control of their third tier rights. For instance, Florida has a killer deal with Sun Sports, Oklahoma with Learfield (about $70 some odd million over 7-8 years), and Texas with IMG, and now ESPN with the LHN.

This is going to be a test for schools to see whether (1) giving up the ability to control the message of their athletic department to the conference in exchange for a conference network that has wider appeal and/or is more lucrative than (2) holding on to your third tier rights (which as schools like UT, OU and Florida have proved, have much more value than what may have been anticipated when the Big Ten network came about and then the Pac XII networks) and controlling your brand and message. Texas is in a position now where if it joined the Pac 10 or Big 10, it would have to turn those rights over to the conference. It doesn't want to do that. I am surprised OU is threatening to do so, myself. The SEC has a great system where the conference, via the networks, controls where the big games are played, but the schools, if they can create the market, can market their other games and other sports -- and their brand -- on their own through a provider like sun sports or a Fox regional network.

If the UT/OU/SEC model proves to be a boon to the larger schools, schools like Michigan, Ohio State, UCLA, USC, Penn State, etc. that have national brands or at least huge alumni networks might start to think they are not only in a less lucrative play by bundling third tier rights, but that they have lost control of their branding. As cable dies a slow death to streaming everything (and I think it's happening), this becomes even more important (i.e. There is no Big Ten Network, there is a Big Ten website that streams everything). So maybe there is the same disgruntlement over seeing Texas and OU in a resurrected Big XII that has been joined by BYU with a loose affiliation with Notre Dame, creating national networks, carried by all major subscribers. Maybe in this wonderland, people want to go where they can control their own brand - the Big XII.

Again --- thanks for coming down my rabbit hole, but I do think that one of the major flaws of the Pac 12 and Big Ten models is that schools will start to see the SEC schools, Texas, OU and the like making a killing on third tier rights that were not seen as very valuable 5 years ago --- and they are left to having the conference control that for them.

[laxbluedevil]

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.

[TexHawk]

It has a good basketball team, but it doesn't quite have the national appeal that Duke, UNC or Kentucky has and the ACC doesn't need more credibility as a basketball conference (it has 5 or the last 11 championships ect).

Of course it's almost impossible to accurately measure such things, but IMO you are underestimating the national appeal of KU basketball. UNC is a another stratosphere, Kentucky/Duke are larger, but not as far away. I am curious who else you'd put ahead of KU. UCLA? Indiana?

Denver, Chicago, and Dallas have massive pockets of alumni and fans. The annual trip to Boulder (RIP) is a home game, as is the Big12 tournament in Dallas. I won't go as far as saying KU *owns* Chicago, but it is absolutely on par with the Big10 schools in terms of memorabilia around town, fans at United Center games, "KU bars", etc. Illinois outweighs them when they are good, but that's an increasingly rare occurrence (thank you Bruce Weber!)

Unfortunately, that gets you absolutely nothing in the grand conference realignment.

[Class of '94]

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.

I agree with you on some of your points. I live in the metro Detroit area and get the B-10 network on Direc TV and agree that there's not much interesting programming there; and I've always wondered how and why the network is so successful. The best football and basketball games are put on espn-affiliated networks and cbs while the least interesting games are on the network. I, too, wonder how much quality/interesting programming will be on the LHN as well. Sayiing that, the fact of the matter is that the B-10 network is a revenue success and Texas is getting paid handsomely for the LHN; and I like many other posters just don't see a school like Penn State bolting for the ACC unless they could as much or more money than what they're doing now. And I just don't think the Atlantic conference that you've proposed will command as much or more than what the B-10, PAC-12 and the SEC is bringing in because of the lack of football strength (and I'm assumikng FSU' would prefer the SEC to this particular alignment/configuration of schools because of football).

[A-Tex Devil]

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.

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 agree, it is an excellent idea if it came to fruition. But is there any hope that it will occur? Or is this a grass roots effort that we here on the DBR message boards need to join up with and spread the gospel about? I don't disagree that the league you are proposing would be nice, but how many steps away from it are we right now? Has any major news outlet suggested we are on a path to it? 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. If you are a fan of the school, it's absolutely amazing. And it's UT controlling its message.

