(12-09-2012 05:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Okay He1nous that's a reasonably good layout for 3 x 20, but at that point the Irish will get in somewhere, so will Syracuse and Boston College. That is part of the reason that once the 3 x 20 division is laid out at least 4 more schools, perhaps 8 will be absorbed by two of those conferences.

Remember they said we would have between 60 to 70 schools in an upper tier. What we might wind up with are 3 conferences: two with 24, and one with 20 (most likely the PAC).

Big 10 South:
Georgia Tech, Duke, Maryland, Miami, North Carolina, Virginia

Big 10 East:
Boston College, Connecticut, Notre Dame, Penn State, Rutgers, Syracuse

Big 10 North:
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Purdue

Big 10 West:
Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio State, Wisconsin

The Big 10 picks up 9 new states and national brand Notre Dame. The academics are all in line even if not all of them are AAU.

*****************************************************

SEC North:
Cincinnati, Kentucky, N.C. State, Pittsburgh, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

SEC East:
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi, Vanderbilt

SEC South:
Alabama, Clemson, Florida State, Louisville, Miss State, Tennessee

SEC West:
Arkansas, Baylor, Louisiana State, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M

Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Oklahoma State, Virginia Tech, North Carolina State, all add additional new states to the footprint of the SEC. Baylor delivers part of a new market. Clemson and F.S.U. add a national brand and strong regional brand for content and both are perfect cultural fits. Louisville rounds us out to 20 with an up & coming Athletic Department which is profitable.
*****************************************************
PAC South:
Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Texas Tech, Utah

PAC East:
Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Christian

PAC West:
California, U.C.L.A., U.S.C., Stanford, Nevada

PAC North
Brigham Young, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State

The PAC adds 5 states a Central Time Zone presence and valuable recruiting grounds. Plus two national brands: Texas & Oklahoma

___________________________________________________________
Now I don't think this is going to happen, but if it did the configuration might look something like this.

The Big 10 doesn't need two schools in Florida and Miami is the better cultural fit.

Generally, I like the premise. However, I think the analysis is off. The "U" is not an AAU member, however, the U of Florida is. That's the other big prize in all of this -- just that no one is really talking about it.

So.. what if the B1G invites Florida? AAU school, no drama, and would likely result in a LOT of cash for the B1G Network. That's the "checkmate" move in all of this for Delaney (or his successor).

(12-10-2012 04:52 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  

(12-09-2012 05:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Okay He1nous that's a reasonably good layout for 3 x 20, but at that point the Irish will get in somewhere, so will Syracuse and Boston College. That is part of the reason that once the 3 x 20 division is laid out at least 4 more schools, perhaps 8 will be absorbed by two of those conferences.

Remember they said we would have between 60 to 70 schools in an upper tier. What we might wind up with are 3 conferences: two with 24, and one with 20 (most likely the PAC).

Big 10 South:
Georgia Tech, Duke, Maryland, Miami, North Carolina, Virginia

Big 10 East:
Boston College, Connecticut, Notre Dame, Penn State, Rutgers, Syracuse

Big 10 North:
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Purdue

Big 10 West:
Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio State, Wisconsin

The Big 10 picks up 9 new states and national brand Notre Dame. The academics are all in line even if not all of them are AAU.

*****************************************************

SEC North:
Cincinnati, Kentucky, N.C. State, Pittsburgh, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

SEC East:
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi, Vanderbilt

SEC South:
Alabama, Clemson, Florida State, Louisville, Miss State, Tennessee

SEC West:
Arkansas, Baylor, Louisiana State, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M

Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Oklahoma State, Virginia Tech, North Carolina State, all add additional new states to the footprint of the SEC. Baylor delivers part of a new market. Clemson and F.S.U. add a national brand and strong regional brand for content and both are perfect cultural fits. Louisville rounds us out to 20 with an up & coming Athletic Department which is profitable.
*****************************************************
PAC South:
Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Texas Tech, Utah

PAC East:
Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Christian

PAC West:
California, U.C.L.A., U.S.C., Stanford, Nevada

PAC North
Brigham Young, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State

The PAC adds 5 states a Central Time Zone presence and valuable recruiting grounds. Plus two national brands: Texas & Oklahoma

___________________________________________________________
Now I don't think this is going to happen, but if it did the configuration might look something like this.

