another domino falls...

hawkoooo · #1 09-01-2011, 07:58 AM

assuming, as it is being reported, that ta&m does leave the big12, they would be down to 9 teams. assuming again that ta&m goes to the sec, that means a 14th sec team is being poached from somewhere. my question is why, among all this uncertainty, is the big12 and the big east sitting on there hands?

yes i know tcu was a big step but if i were a commissioner of one of these DYING conferences i think i would be fortifying the ranks! why not throw your net out there and see what you come up with?

possible big east additions: ucf, ecu, navy, temple, houston, smu. hell i would even look at army, memphis, and umass.

possible big12 additions: boise state, tcu, byu, houston, smu.

i just don't understand the point of sitting around. the message is clear at this point: the "big 6" is moving toward the "big 4" and if the "little 2" don't do something about it, they won't even exist (at least as football conferences).

San Diego Flyer · #2 09-01-2011, 08:38 AM

Maybe Texas will televise their intramural leagues on Longhorn Network. Perhaps some cheap air time for the Pioneer League.

Have no doubt the BE is frantically mapping the "what if's".

Sea Bass · #3 09-01-2011, 08:39 AM

IMO the final fallout will be power football schools breaking from the NCAA completely and forming their own alliance. Look for around 64 schools to quit the NCAA and keep all the money.

Ready Action · #4 09-01-2011, 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by Sea Bass

IMO the final fallout will be power football schools breaking from the NCAA completely and forming their own alliance. Look for around 64 schools to quit the NCAA and keep all the money.

You are correct the Big 4 conferences WILL create their own league, media contracts and championship series. This will also be the death of the NCAA basketball tourney as you recall the tourney's current TV contract calls for a certain number of teams/schools to be elgible for the tourney for the contract to be vailid. Thus, if the Big 4 pull out and form their own league there will not be enough teams to keep the current billion plus dollar TV contract intact. Isn't $$$$ great?

UACFlyer · #5 09-01-2011, 10:03 AM

Even though the Big Ten would prefer to stand pat with 12 for awhile. The Big 12/SEC saga may force the BT to act.

There are just si many plum schools out there....."plum" meaning really solid FB programs and very good academics, the latter still very important to the Big Ten. Thus, the BT can hardly afford to sit around and watch its prime "future" members get gobbled up by other conferences. The ACC and PAC 12 may feel the same way.

A&M is the first,...if another Big 12 school defects, or if the SEC takes its 14th school from the ACC.....then all hell breaks loose.

xubrew · #6 09-01-2011, 10:05 AM

Originally Posted by hawkoooo

assuming, as it is being reported, that ta&m does leave the big12, they would be down to 9 teams. assuming again that ta&m goes to the sec, that means a 14th sec team is being poached from somewhere. my question is why, among all this uncertainty, is the big12 and the big east sitting on there hands?

yes i know tcu was a big step but if i were a commissioner of one of these DYING conferences i think i would be fortifying the ranks! why not throw your net out there and see what you come up with?

possible big east additions: ucf, ecu, navy, temple, houston, smu. hell i would even look at army, memphis, and umass.

possible big12 additions: boise state, tcu, byu, houston, smu.

i just don't understand the point of sitting around. the message is clear at this point: the "big 6" is moving toward the "big 4" and if the "little 2" don't do something about it, they won't even exist (at least as football conferences).

Boise State is a tier four school. I don't think the Big Twelve would even consider them. As far as the other teams and why schools aren't reacting, in order for a conference to expand it pretty much has to be a unanimous decision. If a team is looking to leave, they are still currently a full member, so their vote counts. The problem sometimes becomes that you need the cooperation of teams that are in no hurry and aren't the least bit concerned with restructuring the conference because they're looking to leave anyway.

I think the Big East is fine, or at the very least the teams that make it up are fine. Texas, ESPN and the Longhorn Network have really jacked up the Big Twelve. Essentially what happened is that Texas started their own network, ESPN inexplicably paid $300 million for it, and then failed to distribute it because DirecTV, Time Warner, etc didn't want to pay a premium rate for it. In an attempt to make it more appealing, ESPN talked about turning it into a pseudo Big Twelve network rather than just a Longhorn Network. That's within their rights since ESPN has a contract with the Big Twelve, and now owns the Longhorn Netowrk. The problem is that Texas was the only school that would get any money out of the deal. The rest of the league is understandibly ****ed and many are looking to bolt.

The Big East has no such problems. If anything, don't be surprised if some current Big Twelve members look to join up with them.

Originally Posted by Sea Bass

IMO the final fallout will be power football schools breaking from the NCAA completely and forming their own alliance. Look for around 64 schools to quit the NCAA and keep all the money.

People have been fretting over this for at least ten years. Probably longer. I seriously doubt it will happen for several reasons. I think a third subdivision in div1 football is likely, but I don't think they'll just up and leave the NCAA. I can't recall anyone directly involved with those schools who has even suggested that or hinted at that. For starters, if you look at a lot of the reforms that are proposed, the majority comes from the major conferences. So, I don't think the majority of them will want to leave to get away from something that they themselves are pushing for.

Glen Clark · #7 09-01-2011, 11:00 AM

I'm more worried about the shift key not working on hawkoooo's keyboard.
What's up with that?

__________________
The Man's Prayer:
I'm a man
I can change
If I have to
I guess . . .

Gazoo · #8 09-01-2011, 07:24 PM

Originally Posted by xubrew

For starters, if you look at a lot of the reforms that are proposed, the majority comes from the major conferences. So, I don't think the majority of them will want to leave to get away from something that they themselves are pushing for.

If you weren't 100% convinced you were eventually going to get the teams you want to join a defection, wouldn't you push for the reforms that help you the most in the mean time? I'm not sure why the 2 are mutually exclusive.

Gilchrist's Autograph 2 · #9 09-01-2011, 08:35 PM

West Virginia to SEC is what I'm hearing
Posted via Mobile Device

xubrew · #10 09-01-2011, 09:25 PM

Originally Posted by Gazoo

If you weren't 100% convinced you were eventually going to get the teams you want to join a defection, wouldn't you push for the reforms that help you the most in the mean time? I'm not sure why the 2 are mutually exclusive.

When I see schools pushing for reforms such as tougher eligibility standards, tougher recruiting restrictions, and stronger academic standards, I don't think that exhibits a strong desire to leave the NCAA.

Medford · #11 09-02-2011, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by Gilchrist's Autograph 2

West Virginia to SEC is what I'm hearing
Posted via Mobile Device

If indeed true, WVU would be smart to jump on an offer from the SEC the second it is offered. I have my doubts that the ACC or B10 would ever consider them due to their lower academics.

UACFlyer · #12 09-02-2011, 10:30 AM

Remember, this is all about money. While WVU has a strong program, great fan support, etc., what does a school like WVU add to the value of a conference, e.g., TV value?

Whenever a team is added that's another mouth to feed.....they have to add value above and beyond what exists without them.

A&M adds the state of TX to the SEC....a big deal. The SEC will want to add another school with comparable value. I don't think that is WVU.

Medford · #13 09-02-2011, 11:26 AM

While I agree with, I read a pretty detailed generalization (oxymoron alert)of the break down in money, and how aTm, along with any other school (doesn't matter who) will generate more television money than the current 12 team format based upon historical ratings and ad revenues in football and basketball (with football being a significantly higher driver historically)

Now, I'm far from an expert in the how the television revenues are planned, but it convince me that the addition of aTm and ANY other team would be a net positive for the SEC. So really, the question remains, is it better to go to 2 divisions of 7, or some 13 team setup. The 14 team setup seems much more manageable, so what teams would be willing to join, what teams allow you to extend your footprint (presumably east) and who increases the bottom line the most after the first two qualifiers have been meet.

I'm sure the SEC has had many discussions, unless they're going to expand to 16 teams, adding a team east of Mississipi creates the most natural break. Which would rule out a team like Missouri. VTech has come up a bunch, but they seem pretty tied into the ACC, remember how much political weight had to be pulled to get them as part of the ACC expansion over Syracuse. I'll assume that same political weight would prevent them from leaving on their own accord. NC State likely wants to remain connected to UNC, Duke and the ACC, which leaves Clemson and FSU out of the ACC. Neither school would expand their footprint, though FSU offers a pretty solid name program. However, would Georgia and Florida allow FSU to join as the 14th team? Would South Carolina agree to blocking them as long as they agreed to block Clemson?

If the answers to both of those questions are no (I think I've read it takes a minimum of a 9 school approval to gain membership, and I'm sure those 3 could find 1 more member to control the eastern expansion) the SEC would be forced to look to the Big East for an eastern expansion. Who fits from the Big East, Louisville? Would Kentucky be the 4th team to block an FSU or Clemson addition to keep Louisiville out as well. Pitt? I'm sure they hold out hope for the B10.

All of a sudden West Virigina starts to look pretty attractive. The state population is obviously small, but its incredably loyal and I'm sure draws big ratings w/n that state. WVU's fan base also expands into parts of Ohio and Pittsburgh. Between Kentucky and West Virginia, the SEC would have a pretty good fan base in southern ohio. West Virginia would/should jump in a New York minute, if given the chance. West Virginia likely isn't the top choice amongst the SEC brass, but it may well be the best choice available. If what I read is indeed true, that the addition of aTm plus any other team is a net positive, then it becomes a matter of going to 14 teams, going to 13, or making a push of Oklahoma and a few others to jump all the way to 16 teams and be done.

Bat'71 · #14 09-02-2011, 12:38 PM

I think Louisville would be a much better fit in the SEC (yup I'm married to a CARD). I know UK would probably fight it, but they also fought scheduling UofL for decades until the Kentucky legislature finally forced them into yearly games in football and basketball; if there is any notion that the BE could disappear, UK may be forced to swallow hard and accept them (ala UVA and VaTech). UofL has a very respectable baseball team (and the SEC loooooves it's baseball) and it boasts first class facilities for most of it's athletic endeavors; I don't think WVA measures up in that regard. I know questions have been raised about it's academic standing, but as Bear Bryant was purported to have said in response to a reporter questioning the academic standards of the'Bama team: "You ain't gonna fill a 60,000 seat stadium to see a calculus exam" (or something to that effect...obviously I'm paraphrasing here

).

