The Conference Realignment Vigil- Update: Terps to Big10?

[A-Tex Devil]

Texas A&M is so upset about the "unfair" Longhorn Network that they are in talks to go to the SEC as soon as next year (supposedly). Aggies will tell you that the SEC is fine going to 13 teams. I'll believe that when I see it, but I do believe these talks are much more real than they were a year ago -- so the question begs, who would the 14th team be, and could it impact the ACC?

Aggie Rick "good hair" Perry even weighed in yesterday. In my biassed opinion, it's a colossally stupid by A&M, done more out of spite than an actual benefit to their program and their university, both financially and with respect to success on the football field, basketball court and non-revenue sports. But hey, if the offers there, take it, and let the sketchy recruiting of the SEC West further infect Texas high school football. Additionally,

But --- if A&M is successful in leaving, the Big XII becomes less lucrative for Texas to stay in and we could be looking at everything unwinding much sooner than the projected 2015 date.

If you enjoy game theorizing this stuff and speculation, join in. If you think this rampant speculation is stupid and a waste of time, I hear you through your silence. No need to respond to the post. :p

(Also I love the irony that the provisions that A&M is upset with in the LHN contract are very similar to provisions in the contract that Florida has with Sun Sports.)

[OldPhiKap]

This is like a big game of Risk. Be careful when Texas makes a move on the Ukraine.

[PumpkinFunk]

NC State basketball coach Mark Gottfried is getting in on the rumor-mongering. Uh oh. Claims Texas A&M and... FSU to the SEC. FSU is the only ACC team that both makes sense to be taken and makes sense to leave. Except that they go from top of the ACC in football to middle of the SEC. So not really.


Hearing that Texas A&M and FSU may join SEC.That would be interesting. All I know is that the ACC is still envy of all for hoops!

https://twitter.com/#!/Mark_Gottfried/status/101814517746499585

[lotusland]

Can we throw in BC or Miami in trade for SC and Vandy?

[hurleyfor3]

Yeah, fsu to the sec kinda works both ways.

We'd have to fill in the hole that fsu leaves, right? The whole point of the 2004-05 expansion was getting to 12 teams. Could we just take Vandy off the sec's hands? Who in the Big East can we snag that has competitive football and sorta cares about academics/ethics? Pitt? Could we go after the Cuse again?

There are good reasons to have BC around. They actually care about the non-athletic aspects of running a university.

[ACCBBallFan]

Though after UNC and Duke, VA T and FSU are currently a couple of the better basketball teams, I say if they go, do not replace them.

Of course this is a basketball perspective, not a football one, but I would love to see the league be small enough to have true home and home series with everybody again and still leave room for quality OOC competition from teams outside the regional geography.

I seriously doubt any of UNC, Duke, NC St or Wake would leave the ACC.

[uh_no]

Who in the Big East can we snag that has competitive football and sorta cares about academics/ethics? Pitt? Could we go after the Cuse again?


The ACC is not nearly as appealing to Big East teams as it was 6 years ago.....the football is extremely mediocre in both conferences, and the Big East has had the upper hand of late in terms of basketball exposure. Big East football having added TCU means its unlikely there would be a huge revenue boost from playing ACC football....especially since the two conferences are considered the pits compared to the other 4 bcs conferences

[hudlow]

Why don't we act like we'd hate to see Clemson leave?

hud

[hurleyfor3]

The ACC is not nearly as appealing to Big East teams as it was 6 years ago.....the football is extremely mediocre in both conferences, and the Big East has had the upper hand of late in terms of basketball exposure. Big East football having added TCU means its unlikely there would be a huge revenue boost from playing ACC football....especially since the two conferences are considered the pits compared to the other 4 bcs conferences

I'm not sure the BE has had a substantially better track record in hoops than the ACC has, regardless of whether you go back five, 10 or 30 years. Maybe the BE's success had been a tad more diversified among the entire conference... maybe. Also, the BE is facing the same specter of its highest profile basketball coaches kinda getting up there in years as the ACC is (arguably the BE has it worse).

Yes, TCU will boost the BE's football profile, but TCU may run into the same situation as we had with FSU in the 90s-early 00s, in that it is a giant among dwarves (and that many of the dwarves' fanbases don't care). The BE still won't have a championship game, and we will as long as we're at 12. Not that our championship game is hot stuff, but at least we have one and the BE doesn't.

There are other issues present. The BE is far more geographically unwieldy than the ACC is, and I have to believe the schools in it are far more disparate in terms of philosophy, budget et cetera. I'm kinda surprised that BE has stayed at 16 (now 17) teams this long.

[MulletMan]

I'm not sure the BE has had a substantially better track record in hoops than the ACC has, regardless of whether you go back five, 10 or 30 years. Maybe the BE's success had been a tad more diversified among the entire conference... maybe. Also, the BE is facing the same specter of its highest profile basketball coaches kinda getting up there in years as the ACC is (arguably the BE has it worse).

Yes, TCU will boost the BE's football profile, but TCU may run into the same situation as we had with FSU in the 90s-early 00s, in that it is a giant among dwarves (and that many of the dwarves' fanbases don't care). The BE still won't have a championship game, and we will as long as we're at 12. Not that our championship game is hot stuff, but at least we have one and the BE doesn't.

There are other issues present. The BE is far more geographically unwieldy than the ACC is, and I have to believe the schools in it are far more disparate in terms of philosophy, budget et cetera. I'm kinda surprised that BE has stayed at 16 (now 17) teams this long.

I think that targets for the ACC might include several schools that were rumored to be in the sight lines during BigTweleven expansion. These would include 'Cuse, Pitt, West Virginia and Rutgers. While I find this to be gross and unwieldy from a basketball perspective, the fact of the matter is that conferences moving forward are going after the football dollars and the safety in numbers kind of thing.

If FSU left, I could see replacing them with one of the schools above. I could also see adding 3 of the schools above in order to protect the conference from further defections. I think it might be possible to add three of these schools, and divide the conference into the "traditional powers" and the "newcomers" in two seven team divisions with each division playing a round robin basketball schedule within division and 6 cross over games. Thus an 18 game conference schedule... which seems doable to me.

Traditional Powers
Duke
NCState
Wake
UNC
Clemson
Georgia Tech
Maryland

Newcomers
Miami
BC
VaTech
Virginia (Put here to preserve the UVa-VPI rivalry)
Cuse
Pitt
Rutgers

For football you play your own division plus 3 crossovers to get 9 games... which wouldn't be all that different. the "Newcomers might be a bit tougher in football than the traditional powers, but the reverse might be true for Bball. However, I think this type of move would make for one helluva basketball conference (which most ACCers hang their hats on anyway) AND would satiate some of the lamenting about the old glory of the traditional ACC home and home.

I think the move to 14 would also create some cushion to preserve the need for 12 teams for a football championship game. This wouldn't do anything to the Big East, as they'll take anybody.

[A-Tex Devil]

Despite what the Aggies are saying this is far from a done deal and may be a lot of hubbub over nothing.

- The NCAA ruled against having high school games on networks affiliated with conferences or schools which was one of A&M's main beefs (I wonder if Sun Sports can carry high school games? If so, Florida found a nifty way to skirt that issue).

- ESPN and FOX will be completely against this move. They may not be able to stop it, but they, along with some huge power brokers for the "forgotten 5" (like Drayton McClane on behalf of Baylor) combined with a gunshy Texas A&M Board of Regents kept the Big XII together. A&M's leaders appear to raring to go now, but will the SEC schools take less of the pie to bring them (and perhaps another school in)? Would ESPN be willing to "look in" on their SEC contract and perhaps pay more when the value of their Big XII contract (and perhaps their Longhorn Network contract - which was just devalued by the NCAA's ruling mentioned above already) is diminished by the departure of ESPN? I am not saying the WWL can stop this from happening, but they can certainly influence the outcome.

- And lest we forget, state legislatures will always have a say. After a brutal session this year, the Texas legislature is finally out of session, but low and behold (http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/schedules/html/C2902011081614001.htm)

Should be an interesting couple of weeks. It could trigger armageddon, or nothing could happen at all. Is there any more smoke on FSU other than Gottfried's tweet? Nothing like that has been mentioned on this side of the Mississippi.

[Stray Gator]

Despite what the Aggies are saying this is far from a done deal and may be a lot of hubbub over nothing.

- The NCAA ruled against having high school games on networks affiliated with conferences or schools which was one of A&M's main beefs (I wonder if Sun Sports can carry high school games? If so, Florida found a nifty way to skirt that issue).

- ESPN and FOX will be completely against this move. They may not be able to stop it, but they, along with some huge power brokers for the "forgotten 5" (like Drayton McClane on behalf of Baylor) combined with a gunshy Texas A&M Board of Regents kept the Big XII together. A&M's leaders appear to raring to go now, but will the SEC schools take less of the pie to bring them (and perhaps another school in)? Would ESPN be willing to "look in" on their SEC contract and perhaps pay more when the value of their Big XII contract (and perhaps their Longhorn Network contract - which was just devalued by the NCAA's ruling mentioned above already) is diminished by the departure of ESPN? I am not saying the WWL can stop this from happening, but they can certainly influence the outcome.

- And lest we forget, state legislatures will always have a say. After a brutal session this year, the Texas legislature is finally out of session, but low and behold (http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/schedules/html/C2902011081614001.htm)

Should be an interesting couple of weeks. It could trigger armageddon, or nothing could happen at all. Is there any more smoke on FSU other than Gottfried's tweet? Nothing like that has been mentioned on this side of the Mississippi.

Some interesting information, observations, and speculation in this article--including a suggestion that the SEC won't add any school in a state where it already has a presence (eliminating FSU) and a theory about why the SEC might covet Duke:

http://outkickthecoverage.com/sec-expansion-league-unlikely-to-add-members-in-current-states.php

[A-Tex Devil]

The Big East is an interesting case. I've seen some scuttlebutt that the non-football teams aren't happy with the current situation after 'Nova's football team was blocked from being invited due to the stadium.

The Big East was a potential landing spot for the Kansas schools and Mizzou had the Pac-16 happened last year. If A&M bolts and Texas goes indy, or somehow convinces the Pac-10 or Big 10 to take them and 1 or 3 other teams, that scenario could play out again, splitting the Big East into two separate conferences. One that doesn't have D-1A football with Marquette, Georgetown, St. Johns, Providence, Seton Hall, 'Nova, De Paul.... and of course Notre Dame... with the rest plus the Big XII remnants and TCu forming a conference that has football too.

[hurleyfor3]

Some interesting information, observations, and speculation in this article--including a suggestion that the SEC won't add any school in a state where it already has a presence (eliminating FSU) and a theory about why the SEC might covet Duke:

http://outkickthecoverage.com/sec-expansion-league-unlikely-to-add-members-in-current-states.php

I think the only way we leave the ACC is if some sort of Category 5 hurricane takes place, where multiple invaders tear up the conference including part of the Big Four. Not saying it's impossible, but the ACC as a conference is far less vulnerable than the XII or BE are.

[devildeac]

Some interesting information, observations, and speculation in this article--including a suggestion that the SEC won't add any school in a state where it already has a presence (eliminating FSU) and a theory about why the SEC might covet Duke:

http://outkickthecoverage.com/sec-expansion-league-unlikely-to-add-members-in-current-states.php

Highly doubting it would ever happen as hurleyfor3 so definitively stated, but we do have an ethically challenged neighbor a few miles south on 15-501 who might qualify from a FB perspective(insert faint sounds of whistling here).

[hurleyfor3]

Can NC State in fact act independently from unc? There's a board of governors for the entire system, and wouldn't it have to approve any move?

[A-Tex Devil]

Highly doubting it would ever happen as hurleyfor3 so definitively stated, but we do have an ethically challenged neighbor a few miles south on 15-501 who might qualify from a FB perspective(insert faint sounds of whistling here).

There was an article/blog post written last summer about how UNC would be the perfect compliment in the SEC. This was prior to the NCAA shenanigans. It's bad timing right now for the SEC to make overtures at UNC, but I don't see it as an impossibility as conference realignment chaos continues through 2015.

I believe that by the end of the decade there is a good possibility we'll see four 16-18 team football only conferences (with NCAA governed championships staying in roughly the same conference format we have now). These conferences won't be under the auspices of the NCAA, but some new governing body. It will essentially be a junior NFL with four conferences instead of two, and with a similar playoff format. ESPN (because they don't want to renogtiate locked in contracts) and Bowls (because they don't want to lose the cash cow) will fight this, but eventually, I think ESPN sees the profitability of a playoff structure and goes with it.

[uh_no]

I believe that by the end of the decade there is a good possibility we'll see four 16-18 team football only conferences (with NCAA governed championships staying in roughly the same conference format we have now).

That's what everybody said last time, and it didn't happen. The only thing I am sure about in terms of conference realignment is that no one really has a clue what's going to happen, and any guess is as good as any other.

[A-Tex Devil]

That's what everybody said last time, and it didn't happen. The only thing I am sure about in terms of conference realignment is that no one really has a clue what's going to happen, and any guess is as good as any other.

Some truth to that -- the article Stray posted said as much. UT was ready to announce in front of the tower last year that they were moving to the Pac-10. Chip Brown was WAY out in front of that. Then ish happened and the Big XII was saved. It didn't mean Chip Brown was wrong when he reported it. It was just wrong a day later. That press conference was being set up as big to-do on campus then they had to scuttle it at the last second when the Big XII deal came through.

I enjoyed that article's SEC perspective. I think the SEC would be foolish not to invite the Aggies and make further inroads on Texas recruiting, but just because it's a "done deal" amongst the Collie worshippers' board of regents doesn't mean the SEC has signed off on it yet. And most importantly, ESPN hasn't weighed in at all. Until they do, I agree, anything can, and nothing may, happen. But it's not a matter of wrong or right or not having a clue, it's more about dealing with an awfully fluid situation where things are nailed down one minute then get blown up the next.

[kinsman_bob]

I think there is only one Duke vote that counts when the discussion about an SEC(or anywhere else) comes up and that is Coach K. If he supports it, which I would doubt, it might happen. If he says no, then, IMO, Duke to the SEC is DOA

[Scorp4me]

Forgive me for my bluntness but all this conference talk is a bunch of @#$%. Conferences should include schools with like philosophies, schools that are close geographically, similar academics and sports. Especially in this day and time when money is so hard to come by. Instead we're trying to push for 4 mega conferences of 16 spread out all over the country and as much alike as apples and oranges, sure they're both fruit but they taste completely different.

I don't know all the ins and outs, don't even know how many schools there are total this year or how many conferences there are, but things would be alot better if conferences were limited to 8 teams. I know you have to have 12 for a championship, so change the rules for God's sake. The NCAA seems to be slitting their own throats here. If NASCAR can see the benefits of limiting teams, testing, etc. to help out the economic situation...what does it say for the NCAA that they can't figure this out.

Again I say this is all ridiculous. Rush to 16, split into divisions, and everyone is back where they started. Just freaking stupid. It's not wonder we can't fix this country, we can't even fix our college sports!

[A-Tex Devil]

Forgive me for my bluntness but all this conference talk is a bunch of @#$%. Conferences should include schools with like philosophies, schools that are close geographically, similar academics and sports. Especially in this day and time when money is so hard to come by. Instead we're trying to push for 4 mega conferences of 16 spread out all over the country and as much alike as apples and oranges, sure they're both fruit but they taste completely different.

I don't know all the ins and outs, don't even know how many schools there are total this year or how many conferences there are, but things would be alot better if conferences were limited to 8 teams. I know you have to have 12 for a championship, so change the rules for God's sake. The NCAA seems to be slitting their own throats here. If NASCAR can see the benefits of limiting teams, testing, etc. to help out the economic situation...what does it say for the NCAA that they can't figure this out.

Again I say this is all ridiculous. Rush to 16, split into divisions, and everyone is back where they started. Just freaking stupid. It's not wonder we can't fix this country, we can't even fix our college sports!

First see second to last sentence of original post.


If you enjoy game theorizing this stuff and speculation, join in. If you think this rampant speculation is stupid and a waste of time, I hear you through your silence. No need to respond to the post.

Second, the NCAA might do something about it if they had any authority. They don't. The NCAA is close to irrelevant to the conference realignment conversation. Conferences and schools have agreed to abide by the NCAA's rules collectively, but rules governing how many teams can be in a conference, whether a conference can jump ship, or whether Mark Cuban can pay $100M each to Texas, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Florida, USC, Oregon, Alabama and Michigan to create their own super death star conference don't exist. And there isn't any quasi-governmental body or anything to create those rules either.

[MarkD83]

The 16 team super conferences start to lose their meaning if you get down to trying to schedule games.

Lets look at football. Conference BE has an east and west division of 8 teams each. You have 12 games you are allowed to play besides a bowl game or national championship game. Hopefully one of those games is the championship for your conference or that might be game number 13. You also want to schedule 1 or 2 games against teams not in your conference but near you or near a concentration of your alumni to make some money. One or 2 games against top teams in another conference are also required if you want a chance of winning a national championship.

So you are down from 12 games to perhaps 8 or 9 game. You play everyone in your subconference and that is 7 more games and at least 2 against someone in the other part of your subconference. If you rotate the other subconference games each year by the end of 4 years you play everyone in your conference.

So how is this different than 8 team conferences with flexibility to play 5 nonconference games against whoever you want to play.

[A-Tex Devil]

The 16 team super conferences start to lose their meaning if you get down to trying to schedule games.

Lets look at football. Conference BE has an east and west division of 8 teams each. You have 12 games you are allowed to play besides a bowl game or national championship game. Hopefully one of those games is the championship for your conference or that might be game number 13. You also want to schedule 1 or 2 games against teams not in your conference but near you or near a concentration of your alumni to make some money. One or 2 games against top teams in another conference are also required if you want a chance of winning a national championship.

So you are down from 12 games to perhaps 8 or 9 game. You play everyone in your subconference and that is 7 more games and at least 2 against someone in the other part of your subconference. If you rotate the other subconference games each year by the end of 4 years you play everyone in your conference.

So how is this different than 8 team conferences with flexibility to play 5 nonconference games against whoever you want to play.

It's really not. I am not a big fan of the super conferences, but you are right. You'd basically have 7 intradivision games and some combination of inter division and inter conference games. As mentioned earlier, it would look more like the NFL. Basically it falls back into eight 8 team divisions, but each is tied to another division by tv contract or something.

[Acymetric]

First see second to last sentence of original post.

Well he didn't say speculation was stupid, he said that actual realignment would be stupid which is a reasonable position to take in this discussion right?

Moving to 16 team conferences seems like a panic decision that is going to come back to bite most while benefiting a few. I assume after this happens we'll expand the basketball tournament to 256 teams to "improve" the basketball side of things.

[House G]

There was an article/blog post written last summer about how UNC would be the perfect compliment in the SEC. This was prior to the NCAA shenanigans. It's bad timing right now for the SEC to make overtures at UNC, but I don't see it as an impossibility as conference realignment chaos continues through 2015.

I believe that by the end of the decade there is a good possibility we'll see four 16-18 team football only conferences (with NCAA governed championships staying in roughly the same conference format we have now). These conferences won't be under the auspices of the NCAA, but some new governing body. It will essentially be a junior NFL with four conferences instead of two, and with a similar playoff format. ESPN (because they don't want to renogtiate locked in contracts) and Bowls (because they don't want to lose the cash cow) will fight this, but eventually, I think ESPN sees the profitability of a playoff structure and goes with it.

Talk about rampant speculation, an A & M alumnus told me today that the he heard the SEC might be looking at UNC if the Aggies move. I hate to consider the ramifications of such a move, given the history of ACC basketball and the intense rivalry between Duke and UNC. I would love to hear some discussion on the likelihood of this happening and the pros and cons of such a move for UNC, Duke, and the ACC.

[Greg_Newton]

The only way I wouldn't absolutely hate having raid the Big East or Big 10 and take on teams like Rutgers or Cincinatti (ugh...) is if the league was divided into two fairly independent divisions (as discussed below).

I actually think it would be awesome if Miami and FSU left and the "ACC South" consisted of:

Duke
UNC
NCSU
Wake Forest
Clemson
Georgia Tech
Virginia
Virginia Tech

Basically, a good ol' Southern Conference reunion! ;)

[JasonEvans]

Talk about rampant speculation, an A & M alumnus told me today that the he heard the SEC might be looking at UNC if the Aggies move. I hate to consider the ramifications of such a move, given the history of ACC basketball and the intense rivalry between Duke and UNC. I would love to hear some discussion on the likelihood of this happening and the pros and cons of such a move for UNC, Duke, and the ACC.

Yeah, the A&M folks are doing all kinds of speculating about how their move to the SEC makes soooo much sense because it brings all these other teams to the conference too.

Except none of it has happened yet and much of it will not happen.

No way Carolina goes to the SEC. It would kill the important rivalries with nearby Duke and UNC. Don't forget that, especially in the case of Duke, the "rivalry/partnership" extends well beyond sports and into all kinds of academic arenas. Carolina and Duke are intertwined in ways neither school wants to endanger. And can you imagine the uproar from state officials (who control the UNC budget) if UNC left NC State out in the cold? Not gonna happen!

And anyone who says Duke would even think about joining the SEC is insane. The SEC would not want Duke. These conference moves are pretty much all about football and we have one of the worst football programs of any BCS school. The SEC wants no part of sending its teams to play in a partially empty 33,000 seat stadium for a team that has no TV presence.

-Jason "Duke and UNC ain't going anywhere apart from each other... unless the ACC becomes a major financial drain" Evans

[sagegrouse]

Talk about rampant speculation, an A & M alumnus told me today that the he heard the SEC might be looking at UNC if the Aggies move. I hate to consider the ramifications of such a move, given the history of ACC basketball and the intense rivalry between Duke and UNC. I would love to hear some discussion on the likelihood of this happening and the pros and cons of such a move for UNC, Duke, and the ACC.

I am sure the SEC would covet UNC if it looked to expand beyond 12 teams. But as for UNC's desires,....?

Let's see. UNC and its broader family are going through a catharsis brought upon by corruption in the football program. It was embarrassing to the administration, the Board and the faculty. A new AD will be hired to fix this mess. A new football coach will be brought in to win games while following the rules. Now how does going to the SEC, with its lack of emphasis on academics and its history of under-the-table payments, fit in with this picture? And who in the UNC leadership would support it?

sagegrouse

[gumbomoop]

At 10:25 this Sat morn, ESPN is news-scrolling that Texas A&M will join SEC, and that .... Clemson, FSU, and Missouri are "likely" to do so, too.

[tallguy]

At 10:25 this Sat morn, ESPN is news-scrolling that Texas A&M will join SEC, and that .... Clemson, FSU, and Missouri are "likely" to do so, too.

The source is a Doug gottlieb tweet, and it's according to "A&M sources"...so just assume it's a pile of crap thrown against the wall. Clemson is option 5312341234B for SEC expansion...they bring absolutely zero to the table.

This is coming from the same group that said UNC was likely to join, and we all know that's not happening anytime soon.

[tallguy]

Also, ACC rules require notification to withdrawal by Aug 15 to be effective by June 30th, so unless some heavy lifting is done this weekend, no school is leaving the ACC for 2 years.

[gumbomoop]

The source is a Doug gottlieb tweet, and it's according to "A&M sources"...so just assume it's a pile of crap thrown against the wall. Clemson is option 5312341234B for SEC expansion...they bring absolutely zero to the table.

This is coming from the same group that said UNC was likely to join, and we all know that's not happening anytime soon.

I cheerfully accept your correction to my naivete. Change the title of my naive post to "comic relief."

[A-Tex Devil]

The source is a Doug gottlieb tweet, and it's according to "A&M sources"...so just assume it's a pile of crap thrown against the wall. Clemson is option 5312341234B for SEC expansion...they bring absolutely zero to the table.

This is coming from the same group that said UNC was likely to join, and we all know that's not happening anytime soon.

I think this is probably speculative, if not plain made up, too. But if the SEC could get Florida over the hump on adding Florida State, the Noles are low hanging fruit that might be an easy pick up to balance the conference when A&M comes aboard.

I do think that at least one more school will be added. A 13 team conference presents problems an 11 team conference doesn't.

[A-Tex Devil]

But I will add, if the SEC adds those four teams, schools like KU, OU and others are going to immediately start looking for soft landing spots because the BiG XII will be doomed.

[sporthenry]

Originally when I heard all of this alignment talks, I was a bit nervous that somehow Duke would be left out in the cold b/c it appears football drives all of this and basketball takes the back seat to all of this. And I will admit that I haven't really talked to anyone in the know about this topic as it applies to the ACC, but I am actually less nervous Duke will be left out of any alignment. For one, they have UNC and to a lesser extent NC State. I highly doubt these guys would want to break anything up in the Triangle b/c it appears they all help each other. Sure, some UK/UL fans say the once a year game means more to their rivalry but their game is early in the season and hardly has the implications other than a resume builder. A UNC/Duke game in December would not draw nearly the same appeal as a game in March with everyone set for the tourney to start. In addition, I don't think UNC is that blinded by football to join the SEC as it stands now.

Secondly, I think Duke's academics could help b/c at some point, I think you will have places like UNC or UVa and perhaps even Vandy (not sure how lucrative the SEC deal is for them) want to stay with schools who do value academics not only to increase their prestige as an academic institution but also so you don't have to deal with competing for recruits with the admission standards of some schools I won't name.

Finally and perhaps most importantly, when all of this alignment is happening (it sounds like 2015), Duke's football program should be pretty respectable. Sure they won't be amazing, but should be sitting on a few bowl games by then especially since Duke wont' be one of the first schools to move. So I'm sure Duke will land on their feet whether its in a smaller ACC or one of the power conferences. Not much talk about BC or Miami leaving and they both bring academics so you could get a team like Nova and let them in on the football aspect. Or if it goes to 4 major conferences, you'd have the Pac 12 taking some of the Big 12, the SEC taking some of the Big 12 or ACC, the Big Ten taking scraps of the Big 12 or some Big East teams perhaps w/ ND. Then you'd be left with the ACC/Big East combining at which point, I'm sure Duke would be one of the more appealing schools over someone like Wake Forest or Georgetown. I'm just not sure if they went to 16 team conferences, if a school's football program could survive going independent or in a smaller conference.

[roywhite]

I think this is probably speculative, if not plain made up, too. But if the SEC could get Florida over the hump on adding Florida State, the Noles are low hanging fruit that might be an easy pick up to balance the conference when A&M comes aboard.

I do think that at least one more school will be added. A 13 team conference presents problems an 11 team conference doesn't.

Gottlieb and Joe Schad are both chasing the story for ESPN, saw some reports this afternoon (8/13).

They seem convinced about the TX A&M part of the SEC story, and identify FSU, Clemson, and Missouri as additional SEC targets, with no particular indication at all of reciprocal interest (or lack of interest) from those three.

I'm wondering where the ACC would look for additional teams if such a move occurred?

[A-Tex Devil]

Gottlieb and Joe Schad are both chasing the story for ESPN, saw some reports this afternoon (8/13).

They seem convinced about the TX A&M part of the SEC story, and identify FSU, Clemson, and Missouri as additional SEC targets, with no particular indication at all of reciprocal interest (or lack of interest) from those three.

I'm wondering where the ACC would look for additional teams if such a move occurred?

So there is an NYT article that quotes an SEC source that says there is a 30-40% chance A&M won't get the votes needed for an invite tomorrow. Same source says there has to be a 14th team. Clearly those two things are linked.

[Olympic Fan]

Texas A&M to the SEC is not a done deal ... the Aggies WANT to make the jump, but ESPN sources say 30 to 40 percent chance the SEC presidents will vote not to offer.

Beyond that, NOBODY else is anything more than speculation.

Folks, all this expansion talk is about money. Granted, there is more money in football than basketball these days, but MONEY is driving this thing. The SEC's new TV deals give it the leverage to steal just about anybody it wants -- outside the Big Ten, which is even richer, and Texas-Notre Dame.

Two problems, however:

(1) How much does the SEC want to split the financial pie? When the ACC went from 9 to 12 teams, it was to get what John Swofford painted as a championship football game that would be a financial bonanza (it hasn't been). The SEC already has that. What financial gain to they get by expanding (and splitting the pie more ways)? Well, Texas A&M gives them a foothold in Texas and that's a big expansion of their TV market. That makes sense.

But what does FSU bring? The SEC already has Florida (which is like UNC, it has all the Wal-Mart fans in the state). Clemson is in a small market and besides the SEC already has South Carolina. A North Carolina school (UNC or NC State most likely) would make some sense, but Va Tech is a small market (one reason the ACC had to by forced into taking them). Frankly, if the SEC wants to go to 14, Missouri makes the most sense.

