That doesn't seem right that the SEC would welcmoe a team that doesn't play 1A football and is in one of the worst CBB conferences. Not a knock on the school but lets be honest. No offense Mike but your source doesn't seem reliable... Duke really? For what give Vanderbilt somebody to own? There are much more viable options then a small school that generates absolutely no buzz nationally in football, they'd be better off taking UNLV. The best fit is Texas, A&M , Oklahoma and Ok St. The rest of the Big 12 holds 3 of these schools down so why stick around? That then brings SMU, TCU, Houston and UTEP into replace them. How about this possibilty? The Big 10 sits back and the SEC expands first with those 4 so the Big 10 takes this combo.... Nebraska, Missourri, WVU and Pitt? I haven't really looked at it but the schools who could be in serious trouble would be (outside of the exclusive BE bball schools) the entire WAC (including Boise) the MWC excluding Utah, BYU and TCU, the entire Sun Belt and a few CUSA teams like Tulsa, SoMiss, ECU, Marshall and the entire MAC.
Nova is a Catholic school. Doesn't mean I want them playing only Catholic teams. UConn and Syracuse are two of our biggest rivals recently, I don't want to lose that. Though I also don't know if Nova has the money to move up football divisions. I don't think it's there.
Tom Dienhart (formerly of The Sporting News) made sort of a "hit and run" Twitter post a couple hours ago that is gaining traction... sure, we all know the Big Ten is looking at expansion, but he has yet to clarify whether this is just the latest rumor, or what. First Tweet: Big Ten expansion buzz has league adding Mizzou, Nebraska, Pitt, Rutgers and Syracuse and splitting into four, four-team divisions. Follow-up Tweet: The Big Ten divisions: Syra, Pitt, Rut., Penn St.--Mich., Wisc., Mich. St., Mnn.--Ohio St., Pur., IU, Ill./North.--MU, Iowa, Neb., Ill./NU.
While on the subject I wouldn't mind seeing the ACC pilfer UConn, Georgetown, Providence & possibly Nova or South Florida. 14 in football and 16 in basketball would be ideal. Increase the NE presence instead of it just being BC.
Of all places the Christian Science Moniter has a report on this Big 10 expansion.... http://www.csmonitor.com/Money/The-Sports-Economist/2010/0426/Push-for-Big-10-expansion-speeds-up Unfortunately it looks like the Big East is going to die a quick and painful death. Say hello to even more wateed down college sports. Lincoln to Piscataway should be a great road trip? I never though I'd see the day when Rutgers and Nebraska would be in the same conference.
Based on the current BCS AQ guidelines, the biggest loss in this scenario is PITT since they have had high BCS rankings over the past few years. If the Big East can withstand the hit of PITT leaving, the Big East will still have AQ status. For calculation purposes, UCF and ECU will be reasonably close in rank to Cuse and Rutgers together, so the big question is, whether the loss of Pitt and addition of Memphis will drop the equation below the acceptable AQ level. I just find it hard to believe that they will lose there AQ status... The scenario Dienhart mentions, probably gives the Big Ten a damn tv monopoly come December, since they'll be having a playoff within. Can't wait to see what the SEC decides to do if this all starts moving come June.
If what happens here is truly what happens all hell is going to break lose. Think about it... The Big 12 would lose Nebraska and Mizzou not terrible losses but who would the SEC bring in? Certainly they wouldn't be looking at ECU or Memphis. They'll go for the jugular of the Big 12 with a power packed punch of Texas, Oklahoma, OK St and Texas A&M. All 4 schools are sorta intertwined so I think they're a package deal. I'm not 100% positive they would leave the Big 12 but if $$$ is all that matters they will. Colorado then likely joins Utah in the Pac 12 and the ACC is left picking up the pieces that were left behind by everybody else. Then again who is to say that the SEC doesn't target VaTech, Miami, FSU and WVU? I don't like it but it certainly is going to get interesting
If the BCS is composed of 120 teams wht the hell don't they just make 10 divisions composed of 12 teams each!? It's so easy!!! College football is such a mess, how did they get to this point I have no idea but I guess it was all about the $$$... That said I'd love the Big Ten to add Rutgers or Pitt... even though I'm pretty sure for them it's ND or nothing...