Gazoo · #15 09-02-2011, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by xubrew

When I see schools pushing for reforms such as tougher eligibility standards, tougher recruiting restrictions, and stronger academic standards, I don't think that exhibits a strong desire to leave the NCAA.

Saving face for the liberal faculty, not actually looking for reforms. That is, until they are able to create an organization that openly states that they don't care about those reforms.

UACFlyer · #16 09-02-2011, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by Gazoo

Saving face for the liberal faculty, not actually looking for reforms. That is, until they are able to create an organization that openly states that they don't care about those reforms.

...some Priders are old enough to remember when the likes of Penn, Princeton and Yale were football powers,....with attendance leading the nation, Heisman winners, etc.

What happened? How, when and why did the schools now known as the Ivys give up big time FB? Actually, the move was initiated by student dissatisfaction and protesting in the `40s, leading to formation of the Ivy league for FB in the very early `50s, followed by all other sports.

I saw Notre Dame play Penn at Frankin Field twice. I must admit, Penn FB was a lot more fun in those days than it is today. But, the athletes recruited and admitted to play FB were so completely out of line with the rest of the student body, that even the students objected and forced change.

Probably that's also the case today....only now no one objects.

Viperstick · #17 09-03-2011, 03:16 AM

My wife (a Gator) scoffed at the idea of aTm to the SEC due to the Aggie's inferiority on the field (the SEC bunch is truly insufferable right now with the five straight BCS national championships). What she and other sports purists fail to grasp is that this has less to do with bringing in schools that will compete for championships as much as it's about bringing in new markets.

The Aggies will likely be travelling to Gainesville, Lexington, Tuscaloosa, and other cities of the Confederacy here soon. I'm thinking the SEC is going to lead the charge and go straight to 16 teams, and soon. The Big XII looks as stable as a poorly made IED right now: Oklahoma is going to jump somewhere before the Bengals are out of the playoff hunt (week 2, maybe 3) and Mizzou looks like a speed dater who can't wait for the bell to ring so she can ditch the booger eater across the table. While my wife also scoffed at Mizzou to the SEC, that truly makes the most sense as it brings in the St Louis/KC markets. While the Tigers may want to go to the Big 10, if the SEC has interest, I think that's where they'll wind up due to the Benjamins. The Sooners add OKC & the middle ground north of Dallas and south of KC. The Sooners took a look at the Pac-10 along with other Big XII teams last year, but again I think they will ultimately be lured into the SEC due to the money that can be made in what will become the premier conference in the country. Potential for an SEC move into the ACC's mid-Atlantic belly to poach the DC-Richmond market (Va Tech, UVA, Maryland) to complete the conference. Also possible FSU or Clemson crashes the party, but they don't add any new markets to the equation. WVU would also be plausible as it competes for the Pittsburgh market.

Should be fun to watch as schools like Kansas, Iowa State, the lesser schools on Tobacco Road, and the Big East pretenders are suddenly outside looking in on the oft-talked about 4x 16-team mega conferences.

Chris R · #18 09-03-2011, 04:33 AM

With Oklahoma now looking to exit the Big-12, the Longhorn Network is looking less and less enticing every minute. Texas fans are gonna want to watch matches with Texas Tech and Baylor. The loss of Nebraska and OU combined would be a huge loss for Texas' sales pitch to viewers. Colorado didnt help either and while the Buffs have been down in football, they have been a sleeping giant stuck in a rut since the good ol days of the 80s and early 90s. Colorado has a lot going for it.

If Oklahoma leaves, where to? With A&M to even out the SEC? The Big10? But who fills out the Big10 for an even number? It would have to come from either the existing Big12 (KU/Mizzou?), or somewhere else. Forget ND. I dont see a longtime/charter Big East school leaving for the Big10 -- Syracuse, etc. Maybe WVU would like to be in the Big10. Im sure Pitt would.

This is not looking good for Texas however. As it is, the Big12 doesnt have a title game, and with the league getting cherrypicked for all the good schools, the Horns have no real biggins' anymore as rivalries.

Texas might think about going Independent.

One school to keep an eye on in all of this is Memphis. They are an outlier in CUSA. They dont belong there and everyone knows it. They are due for a major conference upgrade and their football would benefit most. I can see them getting picked up somewhere. They are a good fit geographically for several conferences, and bring a lot of upside to the table.

Still dont understand TCU to the Big East. The BE will be unbalanced again. Reminds me of the Summit League with IUPUI and Southern Utah.

UACFlyer · #19 09-03-2011, 07:44 AM

The PAC 12's Larry Scott already tried to entice Big 12 schools to form a PAC 16.....he'll try it again.

The Big Ten is a bit timid....and to that conference academic and research rep are very, very important, restricting its choices.

Academics and research are also important to the ACC, and the commish, Swofford, is aggressive.

The SEC cares only about money, giving it greater flexibility.

The Big East has a weak commisioner, which may hurt them if things really start coming apart. Also, about half the BE schools are very attractive from a TV and academics/research angle....while half are not.

Thus, even the power conferences, the ones that will survive, have significanatly different goals, objectives, cultures. Money means a lot to all, but some are far less selective as regards their criteria for membership. In my opinion, that is very important, more so than the speculation on this board suggests.

DGO67 · #20 09-03-2011, 09:52 AM

Regarding the expansion of the SEC:

Definite: Aggies to enter SEC (possible 2012 start)

Possibilities: #1 Further expansion postponed until the dust settles w/TAMU

#2 Geographically, Gtech, FL State, NCSt and Clemson vie for the 2 spots for expansion to 16 teams. ACC wouldn't stop any of those except NC State from exiting.

#3 If money trumps location, then Missouri and Oklahoma join the SEC at some future date adding huge TV markets to the SEC.

Long shots: Vtech and WVU. Neither of those schools would be giving more than getting...an NCAA no no.

San Diego Flyer · #21 09-03-2011, 10:34 AM

The early bird gets the worm. I think the SEC is trying to figure out right now which 4 teams they want--now. Why wait until the food is picked over? It's inevitable that they are going to be a 16 team Conference. Oklahoma just served public notice that they want to be one of the four newbies.

Texas can screw around and end up with Baylor, SMU, Texas Tech, Houston, Memphis blah, blah....

UACFlyer · #22 09-03-2011, 10:54 AM

...besides money?

Does the Big Ten really want to expand East? If so, the Big East is a target.

Adding UConn, Rutgers, Syracuse and Pitt would be a natural for the ACC.

In my opinion, the trigger will be the ACC's selection for a 14th team. If the SEC targets the ACC...that will start the ball rolling as the ACC attempts to recover with a school(s) as good as the one(s) lost, i.e., Big East schools.

The ball is in the SEC's court. They may think 13 schools is OK for now, in which case things will die down for a while.

UACFlyer · #23 09-03-2011, 11:06 AM

Friday the OU president said that soon,...not longer than 2-3 weeks,...OU will make a conference decision, adding that last year OU had strong intrerest from the SEC and PAC 12. He added "OU will not be a wall flower just watching what goes on".

"Stability is what we most want".

Bat'71 · #24 09-03-2011, 11:49 AM

I guess the Longhorns could go the route of BYU and ND; be an independent in football and join another conference (CUSA or Mountain West) for all other sports. Things look to get "interesting" as rampent, unbridled greed takes over and schools scramble for their share of the bucks (and of course "stability".)

Viperstick · #25 09-03-2011, 01:33 PM

Big 10 wants research & high academic quality? Why not raid G-Tech from the ACC? Opens up huge new market/recruiting grounds in the deep south right in the heart of SEC country. If things get really weird, would UNC and/or Duke consider a Big 10 overture? Great schools + Charlotte/Raleigh markets. Rutgers or Syracuse are logical Big 10 targets due to the NYC/northeast markets, not sure about their academics (if that's truly important to the Big 10 at this point). Is Miami (FL) a potential target for the Big 10?

The SEC, Big 10, and Pac 12 are clearly the drivers right now. The remaining super conference will likely be a hybrid of the ACC, Big East, and whatever is left over of the Big XII. I think schools like ND, Texas (when they inevitably go independent), and BYU are going to find life in the soon-to-be-redefined world of college athletics a lot more difficult than they had imagined.

DGO67 · #26 09-03-2011, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by UACFlyer

Friday the OU president said that soon,...not longer than 2-3 weeks,...OU will make a conference decision, adding that last year OU had strong intrerest from the SEC and PAC 12. He added "OU will not be a wall flower just watching what goes on".

"Stability is what we most want".

Good input UAC Flyer. OU will soon make a decision to go or stay! My gut says that the SEC will expand their conference and national impact with the addition of TAMU, OU and Missouri. As for #16, GTech, Fl State or Clemson all appear boltable according to folks I know who eat, sleep...etc. college football.

Viperstick · #27 09-03-2011, 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by DGO67

Good input UAC Flyer. OU will soon make a decision to go or stay! My gut says that the SEC will expand their conference and national impact with the addition of TAMU, OU and Missouri. As for #16, GTech, Fl State or Clemson all appear boltable according to folks I know who eat, sleep...etc. college football.

Agree with aTm, Mizzou, and OU to the SEC. The other three are in markets already covered by the SEC. Can't help but feel UGA, UF, and USC would collectively ban G-Tech, FSU, and Clemson. Agree that those three may bolt, but maybe to a conference other than the SEC. I'm starting the rumor now that G-Tech winds up in the Big 10.

axehandle · #28 09-03-2011, 01:59 PM

To date any talk of Notre Dame has been more an exercise by non Irish fans. No matter what others said, ND always had options basically whenever they wanted. However....if we end up with say 4 super 16 team conferences ND may finally feel enough heat to grab a chair before the music stops. Don't discount a B-10 with Texas and ND.

Whacker · #29 09-03-2011, 09:04 PM

I've heard the SEC is adamant about not wanting to add any teams in existing SEC states with WVU and Va Tech as strong early candidates.