(2) There is an academic angle. Of all the major conferences the SEC has by far the worst academic reputation. That was a concern for the FSU faculty and administration in the early 1990s, when they were looking for a conference to join. Their faculty voted overwhelmingly to reject an offer to join the SEC (which took South Carolina instead) and to go to the ACC. That will be an even bigger issue if the NCAA does go through with its announced plans to crack down on academic non-performance. Schools that do have academic pretentions will think long and hard about allying themselves with the SEC, especially the presidents who are usually more academic types than boosters. A school like North Carolina, trying to escape the recent academic fallout of McAdoo/tutorgate/Swahili plagerism, is not likely to gamble its academic reputation on the move.

As for the ACC, if it did lose a member or two, it would have no trouble poaching a Big East school -- just as it did in 2004-05. Yeah, Big East basketball has been better than the ACC and the football performance of the two leagues is close, but what does that matter? The ACC is much more lucrative than the Big East ... in fact, the financial gap between the ACC and Big East is wider than the gap between the SEC and ACC. That's why Miami and BC jumped without hestitation and VPI used a shotgun (well, the governor of Virginia) to force its way into the league. Contrary to the note on the DBR front page, Syracuse did not turn down an ACC bid in 2004 ... they were rejected by the ACC presidents. They wanted in badly. They still do.

If -- and it's a big if -- the ACC loses a school or two, the question we have to answer is which Big East school we want to add. Personally, I think Pitt (a surprisingly good academic fit) is the best option. Forget the lure of Rutgers and the New York market (it doesn't exist for a New Jersey school that nobody in New York cares about). UConn is an academic nightmare -- closer to the SEC than the ACC. I guess Syracuse would be my second pick. It's in the middle of nowhere, but I know a great rib joint downtown!

[A-Tex Devil]

Oly

I think A&M to the SEC is inevitable but you are right, it may not happen now. The Big XII is basically saying "GO!" at this point because they clearly dont want to be part of the conference. I agree with many that any conference with UT and OU with KU in basketball will be just fine.

If the SEC can't get a 14th team everyone is comfortable with I think they may not pull the trigger.... Yet. But I would definitely enjoy the schadenfreude if the SEC puts A&M off for now.

On the money side, Slive is really good at his job here. The CNS contract was so beyond market it was astonishing. I won't underestimate his ability to cut a better deal.

[fan345678]

Arguments based on TV markets are stuck in the same logic the ACC tried to use in 2003. Of course Blacksburg isn't a big TV market (nevermind that the biggest VT alumni base is DC) and Clemson doesn't bring anything to the table from a TV perspective. That's not what the SEC is after here. The SEC is selling its brand, not the appeal of any individual school(s).
The SEC already has national TV deals with CBS and ESPN, and those didn't come because Starkville, MS, Columbia, SC, and Fayetteville, AR, are media hotbeds. The SEC is selling the best football, the most intense football rivalries, and with the exception of Vandy, major state schools whose following is measured not in alumni but in numbers of people who currently live or who have ever lived in those states (plenty of Alabama and Tennessee fans in the Triangle who are from those states but didn't attend those schools).
Even for folks without allegiances to those schools, national audiences might not tune in to see Clemson play, but they'll tune in to see if the Gators can survive Death Valley if it's already on TV (which it will be). Plus, the SEC is pretty spread out, and Clemson to the SEC would mean that the shortest drive between two SEC schools would become Clemson to Athens. Clemson to Columbia and Clemson to Knoxville would also be in the top eight. So, the intense regional rivalry that is critical to the SEC brand is just waiting to happen.

[Duvall]

As for the ACC, if it did lose a member or two, it would have no trouble poaching a Big East school -- just as it did in 2004-05. Yeah, Big East basketball has been better than the ACC and the football performance of the two leagues is close, but what does that matter? The ACC is much more lucrative than the Big East ... in fact, the financial gap between the ACC and Big East is wider than the gap between the SEC and ACC. That's why Miami and BC jumped without hestitation and VPI used a shotgun (well, the governor of Virginia) to force its way into the league. Contrary to the note on the DBR front page, Syracuse did not turn down an ACC bid in 2004 ... they were rejected by the ACC presidents. They wanted in badly. They still do.

If -- and it's a big if -- the ACC loses a school or two, the question we have to answer is which Big East school we want to add. Personally, I think Pitt (a surprisingly good academic fit) is the best option. Forget the lure of Rutgers and the New York market (it doesn't exist for a New Jersey school that nobody in New York cares about). UConn is an academic nightmare -- closer to the SEC than the ACC. I guess Syracuse would be my second pick. It's in the middle of nowhere, but I know a great rib joint downtown!

Unfortunately, this ignores the possibility of future Big Ten expansion. Any Big East school worth taking would rather get a call from the Big Ten, and might decline for that reason alone.

[JasonEvans]

Finally and perhaps most importantly, when all of this alignment is happening (it sounds like 2015), Duke's football program should be pretty respectable. Sure they won't be amazing, but should be sitting on a few bowl games by then especially since Duke wont' be one of the first schools to move.

Optimistic much?

Hey, I'd love to get there but the difference between the current Duke program and the one you describe in 2015 is a long, long, long way off.

-Jason

[hudlow]

FSU president has just said there is no truth to the rumors that FSU is going to the SEC.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ap-floridast-sec

[Duvall]

FSU president has just said there is no truth to the rumors that FSU is going to the SEC.

He has to say that until FSU receives an invitation.

[wsb3]

The only way I wouldn't absolutely hate having raid the Big East or Big 10 and take on teams like Rutgers or Cincinatti (ugh...) is if the league was divided into two fairly independent divisions (as discussed below).

I actually think it would be awesome if Miami and FSU left and the "ACC South" consisted of:

Duke
UNC
NCSU
Wake Forest
Clemson
Georgia Tech
Virginia
Virginia Tech

Basically, a good ol' Southern Conference reunion! ;)

My wish would be that the above mentioned teams plus Maryland would be the ACC period. I know football and the revenue produced won't allow that...but I don't look at the ACC as a football conference first, though the decision making is football related. How many national championships won in basketball vs football? 12-2? And wasn't GT a split national championship year? I hate these Super Conferences.

[sporthenry]

Optimistic much?

Hey, I'd love to get there but the difference between the current Duke program and the one you describe in 2015 is a long, long, long way off.

-Jason

Well Duke was what a game away from a bowl game in 2009? And last year, 3 losses by 5 points and another by 6 points in games that could have went either way. And I understand one of our wins was by 3 points and another by 7 but that was also with a first year QB and an inexperienced defense. While this year might be a bit of a stretch to get a bowl as things would have to fall perfectly, the following year is pretty promising, Cut is getting recruits and the facilities are being upgraded. I don't think it is too optimistic to say that we could get to .500 for 2 years by 2015. I assume if Duke is bowl eligible, they will get a bid b/c it would make for a decent story b/c it has been so long.

[Duvall]

Well Duke was what a game away from a bowl game in 2009? And last year, 3 losses by 5 points and another by 6 points in games that could have went either way. And I understand one of our wins was by 3 points and another by 7 but that was also with a first year QB and an inexperienced defense. While this year might be a bit of a stretch to get a bowl as things would have to fall perfectly, the following year is pretty promising, Cut is getting recruits and the facilities are being upgraded. I don't think it is too optimistic to say that we could get to .500 for 2 years by 2015. I assume if Duke is bowl eligible, they will get a bid b/c it would make for a decent story b/c it has been so long.

It's possible, but I'm not sure it would matter. Decent isn't nearly good enough to make a difference.

[sporthenry]

It's possible, but I'm not sure it would matter. Decent isn't nearly good enough to make a difference.

Well my point is that if all of college sports gets uprooted as we know it, meaning either 4 major conferences or mass exodus/realignment, Duke would be good enough in football that it wouldn't weigh Duke down. As you alluded, if expansion occurs, the Big 10 probably gets first pick of BE schools. And if they go to the 16 team leagues, it would probably be the Pac 12 plus some Big 12 or some Mountain West teams. Then you'd have the SEC plus Big 12 and perhaps ACC teams. Then you'd have the Big 10 plus BE and perhaps ND. That leaves whatever is left over in the ACC/BE to combine. My main point is that by 2015, Duke should be more appealing than Wake Forest, G. Tech, or even perhaps Cincy when it comes to football by that point. Then you add in its academics and basketball along with UNC and Duke would more than likely be one of the 64 teams to encompass a major conference. (Now I'm not sure if the 16 team conferences are just for football, in that case, Duke might fall short and this is all under the assumption they would want to be in one of the 4 conferences b/c I'm assuming football would become similar to the NCAA tourney with 64 teams ultimately going down to each conference championship games being the QF, the conference champions squaring off in the semis, and ultimately the finals.)

Now if a conference like the SEC just picks a few teams then I would agree that it wouldn't make a difference but then the ACC would stay mostly intact and Duke would probably have little interest in leaving anyways especially since I would assume they'd want to stay with the likes of UNC, Wake, UVA unless it becomes a situation where either you are in one of the 4 BCS conferences or you aren't in which case any other football program would be like an FCS team.

[fan345678]

My wish would be that the above mentioned teams plus Maryland would be the ACC period. I know football and the revenue produced won't allow that...but I don't look at the ACC as a football conference first, though the decision making is football related. How many national championships won in basketball vs football? 12-2? And wasn't GT a split national championship year? I hate these Super Conferences.

Four football national championships: Clemson '81, GT '90, FSU '93, FSU '99. Maryland won in '51, but that was still under the Southern Conference banner.

[hurleyfor3]

You know, this is fun whenever it happens.

Maybe football will be better in five years. But for now, when it comes to the expansion discussion we're pretty much Kentucky or Kansas with a smaller, less geographically concentrated (but less deranged) fanbase. Actually it would be nice if we were Kentucky or Kansas in football. We're more like Cornell or Dartmouth.

If necessary -- and it really only will be necessary if an existing ACC school leaves -- I think it's pretty easy to raid the Big East. And the school we go after will almost certainly be Syracuse, especially if K has any say in the matter. Pitt is a solid second option. While people there like being in the BE they've never seemed wed to the idea. Not sure about WVU; they seem more like a Big Ten school, not that the Big Ten has any reason to do anything.

Anyone think the end result of this will be a split of the BE between the football and non-football schools? The non-football schools could then take on a couple Xavier or Temple type schools. This isn't a new idea, but seems closer than ever.

[hurleyfor3]

And wasn't GT a split national championship year?

I'll give the Soviet Union the 1972 basketball gold medal before I give Colorado any piece of the 1990 national championship.

[SCMatt33]

I actually think that one of the three schools mentioned (FSU, Missou, Clemson) would make the most sense from the SEC's side. I would doubt that they would want all of them unless something else is making them go all the way to 16. The biggest fallacy out there about expansion is that it is driven by football. That is complete crap. It is driven by money. While good football usually means money making football, those two do not always equate, especially from the SEC's perspective. Anyone coming into the conference would probably take a step back in terms of consistently winning. Televisions markets also mean very little to the SEC. With the Big Ten, TV markets were a big deal because moving into a new TV market would automatically bring new cable rights fees for the Big Ten Network, something the SEC doesn't have yet. Even if it did, there only media market in the top 20 which the SEC doesn't have, but could reasonably get, is Miami at 16, though if they did start a station, they might be able to get it in Miami based off of UF alone. Even if not, Miami (the city, not the school) fans are notoriously lax. Anyway, without media markets to drive the money issue, the next biggest thing is who will generate more from an ESPN contract. This means that they need to be part of marketable TV match-ups (through rivalries or quality), and need a fan base that will turn on the TV even if their team is going 4-4 or 3-5 in the SEC, compared to 5-3 or 6-2 in their old conference. Given the state of UNC football, that isn't happening any time soon for them. I already suggested that this won't happen in Miami, so those guys are probably out. Gaining the FSU/UF game under the SEC umbrella would be a big deal. Clemson and Missouri have fan bases that have responded and continued to support teams despite only periodic success on a high level over the years, and that would likely to continue, even if they can't regularly beat the Florida's and Alabama's of the world. There's more reason for and against these teams, but I still think from the SEC side, FSU, Clemson, and Mizzou make sense.

[ArkieDukie]

Highly doubting it would ever happen as hurleyfor3 so definitively stated, but we do have an ethically challenged neighbor a few miles south on 15-501 who might qualify from a FB perspective(insert faint sounds of whistling here).

Dang it, devildeac; you beat me to the punch! I was going to suggest the ACC's most recent ethically challenged school as a perfect fit for the SEC. Guess great minds think alike. :cool:

[OldPhiKap]

I'll give the Soviet Union the 1972 basketball gold medal before I give Colorado any piece of the 1990 national championship.

What's wrong with fifth and goal?!?

[Atlanta Duke]

Nice blog post by Jeff Schutlz of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on the A&M to the SEC madness

It’s understandable why A&M would want to escape Texas’ shadow in the Big 12 and come to the SEC, where member schools split a record $220 million in a revenue-sharing plan this fiscal year. I’m not quite as sure why the SEC wants A&M, because other than getting its toes into the state of Texas — assuming College Station counts — this is like a high-end mall expanding to add a Walgreens....

We’re on a path toward an Orwellian landscape. Three college football superstates: Oceania, Eastasia and Eurasia (with Notre Dame as an independent).

http://blogs.ajc.com/jeff-schultz-blog/2011/08/13/texas-ams-move-to-sec-evidence-of-ncaas-lost-mission/?cxntfid=blogs_jeff_schultz_blog

[throatybeard]

There is an extreme level of ignorance in the this thread about "academic institutions" versus... what? "Non-academic institutions?" Every single school being discussed is a Carnegie Doctoral-Extensive institution (R1 in the old parlance). The University of Connecticut is an amazing school. Take a look at their faculty sometime.

Just more Duke snot. The quality of a University is not determined by what the third string safety on the football team is or isn't doing in class. It isn't determined by what the 18 year-olds averaged on a standardized test. It is determined by, foremost, the quality of the faculty, and by monetary resources and a lot of other factors.

It's really no wonder everyone hates us.

[throatybeard]

Arguments based on TV markets are stuck in the same logic the ACC tried to use in 2003. Of course Blacksburg isn't a big TV market (nevermind that the biggest VT alumni base is DC) and Clemson doesn't bring anything to the table from a TV perspective. That's not what the SEC is after here. The SEC is selling its brand, not the appeal of any individual school(s).
The SEC already has national TV deals with CBS and ESPN, and those didn't come because Starkville, MS, Columbia, SC, and Fayetteville, AR, are media hotbeds. The SEC is selling the best football, the most intense football rivalries, and with the exception of Vandy, major state schools whose following is measured not in alumni but in numbers of people who currently live or who have ever lived in those states (plenty of Alabama and Tennessee fans in the Triangle who are from those states but didn't attend those schools).
Even for folks without allegiances to those schools, national audiences might not tune in to see Clemson play, but they'll tune in to see if the Gators can survive Death Valley if it's already on TV (which it will be). Plus, the SEC is pretty spread out, and Clemson to the SEC would mean that the shortest drive between two SEC schools would become Clemson to Athens. Clemson to Columbia and Clemson to Knoxville would also be in the top eight. So, the intense regional rivalry that is critical to the SEC brand is just waiting to happen.

Exactly. Everybody listen to this person up in that there post.

Arguing that Virginia Tech is a bad addition to the ACC because Blacksburg is a mid-small town is about as ridiculous as arguing that Auburn is a bad member of the SEC because Auburn-Opelika isn't very big. BTW, Virginia Tech is just about the only school that has consistently been keeping us from being a complete laughing stock in football since FSU tanked. I wish they'd lose a game or so fewer in conference recently, but us casting stones at them is beyond absurd. And their "TV market" is the whole state, not Blacksburg-Roanoke. And the state has like 8M people in it. And they've got more FB fans than UVA does. They sell out a 66K stadium.Heck, they have a whole lot of alumni from BosWashnia, especially DC and NYC.

This is what Clemson offers the SEC. They're the Auburn to South Carolina's Bama. (Not in overall stature, but in intensity of rivalry and addition to the brand). And they had a great, really an amazing rivalry with Georgia over the years. It would be fantastic to see that come back. And they've played Auburn recently.

Nobody who really loves College Football cares who is playing in that 3:30 East slot on CBS. They tune in anyway, because they know they're going to see amazing football. The SEC is the closest thing to a mini-NFL in the respect that the interest transcends the TV markets involved. I live in Saint Louis and I'm from the South. But if the Chargers are playing the Broncos on Sunday night, I tune in. Why? Because the NFL kicks butt, that's why. In my own life, LSU and Bama can personally bite me. But damned if I'm going to miss it when they play. I was watching the Iron Bowl last year in the Delta Skyclub at Hartsfield last year. It was electric. Electric. Only some of the people had ties to either school. In sports, more people watch the best stuff. People tune in all over the nation to root against Duke MBB.

So the question for the SEC isn't adding TV markets, although new ones wouldn't hurt. It's in selecting probably two to four schools eventually that complement what's already going on in Football and further enhance the brand. This is tougher than it sounds. Clemson is a great fit, especially if they can get back to their 1980s strength. Miami isn't a very good pick. Florida wouldn't want them in and their fan support is weak by SEC standards. A&M is probably a good idea, because they used to have a great rivalry in the SWC with Arkansas and would also get mixed up with LSU. After that, it gets tougher. Mizzou is a new market in a state with around 6M people, but has no logical rivals in the SEC and is historically mediocre in both FB and MBB. FSU has the Florida problem. West Virginia would bring very solid FB but no rivalries. They're a much better antagonist for VT and MD, actually. Texas would be the Hope Diamond, but probably thinks they're too good for anybody. OU if the Big Great Plains implodes? Who knows?

All the high cards are held by a small number of entities here. The leadership in the PAC12, Big Ten, SEC, Notre Dame, and Texas. That's really about it. The rest of us are a bunch of squirrels trying to hold onto a nut.

But If I'm the SEC, I think slowly and carefully here, because the status quo is working so, so well. Other than the disaster that was the WAC, 16 is uncharted territory in Football. I think they should check in this big poker game and see if Texas feels a little more willing in a few years. (Maybe that's part of the idea with A&M. If they steal A&M, the Big XII teeters even a little more. Maybe Texas says screw it and comes with. Add a dash of Clemson and a healthy serving of OU, and you've got the best thing this side of the English Premiere league). But they really don't need to rush things. The guy with the big stack can sit some hands out.

Also, can we quit talking about Vandy and the ACC? The last thing the ACC needs is Vandy. We've got two Vandys already. I like Vanderbilt, but their athletic profile is like if you sewed Duke Football to Wake Forest basketball. If we're going to be a Big Boy conference like the Big Midwesterners Who Can't Count, the Pac12 and the SEC, we need more large schools with big alumni bases who can put a lot of bodies in a stadium.

Personally, I'd be happy to drop to D3 after Krzyzewski retires, to get out of this ridiculous game. But since that isn't happening, we need to comprehend the realities here instead of patting ourselves on the back for being superior to everyone else. The ACC is in some trouble. Not BE in 2003 trouble, and not Big XII trouble, but in danger of increasing irrelevance. The ACC is not important to generic fans of college football in other regions. (It might be if Miami, FSU, VT, and maybe one of Clemson/GT/UNC were all very good at the same time for a period of years). When USC was amazing, people watched USC everywhere. When Ohio State was amazing, people watched them everywhere. FSU in the 1990s. We have no assets like that right now in FB, though VT and maybe FSU are close. We have two assets like that in MBB. That's it. We're in increasing danger of being not particularly relevant, especially if Duke or UNC falls off after Krzyzewski/RWilliams retire. ACC basketball is not as strong a brand as SEC football. I'm sorry, it's not. They've got eight ranked football teams in some of the preseason magazines. ACC basketball has struggled to keep three or four teams in the top 25 some years lately.

You can sit around and whine about how it's not 1974 anymore, or you can live in the world that is.

[BlueDevil2K]

There is an extreme level of ignorance in the this thread about "academic institutions" versus... what? "Non-academic institutions?" Every single school being discussed is a Carnegie Doctoral-Extensive institution (R1 in the old parlance). The University of Connecticut is an amazing school. Take a look at their faculty sometime.

Just more Duke snot. The quality of a University is not determined by what the third string safety on the football team is or isn't doing in class. It isn't determined by what the 18 year-olds averaged on a standardized test. It is determined by, foremost, the quality of the faculty, and by monetary resources and a lot of other factors.

It's really no wonder everyone hates us.

Actually, I don't believe that this is really just more "Duke snot". Academics were a huge factor in the Big 10/11/12 expansion discussions last year, and Nebraska likely wouldn't have been invited to the Big 10 had they not been a member of the Association of American Universities at the time (according to their chancellor - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Universities#Membership (see "Former members")). The other 11 Big 10 schools are members, as are 5/12 ACC schools (including Duke), 8/12 Pac 12 schools, 5/10 Big 12 schools, but just 2/12 SEC schools (Florida & Vanderbilt), and 2/17 Big East schools (Pittsburgh & Rutgers).

If you go by the Wikipedia numbers, the schools in the Association of American Universities include 7% of all undergraduates but award 52% of all doctorates in the U.S. They have been responsible for 74% of all U.S. Nobel prizes.

Of the schools mentioned, Texas A&M and Missouri are members, FSU and Clemson are not. Pittsburgh is and Syracuse was until this year. Connecticut and West Virginia are not.

Just so there's no confusion, I'm not saying that a school has to be a member of the Association of American Universities to be a quality school. I am, however, saying that this stuff matters to the Universities that are making these decisions. When people think about top American Universities, this list is a pretty good representation of who they're talking about. Just as one data point, when I applied to colleges I had never heard of this Association. Nevertheless, I'm not surprised to find that the 6 "top" schools (ranging from Washington University in St. Louis to Ohio State in size) to which I applied all have been members since Duke joined in 1938. Heck, 10 of the 11 schools that I visited are on the list.

[loldevilz]

I really think that the ACC is in much better shape than most people think. Last year it had 5 of the top 10 in the director's cup. The focus of the ACC shouldn't be on football, it should be on bringing in high quality institutions that are good in a wide variety of sports.

That being said, I would love to see the ACC get Notre Dame.

[uh_no]

That being said, I would love to see the ACC get Notre Dame.

I would love to have a bugatti veyron sitting in my driveway. Not a chance this side of siberia that ND would abandon the big east in all other sports to join a conference like the ACC for its FOOTBALL! If notre dame was to switch, it would obviously be for football, and it would pretty much have to be the big 10.

The TV deal they have is so good, they have absolutely no reason to join a conference in football.

[loldevilz]

I would love to have a bugatti veyron sitting in my driveway. Not a chance this side of siberia that ND would abandon the big east in all other sports to join a conference like the ACC for its FOOTBALL! If notre dame was to switch, it would obviously be for football, and it would pretty much have to be the big 10.

The TV deal they have is so good, they have absolutely no reason to join a conference in football.

Yeah you are probably right.

Anyways, what about this bugatti? Add UConn and Syracuse

Boston College
UConn
Syracuse
Maryland
Virginia
Virginia Tech
Wake Forest
UNC
Duke
NC State
Georgia Tech
Miami

[NYC Duke Fan]

I really think that the ACC is in much better shape than most people think. Last year it had 5 of the top 10 in the director's cup. The focus of the ACC shouldn't be on football, it should be on bringing in high quality institutions that are good in a wide variety of sports.

That being said, I would love to see the ACC get Notre Dame.

So would I but the obvious place for Notre Dame is the Big 10, or whatever their name is now.

I wouldn't mind trading FSU for Vanderbilt, not so much for the athletic program, although it has improved greatly over the last several years, but for the academic prestige it would bring. It will never happen though.

I think that every year there should be a pre-season basketball tournament...call it the SAT Tourney and it should consist of Duke, Stanford, Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt, and a rotation of 3 IVY league schools.

[uh_no]

Yeah you are probably right.

Anyways, what about this bugatti? Add UConn and Syracuse

Boston College
UConn
Syracuse
Maryland
Virginia
Virginia Tech
Wake Forest
UNC
Duke
NC State
Georgia Tech
Miami

While it may have been appealing 6 years ago, I'm not sure the ACC is as good an option as it was 6 years ago. I can't imagine uconn or syracuse leaving the big east for the ACC at this time (or anyone else OTHER than the big 10). Both were original BE members and in fact SUED the schools that left the BE last time. While it would be awesome to add two of the best basketball teams in the country (as suddenly the conference would have 4 teams that don't wallow in mediocrity instead of two), I'm not sure it makes sense for uconn and syracuse, who suddenly go from playing almost every conference game against a big opponent to probably half as many. That might be a slight stretch, but I just don't see what is to be gained from the basketball perspective. From a football perspective, what does the ACC gain from adding two mediocre football teams? its the first expansion all over again (and uconn and syracuse are much more mediocre than tech and miami...even now). Yes uconn made the BCS last year, but they also backed into the spot and still were'nt exactly good.

SOmeone earlier mentioned money, and I'd like to see the numbers for both the ACC and the Big East, because likely the big east basketball money has skyrocketed in recent years (not to mention the big est has gotten such a huge slice of the ncaa tournament pie)....but I think a lot of the ACC football money is driven by teams like FSU and Clemson, and if they were gone, and we added Cuse and Uconn instead, I highly doubt ESPN or whomever would be willing to dish out as many gobs of money as they currently do.

TLDNR: I think while the ACC would certainly gain in basketball from these two additions, it doesn't really make sense for football, and there doesn't seem to be much gain for Uconn and Syracuse, or at least not enough to justify their bailing on the big east.

[wsb3]

Four football national championships: Clemson '81, GT '90, FSU '93, FSU '99. Maryland won in '51, but that was still under the Southern Conference banner.

oops... completely forgot FSU...

[devildeac]

I'll give the Soviet Union the 1972 basketball gold medal before I give Colorado any piece of the 1990 national championship.

1978

(Just kidding, of course, but I just couldn't resist the opportunity to invoke this un-original thought/idea;).)

[loldevilz]

While it may have been appealing 6 years ago, I'm not sure the ACC is as good an option as it was 6 years ago. I can't imagine uconn or syracuse leaving the big east for the ACC at this time (or anyone else OTHER than the big 10). Both were original BE members and in fact SUED the schools that left the BE last time. While it would be awesome to add two of the best basketball teams in the country (as suddenly the conference would have 4 teams that don't wallow in mediocrity instead of two), I'm not sure it makes sense for uconn and syracuse, who suddenly go from playing almost every conference game against a big opponent to probably half as many. That might be a slight stretch, but I just don't see what is to be gained from the basketball perspective. From a football perspective, what does the ACC gain from adding two mediocre football teams? its the first expansion all over again (and uconn and syracuse are much more mediocre than tech and miami...even now). Yes uconn made the BCS last year, but they also backed into the spot and still were'nt exactly good.

SOmeone earlier mentioned money, and I'd like to see the numbers for both the ACC and the Big East, because likely the big east basketball money has skyrocketed in recent years (not to mention the big est has gotten such a huge slice of the ncaa tournament pie)....but I think a lot of the ACC football money is driven by teams like FSU and Clemson, and if they were gone, and we added Cuse and Uconn instead, I highly doubt ESPN or whomever would be willing to dish out as many gobs of money as they currently do.

TLDNR: I think while the ACC would certainly gain in basketball from these two additions, it doesn't really make sense for football, and there doesn't seem to be much gain for Uconn and Syracuse, or at least not enough to justify their bailing on the big east.

If somehow the ACC got all of the New York market, say adding Rutgers also, then I think you could make an argument that the ACC has by far the best TV market share in the country. It may not be getting the best football schools, but it will be getting schools with great athletic programs and up and coming football teams. The truth is that when you add good schools you aren't guaranteed results. Miami and FSU never really accomplished all that much in the ACC.

But if you make a stable conference with competitive and likeminded schools you are bound to get good results. I would go to watch a Syracuse -Duke football game rather than say a Duke-VT game because I think that there is a bit of a rivalry there. That's what keeps the fans interested IMO. And when the fans show I think it helps get recruits and build good programs.

[OldPhiKap]

If somehow the ACC got all of the New York market, say adding Rutgers also, then I think you could make an argument that the ACC has by far the best TV market share in the country. It may not be getting the best football schools, but it will be getting schools with great athletic programs and up and coming football teams. The truth is that when you add good schools you aren't guaranteed results. Miami and FSU never really accomplished all that much in the ACC.

But if you make a stable conference with competitive and likeminded schools you are bound to get good results. I would go to watch a Syracuse -Duke football game rather than say a Duke-VT game because I think that there is a bit of a rivalry there. That's what keeps the fans interested IMO. And when the fans show I think it helps get recruits and build good programs.

Add Villanova and St. Johns, and there you go. Have the whole East Coast sewn up.

(Syracuse is not really "the New York Market" -- the Johnnies would be great, and we'd have the ACC tourney in the Garden every few years).

[uh_no]

Add Villanova and St. Johns, and there you go. Have the whole East Coast sewn up.

(Syracuse is not really "the New York Market" -- the Johnnies would be great, and we'd have the ACC tourney in the Garden every few years).