In case you were sleeping and apparently I was the NCAA granted licenses to two new Bowl games now making 70 teams bowl eligable. The Dallas Football Classic (played in New Cowboy Stadium) and the New Era Pinstripe Bowl (at Yankee Stadium) have been added. The good news is the Rutgers vs 4th place MAC team bowl in Toronto is no more so it's one extra game from last year. The more I think the more scenarios I come up with.... Big 16 adds Rutgers, Pitt, Nebraska Mizzou and Syracuse (as rumored) SEC takes VaTech, FSU, Miami and GTech Pac 16 takes Colorado, Utah, Fresno St, Hawaii, San Diego St, UNLV Big 12 takes TCU, UTEP, Houston, Tulsa, SMU, BYU and Boise ACC takes USF, WVU, UCF, Cinci, UConn, Louisville The only winners are the Big 16 and SEC.. IMO everybody else would be adding really weak teams especially the Pac 10 and Big 12. The best thing for college football would be the Big 10 adding Notre Dame and nobody else and the Pac 10 taking Utah and Boise (although Boise isn't up to the standards with amount of teams fielded so they'd have to get in complience) The MWC would then add Hawaii, Fresno, Houston and Nevada getting AQ status.
Another story from the Des Moines Register.... Tom Osburne who is the Nebraska AD says he would consider a move to the Big 10. http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/...onder-what-a-16-team-big-ten-might-look-like/
The Yankee bowl pisses me off. 1, Bowl games, and football in general suck in baseball stadiums. I was at the St. Pete Bowl last year for Rutgers/UCF. It the view sucked. the field sucked. The Yankee bowl also took away from the Cancer Research Bowl game UCF had been putting a bid in. Just what I want to do, go to a bowl game with a piss poor view, in the dead of winter, because it's in NYC. Yeah, i'd much rather do that than go to a game in Florida, 20 minutes away from Universal/IOA, and 30-45 minutes away from Disney, Port Canaveral, and an hour from Daytona. But I digress... What's to say the ACC doesn't get pro-active if the Big Ten expands... They'll need it more than the SEC right? And if they did it right, they could get themselves a fat TV deal. I've been having email conversations with a friend/rivals reporter about expansion, and has a theory of expansion that involves a brand new Big 12 that stretches into Florida. It's ridiculous to the the point that it actually makes sense IMO. It won't happen, but it's not completely unreasonable. I'll sum up his theory and post it here.
I guess he's going to turn the email chatter into an editorial for next week, I'll just share that, then... for now, here's a small portion of it.
That would actually make alot of sense for the Big 12 if they could add two Florida schools. Not that Texas and Oklahoma can't recruit there now but it makes it a little more easier when you can use having two schols in your conference as a selling point.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...ls-at-great-risk-with-conference-realignments How do Notre Dame, the Big Ten, the Big East, and New York have anything to do with the fate of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State? They say that the economy has gone global. Well, college football may not be global but it is certainly national. And the posturing and jockeying that is afoot elsewhere could make OU one of the biggest losers of all of this current edition of the super-conference shuffle. To understand this, we must first understand what the worst case scenario is for the Big 12. Once we grasp this, it becomes easier to grasp the fate of individual teams within the conference. So what is that worst case scenario? Let's say that the Big Ten expands to 16 teams and, in doing so, Notre Dame continues to resist joining. This would likely result in the Big Ten taking the triumvirate of Rutgers, Syracuse, and UConn from the Big East to capture all of the large schools in the NY/NY/CT marketplace where they would get 70 cents per cable subscriber for the Big Ten network, versus averaging 10 cents per subscriber in their current market contracts. This would give a decidedly eastward bias to the conference that they would attempt balance out by adding Missouri and Nebraska to the west. Both schools have been discovered to have privately made overtures to the Big Ten. Mike Slive of the SEC has already said that the SEC would do likewise if the Big Ten made such moves. And Harvey Schiller, the SEC commissioner during the SEC's expansion, said last week in an interview on the Paul Finebaum show that Deloss Dodd, AD of Texas, wanted badly to come to the SEC in the last expansion and that there was an agreement already in place for them to do so at that time. A&M got wind of it and managed to get the Texas politicos to package them together which blew the deal up. Mr. Schiller