Official (2015-2016) College Football Thread OSU#1

Anyone else following all the conference expansion rumors? Looks like a major shift is coming.

To summarize the current workings, it's looking likely that the Big 12 is going to be done.

Nebraska and Missouri look to be going to the Big 10--have until Friday to give Big 12 a commitment or not. Big 10 also meeting with ND's AD today. So if they get them the question is whether they stop at 14 teams or grab two more (would likely be Big East teams--Rutgers is the hot name to get the Big 10 network in more households in the NYC and Philly areas with their Newark and Camden campuses).

Pac 10 is wanting to go to 16 and looking to take Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Ok State and Baylor/Colorado. On the later they wanted Colorado, but Texas legislature is saying they'd stop the move if Baylor isn't included. Pac 10 has said they're fine with either Baylor or Colorado and would let the Big 12 decide.

So when that plays out the question is whether the SEC would want to match and go to 16. If so they'd probably raid the ACC with, Miami, FSU, Georgia Tech and Clemson being the mentioned names.

Then the ACC would have to get back to 12 or maybe to 16 by raiding the big east and maybe grabbing other teams like UCF, Memphis etc.


Also, the Mountain West looks to be adding Boise State--and they'd probably also grab the Big 12 leftovers like Kansas and Kansas state--and be the 5th BCS league (assuming the Big East dies as well--if the SEC and ACC stand pat, then the Big East will survive and they'd be the 6th BCS league).

In any case, it looks like the Big 12 downfall will happen soon given the Friday deadline. So I expect if nothing else we'll see the Pac 10 expansion announced in the near future, probably Big 10 as well.
 
[quote name='pitfallharry219']Nothing makes me think of the Pacific coast more than Oklahoma.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, you'd think they'd have to rename it to something other than just Pac 16.

Division wise it would work out well, as the east division would be the 6 Big 12 teams plus Arizona and Arizona St, with the West being the other 8 current Pac 10 schools.

But the name wouldn't make sense as Pac 10.
 
For shits and giggles, here's my guess on how the major conference line up will change.

I see it going to five 16 team BCS conferences (plus the mid majors sticking around for the most part), and the break down going something like this:

Pac 10:
Arizona
Arizona State
Texas
Texas A&M
Texas Tech
Baylor
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State

Washington
Washington State
USC
Oregon
Oregon State
Stanford
California
UCLA

Big 10
Ohio State
Michigan
Michigan State
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Illinois
Northwestern
Iowa

Penn State
Rutgers
Missouri
Nebraska
Notre Dame
Indiana
Purdue
Syracuse

SEC
Florida
Georgia
Georgia Tech
Kentucky
Tennessee
South Carolina
Miami
Clemson

Alabama
LSU
Mississippi
Arkansas
Auburn
Mississippi State
Florida State
Vanderbilt

ACC
Boston College
NC State
UVA
Maryland
WVU
Pitt
Wake Forest
UCONN

Duke
UNC
UCF
VT
Louisville
Cincinnati
USF
Memphis(or ECU)

Mountain West
TCU
BYU
Utah
Air Force
Wyoming
UNLV
San Diego State
New Mexico

Colorado State
Kansas
Kansas State
Iowa State
Colorado
Fresno State
Nevada
Boise State
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There is no way anyone is leaving the ACC this year. My guess is also the SEC doesn't change at all.

I think this only affects the Big 10, Big 12, and maybe the Pac 10. If, them.
 
[quote name='munch']If one changes, then they all will.[/QUOTE]

When the ACC gobbled up BC, Miami, and VT, the only affected conferences were the Big East and the ACC.

So I wouldn't think that way.
 
I think this time though there will be a move toward 16 team mega conferences that will then try to bend the NCAA to their will--and if that doesn't work just break away from the NCAA and form their own college sport division with their own tournaments etc.

So I do think it will be more wide spread this time IMO. Also, when the ACC went to 12, the SEC and Big 12 where already there. If the Pac 10 and Big 10 go to 16, that will put the biggest spot light on them as those two leagues will have the biggest concentration of top teams.

The SEC especially will want to match to keep the spotlight on them as the greatest thing in college football. The ACC is about the only place they can raid teams with the Big 12 powers heading to the Pac 10. Thus the ACC and Big East will have little choice but to merge--whether that's to just get back to 12 teams or for the new ACC to grab enough to get to 16 as well.
 
Right now the SEC is the top conference, and if the Big 10 and Pac 10 go to 16 teams (which they are) the SEC isn't going to be left behind.

We won't be able to get teams from the pac-10 (because they're expanding), big 12 (dissolving), or big 10(expanding)... and we won't dip down into Conference USA because of drop off in talent... and by location the ACC makes the most sense for us to get teams from. Georgia Tech, Clemson, Florida State, and Miami are the most likely teams, although I don't know if Georgia Tech would want to come back to the SEC since they left us a while back
 
Money talks, the SEC payout per team is a lot higher than the ACC now. So GT would definitely come back.

If not, Louisville would be another good option for the SEC as they have solid programs and a big rivalry with Kentucky.
 