I'm sure the acc must be just hopping to add 2 small northeastern catholic schools neither of which has a d1A level football team. (Villanova's hardly counts...)

[OldPhiKap]

I'm sure the acc must be just hopping to add 2 small northeastern catholic schools neither of which has a d1A level football team. (Villanova's hardly counts...)

True, didn't think of football. (Which is why expansion fundamentally seems bad to me anyway).

The problem then with the "New York Market" is that Syracuse isn't really in it. Of course, NYC is a pro-sports town for the most part.

[loldevilz]

True, didn't think of football. (Which is why expansion fundamentally seems bad to me anyway).

The problem then with the "New York Market" is that Syracuse isn't really in it. Of course, NYC is a pro-sports town for the most part.

For the most part of 20 million people.

[SCMatt33]

I think there is a few important things to remember when discussing media markets and conference revenues. Being "in" a specific media market only really matters for cable rights fees for a conference network that won't be carried nationally on a standard cable package. To a lesser extent, it will also matter for airing games not picked up nationally on local channels (those SEC and Big East games that are conference branded, but use the ESPN graphics package). The local games, however, only matter to the extent that the generate ratings. As a money making entity, I think a school like Rutgers is terribly overrated. Sure, they technically lie within the New York market, but that doesn't mean that a company like Cablevision would be forced to put a conference network on the standard package within the city limits or out on Long Island when there is only legit demand for it in North Jersey. Most of the time, the TV rights fees are going to be based on what ESPN or FSN can expect to make by airing games nationally. In this sense, how much money a team brings to a conference with no established cable network is only determined by what it can bring as far as new marketable match-ups. This is likely determined mostly by quality (better games get better ratings) and rivalries (rivalry games will usually get better rating with all other things being equal).

Going back to the immediate future, this is why I'm a bit skeptical that the SEC would jump on Texas A&M, unless they have someone like FSU already lined up. Texas A&M has put a pretty mediocre product on the field for years, and will lose its marketable rivalries by making this jump. Furthermore, A&M is unlikely to develop any marketable rivalries with current SEC schools as they are pretty far geographically, and they won't suddenly be involved in a bunch of top 10 match-ups given its shaky football past.

[msdukie]

oops... completely forgot FSU...

Maryland's only legit national title was in 1953, when they were inaugural ACC co-Champions with Duke (and an unbalanced schedule due to Virginia's late arrival). They were voted national champions and then lost their bowl game. The school doesn't recognize their 1951 retroactive title by various voting organizations (contrast that to the bread factory "national championship" highly recognized 9 miles down the road...)

as for FSU, I try to forget them all the time.

[ArkieDukie]

I think there is a few important things to remember when discussing media markets and conference revenues. Being "in" a specific media market only really matters for cable rights fees for a conference network that won't be carried nationally on a standard cable package. To a lesser extent, it will also matter for airing games not picked up nationally on local channels (those SEC and Big East games that are conference branded, but use the ESPN graphics package). The local games, however, only matter to the extent that the generate ratings. As a money making entity, I think a school like Rutgers is terribly overrated. Sure, they technically lie within the New York market, but that doesn't mean that a company like Cablevision would be forced to put a conference network on the standard package within the city limits or out on Long Island when there is only legit demand for it in North Jersey. Most of the time, the TV rights fees are going to be based on what ESPN or FSN can expect to make by airing games nationally. In this sense, how much money a team brings to a conference with no established cable network is only determined by what it can bring as far as new marketable match-ups. This is likely determined mostly by quality (better games get better ratings) and rivalries (rivalry games will usually get better rating with all other things being equal).

Going back to the immediate future, this is why I'm a bit skeptical that the SEC would jump on Texas A&M, unless they have someone like FSU already lined up. Texas A&M has put a pretty mediocre product on the field for years, and will lose its marketable rivalries by making this jump. Furthermore, A&M is unlikely to develop any marketable rivalries with current SEC schools as they are pretty far geographically, and they won't suddenly be involved in a bunch of top 10 match-ups given its shaky football past.

With all due respect, I think you are underestimating the Aggies. They're certainly not awful in football. Their women's basketball team just won the NCAA championship, and their men's team didn't do too badly in the NCAA tourney. Additionally, you're talking about a school with a fairly large alumni fan base. If you think they wouldn't have a large fan contingent at away games (especially AR and LSU), think again. That certainly can't hurt. Also, it seems as though the large fan base might increase viewership for the SEC in markets with a large alumni fan base, even if this market is not normally associated with the location of the school.

Once upon a time, A&M and Arkansas were rivals - not like Arkansas-Texas or Texas-TX A&M, certainly, but rivals nonetheless. The Arkansas-LSU rivalry was really generated when Arkansas joined the SEC. Given time, new rivalries will develop, or old ones will be renewed. If Mizzou is really one of the target teams, then promoted rivalries could shift from AR-LSU to LSU-A&M and AR-Mizzou.

ETA: With regard to the strength of A&M's football program, I think a move to the SEC would help them. Arkansas gets a lot of recruits out of the state of Texas who want to play in the SEC. A change in conferences could actually help A&M in recruiting. YMMV.

[JasonEvans]

The SEC says (http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/6861385/sec-extend-invitation-texas-leaves-options-open), "thanks for the offer, but we are just fine at 12" to TxA&M.

Thus ends the latest round of conference realignment insanity - not with a bang, but with a whimper.

-Jason "glad to keep Clemson in the family-- the road trip to Littlejohn is a fun one" Evans

[Duvall]

The SEC says (http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/6861385/sec-extend-invitation-texas-leaves-options-open), "thanks for the offer, but we are just fine at 12" to TxA&M.

Thus ends the latest round of conference realignment insanity - not with a bang, but with a whimper.

-Jason "glad to keep Clemson in the family-- the road trip to Littlejohn is a fun one" Evans

This is by no means over. This just means that the SEC isn't going to act on TAMU's timetable. At most this means that the SEC isn't going to move until it has all of its expansion schools lined up and ready to go.

[A-Tex Devil]

This is by no means over. This just means that the SEC isn't going to act on TAMU's timetable. At most this means that the SEC isn't going to move until it has all of its expansion schools lined up and ready to go.

Agreed. SEC is telling A&M to get it's ish together and house in order so that the SEC isn't the bad guy. Its also implicitly saying it needs a 14th team and hasnt figured that out yet. A&M will be in the SEC at some point. But it will be on the SEC's, and not A&M's, timetable.

A&M is, predictably, blaming all of this on ESPN and Texas, but they only have themselves to blame. Best quote of the week by Jerome Solomon of the Houston Chronicle:

"Aggies live off a regular diet of an embarrassing inferiority complex and an irrational superiority complex."

[Olympic Fan]

The one lesson we should all learn from all of this is a reminder that quoting Doug Gottlieb as a source makes as much sense as quoting an anonymous message board post as a source.

[uh_no]

The one lesson we should all learn from all of this is a reminder that quoting Doug Gottlieb as a source makes as much sense as quoting an anonymous message board post as a source.

Doug Gottlieb knows a thing or two about being alarmingly un-accurate.

[gumbomoop]

The one lesson we should all learn from all of this is a reminder that quoting Doug Gottlieb as a source makes as much sense as quoting an anonymous message board post as a source.

Mea culpa. I accept whatever is my share in OlympicFan's gentle rebuke. I see now that my error was averting my eyes from the fascinating [nil-nil draw] football game on ESPN2 Sat morn, just down to the bottom of the screen to see the Gottlieb-mongering-scroll-"news". To be fair - and not to put too fine a point on it - the news scrolled coyly neglected to mention that bloody idiot, Gottlieb.

In my defense, further, I will protest that, had the football been more like this afternoon's Supercopa de Espana [another fierce classico between Barca and Real Madrid], I'd never have lowered my eyes.

So, to hell with mea culpa; I blame Aston Villa and Fulham. Given the turnover among European - worldwide, actually - football coaches, I suspect Doug Gottlieb will be named coach of either Villa or Fulham within a fortnight.

[A-Tex Devil]

Latest scuttlebutt.....

SEC is trying to avoid a situation where they are dragged into a tortious interference or similar claim with the Aggies/Big XII/Fox/ESPN

To attempt to get around this, Aggies will withdraw from Big XII, citing lack of payment and failure of other parties to meet obligations of BIg XII agreement. They would then apply for membership to ALL BCS conferences and the SEC would accept them.

Apparently this helps mitigate lawsuit concerns. I am not sure.

I, personally, still think it all hinges on getting a 14th team and the SEC doesn't want to pull trigger until that is nailed down.

[Jarhead]

Latest scuttlebutt.....

SEC is trying to avoid a situation where they are dragged into a tortious interference or similar claim with the Aggies/Big XII/Fox/ESPN

To attempt to get around this, Aggies will withdraw from Big XII, citing lack of payment and failure of other parties to meet obligations of BIg XII agreement. They would then apply for membership to ALL BCS conferences and the SEC would accept them.

Apparently this helps mitigate lawsuit concerns. I am not sure.

I, personally, still think it all hinges on getting a 14th team and the SEC doesn't want to pull trigger until that is nailed down.

Scuttlebutt is just that, scuttlebutt. In other words, a rumor. What I'd like to hear right now is a brand new Aggie (http://home.earthlink.net/~mike_scott/aggjoke.htm) joke. Anybody heard one today? http://crazietalk.net/ourhouse/images/smilies/jester.gif

[A-Tex Devil]

Scuttlebutt is just that, scuttlebutt. In other words, a rumor. What I'd like to hear right now is a brand new Aggie (http://home.earthlink.net/~mike_scott/aggjoke.htm) joke. Anybody heard one today? http://crazietalk.net/ourhouse/images/smilies/jester.gif

Wasn't this last week the epitome of one with today being the punchline?

[Jarhead]

Wasn't this last week the epitome of one with today being the punchline?

Maybe so. A lot of people must be laughing, but some Aggies think they have just created their own conference.

[Atlanta Duke]

Latest scuttlebutt.....

SEC is trying to avoid a situation where they are dragged into a tortious interference or similar claim with the Aggies/Big XII/Fox/ESPN

That is how Andy Staples of SI.com sees it

If we can make more money from our TV contracts, we're probably going to expand. But no one has applied for membership yet. So we didn't vote today. If we had voted to extend an offer to a school that hadn't applied for membership, we might have left ourselves exposed to a big, fat lawsuit. So don't sue us, Big 12. If someone, perhaps a land-grant institution based in College Station, Texas, happens to authorize its president to seek new conference membership -- maybe at a special Board of Regents meeting Monday afternoon -- and that president happens to ask us to consider his school for membership, than we might strongly consider that school.

The last line of his column sums it up

Marc Isenberg, an author who follows the business of college sports, tweeted it best Sunday afternoon. "Another day in college sports," Isenberg wrote, "another victory for billable hours."


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/andy_staples/08/14/texas.am.sec/index.html?sct=hp_t2_a4&eref=sihp

[ForkFondler]

Scuttlebutt is just that, scuttlebutt. In other words, a rumor. What I'd like to hear right now is a brand new Aggie (http://home.earthlink.net/~mike_scott/aggjoke.htm) joke. Anybody heard one today? http://crazietalk.net/ourhouse/images/smilies/jester.gif

This one needs to be moved to the longhorn joke list:

An Aggie and a Longhorn are in hell. The Longhorn is chained to an ugly old woman and the Aggie is chained to Pamela Anderson. The devil comes in and tells the two unfortunate souls that they will be in this situation for eternity. The Longhorn asks the devil why he is chained to the ugly old woman. The devil replies, "this is your punishment for being so mean to all those Aggies over the years." The Longhorn then asks, " if this is hell, why does the Aggie get to be chained to Pamela Anderson"?
To which the devil replies, "That's Pamela Anderson's punishment"!

[diveonthefloor]

The one lesson we should all learn from all of this is a reminder that quoting Doug Gottlieb as a source makes as much sense as quoting an anonymous message board post as a source.

Sort of like asking Doug to talk to grade schoolers about the 8th commandment.

[JasonEvans]

So, I was just listening to an interview with Mark Schlabaugh of ESPN on the radio. He said he expected the SEC to expand at some point in the not too distant future and he said they would probably want to go to 16, not 14. He said an SEC President he had spoken to said FSU and Clemson would probably not be a part of the expansion because neither of them improve the TV footprint for the league, even though they both bring good football programs to the table. He said more likely candidates were Oklahoma (and/or Okie St), Va Tech, Mizzu, and UNC. He commented that UNC has been acting like an SEC school for a few years now so they might not have a problem moving to the more ethically challenged SEC.

He then said he thought there was a decent chance the triangle schools would have to break apart at some point. He did not get into specifics, but the implication was that UNC and/or maybe NC State would go elsewhere, leaving Duke behind. He said that unless the ACC did something to strengthen itself, it could be in trouble -- though not quite as bad as the way the Big 12 and Big East are in trouble. He said conventional wisdom was that the conference shakeout would end with 4 super-conferences of 16 teams each (Pac, Big, SEC, and ACC) but that he was not so sure it wouldn't be just 3 super-conferences (minus the ACC).

-Jason "if they could form 'football only' conferences, I could see Carolina bolting" Evans

[monkey]

He then said he thought there was a decent chance the triangle schools would have to break apart at some point. He did not get into specifics, but the implication was that UNC and/or maybe NC State would go elsewhere, leaving Duke behind. He said that unless the ACC did something to strengthen itself, it could be in trouble -- though not quite as bad as the way the Big 12 and Big East are in trouble. He said conventional wisdom was that the conference shakeout would end with 4 super-conferences of 16 teams each (Pac, Big, SEC, and ACC) but that he was not so sure it wouldn't be just 3 super-conferences (minus the ACC).

-Jason "if they could form 'football only' conferences, I could see Carolina bolting" Evans

IMO, there's just no way the North Carolina state legislature allows NC State and UNC to be in separate conferences, to me, the "or" portion of that seems completely untenable. I also just cannot see UNC breaking away from Duke because of basketball. Actually, given that all of the schools are founding members of the ACC, a break to join up with the SEC seems like a very, very low probability.

With respect to Va. Tech, after all the heavy lifting purportedly done to put them into the ACC when expansion came around last time (not that long ago), would the Virginia state politicians turn around and eagerly have Va Tech dump UVA and join an SEC "super conference", which would then damage the ACC (and hence Virginia, which is still the primary state university)? I just don't see that either, unless the SEC is willing to take on UVa as well, which I've never heard mentioned (don't know what the local appetite for that would be).

[throatybeard]

IMO, there's just no way the North Carolina state legislature allows NC State and UNC to be in separate conferences, to me, the "or" portion of that seems completely untenable. I also just cannot see UNC breaking away from Duke because of basketball. Actually, given that all of the schools are founding members of the ACC, a break to join up with the SEC seems like a very, very low probability.

With respect to Va. Tech, after all the heavy lifting purportedly done to put them into the ACC when expansion came around last time (not that long ago), would the Virginia state politicians turn around and eagerly have Va Tech dump UVA and join an SEC "super conference", which would then damage the ACC (and hence Virginia, which is still the primary state university)? I just don't see that either, unless the SEC is willing to take on UVa as well, which I've never heard mentioned (don't know what the local appetite for that would be).

Yeah. As this article points out, there's a problem with just about everybody (http://blogs.commercialappeal.com/the_memphis_edge/2011/08/secs-delay-of-expansion-means-nothing.html).

FSU, Clemson, Georgia Tech and Louisville all have SEC rivals who wouldn't want them at the cool kids' table. Virginia Tech is beholden to the legislature that tossed them a life preserver in 2003. And the present difficulty with A&M is that an eastern team is needed to balance them, because they don't won't to move say Auburn to the east.

I have a really difficult time seeing Missouri in the SEC. The afternoon guys on 101 here had Vahe Gregorian on today. I think he's the Mizzou beat writer for the Post-Dispatch. He basically said he didn't know of any credible source that said Missouri or Slive's office had even talked to each other.

I don't really know what Missouri offers the SEC that they couldn't get from say OU in a big plundering of the Big XII. YEah, you get the StL and KC markets. And a football team that's the best it's been in four dacades...and still has never won the Big XII. If I had to guess, their best bet is to hope that they get into a Big Ten Sixteen. They past the AAU membership test.

[OldPhiKap]

Yeah. As this article points out, there's a problem with just about everybody (http://blogs.commercialappeal.com/the_memphis_edge/2011/08/secs-delay-of-expansion-means-nothing.html).

FSU, Clemson, Georgia Tech and Louisville all have SEC rivals who wouldn't want them at the cool kids' table. Virginia Tech is beholden to the legislature that tossed them a life preserver in 2003. And the present difficulty with A&M is that an eastern team is needed to balance them, because they don't won't to move say Auburn to the east.

I have a really difficult time seeing Missouri in the SEC. The afternoon guys on 101 here had Vahe Gregorian on today. I think he's the Mizzou beat writer for the Post-Dispatch. He basically said he didn't know of any credible source that said Missouri or Slive's office had even talked to each other.

I don't really know what Missouri offers the SEC that they couldn't get from say OU in a big plundering of the Big XII. YEah, you get the StL and KC markets. And a football team that's the best it's been in four dacades...and still has never won the Big XII. If I had to guess, their best bet is to hope that they get into a Big Ten Sixteen. They past the AAU membership test.

Maryland makes the most sense, in that it gives them the DC market. Hope it's not so.

[throatybeard]

Maryland makes the most sense, in that it gives them the DC market. Hope it's not so.

I don't dispute what you're saying, but really, how salivating a property is Maryland?

SEC wouldn't want them. Yankees way up there, as it were. (I'm not saying that's so, but the regional identity of the SEC is strong). Basketball is...well really awesome a decade ago. Football, well, is really awesome a decade ago and in the 1980s. They don't fill a huge football stadium. And DC is another place like NY or Boston that is a pro sports town. Which predator will take our dear little turtles from us? Big East? No, that's a move down, at least at present. They just stole UConn's FB coach. So does the Big math-challenged Midwestern Conference want them in a 16-team layout. Um, maybe? I guess? But there are only four slots in that armageddeon. Why does Maryland come before Pitt, SU, UConn, Mizzou, UL, in that calculus. I don't know. Maybe they do. There are a lot of TV sets in DC and Baltimore.

[loldevilz]

The more I think about it, NC State seems to me like the best option. NC State seems to me an SEC type school. It is football centric with a rabid fan base. It is good for the SEC as it helps the SEC expand north and it gives NC State a recruiting advantage over Duke and North Carolina, similar to the advantage of South Carolina over Clemson. It also helps the ACC overcome the notion that it is too NC-centric. If that happens then maybe the ACC could expand north to get Rutgers, UCONN, and Syracuse.

[Bluealum]

The more I think about it, NC State seems to me like the best option. NC State seems to me an SEC type school. It is football centric with a rabid fan base. It is good for the SEC as it helps the SEC expand north and it gives NC State a recruiting advantage over Duke and North Carolina, similar to the advantage of South Carolina over Clemson. It also helps the ACC overcome the notion that it is too NC-centric. If that happens then maybe the ACC could expand north to get Rutgers, UCONN, and Syracuse.

Losing NC State is a very tough sell for the old ACC crowd. This is my way of looking at the ACC (worth nothing of course, but I suspect I am not alone...)

ACC and reasons we want the school...

UVa, Duke, Wake, UNC, Ga Tech for reasons of history, geography and academics
NC State and Clemson for reasons of history and geography

Maryland for history
BC for academics
VT for geography

Florida St. ?
Miami ?

Of course money factors in heavily in all of this, but doesn't affect a purists view of the ACC. My take. I would hate to lose any of the 1st five for any reason. I would definitely not like to lose the next two. The following three would be disappointing for a single reason.... and the Florida schools....not so much as a tear drop would be shed...but who would take Miami now??

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Maryland for history
BC for academics
VT for geography

Florida St. ?
Miami ?


I would say that you are short-changing BC geography and Miami/FSU geography. Both open up huge markets for the ACC. On the other hand, I'm not sure what VT adds to the ACC geographic footprint. Additionally, I'd like to think that history counts for something, but I'm not certain that it does. If Clemson left, who would really weep? I would say that ACC priorities are likely in tiers:

Top Tier (dramatic change to conference identity)
Duke
UNC
UVa

Next Tier (Please don't go - you mean a lot to the conference)
NCSU
Wake
GaTech
BC

Third Tier (We'd rather you didn't, but if you must)
VaTech
Maryland

Fourth Tier (What's the phone number for Vandy and Syracuse?)
FSU or Miami
Clemson

Having said this, I think Miami might be persona non grata these days and might make this sort of thing easier. However, where would we schlep them off? Conf USA? I just doubt we'd rather not lose the state of FL...

[Indoor66]

I would say that you are short-changing BC geography and Miami/FSU geography. Both open up huge markets for the ACC. On the other hand, I'm not sure what VT adds to the ACC geographic footprint. Additionally, I'd like to think that history counts for something, but I'm not certain that it does. If Clemson left, who would really weep? I would say that ACC priorities are likely in tiers:

Top Tier (dramatic change to conference identity)
Duke
UNC
UVa

Next Tier (Please don't go - you mean a lot to the conference)
NCSU
Wake
GaTech
BC

Third Tier (We'd rather you didn't, but if you must)
VaTech
Maryland

Fourth Tier (What's the phone number for Vandy and Syracuse?)
FSU or Miami
Clemson

Having said this, I think Miami might be persona non grata these days and might make this sort of thing easier. However, where would we schlep them off? Conf USA? I just doubt we'd rather not lose the state of FL...

Miami may be looking back a the SMU penalties and ask why they couldn't get the same rather than what they get.

[arnie]

I would say that you are short-changing BC geography and Miami/FSU geography. Both open up huge markets for the ACC. On the other hand, I'm not sure what VT adds to the ACC geographic footprint. Additionally, I'd like to think that history counts for something, but I'm not certain that it does. If Clemson left, who would really weep? I would say that ACC priorities are likely in tiers:

Top Tier (dramatic change to conference identity)
Duke
UNC
UVa

Next Tier (Please don't go - you mean a lot to the conference)
NCSU
Wake
GaTech
BC

Third Tier (We'd rather you didn't, but if you must)
VaTech
Maryland

Fourth Tier (What's the phone number for Vandy and Syracuse?)
FSU or Miami
Clemson

Having said this, I think Miami might be persona non grata these days and might make this sort of thing easier. However, where would we schlep them off? Conf USA? I just doubt we'd rather not lose the state of FL...

I suspect that neither Miami or the Heels will loose more than a few scholarships and no more than one year of bowl eligiblity. If that happens and Swofford does nothing, I have to wonder why we are still in this conference. The heels violations are very serious to me, in that their football team has no academic credibility. They are simply there to play football and the school condones this. It may be time for Duke to move on.

[Newton_14]

Good article here that provides more detail on the cable market and TV aspect of all this. Mentions a scenario where Duke and UNC would move to the Big Ten in a package deal. That's a new one. Article focuses mainly on the SEC but also mentions Texas, OU and their situation, along with a blurb about the Big East.

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2011/08/19/bcs-football-texas-am-to-the-sec-how-the-big-12-might-respond-and-more/

[uh_no]

Good article here that provides more detail on the cable market and TV aspect of all this. Mentions a scenario where Duke and UNC would move to the Big Ten in a package deal. That's a new one. Article focuses mainly on the SEC but also mentions Texas, OU and their situation, along with a blurb about the Big East.

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2011/08/19/bcs-football-texas-am-to-the-sec-how-the-big-12-might-respond-and-more/

The article is HIGHLY speculative in nature and is mostly one persons opinion of what will happen. The author does a poor job of separating fact from opinion. It does, though, bring up a very intereting point: the health of the ACC. Since the realignment 7 years ago, people have been saying that a split in the big east is imminent, but it appears that if the league splits, it will be because of external forces, and not internally driven.

That said, the consensus has been that the big east and big 12 will be the leagues to dissolve, but I think one could make a fair argument at this point that it is the ACC which is more likely to dissolve. It sits right in the middle of 4 other conferences, and we've seen the football torn apart by scandal recently. I don't think its a stretch to see, as the article mentions, Duke and UNC go to the Big 10, with clemson, and gsu going to the SEC. Unfortunately, with the loss of some of its historical coaches, and the relative mediocrity of most of the ACC in basketball, in my opinion, aside from Duke and UNC, the ACC basketball brand is not as strong as it once was. I'm not sure, at this point, that brand is enough to hold the conference together, especially if we see these teams like Miami and GT flaunting the NCAA rules. UNC said last month that they will not tolerate that, and Duke obviously does not. The question would be, can UNC recover, and Duke improve enough to be a boon to Big 10 basketball without seriously compromising its football.

Do I show a big east bias? yes. I'd hate to see it broken up (yes, moreso than the ACC...not having grown up a Duke fan gives me no special affinity to the league, as much as I would love for it to be successful now) But I think the ACC is every bit as vulnerable as the big east, and the assumption that the Big east will not remain down the road is far from a given.

[A-Tex Devil]

So one of three things are going to happen:

1. The SEC will imminently invite a 14th (and perhaps 15th and 16th) team, going against everything they've said all along --- we don't ask people out, they ask us out.

2. The SEC will play with a 13 team league next year -- which means no divisions because I believe it's IMPOSSIBLE to have one 6 team and one 7 team division, and have everyone play the same number of games with no one playing each other twice.

3. The SEC will let A&M twist in the wind until next summer when this stuff should really be going down.

I have a very strong suspicion that it will be #3.

[Duvall]

So one of three things are going to happen:

1. The SEC will imminently invite a 14th (and perhaps 15th and 16th) team, going against everything they've said all along --- we don't ask people out, they ask us out.

2. The SEC will play with a 13 team league next year -- which means no divisions because I believe it's IMPOSSIBLE to have one 6 team and one 7 team division, and have everyone play the same number of games with no one playing each other twice.

3. The SEC will let A&M twist in the wind until next summer when this stuff should really be going down.

I have a very strong suspicion that it will be #3.

So, to sum up:

1) Everyone in the Big XII knows that Texas A&M wants to be in the SEC, but is still waiting for an invitation;

2) Everyone in the Big XII knows that Missouri would rather be in the Big Ten, but did not receive an invitation;

3) Everyone in the Big XII knows that Texas is prepared to drop any or all of the other teams in the league to take the best deal available at that particular moment; and

4) Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Baylor and Texas Tech know that the whole situation could blow up without warning and leave them out in the cold.

I kind of want to go to next year's Big XII Tournament.

[A-Tex Devil]

So, to sum up:

1) Everyone in the Big XII knows that Texas A&M wants to be in the SEC, but is still waiting for an invitation;

2) Everyone in the Big XII knows that Missouri would rather be in the Big Ten, but did not receive an invitation;

3) Everyone in the Big XII knows that Texas is prepared to drop any or all of the other teams in the league to take the best deal available at that particular moment; and

4) Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Baylor and Texas Tech know that the whole situation could blow up without warning and leave them out in the cold.

I kind of want to go to next year's Big XII Tournament.

Your #3 is not quite right. Texas is better for all sorts of reasons if the Big 12 stays together. Now, if things go sideways, Texas has options and is prepared to act on those options, so you are right in that sense. But Texas' number 1 goal is keeping the Big 12 alive.

The only teams I think will get left out in the cold if things go sideways are Iowa St. and Baylor. I think the Big East will snap up the Kansas schools and Mizzou immediately, and Tech will end up somewhere.

This all hinges on whether Mizzou gets plucked by the SEC. If it doesn't, and if the Big XII can add a BYU or even a Colorado St. Or hell, exist with 9 teams, which I think is just fine. Texas is going to hold this conference together as long as it can.

[formerdukeathlete]

.....................The question would be, can UNC recover, and Duke improve enough to be a boon to Big 10 basketball without seriously compromising its football.......



UNC likely works in Football well enough (looking beyond sanctions), given what they add in Basketball. Duke may very well work more than well enough in Football, with what is planned for the stadium, with recent improvements in the Football Program, given what we add in Basketball. I had not thought too much about membership in the Big 10. But, actually, it might be quite helpful for Duke in recruiting for a variety of reasons which I can get into if you would like.

[Newton_14]

Your #3 is not quite right. Texas is better for all sorts of reasons if the Big 12 stays together. Now, if things go sideways, Texas has options and is prepared to act on those options, so you are right in that sense. But Texas' number 1 goal is keeping the Big 12 alive.

The only teams I think will get left out in the cold if things go sideways are Iowa St. and Baylor. I think the Big East will snap up the Kansas schools and Mizzou immediately, and Tech will end up somewhere.

This all hinges on whether Mizzou gets plucked by the SEC. If it doesn't, and if the Big XII can add a BYU or even a Colorado St. Or hell, exist with 9 teams, which I think is just fine. Texas is going to hold this conference together as long as it can.

I half kid, but how bout Texas to the ACC, and we take Kansas, K-State, and Missouri to make the 16. We could also dump Miami and pick up either Syracuse or Pitt to replace them. Ok, like I said, I kid. Just playing fantasy conference there.