did not say why Texas A&M was not pursued but he did say that they were not. The original deal, he said, was to bring in Texas and Arkansas. We now know it was Arkansas and South Carolina that ended up joining when the Arkansas and Texas deal blew up.. Deloss Dodd is STILL the AD at Texas and the reasons to join the SEC are even greater than they were back then. And the SEC has made comments that make Texas A&M seem acceptable now. Thus, Texas and Texas A&M will most likely be asked to the SEC as a package deal if and when the Big Ten expands. Then, to balance the divisions, ease travel burdens, and pacify some interests, the conference will most likely look eastward to Clemson and Florida State for the other two schools. And out in the west, the Pac-10 has the worst TV deal of all the major conferences. They are looking to expand for the first time since they added Arizona and Arizona State to get a better one. They are known to be looking at Colorado. And Colorado is interested now and would only be more so if other conferences start to poach Big 12 members thus weakening the conference. Losing Missouri, Nebraska, Texas, Texas A&M, and Colorado would leave only seven remaining conference members including all of the less attractive teams and virtually none of the good TV markets. It's a recipe for disaster for the teams that are left. Think of the media markets that will be lost to other conferences: Dallas Houston St Louis Denver Omaha The only markets of more than 500,000 people left where a team will represent those areas will be Oklahoma City and Tulsa (Norman is a suburb of OK City and Tulsa fans follow both Oklahoma and Oklahoma State). You cannot build a national network TV package around that. Now, when the Big East was raided, they were given time to expand and prove their worth as a reconstituted conference before their BCS bid was scheduled to be re-evaluated. The Big 12 would likely have the same opportunity. But what could be done? The obvious answer is to poach the Mountain West. But the best expansion target in the Mountain West is Utah which will probably get taken by the Pac 10 along with Colorado. This leaves the Big 12 taking five of the other schools or poaching yet another conference along with the Mountain West (such as Conference USA) just to get back to the original number of 12 teams. But if you looked at any combination of five schools in any of the midmajor conferences, the collective value of the best combination is not as valuable as Texas alone. The most likely combination for the first five and the reason(s) why are below: BYU – recent success in football, commitment to all programs, Salt Lake City/Utah market and a virtual nationwide TV market of all Mormons. TCU – recent success in football, Dallas market, could really grow in a big conference, helps retain pipeline to Texas recruiting. Colorado State and Air Force – this combination would be an attempt, but still a long shot, to retain the Denver market for the Big 12. Houston – another attempt to capture some of the vast Texas market lost, also retains Texas recruiting pipelines. But even then, the Big 12 is behind the reconfigured and larger super conferences in the Big Ten and the SEC. So they would need to add two to four more schools to get to 14 of 16 total. To do so means considering some really unattractive options for a once proud conference. This newly reconstituted conference would be much less attractive to TV networks than the current configuration. And even the current configuration has an inferior TV deal to the SEC and the Big Ten now. And the newly reconfigured Big Ten and SEC will dwarf the current Big 12 TV contract. Less time on TV and in front of fewer viewers means less money and less exposure which leads to lesser recruiting and poorer performance on the field. Oklahoma is currently in the top 10-15 every year in money and recruiting. This directly leads to usually being in the top 10-15 in quality of coach and staff, recruiting classes and pre and post-season rankings. Money and exposure dictate team results. The new deal will result in OU going from being top 10-15 in money and exposure to being around 30-40. Thus, the recruiting classes, future coaches, and rankings will follow. They always do. Every team in the Big 12 that is passed over in expansion is at risk in this scenario. However, OU has the biggest way to fall followed by Oklahoma State. In short, there may be no team in the country that falls as far in the expansion fallout scenario as Oklahoma will likely fall. There is one and only one scenario that will prevent this fate for OU. The Big Ten is currently prepared to kill the Big East by taking Rutgers, Syracuse and UConn. This is not just to capture the NY/NJ/CT marketplace but to kill the Big East so that Notre Dame