What worries me the most is how the game scheduling will work.

Will they stick with 12 games per season and decrease out of conference games?

Will they increase it to maybe 14 games per season at which point your team is completely worn down by the time bowls come around?

And if there's 8 teams in the east and 8 in the west of a conference will a team from the East now have to wait 8 years just to play a team from the west in the same conference?
 
Scheduling should be fine.

Have two 8 team divisions. You play the other 7 teams in your division and 2 or 3 from the other division. Leaving room for 3 or 2 non conference games in a 12 game schedule respectively. Division champs play in the title game.

Yeah, you won't be playing the teams from the other division with regularity. Maybe have 1 permanent rival and the other 1 or two games rotating.

I'd say just have the in-division games count in division standings--that way it's a balanced schedule. Use common opponents etc. as tie breaker if needed.
 
Seriously though... what benefit would it have for FSU, Clemson, Miami, i.e. any other ACC school to switch to the SEC?? They already get airtime i.e. revenue. I watched about every game this season via either ESPN 1/2/U or Raycom (who is exclusive to the conference) and I don't live in Florida (still East Coast). Then you think of the other sports it would affect to switch conferences... the ACC trumphs the SEC in most other major sports i.e. Basketball and Baseball. Again, what benefit is it to these teams, especially ones that recently joined the ACC?

Don't get too hyped on the news frenzy. Most likely all that will happen is Notre Dame will finally cave and sign with the Big 10 (finally giving them a 12th team).
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Scheduling should be fine.

Have two 8 team divisions. You play the other 7 teams in your division and 2 or 3 from the other division. Leaving room for 3 or 2 non conference games in a 12 game schedule respectively. Division champs play in the title game.

Yeah, you won't be playing the teams from the other division with regularity. Maybe have 1 permanent rival and the other 1 or two games rotating.

I'd say just have the in-division games count in division standings--that way it's a balanced schedule. Use common opponents etc. as tie breaker if needed.[/QUOTE]



I agree.. that sounds about right
 
[quote name='lordopus99']Seriously though... what benefit would it have for FSU, Clemson, Miami, i.e. any other ACC school to switch to the SEC?? [/QUOTE]

The payout per school in the Big 10 and SEC is WAY more than that by the other BCS leagues. I've seen numbers posted on various sports forums, but don't have time to dig them up right now.

So what they'd gain is a much bigger pay check than they could ever get in the ACC.


Personally, I really want the shake up to happen and to move to five 16 team leagues. It will greatly improve the chance of getting a playoff. I'm tired of WVU being in the Big East--just impossible to get excited for schedules full of no-name programs like Cincy, USF, UCONN, etc. when we used to play Miami, VT, BC etc. every year. Even when those teams are good, it's just hard to get stoked to play them.

So I'd welcome the Big East Merging with ACC leftovers as in my scenario above. At least that gets VT and BC back on the schedule, starts a natural rivalry with UVA, and keeps UMD on there permanently (only have 4 games lined up with them currently).


Edit: While not a full list, this article says the payout per school under the new ACC deal is $12 million, while the SEC's current deal is $17 million per school. No school is going to turn down an extra $5 million a year to switch conferences.

http://www.bcinterruption.com/2010/5/18/1476782/is-the-accs-next-tv-deal-enough-to
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']The payout per school in the Big 10 and SEC is WAY more than that by the other BCS leagues. I've seen numbers posted on various sports forums, but don't have time to dig them up right now.

So what they'd gain is a much bigger pay check than they could ever get in the ACC.


Personally, I really want the shake up to happen and to move to five 16 team leagues. It will greatly improve the chance of getting a playoff. I'm tired of WVU being in the Big East--just impossible to get excited for schedules full of no-name programs like Cincy, USF, UCONN, etc. when we used to play Miami, VT, BC etc. every year. Even when those teams are good, it's just hard to get stoked to play them.

So I'd welcome the Big East Merging with ACC leftovers as in my scenario above. At least that gets VT and BC back on the schedule, starts a natural rivalry with UVA, and keeps UMD on there permanently (only have 4 games lined up with them currently).


Edit: While not a full list, this article says the payout per school under the new ACC deal is $12 million, while the SEC's current deal is $17 million per school. No school is going to turn down an extra $5 million a year to switch conferences.

http://www.bcinterruption.com/2010/5/18/1476782/is-the-accs-next-tv-deal-enough-to[/QUOTE]

Just speaking from my schools perspective... 5 million is nothing when you consider the following (still skeptic about the figures since message boards are hearsay and gossip).
1) Every year we play UF so we get extra revenue from that game. In addition, we play big out of conference talent each year so their is also additional revenue from that i.e. Oklahoma and BYU are on schedule this year... In recent past, played Alabama.
2) Bowl revenue - If we jump ship to the SEC, our road for a big bowl is diminished by having to play an LSU/Alabama in addition to UF every year. By being in a lesser bowl, we would make less money. In the ACC, we have a good chance to win it each year (yes, I know its been a while since we are rebuilding).
3) More teams in a division means less airtime. If your team doesn't have as much airtime, then you don't see that revenue. FSU has about every game televised. With the recently announced first 3 weeks scheduling, we have all our games televised.
7/4 Samford ESPNU
7/11 at Oklahoma ABC/ESPN2
7/18 BYU ESPNU
10/28 at NC State ESPN (outstanding every year)
4) ACC Basketball - If we were to leave the ACC, we would then be thrown in a conference that is non competitve i.e. hardly any national televised games. I can only think of one handful of SEC games that were national televised last year; ACC - too many to count. We get money from each one of those games.
5) Outside funding for Athletics such as our contract with Nike (34 million). If we were a middle of the pack team (which would happen if we went to SEC), our contract would have been smaller.

