Conference Realignment Revisited 2010 - Printable Version +- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com) +-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html) +--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html) +---- Forum: College Sports and Conference Realignment (/forum-637.html) +---- Thread: Conference Realignment Revisited 2010 (/thread-816933.html) |
Conference Realignment Revisited 2010 - DavidSt - 05-03-2017 02:59 AM http://www.coloradoan.com/story/sports/college/football/2017/05/02/time-again-ramp-up-college-football-realignment-talk/309138001/ What if issue. Texas, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Oklahoma State to the PAC 12 to 14. Utah and Colorado being left out. MWC would have invited Kansas State, Kansas, Colorado, Baylor, Texas Tech and Iowa State instead of Boise State and the other WAC schools. MWC West: San Diego State Utah BYU UNLV New Mexico Wyoming Colorado State Boise State MWC East: Air Force Colorado Kansas Kansas State Iowa State Baylor Texas Tech TCU WAC members left behind as an FBS conference today. San Jose State Fresno State Hawaii Utah State UNR Idaho New Mexico State UTSA UTSA then leaves for C-USA. WAC would be down to 17 schools. Cal.-Davis Cal. Poly Sacramento State Portland State Montana Missouri State Northern Iowa Illinois State Indiana State Youngstown State Southern Illinois Western Illinois South Dakota South Dakota State All have been rumor for WAC membership. MVFC were rumored to do a football only merger with the WAC. WAC West: Fresno State San Jose State Hawaii Utah State Idaho UNR New Mexico State WAC East: North Dakota State South Dakota South Dakota State Northern Iowa Missouri State Youngstown State Illinois State This could have been the WAC until schools get plucked again with the other MVFC comes onboard down the road. The Summit would be decimated as the Summit football schools could get a full invite. Great West would still be in place with: Southern Utah Chicago State Cal. State-Bakersfield Seattle New Jersey Tech UTRGV Great West could invite Grand Canyon U., Denver, California Baptist and others from the west coast. As you can see, with the Big 12 schools and with Boise State and BYU in the MWC? They could be a P5 conference. RE: Conference Realignment Revisited 2010 - templefootballfan - 05-03-2017 06:41 AM i would think B-12 looks east & keeps name RE: Conference Realignment Revisited 2010 - TopperCard - 05-03-2017 06:52 AM B12 would have merged with Big East. It was rumored to be in the works at the time, but never happened because the 4 schools didn't move to the Pac10. Conference would have looked like this: Kansas Kansas St Colorado Baylor Iowa St Texas Tech Louisville West Virginia Syracuse Pittsburgh Rutgers Cincinnati UConn USF TCU may have replaced Texas Tech in this scenario because A&M went to the SEC around this time. Pitt & Cuse may have already been announced to ACC as well, but you get the gist. It would have been a B12/Big East leftovers merger. Here's an article revisiting this scenario http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/6/11/5800668/big-12-big-east-merger-conference-realignment RE: Conference Realignment Revisited 2010 - DavidSt - 05-03-2017 06:53 AM (05-03-2017 06:41 AM)templefootballfan Wrote: i would think B-12 looks east & keeps name With Utah, TCU and BYU still in the MWC? That still could be a very powerful conference with the Big 12 leftovers and Boise State. Could be much stronger than PAC 12. Big East would still happen, but without the C7? Big East/AAC would be very weak. Since there were only 4 schools (UConn, Cincinnati, USF and West Virginia), the AAC would be very weak when they add Temple, Houston, UCF, Tulsa, SMU, Memphis, Navy and ECU. Tulane, Tulsa or ECU might be left out of the new AAC lineup when West Virginia gets stuck in the AAC. Charlotte might be stuck in FCS. Sun Belt decides to add Charlotte instead of Coastal Carolina. If this happened the way MWC came out on? Than, the WAC would still be an FBS conference which in turn could be the P5 conference, AAC would still have West Virginia, and other conferences would have a change. One of the F_Us would still be in the Sun Belt. Maybe an Eastern Kentucky could be team number 12 for the Sun Belt to go 12/14. RE: Conference