Monday Conf News

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:59 pm

The American Statesman reports TX and OU will give their respective presidents the approval to decide on future conf membership later today. The PAC 12 will then take TX, OU, Ok State and Tech.

The ACC approved Pitt and Syracuse while also agreeing to up the exit fee from the conf to $20 million immediately and to $25 million in 2014.

TCU wants out to the Big East as it isn't the conference they thought they were joining. Rumors have it they are looking to put together a new conference with the football leftovers of the Big East (assumes WVU to SEC) and the Big 12, plus others such as Houston, SMU and potentially another directional Florida school.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 4:09 pm

King Crimson · Post by **King Crimson** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 4:34 pm

shows you much football drives this whole thing that old timey basketball only Big East members and top 15 type programs now and for a longtime Cuse....jump the old Big East teams like "that". granted joining the ACC for hoops is a pretty solid "lateral move". using that term as a positive here....when usually has negative connotes.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 5:24 pm

King Crimson wrote:shows you much football drives this whole thing that old timey basketball only Big East members and top 15 type programs now and for a longtime Cuse....jump the old Big East teams like "that". granted joining the ACC for hoops is a pretty solid "lateral move". using that term as a positive here....when usually has negative connotes.

Syracuse playing basketball in the ACC is a move up given the direction the Big East was heading. The Big East, even if Pitt and Syracuse stayed, was beginning to fragment all over the country. The TCU mistake was the tip of the iceberg. By the time this is all played out, the "Big East" may very well cover 3 time zones. SU will still play elite competition and will reduce their travel costs significantly relative to what they would have incurred in a new "Big East."

One also cannot begin to overestimate the upgrade this will be for the lacrosse program. Lacrosse is a revenue sport at SU. With this move, the ACC is now the unquestioned best conference for lacrosse in the country and SU will have even more marquee matchups to bring to the Carrier Dome in the spring. And we all know the football upgrade is off the charts good for the Orange.

In the end SU significantly upgrades all 3 revenue sports. And that's what counts.

Terry in Crapchester · Mon Sep 19, 2011 6:10 pm

BSmack wrote:
King Crimson wrote:shows you much football drives this whole thing that old timey basketball only Big East members and top 15 type programs now and for a longtime Cuse....jump the old Big East teams like "that". granted joining the ACC for hoops is a pretty solid "lateral move". using that term as a positive here....when usually has negative connotes.
Syracuse playing basketball in the ACC is a move up given the direction the Big East was heading. The Big East, even if Pitt and Syracuse stayed, was beginning to fragment all over the country. The TCU mistake was the tip of the iceberg. By the time this is all played out, the "Big East" may very well cover 3 time zones. SU will still play elite competition and will reduce their travel costs significantly relative to what they would have incurred in a new "Big East."

I hadn't heard of the Big East going to three time zones. While it's certainly possible that BYU and/or Boise State might be offered eventually, I think any offer to one of those schools would be football-only. TCU joining the Big East was necessary to upgrade the conference in football and for protection.

One also cannot begin to overestimate the upgrade this will be for the lacrosse program. Lacrosse is a revenue sport at SU. With this move, the ACC is now the unquestioned best conference for lacrosse in the country and SU will have even more marquee matchups to bring to the Carrier Dome in the spring.

The ACC was probably already the best lacrosse conference in the country. But unfortunately, it doesn't have enough members to get an automatic bid in the NCAA tourney. Adding Syracuse, by itself, doesn't solve that problem. Of course, that means that you now have annual matchups vs. Duke, Maryland, North Carolina and Virginia. That's a plus. But OOC scheduling is an important component in lacrosse in any event.

And we all know the football upgrade is off the charts good for the Orange.

Not necessarily. There's still the possibility (albeit admittedly less likely) that Florida State or Va Tech could leave for the SEC. And Miami could wind up with the death penalty.

What this move does for Syracuse in football is guarantee them a spot at the table if and when college football ever goes to a 4 x 16 setup. But in all likelihood, they already had that.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 6:15 pm

Bring back Coach P!