On a serious note, is there any scenario where the Big 12 survives as a BCS conference if Texas bolts for the Pac10 or Big 10? Does not seem likely. 2nd question, is if all this happens, will there be 4 "Super Conferences" or 5? If the answer is 4 then it seems only 1 of the Big 12, Big East, and ACC would survive. I would hate to see that happen, so hopefully we would end up with 5 Super Conferences and 2 of those 3 aforementioned conferences survive.

Either way it is going to be hard on the Big East Schools that do not have FBS Football teams which stinks really, because several of those are great basketball programs with lots of history. I personally would hate to see those schools left out in the cold if this new world becomes a reality.

[laxbluedevil]

Looks like Texas A and M and maybe VA Tech could be joining SEC very soon, as early as next week? 14-16 team leagues are worse than 12. Please see and participate in the "A new ACC" thread to discuss how all this affects the ACC, and what the future holds. There I wrote that Penn State TRIED TO JOIN the ACC, tried to join the Big East, then tried to from a new eastern all sports league with the likes of BC, Syracuse, Maryland, etc., and only when all of that failed did they reluctantly join the B10/11/12 in desperation to avoid being "left out in the cold" according to AD Paterno. A new eastern Atlantic League with Penn State, Syracuse, UConn, BC, UMD, UVA, Duke, UNC, GT, FSU, could be the best 10 school league ever, dominating half the US population and media and money, while scheduling home and home in hoops and playing all others in football which is the ONLY way to determine a true league champ.

[Newton_14]

Looks like Texas A and M and maybe VA Tech could be joining SEC very soon, as early as next week? 14-16 team leagues are worse than 12. Please see and participate in the "A new ACC" thread to discuss how all this affects the ACC, and what the future holds. There I wrote that Penn State TRIED TO JOIN the ACC, tried to join the Big East, then tried to from a new eastern all sports league with the likes of BC, Syracuse, Maryland, etc., and only when all of that failed did they reluctantly join the B10/11/12 in desperation to avoid being "left out in the cold" according to AD Paterno. A new eastern Atlantic League with Penn State, Syracuse, UConn, BC, UMD, UVA, Duke, UNC, GT, FSU, could be the best 10 school league ever, dominating half the US population and media and money, while scheduling home and home in hoops and playing all others in football which is the ONLY way to determine a true league champ.

A&M might well be headed to the SEC by next week, but do not see VaTech going anywhere. They are not abandoning UVA to go to the SEC. The SEC will get a partner for A&M to make 14 but I don't believe it will be Va Tech nor do I believe it will be Clemson.

[uh_no]

A&M might well be headed to the SEC by next week, but do not see VaTech going anywhere. They are not abandoning UVA to go to the SEC. The SEC will get a partner for A&M to make 14 but I don't believe it will be Va Tech nor do I believe it will be Clemson.

Just curious, then, who do you think it will be? another big 12er? one of the more out of the way big east teams?

[Newton_14]

Just curious, then, who do you think it will be? another big 12er? one of the more out of the way big east teams?

I would think either Mizzou or FSU. Mizzou is not ideal as the SEC would have to put one of them in the East Division. FSU would be a better fit, but Florida willl be against them joining. It will be interesting to see who the 2nd team is. One school I have not heard mentioned in any of this is Southern Miss. They have long wanted to get into the SEC. They could slide in nicely with A&M and go into the East Division. My wife is a Southern Miss grad and her family is from Biloxi, so they would jump for joy, but again, have not heard their name mentioned in any of this (likely because no one wants them). Football wise they would not be a bad selection, but their Basketball program would have to improve a lot.

[formerdukeathlete]

I would think either Mizzou or FSU. Mizzou is not ideal as the SEC would have to put one of them in the East Division. FSU would be a better fit, but Florida willl be against them joining. It will be interesting to see who the 2nd team is. One school I have not heard mentioned in any of this is Southern Miss. They have long wanted to get into the SEC. They could slide in nicely with A&M and go into the East Division. My wife is a Southern Miss grad and her family is from Biloxi, so they would jump for joy, but again, have not heard their name mentioned in any of this (likely because no one wants them). Football wise they would not be a bad selection, but their Basketball program would have to improve a lot.

yes, but that would not work if the plans are that the new team must be accretive to the TV contract. That is the problem with Florida State, Clemson, they add national and regional interest, but probably are dilutive (ultimate payouts per school) on the TV contract. That would not be the case with Va Tech. I hope we don't lose anyone. But, if we do, this all will heat up pretty quickly. As lax devil has pointed out, Penn State is not all that enthralled with the Big Ten, that is their fans are not. If we are down one, we should pick up the phone and give Jo Pa a call.

[sagegrouse]

I would think either Mizzou or FSU. Mizzou is not ideal as the SEC would have to put one of them in the East Division. FSU would be a better fit, but Florida willl be against them joining. It will be interesting to see who the 2nd team is. One school I have not heard mentioned in any of this is Southern Miss. They have long wanted to get into the SEC. They could slide in nicely with A&M and go into the East Division. My wife is a Southern Miss grad and her family is from Biloxi, so they would jump for joy, but again, have not heard their name mentioned in any of this (likely because no one wants them). Football wise they would not be a bad selection, but their Basketball program would have to improve a lot.

Uh,... The addition of Southern Mississippi to the SEC is about as likely as the ADs of Duke, UNC, State and Wake driving to Greenville and pleading with ECU officials to apply to the ACC.

sagegrouse

[devildeac]

Uh,... The addition of Southern Mississippi to the SEC is about as likely as the ADs of Duke, UNC, State and Wake driving to Greenville and pleading with ECU officials to apply to the ACC.

sagegrouse

Or:
2027

[Newton_14]

Uh,... The addition of Southern Mississippi to the SEC is about as likely as the ADs of Duke, UNC, State and Wake driving to Greenville and pleading with ECU officials to apply to the ACC.

sagegrouse

Actually, that is the perfect comparison. ECU has long wanted to join the ACC as everyone knows, and their hopes & chances pretty much equals Southern's hope & chances of getting into the SEC. Just ain't gonna happen. Pigs will fly and all that...

[throatybeard]

Thread title altered to reflect recent developments.

Say the SEC gets Texas A&M and (I still have a hard time featuring this) Missouri. Would Auburn be amenable to being moved into the East, obviously with Bama as their fixed scheduling partner?

[johnb]

Missouri wouldn't want to be left in the cold, but I'm not sure it sees itself as adequately southern or adequately felonious.

[A-Tex Devil]

Thread title altered to reflect recent developments.

Say the SEC gets Texas A&M and (I still have a hard time featuring this) Missouri. Would Auburn be amenable to being moved into the East, obviously with Bama as their fixed scheduling partner?

I am still trying to contemplate a 13 team league. The Big Sky is doing it this year with an 8 game conference slate, but there are some inherent limitations to it.

- You can't have divisions. It's impossible to do this with a balanced schedule.
- How do you determine the championship game? Top 2, I guess?
- Even if you go to a 9 game schedule, you won't play 3 teams. 8 game schedule, you won't play 4 teams. What happens when Kentucky goes 6-2 without having to play 'Bama, LSU, Florida and Arkansas, then makes the championship game? People are going to be pissed.
- The tiebreakers will make 2008 Big XII South problems look like child's play

[Greg_Newton]

Thread title altered to reflect recent developments.

Say the SEC gets Texas A&M and (I still have a hard time featuring this) Missouri. Would Auburn be amenable to being moved into the East, obviously with Bama as their fixed scheduling partner?

This would be interesting in that it could set up Alabama-Auburn SEC Championship games. I suppose the implications of them playing back-to-back immediately before BCSmastime could be unappealing, though.

[ForkFondler]

This would be interesting in that it could set up Alabama-Auburn SEC Championship games. I suppose the implications of them playing back-to-back immediately before BCSmastime could be unappealing, though.

Back when FSU-Miami was supposed to be the usual ACC title game, they deliberately scheduled the "first" game early in the season.

[jimsumner]

Missouri wouldn't want to be left in the cold, but I'm not sure it sees itself as adequately southern or adequately felonious.

I get the joke but I'm not sure us ACC partisans are in a great position to assert moral superiority. :)

[blazindw]

This would be interesting in that it could set up Alabama-Auburn SEC Championship games. I suppose the implications of them playing back-to-back immediately before BCSmastime could be unappealing, though.

This is exactly what Michigan and Ohio State fans were talking about when they created the Big Ten divisions with the two in opposite divisions. The Game would be played the week before the Big Ten Championship that could possibly feature them. The Game should never be played twice unless one is for the national championship, in my mind.

[fan345678]

Thread title altered to reflect recent developments.

Say the SEC gets Texas A&M and (I still have a hard time featuring this) Missouri. Would Auburn be amenable to being moved into the East, obviously with Bama as their fixed scheduling partner?

Auburn and Bama would probably both be moved to the east, with Missouri and Texas moving into the west.

[fan345678]

Auburn and Bama would probably both be moved to the east, with Missouri and Texas moving into the west.

geez...my math is off...brain fried by fantasy draft and too late to edit the post, apparently

[formerdukeathlete]

Missouri wouldn't want to be left in the cold, but I'm not sure it sees itself as adequately southern or adequately felonious.

Missouri does border Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee and the St. Louis and Kansas City tv markets are pretty substantial.

[Klemnop]

A&M might well be headed to the SEC by next week, but do not see VaTech going anywhere. They are not abandoning UVA to go to the SEC. The SEC will get a partner for A&M to make 14 but I don't believe it will be Va Tech nor do I believe it will be Clemson.

http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-blog/dp-teel-time-vt-spokesman-calls-hokiestosec-buzz-poppycock-20110831,0,4697023.story

I'm not sure if it is worth anything, or not, but there is nothing nearly as strong coming out of Clemson. The carefully worded statements from TigerTown are, essentially, "We support the ACC as currently constituted..."

There may or may not be truth to the UF/UGA/USC blockade of FSU/CLEM/GaTech. But if FSU does get an invite and CLEM is also offered as part of an expansion to 16 teams, I think Clemson bolts. And that is 100% uninformed speculation.

[Chicago 1995]

Looks like Texas A and M and maybe VA Tech could be joining SEC very soon, as early as next week? 14-16 team leagues are worse than 12. Please see and participate in the "A new ACC" thread to discuss how all this affects the ACC, and what the future holds. There I wrote that Penn State TRIED TO JOIN the ACC, tried to join the Big East, then tried to from a new eastern all sports league with the likes of BC, Syracuse, Maryland, etc., and only when all of that failed did they reluctantly join the B10/11/12 in desperation to avoid being "left out in the cold" according to AD Paterno. A new eastern Atlantic League with Penn State, Syracuse, UConn, BC, UMD, UVA, Duke, UNC, GT, FSU, could be the best 10 school league ever, dominating half the US population and media and money, while scheduling home and home in hoops and playing all others in football which is the ONLY way to determine a true league champ.

No one, not even Penn State, is going to leave the Big 10 given the money making machine Jim Delaney has created for that conference with the Big 10 Network and its TV deals. No one.

And 10 team leagues are a thing of the past. 12 is the bare minimum, and the sooner we all realize that we're moving toward a "Super 64" with 4 16 team conferences, the better it will be.

Duke's in a better spot that Baylor, Texas Tech, K State, Iowa State or Wake, but because our football program is so weak and facilities so subpar compared to other BCS schools, Duke needs to be proactive in its thinking here, lest it get left in the cold. Could Duke Basketball survive and thrive as an independant? Maybe. I don't think we want to find out though.

Even being in Illinois, I don't much care for the thought of Duke joining the Big 10, but if the offer comes, it might be too good to refuse. Safe haven in a league that's profitability is through the roof? We'd have to think long and hard about it, lest we be stuck in a conference that's the left overs of the ACC and Big East.

[A-Tex Devil]

The real reason (http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/2011/08/31/when-the-longhorn-network-all-came-apart/) the Aggies don't like the Longhorn Network. This is a reconstructed conversation, but my knowledge of Bill Byrne (Aggie AD) and DeLoss Dodds (UT AD) leads me to believe that it went down very similarly to this.

For some context..... LHN was originally supposed to be a partnered property between UT and A&M. Oh..... and Kyle Field has had some serious bat guano and cricket problems the last 5 years.

[formerdukeathlete]

No one, not even Penn State, is going to leave the Big 10 given the money making machine Jim Delaney has created for that conference with the Big 10 Network and its TV deals. No one.

And 10 team leagues are a thing of the past. 12 is the bare minimum, and the sooner we all realize that we're moving toward a "Super 64" with 4 16 team conferences, the better it will be.

Duke's in a better spot that Baylor, Texas Tech, K State, Iowa State or Wake, but because our football program is so weak and facilities so subpar compared to other BCS schools, Duke needs to be proactive in its thinking here, lest it get left in the cold. Could Duke Basketball survive and thrive as an independant? Maybe. I don't think we want to find out though.

Even being in Illinois, I don't much care for the thought of Duke joining the Big 10, but if the offer comes, it might be too good to refuse. Safe haven in a league that's profitability is through the roof? We'd have to think long and hard about it, lest we be stuck in a conference that's the left overs of the ACC and Big East.



This season will settle the matter of how (perennially) weak our Football Program is. Cut does have everything in place facilities wise for practice and player development. The stadium is pretty awful, but we do have the outlines of a workable plan to substantially renovate the stadium and increase capacity. Duke and UNC would move, if at all, together, don't you think?

[Chicago 1995]

This season will settle the matter of how (perennially) weak our Football Program is. Cut does have everything in place facilities wise for practice and player development. The stadium is pretty awful, but we do have the outlines of a workable plan to substantially renovate the stadium and increase capacity. Duke and UNC would move, if at all, together, don't you think?

One season isn't going to matter in football, and at some level, football's never going to matter enough at Duke for these discussions. We're never going to have the draw that schools with much bigger student bodies and alumni bases will have. We aren't going to fill a 50,000 seat stadium, let alone 70K or more. Showing that we can be competative -- like Vandy or NW -- will help, but our value to a conference is basketball and academics. At some level, the trip to China and Dubai was some nice muscle flexing, showing the draw and financial resources of our basketball program.

I think Duke and UNC are joined at the hip, but I worry that means we're joined to NC State too. If we are linked to State *and* Carolina, then Duke's only destination is whatever 4th 16 team conference is made from the leftovers of the Big East, ACC and Big XII after the Big 10, SEC and Pac 12 have had their pick.

[Mal]

No one, not even Penn State, is going to leave the Big 10 given the money making machine Jim Delaney has created for that conference with the Big 10 Network and its TV deals. No one.

No! Don't go there! :eek: See the "A New ACC" thread and tremble in fear, Chicago 1995. That way madness lies. Let's not allow a couple of posters who think there's some real world possibility of a PSU unicorn leaving the Big Ten to be the lynchpin football program of a mythical new eastern seaboard conference take another thread down that rabbit hole.

[A-Tex Devil]

Here are the realistic outcomes of the movement we may see in 2011 (I don't want to predict out too much in the future) to begin play in either 2012 or 2013. Obviously some combination of these things can happen, but I've tried to distill them into the most distinct scenarios. Whether mentioned or not, all scenarios assume A&M --> SEC

1. SEC takes A&M. That's it.
2. SEC takes A&M and Big XII replaces it with one team (likely BYU)
3. SEC takes A&M and Mizzou, leading UT, TTech, OU, OSU to head to the Pac 12 and make it a Pac 16.
4. SEC takes A&M and an ACC team. ACC team poaches Big East (likely Pitt), Big 12 poaches one team (likely BYU)
5. OU in the next few weeks decides it wants to force Texas' hand and move to the Pac 12 with teams mentioned in #3 (this is similar to #3, but Mizzou doesn't have an SEC invite.
6. SEC takes Texas A&M, Mizzou and 2 ACC teams. Not sure what this might trigger. Maybe armageddon, maybe simple replacement, killing Big East in process.
7. SEC takes Texas A&M and 3 ACC teams. Again, no idea what happens in this scenario, but this is the least likely in my opinion.

Out of all of this, there are 2 thing I am sure of: (1) the teams currently in the Big Ten, Pac 12 and SEC aren't going anywhere and (2) Texas isn't going to the SEC. And I'm 90% sure the core 8 teams of the ACC aren't going anywhere.

[JasonEvans]

There is little question that conference realignment is coming. The question has to be will there be 4 or 5 super conferences left when all is said and done.

The Pac whatever, Big Ten (with more than ten teams), and SEC will survive for sure. The question has to be if they will stick with 12 teams or go to 14 or 16. Many seem to think 16 is the most likely eventual size. If it is, I think there will end up only being 4 major conferences. Will the ACC or the Big East or the Big 12 be the 4th? The ACC would seem to have the inside track, likely absorbing some Big East teams.

If they stick with 12 or 14 teams, I think 5 super conferences will survive and the ACC is certainly safe. Whether the Big 12 or Big East are the 5th conference, it is hard to say. I suspect the Big East has the best chance of survival here.

-Jason "I think we will see a move to 14 by the SEC and then the Pac Ten will go to 16 and that will start a move to 4 16 team conferences in the next 4-5 years" Evans

[throatybeard]

geez...my math is off...brain fried by fantasy draft and too late to edit the post, apparently

Yeah, so to have seven teams apiece, only one school goes east. Not only is Auburn the easternmost, they have an intense rivalry with Georgia, and Florida used to be one of their fixed opponents when the format was still two fixed opponents in the opposite division. You make Bama their fixed opponent.

It's problematic. Not only would you lose Auburn-LSU, Auburn-OM, Auburn-MSU, but Bama loses Tennessee as their fixed opponent in the east.

The SEC has pocket aces with a flop of A25 unsuited, and they're sitting on the button. If I'm Slive, I wait for everyone else to bet before I do. Their present situation is just too good to mess it up by changing the game to Omaha in mid-hand. I think my poker analogy just broke down.

They can even afford to let A&M twist in the wind for a year. Think A&M would get their feelings hurt and refuse the life preserver a year later? I don't think so.

[brevity]

12 is the bare minimum, and the sooner we all realize that we're moving toward a "Super 64" with 4 16 team conferences, the better it will be.

I share this line of thinking... but what ARE the Super 64? (I assume that Notre Dame and BYU ultimately stay independent in football.)

Right now there are 12 teams in the ACC, SEC, Big Ten, and Pac-12, plus 8 Big East football teams and 10 Big XII teams. That's 66. Next year TCU will be the 67th.

Most people will agree that the teams in the Big Ten, Pac-12, and SEC aren't leaving their conferences. That's 36 teams right there, including Utah, which lucked out big time.

I believe OlympicFan posted a conference power hierarchy in the ACC thread, which I generally agree with, except that I would rank the SEC 1st and the Big Ten 2nd. I have no doubt that the money favors the Big Ten, but if we're talking conference expansion based on football, the SEC will act before the Big Ten, and more forcefully. (Ultimately, it may not matter. Aside from Texas, and maybe Maryland, I don't think the SEC and the Big Ten would be interested in the same schools.)

Texas A&M is headed to the SEC. That's 37. I have no idea what the SEC will do long term, but they should add Texas, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State. (I'm sure that Texas state politics will factor heavily in this decision, but that's what the rest of this thread is for.)

If the SEC is stupid and looks eastward rather than westward, then the Pac-12 will grab Texas, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State. They have to. Because of geography they have the fewest options, and would prefer killing the Big XII over elevating 4 more Mountain West teams. That's 40. I'm not sure what Texas Tech brings to the table there; Missouri is a much more attractive 16th team. So that's 41.

Assuming that the Pac-12 acts first to get to 16, and that Texas is uninterested in following A&M, the SEC could invade the ACC for Clemson, FSU, and Maryland. (Not a given, but more feasible than other ACC options.) That's 44.

The Big Ten's conservatism will result in fewer available teams by the time it decides to expand. Assuming Missouri and Maryland are already gone, the best available teams are Syracuse, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, and... Rutgers? I don't know. Pickings are already looking slim. That's 48: three 16-team megaconferences. (And the Big Ten can start calling itself the Big Sixteen, before a horde of math professors understandably kills the university presidents.)

The Big XII and the Big East (football version) are dead. This leaves the remaining 9 ACC teams to pick up the Eastern Time Zone scraps: Connecticut, South Florida, Louisville, Cincinnati. That's 13 ACC teams, 61 power teams total. Filling in the last 3 is where it gets ugly. The 6 unclaimed teams are TCU, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Texas Tech, and Baylor. I doubt the ACC is that interested in any of them; elevating, say, Memphis, Temple, and Central Florida would make more geographic sense. That's 64.

If you read this and think, no way Maryland does that, you're missing the point. You can disagree; I don't care. But... if you read this and conclude that this is a messed-up situation, not because tradition is being abandoned but because these grabs for 16 seem random and nonsensical, well, that IS the point. You can create any number of alternative speculations where the ACC is proactive so that it doesn't have to add 7(!) new teams, and the 2 big Texas schools bury the hatchet, and the Big Ten gives its Nebraska outpost some company. But what you should realize from all this is that everything revolves around (1) which conference acts first, and (2) what Texas wants to do.

[A-Tex Devil]

Texas A&M is headed to the SEC. That's 37. I have no idea what the SEC will do long term, but they should add Texas, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State. (I'm sure that Texas state politics will factor heavily in this decision, but that's what the rest of this thread is for.)



There are 2 scenarios I see in the superconference alignment, both hinging on Texas.

The more likely scenario is that Texas goes with OU, Tech and OSU to Pac 12 -- 16 teams there.

SEC picks up Va Tech, NC State and Mizzou (along with A&M) -- 16 teams there

Big Ten picks up Pitt, KU, KSU and ND -- 16 teams there

ACC survives and adds Syracuse, Louisville, Rutgers and TCU

That leaves BYU, Iowa St., USF and Baylor on the outside looking in, but BYU will be the new Notre Dame. (edited to add -- not in success, but as an independent that can schedule, etc.)

You can switch a few of those teams up, but you get the idea.

The second scenario, if Texas gets greedy, is to start a brand new national conference with ND, OU, Tech, OSU and pieces of the Big East and ACC (and unrealistic as it might be, don't think it's not being considered). "We're Texas" after all. :D

I do believe ND will end up somewhere if the super conference scenario occurs. Only because I be there will be 10 game conference schedules and not many non-conference games.

[throatybeard]

I don't know what to think, but I'm gradually coming to the conclusion that it's best for Duke if this happens sooner rather than later. Even if David Cutcliffe turns out to be David Copperfield and we go 7-5, 8-4 for an extended stretch, we still aren't an attractive gate draw or television property in football. And that's best case scenario. We need to sneak into the Cartel of 64 based on our basketball strength and our historical ties to State and Carolina. If this happens in ten years instead of the next few, and Mike Krzyzewski has retired, and we're going a respectable but unimpressive 22-11 in MBB or something like that, we run the risk of becoming completely irrelevant. I wish we lived in a culture where WBB and LX and our other sports were more valued, but we don't. So if there's going to be a Lord of the Flies-style musical chairs scramble, Duke probably needs it to happen while Krzyzewski is still around. Otherwise it's time to get out of the dirty business and make like Chicago.

[formerdukeathlete]

I don't know what to think, but I'm gradually coming to the conclusion that it's best for Duke if this happens sooner rather than later. Even if David Cutcliffe turns out to be David Copperfield and we go 7-5, 8-4 for an extended stretch, we still aren't an attractive gate draw or television property in football. And that's best case scenario. We need to sneak into the Cartel of 64 based on our basketball strength and our historical ties to State and Carolina. If this happens in ten years instead of the next few, and Mike Krzyzewski has retired, and we're going a respectable but unimpressive 22-11 in MBB or something like that, we run the risk of becoming completely irrelevant. I wish we lived in a culture where WBB and LX and our other sports were more valued, but we don't. So if there's going to be a Lord of the Flies-style musical chairs scramble, Duke probably needs it to happen while Krzyzewski is still around. Otherwise it's time to get out of the dirty business and make like Chicago.

Duke BB revenue, plus FB revenue is above average last time I looked at the numbers among who would likely be "Cartel of 64." We may need a new Basketball arena going forward, but we can float that. Add respectability in Football. To the degree I feel a bit apprehensive about where we will end up after all expansion is said and done, its not about what we have to offer.

[pfrduke]

duke bb revenue, plus fb revenue is above average last time i looked at the numbers among who would likely be "cartel of 64." we may need a new basketball arena going forward, but we can float that. Add respectability in football. To the degree i feel a bit apprehensive about where we will end up after all expansion is said and done, its not about what we have to offer.

Heresy!

[SCMatt33]

I don't know what to think, but I'm gradually coming to the conclusion that it's best for Duke if this happens sooner rather than later. Even if David Cutcliffe turns out to be David Copperfield and we go 7-5, 8-4 for an extended stretch, we still aren't an attractive gate draw or television property in football. And that's best case scenario. We need to sneak into the Cartel of 64 based on our basketball strength and our historical ties to State and Carolina. If this happens in ten years instead of the next few, and Mike Krzyzewski has retired, and we're going a respectable but unimpressive 22-11 in MBB or something like that, we run the risk of becoming completely irrelevant. I wish we lived in a culture where WBB and LX and our other sports were more valued, but we don't. So if there's going to be a Lord of the Flies-style musical chairs scramble, Duke probably needs it to happen while Krzyzewski is still around. Otherwise it's time to get out of the dirty business and make like Chicago.

I think how "good" you are in either football or basketball gets somewhat overrated in this conversation. It only matters to the extent that you generate good TV match-ups to up the value of a cable tv deal. At the end of the day, current teams in a conference only make marginally more money by adding new teams. Take the SEC. How much more money per year will teams like Florida and Alabama make from the addition of TA&M and someone like Mizzou, FSU, or Va Tech? It can't be more than 2-5 million per year, and I think that may be a pretty liberal number. I know the Pac-10 got a huge upgrade after becoming the Pac-12, but I think most of that was driven by their out of date deal, and less by the addition of Utah and Colorado. The marginal returns get lower after 12 teams as well, since there is the one time benefit of adding a championship game at 12. After that, you only get what a new team brings to the table, and that gets split more and more ways as you add more teams.

The other side of it is looking at what will happen for teams competitively. Once you get past 12, do you really want to bring in teams that are going to regularly take championships from you for a couple million a year. When you add Texas A&M to the SEC, it isn't that big of a deal since they haven't been relevant on a BCS level in some time, but teams like Mizzou and Va Tech could threaten that dynamic in the SEC. Will they start winning more titles than Florida and Alabama? Probably not. But its not unreasonable to think that they will steal one every once in a while, and they are certainly good enough to be a spoiler year in and year out.

The other thing that I believe doesn't get talked about as much as it should is the BCS cap of two teams per conference. Two teams out of twelve isn't that bad, but two out of 16 is something that will cause some hesitation when the extra 4 teams are good enough to compete for those spots. I think this dynamic creates a bit of a prisoners dilemma that could prevent conferences from going to 16 right away and could cause the major shift to be 5 14 team leagues instead of 4 16 team leagues. With 4 super conferences, the current BCS bowls could only be filled by increasing the conference limit, so it would be in the best interest of the 4 leagues expected to survive to allow this to happen. I don't know how the BCS works, but I assume that you would need at least 4 leagues to approve a move on this front. The problem is that there are three leagues who aren't guaranteed to survive a move to 4 superleagues. Even for the leagues that are guaranteed to survive such a move, it wouldn't necessarily be prudent for all of them to approve that measure if there aren't two leagues about to fold. With 6 auto bids, allowing three teams per league would allow one league (most likely the SEC) to take up half of the at large bids in a single year.

The other issue is that in a few weeks, we could end up with three more BCS teams than we had 18 months ago, with Utah, TCU, and now possibly BYU. That would put the number of BCS football teams (including ND) at 69. I think with the attitude of most being one of survival, it becomes more likely that a 70th team gets added with minor realignment than 5 teams getting left out in the cold with massive realignment.

[-jk]

Duke BB revenue, plus FB revenue is above average last time I looked at the numbers among who would likely be "Cartel of 64." We may need a new Basketball arena going forward, but we can float that. Add respectability in Football. To the degree I feel a bit apprehensive about where we will end up after all expansion is said and done, its not about what we have to offer.

We will probably get rid of the track around the football field and perhaps add other, more significant changes to Wade, but I don't see any changes to the guts of Cameron. Some tweaks around the edges, perhaps, but nothing major inside. I can't see Duke making more money with a bigger arena - donations to get into Cameron so far outstrip ticket sales now it wouldn't make sense.

-jk

[JasonEvans]

I didn't want to quote all of SCMatt's post, but in response to some of the questions he raised let me throw this out...

If there is a move to 4 or 5 superconferences of 64-70 total teams, I think those conferences would decide there is no reason for them to continue to support all the little guys. They would secede from the NCAA and form their own national championship in football and basketball where they would split the money and not share it with all the other schools who contribute only marginally to the pie.