Realignment Revisited 2010 - GoldenWarrior11 - 05-03-2017 07:09 AM (05-03-2017 06:52 AM)TopperCard Wrote: B12 would have merged with Big East. It was rumored to be in the works at the time, but never happened because the 4 schools didn't move to the Pac10. This. This also probably would have seen the C7 stay. RE: Conference Realignment Revisited 2010 - MWC Tex - 05-03-2017 07:18 AM The Pac was going to 16..not 14. Colorado and Kansas would be in the Pac as 16 teams. That will change quite a few what if scenarios. RE: Conference Realignment Revisited 2010 - CliftonAve - 05-03-2017 08:03 AM (05-03-2017 07:09 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:(05-03-2017 06:52 AM)TopperCard Wrote: B12 would have merged with Big East. It was rumored to be in the works at the time, but never happened because the 4 schools didn't move to the Pac10. With Notre Dame as well so it would have been a 22 team conference. I am not so sure how a basketball and Olympic sport schedule would have worked out unless they divided it into two divisions with little interplay. RE: Conference Realignment Revisited 2010 - ShockerDR - 05-03-2017 08:57 AM (05-03-2017 07:18 AM)MWC Tex Wrote: The Pac was going to 16..not 14. Colorado and Kansas would be in the Pac as 16 teams. That will change quite a few what if scenarios. Hadn't Colorado and Utah already accepted invites to the Pac before the rumors of UT/OU/OSU/A&M joining the Pac started? RE: Conference Realignment Revisited 2010 - GoldenWarrior11 - 05-03-2017 09:06 AM (05-03-2017 08:03 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:(05-03-2017 07:09 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:(05-03-2017 06:52 AM)TopperCard Wrote: B12 would have merged with Big East. It was rumored to be in the works at the time, but never happened because the 4 schools didn't move to the Pac10. Football West Division Kansas Kansas St Colorado Baylor Iowa St Texas Tech Cincinnati East Division Louisville West Virginia Syracuse Pittsburgh Rutgers UConn USF Basketball (Give each team two protected home/home games per year, with 18 total games played) Kansas Kansas St Colorado Baylor Iowa St Texas Tech Cincinnati Louisville West Virginia Syracuse Pittsburgh Rutgers UConn USF Georgetown Notre Dame Villanova St. Johns Providence Seton Hall Marquette DePaul RE: Conference Realignment Revisited 2010 - ARSTATEFAN1986 - 05-03-2017 09:08 AM (05-03-2017 02:59 AM)DavidSt Wrote: http://www.coloradoan.com/story/sports/college/football/2017/05/02/time-again-ramp-up-college-football-realignment-talk/309138001/ What if never happened. RE: Conference Realignment Revisited 2010 - SMUmustangs - 05-03-2017 09:10 AM (05-03-2017 08:57 AM)ShockerDR Wrote:(05-03-2017 07:18 AM)MWC Tex Wrote: The Pac was going to 16..not 14. Colorado and Kansas would be in the Pac as 16 teams. That will change quite a few what if scenarios. No RE: Conference Realignment Revisited 2010 - YNot - 05-03-2017 09:18 AM (05-03-2017 08:57 AM)ShockerDR Wrote:(05-03-2017 07:18 AM)MWC Tex Wrote: The Pac was going to 16..not 14. Colorado and Kansas would be in the Pac as 16 teams. That will change quite a few what if scenarios. Colorado was part of the Big 12 group that Larry Scott wanted to get the PAC 10 to the PAC 16. The PAC invited Colorado first on June 10, 2010. The Buffaloes were going to be part of the expansion regardless. And, the offer was on the table for the expansion to 16. On June 15, the deal between Texas and the Big 12 was reached - to stay together. Once it was clear that Texas, Oklahoma, TTech, A&M, and OSU weren't going to accept the invite, the PAC invited Utah - on June 17. RE: Conference Realignment Revisited 2010 - SMUmustangs - 05-03-2017 11:26 AM (05-03-2017 09:18 AM)YNot Wrote:(05-03-2017 08:57 AM)ShockerDR Wrote:(05-03-2017 07:18 AM)MWC Tex Wrote: The Pac was going to 16..not 14. Colorado and Kansas would be in the Pac as 16 teams. That will change quite a few what if scenarios. You are correct. The reason Colorado was issued an individual invite, was because Baylor started lobbying for Baylor to be included in the group of six instead of Colorado. So Larry Scott killed that by inviting Colorado on the spot. RE: Conference Realignment Revisited 2010 - bullet - 05-03-2017 12:08 PM (05-03-2017 07:18 AM)MWC Tex Wrote: The Pac was going to 16..not 14. Colorado and Kansas would be in the Pac as 16 teams. That will change quite a few what if scenarios. Kansas was after A&M made it clear they would go to the SEC instead. Texas Tech was one of the 6 schools. RE: Conference Realignment Revisited 2010 - RutgersGuy - 05-03-2017 12:39 PM (05-03-2017 02:59 AM)DavidSt Wrote: http://www.coloradoan.com/story/sports/college/football/2017/05/02/time-again-ramp-up-college-football-realignment-talk/309138001/ 1. Colorado was always part of the Pac-expansion. They wanted to go to 16 with those four plus Tech and Colorado. 