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 6:29 pm

BSmack wrote:
Syracuse playing basketball in the ACC is a move up given the direction the Big East was heading. The Big East, even if Pitt and Syracuse stayed, was beginning to fragment all over the country. The TCU mistake was the tip of the iceberg.

Agree with almost all of your post, but for the TCU move being the tip of the iceberg.

The Big East was done in 1991 when they decided to play football. They were at their best when they just played basketball and that was it. Then in 1991 they tried to go whole hog and since then it has been an identity crisis. Are they basketball or football focused? Some schools would argue from either side. They certainly weren't a traditional all-around conference because they had different memberships for each sport. Hell, Loyola Maryland is an associate member of the conference.

You have to have an identity and be working towards common goals. As soon as the Big East got away from a basketball only conference it wasn't going to work. Those that have already left the conf sure don't miss it, and the rest of us won't either. Schools like USF and TCU will be better off in the long run too.

Terry in Crapchester · Tue Sep 20, 2011 2:49 pm

Left Seater wrote:The Big East was done in 1991 when they decided to play football. They were at their best when they just played basketball and that was it. Then in 1991 they tried to go whole hog and since then it has been an identity crisis. Are they basketball or football focused? Some schools would argue from either side. They certainly weren't a traditional all-around conference because they had different memberships for each sport. Hell, Loyola Maryland is an associate member of the conference.

Completely disagree. The Big East didn't try "to go whole hog." The early 90's was a time period when there was a feeding frenzy on erstwhile independents by the conferences. The Big 10 grabbed Penn State, the ACC grabbed Florida State and the SEC grabbed South Carolina. Had the Big East not gone into football, their three Division 1-A football members at the time -- BC, Pitt and Syracuse, all independents in football at the time -- would have been grabbed up by other conferences. And the Big East would have gone under. The Big East's decision to add football was based on survival, nothing more and nothing less.

Hell, I'm as big a backer of football independents as you'll find, for obvious reasons, and even I acknowledge this.

Also, on a purely selfish level, I'm extremely glad that the Big East didn't go under in 1991 or shortly thereafter. ND didn't join the Big East for basketball until 1995 (a little late to the party, obviously -- I was advocating that ND join the Big East for basketball at least a decade before that), and ND never would have resurrected its basketball program without the Big East.

As for Loyola of Maryland, they're a Big East member in only one sport (womens' lacrosse), and they happen to be a national power in that sport.

You have to have an identity and be working towards common goals. As soon as the Big East got away from a basketball only conference it wasn't going to work. Those that have already left the conf sure don't miss it, and the rest of us won't either. Schools like USF and TCU will be better off in the long run too.

Until the ACC renegotiated its TV contract last year, there were a lot of people at BC saying the school made a mistake in leaving the Big East for the ACC. The rub was travel expenses for non-revenue sports (somewhat ironic that BSmack brought this issue up, although things may be different going forward). And certainly, that concern was ameliorated by the move of Syracuse and, to a lesser extent, Pitt to the ACC.

As for USF and TCU, the Big East gave them their chance to play with the big boys, when no one else would.

And I disagree with the conclusion that the Big East is done. The Big East is nothing if not resilient. I think it will survive (for the short term, at least) although it will take on a radically different look, and the "east" part may soon be a misnomer. AP Source: Big East, Big 12 Officials Talk Merger. I think the new format (for football) will look like one of the following two scenarios, depending on who becomes the 14th member of the Meatgrinder:

Scenario A: West Virginia to the Meatgrinder

East: UCF, Cincinnati, UConn, Louisville, Rutgers, USF
West: Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, TCU

Scenario B: Missouri to the Meatgrinder

East: Cincinnati, UConn, Louisville, Rutgers, USF, West Virginia
West: Baylor, Houston, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, TCU

Either way, that conference is probably good enough to retain an automatic BCS bid, at least until the end of the current BCS contract (current BCS rules provide for a minimum of five automatic bids, and there isn't another conference in better shape to claim that fifth bid).