AustinFlyer · #30 09-03-2011, 09:19 PM

I've talked to some Longhorn friends this weekend who aren't happy about not being able to see UT on television. I don't really follow it, but apparently neither Uverse nor TimeWarner picked up the Longhorn Network, and the game is not available locally for free.

My uneducated guess is that OU and Texas both end up in the Pac10, and the Big12 implodes and goes away.

Fan4allUDSports · #31 09-03-2011, 11:59 PM

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/st...ed-source-says

According to the article it appears that all cards are in for the Pac-16. Who will be next to up to 16? SEC, Big 10?

cicvi17 · #32 09-04-2011, 12:51 AM

The ideal 4-conference, 16-team NCAA scenarios:

Pac-16 = USC, UCLA, ARZ, AZST, STAN, CAL, WASH, WSU, ORE, ORST, COL, UTAH, OKL, OKST, TEX, TTU

SEC = ALA, AUB, LSU, ARK, MISS, MSST, MIZZ, TA&M, FLA, UGA, SCAR, TENN, VAN, KEN, FSU, CLEM

B1G = MICH, MSU, OSU, PSU, IND, PUR, NW, ILL, IOWA, WIS, MINN, NEB, KAN, KSU, PITT, WVU

ACC = GT, CLEM, DUKE, UNC, NCST, WAKE, VIR, VT, MARY, BC, CONN, SYR, RUT, CIN, LOU, SFLA

CUSA EAST = ECU, CFLA, MARSH, SMISS, TULN, TULSA, UAB, MEM, HOU, SMU, UTEP, RICE, TCU, BAY, LATECH, TEMP

CUSA WEST = ISU, WYO, COLST, AFA, SDST, UNLV, BOI, NMEX, FRES, NEV, HAW, IDAHO, NMST, UTST, SJST, BYU

The MAC and Sun Belt remain the same, the only three independents are ND, ARMY, and NAVY, and everyone can be happy and satisfied.

Now then, back to your regularly-scheduled doomsday programming.

cicvi17 · #33 09-04-2011, 12:57 AM

Also, for less headache-inducing names, how about we go:

Pac-16 = WEST
B1G = NORTH
ACC = EAST
SEC = SOUTH

CUSA can become EAST CENTRAL and WEST CENTRAL. And then I'd hand out BCS bowl bids accordingly:

WEST, NORTH, EAST, AND SOUTH = 2 bids
EAST CENTRAL AND WEST CENTRAL = 1 bid.

For a total of 10 bids.

Oh, and one slight correction: The MAC doesn't "technically" remain the same since they'd lose Temple, they would just go back to what they are for every other sport.

And now, back to the NCAA's production of, "Chicken Little"

cicvi17 · #34 09-04-2011, 01:01 AM

Ok one final correction, since I was pretty sure I counted wrong and I found my mistake - I listed Clemson twice. Originally I only had Army and Navy as independents, and that's why. So, put ND in the north and move WVU to Clemson's spot in the ACC. Done and done.

xubrew · #35 09-05-2011, 07:51 PM

Originally Posted by Gazoo

Saving face for the liberal faculty, not actually looking for reforms. That is, until they are able to create an organization that openly states that they don't care about those reforms.

I don't think people like Mike Slive are all that concerned with saving face with the liberal faculty. I don't think there are many athletic administrators at major programs that care anything about the liberal faculty. Even if they did, I don't think that it would be a normal thought process for them just to say such things in order to save face.

I don't think those schools are looking to leave the NCAA. I do think there will be a third football subdivision instead of the two we have now. The top will be the current BCS/major conference teams. The second will be the FBS non major conference teams. and the third will be the current FCS. If it's not that exact set up, I think it will be something close to that.

FWIW I think Oklahom and Oklahoma State are much more likely to end up in the Pac Twelve than the SEC. the biggest reason is what UAC mentioned. Larry Scott is in the Pac Twelve.

Regardless of what happens, I don't think the changes will be THAT drastic in the grand scheme of things. I think I'm the only person who doesn't think this will turn college sports on its ear, but I don't think this will turn college sports on its ear. Instead of six major conferences of ten to twelve teams, we will have four major conferences of sixteen teams. It comes out to pretty much the same way it is now. The have-nots are not going to be pushed out into the cold. They're ALREADY out in the cold. They've been out in the cold since the 1940s. This doesn't really change anything.

Four superconferences of sixteen teams will really be eight super divisions of eight teams each. The divisions will develop their own identities and rivalries, because it will seem like each division is its own conference.

UACFlyer · #36 09-05-2011, 08:23 PM

...and that is the Big East. Assuming we do wind up with four 16 team super conferences relatively soon, of the nine FB schools in the BE most will wind up in one of the four large conferences. That leaves the BE BB-only schools on their own....along with ND, as you have often predicted.

Those schools most likely will add one, two, three,...other schools in order to form a strong, top-tier BB conference incl good TV markets. It's hard to see how such a move will not affect Dayton. I think UD will want to be a part of that, definitely if Xavier is.

Thus, brew, I disagree with your suggestion that even with four super conferences "not much will change". I think the entire college athletics landscape will change. Not much may change if FB only is considered. But, Olympic sports, travel issues, cultural issues, issues related to institutional similarity and many more will be greatly impacted.

A conference change is a big deal for a school. Here we're talking about many schools changing conferences...essentially all at once....some conferences diappearing entirely. Can you think of anything more earthshaking in the history of college athletics?

Then there is poor Villanova....anguishing for months over an FBS upgrade to the BE, only to be snubbed at the "alter";....and now on the verge of being totally overwhelmed if mega conferences are formed and the Big East no longer exists. The Cats may wind up with their tails between their legs tagging along reluctantly with the likes of Seton Hall, Providence, DU, MU, etc,....and maybe even a few new "unworthies" like X and UD.

xubrew · #37 09-05-2011, 08:46 PM

Originally Posted by UACFlyer

Thus, brew, I disagree with your suggestion that even with four super conferences "not much will change". I think the entire college athletics landscape will change. Not much may change if FB only is considered. But, Olympic sports, travel issues, cultural issues, issues related to institutional similarity and many more will be greatly impacted.

A conference change is a big deal for a school. Here we're talking about many schools changing conferences...essentially all at once....some conferences diappearing entirely. Can you think of anything more earthshaking in the history of college athletics?

Then there is poor Villanova....anguishing for months over an FBS upgrade to the BE, only to be snubbed at the "alter";....and now on the verge of being totally overwhelmed if mega conferences are formed and the Big East no longer exists. The Cats may wind up with their tails between their legs tagging along reluctantly with the likes of Seton Hall, Providence, DU, MU, etc,....and maybe even a few new "unworthies" like X and UD.

Fair enough. I guess it depends on how you look at it. I personally wouldn't consider the non-football teams banding together and adding a few more to be a huge change. It would be huge for the individual teams involved, but I don't think it would shift the entire face of college athletics all that much.

As far as Xavier getting in, I know I've said this before, but I think they'd need at least eighteen sports and they'd have to pump more money into them. I don't think they would even consider Xavier unless they were to do that. Dayton is probably more attractive.....if they even look to add anyone.

Bat'71 · #38 09-06-2011, 08:55 AM

Not just to play Devil's Advocate here, but I don't necessarily think it will be all that bad for basketball-centric schools (like UD, X, Marquette, 'Nova, G'town, SHU, ST. Johns, Butler, Creighton, etc., etc., etc.) if all the BCS football schools aggregated into four-mega 16-team conferences. As was previously mentioned, the "bottom feeders" in the current six BCS Conferences will, in all likelihood, remain bottom-feeders, only they'll be way, way down the food chain and they will be in conferences that care more about football than anything else, with travel commitments that will be onerous for all their other sports. Realistically, will anyone really care about a Northwestern/Penn State basketball game or an Oregon State/Colorado match-up? I think there would be much more national interest in a UD/X game or a 'Nova/G'town game or a Butler/Creighton game. Kids like to aspire to be the BMOC and, in football-dominated schools or conferences, basketball players won't get there too easily, whereas at a UD or X (etc.) they can. Moreover, if the mega-BCS conference were to occur, it would give institutions with similar academic philosophies and missions an opportunity to coalesce geographically and form some very interesting regional rivalries that can be an even match with those of the large state institutions that will dominate the BCS conferences. Unlike football, basketball is relatively low-budget...you only really need about 8-10 kids (even less sometimes) to compete at the highest levels and be successful, whereas in football it takes maybe up to 50 kids to get there. So, while some egos may get bruised in a re-shuffling of conferences (e.g. 'Nova), I don't think it will be as big a negative for the likes of UD, X, Marquette, etc. as some may think.

bobber · #39 09-06-2011, 10:53 PM

I've been on vacation, so if this has been posted before, never mind.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketb...t_pac12_090611

UACFlyer · #40 09-07-2011, 07:07 AM

Originally Posted by Bat'71

Not just to play Devil's Advocate here, but I don't necessarily think it will be all that bad for basketball-centric schools (like UD, X, Marquette, 'Nova, G'town, SHU, ST. Johns, Butler, Creighton, etc., etc., etc.) if all the BCS football schools aggregated into four-mega 16-team conferences. As was previously mentioned, the "bottom feeders" in the current six BCS Conferences will, in all likelihood, remain bottom-feeders, only they'll be way, way down the food chain and they will be in conferences that care more about football than anything else, with travel commitments that will be onerous for all their other sports. Realistically, will anyone really care about a Northwestern/Penn State basketball game or an Oregon State/Colorado match-up? I think there would be much more national interest in a UD/X game or a 'Nova/G'town game or a Butler/Creighton game. Kids like to aspire to be the BMOC and, in football-dominated schools or conferences, basketball players won't get there too easily, whereas at a UD or X (etc.) they can. Moreover, if the mega-BCS conference were to occur, it would give institutions with similar academic philosophies and missions an opportunity to coalesce geographically and form some very interesting regional rivalries that can be an even match with those of the large state institutions that will dominate the BCS conferences. Unlike football, basketball is relatively low-budget...you only really need about 8-10 kids (even less sometimes) to compete at the highest levels and be successful, whereas in football it takes maybe up to 50 kids to get there. So, while some egos may get bruised in a re-shuffling of conferences (e.g. 'Nova), I don't think it will be as big a negative for the likes of UD, X, Marquette, etc. as some may think.

