Conference Re-Alignment Thread Part Who Knows

[cdawg44]

Re: Conference Re-Alignment Thread Part Who Knows

Do you think the ACC adds another BBall only school, or goes to 16 with 1 football only school?

If anything, this is a special case. Notre Dame got special treatment and I don't forsee any other school getting football only membership. The ACC truly values full-membership in its ranks unless your name is Notre Dame.

[coogrfan]

Re: Conference Re-Alignment Thread Part Who Knows

It is also the greatest thing to happen to college sports in my lifetime.

I would love to hear your reasoning for this statement.

[cdawg44]

Re: Conference Re-Alignment Thread Part Who Knows

It is also the greatest thing to happen to college sports in my lifetime.

As much as people beat up ESPN, it has done wonders for college athletics and has helped many schools build their brands. No way Florida State, Miami, Boise and others raise their profiles if it wasn't for them. As much as the Big East fans are upset about getting the shaft, again they only have themselves to blame. They should have accepted the offer from ESPN last year, then had expansion and then tried to reneogiate now. The league got so overconfident that this coast to coast idea was going to pay all this money that they forgot to get something hold them over.

And the worse part is, any slim hopes they had for getting BYU to join for football are gone. This move along with the 50 million dollar buyout prevents the Big 12 from getting Florida State or Clemson. Now the Big 12's biggest option is now BYU and it looks like the SEC is going to "strongly encourage" the Big 12 to expand back to 12 and get a league championship game again

[LionsFanNJ]

Its the idiot commisioner and his lack of action going all the way back to the Miami/VT/BC exodus.

[OSUFan_88]

Re: Conference Re-Alignment Thread Part Who Knows

Catholics vs Convicts can now become a long term rivalry, which is fine by me.

As for the actual move...eff you ND, your destiny was always B1G, yet you go to the ACC. Still afraid that if they move to the B1G, that they would have lost all regional battles with everyone, is my guess.

[Perfect Zero]

Re: Conference Re-Alignment Thread Part Who Knows

If I'm Boise State, Houston, or Brigham Young, I get on my knees right now and beg to be accepted into the Big XII. BYU and BSU would be the top two as football only members (Boise could move her programs to the Big West or other applicable conference). Furthermore, BYU could keep its network and Boise State could start their own. It makes too much sense.

Houston would also be a good addition because they are in a large market and are getting a new stadium. As much as geography doesn't matter anymore, Houston is in the footprint of the Big XII which cuts down on travel costs. They are not a big program, but they do have the ability to build on what they have ala Texas Christian.

[Bg007bb]

Boise should bin in the big 12 agreed and along with Byu

[fistofrage]

Re: Conference Re-Alignment Thread Part Who Knows

Catholics vs Convicts can now become a long term rivalry, which is fine by me.

As for the actual move...eff you ND, your destiny was always B1G, yet you go to the ACC. Still afraid that if they move to the B1G, that they would have lost all regional battles with everyone, is my guess.

The ACC institutions are more in line with ND academically. The B1G is mainly research based institutions. Notre Dame made decisions that would keep their football independence as long as possible. In addition, they considered the other sports as well. Basketball should see a surge from joining the ACC. Lacross which is a semi big deal at ND should gain some ACC rivalries. Additionally, joining the ACC gets them even more exposure on the East Coast and Florida. Notre Dame still schedules 3 B10 teams a year including Michigan and MSU. If they were afraid of regional battles, they wouldn't have those series in place.

[cdawg44]

Re: Conference Re-Alignment Thread Part Who Knows

If I'm Boise State, Houston, or Brigham Young, I get on my knees right now and beg to be accepted into the Big XII. BYU and BSU would be the top two as football only members (Boise could move her programs to the Big West or other applicable conference). Furthermore, BYU could keep its network and Boise State could start their own. It makes too much sense.

Houston would also be a good addition because they are in a large market and are getting a new stadium. As much as geography doesn't matter anymore, Houston is in the footprint of the Big XII which cuts down on travel costs. They are not a big program, but they do have the ability to build on what they have ala Texas Christian.