2. The left over Big XII schools (ISU, KSU, KU, Mizz & Baylor) if none of them were taken which i'm sure KU & Mizz would have gotten a look from the B1G, would have owned the Big XII name and like the old Big east would have back filled from the Big East. ISU Baylor KU KSU Mizz Cincy Louisville TCU BYU Utah WVU Pitt After that the ACC probably scoops up Cuse and Rutgers and the C7 breaks off leaving UConn and USF behind. RE: Conference Realignment Revisited 2010 - jrj84105 - 05-03-2017 01:26 PM (05-03-2017 12:08 PM)bullet Wrote:(05-03-2017 07:18 AM)MWC Tex Wrote: The Pac was going to 16..not 14. Colorado and Kansas would be in the Pac as 16 teams. That will change quite a few what if scenarios. A&M to the SEC was basically a foregone conclusion from the onset. Where do people keep getting the idea that KU was in line to replace A&M as #16. There is simply no evidence for that. The only time that KU came into the picture was when they popped up on Scott's flight itinerary after UT bailed on the deal (and I don't think he ever made the trip). Where was this supposed Kansas interest from the PAC? I think Scott considered a play for 14 with KU on OU, but that went nowhere with OU countering with OU/OSU. RE: Conference Realignment Revisited 2010 - Huskypride - 05-03-2017 01:44 PM (05-03-2017 12:39 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:(05-03-2017 02:59 AM)DavidSt Wrote: http://www.coloradoan.com/story/sports/college/football/2017/05/02/time-again-ramp-up-college-football-realignment-talk/309138001/ the ACC would take UConn over Rutgers this time unlike in the big 10 where they wanted the NY market and football is more important, In this scenario the ACC already got the NY market with Syracuse and the ACC is a basketball run conference, therefore UConn would be a better choice, based on basketball prestige and the fact UConn was still relevant in football terms back then. So you couldn't pull the UConn is bad a football card in this case. RE: Conference Realignment Revisited 2010 - SMUmustangs - 05-03-2017 02:04 PM (05-03-2017 01:26 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:(05-03-2017 12:08 PM)bullet Wrote:(05-03-2017 07:18 AM)MWC Tex Wrote: The Pac was going to 16..not 14. Colorado and Kansas would be in the Pac as 16 teams. That will change quite a few what if scenarios. The way I remember it, Scott left Texas on his plane headed to Kansas to invite KU, thinking he had a deal after A&M had bailed. However, before he got to Kansas, Texas changed their mind and shut the deal down. RE: Conference Realignment Revisited 2010 - jrj84105 - 05-03-2017 02:26 PM (05-03-2017 02:04 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:That's not what happened- the PAC knew A&M was not happening far ahead of that visit, but leaving A&M "on the table" served the same purpose as the preemptive CU invite- to keep Baylor out of the discussion. Scott left Texas knowing UT would not be joining, not with anything new concerning A&M.(05-03-2017 01:26 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:(05-03-2017 12:08 PM)bullet Wrote:(05-03-2017 07:18 AM)MWC Tex Wrote: The Pac was going to 16..not 14. Colorado and Kansas would be in the Pac as 16 teams. That will change quite a few what if scenarios. RE: Conference Realignment Revisited 2010 - ArQ - 05-03-2017 02:38 PM (05-03-2017 12:39 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:(05-03-2017 02:59 AM)DavidSt Wrote: http://www.coloradoan.com/story/sports/college/football/2017/05/02/time-again-ramp-up-college-football-realignment-talk/309138001/ Pitt is better than Rutgers in football, basketball and academics!! And Pitt is Syracuse's long time rivalry. I doubt ACC will take Rutgers instead of Pitt. |