Bat, it is widely believed, by the BE BB-only schools themselves, that the reason the likes of VU, MU, GU, St. J. etc, enjoy the status that they do is because of their affiiation with the BE FB schools. Absent that connection those schools drop down to another level.....an A10-type level.

Indeed, the primary motivating reason for Villanova's move to FBS FB is that without that connection their very strong and highly valued Villanova "brand" as they call it will be lost. There is no other reason whatsoever for VU to even consider big time FB other than to protect the status and revenue stream derived from VU basketball.

So, while a non-FB conference such as the one you suggest may be better than just good,...perhaps better than the A10,....it is believed that is will be well below the level currently enjoyed by the BE BB-only schools....meaning much less money.

Right or wrong, that's the thinking of those schools.

Bat'71 · #41 09-07-2011, 08:13 AM

UAC, I do understand the thinking of the 'Novas of this world...you've shed a lot of light on what the rational is there. However, IMHO, I think their concern may be misplaced (and I'm never wrong...mistaken maybe, but never wrong....

) As is often noted, the Northeast (especially the major markets with the most "eyeballs"...i.e. Boston, NYC, Philly and D.C.) is pretty much pro football centric, but loves it's college b-ball and the Big East Conference really made its bones, so to speak, in basketball, not football. Outside of the Pitt/WVa and perhaps the UofL/Cinci games, there really isn't much of a tradition of a natural football rivalry: most look upon the BE as a lesser football power than any of the other BCS conferences. I'm not sure about this, but when was the last time a BE football game generated National buzz that resulted in prime-time network coverage (I don't think it's happened too often)? In addition, from what I understand, the b-ball-only schools don't share in the revenue stream from the BE football schools, so the "loss" of affiliation with the BE football schools shouldn't do much damage.

UACFlyer · #42 09-07-2011, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by Bat'71

UAC, I do understand the thinking of the 'Novas of this world...you've shed a lot of light on what the rational is there. However, IMHO, I think their concern may be misplaced (and I'm never wrong...mistaken maybe, but never wrong....) As is often noted, the Northeast (especially the major markets with the most "eyeballs"...i.e. Boston, NYC, Philly and D.C.) is pretty much pro football centric, but loves it's college b-ball and the Big East Conference really made its bones, so to speak, in basketball, not football. Outside of the Pitt/WVa and perhaps the UofL/Cinci games, there really isn't much of a tradition of a natural football rivalry: most look upon the BE as a lesser football power than any of the other BCS conferences. I'm not sure about this, but when was the last time a BE football game generated National buzz that resulted in prime-time network coverage (I don't think it's happened too often)? In addition, from what I understand, the b-ball-only schools don't share in the revenue stream from the BE football schools, so the "loss" of affiliation with the BE football schools shouldn't do much damage.

....from your point of view or my point of view and consider what the BE BB-only schools are saying and thinking. Villanova is so convinced that disaster looms if it loses its tie with the FB schools that it has decided to invest tens of millions to upgrade to FBS FB,...with no certain outcome. A great financial risk. VU is a school comparable to UD as far as financials are concerned.

VU is the only BE-only BB school that has even a prayer of doing this; and the BE has pulled its offer.

Now consider the likes of Providence, Seton Hall, DePaul, Marquette,...even St. J., GU and VU. Those schools now have schools like UConn, Syracuse, Pitt, WVU, Louisville, Cincinnatti on their BB schedules every year....every year....playing in their gyms haf the time. Do you think for a second that those BCS schools would be scheduling the BE BB-only schools after a split? Even Georgetown and Villanova would be unable to have those BE BCS schools on the schedules consistently.

That is why VU is nearly hysterical about a FB upgrade....no other reason. In one report on VU's position the statement was made that "unless VU started playing FBS football in the Big East, if the BE split VU would become just another Dayton". Dayton was actually the school mentioned....VU would "drop to the level of a Dayton"! God forbid.

Bat, I think you are under estimating the importance to the BE BB schools (in rep, dollars and cents) of that BCS connection.

UACFlyer · #43 09-07-2011, 11:12 AM

...sort of. Baylor is threatening legal action, which is a snag. That will probably be resolved.

Thus, IMHO, SEC's next move is super-critical. If the SEC adds a 14th team, where that team comes from is enormously important. For example, if the SEC adds a Big 12 team the Big 12 crumbles...which may happen anyway. But, if the SEC adds an ACC team, that puts the ACC in play and the ACC will have to react. If the SEC leaves the ACC alone only the Big 12 is targeted, most likely.

The Kansas Board of Regents wants KU and KSU to stay together. And the Big East has studied adding KU, KSU and Missouri to bring the BE up to 12 in FB. With a crumbling Big 12, that might look pretty good to KU, KSU and UM. It would stabilize the Big East and strengthen it. But, if the ACC is in play then UM might find the ACC more atractive than the Big East.

Bottom line: In my opinion, if only the Big 12 becomes unglued things could work out pretty well for the SEC, PAC 12 and Big East. But, if the ACC is targeted by the SEC and/or if the Big Ten wakes up....then all hell breaaks loose.

bobber · #44 09-07-2011, 12:26 PM

No real surprise here.

http://eye-on-college-football.blogs...56338/31772388

Sea Bass · #45 09-07-2011, 12:27 PM

the Big12 is dead, it just hasn't been buried yet. The Longhorn Network made it the Big1 and Little11(or 9 or 8)

bobber · #46 09-07-2011, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by Sea Bass

the Big12 is dead, it just hasn't been buried yet. The Longhorn Network made it the Big1 and Little11(or 9 or 8)

Spot on......what conference member is going to want to compete head to head with a school that has its own TV network? And who is going to want the Longhorns in their future set-up with such a built-in advantage?

Medford · #47 09-07-2011, 12:58 PM

My assumption is that Baylor is suing, or withholding from signing the release waiver, or whatever action they're currently taking b/c its their last ditch effort to hold onto BCS affiliation (short of joining the mountain west and that conference gaining BCS status, which adding Baylor isn't going to make a difference)

If OU, Okie State and others were committed to staying in the B12, and they had reasonable additions going forward, they'd likely let aTm move on. however, now that its clear some factions of the B12 are heading west, others have possibilities to the SEC, B10, Big East and/or ACC with baylor (where is Iowa State in all of this?) left holding the bag, this is they're only option.

The end game, this is manuvering to get Baylor a little more money, perhaps delay the inevitable another season or two, but make no bones, aTm is eventually going to the SEC. It may take longer than next season, but there is no shot of them being a willing partner in any future B12 conversations.

The B12 is dead man walking.

UACFlyer · #48 09-07-2011, 01:00 PM

The Longhorn Network may have been the catalyst for this saga...but if/when the Big 12 implodes, Texas then stands alone. It may be possible for UT to become an independent; but I doubt it...there is more to this than FB.

So, if the Big 12 disappears, while the SEC or the PAC 12 may love to add UT, those conferences will be calling the shots. In the Big 12 UT was top-dog; in either the SEC or PAC 12 UT will have to dance to a different tune that it will not get to choose.

bobber · #49 09-08-2011, 12:47 AM

Katz weighs in on the possible effect all this shifting will have on college basketball.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-bask...-college-hoops

Bat'71 · #50 09-08-2011, 07:25 AM

It's interesting that Katz didn't mention the Big Ten at all in his blog and that he didn't consider a disintegration of the BE if it's poached by the ACC/Big Ten and SEC.

rasta man · #51 09-08-2011, 07:57 AM

Well I'm listening online to Chip Brown's radio show right now, he seems to be on top of this as he was the first one yesterday to report on Baylor's possible lawsuit and OU's decision. According to him everything is on hold while Baylor tries to get something (either a ton of money or a BCS conference berth, they pulled this same bit in the 90's). It could be a while until OU makes a decision on where to go. If they bolt along with A&M then all bets are off. IF OU stays then I highly doubt much changes and we stay put.

IMHO I would like to see us "upgrade" our conference and the only way that happens is for OU to bolt and the whole s goes you know where. Us and X (and maybe Temple) seem to be the "elite" programs in terms of facilities, attendance etc in the A-10. I think a conference us and the BE hoops schools would be great in terms of exposure, scheduling and money for the program. In this new era we need to look out for #1.

UACFlyer · #52 09-08-2011, 08:22 AM

....other things do matter.

If the Big 12 implodes, as appears likely, many rivalries of very long standing will be changed and probably lost. Think about that from UD's perspective. Dayton has very few real rivals...but for sure we consider ourselves to be joined at the hip with Xavier. If something were to occur that severed or theatened to sever the Dayton-Xavier connection, Dayton would go nuts.

TK once mentioned to me that very few things are as important to UD as the UD-X connection. It may not matter as much to X; but for UD a break in the X connection would be very, very painful. That is the sort of pain the Big 12 second tier schools are feeling. They have much to lose if the Big 12 disintegrates...and it goes well beyond money.

cicvi17 · #53 09-08-2011, 08:44 AM

Baylor's lawsuit isn't because A&M is leaving, Baylor's lawsuit is to show Oklahoma and Oklahoma State how far they're willing to go if those two schools try to leave too. Losing one team can be solved rather quickly - Houston, SMU, Boise St, Memphis, really anyone invited from either CUSA or MTW would jump on a Big 12 invite in a second, so if the two OK schools decide a lawsuit isn't something they want to deal with in the immediate future, then they'll just add another team and all will be fine, OR they could just stay at nine like the ACC used to have and feature a true round-robin in football and a home-and-home basketball schedule.