It would also have the makings of a pretty good basketball conference -- not as good as the ACC or the current Big East, but certainly on par with, or reasonably close to, the B1G, Pac-whatever and Meatgrinder. Ironically, if Scenario A above is what holds, the conference would have to retain a hybrid status of some sort. Under NCAA rules, this conference would only get an automatic bid to the NCAA basketball tourney if at least six members had played in the same conference for the preceding five years. Scenario A contains 1 school from C-USA, 5 from the Big XII, and 6 from the Big East, but TCU won't have 5 seasons as a member of the Big East. So they'd have to take at least one non-football member of the Big East (more likely they'd take a minimum of two, just to keep conference membership at an even number) to get an automatic bid in the NCAA tourney.

This may seem a drawback to you as compared to Scenario B, but consider this: football is what's driving the conference realignment anyway. Per m2's link, Missouri and West Virginia have comparably-sized fanbases, but UCF has a fanbase that is approximately 5 times the size of Houston's.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Tue Sep 20, 2011 2:53 pm

Big East football was perfectly fine from 1991 until the early 00s when schools started whoring themselves out for football TV revenue. Then when it became more important to clean up on TV than position yourself for access to the best paying bowls is when Big East football became a problem.

MuchoBulls · Post by **MuchoBulls** » Tue Sep 20, 2011 3:07 pm

Left Seater wrote:Schools like USF and TCU will be better off in the long run too.

I sure hope that is the case for us, but I have seen some nightmare scenarios that could leave us out in the cold.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Tue Sep 20, 2011 3:50 pm

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
Completely disagree. The Big East didn't try "to go whole hog." The early 90's was a time period when there was a feeding frenzy on erstwhile independents by the conferences. The Big 10 grabbed Penn State, the ACC grabbed Florida State and the SEC grabbed South Carolina. Had the Big East not gone into football, their three Division 1-A football members at the time -- BC, Pitt and Syracuse, all independents in football at the time -- would have been grabbed up by other conferences. And the Big East would have gone under. The Big East's decision to add football was based on survival, nothing more and nothing less.

Let's not forget that Penn State wanted to join the Big East and were denied. So Penn State went with their second choice at the time. As for Florida State and South Carolina they were both looking to join conferences, rather than conferences seeking them out. South Carolina was a founding member of the ACC and left because of recruiting restrictions they deemed to restrictive and the perception that 4 schools in NC controlled the conference. (Su'up Nebraska) Both FSU and SC were members of the Metro Conf, but the Metro Conf did not have football. Both schools were vocal in their desire to be in a league that sponsored all sports so their interests were not split.

So I guess I can agree with you that it was done as survival at the time, but it was also the move that started to splinter the conf, ie that is what killed it. Having members that have different motives and objectives is a no go. Not to mention the league had 11 different lineups in its 33 years and what is good today is tomorrow's forgotten focus.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Until the ACC renegotiated its TV contract last year, there were a lot of people at BC saying the school made a mistake in leaving the Big East for the ACC. The rub was travel expenses for non-revenue sports (somewhat ironic that BSmack brought this issue up, although things may be different going forward). And certainly, that concern was ameliorated by the move of Syracuse and, to a lesser extent, Pitt to the ACC.

This will continue to be less of an issue when Rutgers and UConn make the move. However, BC was already traveling to Tampa, Chicago and Milwaukee, so that wasn't much of an issue then either. See also Miami when they were in the league.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:And I disagree with the conclusion that the Big East is done. The Big East is nothing if not resilient. I think it will survive (for the short term, at least) although it will take on a radically different look, and the "east" part may soon be a misnomer. AP Source: Big East, Big 12 Officials Talk Merger. I think the new format (for football) will look like one of the following two scenarios, depending on who becomes the 14th member of the Meatgrinder:

Scenario A: West Virginia to the Meatgrinder

East: UCF, Cincinnati, UConn, Louisville, Rutgers, USF
West: Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, TCU

Scenario B: Missouri to the Meatgrinder

East: Cincinnati, UConn, Louisville, Rutgers, USF, West Virginia
West: Baylor, Houston, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, TCU

It would also have the makings of a pretty good basketball conference -- not as good as the ACC or the current Big East, but certainly on par with, or reasonably close to, the B1G, Pac-whatever and Meatgrinder. Ironically, if Scenario A above is what holds, the conference would have to retain a hybrid status of some sort. Under NCAA rules, this conference would only get an automatic bid to the NCAA basketball tourney if at least six members had played in the same conference for the preceding five years. Scenario A contains 1 school from C-USA, 5 from the Big XII, and 6 from the Big East, but TCU won't have 5 seasons as a member of the Big East. So they'd have to take at least one non-football member of the Big East (more likely they'd take a minimum of two, just to keep conference membership at an even number) to get an automatic bid in the NCAA tourney.