Personally, I really want the shake up to happen and to move to five 16 team leagues. It will greatly improve the chance of getting a playoff.
Click to expand...

Good luck with that thinking. Coaches have been trying to get rid of the BCS since practically its conception and it hasn't worked. We will see what happens when the BCS contract runs out.
 
#3 isn't true. The 17 million and 12 million numbers are the actual payouts every team gets from the conferences--that's not dependent on airtime etc. That's just revenue the conference makes and distributes equally among all members.

The others are fair points, but schools are going to go for more guaranteed money first and foremost, vs. worrying about ways to sometimes make more money by getting to bigger bowls etc.


As for the BCS--going 5 super leagues is the easiest way for coaches etc. to move away from that. They'd have the 80 top programs in college sports and could easily get the NCAA to bend to their wishes and allow them to create a new division with no post seasons etc. And if the NCAA doesn't, they can easily say fuck them and break away from the NCAA and start a whole new college sports association with a new governing body.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']#3 isn't true. The 17 million and 12 million numbers are the actual payouts every team gets from the conferences--that's not dependent on airtime etc. That's just revenue the conference makes and distributes equally among all members.

The others are fair points, but schools are going to go for more guaranteed money first and foremost, vs. worrying about ways to sometimes make more money by getting to bigger bowls etc.

As for the BCS--going 5 super leagues is the easiest way for coaches etc. to move away from that. They'd have the 80 top programs in college sports and could easily get the NCAA to bend to their wishes and allow them to create a new division with no post seasons etc. And if the NCAA doesn't, they can easily say fuck them and break away from the NCAA and start a whole new college sports association with a new governing body.[/QUOTE]

If that is how it works, then adding more teams will cause a lower payout then since there are more teams to distribute the income.
12 teams x 17 million = 204 million
204 million / 16 teams = 12.75 million
Not much of a difference at all in the grand scheme of things.

On the latest news, Mountain West is not expanding. Kansas is staying put in Big 12 and urging Nebraska to stay as well. Pac 10 plans to invite 6 Big 12 schools (texas, texas tech, texas a&m, oklahoma, ok state, last team to be decided).
 
It's also adding new teams will allow them to redo the TV contract--the SEC commissioner said there was such a clause in the TV deal yesterday.

i.e. the Big 10 deal is rumored to payout $20-22 million per team after expansion. So they payouts should stay about the same--so still way more than the Big East, Acc and Big 12 payouts which is why those conferences will die--Big 12 totally gone, Big East and ACC forced to merge after losing teams to the Big 10 and SEC.


As for the MWC--they just announced they weren't adding Boise right now--and said they were waiting to see what happens with the other conferences.

They just want to see who's left in the Big 12 that they can add. Likely it will just be Kansas, Kansas State, Baylor and Iowa State--and the MWC will end up taking them, Boise and one other team to get to 16.

And of course Kansas is staying put--no one wants them! They're not among the teams rumored to be wanted by either the Big 10 or the Pac 10. So expansion screws them as they'll be taking a step down and likely ending up in the MWC if the Big 12 falls apart--so of course they're trying to get Nebraska to stay. If Nebraska leaves--the Big 12 is 100% dead as they and Missouri go to the Big 10 and the other 6 you list (with Colorado or Baylor as the last team) go the Pac 10--leaving the other 4 teams pretty screwed.
 
The pie will be divided up among more people, but the pie will also be getting larger.

Also if the schools typically are very good in basketball come to the SEC there would probably be less competition than i the ACC and they could be even more successful.

Also I'm pretty sure the bowl money gets split up
 
Well, the ACC schools rumored as most likely to head to the SEC are FSU, Miami, Clemson and GT--so that won't have much impact on the Basketball quality of the ACC.

And if the ACC merges with the Big East left overs they'd be adding UCONN/Cuse (think one of those goes Big 10, probably Cuse), Louisville, WVU, Cincy etc. so the ACC would be stronger than currently in basketball as it keeps it's current elite teams and adds some more basketball powers. While losing a couple mediocre basketball programs in Miami and FSU, and second tier programs in Clemson and GT.