doesn't have a home for it's non-football teams. Being homeless for all other sports combined with the specter of being an independent among GIANTS in football will result in Notre Dame getting further behind their Big Ten brethren in TV revenue than they already are now. All of this would most likely force Notre Dame to play along and join. Irish AD Jack Swarbrick has as much as said that a “seismic” shift would likely force their hand. But if Notre Dame would relent early, before too many invitations and plans are made, then the Big Ten would possibly move to 12 and not take Missouri and/or Nebraska and the SEC would probably not move ahead and offer Texas and Texas A&M. This would keep the Big 12 intact pending Colorado joining the Pac 10. Some in the Big East are even tossing about the idea of trying to push Notre Dame out so that their hand is forced and the Big Ten gets what they want in the Irish and lets the Big East live to fight another day. Notre Dame going both willingly and early are extremely unlikely. But It would be a really good idea right now for anyone that has ties to OU who also happens to have ties to Notre Dame to really lean on Notre Dame about joining the Big Ten and making it known NOW. If the Big Ten spends millions studying the Big East raid and finds things they like, they may just be too tempted to go ahead with it anyway from both a revenue standpoint and a cost recovery standpoint. So Notre Dame would not just have to join but would have to join early and make their intentions known nearly immediately to prevent this eventual move by the Big Ten on Missouri and/or Nebraska and triggers the other dominoes. Notre Dame making such a declaration is admittedly an unlikely scenario indeed and one that diminishes with every passing day. OU is at great and growing risk here and, worse than that, doesn't really control their fate so they really can't be very proactive about it. These are indeed scary times for OU and her fans. And that is what Notre Dame, the Big Ten, the Big East, and New York have to do with Oklahoma.
Old but I like this expansion plan: http://www.testudotimes.com/2010/3/14/1372232/a-world-without-the-big-east Updated one but it sucks, to me anyway: http://www.testudotimes.com/2010/4/20/1433169/reviewing-the-super-acc-an-acc Like the comment from this article - http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/20...will-sec-follow-ranking-the-expansion-candid/ "The problem is not the superconferences, but maximuming profit and limiting costs. Here is the problem, Regardless of the 4 remaining superconferences; there will be the need to support at least 2 super-reminder conferences (leftovers of Mountain West, CUSA, Big East, WAC, Big 12) and support them enough to remain viable. Cause it all about Cash, market touches and TV Shares, but you need enough teams to keep travel costs down, pump interest, fluff schedules, etc. The lesser conferences will need support to keep the big Conferences propped up with wins, homes games, and bowl slots. The most logical is this scenario. The SEC will get Texas, TAMU, OU and OSU (Dallas, Houston, OKC, Austin, San Antonio). The ACC will get Rutgers, WVU, UConn, and Pitt (gives them I-95 Corridor). The Big Ten will get Nebraska, Kansas, KState, Mizzou, and Syracuse (which gives you NYC, StL, KC, most of the plains states). The Real question is the Pac-10... Colorado (Denver), BYU (Salt Lake City), but then what? The additional schools need to have Moderate city or State pull. UNLV, Boise State (Idaho/Montana), New Mexico (Albuquerque) and Hawaii (Honolulu). Hawaii seems illogical except for one thing. All the Sports bars across the nation play the Hawaii game around the time most guys struck out and begin to nurse longnecks.. ITS Exposure, something PAC NEEDS. For the Big Schools next to good airports, its no more expense flying to Honolulu than to fly to Denver or Albuquerque. So your losers are Big East, Big 12, Texas Tech, Baylor, Iowa State, Louisville, Cincinatti, and USF. These proud programs should be flagships of the 2 lesser conferences. West Leftover conference could be UTEP, Texas Tech, Tuls, ISU, Houston, TCU, SMU, CSU, NMSU, Nevada, and Wyoming, maybe AFA. The East Leftover Conference could look like USM, Memphis, Tulane, Cincy, Louisville, USF, UAB, Marshall, ECU, Troy, Akron, Army, Navy. Miami and FSU are not going to jump ship, especially if the ACC can tap the Northeast Markets. Plus, they know if they can get their act together, they can own the ACC. That will never happen with SEC. Virginia Tech is more East Coast as opposed to Redneck Riveria. Just what I am seeing. So what does that leave us, a great start for a 16 tournament. The Big 4 get 2 slots, the little 2 get 1 and that leave 6 at large with ND get an invite if they are top 20."