The Big 10 doesn't need two schools in Florida and Miami is the better cultural fit.

Generally, I like the premise. However, I think the analysis is off. The "U" is not an AAU member, however, the U of Florida is. That's the other big prize in all of this -- just that no one is really talking about it.

So.. what if the B1G invites Florida? AAU school, no drama, and would likely result in a LOT of cash for the B1G Network. That's the "checkmate" move in all of this for Delaney (or his successor).

When pigs fly...

Silly Boys...the trilateral commission needs to approve going to a 3/20...

(12-10-2012 04:52 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  

(12-09-2012 05:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Okay He1nous that's a reasonably good layout for 3 x 20, but at that point the Irish will get in somewhere, so will Syracuse and Boston College. That is part of the reason that once the 3 x 20 division is laid out at least 4 more schools, perhaps 8 will be absorbed by two of those conferences.

Remember they said we would have between 60 to 70 schools in an upper tier. What we might wind up with are 3 conferences: two with 24, and one with 20 (most likely the PAC).

Big 10 South:
Georgia Tech, Duke, Maryland, Miami, North Carolina, Virginia

Big 10 East:
Boston College, Connecticut, Notre Dame, Penn State, Rutgers, Syracuse

Big 10 North:
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Purdue

Big 10 West:
Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio State, Wisconsin

The Big 10 picks up 9 new states and national brand Notre Dame. The academics are all in line even if not all of them are AAU.

*****************************************************

SEC North:
Cincinnati, Kentucky, N.C. State, Pittsburgh, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

SEC East:
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi, Vanderbilt

SEC South:
Alabama, Clemson, Florida State, Louisville, Miss State, Tennessee

SEC West:
Arkansas, Baylor, Louisiana State, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M

Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Oklahoma State, Virginia Tech, North Carolina State, all add additional new states to the footprint of the SEC. Baylor delivers part of a new market. Clemson and F.S.U. add a national brand and strong regional brand for content and both are perfect cultural fits. Louisville rounds us out to 20 with an up & coming Athletic Department which is profitable.
*****************************************************
PAC South:
Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Texas Tech, Utah

PAC East:
Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Christian

PAC West:
California, U.C.L.A., U.S.C., Stanford, Nevada

PAC North
Brigham Young, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State

The PAC adds 5 states a Central Time Zone presence and valuable recruiting grounds. Plus two national brands: Texas & Oklahoma

___________________________________________________________
Now I don't think this is going to happen, but if it did the configuration might look something like this.

The Big 10 doesn't need two schools in Florida and Miami is the better cultural fit.

Generally, I like the premise. However, I think the analysis is off. The "U" is not an AAU member, however, the U of Florida is. That's the other big prize in all of this -- just that no one is really talking about it.

So.. what if the B1G invites Florida? AAU school, no drama, and would likely result in a LOT of cash for the B1G Network. That's the "checkmate" move in all of this for Delaney (or his successor).

1. The Gators are like Texas and U.N.C. in that they are part of the ground floor of the SEC and like Alabama get much of what they want. That kind of move isn't happening.

2. If the Big 10 ever gets as large as 20 or 24 some of the teams will have to be great academic schools that are not AAU. Boston College, Syracuse, Notre Dame, and I believe U.Conn are not AAU. Miami is ranked 38th academically that is way better than most Big 10 schools are currently ranked. They are private and that hampers their inclusion in AAU. Should the Big 10 go South Miami has to be a consideration and the fact that Shalala was also president at Wisconsin doesn't hurt.

(12-10-2012 05:08 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Silly Boys...the trilateral commission needs to approve going to a 3/20...

Are you kidding me, they're behind all of this! Who do you think got Scott, Delany and Slive their jobs?

(12-10-2012 05:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-10-2012 04:52 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  

(12-09-2012 05:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Okay He1nous that's a reasonably good layout for 3 x 20, but at that point the Irish will get in somewhere, so will Syracuse and Boston College. That is part of the reason that once the 3 x 20 division is laid out at least 4 more schools, perhaps 8 will be absorbed by two of those conferences.

Remember they said we would have between 60 to 70 schools in an upper tier. What we might wind up with are 3 conferences: two with 24, and one with 20 (most likely the PAC).