ACC football would be weaker though, as there's no equal replacement for Miami and FSU in the Big East obviously. But basketball would be stronger.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']
And of course Kansas is staying put--no one wants them! They're not among the teams rumored to be wanted by either the Big 10 or the Pac 10. So expansion screws them as they'll be taking a step down and likely ending up in the MWC if the Big 12 falls apart--so of course they're trying to get Nebraska to stay. If Nebraska leaves--the Big 12 is 100% dead as they and Missouri go to the Big 10 and the other 6 you list (with Colorado or Baylor as the last team) go the Pac 10--leaving the other 4 teams pretty screwed.[/QUOTE]

Personally I think Kansas is more valuable than you put them. In Basketball, they are top 5 every year. What has Colorado done in any sport since the 90s???:applause:

[quote name='dmaul1114']
Well, the ACC schools rumored as most likely to head to the SEC are FSU, Miami, Clemson and GT--so that won't have much impact on the Basketball quality of the ACC.

And if the ACC merges with the Big East left overs they'd be adding UCONN/Cuse (think one of those goes Big 10, probably Cuse), Louisville, WVU, Cincy etc. so the ACC would be stronger than currently in basketball as it keeps it's current elite teams and adds some more basketball powers. While losing a couple mediocre basketball programs in Miami and FSU, and second tier programs in Clemson and GT.

ACC football would be weaker though, as there's no equal replacement for Miami and FSU in the Big East obviously. But basketball would be stronger.
[/QUOTE]
First off, don't be so harsh. The teams you listed are alot better at BBall them you make them. FSU and Clemson were 4 and 5 in the ACC; GT is listed 7. GT's Derrick Favors is currently predicted to go #3 in the NBA Draft.

Second, what valuable source claims/rumors that the SEC, ACC, or Big East are going anywhere in this mix? The only Big East school that is even mentioned is Syracuse. The Big East is primarily a BBall conference so either way I don't see them merging with the ACC if someone leaves.

As for my school, this article speaks the best about the situation. FSU would be a fool to leave the conference they built.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/399418-florida-state-and-the-acc-a-reason-not-to-leave
 
As for Kansas--they're not that valuable as they offer little media market--same with K-State and Iowa State which is why neither the Big 12 or Big 10 is after them. Colorado has some attraction as they get the Denver market. Baylor no one wants as Waco isn't a big market--but the Pac 10 may have to take them instead of CU due to the threats of the Texas legislature to block the move of the other Texas schools if Baylor is left out.


As for the ACC basketball teams--the ACC was pretty crummy last year. Duke was the only elite team, with UMD being quite solid as well. Pretty big drop off down to the 3rd, 4th etc. place teams. Usually it's very strong, but last year was a down year.

And any case, Miami, FSU, Clemson and GT certainly aren't UCONN, Louisville, WVU (last 6 years anyway) or Cincy in terms of basketball prestige etc., which is all I was saying. The ACC can replace them easily in basketball by merging with the Big East. But football will take a hit as those Big East schools are no where near Miami or FSU prestige in football.


As for the other point, it's all speculation of course. It's just hard to imagine the SEC would stay at 12 teams if the Pac 10 and Big 10 go to 16. They would steal the spot light from the SEC as those two conferences would have the lionshare of elite programs. The SEC could get that spotlight back by raiding the ACC and getting Miami and FSU and 2 other teams.

Just speculation, but I'd be absolutely shocked if the SEC stayed at 12 if the Pac 10 and Big 10 go to 16 teams.
 
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/22977/nebraska-to-big-ten-on-friday

Looks like Nebraska could announce leaving for the Big 10 as soon as Friday--which is their deadline to announce loyalty to the Big 12 or not, so no surprise there.

So the dominoes should start falling soon. The real key is whether the Pac 10 and Big 10 do go to 16. The Mountain West would then definitely go to 16 with Big 12 left overs and Boise State.

Then I'd be flabbergasted if the SEC didn't raid the ACC to get to 16 themselves, and leave the Big East and ACC leftovers no choice but to merge and find other teams if needed to get to 16 and make up the 5th 16 team power conference.

I love speculating on this stuff personally--but I'll also be glad when the dominoes fall and we get to see who was right in the speculation!
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']As for Kansas--they're not that valuable as they offer little media market--same with K-State and Iowa State which is why neither the Big 12 or Big 10 is after them. Colorado has some attraction as they get the Denver market. Baylor no one wants as Waco isn't a big market--but the Pac 10 may have to take them instead of CU due to the threats of the Texas legislature to block the move of the other Texas schools if Baylor is left out.
[/QUOTE]
Kansas basketball games have always been national televised. I actually watch the Texas/Kansas game last season.

[quote name='dmaul1114']
As for the ACC basketball teams--the ACC was pretty crummy last year. Duke was the only elite team, with UMD being quite solid as well. Pretty big drop off down to the 3rd, 4th etc. place teams. Usually it's very strong, but last year was a down year.
[/QUOTE]
Heard it all before. Proof in the pudding...
ACC had 4 out of 6 teams make it out the first round including GT as well as the National Champion Duke unlike overrated Big East who only had 4 out of 8 teams make it out of the first round. Just FSU alone beat Marquette, who went number 5 in the Big East, last year. Even in the NIT, ACC had 3 out of 3 teams make it out the first round including UNC (our bottom feeder) who went to the Championship game yet the Big East went 2 out of 5. Now how is the ACC so bad that two of its teams went to Championship games. :roll: Obviously analysts don't know anything, especially since they claim the Big East was the best conference last year.