First I don't see UConn or Rutgers staying in the Big East for more than another two years. So your scenario's above may be correct, but outdated by 2014. I also agree that the Big East might just live on, as a basketball conference. All of the non D-1A football schools still need a home for olympic sports. But those playing football will play under the Big 12 name if they merge with the remaining Big 12 schools. Baylor and Kansas have already stated they have no desire to have their athletic teams compete in different leagues for different sports, nor do they want other conference members to belong to multiple conferences.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Tue Sep 20, 2011 3:55 pm

Terry in Crapchester wrote:[And I disagree with the conclusion that the Big East is done. The Big East is nothing if not resilient. I think it will survive (for the short term, at least) although it will take on a radically different look, and the "east" part may soon be a misnomer. AP Source: Big East, Big 12 Officials Talk Merger. I think the new format (for football) will look like one of the following two scenarios, depending on who becomes the 14th member of the Meatgrinder:

Scenario A: West Virginia to the Meatgrinder

East: UCF, Cincinnati, UConn, Louisville, Rutgers, USF
West: Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, TCU

Scenario B: Missouri to the Meatgrinder

East: Cincinnati, UConn, Louisville, Rutgers, USF, West Virginia
West: Baylor, Houston, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, TCU

Either way, that conference is probably good enough to retain an automatic BCS bid, at least until the end of the current BCS contract (current BCS rules provide for a minimum of five automatic bids, and there isn't another conference in better shape to claim that fifth bid).

I don’t think either of those scenarios is worthy of an automatic bid. How many of those teams have gotten BCS bids since the current format went into effect in 2004? How many were shit teams that didn’t really belong in the BCS (‘sup 2010 UConn)?

Terry in Crapchester · Tue Sep 20, 2011 4:15 pm

Goober McTuber wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:[And I disagree with the conclusion that the Big East is done. The Big East is nothing if not resilient. I think it will survive (for the short term, at least) although it will take on a radically different look, and the "east" part may soon be a misnomer. AP Source: Big East, Big 12 Officials Talk Merger. I think the new format (for football) will look like one of the following two scenarios, depending on who becomes the 14th member of the Meatgrinder:

Scenario A: West Virginia to the Meatgrinder

East: UCF, Cincinnati, UConn, Louisville, Rutgers, USF
West: Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, TCU

Scenario B: Missouri to the Meatgrinder

East: Cincinnati, UConn, Louisville, Rutgers, USF, West Virginia
West: Baylor, Houston, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, TCU

Either way, that conference is probably good enough to retain an automatic BCS bid, at least until the end of the current BCS contract (current BCS rules provide for a minimum of five automatic bids, and there isn't another conference in better shape to claim that fifth bid).

I don’t think either of those scenarios is worthy of an automatic bid. How many of those teams have gotten BCS bids since the current format went into effect in 2004? How many were shit teams that didn’t really belong in the BCS (‘sup 2010 UConn)?

West Virginia, Cincinnati, Louisville and Kansas have gotten, between them, six BCS bids since 2004. Lowest ranking was #12 (Cincinnati in '08).

In any event, current BCS rules provide for a minimum of five automatic bids. What conference would you put ahead of this one for the fifth bid?

Terry in Crapchester · Tue Sep 20, 2011 4:27 pm

Left Seater wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:
Completely disagree. The Big East didn't try "to go whole hog." The early 90's was a time period when there was a feeding frenzy on erstwhile independents by the conferences. The Big 10 grabbed Penn State, the ACC grabbed Florida State and the SEC grabbed South Carolina. Had the Big East not gone into football, their three Division 1-A football members at the time -- BC, Pitt and Syracuse, all independents in football at the time -- would have been grabbed up by other conferences. And the Big East would have gone under. The Big East's decision to add football was based on survival, nothing more and nothing less.
Let's not forget that Penn State wanted to join the Big East and were denied. So Penn State went with their second choice at the time.