Big 10 South:
Georgia Tech, Duke, Maryland, Miami, North Carolina, Virginia

Big 10 East:
Boston College, Connecticut, Notre Dame, Penn State, Rutgers, Syracuse

Big 10 North:
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Purdue

Big 10 West:
Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio State, Wisconsin

The Big 10 picks up 9 new states and national brand Notre Dame. The academics are all in line even if not all of them are AAU.

*****************************************************

SEC North:
Cincinnati, Kentucky, N.C. State, Pittsburgh, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

SEC East:
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi, Vanderbilt

SEC South:
Alabama, Clemson, Florida State, Louisville, Miss State, Tennessee

SEC West:
Arkansas, Baylor, Louisiana State, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M

Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Oklahoma State, Virginia Tech, North Carolina State, all add additional new states to the footprint of the SEC. Baylor delivers part of a new market. Clemson and F.S.U. add a national brand and strong regional brand for content and both are perfect cultural fits. Louisville rounds us out to 20 with an up & coming Athletic Department which is profitable.
*****************************************************
PAC South:
Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Texas Tech, Utah

PAC East:
Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Christian

PAC West:
California, U.C.L.A., U.S.C., Stanford, Nevada

PAC North
Brigham Young, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State

The PAC adds 5 states a Central Time Zone presence and valuable recruiting grounds. Plus two national brands: Texas & Oklahoma

___________________________________________________________
Now I don't think this is going to happen, but if it did the configuration might look something like this.

The Big 10 doesn't need two schools in Florida and Miami is the better cultural fit.

Generally, I like the premise. However, I think the analysis is off. The "U" is not an AAU member, however, the U of Florida is. That's the other big prize in all of this -- just that no one is really talking about it.

So.. what if the B1G invites Florida? AAU school, no drama, and would likely result in a LOT of cash for the B1G Network. That's the "checkmate" move in all of this for Delaney (or his successor).

1. The Gators are like Texas and U.N.C. in that they are part of the ground floor of the SEC and like Alabama get much of what they want. That kind of move isn't happening.

2. If the Big 10 ever gets as large as 20 or 24 some of the teams will have to be great academic schools that are not AAU. Boston College, Syracuse, Notre Dame, and I believe U.Conn are not AAU. Miami is ranked 38th academically that is way better than most Big 10 schools are currently ranked. They are private and that hampers their inclusion in AAU. Should the Big 10 go South Miami has to be a consideration and the fact that Shalala was also president at Wisconsin doesn't hurt.

Yeah, if we go that big we are making those moves for reasons other than academics. I know some folks will cry hypocrites and what not here but its not like Miami is a bad academic institution at all. They will never be AAU but they are certainly a high ranked institution for what they do. I have no idea if them and FSU would get invited into the CIC if they ever did get invites, perhaps that is another tradition that would be suspended in order to set up the Big Ten for the future.

(12-10-2012 05:51 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-10-2012 05:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-10-2012 04:52 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  

(12-09-2012 05:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Okay He1nous that's a reasonably good layout for 3 x 20, but at that point the Irish will get in somewhere, so will Syracuse and Boston College. That is part of the reason that once the 3 x 20 division is laid out at least 4 more schools, perhaps 8 will be absorbed by two of those conferences.

Remember they said we would have between 60 to 70 schools in an upper tier. What we might wind up with are 3 conferences: two with 24, and one with 20 (most likely the PAC).

Big 10 South:
Georgia Tech, Duke, Maryland, Miami, North Carolina, Virginia

Big 10 East:
Boston College, Connecticut, Notre Dame, Penn State, Rutgers, Syracuse

Big 10 North:
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Purdue

Big 10 West:
Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio State, Wisconsin

The Big 10 picks up 9 new states and national brand Notre Dame. The academics are all in line even if not all of them are AAU.

*****************************************************

SEC North:
Cincinnati, Kentucky, N.C. State, Pittsburgh, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

SEC East:
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi, Vanderbilt

SEC South:
Alabama, Clemson, Florida State, Louisville, Miss State, Tennessee

SEC West:
Arkansas, Baylor, Louisiana State, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M

Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Oklahoma State, Virginia Tech, North Carolina State, all add additional new states to the footprint of the SEC. Baylor delivers part of a new market. Clemson and F.S.U. add a national brand and strong regional brand for content and both are perfect cultural fits. Louisville rounds us out to 20 with an up & coming Athletic Department which is profitable.
*****************************************************
PAC South:
Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Texas Tech, Utah

PAC East:
Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Christian

PAC West:
California, U.C.L.A., U.S.C., Stanford, Nevada

PAC North
Brigham Young, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State

The PAC adds 5 states a Central Time Zone presence and valuable recruiting grounds. Plus two national brands: Texas & Oklahoma

___________________________________________________________
Now I don't think this is going to happen, but if it did the configuration might look something like this.