[quote name='dmaul1114']
As for the other point, it's all speculation of course. It's just hard to imagine the SEC would stay at 12 teams if the Pac 10 and Big 10 go to 16. They would steal the spot light from the SEC as those two conferences would have the lionshare of elite programs. The SEC could get that spotlight back by raiding the ACC and getting Miami and FSU and 2 other teams.

Just speculation, but I'd be absolutely shocked if the SEC stayed at 12 if the Pac 10 and Big 10 go to 16 teams.[/QUOTE]

How would they steal their light? When it comes to Football, no matter who the Big 10 or Pac 10 add... none of them compare to a UF, LSU or Alabama...heck even an Tennessee or South Carolina. Hence why the conference has pulled the champion about every year where the BCS hasn't screwed them out of an option for the Championship (see Auburn). The reason a playoff system hasn't been put in place is because it would screw teams like Ohio St, USC, and Texas out of the championships they earned. The SEC would send a team to the Championship every year.

The Big 10 and Pac 10 need this publicity in order to make their conferences relevant.

Who cares about any current Pac 10 (outside of the West Coast)... I guarantee most people can't name half the schools in the conference. Football the conference is atrocious. Basketball they have dropped off.

As for the Big 10, might as well call them the Big 2 as the conference has 2 players in each sport they compete. The rest of the teams suck... bowl records show that.
 
Enough with the bickering, as a Big East fan I mostly loathe the ACC--though I follow it some since I follow Maryland basketball a bit from going to grad school there. And I loathe FSU--like wish they and their whole fanbase would get hit by a meteor level of loathing, so we're not going to agree on any of that stuff! :D

As for the SEC spotlight--they wouldn't lose the spotlight--they'd just have to share it as they'd no longer be the clear best conference in college football.

The Pac 10 would have USC, Texas and Oklahoma now to have 3 big time elite programs, along with several other solid 2nd tier programs. The Big 10 would have Ohio State, Michigan (down currently, but elite program), Penn State, Nebraska and maybe Notre Dame.

If the SEC and their giant egos wanted to remain clearly the best conference with the most elite, big name programs they'd have to raid the ACC and get Miami and FSU in there.

And again, I really think we'll see a move to all BCS leagues being 16 teams and them breaking away from the current Division 1 (FBS) and starting a new 80 team college sports division--and if that's the trend the spotlight issue is moot anyway.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5265631


Anyway, to get back to news, here's another article on Nebraska. They are currently leaning toward the Big 10--just need an official invite/confirmation to make a decision--they hope to decide by Friday. Missouri officials are meeting on Friday as well.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Enough with the bickering, as a Big East fan I mostly loathe the ACC--though I follow it some since I follow Maryland basketball a bit from going to grad school there. And I loathe FSU--like wish they and their whole fanbase would get hit by a meteor level of loathing, so we're not going to agree on any of that stuff! :D
[/QUOTE]
Hater ;) You do realize Bobby Bowden at one time was your coach.

[quote name='dmaul1114']
As for the SEC spotlight--they wouldn't lose the spotlight--they'd just have to share it as they'd no longer be the clear best conference in college football.

The Pac 10 would have USC, Texas and Oklahoma now to have 3 big time elite programs, along with several other solid 2nd tier programs. The Big 10 would have Ohio State, Michigan (down currently, but elite program), Penn State, Nebraska and maybe Notre Dame.

If the SEC and their giant egos wanted to remain clearly the best conference with the most elite, big name programs they'd have to raid the ACC and get Miami and FSU in there.

And again, I really think we'll see a move to all BCS leagues being 16 teams and them breaking away from the current Division 1 (FBS) and starting a new 80 team college sports division--and if that's the trend the spotlight issue is moot anyway.
[/QUOTE]

Oh come on... they wouldn't share it either in current state.

Pac 10 gaining Texas and Oklahoma. Texas is a good program. Oklahoma on the other hand is an up and down school. They have never been consistently good. Last year was a down state. Oklahoma has only won 2 of their last 7 bowl games. By adding these two, it is just going to add more losses into each team since they will be forced to play now USC or Oregon most likely every year. Finally showing what these teams truly are.

The Big 10... again seriously. Ohio St is a decent squad, nothing to the caliber of UF, LSU, or Bama. Michigan hasn't done anything in the past I dont know 10-20 years. They are currently a bottom feeder. I know you might have feelings about them since your former coach is their coach. Penn St is the other current #2 school... granted they just came out of some bad years. Nebraska is a joke... they haven't done crap since Tommy Frazier. Notre Dame has tradition but is a also a joke. Why else have they been talking about firing Charlie Weis... :roll: Again, the Big 10 is still the Big 2. In Basketball you could probably call them the Big 3.