I agree Boise and BYU could be football only members. UH and SMU have ZERO shot at the Big 12. Oklahoma, KU, WVU would all veto that. The league already has four texas members that covers every major Texas market including Houston and Dallas. Even though A&M left to the SEC, Texas still draws in Houston very well. UH and SMU add zilich to the Big 12. Besides, that allows too many texas politics to get involved if the Big 12 ever breaks up. Texas already has to carry Tech if they ever left, they wouldn't want to have to carry UH too.

[p_rushing]

Re: Conference Re-Alignment Thread Part Who Knows

Do we know if the ACC exit free increase goes into effect immediately or if there is a leeway period for teams that want to jump ship to get the hell out?

It is effective immediately and ND also has to pay it if they decide to back out.

[MrOctober430]

Re: Conference Re-Alignment Thread Part Who Knows

IMO Pac-12 made a bad decision adding Colorado and Utah, they'll most likely be the bottom dwellers of the conference for the couple of years. I don't understand why they added those two schools and not invite Boise State and BYU. Is it because of enrollment or money? Surely for competition reasons, BSU and BYU would bring more excitement. Even San Diego State would be a worthy opponent in the Pac-12.

I'd love to see Houston and SMU reunite with the Big XII, but like cdawg44 said, they won't be relevant be there.

Honestly I see the Big East dropping the football conference, but the Big 10 and ACC will soon try to clean the rest of the schools. Soon to be extinct like the WAC.

[gerg1234]

Re: Conference Re-Alignment Thread Part Who Knows

IMO Pac-12 made a bad decision adding Colorado and Utah, they'll most likely be the bottom dwellers of the conference for the couple of years. I don't understand why they added those two schools and not invite Boise State and BYU. Is it because of enrollment or money? Surely for competition reasons, BSU and BYU would bring more excitement. Even San Diego State would be a worthy opponent in the Pac-12.

I'd love to see Houston and SMU reunite with the Big XII, but like cdawg44 said, they won't be relevant be there.

Honestly I see the Big East dropping the football conference, but the Big 10 and ACC will soon try to clean the rest of the schools. Soon to be extinct like the WAC.

BYU is simple. There is NO WAY Stanford or Cal will ever let a religious institution in the Pac. EVER.

The Pac prides itself on leading the way as a conference of Research Institutions. Boise State's academics is about equal to a large JC. They have nearly no research and have an endowment of around $75 million with $11 million in research. It's just not going to happen. Compare that to the Pac-12 school with the least amount of research (Oregon) $67 million and the lowest endowment is Oregon State at $412 million. Boise St is out of it's league.

[cdawg44]

Re: Conference Re-Alignment Thread Part Who Knows

IMO Pac-12 made a bad decision adding Colorado and Utah, they'll most likely be the bottom dwellers of the conference for the couple of years. I don't understand why they added those two schools and not invite Boise State and BYU. Is it because of enrollment or money? Surely for competition reasons, BSU and BYU would bring more excitement. Even San Diego State would be a worthy opponent in the Pac-12.

I'd love to see Houston and SMU reunite with the Big XII, but like cdawg44 said, they won't be relevant be there.

Honestly I see the Big East dropping the football conference, but the Big 10 and ACC will soon try to clean the rest of the schools. Soon to be extinct like the WAC.

Well, now they look like bad moves. However, Colorado was added first because everyone thought we were headed to the Pac-16 with texas, tech, OU, OSU, CU and A&M. A&M really wanted the SEC in 2010, so Kansas started being rumored to be the 16th school. ESPN stepped in and promised the Big 12 the same money they were getting plus a little extra for 10 schools instead of 12 plus UT could start its own network so everyone but CU stayed in. This was to prevent Fox getting its hands on a Pac-12 network with Texas included like it did the Big Ten network. The Pac-12 network ended up being an independent venture, so the fears were unfounded. Colorado is culturally a PAC-12 school and their largest alumni bases are on the West Coast. The Pac-10 always wanted Colorado because it was the largest media market west of Texas it didn't have and added alot.

Utah was added, because they had came off some very good seasons, 2 BCS appearances, and culturally fit like Colorado did. They were both large research, public universities. USC and Stanford are the only private schools, but have massive alumni bases, plus they have NO religious affliation. BYU was never going to have a shot at the Pac-12, because of their ties to the LDS Church. Boise State, is not as research heavy and academically focused as the Pac-12 schools are.