The Big 10 doesn't need two schools in Florida and Miami is the better cultural fit.

Generally, I like the premise. However, I think the analysis is off. The "U" is not an AAU member, however, the U of Florida is. That's the other big prize in all of this -- just that no one is really talking about it.

So.. what if the B1G invites Florida? AAU school, no drama, and would likely result in a LOT of cash for the B1G Network. That's the "checkmate" move in all of this for Delaney (or his successor).

1. The Gators are like Texas and U.N.C. in that they are part of the ground floor of the SEC and like Alabama get much of what they want. That kind of move isn't happening.

2. If the Big 10 ever gets as large as 20 or 24 some of the teams will have to be great academic schools that are not AAU. Boston College, Syracuse, Notre Dame, and I believe U.Conn are not AAU. Miami is ranked 38th academically that is way better than most Big 10 schools are currently ranked. They are private and that hampers their inclusion in AAU. Should the Big 10 go South Miami has to be a consideration and the fact that Shalala was also president at Wisconsin doesn't hurt.

Yeah, if we go that big we are making those moves for reasons other than academics. I know some folks will cry hypocrites and what not here but its not like Miami is a bad academic institution at all. They will never be AAU but they are certainly a high ranked institution for what they do. I have no idea if them and FSU would get invited into the CIC if they ever did get invites, perhaps that is another tradition that would be suspended in order to set up the Big Ten for the future.

I'm not sure they would need to be included in CIC. One of the things I expect to see come out of all of this is a separation between athletic endeavors and academic ones. For instance I can envision a time when Michigan, North Carolina, Duke, Northwestern, Florida, Virginia, Vanderbilt, Texas, and the California schools may all choose to partner on Federal grant projects and schools like M.I.T., Purdue, Georgia Tech, and Auburn would do the same in aerospace engineering. I think those will be the kinds of academic alignments we see in the future and they will be segregated by disciplines. Athletics will remain segregated by geography and the two will not have to be mutually inclusive as they are now.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...ources-say

When you look at the breakdown of money. It is no longer just a bragging rights issue, it is in the Big Ten's monetary interests to increase the quality of it's football product. The most efficient way to do so will be to grow to the area's where the best skill and speed athletes are, as they are the ones the Big Ten needs most. The Big Ten has great quarterbacks, great O and D lines and even solid linebacker groups. We need better receivers and corners.

All the more reason for the Big Ten to have more schools and to go right down the eastern seaboard to Florida.

(12-11-2012 01:23 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...ources-say

When you look at the breakdown of money. It is no longer just a bragging rights issue, it is in the Big Ten's monetary interests to increase the quality of it's football product. The most efficient way to do so will be to grow to the area's where the best skill and speed athletes are, as they are the ones the Big Ten needs most. The Big Ten has great quarterbacks, great O and D lines and even solid linebacker groups. We need better receivers and corners.

All the more reason for the Big Ten to have more schools and to go right down the eastern seaboard to Florida.

I guess the additions of a couple very good non-AAU schools will not affect the research status of the present B1G schools. I understand the B1G AAU thing, but does everyone have to be a member? How about just a large majority of the members? It's going to take an organizational effort here to keep the academic profile high and still bring a great sports product. Am I correct here?

(12-11-2012 02:53 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(12-11-2012 01:23 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...ources-say

When you look at the breakdown of money. It is no longer just a bragging rights issue, it is in the Big Ten's monetary interests to increase the quality of it's football product. The most efficient way to do so will be to grow to the area's where the best skill and speed athletes are, as they are the ones the Big Ten needs most. The Big Ten has great quarterbacks, great O and D lines and even solid linebacker groups. We need better receivers and corners.

All the more reason for the Big Ten to have more schools and to go right down the eastern seaboard to Florida.

I guess the additions of a couple very good non-AAU schools will not affect the research status of the present B1G schools. I understand the B1G AAU thing, but does everyone have to be a member? How about just a large majority of the members? It's going to take an organizational effort here to keep the academic profile high and still bring a great sports product. Am I correct here?