Penn State had been denied membership in the Big East a decade earlier. Penn State wanted the Big East to add football as early as the early 80's.

Left Seater wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:Until the ACC renegotiated its TV contract last year, there were a lot of people at BC saying the school made a mistake in leaving the Big East for the ACC. The rub was travel expenses for non-revenue sports (somewhat ironic that BSmack brought this issue up, although things may be different going forward). And certainly, that concern was ameliorated by the move of Syracuse and, to a lesser extent, Pitt to the ACC.
This will continue to be less of an issue when Rutgers and UConn make the move. However, BC was already traveling to Tampa, Chicago and Milwaukee, so that wasn't much of an issue then either. See also Miami when they were in the league.

I'm not certain that Rutgers and UConn both join the ACC. There's one simple reason for that: greed is what is motivating conference expansion to 16 members (which would've seemed unthinkable just a few years ago). With that in mind, there's no reason to think it necessarily stops at 4 x 16. Conferences could continue to consolidate, and if that happens, the ACC becomes extremely vulnerable if their adds are Pitt, Syracuse, UConn and Rutgers.

For that reason, I think the ACC eventually will pursue ND hard. Does ND offer enough to prevent the ACC from being raided in the future? Maybe, maybe not. But it's definitely a better chance that they offer more in that regard than either Rutgers or UConn.

I think at least one, if not both, of those schools will wind up in the Big 10 (which has more room for them than the ACC does), but I don't think that'll happen right away.

And fwiw, USF, DePaul and Marquette never joined the Big East until after BC left.

Left Seater wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:And I disagree with the conclusion that the Big East is done. The Big East is nothing if not resilient. I think it will survive (for the short term, at least) although it will take on a radically different look, and the "east" part may soon be a misnomer. AP Source: Big East, Big 12 Officials Talk Merger. I think the new format (for football) will look like one of the following two scenarios, depending on who becomes the 14th member of the Meatgrinder:

Scenario A: West Virginia to the Meatgrinder

East: UCF, Cincinnati, UConn, Louisville, Rutgers, USF
West: Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, TCU

Scenario B: Missouri to the Meatgrinder

East: Cincinnati, UConn, Louisville, Rutgers, USF, West Virginia
West: Baylor, Houston, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, TCU

It would also have the makings of a pretty good basketball conference -- not as good as the ACC or the current Big East, but certainly on par with, or reasonably close to, the B1G, Pac-whatever and Meatgrinder. Ironically, if Scenario A above is what holds, the conference would have to retain a hybrid status of some sort. Under NCAA rules, this conference would only get an automatic bid to the NCAA basketball tourney if at least six members had played in the same conference for the preceding five years. Scenario A contains 1 school from C-USA, 5 from the Big XII, and 6 from the Big East, but TCU won't have 5 seasons as a member of the Big East. So they'd have to take at least one non-football member of the Big East (more likely they'd take a minimum of two, just to keep conference membership at an even number) to get an automatic bid in the NCAA tourney.
First I don't see UConn or Rutgers staying in the Big East for more than another two years. So your scenario's above may be correct, but outdated by 2014. I also agree that the Big East might just live on, as a basketball conference. All of the non D-1A football schools still need a home for olympic sports. But those playing football will play under the Big 12 name if they merge with the remaining Big 12 schools. Baylor and Kansas have already stated they have no desire to have their athletic teams compete in different leagues for different sports, nor do they want other conference members to belong to multiple conferences.

Baylor has already approached the Big East about membership, even ahead of merger talks, if the Big XII falls apart. It's probably a matter of semantics whether the emerging conference is called the Big East or the Big XII.