Again -- we are moving to a world where cable tv ratings are going to become irrelevant. The LHN is a cable channel right now, but the goal is that it becomes a mass multimedia media provider via the internet that allows UT fans all around the world to watch UT olympic sports, UT programming and the occasional UT football and basketball game, on a network designed by UT fans, for UT fans. And not only UT, but other schools in the UT system like UTSA, UT-Arlington and UTEP --- all schools with greater than 20K enrollment and growing alumni bases who are all in FBS conferences beginning in 2012 (although UTA without a football team).

If it fails, I'll be disappointed. But only the myopic are screaming "OMG No one can see it, it's a failure!! What a bad idea!" 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.

[Scorp4me]

Of all the people who should be proactive it should be the NCAA. Maybe it's too late, but they should be at least be trying instead of sitting back and watching conference realignment destroy college sports. This whole thing is because everyone wants to add teams, but no one wants to kick any out. Conferences should be limited to 8 teams in size. In football, schools should play each team in their conference once, which would actually allow more out of conference scheduling to preserve rivalries, and a championship game should be allowed with only 8 teams. Then create a playoff with the winners from championship games filled in with best of the rest. In one stroke you both divide and weaken the BCS role in college sports (which lets face it is all about the money). In basketball you should play each team twice, again allowing for even more out of conference scheduling. Each conference gets two teams, their regular season champ and their conference tournament champ again filled in with the best of the rest. Increase the tournament to 96 to accommodate the increased conferences (which is what everyone wants already but at least this is to serve a purpose). And feel free to take away spots in the tournament/playoffs based on conference actions. Yes, that's right make the conferences accountable.

Want to invite a new team to join the conference you are more than free to do so, just have to kick someone out. And too bad the conferences already have contracts with ESPN, if the conferences are forced to change then what can they do about it. That's right, show ESPN that they are not in charge. In fact the conferences would benefit the most, all being able to renegotiate their contracts based on the quality of their members and the less numbers would mean a bigger part.

The NCAA needs to show some leadership. And while I hate to compare the NCAA to Nascar (not that I hate Nascar), this is exactly what Nascar did a few years back when they saw team size getting out of control. They limited the teams to 4 drivers and even forced one to reduce their size. No one is saying they have to do it tomorrow. But very few want these super conferences. If it's going to happen they want the best situation, but even those pushing for it are doing so out of fear of being left out. Show them some leadership, give them a road map, force some accountability on teams. Put the NCAA and the rest of the college world back in control...not just a few teams threatening to switch conferences. It even makes sense economically for the schools and the fans with less travel.

And I can already here the responses. The NCAA can't do it, conference realignment is inevitable, this is a pipe dream, blah, blah, blah. And I know, you're right. But that's because everyone is standing around afraid to do anything. Everyone seems to think 64 teams control all of college sports and they want to be in that 64...put this plan out there and at best you regain sanity...at worst you entice half of the big schools and ruin this mega conference idea and force a rethink.

Well, that's my opinion...I think I'm going to stop reading this thread. I don't want to see my opinion ripped to shreds, lol.

[crimsonandblue]

scorp,

I've often wondered about the NCAA's decision to only allow a championship game if you have 12 members. Why? It's encouraged instability and made things like taking tiny population Nebraska to the B1G possible. If conferences wanted an extra game, I'm not sure why they forced conferences to get big to get it.

I know the NCAA isn't involved with football, but I've wondered why they don't just create a four team "NCAA Championship" invitational playoff with the school and conference to get a hefty purse for participating and leave the schools to refuse. Isn't that what happened with the NCAA and NIT way back?

Ideally, conference realignment will lead to the elimination of the NCAA or cause it to become just an enforcement arm/league office of four superconferences. If all the money from a hoops tourney went to the conferences, instead of to fund the NCAA, basketball schools like Duke and Kansas would be able to realize their true value.

But assuming football powers don't want that to happen, I'd settle for the NCAA becoming more involved instead of less.