Lastly, I doubt even if somehow it goes down to 3 super conferences that they would create a whole new division... this isn't the civil war... that's just upsurd thinking :roll:
 
I think it goes to 5 super conferences with 16 6teams each--not 3. Pac 10, Big 10, SEC, merged ACC/Big East leftovers, and the MWC (with the left over Big 12 teams and Boise).

They won't necessarily break off and form their own division--that will only happen if the NCAA doesn't cave to their will in terms of shaping the BCS or future playoff or BCS+1 or whatever the hell type of post seasons these five conferences agree on.

But even in that case, even if they don't breakaway, it would be a pseudo new division since only the 80 members of these conferences would have access to the BCS or playoff etc.

Basketball they may be willing to leave as is in terms of including all the small conferences. But there may be some desire to change it from teams in these conferences like VT, Miss. State, Florida and other teams that have gotten left out the past few years. But I think the NCAA would just expand the Tourney to 96 teams to solve that problem vs. every letting these schools do their own post season tournament only including the teams in these power conferences.


But it's all speculation, and I'll admit a lot of wishful thinking on my part. I hate WVU being stuck in the Big Least for football, so I want shit to hit the fan. And it takes a crazy shake down for them to end up in the ACC.

And I want anything to shake things up and make it more likely to get to a playoff or at least a BCS +1 scenario, as without college football is pointless and really just a series of glorified exhibition games.

If there's not major changes on these fronts, I honestly doubt I'll be following college football anymore in five years. The past couple years I've already followed probably not even half as closely as I used to and been more into the NFL.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Basketball they may be willing to leave as is in terms of including all the small conferences. But there may be some desire to change it from teams in these conferences like VT, Miss. State, Florida and other teams that have gotten left out the past few years. But I think the NCAA would just expand the Tourney to 96 teams to solve that problem vs. every letting these schools do their own post season tournament only including the teams in these power conferences.
[/QUOTE]
The NCAA already just announced an expansion to the tourney which adds 4 more teams. I actually think it is worthless. If you are bottom feeder in your conference, you are still going to lose in the first or second. The Midmajors already get a good amount of bids unlike college football. Expanding beyond that is just upsurd and a waste of time.

[quote name='dmaul1114']
But it's all speculation, and I'll admit a lot of wishful thinking on my part. I hate WVU being stuck in the Big Least for football, so I want shit to hit the fan. And it takes a crazy shake down for them to end up in the ACC.
[/QUOTE]
Actually your conference is a good fit for you. You should be on top but these past year or two you haven't. Obviously, either your team is busting or the competition is getting better such as USF. Mix in that Big East gets an autobid for one of the four major bowls i.e. more money to your university. In another conference, you can throw that away, especially in your setup as VT would easily be the winner each year. Also, you think about the basketball aspect. Big East is one of the top BBall conferences.

[quote name='dmaul1114']
And I want anything to shake things up and make it more likely to get to a playoff or at least a BCS +1 scenario, as without college football is pointless and really just a series of glorified exhibition games.
[/QUOTE]
You have until 2014 to figure out if they decide to renew the BCS. I am afraid playoffs are far off as an idea. If it was going to happen, it would have been the year afer when Auburn went undefeated in the best conference and didn't get to play in the championship.

[quote name='dmaul1114']
If there's not major changes on these fronts, I honestly doubt I'll be following college football anymore in five years. The past couple years I've already followed probably not even half as closely as I used to and been more into the NFL.[/QUOTE]

See I am opposite of you. I find college sports way more entertaining than pros for one main reason: Passion. Pro players have already made it and the majority of them don't care if they win or lose. Let's not forget that collegiate rules follow real rules of sports i.e. in Basketball travels get called, bigs can fight for position... in football, qb hits aren't personal fouls, jumping the line is called, etc. Based on my discussions in NBA forum, it seems alot of people there also are getting sick on NBA Ref BS.
 
[quote name='lordopus99']
Actually your conference is a good fit for you. You should be on top but these past year or two you haven't. Obviously, either your team is busting or the competition is getting better such as USF. Mix in that Big East gets an autobid for one of the four major bowls i.e. more money to your university. In another conference, you can throw that away, especially in your setup as VT would easily be the winner each year. Also, you think about the basketball aspect. Big East is one of the top BBall conferences.
[/quote]

I don't care about any of that. I don't like being the big fish in a small pond. It makes winning lackluster, and not winning worst. As for not winning--it's not the competition getting better. Look how bad Cincy got pasted in the BCS bowls the past two years. WVU has just taken a big drop. The 2005-2007 three straight top ten finishes was just luck to getting a perfect/rare influx of talent on offense in Pat White, Steve Slaton, Owen Schmitt and Darius Reynaud. That and Rodriguez leaving hurt as the AD made a terrible blunder in hiring Bill Stewart as coach.

Anyway, back on point, I want to play bigger name teams. I just can't get excited playing the likes of UCONN, USF, Cincy etc. I'd rather be struggling to win 8 or 9 games and rarely making a BCS game in a tough conference than dominating a bunch of nobodies. You have to beat the best to be the best.