As for the SEC, they have said repeatedly that they will not upset the balance of the current divisions. Thus, another Big 12 team is only an option if there are TWO east teams added. The SEC has already indicated the frontrunners are Clemson, Missouri, and Florida State to get to 16, but the Clemson and FSU invites will cause a fight within the current membership, as was already stated. I think adding Virginia and Maryland to the east would be a really gutsy move - expand into the DC and Baltimore tv markets with two high-caliber academic institutions with good facilities. As long as those schools commit to excellence on the field as well as off, that's where I'd be going if I were Mike Slive.

xubrew · #54 09-08-2011, 11:46 AM

It's my understanding that Kansas, Kansas State and even Missouri are in talks with the Big East. That could get interesting.

Personally, I think the stragglers can form the nucleus of a pretty solid conference.

Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Mizzou (possibly). They could join forces with Louisville, Cincinnati and Memphis.

That would be a fun conference. I don't see it happening, but it would be a fun league. Throw in another team and you've got a solid league of nine teams.

Medford · #55 09-08-2011, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by xubrew

It's my understanding that Kansas, Kansas State and even Missouri are in talks with the Big East. That could get interesting.

Personally, I think the stragglers can form the nucleus of a pretty solid conference.

Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Mizzou (possibly). They could join forces with Louisville, Cincinnati and Memphis.

That would be a fun conference. I don't see it happening, but it would be a fun league. Throw in another team and you've got a solid league of nine teams.

Fun conference? Perhaps in basketball. In football there is nothing resembling a historically significant power house program, might as well be the mountain west. The TV deal for that conference would be on par with the mountain west, perhaps even worse. Sure Kansas & K State dominate their state, but its a small state in population. Mizzou picks up some of the KC and a lot of the St Louis market; would be the only significant television market of the group. Louisville plays 2nd fiddle to Kentucky; UC does likewise to OSU; Memphis is in the same boat in relation to Tennessee;Iowa State is 2nd to Iowa and Baylor isn't even in the picture after shifting thru Texas and aTm

Kansas, K-st & Missouri to the Big East makes sense, and improves that conference assuming the rest of the Big East stays together and none of those 3 have the opportunity to join the Pac 12, B10 or SEC. Of course that would mean a 20 team Big East, and would do nothing for UD or Xavier in terms of joining a stronger basketball conference, and it would be contigent on the B10, ACC & SEC all staying at 12-14 teams. If those 3, along w/ the P12 go to 16, forget about the Big East, it would be dead, at least the football side.

Medford · #56 09-08-2011, 01:39 PM

The B10 silence during all of this is deafening. There is no way Jim Delany is sitting idle, even if he can't get something done to improve the B10 thru expansion, you know he's as active behind the scenes as anyone.

With that said, not sure that I believe them at this point, but I'd imagine the conversations with Texas have at least taken place on some level, there are starting to be rumors leaking in several places that the B10 has been in initial conversations with both Texas and Notre Dame joining the B10 as a package. Notre Dame holds on to its independence like a fat kid with cake, but at some point, if conferences continue to expand and increase in power, Notre Dame's power dwindles further and they'll be left with no choice but to join a conference in football. Would benefit them to make the decision while all options (ACC, P12 & B10) are on the table.

UACFlyer · #57 09-08-2011, 02:50 PM

....there is a big difference. Last year when the super-conference talk was raging a few of the power conferences were in the process of renegotiating their TV deals. Those deals have been completed for more money than the conferences dreamed of.

That being the case, there is little or no current appetite for super conferences. In fact, there has been quite a bit of talk within conferences and their schools against expansion to 14, 16.

There is an exception: The Big 12 has three remaining plums that cannot be passed up....Texas A&M, Texas and Oklahoma. One seems to be going to the SEC. It will stop there if Texas and OU stay put. But, if one or both want to leave, no conference will pass up UT or OU. And those plums may drag lesser schools with them, e.g., TT or OSU.

But what UT and OU do next holds the key.

flyerfanatic86 · #58 09-08-2011, 04:10 PM

Another Katz blog, talking to basketball only conference commissioners (including McGlade):

http://tinyurl.com/3ja5wv7

UACFlyer · #59 09-08-2011, 05:15 PM

....by Baylor (and possibly others) at first sounds like a means to get included or least get some compensation. But, maybe other Big 12 schools can stop a member from defecting.

Consider: The Big 12 signs a TV contract worth ~$15 million annually to each school. The value of that contract is known to all as being due, primarily, to the fact that Texas, Oklahoma, A&M are among the 12 (or 10). Absent even one of those three and the deal would be worth less, considerably less. All agree and sign the deal.

Then just a year later A&M decides to bolt, destabilizing the Big 12. In response the OU president makes clear he's spoken to the PAC 12 about joining. These two schools were central to the TV deal signed by all just a year ago. There is no doubt that if A&M leaves, triggering departure by OU, along with possible dissolution of the Big 12 that schools like Baylor will see that $15 million annually diasppear, causing the school very significant material financial harm.

Now one can say that each school has a right to look out for #1. But does that mean a school can sign a deal one minute and reneg on it the next causing harm to another school that also signed the same deal in good faith?

I'm not sure that it does. A conference is like a corporation,...maybe even is a corporation,...in which members band together for mutual benefit. With that comes legal obligations to the conference...so it seems to me. There are some things a school can do to benefit its self interest. But, does that mean a school can do anything it wants to benefit its interests,...without regard to the impact on other members?

Brew.....comments?

Glen Clark · #60 09-08-2011, 09:32 PM

In an ESPN Insider article this morning, Joe Lunardi warns that the coming of four 16 team super conferences based on football will spell the end of the NCAA basketball tournament as we know it. Fewer at-large bids to the non-power conferences and fewer scheduling opportunities will be the rule of the day. Outside of a possible 5th or 6th league made up of the non-football basketball heavyweights, the remaining 250 or so Div I basketball programs will be on the outside, looking in:
". . . Don't ever forget that, at the grown-ups table, college basketball isn't much more than a snack. This is evolution and, like it or not, only the strongest survive. . ."

___________________
Whether your glass is half empty or half full, you still have more to drink.

xubrew · #61 09-09-2011, 12:49 AM

Originally Posted by Glen Clark

In an ESPN Insider article this morning, Joe Lunardi warns that the coming of four 16 team super conferences based on football will spell the end of the NCAA basketball tournament as we know it. Fewer at-large bids to the non-power conferences and fewer scheduling opportunities will be the rule of the day. Outside of a possible 5th or 6th league made up of the non-football basketball heavyweights, the remaining 250 or so Div I basketball programs will be on the outside, looking in:
". . . Don't ever forget that, at the grown-ups table, college basketball isn't much more than a snack. This is evolution and, like it or not, only the strongest survive. . ."

___________________
Whether your glass is half empty or half full, you still have more to drink.

...or it would create more opportunities because with the six major conferences consolidating into four, it will result in them beating each other up and drowning each other out more.

Joe Lunardi thinks that there will be 250 teams on the outside looking in. What an astounding prediction. There are 350 teams (give or take) now. So, essentially what he's saying is that the new conference realignment will result in teams that are not in major conferences and/or outside the top 100 ending up on the outside looking in.

....and that's different how??

Fan4allUDSports · #62 09-09-2011, 06:51 AM

Speaking of basketball, I have two questions.

1. If there are 4, 16 team conferences, can they breakaway to form their own Championship game and/or playoff outside of the NCAA and BCS.

2. If so, is there anything from stopping them from creating a 64 team bracket of their own run outside of the NCAA that would force schools like Gonzaga, Xavier, Dayton, etc. out forever?

keats '91 · #63 09-09-2011, 07:54 AM

My opinion is ....

1) Absolutely possible. Question I have is exactly what are the benefits of the NCAA to these schools. And whether they can get those benefits outside of the NCAA.... my guess is yes.

2) Again, I think it is possible. But the greater question is whether any split would impact recruiting. If schools like Gonzaga, X, UD, etc ... the non-football power schools, can maintain their recruiting edge. Or will the top recruits go to the football powerr schools?

Interesting stuff, to be sure....

Bat'71 · #64 09-09-2011, 08:26 AM

There may be something to the argument that the projected (or assumed) four mega-conferences would break away from the NCAA and would seek to form a separate organization, but I don't really see why that would occur. The Universities that would comprise the Mega-conferences already dominate the NCAA hierarchy and rules making committees and they also get the lion's share of the invites to the NCAA basketball tourney.

As it stands now, the NCAA, as an organizing body, provides a fig leaf of respectability and a facade for the BCS schools to promote the image of amateur athletics where the well-being of "student athletes" at these institutions is paramount. It would become glaringly apparent that those institutions comprising the four mega-conferences would be nothing more than a feeder system of the NFL. In addition, if you had four mega-conferences composed of 16 teams each (64 teams), at least a quarter of them (and probably more) would be perennial bottom-feeders. The schools in the BCS conferences, as it stands now, all want to have at least eight home games out of a possible 12 game schedule for financial purposes and to appease their fans...that ain't gonna happen if they all have to play each other. I don't know, call me stodgy or old fashioned but this is getting to be ridiculous and moving quickly toward farce, but it is kinda fun to watch these supposed ivory-tower types that comprise the leadership of our "prestigious" state universities falling all over themselves in abject greed to corner the revenue stream from "Big Time" athletics and the TV contracts that go with it. Pathetic.

San Diego Flyer · #65 09-09-2011, 09:06 AM

Just thinking, wouldn't all those schools be appeased if their 16 team league signed a mega-billion $$ tv contract that more than made up for the $$loss of a few home games?

Isn't the anxiousness all about the bottom line?

2 cents

Bat'71 · #66 09-09-2011, 09:15 AM

You're probably right, San Diego, but then you have the UTs, BYUs and NDs of this world of college athletics that may start to think..."Why should I only get only an EQUAL share of the revenue stream with the likes of a Colorado or a Northwestern or a Vandy, when they are so far beneath me...I should get MORE". Human greed and hubris, even at the highest levels of "Academia"...who'da thunk it? (With apologies to the Ivies and several others).

rasta man · #67 09-09-2011, 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by Fan4allUDSports

Speaking of basketball, I have two questions.

1. If there are 4, 16 team conferences, can they breakaway to form their own Championship game and/or playoff outside of the NCAA and BCS.