If a school is not going to be an AAU member that is a research school then they have to excel in other areas in order for them to be considered. Out of the six I have listed there are two that are not AAU members. Those two are both schools in Florida. That alone gets them noticed. Florida State wouldn't be the lowest ranking academic school in the Big Ten. Nebraska would have them beat. What they do bring is a massive step into what could become a very important state for the Big Ten. Top that off with a private school with a strong history in football that is also ranked in the mid 30's as far as academic institutions go

In my opinion I think both of those options bring enough to the table despite not being AAU. They will not make the CIC any weaker nor will they weaken the conference academically. They just don't ADD to the CIC. The conference really doesn't need them to. The conference needs them to bring the Big Ten down into those area's of the country.

(12-11-2012 05:54 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-11-2012 02:53 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(12-11-2012 01:23 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...ources-say

When you look at the breakdown of money. It is no longer just a bragging rights issue, it is in the Big Ten's monetary interests to increase the quality of it's football product. The most efficient way to do so will be to grow to the area's where the best skill and speed athletes are, as they are the ones the Big Ten needs most. The Big Ten has great quarterbacks, great O and D lines and even solid linebacker groups. We need better receivers and corners.

All the more reason for the Big Ten to have more schools and to go right down the eastern seaboard to Florida.

I guess the additions of a couple very good non-AAU schools will not affect the research status of the present B1G schools. I understand the B1G AAU thing, but does everyone have to be a member? How about just a large majority of the members? It's going to take an organizational effort here to keep the academic profile high and still bring a great sports product. Am I correct here?

If a school is not going to be an AAU member that is a research school then they have to excel in other areas in order for them to be considered. Out of the six I have listed there are two that are not AAU members. Those two are both schools in Florida. That alone gets them noticed. Florida State wouldn't be the lowest ranking academic school in the Big Ten. Nebraska would have them beat. What they do bring is a massive step into what could become a very important state for the Big Ten. Top that off with a private school with a strong history in football that is also ranked in the mid 30's as far as academic institutions go

In my opinion I think both of those options bring enough to the table despite not being AAU. They will not make the CIC any weaker nor will they weaken the conference academically. They just don't ADD to the CIC. The conference really doesn't need them to. The conference needs them to bring the Big Ten down into those area's of the country.

Yep. This would be a good move.. Wonder if the B1G sets things in motion again?

(12-11-2012 07:21 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(12-11-2012 05:54 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-11-2012 02:53 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(12-11-2012 01:23 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...ources-say

When you look at the breakdown of money. It is no longer just a bragging rights issue, it is in the Big Ten's monetary interests to increase the quality of it's football product. The most efficient way to do so will be to grow to the area's where the best skill and speed athletes are, as they are the ones the Big Ten needs most. The Big Ten has great quarterbacks, great O and D lines and even solid linebacker groups. We need better receivers and corners.

All the more reason for the Big Ten to have more schools and to go right down the eastern seaboard to Florida.

I guess the additions of a couple very good non-AAU schools will not affect the research status of the present B1G schools. I understand the B1G AAU thing, but does everyone have to be a member? How about just a large majority of the members? It's going to take an organizational effort here to keep the academic profile high and still bring a great sports product. Am I correct here?

If a school is not going to be an AAU member that is a research school then they have to excel in other areas in order for them to be considered. Out of the six I have listed there are two that are not AAU members. Those two are both schools in Florida. That alone gets them noticed. Florida State wouldn't be the lowest ranking academic school in the Big Ten. Nebraska would have them beat. What they do bring is a massive step into what could become a very important state for the Big Ten. Top that off with a private school with a strong history in football that is also ranked in the mid 30's as far as academic institutions go

In my opinion I think both of those options bring enough to the table despite not being AAU. They will not make the CIC any weaker nor will they weaken the conference academically. They just don't ADD to the CIC. The conference really doesn't need them to. The conference needs them to bring the Big Ten down into those area's of the country.

Yep. This would be a good move.. Wonder if the B1G sets things in motion again?

Yes, I do think the Big Ten is still on the board. I would agree with others that think they will probably wait till after the Bowl Season though. FSU would probably not want all the madness that will result from them making this decision to be happening while they are preparing for a Bowl Game. At the same time though, all time at this point is precious time.