See I am opposite of you. I find college sports way more entertaining than pros for one main reason: Passion. Pro players have already made it and the majority of them don't care if they win or lose. Let's not forget that collegiate rules follow real rules of sports i.e. in Basketball travels get called, bigs can fight for position... in football, qb hits aren't personal fouls, jumping the line is called, etc. Based on my discussions in NBA forum, it seems alot of people there also are getting sick on NBA Ref BS.
Click to expand...

I agree with that. College basketball is my favorite sport.

And I used to prefer college football to the NFL. But the weakening of the Big East took a big chunk of my interest away as WVU's schedules have been snooze fests. Full of teams that we should beat (so no excitement in winning) and area real kick in the pants when we lose to them.

Add in the lack of a playoff, and it just feels like a big waste of time to me since it's really just a bunch of exhibition games with a mythical title game at the end.

The point of sports is winning and competing for titles on the field, nothing more, nothing less. Until there's a playoff of somekind, D1 (FBS) college football fails miserably on that front.
 
And Chip Brown (from Texas's rivals.com site) was just on Sportscenter and said the Big 12 is done.

Texas officials told their coaches and staff they did all they could to save the conference, and are meeting with Texas A&M officials tomorrow to discuss the move to the Pac 10 of the Big 12 south schools.

So the dominoes are falling.

Big 10: Adds Nebraska. Still working on ND--they say yes they add at least one more to get to 14 teams. Probably go to 16. I'd put the teams they want in preference order (based on various blurbs around the sports sites/forums)- ND, Rutgers, Maryland, Syracuse, Missouri--Pitt and Kansas as long shots.

Pac 10. looking like a done deal to add Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Okla State and Baylor/Colorado.

Then to see how the dominoes fall from there. If Big 10 does go to 14 or 16, the Big East probably loses 1-2 teams and is in trouble.

The MWC probably grabs the Big 12 left overs and Boise etc. and gets up to 16.

Then it's all eyes on the eastern confernces. Does the SEC stay at 12 or go to 16 to match the trend? Does the ACC go to 16 by raiding the Big East again if the SEC stays at 12?

If the SEC raids the ACC, then there's little mystering--ACC and Big East leftovers have no choice but to merge and pick up a couple CUSA teams to get to 16.

Exciting times to see how this plays out!
 
[quote name='docvinh']Wow, if that is what ends up happening, Pac-10 gets much stronger.[/QUOTE]

If that Chip Brown guy is right, it's a done deal.

And I can't imagine he'd make shit up as his career is covering Texas sports, so he's not going to go on Sportscenter and say Texas has told their coaches the 6 Big 12 teams are going to the Pac 10 etc. if it wasn't true and they were ok with him breaking it.

As otherwise he'd lose all trust of the program and his career would be done.
 
Only thing that sounds official is Nebraska to Big 10.

In other news, Jeremiah Masoli (heisman candidate from Oregon) kicked off the team for Marijuana possession. That is a huge hit to this team.
 
Yep, that's all that's official now. And even that's not 100% official until the real NU board of regents meeting on Friday. But that's just a formality.

We should know on the Pac 10 going to 16 with the Texas and Oklahoma schools + CU very soon. Probably by Friday as well with all the buzz.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yep, that's all that's official now. And even that's not 100% official until the real NU board of regents meeting on Friday. But that's just a formality.

We should know on the Pac 10 going to 16 with the Texas and Oklahoma schools + CU very soon. Probably by Friday as well with all the buzz.[/QUOTE]

You would think if anything will happen it would be in the next week or so since Nebraska made the jump.
 
Yep, the Big 10 and Pac 10 stuff should definitely be done by this time next week.

May take a bit more time for anything to happen out east--but I'd say by July 1st we'll know if the SEC or ACC plan to expand or just stay at 12.

I can't seem the SEC sitting pat at 12 if the Pac 10 and Big 10 (and maybe MWC with the Big 12 left overs and boise) are all at 16 personally.

Plus, from this thread on your school's Rival's board--apparently the SEC ADs had some very preliminary discussion about possible expansion targets in case there was a move to 16 team conferences at their recent meetings....

http://floridastate.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=1079&tid=134225250&mid=134225250&sid=1061&style=2

But we'll see.
 
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5270048

So apparently Colorado has a Pac 10 invite already, and there's this info from a Big XII coach:

A Big 12 football coach, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, told ESPN.com's Mark Schlabach on Wednesday night that if Nebraska left the Big 12 the conference would dissolve, according to his athletics director and university president. The coach said Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Colorado would join the Pac-10, leaving Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri and Iowa State behind.

"Nebraska is the key," the coach said.
Click to expand...

So more fuel to that fire. And the coach is almost 100% Mack Brown, as the story Chip Brown told on Sportscenter was that the Texas President told his coaches that the Big 12 was dead and the Pac 10 merger was happening, and this coach quoted anonymously above said he heard it from his University president and AD.


And this nugget on the motivation for going to 16 teams--which could make it more likely that all the power conference go to 16 if they can pull it off.