There has been some talk on the ND homer boards about the non-football playing Big East schools forming a conference -- the Catholic Conference, if you will, given that all are Catholic schools. The conference might add some other members. If you want to stay with the Catholic Conference theme, they could add St. Joe's, Dayton, Xavier and Saint Louis. That would be a pretty decent conference for mens' basketball, but not a very good conference in other sports.

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue Sep 20, 2011 4:31 pm

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:[And I disagree with the conclusion that the Big East is done. The Big East is nothing if not resilient. I think it will survive (for the short term, at least) although it will take on a radically different look, and the "east" part may soon be a misnomer. AP Source: Big East, Big 12 Officials Talk Merger. I think the new format (for football) will look like one of the following two scenarios, depending on who becomes the 14th member of the Meatgrinder:

Scenario A: West Virginia to the Meatgrinder

East: UCF, Cincinnati, UConn, Louisville, Rutgers, USF
West: Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, TCU

Scenario B: Missouri to the Meatgrinder

East: Cincinnati, UConn, Louisville, Rutgers, USF, West Virginia
West: Baylor, Houston, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, TCU

Either way, that conference is probably good enough to retain an automatic BCS bid, at least until the end of the current BCS contract (current BCS rules provide for a minimum of five automatic bids, and there isn't another conference in better shape to claim that fifth bid).
I don’t think either of those scenarios is worthy of an automatic bid. How many of those teams have gotten BCS bids since the current format went into effect in 2004? How many were shit teams that didn’t really belong in the BCS (‘sup 2010 UConn)?
West Virginia, Cincinnati, Louisville and Kansas have gotten, between them, six BCS bids since 2004. Lowest ranking was #12 (Cincinnati in '08).

In any event, current BCS rules provide for a minimum of five automatic bids. What conference would you put ahead of this one for the fifth bid?

For starters, a properly revised MWC comprised of Boise St, TCU, Utah, BYU, Air Force, Nevada, Hawaii, etc, which is what should have happened in the first place.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Tue Sep 20, 2011 4:42 pm

Terry in Crapchester wrote:What conference would you put ahead of this one for the fifth bid?

A second bid for the SEC. The Big Least no longer deserves an automatic bid.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Tue Sep 20, 2011 4:51 pm

Left Seater wrote:
BSmack wrote:
Syracuse playing basketball in the ACC is a move up given the direction the Big East was heading. The Big East, even if Pitt and Syracuse stayed, was beginning to fragment all over the country. The TCU mistake was the tip of the iceberg.
Agree with almost all of your post, but for the TCU move being the tip of the iceberg.

The Big East was done in 1991 when they decided to play football.

I'm talking about the eventual transcontinental scope of the "Big East." And that started with the addition of TCU. It was and is a horrible idea.

Killian · Post by **Killian** » Tue Sep 20, 2011 4:58 pm

Van wrote:For starters, a properly revised MWC comprised of Boise St, TCU, Utah, BYU, Air Force, Nevada, Hawaii, etc, which is what should have happened in the first place.

Yep. Throw in Kansas, KSU, Baylor and this would be your other Automatic BCS conference.

MuchoBulls · Post by **MuchoBulls** » Tue Sep 20, 2011 5:01 pm

Looks like WVU was just told no by the ACC and SEC, which isn't really that surprising.

Terry in Crapchester · Tue Sep 20, 2011 5:03 pm

Van wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:In any event, current BCS rules provide for a minimum of five automatic bids. What conference would you put ahead of this one for the fifth bid?
For starters, a properly revised MWC comprised of Boise St, TCU, Utah, BYU, Air Force, Nevada, Hawaii, etc, which is what should have happened in the first place.

I'm talking about where we are now, not where we might have gone a few years back. TCU and Utah aren't coming back to the MWC anytime soon.

In the current MWC, there are far too many cupcakes (UNLV, Colorado State, Wyoming, New Mexico) for that conference to get an automatic BCS bid.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Tue Sep 20, 2011 5:15 pm

My mistake on the recent additions to the Big East. I thought they overlapped BC by a year. The complaint still isn't that valid in that they would have been going there instead of ATL, NC, etc.