If you are Texas, Michigan, UCLA, North Carolina, Notre Dame,Florida, and so on... why on Earth are you going to share any money with Temple, Central Michigan, Rice, San Diego St, or Hawaii? And that is just some of the bigger name among the also-rans -- why would you share with Arkansas St., Louisiana-Monroe, Ball St, or 200+ other teams who share in Division I Basketball tournament revenues?

This is about maximizing money. Some of the ADs and Presidents are going to know that the best way to do that is to form super conferences and leave the insane rule book and bureaucracy of the NCAA behind.

Among the things that will happen --

In football, they will form a 4 or 8 or maybe even 16-team college football playoff that will bring in hundreds of millions. They will have 20 or 30 other teams playing in bowls.
They will form their own basketball tournament. Sure, they won't have a few schools like Gonzaga, Butler, Xavier, and Temple in their tourney, but it won't take long for all the high quality recruits to stop going to those schools and start only attending schools with a chance to win the real national title among the super teams.
They will probably throw out the entire NCAA rule book and set up their own. My bet is that it will be a lot simpler.
They may decide the best way to curb cheating is to just break down and start paying players, at least a little bit. Heck, they may even decide to pay the players a lot as an inducement to keep them in school and produce better quality of play along with more established stars which should lead to higher TV ratings.
As for the other sports... like women's hoops, LAX, track, swimming, golf, and so on... I suspect the new super conferences would just stage their own national titles and tournaments in those sports too. Who knows, maybe by only involving the big institutions, there might be a bit more fan interest in those sports and they might come closer to breaking even.


I could be wrong about this, I fully admit that. But, if maximum revenues are the goal, then this has to happen, right? Where is the logic in operating under old rules and old revenue sharing systems when you can break off and form your own rules and revenues? Can anyone make a monetary case for the power conferences remaining hitched to the old NCAA?

-Jason "I am not wishing for this, but I am not sure it is such a bad thing either" Evans

[Class of '94]

I'm curious as to why there are still some that think Va Tech to the SEC will eventually happen? Considering that they had wanted to be in the ACC for years and was finally invited (thanks to some strong political pressure and intervention), I just don't see Va Tech leaving the ACC for the SEC unless the ACC dissolved. Moreover, they've been very definitive in their press releases that they are very happy and committed to the ACC. And as many have noted, the ACC academically is way more prestigious than the SEC; and I think Va Tech values that side of their ACC affiliation as well. Saying that, anything can happen obviously; And keep in mind that A&M appeared to pursue the SEC while Va Tech hasn't. The SEC would have to pursue Va Tech and if the SEC is image conscious, I think they'd have to be very careful in trying to get Va Tech.

My hope is that the ACC becomes proactive and not reactive with conference expansion as a way of strengthening the league and protecting it from being raided by the SEC, the Big 10, or anyone else. Personally, I'd love to see them aggressively pursue Notre Dame again; and make some additional bold moves to help the conference since I, too, believe that 14-16 team superconferences are just a matter of time.

[Newton_14]

I didn't want to quote all of SCMatt's post, but in response to some of the questions he raised let me throw this out...

Among the things that will happen --

In football, they will form a 4 or 8 or maybe even 16-team college football playoff that will bring in hundreds of millions. They will have 20 or 30 other teams playing in bowls.
They will form their own basketball tournament. Sure, they won't have a few schools like Gonzaga, Butler, Xavier, and Temple in their tourney, but it won't take long for all the high quality recruits to stop going to those schools and start only attending schools with a chance to win the real national title among the super teams.
They will probably throw out the entire NCAA rule book and set up their own. My bet is that it will be a lot simpler.
They may decide the best way to curb cheating is to just break down and start paying players, at least a little bit. Heck, they may even decide to pay the players a lot as an inducement to keep them in school and produce better quality of play along with more established stars which should lead to higher TV ratings.
As for the other sports... like women's hoops, LAX, track, swimming, golf, and so on... I suspect the new super conferences would just stage their own national titles and tournaments in those sports too. Who knows, maybe by only involving the big institutions, there might be a bit more fan interest in those sports and they might come closer to breaking even.


I could be wrong about this, I fully admit that. But, if maximum revenues are the goal, then this has to happen, right? Where is the logic in operating under old rules and old revenue sharing systems when you can break off and form your own rules and revenues? Can anyone make a monetary case for the power conferences remaining hitched to the old NCAA?

-Jason "I am not wishing for this, but I am not sure it is such a bad thing either" Evans

Unfortunately, I agree with you Jason. It would be great for Football, but terrible for March Madness. For purist anyway. People tune in hoping to see Northern Iowa take out Kansas in the early rounds, but it will not be nearly as exciting to watch Miss St "upset" Kansas on the first day of the tourney. That will be a sad day if/when it happens.

Great for the gridiron, bad for hoops. Basketball plays 2nd fiddle again...

[SCMatt33]

In football, they will form a 4 or 8 or maybe even 16-team college football playoff that will bring in hundreds of millions. They will have 20 or 30 other teams playing in bowls.
They will form their own basketball tournament. Sure, they won't have a few schools like Gonzaga, Butler, Xavier, and Temple in their tourney, but it won't take long for all the high quality recruits to stop going to those schools and start only attending schools with a chance to win the real national title among the super teams.
They will probably throw out the entire NCAA rule book and set up their own. My bet is that it will be a lot simpler.
They may decide the best way to curb cheating is to just break down and start paying players, at least a little bit. Heck, they may even decide to pay the players a lot as an inducement to keep them in school and produce better quality of play along with more established stars which should lead to higher TV ratings.
As for the other sports... like women's hoops, LAX, track, swimming, golf, and so on... I suspect the new super conferences would just stage their own national titles and tournaments in those sports too. Who knows, maybe by only involving the big institutions, there might be a bit more fan interest in those sports and they might come closer to breaking even.


I could be wrong about this, I fully admit that. But, if maximum revenues are the goal, then this has to happen, right? Where is the logic in operating under old rules and old revenue sharing systems when you can break off and form your own rules and revenues? Can anyone make a monetary case for the power conferences remaining hitched to the old NCAA?

-Jason "I am not wishing for this, but I am not sure it is such a bad thing either" Evans

I'm not sure that a new umbrella organization, similar to the NCAA in terms of revenue sharing, oversight, and operating multiple championships, but only for 64-70 schools, would be feasible. The big problem with this is that it would be hard to get those schools within 4-5 conferences to agree on basic rules. Without precedent, whose to stop the SEC from insisting that there are no minimum academic requirements for athletes. John Infante of the Bylaw Blog wrote a great article on the subject (http://www.ncaa.org/blog/2011/07/life-after-the-ncaa/) about a month ago. For instance, why would a new organization pay so much money to fund championships in money losing sports when there's nothing compelling them to do it. This is after all, about making money, and the other sports do nothing but drain money for marginal benefits. I think that many schools are aware that the time, efforts, and costs in forming a new organization are great, and it may not happen for several years, if not decades. In the meantime, with the new contract that the Pac-12 just got and the emergence of the Longhorn Network, I don't the Pac-12 trying to jump to 14 or 16 right now, and even if they did, I don't see Texas jumping on the change if they have to fold in the Longhorn Network to the new Pac-12 regional networks.

For the immediate future, I see the SEC taking A&M plus one more from the Big 12 or ACC. BYU will replace A&M, and the other school will be replaced by poaching one team from the Big East.

[bbq-devil]

First time poster but long time reader so please be gentle.

First I agree with Jason. I have thought all along that the NCAA's days are numbered if this consolidation of conferences happens. The four superconferneces will have their own playoff in football and have their own 64 team "March Madness" and ESPN et. al. will pay big money to carry it. College athletics will change forever (not sure if this is for the good or bad)

If the consensus is that at the end of all this madness that we will be left with 4 (or maybe 5) superconferences then IMHO the ACC should get proactive and expand to 16 teams now. In this way they have a better chance of holding on to current membership (Miami excluded if they get the Death Penalty), get a better selection of the teams from the Big East or Big IX, and not get left with the leftovers of SEC and BigX expansion. If they choose wisely they may even be able to renegotiate the ESPN deal. My fear is that if the ACC takes it usual conservative approach the SEC/BigX will poach a few of our teams and the ACC as we know it will be scrambling just to survive.

There are rumors all over several of the BigX boards that the BigX would love to have UNC and Duke. It increases TV viewership for the BigX network and adds quite a bit to BBall. I don't think this will ever happen unless the ACC falls apart due to inaction. If that happens who knows?

I say if Armageddon is coming I would personally like to see the ACC come out fighting and have some control of its own destiny rather than let that destiny be dictated by the SEC and BigX.

bbq-devil

[nocilla]

I haven't followed this nearly as much as you guys, but isn't it possible that the landscape really doesn't change that much? Say A&M does go to the SEC, then the SEC grabs one more to keep it even like UCF. Then the Big 12 grabs teams like Nevada, BYU, Boise St, or TCU to get them back to 12. That would leave the BCS conferences intact. Even if the SEC takes USF from the BE or an ACC team, they could be replaced by a Villanova or ECU.

My point is that I don't think the whole thing will just be blown up. There apparently will continue to be some movement as A&M has indicated, but (IMHO) I don't see the super conferences happening anytime soon.

[A-Tex Devil]

I haven't followed this nearly as much as you guys, but isn't it possible that the landscape really doesn't change that much? Say A&M does go to the SEC, then the SEC grabs one more to keep it even like UCF. Then the Big 12 grabs teams like Nevada, BYU, Boise St, or TCU to get them back to 12. That would leave the BCS conferences intact. Even if the SEC takes USF from the BE or an ACC team, they could be replaced by a Villanova or ECU.

My point is that I don't think the whole thing will just be blown up. There apparently will continue to be some movement as A&M has indicated, but (IMHO) I don't see the super conferences happening anytime soon.

I think your first paragraph is extremely likely (although it won't be UCF --- it would be Missouri or an ACC school). The problem is that if it's Mizzou, the Big XII (i.e. Texas and Oklahoma) can either add BYU and Pitt, or move to the Pac 12.

The problem with teams like Villanova (already rejected by the Big East as a football school), Boise St. (a generation removed from a junior college and a one trick pony) and TCU (a new power player in football with a small alumni base), is that they don't bring anything to the table for Newscorp/Fox, Disney/ESPN, Viacom/CBS and NBC/COMCAST. As SCMatt mentioned, it's not about wins and losses as much as it is TV sets and media markets.

I was shocked the Big East took on TCU. It's a great move for TCU, but the Big East bought high here in my view.

And if the Big XII can't pull BYU or Pitt in to replace A&M, I think Texas and OU will begin making some noise. If the Pac 12 won't let Texas have some semblance of the LHN, Texas may very well go independent, if only temporarily. They can then reneogtiate with the networks for Tier 1 and Tier 2 rights (the LHN has the Tier 3 rights) with ESPN/LHN having the right to match. If the LHN payout is any indication, that will get bid up pretty high.

I think it's more likely the Pac 12 would work with the LHN, but we'll see.

[JasonEvans]

I haven't followed this nearly as much as you guys, but isn't it possible that the landscape really doesn't change that much? Say A&M does go to the SEC, then the SEC grabs one more to keep it even like UCF. Then the Big 12 grabs teams like Nevada, BYU, Boise St, or TCU to get them back to 12. That would leave the BCS conferences intact. Even if the SEC takes USF from the BE or an ACC team, they could be replaced by a Villanova or ECU.

My point is that I don't think the whole thing will just be blown up. There apparently will continue to be some movement as A&M has indicated, but (IMHO) I don't see the super conferences happening anytime soon.

ECU? USF? Ain't no way the SEC takes one of those teams. The SEC and Big X are the bosses of the bosses (with the Pac whatever and the ACC just behind and the Big 12/Big East scrambling to figure out how to survive). When they expand, it will be by taking in prime-time teams that build the stature and revenue-base of the league. ECU and USF aren't even in the conversation. FSU, Clemson, Missouri, Louisville, Cincy -- those are the schools actually in the conversation here.

-Jason "you are right that we may not see a titanic shift right away -- but I suspect the big conferences today and the big conferences in 5 years will be very different" Evans

[Mal]

Unfortunately, I agree with you Jason. It would be great for Football, but terrible for March Madness. For purist anyway. People tune in hoping to see Northern Iowa take out Kansas in the early rounds, but it will not be nearly as exciting to watch Miss St "upset" Kansas on the first day of the tourney. That will be a sad day if/when it happens.

Great for the gridiron, bad for hoops. Basketball plays 2nd fiddle again...

While I agree with Jason's other predictions, I'm not so sure about the implosion of March Madness. If it's all about the money, then I don't think anyone would be all that thrilled to just scrap the championship format that currently nets them close to a billion dollars a year in TV broadcast fees alone. The number of people who would cut out of the office on the afternoons of the first Thursday and Friday would plummet if Hampton, VCU and Utah State were replaced with Rutgers, Iowa and Arizona State. There would be no possibility of a cinderella, by definition, so nothing to gain casual viewers' interest and generate buzz and media attention for the second weekend. And it would mean a harder path to the Final Four for the big boys, since they would get a major conference, battle-tested (if bad) team in the first round instead of a completely overmatched team that's just happy to be there and has no chance. The bottom team in the Big Ten has a not-negligible chance at beating Kansas on any given night - Swofford doesn't.

I just don't know that they'd kill that golden goose. Even if the NCAA as we know it were blown up as a governing body, some limited alternative body would spring up to run a basketball tournament.

[TexHawk]

It's a pretty big assumption that we (KU) actually make it into a super conference, and therefore any "new" NCAA tournament featuring KU upset losses may not even be possible.

As a fan, I think it's pretty remote, but nobody is sleeping easy.

[nocilla]

ECU? USF? Ain't no way the SEC takes one of those teams. The SEC and Big X are the bosses of the bosses (with the Pac whatever and the ACC just behind and the Big 12/Big East scrambling to figure out how to survive). When they expand, it will be by taking in prime-time teams that build the stature and revenue-base of the league. ECU and USF aren't even in the conversation. FSU, Clemson, Missouri, Louisville, Cincy -- those are the schools actually in the conversation here.

-Jason "you are right that we may not see a titanic shift right away -- but I suspect the big conferences today and the big conferences in 5 years will be very different" Evans

Just to be clear, I didn't say the SEC would take ECU. I said the ACC may take ECU if the SEC poaches an ACC team like FSU/Clemson. A team like ECU or UCF could move into the ACC or Big East if needed. However, I don't think any ACC teams are leaving. The biggest moves I see possibly happening would be the Big 12 taking some quality Mountain West teams, getting them back to 10 or 12, in an attempt to keep the conference relevant. Then again, I could be wrong.

[SmartDevil]

Lots of speculation in this topic discussion, and sometimes it is fun to speculate about possibilities....also considering future options is often a good planning exercise.

But almost all of the schools who have been mentioned as potential targets for being absorbed into the ACC-- whether in going from 12 to 16 or replacing defecting ACC members--give me the "you've got to be kidding" creeps.

Some for ethical reasons pertaining to their schools, programs, and/or coaches.
Some because they are academically primitive.
Some because they just aren't regarded publicly as institutions held in high regard for one reason or another.

[Duvall]

Lots of speculation in this topic discussion, and sometimes it is fun to speculate about possibilities....also considering future options is often a good planning exercise.

But almost all of the schools who have been mentioned as potential targets for being absorbed into the ACC-- whether in going from 12 to 16 or replacing defecting ACC members--give me the "you've got to be kidding" creeps.

Some for ethical reasons pertaining to their schools, programs, and/or coaches.
Some because they are academically primitive.
Some because they just aren't regarded publicly as institutions held in high regard for one reason or another.

Academically primitive? Huh?

The schools most often talked about as ACC additions are Pitt and Syracuse, both fine schools.

[OldPhiKap]

Some for ethical reasons pertaining to their schools, programs, and/or coaches.{cough}Miami{cough}
Some because they are academically primitive.{cough}{VTech}{cough}
Some because they just aren't regarded publicly as institutions held in high regard for one reason or another.{gag}{VTech}{gag}

Fixed it for you. Because, yes, we've already seen that movie.

[OldPhiKap]

Academically primitive? Huh?

The schools most often talked about as ACC additions are Pitt and Syracuse, both fine schools.

I can't imagine snagging one or both of those, but they would be good additions to any conference.

[SmartDevil]

Academically primitive? Huh?

The schools most often talked about as ACC additions are Pitt and Syracuse, both fine schools.

Agreed.....and those happen to be two schools discussed who I think would be good fits with the conference.

[SmartDevil]

Fixed it for you. Because, yes, we've already seen that movie.

Agreed....Va Tech and Miami were both questionable choices to be invited in the first place.

[jimsumner]

Academically primitive? Huh?

The schools most often talked about as ACC additions are Pitt and Syracuse, both fine schools.

Pitt and Syracuse? Yea. Two thumbs up.

Louisville. Memphis. West Virginia? Not so much.

[msdukie]

Agreed....Va Tech and Miami were both questionable choices to be invited in the first place.

and F$U....

[JasonEvans]

So, Oklahoma is now publically saying that it is exploring options. All the talk is that the Sooners think the Big 12 (currently 9) is on borrowed time and they want to get while the getting is good. Supposedly, they are most interested in the Pac xx. The Pac xx would loooove to get Oklahoma and Texas but Texas' $300 million Longhorn Network deal would not fit into the Pac xx's rules regarding team-specific networks. Apparently, the most likely scenario now is that Okie and Okie St would go to the Pac xx. Of course, the moment Okie flees, Texas will know that the Big 12 is dead and will go in search of a new league... unless Texas wants to go indy, which is a possibility I suppose.

In any event, the noise would make it seem that the Big 12 is doomed... at least as a major conference. I'd guess that we will see 3-5 Big 12 teams flee for new homes by 2012, 2013 at the latest.

The ACC should really think about being proactive here, though I am not sure what action the league should take. Absorbing a Big 12 team makes no sense geographically.

--Jason "IT is going down... we just need to see what IT is" Evans

[A-Tex Devil]

So, Oklahoma is now publically saying that it is exploring options. All the talk is that the Sooners think the Big 12 (currently 9) is on borrowed time and they want to get while the getting is good. Supposedly, they are most interested in the Pac xx. The Pac xx would loooove to get Oklahoma and Texas but Texas' $300 million Longhorn Network deal would not fit into the Pac xx's rules regarding team-specific networks. Apparently, the most likely scenario now is that Okie and Okie St would go to the Pac xx. Of course, the moment Okie flees, Texas will know that the Big 12 is dead and will go in search of a new league... unless Texas wants to go indy, which is a possibility I suppose.

In any event, the noise would make it seem that the Big 12 is doomed... at least as a major conference. I'd guess that we will see 3-5 Big 12 teams flee for new homes by 2012, 2013 at the latest.

The ACC should really think about being proactive here, though I am not sure what action the league should take. Absorbing a Big 12 team makes no sense geographically.

--Jason "IT is going down... we just need to see what IT is" Evans

How about this - ACC invites Texas, KU, Mizzou, and Texas Tech. Let's Texas have it's own network and we are done. That is proactive. Unlikely. But proactive.

[Newton_14]

So, Oklahoma is now publically saying that it is exploring options. All the talk is that the Sooners think the Big 12 (currently 9) is on borrowed time and they want to get while the getting is good. Supposedly, they are most interested in the Pac xx. The Pac xx would loooove to get Oklahoma and Texas but Texas' $300 million Longhorn Network deal would not fit into the Pac xx's rules regarding team-specific networks. Apparently, the most likely scenario now is that Okie and Okie St would go to the Pac xx. Of course, the moment Okie flees, Texas will know that the Big 12 is dead and will go in search of a new league... unless Texas wants to go indy, which is a possibility I suppose.

In any event, the noise would make it seem that the Big 12 is doomed... at least as a major conference. I'd guess that we will see 3-5 Big 12 teams flee for new homes by 2012, 2013 at the latest.

The ACC should really think about being proactive here, though I am not sure what action the league should take. Absorbing a Big 12 team makes no sense geographically.

--Jason "IT is going down... we just need to see what IT is" Evans


How about this - ACC invites Texas, KU, Mizzou, and Texas Tech. Let's Texas have it's own network and we are done. That is proactive. Unlikely. But proactive.

Well, after listening to Kevin White on the Inside Duke Football Radio show today, I am convinced more than ever that this race to 16 Team Leagues is going to happen and happen soon. He never directly mentioned the ACC exploring their options, but he gave me the impression, that is exactly what is going on. He also made an interesting comment, suggesting schools would have to look at their situation, and see if it would be beneficial to move to another conference. I took it to mean Duke is exploring all options.

I think the ACC needs to be proactive to protect itself, and try to go to 16 as soon as possible. As much as I hate hate freaking hate to see these mega-conferences, I am afraid if the ACC is not proactive, they could go the way of the Big 12 (which is doomed imo), and fall apart with many of our teams heading to the SEC and Big 10.

I am sold on Syracuse, and Pitt, and I would ask Notre Dame as well. I know some folks don't like them, but West Virginia might be the best option for that 16th team, especially logistics wise.

If Notre Dame says no, and logistics gets tossed to the wind, I would take 2 of the 4 ATD has in his list above and invite Texas and Kanas. Both would be great fits Basketball wise.

The Clock is ticking Mr Swofford, so please do not bungle this...

[uh_no]

Well, after listening to Kevin White on the Inside Duke Football Radio show today, I am convinced more than ever that this race to 16 Team Leagues is going to happen and happen soon. He never directly mentioned the ACC exploring their options, but he gave me the impression, that is exactly what is going on. He also made an interesting comment, suggesting schools would have to look at their situation, and see if it would be beneficial to move to another conference. I took it to mean Duke is exploring all options.

I think the ACC needs to be proactive to protect itself, and try to go to 16 as soon as possible. As much as I hate hate freaking hate to see these mega-conferences, I am afraid if the ACC is not proactive, they could go the way of the Big 12 (which is doomed imo), and fall apart with many of our teams heading to the SEC and Big 10.

I am sold on Syracuse, and Pitt, and I would ask Notre Dame as well. I know some folks don't like them, but West Virginia might be the best option for that 16th team, especially logistics wise.

If Notre Dame says no, and logistics gets tossed to the wind, I would take 2 of the 4 ATD has in his list above and invite Texas and Kanas. Both would be great fits Basketball wise.

The Clock is ticking Mr Swofford, so please do not bungle this...

After tonights performance, I am worried about what conference would take duke....the can Duke's huge name in basketball compensate for their football shortcomings?

Since it's saturday night, lets suggest a fun ness......

the SEC and Big 10 pass on duke because of the fact that they won't draw football stuff (given now that I think about it, if we were in the SEC or the Big 10, we'd get a huge recruiting boost just from playing a big game every weekend)

we take all the big basketball schools that don't have super football programs and make a new basketball centered league (new version of the big east...sort of) Duke, Kansas, Uconn, Louisville, UNC, west virginia, kansas state, and IDK...state....we get an team league going....this is stupid i know...but its 12:30 on a saturday night if yo uknow what I mean. but these are schools that the 3 big football conferences are not dying to have and could make a great bball conference

anyway...wherever they go, duke basketball will keep them relevent...and like someone said, i hope it happenes while K is sitll here....since duke is guaranteed to be very good. i'm really curious to see what happens. There're more teams than can fit in 4 16 team conferences....and tere will be temas that people don't want becaus ethey don't provide anytying in terms of football (duke and uconn for example)

and i'm going to stop now

[SCMatt33]

After tonights performance, I am worried about what conference would take duke....the can Duke's huge name in basketball compensate for their football shortcomings?

Since it's saturday night, lets suggest a fun ness......

the SEC and Big 10 pass on duke because of the fact that they won't draw football stuff (given now that I think about it, if we were in the SEC or the Big 10, we'd get a huge recruiting boost just from playing a big game every weekend)

we take all the big basketball schools that don't have super football programs and make a new basketball centered league (new version of the big east...sort of) Duke, Kansas, Uconn, Louisville, UNC, west virginia, kansas state, and IDK...state....we get an team league going....this is stupid i know...but its 12:30 on a saturday night if yo uknow what I mean. but these are schools that the 3 big football conferences are not dying to have and could make a great bball conference

anyway...wherever they go, duke basketball will keep them relevent...and like someone said, i hope it happenes while K is sitll here....since duke is guaranteed to be very good. i'm really curious to see what happens. There're more teams than can fit in 4 16 team conferences....and tere will be temas that people don't want becaus ethey don't provide anytying in terms of football (duke and uconn for example)

and i'm going to stop now

I think it's always important to remember that being "good" at football is not what conferences are looking for. They want teams that generate enough money in TV revenues as to raise the value of TV deals enough to raise the amount of money that each school takes home. These are not always the same thing. It is very possible that a team like Missouri will be a more valuable option than Va Tech. Va Tech has a superior team and will generate superior matchups from a TV standpoint. They are located in the middle of nowhere, however, while Missouri is squeezed between two top 30 markets. They certainly don't dominate either one, but are enough of a presence to command a standard cable posiition (and therefore standard cable rights fees) for any current or future conference network. This is money that Va Tech simply can't match.

Now of course, Duke has neither one going for it as there is virtually no substantial fan presence for Duke football. Most Duke basketball fans across the country are not alumni and do not have direct connections to the university. Even among the ones who do, not all of them root for Duke football. Many if not most Duke fans have a college football team not named Duke that they root for if they are interested in college football at all. Of course, the people on this board, and the people not on this board that they engage in Duke fandom mostly fall in the minority in this regard. With that said, there are certainly scenarios in which Duke gets left behind. Most if not all of these scenarios involve UNC jumping ship to the SEC, and the remaining Big East football teams are stronger than the remaining ACC teams such that the Big East hand picks which ACC teams to invite instead of the reverse.

Even in this worst case scenario, what I see as the likely outcome is that of the 67 or 68 current BCS teams (counting TCU and depending on whether or not ND remains independent through all of this), only 3-4 will be left out. Even with the info I laid out above, I don't see Duke as one of those. For this scenario to play out, the Big East has to be left mostly alone by the SEC and Big Ten. Let's say that the Pac-12 adds Texas, TTech, OU, and OKST. The Big Ten could plausibly add ND, BC, Kansas, and Maryland (if they tried as hard as possible to stay away from the Big East). The SEC adds TA&M, UNC, Va Tech and Missouri. There might be more realistic teams out there, but again, I was sparing the Big East for a worst case scenario, and the SEC doesn't want to expand within it's footprint or double up on a market. Out of the Big 12, Iowa St, Kansas St, and Baylor are out in the cold already. Let's swap KState for BC because Kansas fought really hard for them, though it not like Kansas would be at the top of the Big Ten's list in reality, but for arguments sake. Even going way out on a limb, I just can't see Iowa St or Baylor getting a Big 10 or SEC invite and I don't see them above Duke on the Big East's list. That's already 2 of the 4 teams.

The Big East survives with it's current 8 plus TCU coming in, so they want to add 7 more and are left with 9 ACC Teams to choose from (UNC, Va Tech, and MD are gone). As long as there isn't a death penalty issue with Miami or lingering spite, the two former Big East teams (BC and Miami) get invited back. That leaves 7 for 5 spots. Florida State is almost a no brainer with it's current status and past history in football. Georgia Tech adds a top ten market and is a shoein. NC state has the biggest local fan base left in NC and would offer a big chunch of the Raleigh market and a small chunck of the Charlotte market. This leaves 4 (Clemson, Duke, UVA, Wake) for 2 spots. All four are either in a bad TV market, or in an already accessed market, so we compare potential match-ups that they bring. Despite falling on their faces compared to expectations most years, Clemson does recruit well and have potential. UVA is up and down, and despite being mostly down lately, they are at least not in a used market and are up sometimes, so Duke and Wake are left out. If one little thing changes in all of that, I see no way that Wake goes before Duke, so we'd be back in.

Even if all of this doomsday stuff played out, I would see Duke joining up with the 7 non-football Big East teams (Nova, GTown, Marquette, St. Johns, Providence, Seton Hall, and DePaul) along with a few others (Memphis perhaps) to form a non-football conference. Duke could then play Army/Navy style independent football as well in whatever form of football is left for those not in the super 64. If those 9 aren't enough, you could look to poach top mid majors in the area (Temple, Xavier, etc.) to round out the conference.

The true doomsday scenario beyond this is if the stars align to leave Duke out of the 64 and then the 64 split from the NCAA. This would keep Duke from even being allowed to participate in a nationally relevent basketball championship event. We'd be relegated to the basketball equivalent of the FCS championship. Throwing the factors necessary for the super 64 to split off in all sports and not jut football to the factors needed to keep Duke out of the 64 makes this an extreme improbablity whose odds are around the same as Duke football suddenly winning a National Title.