I know people believe all this is about is football, however if that was the case Boise would be in the Pac-12 NOW. There is more to it, including football, new and large markets and the quality of the insitution. That's why as much as the SEC messed around, they were not going to leave Texas A&M at the alter and the ACC was going to work it out with Notre Dame.

Long term CU and Utah will be good moves for the Pac-12, and I think we get too caught up in the moment. Hell, even in the short term the money these schools got allowed them to hire some great football coaches and the results at UCLA, Arizona and Arizona State are proof of that already.

The idea that the Big East could just go grab a bunch of schools from a bunch of different markets and say hey they play football and are located in Houston, Orlando, Dallas, Memphis, Boise and California and expect a HUGE tv deal was laughable to me. You have to have brands and schools who are alike for this to work. That's why the ACC, Big 10, SEC, and Pac-12 are mostly stable leagues. (The ACC and Florida State's and Miami's relationship being the exception and that's why the 50 million dollar buyout was agreed) Because there is more to keeping schools in these leagues than more football money. That's why UNC and Va tech didn't leave for the SEC and why West Virginia will NEVER be a member of the ACC unless they have a major culture change. You have to have some league identity that ties your programs together for a stable league. The Big 12 finally got that memo before it was too late. The Big East seeking out football programs that don't fit their culture and footprint is not only risky, but may lead to its ultimate demise. If Boise got an offer from the Big 12 today, do people think they would honestly say no? The Big East football was a mess when it was created, and now its crumbling.

[dickey1331]

Well, now they look like bad moves. However, Colorado was added first because everyone thought we were headed to the Pac-16 with texas, tech, OU, OSU, CU and A&M. A&M really wanted the SEC in 2010, so Kansas started being rumored to be the 16th school. ESPN stepped in and promised the Big 12 the same money they were getting plus a little extra for 10 schools instead of 12 plus UT could start its own network so everyone but CU stayed in. This was to prevent Fox getting its hands on a Pac-12 network with Texas included like it did the Big Ten network. The Pac-12 network ended up being an independent venture, so the fears were unfounded. Colorado is culturally a PAC-12 school and their largest alumni bases are on the West Coast. The Pac-10 always wanted Colorado because it was the largest media market west of Texas it didn't have and added alot.

Utah was added, because they had came off some very good seasons, 2 BCS appearances, and culturally fit like Colorado did. They were both large research, public universities. USC and Stanford are the only private schools, but have massive alumni bases, plus they have NO religious affliation. BYU was never going to have a shot at the Pac-12, because of their ties to the LDS Church. Boise State, is not as research heavy and academically focused as the Pac-12 schools are.

I know people believe all this is about is football, however if that was the case Boise would be in the Pac-12 NOW. There is more to it, including football, new and large markets and the quality of the insitution. That's why as much as the SEC messed around, they were not going to leave Texas A&M at the alter and the ACC was going to work it out with Notre Dame.

Long term CU and Utah will be good moves for the Pac-12, and I think we get too caught up in the moment. Hell, even in the short term the money these schools got allowed them to hire some great football coaches and the results at UCLA, Arizona and Arizona State are proof of that already.

I wouldn't say USC has zero religious affiliation. They have a tiny bit of Methodist in them. Obviously not anymore but they used to be.


Do you really care where I sent this from?

[br329]

Re: Conference Re-Alignment Thread Part Who Knows

Catholics vs Convicts can now become a long term rivalry, which is fine by me.

As for the actual move...eff you ND, your destiny was always B1G, yet you go to the ACC. Still afraid that if they move to the B1G, that they would have lost all regional battles with everyone, is my guess.

Destiny? I'm sorry I must have missed the part where it was predetermined by a higher power that ND was supposed to go to the Big 10. Going to the Big 10 makes no sense for ND because it goes against what ND is trying to do in all sports and that is to maintain National Prominence. If ND goes to the Big 10 the just fade in with all the other Midwestern Schools. Sure OSU and Wisky vs ND would be big money and draw big TV numbers but so would ND vs FSU and Miami. With ND joining the ACC they now play in a conference with markets from Boston to Miami and can maintain there deal with NBC. Plus from an academics stand point ND going to the BIG makes no sense. Honestly the only thing ND has in common with BIG schools is the location.