[sagegrouse]

Of all the people who should be proactive it should be the NCAA. Maybe it's too late, but they should be at least be trying instead of sitting back and watching conference realignment destroy college sports. This whole thing is because everyone wants to add teams, but no one wants to kick any out. Conferences should be limited to 8 teams in size. In football, schools should play each team in their conference once, which would actually allow more out of conference scheduling to preserve rivalries, and a championship game should be allowed with only 8 teams. Then create a playoff with the winners from championship games filled in with best of the rest. In one stroke you both divide and weaken the BCS role in college sports (which lets face it is all about the money). In basketball you should play each team twice, again allowing for even more out of conference scheduling. Each conference gets two teams, their regular season champ and their conference tournament champ again filled in with the best of the rest. Increase the tournament to 96 to accommodate the increased conferences (which is what everyone wants already but at least this is to serve a purpose). And feel free to take away spots in the tournament/playoffs based on conference actions. Yes, that's right make the conferences accountable.

Want to invite a new team to join the conference you are more than free to do so, just have to kick someone out. And too bad the conferences already have contracts with ESPN, if the conferences are forced to change then what can they do about it. That's right, show ESPN that they are not in charge. In fact the conferences would benefit the most, all being able to renegotiate their contracts based on the quality of their members and the less numbers would mean a bigger part.

The NCAA needs to show some leadership. And while I hate to compare the NCAA to Nascar (not that I hate Nascar), this is exactly what Nascar did a few years back when they saw team size getting out of control. They limited the teams to 4 drivers and even forced one to reduce their size. No one is saying they have to do it tomorrow. But very few want these super conferences. If it's going to happen they want the best situation, but even those pushing for it are doing so out of fear of being left out. Show them some leadership, give them a road map, force some accountability on teams. Put the NCAA and the rest of the college world back in control...not just a few teams threatening to switch conferences. It even makes sense economically for the schools and the fans with less travel.

And I can already here the responses. The NCAA can't do it, conference realignment is inevitable, this is a pipe dream, blah, blah, blah. And I know, you're right. But that's because everyone is standing around afraid to do anything. Everyone seems to think 64 teams control all of college sports and they want to be in that 64...put this plan out there and at best you regain sanity...at worst you entice half of the big schools and ruin this mega conference idea and force a rethink.

Well, that's my opinion...I think I'm going to stop reading this thread. I don't want to see my opinion ripped to shreds, lol.

The NCAA is an association of member schools who surrender some of their rights to allow the NCAA to set playing rules in sports and oversee recruiting, eligibility, recruiting and so forth. The NCAA is run and controlled by the member schools through an appointed president and his or her staff. IMHO (where the H is usually silent) the NCAA has NO control over and really NOTHING to do with the conferences or with how the members of the NCAA bind themselves together to form conferences. The fact that it gives position in NCAA tournaments to conference champions does not mean it has any say over conference membership or operations.

So, conference membership is outside the scope of the NCAA, which is just how the university presidents who control the NCAA want it. Blaming the NCAA is like blaming the puppet for the actions of the puppet master. The NCAA is not a "puppet" in playing rules, player eligibility, recruiting and enforcement actions, but it is in most other areas, especially the economics, of college athletics.

sagegrouse

[Scorp4me]

The NCAA is an association of member schools who surrender some of their rights to allow the NCAA to set playing rules in sports and oversee recruiting, eligibility, recruiting and so forth. The NCAA is run and controlled by the member schools through an appointed president and his or her staff. IMHO (where the H is usually silent) the NCAA has NO control over and really NOTHING to do with the conferences or with how the members of the NCAA bind themselves together to form conferences. The fact that it gives position in NCAA tournaments to conference champions does not mean it has any say over conference membership or operations.

So, conference membership is outside the scope of the NCAA, which is just how the university presidents who control the NCAA want it. Blaming the NCAA is like blaming the puppet for the actions of the puppet master. The NCAA is not a "puppet" in playing rules, player eligibility, recruiting and enforcement actions, but it is in most other areas, especially the economics, of college athletics.

sagegrouse

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.