I also agree that I could see the ACC going after ND. I think the ACC could be a good fit for ND also. If we do end up with 4 16 team leagues and a new playoff I don't see those teams including ND as an independent. The perception would be that they don't play the same meatgrinder schedule, even though they play a ton of BCS schools.

From ND's standpoint the ACC should be attractive in that it allows them to visit more of the country outside of an area in which they already have a ton of fans. The biggest question I have about them joining a conf is which of their traditional rivals do they dump? In a 9 game conf schedule one of stanford, usc, mich and Navy get left out. Even at that they have zero free games. Guess they would have to go to a rotation between these schools, but would those schools agree to that?

Terry in Crapchester · Tue Sep 20, 2011 5:53 pm

The ACC is probably more attractive to ND than is the B1G, both from the regionalization standpoint as well as the fact that ND has some negative history with the B1G. At least, that seems to be the perspective of the overwhelming majority of the fanbase. As for the people who make the decisions, I don't know.

My major concern about the ACC was that it was too southern a conference for ND, but the recent additions of Pitt and Syracuse assuage that concern significantly.

As for OOC scheduling, my thought is that ND probably would play USC, Navy and Michigan in most years. But in a conference, it may be impossible to play anyone OOC on an annual basis. I've also heard talk of ND and Texas expanding their series, but that may be a no-go with impending changes on the horizon.

From the ACC's standpoint, I think the best course of action would be to add ND and UConn, realign along north/south divisional lines, and call it a day.

That having been said, the ACC still faces a few potential problems:

1. The SEC could still poach Florida State or Va Tech (probably the least of their worries with the new $20mm exit fee);
2. I think ND won't join a football conference unless and until it becomes clear that a 4 x 16 lineup is imminent (that might not happen this particular go-round);
3. The death penalty looms as a possibility for Miami (although the ACC might be able to compensate for that by adding either USF, Louisville or West Virginia).

Terry in Crapchester · Tue Sep 20, 2011 6:52 pm

More conference updates:

Missouri reportedly has received an offer from the SEC (this was foreseeable after the SEC said no to West Virginia): http://www.kansascity.com/2011/09/20/31 ... r-but.html
Reportedly, 8 of the 12 Pac-12 schools do not want Oklahoma State or Texas Tech: http://wvgazette.com/Sports/WVU/2011091 ... uild=cache

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Tue Sep 20, 2011 6:55 pm

I have it from the FSU president that they are not moving to the SEC and that they were the one pushing for the increase in the exit fee. I don't see FSU to the SEC anytime soon (next 10 years).

I have also heard about the Thanksgiving matchup vs Texas. That would be a great addition for both, but it leaves ND with limited scheduling options when they do join a conf.

King Crimson · Post by **King Crimson** » Tue Sep 20, 2011 6:56 pm

Terry in Crapchester wrote:More conference updates:

Missouri reportedly has received an offer from the SEC (this was foreseeable after the SEC said no to West Virginia): http://www.kansascity.com/2011/09/20/31 ... r-but.html

if true, good for Mizzou. glad to see them land on their feet.

txangler74 · Post by **txangler74** » Wed Sep 21, 2011 1:53 am

http://newsok.com/breaking-removal-of-b ... aking_news

So OU fan, is this just posturing to the fan base or is their a chance this thing stays together?

MuchoBulls · Post by **MuchoBulls** » Wed Sep 21, 2011 4:10 am

Judging by the PAC 12 news I think OU knew it was coming.

socal · Post by **socal** » Wed Sep 21, 2011 5:10 am

No deal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/21/sport ... ml?_r=1&hp

M2 · Post by M2 » Wed Sep 21, 2011 5:23 am

socal wrote:No deal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/21/sport ... ml?_r=1&hp

Rack Scott !!!

The PAC 12 holds all the cards...

... let the little 2 drama queens... come begging on their knees next year....

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Wed Sep 21, 2011 5:33 am

Not comfortable with Texas in the CoC.

OU... maybe.

Any of the other "refugee" teams, fine (assuming they meet the academic standards).

Fuggit -- let's go for the PAC20 -- the OG 10 are one division, the rest are the other.