If it actually does happen, I am thinking a move by FSU and GT to start. Imagine that, the two competitors in the ACC championship game both announcing they are moving to the Big Ten. Media would eat it up and Delany loves to toy with the media.

(12-11-2012 07:39 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-11-2012 07:21 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(12-11-2012 05:54 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-11-2012 02:53 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(12-11-2012 01:23 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...ources-say

When you look at the breakdown of money. It is no longer just a bragging rights issue, it is in the Big Ten's monetary interests to increase the quality of it's football product. The most efficient way to do so will be to grow to the area's where the best skill and speed athletes are, as they are the ones the Big Ten needs most. The Big Ten has great quarterbacks, great O and D lines and even solid linebacker groups. We need better receivers and corners.

All the more reason for the Big Ten to have more schools and to go right down the eastern seaboard to Florida.

I guess the additions of a couple very good non-AAU schools will not affect the research status of the present B1G schools. I understand the B1G AAU thing, but does everyone have to be a member? How about just a large majority of the members? It's going to take an organizational effort here to keep the academic profile high and still bring a great sports product. Am I correct here?

If a school is not going to be an AAU member that is a research school then they have to excel in other areas in order for them to be considered. Out of the six I have listed there are two that are not AAU members. Those two are both schools in Florida. That alone gets them noticed. Florida State wouldn't be the lowest ranking academic school in the Big Ten. Nebraska would have them beat. What they do bring is a massive step into what could become a very important state for the Big Ten. Top that off with a private school with a strong history in football that is also ranked in the mid 30's as far as academic institutions go

In my opinion I think both of those options bring enough to the table despite not being AAU. They will not make the CIC any weaker nor will they weaken the conference academically. They just don't ADD to the CIC. The conference really doesn't need them to. The conference needs them to bring the Big Ten down into those area's of the country.

Yep. This would be a good move.. Wonder if the B1G sets things in motion again?

Yes, I do think the Big Ten is still on the board. I would agree with others that think they will probably wait till after the Bowl Season though. FSU would probably not want all the madness that will result from them making this decision to be happening while they are preparing for a Bowl Game. At the same time though, all time at this point is precious time.

If it actually does happen, I am thinking a move by FSU and GT to start. Imagine that, the two competitors in the ACC championship game both announcing they are moving to the Big Ten. Media would eat it up and Delany loves to toy with the media.

Good point He1nous. The great thing about the ACC is that it's like a fattened hog now. There's plenty of meat for everyone at the table if this goes down badly for them.:ugaexams:

(12-11-2012 08:07 PM)XLance Wrote:  The SEC has does not have any church supported schools.

(12-11-2012 08:18 PM)XLance Wrote:  But....never count out a bunch of Baptist in the South.

Ok, you have done a good job of drawing interest with these comments. Mind explaining what you are thinking in a little more detail?

so is twenty really the target number?

(12-12-2012 03:01 PM)No Bull Wrote:  so is twenty really the target number?

Not necessarily. The target for the Big 10 and SEC is simply new markets that may be profitably obtained. The Big 12 doesn't have network plans that include shared revenue. Their additions have to be profitable in their own right and not as a pooled collection of markets.

The PAC also has a network and would like new markets. The ACC currently has no network although one is being discussed.

Should the Big 10 take two more ACC schools then it is possible that Delany may wish to consolidate his markets in New England. If this proves to be true then we could see a Big 10 of at least 18 schools.

A significantly weakened ACC would likely invite Mike Slive to look at profitable prospects in addition to the stated desires of the North Carolina and Virginia area. So it is possible that the SEC could move to 18.

If those things happened then the issue becomes a numbers game. There would not be enough valuable prospects for the Big 12 to expand as completely as some might have hoped, although the desire for expansion has not been exactly manifested in the actions of the Big 12 to date. The PAC would still be eyeing the only legitimate targets for their expansion, the Big 12.

If an enhanced Big 10 and SEC are able to derive greater network rewards for their procurements, and they would, then the gap in revenue between those two conferences and those of the Big 12 and PAC would significantly widen. In order to keep pace there may be an eventual merger of the PAC & Big 12, or the picking apart of the Big 12 by the three most powerful remaining conferences.

That is where the 20 team, or more, concept draws its impetus.