[sagegrouse]

I think it's always important to remember that being "good" at football is not what conferences are looking for. They want teams that generate enough money in TV revenues as to raise the value of TV deals enough to raise the amount of money that each school takes home. These are not always the same thing. It is very possible that a team like Missouri will be a more valuable option than Va Tech. Va Tech has a superior team and will generate superior matchups from a TV standpoint. They are located in the middle of nowhere, however, while Missouri is squeezed between two top 30 markets. They certainly don't dominate either one, but are enough of a presence to command a standard cable posiition (and therefore standard cable rights fees) for any current or future conference network. This is money that Va Tech simply can't match.

Now of course, Duke has neither one going for it as there is virtually no substantial fan presence for Duke football. Most Duke basketball fans across the country are not alumni and do not have direct connections to the university. Even among the ones who do, not all of them root for Duke football. Many if not most Duke fans have a college football team not named Duke that they root for if they are interested in college football at all. Of course, the people on this board, and the people not on this board that they engage in Duke fandom mostly fall in the minority in this regard. With that said, there are certainly scenarios in which Duke gets left behind. Most if not all of these scenarios involve UNC jumping ship to the SEC, and the remaining Big East football teams are stronger than the remaining ACC teams such that the Big East hand picks which ACC teams to invite instead of the reverse.

Even in this worst case scenario, what I see as the likely outcome is that of the 67 or 68 current BCS teams (counting TCU and depending on whether or not ND remains independent through all of this), only 3-4 will be left out. Even with the info I laid out above, I don't see Duke as one of those. For this scenario to play out, the Big East has to be left mostly alone by the SEC and Big Ten. Let's say that the Pac-12 adds Texas, TTech, OU, and OKST. The Big Ten could plausibly add ND, BC, Kansas, and Maryland (if they tried as hard as possible to stay away from the Big East). The SEC adds TA&M, UNC, Va Tech and Missouri. There might be more realistic teams out there, but again, I was sparing the Big East for a worst case scenario, and the SEC doesn't want to expand within it's footprint or double up on a market. Out of the Big 12, Iowa St, Kansas St, and Baylor are out in the cold already. Let's swap KState for BC because Kansas fought really hard for them, though it not like Kansas would be at the top of the Big Ten's list in reality, but for arguments sake. Even going way out on a limb, I just can't see Iowa St or Baylor getting a Big 10 or SEC invite and I don't see them above Duke on the Big East's list. That's already 2 of the 4 teams.

The Big East survives with it's current 8 plus TCU coming in, so they want to add 7 more and are left with 9 ACC Teams to choose from (UNC, Va Tech, and MD are gone). As long as there isn't a death penalty issue with Miami or lingering spite, the two former Big East teams (BC and Miami) get invited back. That leaves 7 for 5 spots. Florida State is almost a no brainer with it's current status and past history in football. Georgia Tech adds a top ten market and is a shoein. NC state has the biggest local fan base left in NC and would offer a big chunch of the Raleigh market and a small chunck of the Charlotte market. This leaves 4 (Clemson, Duke, UVA, Wake) for 2 spots. All four are either in a bad TV market, or in an already accessed market, so we compare potential match-ups that they bring. Despite falling on their faces compared to expectations most years, Clemson does recruit well and have potential. UVA is up and down, and despite being mostly down lately, they are at least not in a used market and are up sometimes, so Duke and Wake are left out. If one little thing changes in all of that, I see no way that Wake goes before Duke, so we'd be back in.

Even if all of this doomsday stuff played out, I would see Duke joining up with the 7 non-football Big East teams (Nova, GTown, Marquette, St. Johns, Providence, Seton Hall, and DePaul) along with a few others (Memphis perhaps) to form a non-football conference. Duke could then play Army/Navy style independent football as well in whatever form of football is left for those not in the super 64. If those 9 aren't enough, you could look to poach top mid majors in the area (Temple, Xavier, etc.) to round out the conference.

The true doomsday scenario beyond this is if the stars align to leave Duke out of the 64 and then the 64 split from the NCAA. This would keep Duke from even being allowed to participate in a nationally relevent basketball championship event. We'd be relegated to the basketball equivalent of the FCS championship. Throwing the factors necessary for the super 64 to split off in all sports and not jut football to the factors needed to keep Duke out of the 64 makes this an extreme improbablity whose odds are around the same as Duke football suddenly winning a National Title.

Duke actually ranks fairly high among schools with revenue generated by sports. Here is one list (http://www.sectalk.com/boards/ncaa/98421-top-revenue-generated-college-sports-2009-a.html)for the 2008-2009 academic year.

Duke is #30 of the top 100 schools, which ranks #3 in the ACC, behind only UVa and Florida State. I have seen these lists before, and they include all forms of revenue, including donations.

Nevertheless, while football is w-a-a-a-y down the list, every Duke basketball game is on national TV. Moreover, the Duke brand in basketball is unsurpassed in terms of (positive and negative) interest. "Duke" is a household name in a way that "the University of North Carolina," "Carolina" (which one?), or "Tar Heels" (What are they, and are they EPA-compliant?) can never be.

I have no worries about Duke being sought by major conferences.

Now, about UNC to the SEC. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? I predict that the proud but (recently) ethically challenged University down the road would never stoop to those depths. If it did, it would really show its true colors -- which wouldn't be baby blue.

sagegrouse

[Duvall]

Duke actually ranks fairly high among schools with revenue generated by sports. Here is one list (http://www.sectalk.com/boards/ncaa/98421-top-revenue-generated-college-sports-2009-a.html)for the 2008-2009 academic year.

Duke is #30 of the top 100 schools, which ranks #3 in the ACC, behind only UVa and Florida State. I have seen these lists before, and they include all forms of revenue, including donations.

Nevertheless, while football is w-a-a-a-y down the list, every Duke basketball game is on national TV. Moreover, the Duke brand in basketball is unsurpassed in terms of (positive and negative) interest. "Duke" is a household name in a way that "the University of North Carolina," "Carolina" (which one?), or "Tar Heels" (What are they, and are they EPA-compliant?) can never be.

I have no worries about Duke being sought by major conferences.

This would be considerably more reassuring if it were not entirely dependent on the continued efforts of a 64-year-old man.

[A-Tex Devil]

While I think at UT, OU, Tech and OSU to the PAC 16 is real, I also think that OU and UT are messaging this very deliberately and purposely.

ESPN does not want to bust up all of their current contracts. Also, despite What Larry Scott says, LHN isn't going anywhere. People cam get their panties in a wad because the Rice game wasn't aired, but the network will get picked up by a couple of e major carriers eventually.

The LHN in the PAC 12 would be national, not regional. It may need to share a bit with Texas Tech (not 50/50) who would be willing to take a smaller share to be part of a national as opposed to a regional network, and probably kick some royalties back to the PAC 12. But that combined with what would be a massive new PAC 12 deal will still go above and beyond what both Texas and Tech get now.

If the PAC 12 won't play ball, Texas might go independent or to a conference that will allow the network.

I am telling you right now, and am willing to eat my share of crow, if I am wrong, this LHN is years in planning and will work. The leadership (UT, ESPN, IMG) has considered all of the potential expansion possibilities, and it will be on TVs across the country on the same sports packages that the Big 10 Network is (normal tier in Texas and sports package tiers in the rest of the country).

[SCMatt33]

Duke actually ranks fairly high among schools with revenue generated by sports. Here is one list (http://www.sectalk.com/boards/ncaa/98421-top-revenue-generated-college-sports-2009-a.html)for the 2008-2009 academic year.

Duke is #30 of the top 100 schools, which ranks #3 in the ACC, behind only UVa and Florida State. I have seen these lists before, and they include all forms of revenue, including donations.

Nevertheless, while football is w-a-a-a-y down the list, every Duke basketball game is on national TV. Moreover, the Duke brand in basketball is unsurpassed in terms of (positive and negative) interest. "Duke" is a household name in a way that "the University of North Carolina," "Carolina" (which one?), or "Tar Heels" (What are they, and are they EPA-compliant?) can never be.

I have no worries about Duke being sought by major conferences.

Now, about UNC to the SEC. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? I predict that the proud but (recently) ethically challenged University down the road would never stoop to those depths. If it did, it would really show its true colors -- which wouldn't be baby blue.

sagegrouse

A few things...

Revenue that Duke generates for itself, through tickets, donations, merchandise sales, is very different than revenue that gets generated for the conference, value added to TV deals and cable right fees. I have no doubts that Duke generates a lot of revenue, but most of it is stuff that doesn't help a conference. The only thing Duke does that helps a conference is generate basketball ratings. We've seen in recent TV deals that good football ratings are infinitely more important than basketball ratings. There's no other way to explain why the two consistently worst basketball conferences (SEC, Pac-12), just got the best cable deals. As for cable rights fees, Duke has a very spread out fan base. It is great for getting a national network ratings for basketball, but it is poor at generating enough year-round regional interest to get a potential conference network onto standard cable packages.

The "Duke brand" is great for Duke. It is recognizable and helps generate sales to fans and generate interest from foes. This doesn't, however, add any value to a conference. It's benefits are 99% internal. Most Duke hats and shirts don't have an ACC logo slapped on them, and the ones that do have a direct ACC connection only have a small one. The brand is great for Duke, and is one of the reasons that Duke generates a lot of revenue for itself, but it doesn't have tangible benefits for a conference. I'd also argue that "Duke" is not recognizable than "UNC." Other than my 4 years on campus, I have always lived outside of ACC territory. I've been at many places where college merchandise is sold and team logos are placed in ads, etc. I have rarely if ever, seen a Duke shirt, or logo at a non Duke event, without seeing a UNC shirt right next to it.

As for the UNC to SEC thing, I'm not saying that they would do it. I was simply outlining the only scenario in which Duke gets left out in the cold. As long as UNC is in the ACC, the ACC will win out over the Big East. Even if you took all other reasons away, UNC will never leave the ACC for the SEC because it would want to remain the power broker in the ACC as opposed to being just another school in the SEC. I tried (and perhaps failed) to make it clear just how unlikely each individual event in that scenario was (let alone all of them), but the possibility of Duke being left out was brought up and I wanted to show just what would have to happen to make that a reality.

[JG Nothing]

I think the ACC needs to be proactive to protect itself, and try to go to 16 as soon as possible. As much as I hate hate freaking hate to see these mega-conferences, I am afraid if the ACC is not proactive, they could go the way of the Big 12 (which is doomed imo), and fall apart with many of our teams heading to the SEC and Big 10.

I am sold on Syracuse, and Pitt, and I would ask Notre Dame as well. I know some folks don't like them, but West Virginia might be the best option for that 16th team, especially logistics wise.

I think the ACC should lock up the north east coast and invite Rutgers and UConn. Rutgers is a great academic institution and can be asked to devote more resources to revenue sports. UConn, not so much academically but is right there geographically and has great basketball and solid football. Notre Dame will only go to the Big 10 if it goes anywhere. Pitt is a good choice. I'm not sold on Syracuse or West Virginia because I'm not sure what they bring to the table. Still, the ACC may have to go in that direction because I doubt an SEC or Big 10 school will make the move to the ACC. Louisville is an interesting choice but the last time I looked the city was about 15 hours from the Atlantic Coast (not that geographic coherence matters I suppose).

[uh_no]

I think the ACC should lock up the north east coast and invite Rutgers and UConn. Rutgers is a great academic institution and can be asked to devote more resources to revenue sports. UConn, not so much academically but is right there geographically and has great basketball and solid football. Notre Dame will only go to the Big 10 if it goes anywhere. Pitt is a good choice. I'm not sold on Syracuse or West Virginia because I'm not sure what they bring to the table. Still, the ACC may have to go in that direction because I doubt an SEC or Big 10 school will make the move to the ACC. Louisville is an interesting choice but the last time I looked the city was about 15 hours from the Atlantic Coast (not that geographic coherence matters I suppose).

Unless the Big East dissolves, Uconn is likely not leaving (not for the ACC at least). They sued BC when they left the conference....and the ACC swiping teams from the big east left a lot of bad blood with the original BE members

Either way, I don't think the ACC would invite either rutgers or CT unless several more lucrative options have gone by the wayside.

[jimsumner]

I think the ACC should lock up the north east coast and invite Rutgers and UConn. Rutgers is a great academic institution and can be asked to devote more resources to revenue sports. UConn, not so much academically but is right there geographically and has great basketball and solid football. Notre Dame will only go to the Big 10 if it goes anywhere. Pitt is a good choice. I'm not sold on Syracuse or West Virginia because I'm not sure what they bring to the table. Still, the ACC may have to go in that direction because I doubt an SEC or Big 10 school will make the move to the ACC. Louisville is an interesting choice but the last time I looked the city was about 15 hours from the Atlantic Coast (not that geographic coherence matters I suppose).

Geographic coherence might have ended about the time Texas Christian University joined the Big East. Or maybe when Marquette joined.

Louisville doesn't worry me on geographic grounds as much as the fact that many regard the school as a really big community college.

[sagegrouse]

A few things...

Revenue that Duke generates for itself, through tickets, donations, merchandise sales, is very different than revenue that gets generated for the conference, value added to TV deals and cable right fees. I have no doubts that Duke generates a lot of revenue, but most of it is stuff that doesn't help a conference. The only thing Duke does that helps a conference is generate basketball ratings. We've seen in recent TV deals that good football ratings are infinitely more important than basketball ratings. There's no other way to explain why the two consistently worst basketball conferences (SEC, Pac-12), just got the best cable deals. As for cable rights fees, Duke has a very spread out fan base. It is great for getting a national network ratings for basketball, but it is poor at generating enough year-round regional interest to get a potential conference network onto standard cable packages.

The "Duke brand" is great for Duke. It is recognizable and helps generate sales to fans and generate interest from foes. This doesn't, however, add any value to a conference. It's benefits are 99% internal. Most Duke hats and shirts don't have an ACC logo slapped on them, and the ones that do have a direct ACC connection only have a small one. The brand is great for Duke, and is one of the reasons that Duke generates a lot of revenue for itself, but it doesn't have tangible benefits for a conference. I'd also argue that "Duke" is not recognizable than "UNC." Other than my 4 years on campus, I have always lived outside of ACC territory. I've been at many places where college merchandise is sold and team logos are placed in ads, etc. I have rarely if ever, seen a Duke shirt, or logo at a non Duke event, without seeing a UNC shirt right next to it.

As for the UNC to SEC thing, I'm not saying that they would do it. I was simply outlining the only scenario in which Duke gets left out in the cold. As long as UNC is in the ACC, the ACC will win out over the Big East. Even if you took all other reasons away, UNC will never leave the ACC for the SEC because it would want to remain the power broker in the ACC as opposed to being just another school in the SEC. I tried (and perhaps failed) to make it clear just how unlikely each individual event in that scenario was (let alone all of them), but the possibility of Duke being left out was brought up and I wanted to show just what would have to happen to make that a reality.

With respect to revenue and TV fees, you should come up with your own data. I showed you what I had. WRT to Duke's brand vs. UNC, it's all in the name -- University of North Carolina, Carolina, UNC, North Carolina, Tar Heels are all less punchy than Duke. It's why Duke is often mentioned in TV scripts (usually unfavorably, but there is no such thing as bad publicity exceot for the kind being rung up by UNC, Miami and Ohio State).

Duke is an iconic basketball program. Take it to the bank. Oh, yes! We have! That was my point.

sagegrouse

[blazindw]

Geographic coherence might have ended about the time Texas Christian University joined the Big East. Or maybe when Marquette joined.

Louisville doesn't worry me on geographic grounds as much as the fact that many regard the school as a really big community college.

Most people in Big East country who are football fans don't look at it as much of an anomaly. Remember, for decades, the Dallas Cowboys have been in the NFC East with Philly, Washington and the Giants (all in Big East markets). TCU, which is from Fort Worth, is used to having Northeast teams on their television screens every week.

[jimsumner]

Most people in Big East country who are football fans don't look at it as much of an anomaly. Remember, for decades, the Dallas Cowboys have been in the NFC East with Philly, Washington and the Giants (all in Big East markets). TCU, which is from Fort Worth, is used to having Northeast teams on their television screens every week.

Hey, I remember when the Panthers were in the NFC West, along with their long-time geographical rivals, the San Francisco 49ers. Just find, I-40 and go west 2,000 miles. If you hit the Pacific Ocean, you've gone too far.

[msdukie]

This would be considerably more reassuring if it were not entirely dependent on the continued efforts of a 64-year-old man.

Which is why I hope the K Lab's cloning project is going well.....

[loldevilz]

The reason Duke will never be left out in the cold is because it has two rivals (UNC and Maryland) that would never leave Duke out in the cold. The rivalries mean to much to the fan bases. Can you imagine Duke not playing UNC or Maryland in basketball twice a year?

[Duvall]

The reason Duke will never be left out in the cold is because it has two rivals (UNC and Maryland) that would never leave Duke out in the cold. The rivalries mean to much to the fan bases. Can you imagine Duke not playing UNC or Maryland in basketball twice a year?

That didn't stop Nebraska from leaving Oklahoma or Texas A&M from leaving Texas. Arkansas didn't leave behind one of its rivals in going to the SEC, it left all of them. Missouri would drop Kansas in a heartbeat if they could find someone to take them. If a team wants to leave, no rivalry is going to stop them.

[DueBlevil]

The reason Duke will never be left out in the cold is because it has two rivals (UNC and Maryland) that would never leave Duke out in the cold. The rivalries mean to much to the fan bases. Can you imagine Duke not playing UNC or Maryland in basketball twice a year?

I'm not sure how comfortable I would be having our fate left in the hands of UNC and Maryland... and that the reason they would save us is that they hate us so much...

But I also think that even though our football team is a liability now, it is possible that when this super-consolidation occurs, we might be close enough to respectability to make all this moot. I mean, is there any way the ACC would crumble before the next 5-10 years? Well I guess you never know, given the Big XII seems to be collapsing overnight

[Duvall]

But I also think that even though our football team is a liability now, it is possible that when this super-consolidation occurs, we might be close enough to respectability to make all this moot.

Respectability wouldn't be nearly good enough. Kansas was able to reach respectability in recent years, and it didn't help them at all. Duke is, and will remain, a small private school without a large alumni base. It would take a Miami-type run of success to make Duke's football program anything other than a liability.

[arnie]

Any idea what type of feel Kevin White has for these issues? I haven't heard much about him, but assume he'll need to step forward in the next couple of years.

[senkiri]

This is a purely speculative post, but I started thinking outside the box... If this is really about to go down, I agree with the previous posters who argue that the ACC does better being proactive than waiting and sorting through the remains of whatever is left when the Big10/Pac12/SEC are done making their moves and reacting then.

Most speculation seems to point to us going after current Big East teams. Any reason, other than geography, the ACC couldn't look to add the teams in the Big 12 that are going to be left in the cold by the SEC/Pac-12?

Might be interesting if we convinced Texas to join the ACC by allowing them to keep the Long Horn Network without strings (given that the Pac12 seems to have rules placing some limitations/conditions on the network if Texas joins) and added Kansas and Baylor as well. I think Kansas and Baylor are more attractive than some of the current schools under discussion even without Texas. Assuming the ACC got all 3 schools, it could then make a strong push to add Pitt, or if they want to wait for a possible Big10 offer, Syracuse. Call it the Atlantic Coast and Plains Conference or Atlantic and Gulf Coasts Conference. Eh, I will leave the naming to someone else, but you get the idea.

Travel would be a bear, but seems like thats going to hold true for at least the future Pac-16 and even the current Big East with the addition of TCU as well. The basketball however would be awesome and preserve the ACC (ACPC?) as the nation's premier basketball super-conference. And football would be pretty good as well, certainly better than adding residual Big East schools like Louisville and Rutgers. And being pro-active might convince those ACC schools most vulnerable to being poached by other conferences that they should stay put...

Anyway, just an idea...

[Dev11]

I think Kansas and Baylor are more attractive than some of the current schools under discussion even without Texas.

I understand Kansas because of basketball, but why Baylor? They are not generally competitive in either revenue sport and captivate (I think) little interest even in their own state.

[jimsumner]

I understand Kansas because of basketball, but why Baylor? They are not generally competitive in either revenue sport and captivate (I think) little interest even in their own state.

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

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

[A-Tex Devil]

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

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

Baylor has potential to be a strong, strong private school. They are very large for a private school and as mentioned have been strong in basketball of late. Football may be coming on as well.

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

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

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

[jimsumner]

Baylor has potential to be a strong, strong private school. They are very large for a private school and as mentioned have been strong in basketball of late. Football may be coming on as well.

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

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

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

Thanks for the up-close look at Baylor. By small fan-base, I was referring to their status as a private school. Other than Notre Dame and their famous subway alumni, it's hard for any private school to match large, state-supported schools in that area.

[sagegrouse]

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

Let me try a couple of things--

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

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

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

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

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

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


Remember that Texas and Texas A&M engineered the demise of the Southwest Conference in the mid 1990s. They felt they were supporting the entire conference and were not getting enough help from the other schools. After flirting with the Pac-10, they settled for the Big Eight plus Four. Bringing along Texas Tech and politically powerful Baylor left the SWC with only four schools.

The relatively one-sided deal that Texas has with the Big 12 (which doesn't share revenues equally) made Nebraska and Missouri eager for another place to reside. Mizzou was stiffed by the Big Ten, but when Nebraska changed conferences, Colorado, who has always seen the Huskers as their main rival, had little reason to remain and decamped to the Pac-10 plus Two. Texas A&M, tired of trailing around Texas, is now trying to strike out on its own (and may, in fact, "strike out").

Now, having made a wreck of the Big 12, Texas is "blaming the victim" and saying it doesn't want to be a partner with the remaining schools.


I suppose the next victim for the Longhorns may be the Pac-12. Good luck to them!!!


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


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

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

Stay tuned--

sagegrouse

[superdave]

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

Stay tuned--

sagegrouse

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

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

[TexHawk]

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

Yowza.

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

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

[Faustus]

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

[johnb]

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

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

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

[A-Tex Devil]

Remember that Texas and Texas A&M engineered the demise of the Southwest Conference in the mid 1990s. They felt they were supporting the entire conference and were not getting enough help from the other schools. After flirting with the Pac-10, they settled for the Big Eight plus Four. Bringing along Texas Tech and politically powerful Baylor left the SWC with only four schools.

The relatively one-sided deal that Texas has with the Big 12 (which doesn't share revenues equally) made Nebraska and Missouri eager for another place to reside. Mizzou was stiffed by the Big Ten, but when Nebraska changed conferences, Colorado, who has always seen the Huskers as their main rival, had little reason to remain and decamped to the Pac-10 plus Two. Texas A&M, tired of trailing around Texas, is now trying to strike out on its own (and may, in fact, "strike out").

Now, having made a wreck of the Big 12, Texas is "blaming the victim" and saying it doesn't want to be a partner with the remaining schools.


I suppose the next victim for the Longhorns may be the Pac-12. Good luck to them!!!
[/LIST]

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


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

sagegrouse

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

All that said, I have to defend Texas.

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

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

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

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

[Bob Green]

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

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

The problem with your scenario is football. All the on going realignment talks are being driven by football just like the previous ACC expansion was driven by football. Any new league, whether it be an eight team league or a 12 team league will be centered on football and the idea a league would keep Duke while jettisoning Virginia Tech, Clemson, State or BC is a stretch.

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

[Verga3]

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

[superdave]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[uh_no]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope you're joking.....exactly 1 of those teams (syracuse) would be remotely enticed by an ACC offer....and they likely won't come until after their dream of going to the Big10 is crushed by the big10 hitting 16.

[Jderf]

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

I wish I could completely agree with you, but at this point I think it's impossible to say anything definitive about the future of the ACC, let alone any other conference. While I do not doubt that ACC administrators are doing their best to prepare for the impending chaos, there is only so much confidence one can have in their ability to control the outcome. I mean, take a look at this thread; you could find at least 15 detailed, reasonable predictions for how this all could play out, and not a single one of them is any more likely than the rest. The way I see it, this is a ship sailing without a captain, and a whole mob of people are fighting to get their hands at the helm. There are just so many different parties with so many different interests, all trying to get their share -- the conferences, the NCAA, the schools themselves, the tv networks. Everyone is trying to steer the ship's wheel in their own direction, and as a result, nobody has any control. All we can do is wait and see where we end up.

[A-Tex Devil]

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

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

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

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

Get your popcorn.

[superdave]

Thanks A-Tex for the A&M insight.

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

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

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

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

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

[sagegrouse]

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



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

sagegrouse

[superdave]

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

sagegrouse

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

[Duvall]

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

You have that backwards - it's the leagues with the advantage that move first, because they are the ones that can pick and choose.

[OldPhiKap]

Thanks A-Tex for the A&M insight.

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

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

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

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

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

Not to worry. We have John Swofford on it.

[throatybeard]

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

There is no PAC-12 school in Portland, and there is no SEC school in Biloxi. USM has a gulf coast campus, but I think that's in Long Beach.

[ForkFondler]

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


If you have a sixteen team revenue sharing agreement, then for most purposes each eight team division will become the conference. For example, if UT, TT, OK, and OKSt move to the PAC 16, most of the conference games in most sports will group those four schools with AZ, AzSt, Utah and Colorado, and the PAC-8 would return to it's old self.

[Class of '94]

The Big East going after Kansas and Kansas St would be an excellent move for that conference. I know Kansas and K-State aren't necessarily great football programs; but they are football programs nonethelessp; and it would push the conference closer to having 12 football playing schools. But inaddition and more importantly, they would add to very strong basketball programs to the conference, which would cement the Big East IMO as the best college basketball conference in the country. And with Kansas and K-State in the fold, it might allow the Big East to negotiate more lucrative tv contracts because of it. I know that apparently football is the driving force behind increased TV revenues; but I have to think that a conference with so many basketball heavyweights would still be attractive to ESPN and CBS. What do you guys think?

[Class of '94]

I can remember just a few years ago that it appeared to me that the Big 10 was a conference that appeared to be an aging dinosaur and the ACC appeared more attractive. Now it seems that the tables are turned and the Big 10 is the more attractive conference compared to the ACC. Why is that so? If it is solely because of success of the Big 10 network, why doesn't the ACC move forward with an ACC network? The PAC 12 is doing it. Granted, the PAC 12 has less competition on the West Coast since they are the only BCS power conference there whereas the ACC is in competition with at 2 conferences (the Big East and the SEC) although the SEC is predominantly centered in the Deep South along the gulf coast. But when you look at the excellence of the ACC across multiple sports, I think there would be a market for the ACC to showcase its athletes across those multiple sports. Any clarification or insight on this from any of you would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

[Scorp4me]

It would be nice to see the ACC move


I'd like to see the ACC stand strong and not run around like chicken little thinking the sky is falling. For that matter I'd like the other conferences that don't want to expand to do the same. It's ridiculous that a few schools are forcing things on the rest of the college landscape that no one wants. Sure everyone want to come out smelling pretty, but most would rather things stay the same.

So let's skip ahead a step. Let's assume that we go to the super conferences of 16 teams. How long do you think it'll take for a group to break away and work out a deal worth more money. Doesn't seem like it'd be hard to me, just trim the fat. The fact is 16 teams in a conference is simply too many. I hope the ACC is able to not only see that but take advantage of it. If not...anyone for another meeting of 8 teams at a country club? =)

[kmspeaks]

I can remember just a few years ago that it appeared to me that the Big 10 was a conference that appeared to be an aging dinosaur and the ACC appeared more attractive. Now it seems that the tables are turned and the Big 10 is the more attractive conference compared to the ACC. Why is that so? If it is solely because of success of the Big 10 network, why doesn't the ACC move forward with an ACC network? The PAC 12 is doing it. Granted, the PAC 12 has less competition on the West Coast since they are the only BCS power conference there whereas the ACC is in competition with at 2 conferences (the Big East and the SEC) although the SEC is predominantly centered in the Deep South along the gulf coast. But when you look at the excellence of the ACC across multiple sports, I think there would be a market for the ACC to showcase its athletes across those multiple sports. Any clarification or insight on this from any of you would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

I'm sure there are others here who could offer more details but it is my understanding that much of the Mid Atlantic region (where I would assume the ACC would be trying to get their proposed network aired) cares much more about pro sports than they do about college. DC, New York, Philadelphia, these places all care way more about the pro teams in their areas than any college team.

I grew up just outside of DC but went to school in Tennessee and the difference in the importance of college sports in the two areas is enormous. Even if there was an ACC network I don't know that enough people would watch it. In SEC country games are on CBS/ESPN and then replayed throughout the week on Fox Sports South. I'm guessing that the level of interest in the Midwest is huge as well, thus the success of the Big Ten Network.

[uh_no]

I can remember just a few years ago that it appeared to me that the Big 10 was a conference that appeared to be an aging dinosaur and the ACC appeared more attractive. Now it seems that the tables are turned and the Big 10 is the more attractive conference compared to the ACC. Why is that so? If it is solely because of success of the Big 10 network, why doesn't the ACC move forward with an ACC network?