2. If so, is there anything from stopping them from creating a 64 team bracket of their own run outside of the NCAA that would force schools like Gonzaga, Xavier, Dayton, etc. out forever?

my fears exactly.

Glen Clark · #68 09-09-2011, 10:10 AM

. . . but I find myself in total agreement with you on this point:

". . . these supposed ivory-tower types that comprise the leadership of our "prestigious" state universities [are] falling all over themselves in abject greed to corner the revenue stream from "Big Time" athletics and the TV contracts that go with it . . ."

___________________
Whether your glass is half empty or half full, you still have more to drink.

San Diego Flyer · #69 09-09-2011, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by Bat'71

You're probably right, San Diego, but then you have the UTs, BYUs and NDs of this world of college athletics that may start to think..."Why should I only get only an EQUAL share of the revenue stream with the likes of a Colorado or a Northwestern or a Vandy, when they are so far beneath me...I should get MORE". Human greed and hubris, even at the highest levels of "Academia"...who'da thunk it? (With apologies to the Ivies and several others).

It's an evolving thing me thinks. There is risk in being a whiner and a hog. You can get left at the alter, even if you are ND. At some point you have to say the piece of the pie you are getting is still an awfully big piece.

xubrew · #70 09-09-2011, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by Fan4allUDSports

Speaking of basketball, I have two questions.

1. If there are 4, 16 team conferences, can they breakaway to form their own Championship game and/or playoff outside of the NCAA and BCS.

2. If so, is there anything from stopping them from creating a 64 team bracket of their own run outside of the NCAA that would force schools like Gonzaga, Xavier, Dayton, etc. out forever?

Any school is free to leave the NCAA and do whatever they want to do.

Having said that, I haven't heard anyone associated with the major programs express any real desire of doing that. I don't see what breaking away from the NCAA would get them that they don't already have.

Could they pay the players if they wanted to?? Sure. The thing is, they don't want to. Why would they want to if they don't have to?? They'd rather not have to in order to field a competitive team.

Could they lower eligibility standards and academic standards?? Sure. They could eliminate them entirely. The thing is, out of all the major conferences, the Big East is the only one that contains any tier four institutions. Academic status was a huge criteria for the ACC, Big Ten and Pac Twelve.

Could they keep all the money for themselves?? Sure. The thing is, they already keep all the money as it is from the conference tv deals.

When you get down to it, the university presidents are the ones that make up and run the NCAA. It will be the presidents that ultimately decide if they were to break off and do their own thing. Not only would breaking away not get them anything that they don't already have, it would...for lack of a better term...look really bad.

Like I've said before, I think we'll see a third subdivision in college football. I don't think anything else will change. Could they do it?? sure. I just don't see why they would. No one of any authority has even suggested that they are looking to leave. I chalk most of this talk up to wild media speculation without any real basis.

rollo · #71 09-09-2011, 12:44 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong xubrew, but within the realm of athletics, isn't the relationship between the BCS schools and 'have-nots' dependent upon each other?

I can't see a situation where the BCS schools break away from the rest, essentially destroying many programs/conferences, and then try to fill their basketball schedules up with 15 games against the schools they just spit upon. Do you think tOSU, Syracuse or Florida wants their non-conference schedule full of Iowa State, Washington and NC State....or Prairie View, Florida A&M and North Texas State? Not many coaches make the HOF going 24-9 every year, and they know that. Take away their guaranteed 12-14 wins to start the season and much of the aura that goes along with that 17-0 Clemson team playing 16-2 UNC is gone...as are the ratings.

Same with football. tOSU, Alabama, Texas, etc...rely on the have-nots for 2-3 games (2-3 wins) every year. Split from them and you risk having to play Northwestern instead of Kent State, Cincinnati instead of Louisiana-Monroe. How interesting will the BCS title game be when the two teams playing for the title are both 11-2 or 10-3? Going undefeated just became less likely, significantly.

Of course, my scenario all depends on the have-nots organizing themselves to shun the BCS teams...which may or may not happen as so many of the have-nots depend on the buy-game to fund their athletic departments....

With that said, I don't see a split in the near future.

Yes???? No??? Am I over thinking?? Fill me in...

Gazoo · #72 09-09-2011, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by xubrew

Having said that, I haven't heard anyone associated with the major programs express any real desire of doing that.

Yet.

Originally Posted by xubrew

Could they pay the players if they wanted to?? Sure. The thing is, they don't want to. Why would they want to if they don't have to?? They'd rather not have to in order to field a competitive team.

Here's what I think you're overlooking. They wouldn't have to. Think of the donors who would pay big $$ to have the top recruits in the country come and party with them. And with the NCAA handcuffs off, then the richest schools can start using their strongest asset. Right now the Univeristy of Miami is ostensibly forced to compete on a level playing field with Miami (OH) University. Same number of recruiting visits, same rules, etc. Think of the scenario where The U could invite recruits, bring in a 40 foot yacht, load it with strippers and booze, and send them out for a cruise. And it would be not only legal, but organized and paid for by alumni. Meanwhile Miami U could show them how pretty the Quad is covered in snow. Colorado could take the guys to a ski lodge. Northwestern could take the guys to a box suite at the Bears game. Whatever.

Every college thinks they've got the market cornered on cool, and if they could just get the kids there to sell them the "right" way they could win every time.

Sea Bass · #73 09-09-2011, 01:01 PM

there would be nothing to keep schools in a new alliance from play NCAA schools.

Wouldn't those schools still be desirable to play from those behind with the NCAA?

xubrew · #74 09-09-2011, 01:25 PM

Here's what I think you're overlooking. They wouldn't have to. Think of the donors who would pay big $$ to have the top recruits in the country come and party with them. And with the NCAA handcuffs off, then the richest schools can start using their strongest asset

Here is what you are overlooking...

The major programs are also the biggest whistle blowers. They contribute to probably ninety percent of the NCAA handcuffs that you're referring to. Nearly every call for stricter rules and stronger enforcement comes from the major programs. The OVC is not out there demanding stronger initial eligibility standards, stronger APR, and stronger recruiting restrictions, and limits on oversigning. The ACC, SEC, Big Ten and Pac Twelve are. The handcuffs wouldn't be so tight if those leagues didn't want them so tight.

If you allow donors and boosters to throw wild parties and take players out on yachts, you are essentially conceding that there will be an arms race of donors. Very few schools will find it in their best interest to do that, even if they are major programs.

Again, it is the university presidents that will make the decision, and the situation you just described regarding boosters and donors being allowed to shower recruits with gifts and wild parties would not appeal to any university president that I can think of.

I just don't see real evidence whatosever that the major programs want to leave the NCAA. I don't even see anything that remotely suggests that. Yes, they could leave. Nothing is stopping them. I just don't think they will. I think they would shoot down the mere suggestion of it.

cicvi17 · #75 09-09-2011, 03:27 PM

I think xubrew is right on with one thing - the need for a third sub-division in football. Nearly all of the shake up across the college landscape is because of football. What SHOULD happen is that schools should remove football from conference affiliation altogether. This way conferences could stay in tact for basketball and less-money making sports like soccer, baseball, volleyball, etc, and let football just be the behemoth that it is. Would help solve a lot of issues all around.

Fan4allUDSports · #76 09-09-2011, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by cicvi17

I think xubrew is right on with one thing - the need for a third sub-division in football. Nearly all of the shake up across the college landscape is because of football. What SHOULD happen is that schools should remove football from conference affiliation altogether. This way conferences could stay in tact for basketball and less-money making sports like soccer, baseball, volleyball, etc, and let football just be the behemoth that it is. Would help solve a lot of issues all around.

I agree, but if you start to seperate football, wouldn't it eventually happen that basketball becomes a two level program as well? Basketball is a money maker as well and it seems that eventually it will cause seperation as well. Would be interested to see what happens if there were three levels of football.

On a side note, if there were to be an elimination of conferences for football and the best records win after factoring in strength of schedule, it would be interesting to see how teams schedule each other without the limitation of conference play.

Gazoo · #77 09-09-2011, 08:11 PM

Originally Posted by xubrew

Here is what you are overlooking...

The major programs are also the biggest whistle blowers. They contribute to probably ninety percent of the NCAA handcuffs that you're referring to. Nearly every call for stricter rules and stronger enforcement comes from the major programs. The OVC is not out there demanding stronger initial eligibility standards, stronger APR, and stronger recruiting restrictions, and limits on oversigning. The ACC, SEC, Big Ten and Pac Twelve are. The handcuffs wouldn't be so tight if those leagues didn't want them so tight.

If you allow donors and boosters to throw wild parties and take players out on yachts, you are essentially conceding that there will be an arms race of donors. Very few schools will find it in their best interest to do that, even if they are major programs.

Again, it is the university presidents that will make the decision, and the situation you just described regarding boosters and donors being allowed to shower recruits with gifts and wild parties would not appeal to any university president that I can think of.

I just don't see real evidence whatosever that the major programs want to leave the NCAA. I don't even see anything that remotely suggests that. Yes, they could leave. Nothing is stopping them. I just don't think they will. I think they would shoot down the mere suggestion of it.

Hmmm. . . the board of regents, staffed with rich alumni, who hire the presidents, who make the calls on whether or not to leave the NCAA. . . I might see a conflict of interest.

Again, I really think the "whistleblowers" are university presidents who are really just pi**ed off that some other school might be getting away with more, or are looking to front-run tougher sanctions. Kind of like a group of convicted convicts pushing for tougher gun laws--some might say to protect the lily white rehabilitated citizens now that they've seen the error of their ways, some might say so they're sure you won't be armed when they rob your house.

Look, you have the weight of the history of actions on your side, kind of like Congress pointing to all the good they do. I have the weight of human nature on my side, kind of like all the Congressmen who have been caught lying, cheating, and stealing. You have put your faith where you want, I'll put my faith where I want.

I envy your belief in the human spirit to act honorably and ethically. I'm just glad you're not a police officer.

bobber · #78 09-09-2011, 09:11 PM

FYI -- The ACC considers upping the exit fee.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/...ce-sources-say

xubrew · #79 09-10-2011, 12:22 AM

Originally Posted by Gazoo

Hmmm. . . the board of regents, staffed with rich alumni, who hire the presidents, who make the calls on whether or not to leave the NCAA. . . I might see a conflict of interest.