If the ACC lost N.C. State and Virginia Tech to the SEC and added a selection of academically acceptable teams from the Big 12 and gave Texas the same deal that Notre Dame is getting, and added UConn as a full member then I believe they could stabilize with 16 full members, two hybrid members, N.D. & Texas, enhance their academics, and improve their athletics. Then Delany would likely go after Kansas and either Oklahoma or Missouri, and Slive could either stop at 16, or look to add West Virginia and either Baylor or T.C.U. to stop at 18. Then the PAC would take additional states in the Central Time Zone and we stop short of 20 and keep four conferences.

We'll just have to wait and see, and will probably be confounded by the outcome anyway.

The ACC can't add any B12 schools for the life of the B12 TV contract. So that avenue is closed for the next decade or so...

(12-12-2012 03:01 PM)No Bull Wrote:  so is twenty really the target number?

I personally do not think it was ever really the target number. If it has been then Delany is an absolute master of disguise. He has multiple times in public made statements about the Big Ten having plans for 14 and 16. Not once ever that I have seen has he spoken about a plan to go beyond that.

What he has done though has made many very recent leading statements about where the Big Ten might be looking. NONE of those statements are leading statements to direct you to thinking that the Big Ten is looking to the Northeast.

You will hear from some folks around here and other places that have this belief that the Big Ten wants the northeast and it wants Notre Dame. That is the old traditional thoughts. The new market has proven that to be the loser's route and Delany knows it. His leading statements confirm that.

I do think that they probably wanted to get to 16 with Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina and Duke. As all plans go, complications happen and you have to improvise. Notre Dame moved and forced Delany's hand. He had to move earlier than what he wanted to, I believe. Only Maryland at this time was prepped for being picked up. So instead of taking the perfect four he had to take Maryland and the obvious replacement for Maryland which was Rutgers. Now this works out well for Rutgers and I hope they do not take this as disrespectful from me but Notre Dame's move has benefited Rutgers immensely.

So now we have a problem. The plan for 16 is a no go. Delany needs a new plan. I do not think he could sell FSU and GT alone to the Presidents. The only way I think they can be sold is if they are the first move in a plan. Delany has to know that FSU is the gateway. They pretty much now HAVE to be the next move for Anyone. So for me the plan for 20 teams is an improvised plan if it is one at all.

All the talk of Notre Dame and the Northeast is nice misinformation to keep another party from acting to block. That may not even be necessary though. That other "party" could still find that this works out in their favor even if the Big Ten moves south.

I do think now that 20 may be the number. Maybe it will end up being more, who knows. It wasn't long ago that I wouldn't even have a conversation with JR about anything more than 16.

(12-12-2012 04:16 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The ACC can't add any B12 schools for the life of the B12 TV contract. So that avenue is closed for the next decade or so...

I respectfully disagree. But it would take the SEC, Big 10, and PAC working in concert with the ACC to pull it off. If Texas decides to go they may provided that the other conference teams receive new, more profitable homes. Technically in only takes eight to accomplish this (a vote of dissolution), but there really aren't any teams without redemptive qualities in the Big 12 so if it did happen I think it would be likely that all 10 would find a new home in one of the remaining four conferences.

Baylor as good academics and is more than a 1 sport school, plus they will have one of the more beautiful venues in college football when their new stadium is completed. Iowa State is respectable in football, and better than average most years in basketball and they are AAU. Kansas State may not have a great destination but they have a great school of Vet. Medicine and are competitive at an above average level in football and basketball, with of course the football peaking in the last couple of years. They also add a market for the PAC or SEC. T.C.U. may not be desirable to the PAC but would under the right circumstances for either the SEC or ACC. Oklahoma State also would be an appealing school for the SEC as a market addition. Texas Tech would fit better with the southern end of the PAC and they receive annually part of the state of Texas' oil grant money. Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and West Virginia will land just fine.

It's doable. It's just not as likely as the ACC. The value of the markets in the ACC, and the academics and grant money make their schools the more attractive targets for the Big 10 and SEC.

(12-12-2012 05:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-12-2012 04:16 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The ACC can't add any B12 schools for the life of the B12 TV contract. So that avenue is closed for the next decade or so...

I respectfully disagree. But it would take the SEC, Big 10, and PAC working in concert with the ACC to pull it off.

Well, that rules out that option...