If it becomes 16, fuggit -- Oregon (who started the conference-BTW), OS, UDub, Wazzu, Kal, Furd, UCLA, USC are one division; Zoners, Devils, Utes, Buffs, and whoever else are the other. Old school.

Van · Post by **Van** » Wed Sep 21, 2011 5:44 am

Dins wrote:the OG 10

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Wed Sep 21, 2011 5:53 am

Fuggit -- if we're going Old School, all intra-division games must be reached by train.

Trains made football (and other sports).

Then again, I suppose then Oregon will be scheduling H&Hs with Albany Community College (not even sure that's still around, but it was only like an hour's train ride), and Fort Lewis and shit...

OK, things weren't quite as cool 130 years ago... fuck that. But I do think we should go back to calling the Zoophilics "Oregon Agricultural College."

Van · Post by **Van** » Wed Sep 21, 2011 6:11 am

Dinsdale wrote:all ~~intra-division~~ games must be reached by train.

Motherfucking IN!

Sin,

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Wed Sep 21, 2011 6:21 am

Oh, bro -- once the SEC upgrades from wood-fired steam engines to coal, we're all fucked on our home fields.

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Wed Sep 21, 2011 6:55 am

BSmack wrote:
King Crimson wrote:shows you much football drives this whole thing that old timey basketball only Big East members and top 15 type programs now and for a longtime Cuse....jump the old Big East teams like "that". granted joining the ACC for hoops is a pretty solid "lateral move". using that term as a positive here....when usually has negative connotes.
Syracuse playing basketball in the ACC is a move up given the direction the Big East was heading. The Big East, even if Pitt and Syracuse stayed, was beginning to fragment all over the country. The TCU mistake was the tip of the iceberg. By the time this is all played out, the "Big East" may very well cover 3 time zones. SU will still play elite competition and will reduce their travel costs significantly relative to what they would have incurred in a new "Big East."

One also cannot begin to overestimate the upgrade this will be for the lacrosse program. Lacrosse is a revenue sport at SU. With this move, the ACC is now the unquestioned best conference for lacrosse in the country and SU will have even more marquee matchups to bring to the Carrier Dome in the spring. And we all know the football upgrade is off the charts good for the Orange.

In the end SU significantly upgrades all 3 revenue sports. And that's what counts.

Lawhat? sounds french, nothing french is ever good

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Wed Sep 21, 2011 7:09 am

People pay money... to watch lacrosse?

Or are they charging to watch the grass grow, and some game of Skippy vs. Biff breaks out?

They must be charging Mummy and Nana $4500 a ticket.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:17 pm

Dinsdale wrote:People pay money... to watch lacrosse?

Or are they charging to watch the grass grow, and some game of Skippy vs. Biff breaks out?

They must be charging Mummy and Nana $4500 a ticket.

You tell me.

I know it will take a while for the U&L to catch on. That way, when you do, you will think you invented it.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:57 pm

BSmack wrote:
Dinsdale wrote:People pay money... to watch lacrosse?

Or are they charging to watch the grass grow, and some game of Skippy vs. Biff breaks out?

They must be charging Mummy and Nana $4500 a ticket.
You tell me.

I know it will take a while for the U&L to catch on. That way, when you do, you will think you invented it.

Rack. There are a number of people who believe that football was Jim Brown’s second best sport.

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Wed Sep 21, 2011 1:15 pm

BSmack wrote:
Dinsdale wrote:People pay money... to watch lacrosse?

Or are they charging to watch the grass grow, and some game of Skippy vs. Biff breaks out?

They must be charging Mummy and Nana $4500 a ticket.
You tell me.

I know it will take a while for the U&L to catch on. That way, when you do, you will think you invented it.

Looks like a pack of unathletic crackers who are playing grass hockey without the hitting because they couldnt hack it in football where hitting is allowed.

M Club · Post by **M Club** » Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:16 pm

SoCalTrjn wrote: Looks like a pack of unathletic crackers who are playing grass hockey without the hitting because they couldnt hack it in football where hitting is allowed.

except you're allowed to beat the shit out of each other with sticks. or in terms you'd understand: your pussy kids would quit halfway through, crying.