Again, I really think the "whistleblowers" are university presidents who are really just pi**ed off that some other school might be getting away with more, or are looking to front-run tougher sanctions. Kind of like a group of convicted convicts pushing for tougher gun laws--some might say to protect the lily white rehabilitated citizens now that they've seen the error of their ways, some might say so they're sure you won't be armed when they rob your house.

Look, you have the weight of the history of actions on your side, kind of like Congress pointing to all the good they do. I have the weight of human nature on my side, kind of like all the Congressmen who have been caught lying, cheating, and stealing. You have put your faith where you want, I'll put my faith where I want.

I envy your belief in the human spirit to act honorably and ethically. I'm just glad you're not a police officer.

Who from the major conferences, be it board of regents members, or university presidents, or athletic department employees, or for matter even a booster, has EVER said that they are considering leaving the NCAA??

If they haven't said it, what are some of the things they're doing that are hinting that they want to leave??

People seem to think that there is more money for the major conferences if they leave, but in reality there isn't. People also think, yourself included, that they want to get away from the NCAA's control, when in fact they are responsible for the control being what it is.

Your gun control analogy makes no sense whatsoever in regards to NCAA bylaws and compliance. Do you want to know what the #1 reason is that those schools push for tougher sanctions and enforcement?? It's so they won't have to exert more than they already are in order to keep up. That's it. It's not to run any sort of a front. It really isn't even to appear ethical.

What is it that you have seen that makes you think those schools are on their way out the door?? There is no advantage to leaving whatsoever.

I don't think they're going to stay because it's honorable or ethical. I don't know what gave you that idea. I think they're staying because there is no practical reason to leave. But more than anything else, I see NOTHING from ANYONE that indicates they're even considering it. Like the conference realignment, it would be a talking point if they were considering leaving. No such talk is taking place.

You can take comfort that I'm not a police officer. I hope you're not one either because I'm afraid you would go around arresting people for no reason at all. It's one thing to be reasonably suspicious, but have no real evidence. In this case, there isn't even any reasonable suspicion...unless you think it's believable that the universities would want to leave so they could begin permitting boosters to throw wild parties for current players and recruits.

Gazoo · #80 09-10-2011, 06:35 PM

I don't think Texas A&M spent years throwing out signals that they were going to leave the B12 and I don't think the big schools will do that either regarding leaving the NCAA. If the right moment in time presents itself that is when we realize the conversations that were happening behind closed doors all along. An end to the BCS and a non major winner of the national title might be enough to do it.

xubrew · #81 09-10-2011, 09:05 PM

Originally Posted by Gazoo

I don't think Texas A&M spent years throwing out signals that they were going to leave the B12 and I don't think the big schools will do that either regarding leaving the NCAA. If the right moment in time presents itself that is when we realize the conversations that were happening behind closed doors all along. An end to the BCS and a non major winner of the national title might be enough to do it.

Well, that's one of our differences. I think TAMU definitely did throw out signals that they wanted to leave, and had they found a reasonable place to go before now, I think they would have been gone.

I think the Pac Ten/Twelve was throwing out signals that they wanted to expand into another timezone to get more exposure and more money for a few years as well.

Nothing that has happened regarding realignment has been THAT big of a surprise. I'm a little surprised that the Big Ten went with Nebraska instead of someone else, but only a little.

Leaving the NCAA would be a huge surprise. I'm not going to say that I think it's impossible. In fact I know very well that it isn't impossible. They can collectively leave at any time. I'm just saying that there were indiciations that TAMU wanted out, and that the Pac Ten wanted to expand, and that the Big Ten wanted to expand, and that the Big Twelve was a collective mess. There are also huge signals being sent that there will most likely will be a third subdivision in D1 football.

There are zero signals that I can pick up that they will collectively leave the NCAA. I don't consider myself to be an arrogant person, but I will concede that it may seem to be an arrogant point of view. Nevertheless, that is the viewpoint that I have. To be fair, though, you haven't listed any specific signals that make you think that they will leave. That's all I was really asking you for. I see no signals whatsoever that they're thinking of leaving. Not one. On top of that, I can't even think of why it would be advantageous for them to leave. Therefore, I don't think that it is at all likely that they will leave.

They can leave. I know that. Anybody can leave at any time. I just don't think that they will. I think there is a much greater chance of the SWAC leaving (not that I think it will happen) than their is one of the major conferences leaving...much less all of them.

Gazoo · #82 09-10-2011, 09:58 PM

A lot of things are obvious in retrospect that seems improbable before they happened.

It would have been ridiculous 15 years ago to imagine the Big East looking like it does now. Anyone that suggested it would have been laughed out of the bar. A lot of things about it made no sense, and there's no point in you and I rehashing it now (when it clearly makes all the sense in the world). Ex-post we can all claim how smart we were in proclaiming that we knew it would work all along. Or not. Whatever your point of view.

All I'm saying is, in my opinion there is a time coming when it will cease to make sense, the football programs will want the shackles off, and then it will be obvious to everyone even if it isn't now. The NCAA will get just a little too bothersome, the rules too tedious, and there will be a tide of change where the big schools will sweep the Dayton's and _avier's of the world into another class.

xubrew · #83 09-10-2011, 11:16 PM

Originally Posted by Gazoo

A lot of things are obvious in retrospect that seems improbable before they happened.

It would have been ridiculous 15 years ago to imagine the Big East looking like it does now. Anyone that suggested it would have been laughed out of the bar. A lot of things about it made no sense, and there's no point in you and I rehashing it now (when it clearly makes all the sense in the world). Ex-post we can all claim how smart we were in proclaiming that we knew it would work all along. Or not. Whatever your point of view.

All I'm saying is, in my opinion there is a time coming when it will cease to make sense, the football programs will want the shackles off, and then it will be obvious to everyone even if it isn't now. The NCAA will get just a little too bothersome, the rules too tedious, and there will be a tide of change where the big schools will sweep the Dayton's and _avier's of the world into another class.

A reasonable thought. Fair enough. We shall see. To your point, seemingly every week something happens that has never happened before and that most people never thought would.

I've listed my reasons for thinking they won't leave. I guess another reason that I haven't mentioned is that leaving and controlling only themselves is less desirable to elitist ego-maniacs than remaining and controlling hundreds of others as well.

I sure as hell don't think they'll stay on the grounds that they think it's the right thing to do. I think they'll stay because no one has talked about leaving, and if they were to talk about leaving I think they'd realize it was in their best interest to stay. But...that's just me. "JUST" is the key word there.

Chris R · #84 09-11-2011, 03:15 AM

The Big East basketball schools remain happy to trade influence for cash. Until the time comes where they feel the influence and self-determination or bargaining power at the table becomes a greater crutch than the cash received to compensate for it, they will remain exactly where they are.

Its a trade agreement of sorts. Until one side feels they are being abused beyond a mutual understanding, nothing changes.

Bat'71 · #85 09-11-2011, 09:13 AM

As has been stated before, there really is no reason for any or all of the BCS Conferences to leave the NCAA organization. As currently constituted, the NCAA seems to fit the purposes of the BCS schools just fine. Since the NCAA lost control over the television broadcast rights to college football a long time ago in a landmark Supreme Court ruling in 1984 (see attachment below) the BCS Conferences pretty much control all the cash flowing from their football games anyway. Moreover, in basketball, the BCS Conferences already have their own year-end tournaments which provide an enormous amount of money to the individual conferences; if the BCS schools were to abandon the NCAA, what purpose would another tournament have (in lieu of the NCAA Tourney) on top of the just completed conference tournies, unless it were simply to have the winners of the four mega-conferences play each other? This set of affairs would in all probability reduce the amount of money they could garner and the BCS related schools already reap the lion's share of that pot of gold. Remind me again of the number of non-BCS affiliated schools that get at-large bids to the NCAA Basketball Tournament...six, maybe eight in a "good" year? In this regard, the NCAA has already set up a second tier for D-1 basketball...it's called the N.I.T.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/...e+NCAA+history

Figgie123 · #86 09-11-2011, 01:26 PM

Right. 70% of $3 Billion isn't that much different than 100% of that same $3 Billion. That's just a rounding error in Warren Buffett's take home pay.

Gazoo · #87 09-11-2011, 10:28 PM

Originally Posted by Bat'71

As has been stated before, there really is no reason for any or all of the BCS Conferences to leave the NCAA organization. As currently constituted, the NCAA seems to fit the purposes of the BCS schools just fine. Since the NCAA lost control over the television broadcast rights to college football a long time ago in a landmark Supreme Court ruling in 1984 (see attachment below) the BCS Conferences pretty much control all the cash flowing from their football games anyway. Moreover, in basketball, the BCS Conferences already have their own year-end tournaments which provide an enormous amount of money to the individual conferences; if the BCS schools were to abandon the NCAA, what purpose would another tournament have (in lieu of the NCAA Tourney) on top of the just completed conference tournies, unless it were simply to have the winners of the four mega-conferences play each other? This set of affairs would in all probability reduce the amount of money they could garner and the BCS related schools already reap the lion's share of that pot of gold. Remind me again of the number of non-BCS affiliated schools that get at-large bids to the NCAA Basketball Tournament...six, maybe eight in a "good" year? In this regard, the NCAA has already set up a second tier for D-1 basketball...it's called the N.I.T.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/...e+NCAA+history

I wonder how Title IX would apply if they were no longer in the NCAA? If they were just a minor league feeder system of semi-pro football and basketball players who happened to attend classes once in a while (or not) would you still have all those pesky women's softball, rowing, and gymnastics teams eating into your budget for weight rooms and luxury jets?

UDDoug · #88 09-12-2011, 09:54 AM

Title IX would still apply as long at the university accepted federal funding - which I am sure they would not give up.

They wouldn't have any requirements from the NCAA to offer a certain number of sports though. Most of the football schools don't fully comply with how some interpret Title IX simply because of numbers in football.