The Big10 is attractive because of the massive revenue that the Big10 network brings in for its schools. Why can the Big10 have a network that makes gobs of money when the ACC can't? because ACC football stinks. One can argue about teams that are good from the conference each year, and how we have competitive teams at the top, but the Big10 and the SEC are in another universe in terms of football superiority. Look top to bottom at the teams in the league. The SEC has had what, the last 4 national champions? The big 10 has 5 teams in the top 25, and this is a down year. The SEC has 6. The ACC has 2. People watch the other conferences because there are big matchups every week, matchups with national title implications. You don't have these matchups in the ACC....yeah it will be pretty big when FSU plays VT (do they even play this year???) but its still a long shot from when every week a national title contender is playing someone who has a legitimate chance to take them down.

That's why ACC can't have a TV network as successful as the others'. That's why the ACC is currently unattractive. (the same thing holds true for the big east...they sent uconn to their bowl last year....UCONN for goodness sake)

[Mal]

I can remember just a few years ago that it appeared to me that the Big 10 was a conference that appeared to be an aging dinosaur and the ACC appeared more attractive. Now it seems that the tables are turned and the Big 10 is the more attractive conference compared to the ACC. Why is that so? If it is solely because of success of the Big 10 network, why doesn't the ACC move forward with an ACC network? The PAC 12 is doing it. Granted, the PAC 12 has less competition on the West Coast since they are the only BCS power conference there whereas the ACC is in competition with at 2 conferences (the Big East and the SEC) although the SEC is predominantly centered in the Deep South along the gulf coast. But when you look at the excellence of the ACC across multiple sports, I think there would be a market for the ACC to showcase its athletes across those multiple sports. Any clarification or insight on this from any of you would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Some thoughts:

- Part of what made the ACC "hot" half a decade ago was the addition of what appeared to be two perennial top 10 football programs to bolster the gridiron strength and make the ACC the ultimate double threat, exposing how one-dimensional both the SEC and Big East, and to a lesser degree the Big 12, were. VT and Miami haven't brought as much to the football table as envisioned, and they've hurt the basketball strength.

- Relatedly, in 2005 three different ACC teams had won basketball national championships in a five year span, and a fourth made the title game. Since then we can't get more than Duke and UNC out of the Sweet 16, so we're on the wane in our primary relative strength.

- Big Ten football has improved, in strength at the top and in depth, over the last 5 years. They were losing BCS games consistently a while back, and looked a step behind the others and everyone was wondering if the plodding, slow, physical style of the Big Ten would ever adapt or if they'd get left behind. But, other than the OSU issue, they've come back strongly, competing for the title of 2nd best football conference recently (not winning it, but at least in the mix), and winning some bigger bowl games. PSU's back up, Michigan's slowly climbing, they've added Nebraska right as they become a powerhouse again, Wisconsin's up, even Northwestern's a solid program now.

- Other than the additions of Penn State and now Nebraska, both strategic moves made 20 years apart, the Big Ten's barely changed in the last 75 years. That level of stability makes them look strong. So does their cohesion and lack of public squabbling over such things as expansion and the Big Ten Network. And they look even stronger for not bowing to whatever demands Notre Dame might be making regarding joining.

- I doubt an ACC Network would work as well as the Big Ten network. The Big Ten covers Detroit, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Chicago, Milwaukee and Minneapolis, all sizable metro areas that have professional sports, but virtually no college sporting competition from non-Big Ten schools. The ACC has a private school in a decidedly pro sports town with a number of other colleges to boot (BC), a private school in a terrible college sporting market competing against a huge state university (Miami), a school in a big city where it still plays second fiddle to the main state university (GT), and another big school in SEC territory (FSU). Plus four schools in one state with Charlotte as the largest town. NW and Purdue are the only private schools in the Big Ten and the rest are all huge land grant institutions with massive graduate and research programs, dwarfing even most of the state schools in the ACC. Thus, their alumni bases are huge, and all but one of them are either the only game in town in their respective states in terms of big time college athletics, or they share the market with another Big Ten team (and Iowa's got Iowa State pretty well beat, I'd say).

[Duvall]

The Big10 is attractive because of the massive revenue that the Big10 network brings in for its schools. Why can the Big10 have a network that makes gobs of money when the ACC can't? because ACC football stinks.

This is wrong. League quality is much less important than number of alumni and the amount of competition for attention and viewers in each state, and the Big Ten has a major advantage in both areas.

[jimsumner]

Some thoughts:

- Part of what made the ACC "hot" half a decade ago was the addition of what appeared to be two perennial top 10 football programs to bolster the gridiron strength and make the ACC the ultimate double threat, exposing how one-dimensional both the SEC and Big East, and to a lesser degree the Big 12, were. VT and Miami haven't brought as much to the football table as envisioned, and they've hurt the basketball strength.

- Relatedly, in 2005 three different ACC teams had won basketball national championships in a five year span, and a fourth made the title game. Since then we can't get more than Duke and UNC out of the Sweet 16, so we're on the wane in our primary relative strength.

- Big Ten football has improved, in strength at the top and in depth, over the last 5 years. They were losing BCS games consistently a while back, and looked a step behind the others and everyone was wondering if the plodding, slow, physical style of the Big Ten would ever adapt or if they'd get left behind. But, other than the OSU issue, they've come back strongly, competing for the title of 2nd best football conference recently (not winning it, but at least in the mix), and winning some bigger bowl games. PSU's back up, Michigan's slowly climbing, they've added Nebraska right as they become a powerhouse again, Wisconsin's up, even Northwestern's a solid program now.

- Other than the additions of Penn State and now Nebraska, both strategic moves made 20 years apart, the Big Ten's barely changed in the last 75 years. That level of stability makes them look strong. So does their cohesion and lack of public squabbling over such things as expansion and the Big Ten Network. And they look even stronger for not bowing to whatever demands Notre Dame might be making regarding joining.

- I doubt an ACC Network would work as well as the Big Ten network. The Big Ten covers Detroit, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Chicago, Milwaukee and Minneapolis, all sizable metro areas that have professional sports, but virtually no college sporting competition from non-Big Ten schools. The ACC has a private school in a decidedly pro sports town with a number of other colleges to boot (BC), a private school in a terrible college sporting market competing against a huge state university (Miami), a school in a big city where it still plays second fiddle to the main state university (GT), and another big school in SEC territory (FSU). Plus four schools in one state with Charlotte as the largest town. NW and Purdue are the only private schools in the Big Ten and the rest are all huge land grant institutions with massive graduate and research programs, dwarfing even most of the state schools in the ACC. Thus, their alumni bases are huge, and all but one of them are either the only game in town in their respective states in terms of big time college athletics, or they share the market with another Big Ten team (and Iowa's got Iowa State pretty well beat, I'd say).

I thought Purdue was a public school.

The ACC has some large, land-grant public universities. But most share their with other, comparable public universities. The flagships universities of Minnesota, Nebraska and Wisconsin practically have their states to themselves, while Ohio State strides the Buckeye state like a Colossus, Cincy notwithstanding.

Maryland is the only ACC school that dominates a state like that; maybe BC, if they could get more Bostonians to switch off the Red Sox, Pats, Celtics and Bruins. Good luck with that.

But the demographics are changing. Georgia is the 9th most populous state, NC the 10th and I think Virginia is 12th. And we all know about Florida.

After every census, states in the Big-Midwest-number-to-be-determined conference hemorrhage congressional seats to ACC states like Florida, Georgia, NC and Virginia. Raleigh currently has a bigger population than Cincinnati, St. Louis, Minneapolis or Pittsburgh and Charlotte is even bigger. The ACC as presently constituted has Boston, Atlanta, Miami, Jacksonville, Charlotte, the Triangle, the Virginia Tidewater, Baltimore and D.C. It's not your grandfather's rural South.

So, looking at the long term, what's a more attractive prospect, ageing rust-belt states struggling to maintain population or bustling sun-belt states adding a million people every decade?

[Class of '94]

Some thoughts:

- Part of what made the ACC "hot" half a decade ago was the addition of what appeared to be two perennial top 10 football programs to bolster the gridiron strength and make the ACC the ultimate double threat, exposing how one-dimensional both the SEC and Big East, and to a lesser degree the Big 12, were. VT and Miami haven't brought as much to the football table as envisioned, and they've hurt the basketball strength.

- Relatedly, in 2005 three different ACC teams had won basketball national championships in a five year span, and a fourth made the title game. Since then we can't get more than Duke and UNC out of the Sweet 16, so we're on the wane in our primary relative strength.

- Big Ten football has improved, in strength at the top and in depth, over the last 5 years. They were losing BCS games consistently a while back, and looked a step behind the others and everyone was wondering if the plodding, slow, physical style of the Big Ten would ever adapt or if they'd get left behind. But, other than the OSU issue, they've come back strongly, competing for the title of 2nd best football conference recently (not winning it, but at least in the mix), and winning some bigger bowl games. PSU's back up, Michigan's slowly climbing, they've added Nebraska right as they become a powerhouse again, Wisconsin's up, even Northwestern's a solid program now.

- Other than the additions of Penn State and now Nebraska, both strategic moves made 20 years apart, the Big Ten's barely changed in the last 75 years. That level of stability makes them look strong. So does their cohesion and lack of public squabbling over such things as expansion and the Big Ten Network. And they look even stronger for not bowing to whatever demands Notre Dame might be making regarding joining.

- I doubt an ACC Network would work as well as the Big Ten network. The Big Ten covers Detroit, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Chicago, Milwaukee and Minneapolis, all sizable metro areas that have professional sports, but virtually no college sporting competition from non-Big Ten schools. The ACC has a private school in a decidedly pro sports town with a number of other colleges to boot (BC), a private school in a terrible college sporting market competing against a huge state university (Miami), a school in a big city where it still plays second fiddle to the main state university (GT), and another big school in SEC territory (FSU). Plus four schools in one state with Charlotte as the largest town. NW and Purdue are the only private schools in the Big Ten and the rest are all huge land grant institutions with massive graduate and research programs, dwarfing even most of the state schools in the ACC. Thus, their alumni bases are huge, and all but one of them are either the only game in town in their respective states in terms of big time college athletics, or they share the market with another Big Ten team (and Iowa's got Iowa State pretty well beat, I'd say).

You and Uh-No have made excellent points; and being a NC transplant livinging in the Detroit metro area now, I do believe college football is bigger and more important out here than college basketball; and a majority of schools in the Big 10 have huge stadiums that regularly sell out. But I don't think that the Big 10 is all that superior in football. If you've look over the last few years, the Big 10 has been dominateed by the PAC-12 and the SEC; and I believe in comparison over the same period of time, the ACC has had a better record than the Big 10 over those conferences. Just look at last year for example where Mich St and Mich were blown out by SEC teams in bowl games. Penn St has been good but hasn't been relevant in the BCS National Championship for years; Mich has been bad for the last few years under Rich Rod; and teams like Iowa, Mich St and Northwestern have consistently been solid but not spectacular programs. And teams like Indiana, Minnesota and Ill have been bad. The discussion around here is that the Big 10 has consistently come up short against the SEC and PAC 12 and needs to figure out how to better compete against those conferences, especially in bowl games like the Rose Bowl. Saying that, there is a definite since of superiority by folks around here in regards to Big 10 football vs ACC football; but my sensoe is that if you really breakdown the Big 10 vs ACC, the two leagues in football are very similar and I really don't see that much separation between the two [if any]. The jewel for the Big 10 these last few years has consistently been OSU and up until this year OSU has been head and shoulders above the rest of the schools in the Big 10. The same could be said for VT in the ACC although OSU has clearly been more competitive nationally than VT.

[A-Tex Devil]

ISU, KSU and KU may be aligning with Baylor. Things might get ugly.

[uh_no]

This is wrong. League quality is much less important than number of alumni and the amount of competition for attention and viewers in each state, and the Big Ten has a major advantage in both areas.

You don't think if the ACC was fielding multiple title contendors every year they wouldn't have a larger tv presence?

the ACC is clearly not among the top 4 football conferences, and so no one really wants to watch them. since there is no good product, people watch other things. There is plenty of NFL football in the midwest....vikings, bears, browns, bengals, steelers, bills....so the "pro sports" argument really doesn't hold much water

You are certainly right that the schools in the big 10 are huge. NCSU, UNC, MD, VT and FSU are huge as well. Michigan seems to support two football programs, as do Illinois and Indiana. I don't understand why you think this is an issue in the ACC, but apparently not an issue in the Big10. If the five aforementioned schools could field great teams, darn skippy people would want to watch them, but the fact is they don't....and nobody wants to watch NCSU v MD in a battle for the bottom of the league

[ACCBBallFan]

I took a run at forming five 16-team football conferences, under the assumption that B12 disintegrates.

In the end, Big 16 (formerly B10) is reasonably strong is both Football and Basketball.

SEC and P16 are primarily Football powerhouses with a few decent Basketball teams.

ACC and Big East/TX teams are primarily basketball with a few decent Football teams.

SEC is king in Football. I assumed that in exchange for owning all of Florida, Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi (plus Ark and A&M), they were willing to give up KY-TN-SC to ACC to strengthen their Bball.

P10 gets to P16 by adding Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Boise State and Tulsa (alternates BYU, UNLV, San Diego St).

B10 gets to B16 by absorbing KU, K-St, MO and reluctantly agrees to Iowa St., assuming B10 cannot persuade Notre Dame.

To get BE to 16 teams in football required that the Big East leverage what it already started with TCU and absorb a total of 7 B12/Conf USA teams to capture all of the Texas market except A&M who prefers SEC.

The rest of C-USA is spread across Tulsa to P16, Memphis, ECU and Marshall to ACC, So. Miss., UCF and UAB to SEC, etc.

Big East gives up USF to SEC, swaps Louisville and West Virginia to ACC for BC and Maryland, and also adds Temple. Since BE already has 7 non-football schools, counting Notre Dame, Temple could stay in MAC for football but become Big East/TX's 24th basketball team..

The display below is two 12 team divisions but could be three 8's or four 6's.

ACC ends up with 6 perennial top 10 basketball teams, gives up FSU, Miami, BC, Maryland, and GA Tech, keeps VA Tech for geography reasons, but gains UK, Louisville, Memphis, TN, So Carolina, West Virginia, Marshall & ECU to get to 16.

ACC would have to admit that to get to 16, cannot claim academic superiority that has suffered with recent additions already.

There was no fit for Tulane from CUSA who would need to join another mid-major conference for football and basketball. A10 would need to replace Temple in Basketball.

The displays below are from a basketball perspective, but since they are as geographic as possible, may work for football too (except Cincy has to change divisions to lump the 8 Texas football teams in one division, and the 8 non-TX in the BE division).

These are basketball rankings. Order would be vastly different for football and not include 8 of the BE schools who are not BE football (six have no team, plus Notre Dame remains independent and Temple stays in MAC for football). Think Oklahoma #1 in Football but cellar dweller in basketball lately.

SEC-FL-GA
Florida
FLORIDA ST
MIAMI-FL
Georgia
CENTRAL FLORIDA
GEORGIA TECH
SO FLORIDA
Auburn

SEC - AL-MS-LA
Alabama
TEXAS A & M
U A B
Arkansas
SO. MISSISSIPPI
Mississippi
Mississippi State
Louisiana State

(SO. CAROLINA)
(KENTUCKY)
(VANDERBILT)
(TENNESSEE)


P10 CA-OR-WA
UCLA
Washington
California
USC
Washington State
Oregon
Stanford
Oregon State

P10 AZ-OK-UT-CO
Arizona
Colorado
OKLAHOMA ST
Arizona State
TULSA
BOISE STATE
Utah
OKLAHOMA

alt – BYI
alt – UNLV
alt - San Diego St

B10-Ill.Oh-Mich
Ohio State
Michigan
Purdue
Michigan State
Illini
Northwestern
Penn State
Indiana

B10 – KS-MO-Iowa
KANSAS
Wisconsin
MISSOURI
KANSAS ST
Minnesota
Nebraska
IOWA ST
Iowa

Big East-NY-NJ-CT-MA
Syracuse
Connecticut
Pittsburgh
TEMPLE
St. John's
Villanova
Georgetown
MARYLAND
BOSTON COLLEGE
Rutgers
Seton Hall
Providence

BE - TX - Upper Midwest
TEXAS
Cincinnati (for basketball, move to other div for football)
Marquette
BAYLOR
Notre Dame
TEXAS - EL PASO
TEXAS TECH
TEXAS CHRISTIAN
HOUSTON
RICE
SOUTHERN METHODIST
DePaul

(WEST VIRGINIA)
(LOUISVILLE)
(SOUTH FLORIDA)

ACC-NC-SC
North Carolina
Duke
Clemson
Virginia
No. Carolina St
SO. CAROLINA
EAST CAROLINA
Wake Forest

ACC - KY-TN-VA
KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE
VANDERBILT
MEMPHIS
WEST VIRGINIA
Virginia Tech
TENNESSEE
MARSHALL

(FLORIDA STATE)
(MIAMI-FL)
(GEORGIA TECH)
(BOSTON COLLEGE)
(MARYLAND)

[Mal]

I thought Purdue was a public school.
D'oh! Right you are. Either way, it's a huge school, with a ton of alum in Chicago.


The ACC has some large, land-grant public universities. But most share their with other, comparable public universities. The flagships universities of Minnesota, Nebraska and Wisconsin practically have their states to themselves, while Ohio State strides the Buckeye state like a Colossus, Cincy notwithstanding.

This is the key, I think. Even those Big Ten schools that share a state - Michigan/MSU, Indiana/Purdue, Illinois/NW, Penn St./whoever, don't seem to suffer for it, with the exception of Northwestern, but that's more a function of its private status.


But the demographics are changing. Georgia is the 9th most populous state, NC the 10th and I think Virginia is 12th. And we all know about Florida.

After every census, states in the Big-Midwest-number-to-be-determined conference hemorrhage congressional seats to ACC states like Florida, Georgia, NC and Virginia...The ACC as presently constituted has Boston, Atlanta, Miami, Jacksonville, Charlotte, the Triangle, the Virginia Tidewater, Baltimore and D.C. It's not your grandfather's rural South.

So, looking at the long term, what's a more attractive prospect, ageing rust-belt states struggling to maintain population or bustling sun-belt states adding a million people every decade?

It's true the South's growing faster than the Midwest generally. That said, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio are still 5-8 in population. And no matter how big NC gets, there's not enough people to support Duke and Wake as well as UNC and State. Georgia's growth helps UGA more than Tech, and I just don't get the feeling anyone really competes with the Gators in most of Florida, though that may be wrong. The South may grow, but as a region it still supports two major conferences to the upper Midwest's one.

(Pulled out of context):


Raleigh currently has a bigger population than Cincinnati, St. Louis, Minneapolis or Pittsburgh and Charlotte is even bigger.

Sorry, that's not right. Not just a little bit not right, but not right for either town compared to any of the ones you've compared them to. Or Columbus, for that matter. The Twin Cities (let's not forget poor St. Paul) metro has twice the population Charlotte does. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_Metropolitan_Statistical_Ar eas

[superdave]

I'd like to see the ACC stand strong and not run around like chicken little thinking the sky is falling. For that matter I'd like the other conferences that don't want to expand to do the same. It's ridiculous that a few schools are forcing things on the rest of the college landscape that no one wants. Sure everyone want to come out smelling pretty, but most would rather things stay the same.

So let's skip ahead a step. Let's assume that we go to the super conferences of 16 teams. How long do you think it'll take for a group to break away and work out a deal worth more money. Doesn't seem like it'd be hard to me, just trim the fat. The fact is 16 teams in a conference is simply too many. I hope the ACC is able to not only see that but take advantage of it. If not...anyone for another meeting of 8 teams at a country club? =)

If the ACC "stands pat" then the SEC will poach a team or two, the Big Ten might grab Maryland and then we'll be adding WVU, Louisville and South Florida. That's the major risk - you wind up with a conference full of leftovers that gets the ACC dis-invited from having an automatic BCS berth.

Eat or be eaten...

[Duvall]

If the ACC "stands pat" then the SEC will poach a team or two, the Big Ten might grab Maryland and then we'll be adding WVU, Louisville and South Florida. That's the major risk - you wind up with a conference full of leftovers that gets the ACC dis-invited from having an automatic BCS berth.

Eat or be eaten...

See people say this, but never explain how it's supposed to work. How will adding teams that don't substantially increase the league's revenues prevent the SEC or the Big Ten from taking the schools they want anyway?

[jimsumner]

D'oh!



It's true the South's growing faster than the Midwest generally. That said, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio are still 5-8 in population. And no matter how big NC gets, there's not enough people to support Duke and Wake as well as UNC and State. Georgia's growth helps UGA more than Tech, and I just don't get the feeling anyone really competes with the Gators in most of Florida, though that may be wrong. The South may grow, but as a region it still supports two major conferences to the upper Midwest's one.

(Pulled out of context):



Sorry, that's not right. Not just a little bit not right, but not right for either town compared to any of the ones you've compared them to. Or Columbus, for that matter. The Twin Cities (let's not forget poor St. Paul) metro has twice the population Charlotte does. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_Metropolitan_Statistical_Ar eas

According to the nice folks at the United States Census bureau, Raleigh was the 43rd largest city in the United States at the 2010 census.

That makes Raleigh larger than

#45 Cleveland
#48 Minneapolis
#58 St. Louis
#59 Pittsburgh
#62 Cincinnati
#70 Buffalo

I didn't mention metropolitan areas. Or urban areas. Or cities beside other nearby cities. I said Raleigh had more people than Cincinnati. It does. What part of my sentence was factually incorrect?

I also stand by my larger point. I'm talking about the future, 10 years from now, 20 years from now. People have been moving South for decades and I am unaware of any projections that this massive population shift is going to stop anytime soon. Look at the population declines of Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit and numerous other rust-belt cities.

Cleveland lost 82,000 people from 2000 to 2010. Raleigh gained well over 100,000. See some trend lines? What will the populations look like in 2020? 2030? Doesn't it make some sense to invest in states that are gaining population in a big way over states that aren't?

The ACC has teams in the 4th, 9th, 10th and 12th most populous states, the Big 10/12/ in the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th. But the four most populous ACC states gained around seven million people between 2000 and 2010. The four most populous Big 10/12 gained a little over one million.

Those figures suggest some confidence in the ACC's ability to survive the current maelstrom. IMO.

[Duvall]

So, looking at the long term, what's a more attractive prospect, ageing rust-belt states struggling to maintain population or bustling sun-belt states adding a million people every decade?

But we aren't talking about states, we're talking about fanbases. The Big Ten fanbases are huge, and will stay that way even as the populations of those states shrink. It will take a very long time for the ACC to catch up through population growth.

[A-Tex Devil]

I'll call my shot now -- even if they go undefeated and beat Alabama by 40 in the Sugar Bowl in January, Boise St. will NEVER be in a major conference.

If we go to 4 16 team leagues, the schools that have to worry are Baylor, Iowa St., TCU, South Florida, Cincinnati, and K-State. Everyone else will be just fine at the end of this still speculative game of musical chairs. Only one school might burst through, and that's BYU.

[DueBlevil]

I didn't mention metropolitan areas. Or urban areas. Or cities beside other nearby cities. I said Raleigh had more people than Cincinnati. It does. What part of my sentence was factually incorrect?



I agree with your larger point; ACC areas are growing fast.
But at the same time, I think Mal has a point that it's a little disingenuous to just pull the populations of the cities proper. Boston proper, for example, is smaller than Charlotte proper, but the metropolitan areas are ~4.5 million vs. ~1.7 million, respectively. To claim that Charlotte is a larger, more major city that Boston would be crazy, in my opinion. It also has a lot to do with city histories; Boston proper would be much larger if it had the history of annexing surrounding cities, as some other cities have done (cough*new york*cough).

But, to your point, I'm sure metro Charlotte is growing faster than metro Boston.

[jimsumner]

I agree with your larger point; ACC areas are growing fast.
But at the same time, I think Mal has a point that it's a little disingenuous to just pull the populations of the cities proper. Boston proper, for example, is smaller than Charlotte proper, but the metropolitan areas are ~4.5 million vs. ~1.7 million, respectively. To claim that Charlotte is a larger, more major city that Boston would be crazy, in my opinion. It also has a lot to do with city histories; Boston proper would be much larger if it had the history of annexing surrounding cities, as some other cities have done (cough*new york*cough).

But, to your point, I'm sure metro Charlotte is growing faster than metro Boston.

My point relative to Raleigh simply was to show an example of a formerly sleepy southern city that has exploded in population over the last two decades. Be honest now, how many people not living in the area know that the city of Raleigh has more people than the city of St. Louis or Pittsburgh?

Just blows my mind. The good side is we get an NHL team. The bad side is we have to build a new school every three weeks.

[Wander]

My point relative to Raleigh simply was to show an example of a formerly sleepy southern city that has exploded in population over the last two decades. Be honest now, how many people not living in the area know that the city of Raleigh has more people than the city of St. Louis or Pittsburgh?

Well, there are two separate things here. The "Raleigh > St Louis" thing, while technically true, isn't really relevant, for reasons mentioned by DueBevil. But the Raleigh metro area is still growing fast - and actually, you can make your statement stronger. Raleigh is the fastest growing metro area of ANY major metro area in the U.S over the last 10 years, tied with Las Vegas (I'll define "major" as in the top 100 or so). Charlotte's up there too of course, so that is an interesting point to consider in the conference expansion thing I hadn't thought of before, and something I'd be selling if I were the ACC.


If we go to 4 16 team leagues, the schools that have to worry are Baylor, Iowa St., TCU, South Florida, Cincinnati, and K-State. Everyone else will be just fine at the end of this still speculative game of musical chairs. Only one school might burst through, and that's BYU.

Yeah, good call. I think the fear expressed earlier of Duke becoming irrelevant is silly - I understand it's mostly about football, but Duke's brand and academics are so incredibly strong that we form a bit of an exception to that. Any thoughts on Memphis or UCF, though?

[uh_no]

Yeah, good call. I think the fear expressed earlier of Duke becoming irrelevant is silly - I understand it's mostly about football, but Duke's brand and academics are so incredibly strong that we form a bit of an exception to that. Any thoughts on Memphis or UCF, though?

Strong academics is no guarantee of anything. The rest of whatever conference we are a part of will not make money off the fact that duke is a strong university.

[ChillinDuke]

Well, there are two separate things here. The "Raleigh > St Louis" thing, while technically true, isn't really relevant, for reasons mentioned by DueBevil. But the Raleigh metro area is still growing fast - and actually, you can make your statement stronger. Raleigh is the fastest growing metro area of ANY major metro area in the U.S over the last 10 years, tied with Las Vegas (I'll define "major" as in the top 100 or so). Charlotte's up there too of course, so that is an interesting point to consider in the conference expansion thing I hadn't thought of before, and something I'd be selling if I were the ACC.

I wouldn't buy it (pun intended).

Not that I don't buy Jim's overall point (or yours Wander), but I don't think the size of metropolitan areas, cities proper, towns, villages, counties or however you want to slice a population matters a heck of a lot in college sports.

The way I see it, it all goes back to alumni bases. Raleigh and Charlotte can grow all they want, but the ACC schools in the area won't grow population wise (within reason) and so graduating classes won't (within reason). What I'm getting at is if Raleigh grows and grows but the universities don't, then we're talking about transplanted people moving to the area which may or may not mean an increase in ACC following. More likely than not, these people will continue supporting their previous universities. And more importantly if Raleigh/Charlotte expand, they may get more pro sports teams which would begin to create problems a la DC, Boston, NYC, Philly, etc. regarding college sports following.

Yes, the ACC region is growing faster relative to other areas of the country. However, I doubt transplanted fans are going to just shed their previous allegiances and start cheering for NC State (for example) just because they move to the Raleigh area. And with these new TV channels and the internet, they don't have to.

As others have discussed, I believe the alumni bases will drive the school's (and conference's) following. To be sure, there will be other factors as well especially quality of product on field/court/rink/etc. But the alumni and students drive it IMHO.

It doesn't hurt to have a growing population in ACC territory. But I'm not sure it's a big enough positive to bolster our conference's durability.

- Chillin

[TexHawk]

The Big East going after Kansas and Kansas St would be an excellent move for that conference. I know Kansas and K-State aren't necessarily great football programs; but they are football programs nonethelessp; and it would push the conference closer to having 12 football playing schools. But inaddition and more importantly, they would add to very strong basketball programs to the conference, which would cement the Big East IMO as the best college basketball conference in the country. And with Kansas and K-State in the fold, it might allow the Big East to negotiate more lucrative tv contracts because of it. I know that apparently football is the driving force behind increased TV revenues; but I have to think that a conference with so many basketball heavyweights would still be attractive to ESPN and CBS. What do you guys think?
Kansas State has made the NCAA basketball tournament a whopping 5 times in the last 20 years. Barely squeaking in two of those years. Average seed = 8. As a KU fan, please don't lump our basketball teams together. ;)

I hate to say it, but states like Kansas and Iowa really should not have more than one BCS school. Missouri is twice the size and only has Mizzou. (Which is all the more hilarious in our eyes: Only large university in a decent-sized state, direct access to two large metro areas, and unbelievable mediocrity year after year.)