I think based on the above articles there would be 2 conferences that win, the Big 10 and the SEC. The major winners would obviously be schools like Rutgers, Pitt and Clemson who are decent but not title contenders but would make more money then they do know. I think to an extent the ACC could be a winner if they lets say got WVU, USF, UCF, Cinci, Louisville and Memphis or even say Navy. (remember they need to replace two schools so they need to add 6 teams) that is better then adding Colorado St or Tulsa like the Big 12 may be forced to. The real losers I think would obviously be the Big 12 and the Pac 10. There just would not be enough viable programs to add to remain important. However they do make an interesting point about Hawaii (however they fail to mention travel partners which Hawaii has nobody) and if the Pac is forced to add 16 that means UNLV is in a good position to be one of those 6 schools but I think UNLV/Nevada would be a package deal which could also kill us. I don't like this 16 team conference because IMO it renders the conferences irrelevant in terms of recruiting. I'll use UNLV as an example....we go to a recruit and say hey we're a Pac 10 School why would you wanna go play for those guys, oh yeah that's right Colorado St is a Big 12 team now or the kid could always say so what there are 15 other teams in the Pac 10. It also focuses more on markets as opposed to tradition. Can you imagine Texas and Oklahoma not being in the same conference (or even worse not playing)? That sucks and I don't think the fans in Texas would go for it. Or even worse telling your loyal fanbase in Omaha that they are playing at Rutgers and at Syracuse this year but not at Ohio St and Michigan. The sad thing is I think it's going to happen and there isn't a thing anybody can do about it.
Any of you guys see this? From the Star Ledger. It's a PDF. I don't see the SEC desperately jumping to expansion, at least not right away. They have a HUGE television deal that I don't think they'll necessarily want to divide up. Plus, Texas doesn't have a mega urge to leave, they run the Big 12. The Texas Athletic department is one of, if not the biggest, money makers in College. But really your guess is as good as mine. Every day you hear a different expansion theory and every day you read an article telling you why that'll never happen.
http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/2010/05/10/report-big-ten-extends-four-invites/ Amidst all the rumors and speculation as to which teams will be joining the newly expanded Big Ten in 2011 or 2012, the conference has extended "initial offers" to four schools, according to a report from Sports Radio 810 WHB in Kansas City. The station is an ESPN affiliate, but hasn't been a bastion of breaking news, and no one else is reporting it as true, so this is to be taken with a grain of salt. The four names are not a surprise, either, as the reported invitations went to Notre Dame, Missouri, Nebraska and Rutgers. Those four schools, along with Syracuse, Pittsburgh and Connecticut, have been the hottest names in the rumor mill when it comes to the teams on the Big Ten's radar. If the report is true, the conference is planning on either expanding to 14 or 16 teams. The scenario laid out is that if all four accept the invite, the Big Ten will then look to add one more team to round things out at 16 -- but if at least one school elects to decline the offer, the conference may go with 14. The most likely school to refuse the proposal appears to be Notre Dame, a program that has been independent in football throughout history. Coincidentally, adding Notre Dame's football program would be -- by far -- the biggest financial coup for the conference in the expansion project. The presidents and chancellors of the current Big Ten universities will be meeting the first week of June in Chicago, which could, logically speaking, be the perfect time for them to approve the additions. So, really, how could the league have extended invitations without having approval of the governing bodies? Obviously, it's possible they have approved the invites for expansion, but no one has confirmed or commented on this. A lot of this "story" just seems like a talk radio guy trying to stir the pot. And, of course, there are already several denials/rebuttals on the board. Nebraska chancellor Harvey Perlman stated that there is no truth -- "none whatsoever" -- that they've been invited. The Kansas City Star is disputing the notion of anything official, as well. FanHouse has received the following statement from Missouri: "The University of Missouri is receiving numerous inquiries related to public speculation about conference membership. MU is a member of the Big 12 Conference and will not respond to speculation about conference realignment. Mizzou continues to be grateful for all the interest shown in and support for the university." And this statement from Rutgers has arrived as well: "We are a proud member of the Big East Conference. It is not our place to speculate on any reports on the expansion plans of any other conference." Until it's all official, rumors will continue to rampantly swirl -- and we'll likely continue to see denials and/or generic statements. For now, just realize absolutely nothing has really, concretely happened.
I heard through a contact, on Saturday, that Rutgers is all but official for the Big 10 in 2012. They were granted release from the 27-month notice that would have forced them to start in 2013.