I don't see many of the schools giving up the more prominent sports. Probably keep baseball, softball, womens hoops, soccer, volleyball. Some give up golf, rowing goes back to its eastern roots.

Gazoo · #89 09-12-2011, 12:35 PM

If they have a professional sports team wearing their colors they can't accept federal money? Title IX is very complicated, I wonder if the universities totally changed the rules if Title IX would still fully apply or if there might be a way around it.

UACFlyer · #90 09-12-2011, 02:07 PM

...it doesn't state that to comply scholarships for men's and women's sports have to be the same....nothing that specific. Indeed, criteria for compliance are rather vague and open to interpretation. But, college lawyers are so scared of being nailed for non compliance that, if anything, schools go overboard to be in compliance.

To be in compliance a shortened version of the criteria reads something like this: opportunities for the under represented sex should reflect enrollment proportions; OR continued expansion of opportunities for the under represented sex must be demonstrated; OR accommodation of the interests and abilities of the under represented sex have to be demonstrated.

Nothing about the same number of scholarships....but many schools read it that way.

Medford · #91 09-12-2011, 02:49 PM

If you can believe orangebloods.com (texas rival's site) http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1263940 (and I have no idea if you can trust them or not. OU and consequently Okie State will be applying for membership into the P12 by the end of this month.

Perhaps a game of chicken is forming b/w the SEC/aTm and the P12/OU/OSU for the next "official news" to avoid being out in front of an impending Baylor lawsuit for whomever officially pulls the trigor first.

UACFlyer · #92 09-12-2011, 04:06 PM

About a year, or so, ago the PAC 10's new commissioner Larry Scott was in the process of negotiating a new TV deal. It's no secret that before the deal was done Scott had visions of a 16 team mega-conference based primarily on Big 12 teams. He approached the those schools....and apparently their preference was the Big 12 model which they thought they could salvage.

Since that time the PAC 10/12 has added two teams and signed a TV deal that even Scott could not have imagined. That being the case, from what I've been reading there is no appetite at all for further expansioni, i.e., the PAC 12 presidents are very happy as is.

Moreover, new PAC 12 member. Colorado, is adamantly opposed to adding Big 12 teams, because if that happens UC will find itself in the PAC 16-East along with the very Big 12 schools that it just left behind. That is not what UC had in mind.

Bottom line: For Scott to convince the PAC 12 presidents to add more teams he's going to have to present credible data showing that each current PAC 12school will get millions more from a revised TV deal. Those presidents will not be impressed with figures that show a "probable" additional $1-2 million annually if they go to 14 or 16 teams.

There are problems and issues associated with a mega-conference, the effect of which is not known. To overcome such reservations the added money is going to have to be breathtaking. Maybe it will be....maybe not.

This year is not last year....things have changed in the PAC 12.

bobber · #93 09-14-2011, 06:46 PM

Andy Katz on the Big-12 situation.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/st...pact-shuffling

Viperstick · #94 09-15-2011, 03:13 AM

My hope is the litigation bankrupts all the schools affected.

bobber · #95 09-15-2011, 11:03 AM

Yeah, it seems like some of them may already have spent big bucks in anticipation of their new TV contract, and now there just may be no contract.

UACFlyer · #96 09-15-2011, 01:50 PM

....admits to "closely watching" the realignment saga.

FSU is split, apparently, with the faculty et al very much liking its connection with the prestigious schools of the ACC...while the FB fans felt all along that FSU belongs in the SEC.

In the ACC FSU takes in $12-14 million annually from its share of TV revenue...while the PAC 12 schools take in $24 million....showing that there's more money to be had than FSU gets from the ACC. Presumably, SEC schools get or soon will get FB TV revenue on the order of the new PAC 12 deal.

Should FSU or any school decide to leave the ACC, that would trigger ACC action to add another school,....almost surely from the Big East. So, like the effect on the Big 12 of Oklahoma's decision, possible action by FSU also appears very important to the ACC and Big East.

Meanwhile, the current issue of Business Week has a lengthy article on NBC's TV deal with Notre Dame, whcih pays ND about $15 million annually. The article points out a few things: 1) the ND TV audience does not justify $15 million; 2) previous NBC senior management had very close personal ties to ND...one exec had three kids at ND at the same time...that tie no longer exists; 3) ND's mediocrity has rendered its football program irrelevant. (Wow, that hurts!)

So, it seems possible that while power conference schools are seeing their annual TV deals worth $20 million and more, ND might soon see its TV deal approach $10 million when it's renegotiated.

Now ND wants to remain independent....but I wonder if it's worth ~$10 million a year to the school.

The BW article does point out that no school in the country has FB cachet that comes close to that of ND. Any conference would love to have ND...but the "window" won't remain open forever if major realignment occurs.

bobber · #97 09-15-2011, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by UACFlyer

....admits to "closely watching" the realignment saga.

FSU is split, apparently, with the faculty et al very much liking its connection with the prestigious schools of the ACC...while the FB fans felt all along that FSU belongs in the SEC.

In the ACC FSU takes in $12-14 million annually from its share of TV revenue...while the PAC 12 schools take in $24 million....showing that there's more money to be had than FSU gets from the ACC. Presumably, SEC schools get or soon will get FB TV revenue on the order of the new PAC 12 deal.

Should FSU or any school decide to leave the ACC, that would trigger ACC action to add another school,....almost surely from the Big East. So, like the effect on the Big 12 of Oklahoma's decision, possible action by FSU also appears very important to the ACC and Big East.

Meanwhile, the current issue of Business Week has a lengthy article on NBC's TV deal with Notre Dame, whcih pays ND about $15 million annually. The article points out a few things: 1) the ND TV audience does not justify $15 million; 2) previous NBC senior management had very close personal ties to ND...one exec had three kids at ND at the same time...that tie no longer exists; 3) ND's mediocrity has rendered its football program irrelevant. (Wow, that hurts!)

So, it seems possible that while power conference schools are seeing their annual TV deals worth $20 million and more, ND might soon see its TV deal approach $10 million when it's renegotiated.

Now ND wants to remain independent....but I wonder if it's worth ~$10 million a year to the school.

The BW article does point out that no school in the country has FB cachet that comes close to that of ND. Any conference would love to have ND...but the "window" won't remain open forever if major realignment occurs.

Bingo! The NBC-TV money ND gains by being a football independent probably isn't going to be there in sufficient quantity for too much longer. The days of football independence in South Bend may be numbered. Notre Dame and Syracuse should be a nice package for the Big (14) Ten and the Big (14) Ten Network.

UACFlyer · #98 09-15-2011, 03:16 PM

Assuming that institutions will very soon grow tired of the conference instability resulting from the realignment saga....expect the penalties for withdrawal to be increased to a level that is painful enough to practically ensure membership stability. Seems to me that I read recently that the ACC is planning to increase the penalty for withdrawal.

When annual TV revenue can be $20+ million, a $5 million penalty is hardly a deterent. Something on the order of $20 million or more might be.

Consider this: Just suppose the Big 12 does implode following defection by OU and OSU....and that the Big East absorbs Kansas, Kansas State and Missouri....or some other combination of three Big 12 schools. Neither an expanding Big East or the newcomers from the Big 12 will want to go from one unstable situation to another. They will want this to end for the foreseeable future.

That being the case, it seems to me that a "new" Big East will want to take steps to guard against a Big Ten going after one or more of its members in a few years. One way to do that is to agree on really painful penalties for withdrawal.

A school should always be able to withdraw...no school would sign on if it could never leave. But, it seems to be in the best interest of all members if they enter into conference agreements in good faith that all members intend to be in for the long haul...meaning that they do not intend to jump at the first lucrative TV deal that comes along with a conference change, e.g., Pitt or Syracuse to the Big Ten, Rutgers or UConn to the ACC. If members are unwilling to provide such assurances, then maybe they should consider moving on.

The current instability must be very unpleasant and nerve-wracking for members of the Big East and most especially the Big 12. I should think they would want some assurance that it will end with a conference move. Surely, vulnerable Big 12 schools would not want to join an unstable Big East or any other unstable conference.

Bat'71 · #99 09-15-2011, 03:37 PM

Ahhhh, outright GREED at our institutions of higher learning...ain't it just grand? From the Katz article: "Who can you trust?...Everyone is working independently. No one is being straight with anyone else anymore." They appear to be like rats jumping off a sinking ship...nobody wants to be the Captain going down with his ship. Pathetic.

UACFlyer · #**100** 09-15-2011, 04:01 PM

Very true, Bat.

Essentially, the realignment saga involves just the ~60+ schools of the BCS conferences. Of the six conferences, the SEC, PAC 12 and Big Ten are rock solid stable...it seems. It's hard to envision a school leaving any of those conferences for greener pastures (no pun intended).

Of the remaining three, the ACC is the most stable..but not rock solid. The Big 12 the least stable; and the Big East not a lot more stable than the Big 12. Suppose OU and OSU head for the PAC 12 and the Big 12 becomes unglued. Further suppose that with the approval of all BE member schools,...FB and BB-only,....the Big East decides to invite three Big 12 schools. The resulting 12 team FB conference would be pretty good; and the BB plus other sports side would be very good and very big, 22 schools I think.

Ultimately, 22 schools may be just too large leading to a split. That possibility would be apparent to all at the outset. But this is all about FB anyway. So what really matters is the stability of the resulting 12 school FB side of the conference. In my opinion, before an offer is made to Big 12 schools, each of the current nine BE FB schools should sign something along the lines of a blood oath that they will remain conference members for a specified period of time...5 years? 10 years?,....after which the penalty for withdrawal would be significant. Indeed, I think the invited Big 12 schools would insist on some binding guarantee of stability before joining the Big East.

Such a move by Big 12 schools to an East coast conference would be traumatic enough, without discovering in a two years that its new conference was being raided by the Big Ten or ACC.

Oklahoma claims that its main interest in the PAC 12 is stability. I believe that. How can school administrators be spending all their time agonizing over this conference issue? I'm sure they want it over. Money is the driving factor...but stability is very important.