[OldPhiKap]

I'll call my shot now -- even if they go undefeated and beat Alabama by 40 in the Sugar Bowl in January, Boise St. will NEVER be in a major conference.


100% agreed.

Except for the fact that Boise St. will be kept out of the Sugar Bowl because they are not in a major conference and the BCS is a bunch of bull droppings because they aren't smart enough to figure out that everyone in the @#$@#$ country wants to see a @@#@#$# playoff and that everyone in the @#$@#$ country will pay a @#$@#$ load of money to see the @#$#@$ playoff.

But I digress.

[SCMatt33]

Just to throw an added variable into the mix concerning population and relevance of a city, here's the list of top TV markets straight from Neilsen (http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/2009-2010-dma-ranks.pdf) (including the exact number of TV homes in each). The list is a year old (updated through 2009-10), but there generally aren't any drastic changes at the top from year to year. I'll list the top 10 plus any others that I noticed that were mentioned in the last page or so along with any position changes from '09 to '10

1. New York
2. Los Angeles
3. Chicago
4. Philadelphia
5. Dallas/Ft. Worth
6. San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose
7. Boston
8. Atlanta
9. DC
10. Houston
...
11. Detroit
15. Minneapolis/St. Paul
18. Cleveland/Akron -1
21. St. Louis
23. Pittsburgh
24. Charlotte
26. Raleigh/Durham +1
33. Cincinnati +1
42. Las Vegas
52. Buffalo -1

These numbers seem to bear out both sides of the argument so far. With fewer established suburbs than Northeast and Midwest cities, Raleigh's TV influence (and by extension advertising influence) is still lagging behind many cities that it is technically bigger than. It is, however one of the few cities that moved up a spot. In fact, of the markets ranking 7-30, only 2, Raleigh and Charlotte, increased by 20K+ TV homes. Of coarse, those trends can change at any time (just ask Las Vegas) but things are looking up for NC markets right now.

[Duvall]

Strong academics is no guarantee of anything. The rest of whatever conference we are a part of will not make money off the fact that duke is a strong university.

This is wrong. Not every conference is a gimmick created by ESPN to fill airtime. In some leagues, like the Big Ten and the ACC, the conference members cooperate extensively on research projects and funding. That reason alone would make Duke an asset for those leagues.

[Mal]

I didn't mention metropolitan areas. Or urban areas. Or cities beside other nearby cities. I said Raleigh had more people than Cincinnati. It does. What part of my sentence was factually incorrect?

No need to be so defensive. If that's the criteria we're going on, then let's note that San Jose and San Antonio and Phoenix all have more people within their city limits than any one town in the entire ACC, Boston, Miami and Atlanta included. C'mon, no one talks about population in other than metropolitan area terms. It's useless.


I also stand by my larger point. I'm talking about the future, 10 years from now, 20 years from now. People have been moving South for decades and I am unaware of any projections that this massive population shift is going to stop anytime soon. Look at the population declines of Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit and numerous other rust-belt cities.

And I'll stand by my larger points - the upper Midwest still has a lot more people, and the Big Ten's members have vastly more substantial current fanbases and alumni bases than ACC schools as a general rule. And the upper Midwest only has one major collegiate athletic conference vying for people's attention - you can add another million people to South Carolina, but the positive effect on the "follows Clemson sports" total is going to be halved, at best, as the Gamecocks will siphon off their share. Same goes to an even greater degree with Atlanta and UGA, and the same goes with any town in Florida and UF. They may eventually reach parity, but we're talking about the near- to mid-term future here at most when it comes to these sorts of decisions. By the time there are as many people on the Atlantic coast not following SEC teams as there are people in Ohio, Michigan and Illinois, it'll be so hot there everyone will be moving back North, anyway! ;)

Not to mention that it takes a long time for migrating populations to fully pick up the local teams as their own, especially in this day and age. My aunt and uncle recently moved from suburban Cleveland to Birmingham. Do you think they, or their kids, give a rat's rear end about Alabama/Auburn, or will anytime soon? No. They still follow Ohio State and will for the forseeable future. And in our modern media environment, they can do so. They can practically block out the entirety of the Crimson Tide universe through the miracles of satellite TV and the internet. Only if my cousins' children grow up in Alabama will that change, and then only maybe. I have a friend who grew up in Ohio but (a) went to Duke, (b) married a girl who went to Kentucky, and (c) moved to Georgia. What football team does he still religiously follow, and have his sons rooting for? Hint: they're not in the SEC, and they didn't lose to Richmond last weekend.

[uh_no]

This is wrong. Not every conference is a gimmick created by ESPN to fill airtime. In some leagues, like the Big Ten and the ACC, the conference members cooperate extensively on research projects and funding. That reason alone would make Duke an asset for those leagues.

Explaining why there are no strong academic schools in the non-BCS conferences....do you not think Rice would die for an offer from a BCS conference? they're only 8 spots lower in the almighty rankings.....according to you every conference should be dying to admit rice....too bad they don't have a better football team....maybe its the 2 bowls in the last 20 years....Duke could absolutely end up the same way

what's different about duke is they already have a ton of fans....and those basketball fans probably aren't going anywhere.....but its silly to think Duke can scrape by just because it has strong academics.....

[Scorp4me]

If the ACC "stands pat" then the SEC will poach a team or two, the Big Ten might grab Maryland and then we'll be adding WVU, Louisville and South Florida. That's the major risk - you wind up with a conference full of leftovers that gets the ACC dis-invited from having an automatic BCS berth.

Eat or be eaten...

Have to agree with Duvall. I can just as easily say adding the teams is as likely to bring about the demise of the conference. I see jumping to 16 as a mistake only a few years down the road, not just for the ACC but all conferences...just not sure we can see past the fears of tomorrow.

although it sounds like we both see the stupidity of the situation, just have a different perspective of handling it. heck I still think 8 team conferences are best and the first move with 16 team conferences will be to plug them into two divisions so maybe I'll ultimately like it lol.

[mph]

The crisis escalates! The Big 12 is now resorting to hostage taking and un-American behavior. So says (http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/6939017/texas-aggies-accepted-sec-legal-threat-delays-move) A&M President R. Bowen Loften:


"We are being held hostage right now," Loftin said of being forced to stay in the Big 12. "Essentially, we're being told that you must stay here against your will and we think that really flies in the face of what makes us Americans for example and makes us free people."

Guess he hasn't heard that freedom isn't free.

[sagegrouse]

If the ACC "stands pat" then the SEC will poach a team or two, the Big Ten might grab Maryland and then we'll be adding WVU, Louisville and South Florida. That's the major risk - you wind up with a conference full of leftovers that gets the ACC dis-invited from having an automatic BCS berth.

Eat or be eaten...


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

I, for one, believe the ACC is a very solid conference not in danger of losing any of its members. The seven founders have a deep and long-seated love for the conference. In addition, Virginia Tech, which palpably lusted for ACC membership for 50 years, and Georgia Tech, who left the SEC 40 years ago because of its gladiator mentality and lack of academic focus, are likely going anywhere else. Uh, that's nine teams. Miami loves the ACC -- "our peer schools," says Pres. Shalala. FSU could fit in anywhere -- I don't see the Seminoles getting an offer from the SEC (Florida would object), and I don't see how that gives them an easier route to a national championship. That leaves Boston College -- also a school with high admission standards -- which doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

Now, I'm the guy who believes there are a lot of "Purists" (my definition) in college athletics, who go misty-eyed at their conference rivalries. I also believe there is a lot of loyalty among the ADs, because college athletics is all about loyalty. And I believe both qualities are strongly present among the ACC schools.

Also, I don't think either the SEC or Big Ten would "raid" another conference. It would need to receive an application, as the Big Ten did from thoroughly disgruntled Nebraska, and the PAC-10 did from frustrated (and somewhat scared) Colorado. Texas A&M is begging to be let into the SEC. (And, of course, no bias towards the Aggies, but all of college sportsdom is hoping they will be left as a sobbing mass of protoplasm on the doorstep of the SEC.)

Now, this is my opinion.

sagegrouse
'You know I drafted similar message this AM, and it's not here. I must have let it time out on the "Preview Post" screen.'

[A-Tex Devil]

The crisis escalates! The Big 12 is now resorting to hostage taking and un-American behavior. So says (http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/6939017/texas-aggies-accepted-sec-legal-threat-delays-move) A&M President R. Bowen Loften:



Guess he hasn't heard that freedom isn't free.

This is such hilarious BS on A&M's part. And frankly, the SEC letting them twist in the wind a bit is quite entertaining.

Dan Beebe, who everyone agrees is a below average conference commissioner, sent a letter to the SEC on September 2 saying that the Big 12 and its member schools wouldn't stand in the way of A&M's departure. The problem is that while the schools agreed not stand in the way of A&M moving, they never agreed to release claims as the letter implies. Beebe needs to get fired for that letter but I am not holding my breath.

Anyway, back on topic. A&M and the SEC are now claiming that initially one school (Baylor) and now as many as all 9 are holding up the process by reneging/disclaiming legal releases they never agreed to. Why in the name of Toomer's Corner (RIP) would a school release its rights? How can A&M with a straight face even expect a school release it's rights to claims without consideration on top of the exit fees already due - much less try to vilify them in the court of public opinion for not signing said release? It's a continuing running joke of a PR department in College Station.

As for the SEC, if Baylor et al don't have a case, they need to drop their contingency and let A&M in come over and be done with this. If Baylor has a case, more power to them. Enforce your rights Bears. That seems like American behavior, R. Bowen.

I will leave you with this quote from Loftin last summer:


“As the weekend concluded and we entered into Monday, however, the TV networks stepped up and indicated they would invest significantly in the 10 remaining members of the Big 12. And the Big 12 made a significant financial commitment to keep Texas A&M, Oklahoma and Texas in the conference. At the end of the day, we kept our word, which as an Aggie, is extremely important.” – R. Bowen Loftin – June 16, 2010

[Wander]

but its silly to think Duke can scrape by just because it has strong academics.....

I said Duke's brand and academics. And although I didn't say this in the original post, brand (ie, basketball stuff) is by far the more important of the two. But academics does matter. You're right, of course it doesn't guarantee anything, but it is a factor in our favor.

[formerdukeathlete]

Just to throw an added variable into the mix concerning population and relevance of a city, here's the list of top TV markets straight from Neilsen (http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/2009-2010-dma-ranks.pdf) (including the exact number of TV homes in each). The list is a year old (updated through 2009-10), but there generally aren't any drastic changes at the top from year to year. I'll list the top 10 plus any others that I noticed that were mentioned in the last page or so along with any position changes from '09 to '10

1. New York
2. Los Angeles
3. Chicago
4. Philadelphia
5. Dallas/Ft. Worth
6. San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose
7. Boston
8. Atlanta
9. DC
10. Houston
...
11. Detroit
15. Minneapolis/St. Paul
18. Cleveland/Akron -1
21. St. Louis
23. Pittsburgh
24. Charlotte
26. Raleigh/Durham +1
33. Cincinnati +1
42. Las Vegas
52. Buffalo -1

These numbers seem to bear out both sides of the argument so far. With fewer established suburbs than Northeast and Midwest cities, Raleigh's TV influence (and by extension advertising influence) is still lagging behind many cities that it is technically bigger than. It is, however one of the few cities that moved up a spot. In fact, of the markets ranking 7-30, only 2, Raleigh and Charlotte, increased by 20K+ TV homes. Of coarse, those trends can change at any time (just ask Las Vegas) but things are looking up for NC markets right now.


Do you pay more (ESPN, Fox Sports) relative to population for a growing TV market, fast growing TV markets, as you would pay a higher multiple of earnings for stock in a company whose earnings are growing rapidly, year on year? Probably, if you are working on a ten year deal. Pittsburgh's metro area is more than twice the population of Raleigh-Cary, based on the 2010 census. But, its population declined by 3% between 2000 and 2010, whereas Raleigh-Cary's increased nearly 42%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_Metropolitan_Statistical_Ar eas

Interesting to note that Durham-Chapel Hill is over half a million.

[OldPhiKap]

The crisis escalates! The Big 12 is now resorting to hostage taking and un-American behavior. So says (http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/6939017/texas-aggies-accepted-sec-legal-threat-delays-move) A&M President R. Bowen Loften:



Guess he hasn't heard that freedom isn't free.


It's America, baby, gots to pay to play. If A & M doesn't understand that, they're in for a rude awakening in the SEC.

Heh.

[Duvall]

Explaining why there are no strong academic schools in the non-BCS conferences....do you not think Rice would die for an offer from a BCS conference? they're only 8 spots lower in the almighty rankings.....according to you every conference should be dying to admit rice....too bad they don't have a better football team....maybe its the 2 bowls in the last 20 years....Duke could absolutely end up the same way

what's different about duke is they already have a ton of fans....and those basketball fans probably aren't going anywhere.....but its silly to think Duke can scrape by just because it has strong academics.....

And now you have completely changed your argument. Earlier you said that "[r]he rest of whatever conference we are a part of will not make money off the fact that duke is a strong university" - a claim that is simply false, as ACC schools are making money off of Duke's academic strengths as we speak (and vice versa, of course). That gives Duke *an* asset in which some leagues may be interested, one of several. Other schools have different assets.

[uh_no]

And now you have completely changed your argument. Earlier you said that "[r]he rest of whatever conference we are a part of will not make money off the fact that duke is a strong university" - a claim that is simply false, as ACC schools are making money off of Duke's academic strengths as we speak (and vice versa, of course). That gives Duke *an* asset in which some leagues may be interested, one of several. Other schools have different assets.

I missed the part where I changed my argument....

me: conferences don't make money off dukes academics
you: yes they do! duke will always have a place because of strong academics
me: here's a counterexample showing a university with strong academics and reasonable athletics who doesn't have a place in a BCS conference

the point being: since we have an example of a strong university in a power conference, and a strong university NOT in a power conference, there must be some differentiator besides academics....its duke's basketball brand......and IF that were to go away, duke would have a problem, regardless of academic reputation....but I don't think duke basketball is going anywhere even post-K...

[Scorp4me]

The crisis escalates! The Big 12 is now resorting to hostage taking and un-American behavior. So says (http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/6939017/texas-aggies-accepted-sec-legal-threat-delays-move) A&M President R. Bowen Loften:


I'm not sure it's un-American, but I'm pretty sure it's un-Confederate. Can't blame a guy for getting confused though, Texas was a part of the Confederacy.


On a different note I have to agree with sagegrouse. I think there is alot of sabre rattling going on, but the ACC is alot more stable than the rest of the world would like to admit. We may ultimately add some in the end, but I don't see anyone getting taken from us. I was thinking the other day how nice it would be if the 4 Carolina schools stuck together and said we're not going anywhere without the others...then I thought, how nice it would be for an entire conference to say that...what a novel idea huh. Well, I'm not sure about the rest of the conferences, some of them seem pretty stable, but I think that is what we have in the ACC. If one were to leave I think they would leave behind a pretty coveted and easily fillable spot.

[Class of '94]

Just heard on a sports talk show here in the Detroit area that there are some internet reports that Texas and Notre Dame have presented a proposal/conditions for joining the Big 10 conference to the Big 10. Here is the link that they read a report from: http://northwestern.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=57&tid=162506546&mid=162506546&sid=901&style=2 .

No one here knows how true these reports are but it would be very interesting if the Big 10 were able to get these two schools. These were the 2 schools that I wanted for the ACC. Has anyone heard anything about these reports? TexDevil?

[A-Tex Devil]

Just heard on a sports talk show here in the Detroit area that there are some internet reports that Texas and Notre Dame have presented a proposal/conditions for joining the Big 10 conference to the Big 10. Here is the link that they read a report from: http://northwestern.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=57&tid=162506546&mid=162506546&sid=901&style=2 .

No one here knows how true these reports are but it would be very interesting if the Big 10 were able to get these two schools. These were the 2 schools that I wanted for the ACC. Has anyone heard anything about these reports? TexDevil?

While I would not object to a move like this for Texas, this guy from Northwestern has been consistently either wrong, or overstating simple discussions, going all the way back to last summer.

The Big XII "discussed" adding Arkansas and Notre Dame earlier this month. Didn't mean it was going to happen. So, I don't doubt the Big Ten is brainstorming scenarios to get out ahead of this, but I'd be shocked if anything like this happens now or even before the beginning of next football season.

On the SEC/A&M front, the SEC's conservatism is the only thing holding the A&M deal up. Contrary to reports, no one has threatened suit. Baylor, and others, have simply not agreed to release any potential claims. No conference or school has ever been required to release claims as part of a realignment. The Aggies need to start moving their ever-pointing fingers at the SEC now. It's in the SEC's court to get this deal done.

[awhom111]

Part of the problem with these expansions seem to be a lack of planning and collaboration towards a long-term goal from the major conferences. There really are not 72 teams that can run BCS-level football and creditable programs in other sports, much less the more that would be needed with 5 or 6 super-conferences. More BCS teams have been added, making it more difficult to easily go to 4 conferences of 16. The Big 12 will be unstable as long as it has fewer than 12 teams even without other factors like the Longhorn Network. The Big East continues to grow and grow once you add in the non-football playing schools and they approach a critical period for the negotiation of a new broadcast deal. Unfortunately, I am sure that the conference offices do not really want dissolve themselves, but this is really the last best opportunity to end the Big 12 and split the football and non-football part of the Big East. Assuming the same 10 total BCS Bowl spots, each conference could be given 2 automatic slots, while the other 2 could be conditionally filled by Notre Dame/other non-BCS or have a 3rd bid for a superconference.

Here would be one somewhat feasible 4 conference setup: I am not saying I like everything about this arrangement, but it would mostly be logical, address major concerns of some schools, and nobody would lose out (well except for TCU... Ideally I could find a home for South Florida and Cincinnati that is not the ACC, but I am trying as hard as possible to get all 66 current teams somewhere)

ACC:
Duke
North Carolina
Wake Forest
Maryland
Virginia
Virginia Tech
Clemson
Georgia Tech
Florida State
Miami
Boston College
+Louisville
+West Virginia
+Pitt
+Connecticut
+Syracuse
+South Florida
+Cincinnati

SEC:
Florida
Georgia
South Carolina
Kentucky
Tennessee
Vanderbilt
Arkansas
LSU
Ole Miss
Mississippi State
Alabama
Auburn
+North Carolina State
+Texas A&M
+Baylor
+Kansas State

Big Ten:
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Michigan
Michigan State
Penn State
Ohio State
Indiana
Purdue
Illinois
Northwestern
Iowa
Nebraska
+Iowa State
+Missouri
+Kansas
+Rutgers

Pac (16?)
USC
UCLA
Cal
Stanford
Oregon
Oregon State
Washington
Washington State
Arizona
Arizona State
Utah
Colorado
+Texas
+Texas Tech
+Oklahoma
+Oklahoma State

There are plenty of problems with this "solution" but it would give everybody a home and in my opinion it would create the possibility of long-term stability, which as a fan is a big priority for me. I know that some people would object to State moving to the SEC in this setup, but I truly believe it would be a mutually beneficial arrangement. They could easily be switched back with one of the teams that I added to the ACC, out of which I would be willing to give up Cincinnati, then South Florida, then Pitt. If we could stick to 16 in the ACC, I would also like to see Notre Dame and either Georgetown or Villanova's non-football teams in the conference.

Here were the things I considered in making this:
-No current BCS schools without a conference
-No religious schools in the Pac 12
-No new non-AAU teams in the Big Ten
-No new teams in current SEC states for the SEC
-Minimal poaching by any conference of teams in the 4 remaining conferences (only NC State, which could be easily reversed)
-Baylor no longer has a reason to be mad at Texas A&M
-General preservation of rivalries

The Notre Dame conundrum continues. Obviously they want to preserve their special schedule, which most closely resembles a Big Ten one, but the rest of their sports programs are really not very Big Ten-like and are pretty similar to Duke and some other ACC schools. I figure the system has to still allow for some independents although there will be some weird leftovers (like what will become of the WAC, even under the current conditions?). I dislike this conference shuffle as much as anyone else, but I at least tried to come up with some kind of system that would encompass everything.

[brevity]

It's probably been vaguely mentioned earlier in the thread, but no one has yet elaborated on how problematic it will be to schedule conference opponents when the conference has 16 teams. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the ACC keeps its 12 teams, and adds 4 more: West Virginia, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, and Syracuse.

The conference might be divided into two 8-team divisions. Going by geography, it would look like this:

ACC North: Boston College, Syracuse, Rutgers, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Maryland, Virginia, Virginia Tech
ACC South: Duke, UNC, NC State, Wake Forest, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Miami

Not bad, for what it is. The 4 North Carolina schools stay together. But how does the football schedule work? There are 12 games in a regular season. If we use Pittsburgh as our point of reference, there would be 7 games against the rest of the ACC North, leaving 5 regular season games. Requiring them to play 4 games against the ACC South would mean that Pitt has only one nonconference game, which seems harsh and inflexible. Some may suggest 3, but the logistics of evenly distributing 8 teams (3 per season) would give me a headache. This leaves 2 teams, which looks like a sensible schedule if you isolate it to one season: 7 ACC North games, 2 ACC South games, 3 nonconference games.

The problem arises when you look beyond one season. Over the course of 4 years, Pitt's ACC South schedule could look like this:

Year 1: vs Duke, at Miami
Year 2: vs Georgia Tech, at NC State
Year 3: vs Florida State, at Clemson
Year 4: vs Wake Forest, at UNC

Or like this:

Year 1: vs Duke, at Miami
Year 2: vs Miami, at Duke
Year 3: vs Georgia Tech, at NC State
Year 4: vs NC State, at Georgia Tech

In the first scenario, a healthy 4-year player would at least face every ACC opponent, but would not experience any home-and-home series. The reverse is true of the second scenario. In both scenarios, that player would travel to Florida only once in his college career. Looking at it from a coaching or recruiting perspective, I doubt Pitt would find that appealing. What's the point of playing ACC football if your exposure to the Sunshine State is so limited?

Basketball footnote: if Pitt played every ACC North opponent twice and every ACC South opponent once, that's 22 conference games.

Another alternative is creating four 4-team divisions.

ACC Trenchcoat: Boston College, Syracuse, Rutgers, Pittsburgh
ACC Fleece: West Virginia, Maryland, Virginia, Virginia Tech
ACC T-Shirt: Duke, UNC, NC State, Wake Forest
ACC Sandals: Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Miami

This makes more sense for basketball. Play division opponents twice and everyone else once: 6 + 4 + 4 + 4 = 18 games. But it solves none of the football problems above and adds a particularly thorny one for Pittsburgh -- it no longer gets to play West Virginia every year.

[Scorp4me]

It's probably been vaguely mentioned earlier in the thread, but no one has yet elaborated on how problematic it will be to schedule conference opponents when the conference has 16 teams.

I think scheduling is just one of the problems. I find it amusing that everyone seems to be in a race to get to a 16 team conference...and then the first move is to split the conference into two divisions of eight. Why don't they just realize that a conference size of eight works a lot better. And I blame part of this on the NCAA for making the stupid rule that required 12 teams to have a conference championship game.

I don't think it would take long for a group of schools to find a way to make more money in a smaller conference. I feel like that's happened in the past before :D

[laxbluedevil]

Small leagues of 8-10 are best, playing everyone every year in every sport, and home and home in hoops, only way to determine true champs, and preserve real rivalries, in regions that make sense.

Atlantic League, 10: UConn, Syracuse, Penn State, BC, UMD, UVA, UNC, Duke, GT, FSU. Dominates the entire east with half the population and media and money, and ideal competition in football for PSU, FSU, as well as Duke, to play for national titles or bowls, since none of them could do that in B10 or ACC 12. Best in mens and womens hoops, lacrosse, soccer, baseball, softball, field hockey, etc. broadcast on Atlantic League Network, and the best network TV deals by far to make the PAC 12's best ever (despite 2 ranked football and zero ranked hoops teams) look tiny by comparison.

Big East, 10-12: VT, NCSU, Wake, Clemson, WVU, Pitt, Rutgers, Louisville, Cincinnati, USF, maybe Memphis and ECU.

Big East basketball schools, all catholic, form own league of 8.

Big 10.

PAC 10.

Big 12.

SEC, 12.

See "a new ACC" thread for why this is the best thing for all schools involved.

[Scorp4me]

I agree laxdevil, so here's a thought. Assuming we go to the four 16 team mega conferences...what does the rest of the world do? Think the NCAA is going to sit by and do nothing? Think the BCS schools are going to be content listening to the NCAA? Think the other schools (and there is alot more of them) are going to simply sit by?

If this happens it has much bigger implications down the road. As I've said, everyone is so worried about tomorrow they aren't considering a few years from now. I think this easily has the potential to change, ruin, split, however you see it, the college landscape completely. This won't just be about conference realignment if it takes place.

Honest questions too for anyone's thoughts. Everyone is talking about the teams that are in, but what about the teams that are out. Do we end up with two different systems, the BCS and the rest of the NCAA? I don't know the answers, but I'd love to hear from some who are more in the know than me. I might not know what they are going to do, but I know they aren't going to do nothing.

[uh_no]

Think the BCS schools are going to be content listening to the NCAA?

I think university presidents are the ones who ultimately make these decisions, and they likely will feel a lot more strongly about breaking away from the NCAA than they would about simply changing conferences.

I don't think it will happen. but its anybody's guess.

[ACCBBallFan]

It's probably been vaguely mentioned earlier in the thread, but no one has yet elaborated on how problematic it will be to schedule conference opponents when the conference has 16 teams. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the ACC keeps its 12 teams, and adds 4 more: West Virginia, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, and Syracuse.

The conference might be divided into two 8-team divisions. Going by geography, it would look like this:

ACC North: Boston College, Syracuse, Rutgers, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Maryland, Virginia, Virginia Tech
ACC South: Duke, UNC, NC State, Wake Forest, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Miami

Not bad, for what it is. The 4 North Carolina schools stay together. But how does the football schedule work? There are 12 games in a regular season. If we use Pittsburgh as our point of reference, there would be 7 games against the rest of the ACC North, leaving 5 regular season games. Requiring them to play 4 games against the ACC South would mean that Pitt has only one nonconference game, which seems harsh and inflexible. Some may suggest 3, but the logistics of evenly distributing 8 teams (3 per season) would give me a headache. This leaves 2 teams, which looks like a sensible schedule if you isolate it to one season: 7 ACC North games, 2 ACC South games, 3 nonconference games.

The problem arises when you look beyond one season. Over the course of 4 years, Pitt's ACC South schedule could look like this:

Year 1: vs Duke, at Miami
Year 2: vs Georgia Tech, at NC State
Year 3: vs Florida State, at Clemson
Year 4: vs Wake Forest, at UNC

Or like this:

Year 1: vs Duke, at Miami
Year 2: vs Miami, at Duke
Year 3: vs Georgia Tech, at NC State
Year 4: vs NC State, at Georgia Tech

In the first scenario, a healthy 4-year player would at least face every ACC opponent, but would not experience any home-and-home series. The reverse is true of the second scenario. In both scenarios, that player would travel to Florida only once in his college career. Looking at it from a coaching or recruiting perspective, I doubt Pitt would find that appealing. What's the point of playing ACC football if your exposure to the Sunshine State is so limited?

Basketball footnote: if Pitt played every ACC North opponent twice and every ACC South opponent once, that's 22 conference games.

Another alternative is creating four 4-team divisions.

ACC Trenchcoat: Boston College, Syracuse, Rutgers, Pittsburgh
ACC Fleece: West Virginia, Maryland, Virginia, Virginia Tech
ACC T-Shirt: Duke, UNC, NC State, Wake Forest
ACC Sandals: Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Miami

This makes more sense for basketball. Play division opponents twice and everyone else once: 6 + 4 + 4 + 4 = 18 games. But it solves none of the football problems above and adds a particularly thorny one for Pittsburgh -- it no longer gets to play West Virginia every year.

Isn't it worse that you suggest? Only 11 games not counting the championship, So 7 division of 8 opponents plus 2 of the other 8 every 4 years plus 2 OOC.

In another thread I posted a link about Notre Dame and Texas overtures to B10(12). Notre Dame wanted only 8 B10(14) foes so it could retain its 3 traditional rivals. I am sure Texas would still want to play OU every year in Dallas. In that case there were only 7 in each division, so 6 inter division and 2 intra division, plus 3 OOC. So 3.5 year rotations rather 4 but still a long time to feel like you are in the same football conference unless you meet in championship.

http://northwestern.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?SID=901&fid=57&style=2&tid=162506546&Page=8