The new conference would be split into divisions with the Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Colorado forming an Eastern Division with Arizona and Arizona State opposite the former Pac-8 (USC, UCLA, Stanford, Washington, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington and Washington State) in the Western Division. The division champions would play at season's end for the conference championship, the source said.

The coach said it's possible the Pac-16 would push for two automatic bids to the BCS, one for each division champion. That potential bonanza could open the possibility of the two division champs from one league playing for the national title, and it would eliminate the need for a conference championship game.

"The Pac-10 doesn't believe in a championship game," the coach said. "And coaches in the Big 12 don't like it anyway."
Click to expand...

And also has a mention of the conference pay outs per team that I couldn't find yesterday.

With that large population base, the new conference would start its own network and, along with other broadcast partners, likely would distribute around $20 million per member, comparable broadcast revenue to the Big Ten ($22 million) and SEC ($17 million), the source said.

The Big 12 distributed $7-12 million per year. The Pac-10 distributed $8-10 million.
Click to expand...

From the numbers I did find yesterday, ACC payout is $12 million per school. Saw elsewhere that the Big Easts was $6.5 or so per this year. So that really shows the incentive of getting up to 16 teams and getting as many media markets in the conference footprint as possible.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That would be insane. Texas and OKL still having to duke it out with each other in the same division. Then the possibility of playing USC/Oregon in the conference championship.
 
[quote name='slickkill77']That would be insane. Texas and OKL still having to duke it out with each other in the same division. Then the possibility of playing USC/Oregon in the conference championship.[/QUOTE]

Well, that's kind of what the expected with the Big 12.

Texas and OU fighting it out in the regular season, then having to go through Nebraska in the title game. Nebraska just didn't remain an elite power after Osborne retired.
 
[quote name='billyrox']hahaahahahahahah kiffen[/QUOTE]

The way Kiffen recruits he will still get the guys he wants even around the restrictions... hence the success he had at Tennessee with recruits. Granted, still waiting on the fallback of his recruiting practices there.

This was a long time coming. Everyone at that time knew that Reggie Bush was getting hooked up. It took more players to get caught for it to finally break. If they took our games away including our Track and Field national championship, then USC should lose their 2004 title. Bah-Bye. :lol:

[quote name='dmaul1114']Plus, from this thread on your school's Rival's board--apparently the SEC ADs had some very preliminary discussion about possible expansion targets in case there was a move to 16 team conferences at their recent meetings....

http://floridastate.rivals.com/showm...d=1061&style=2

But we'll see. [/QUOTE]

Foley (UF's atheltic director) is against FSU joining... this was a given. I would assume he would veto Miami as well if they were in discussion. Granted, neither team would join an invite anyways.

Jimbo Fisher already stated to Mike Bianchi of the Orlando Sentinel that he would rather play in the ACC. http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/os-bianchi-florida-state-sec-0609-20100608,0,5384199.column
 
[quote name='lordopus99']
Foley (UF's atheltic director) is against FSU joining... this was a given. I would assume he would veto Miami as well if they were in discussion. Granted, neither team would join an invite anyways. [/quote]

Sure, but the SEC only requires votes of approval from 9 members to add a team (was on Joe Schad's twitter yesterday). So to block anyone UF would have to get 3 other teams to join them.

Jimbo Fisher already stated to Mike Bianchi of the Orlando Sentinel that he would rather play in the ACC. http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/os-bianchi-florida-state-sec-0609-20100608,0,5384199.column
Click to expand...

Coaches have 0 say in this. I'm sure pretty much all the Big 12 coaches would rather the Big 12 have survived. It's all about $$$ and decisions are made by ADs and University presidents and Boards of Regents etc.


[quote name='scuba t']It seems official that Colorado is joining the Pac 10.[/QUOTE]

Yep, it's a done deal. Apparently Texas, A&M and others are meeting now to discuss. Likely they'll all be going a 16 team Pac 10. But there's still some mumbling out there about Texas and A&M possibly ending up in the SEC.

But it's considered a long shot and on Sportscenter it was said that sources close to the negotiations said that the Pac 16 was just a matter of who was next after CU to offically sign on--and that the 3 texas schools and 2 Okla schools joining them is inevitable.


So the Pac 16 looks done, next question is what the Big 10 does. Stay at 12? Get 2 more? Get 4 more?

And whether the SEC does anything. If they stay at 12, the ACC does too. I do think we'd finally see the Big East football teams break off from the basketball only schoolsl in either case.

ACC gets raided, they merge with them. If nothing happens they try to grab the big 12 leftovers--before the MWC gets them.

If the Big 1o stays at 12, you'd potentially be looking at a conference of:

WVU
Pitt
Syracuse
Cincy
Louisville
UCONN
USF
Rutgers
Missouri
Kansas
Kansas State
Iowa State/Baylor


I also think that's a long shot. I think if the Pac 10 goes to 16 , we'll end up with 5 16 team leagues, looking fairly similar to the one's I laid out a few pages back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top