(10-07-2017 10:14 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  Of course if Miami is "Ohio State", then perhaps Cincinnati has a hard time gaining traction athletically, and Cincinnati could just as easily be in the MAC instead of Columbus. The real question would have been would the Metro have taken Cincinnati and/or Columbus, because Cincinnati's only genuine Conference change since joining the Metro (which of course merged with the Great Midwest to form C-USA) was joining the Big East in 2005.

I also wonder if Rutgers would have been targeted sooner by the B1G:

West - Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue
East - Indiana, Ohio, Miami, Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State, Rutgers

The Big East takes either UCF or Houston to replace Rutgers, and C-USA takes WKU a little bit sooner. This could theoretically roll all the way down to NMSU and Idaho not getting football-only memberships in the Sun Belt after the WAC collapsed, as the Sun Belt would be at nine members in football. The MAC could be content with UMass as an associate member in football.

Depending on who you talk to, the Big 10 (or Delany) had their eyes on Rutgers for 20 years.

Perhaps they were waiting for things like the on campus stadium expansion and stringing together some winning seasons in football, who knows. But honestly the only change in Rutgers for the timeline would have been to go to the Super Metro in 1990 if that had come together, or the Big East or Atlantic 10 if those leagues had rearranged themselves along football lines (which I think could have been a possibility if one of UMass or UConn went the 1A route in 1978).

it's hard to see Rutgers in the Big 10 anytime before 2014. Our longtime AD Grunninger had the philosophy of having as many sports programs as possible for students, and not so much on making football and basketball successful. While it's certainly not a bad philosophy (and they are student athletes after all) it's not a measuring stick for success either. At one point we had the largest athletic department in the Big East in terms of number of sports offered. The NJ Press crucified us when we cut sports.

He (Grunninger) was strongly aligned with Paterno through the 70s and 80s, turning down the Big East twice to stay with the Eastern 8/Atlantic 10 and Paterno's eastern conference if that had ever come about. So you have to look at Rutgers through those eyes (and not just the lack of success on the football field).

(10-07-2017 10:14 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  Of course if Miami is "Ohio State", then perhaps Cincinnati has a hard time gaining traction athletically, and Cincinnati could just as easily be in the MAC instead of Columbus. The real question would have been would the Metro have taken Cincinnati and/or Columbus, because Cincinnati's only genuine Conference change since joining the Metro (which of course merged with the Great Midwest to form C-USA) was joining the Big East in 2005.

There's two sides to the argument of where UC would be, the one I was looking at sees it from the view that Miami and OU would split support within Ohio so neither would dominate like OSU does, hence a school like UC might be able to nudge itself in there without having a college with 50K students in a large city always over them. At the same time, Miami is close enough to the Cincy area that a lot of their support might've been drained and they ended up in the MAC. Or it may've been that Miami and OU's sports teams were good enough that it ended up being more like Michigan and Michigan State instead of IU and Purdue, keeping UC down.

It's kinda fun for me in this scenario to think of Miami as the OSU in this scenario, with our historically high levels of athletic success one would think we'd kill it as a flagship and dominate OU and end up as the 'new' OSU. But neither university would be recognizable to today if we were the flagships, they'd be well over 30K students. I was drawn to Miami for its medium size and tiny college town atmosphere so I probably wouldn't have gone there being from out of state.

It's hard to imagine the Big Ten or college football without the Buckeyes. Here are my thoughts:

Miami and Ohio join the Western Conference, or whatever the name was then, as the 10th and 11th members in the teens. I think the odd number of schools actually necessitates bringing in Michigan St sooner rather than later as the 12th. The loss of Chicago in the 40's necessitates adding a new 12th. Maybe the "Indy for life" attitude at Notre Dame is not yet as strong and they join. Other options are Iowa St, Missouri, Penn St, and Pitt--other schools they legitimately considered as replacements for Chicago.

Neither the Redskins nor the Bobcats can totally duplicate what the real life Buckeyes did and I think the Wolverines enjoy many years of dominance, unless of course Notre Dame joins and then those two are the league's dominate programs.

As for Cincinnati's fate I think they struggle in the shadow of Miami and ultimately become a MAC level program. I think whatever public university founded in Columbus shares a similar role.

In the Northeast, if Pitt or Penn St joins the Big Ten in the '50's I think there ends up being less bad blood between the two and the one who doesn't join gets help from the other to get in somewhere down the road.

Where would Northern Michigan be if they followed their conference mates in D1? They were in the same conference with Youngstown State, Central Michigan, Western Michigan and so forth in the 1970s.

Where would Case Western Reserve be if they stayed in the MAC instead of dropping down to D3?

Where would Washburn be if they did not dropped down to D2?

Where would West Texas A&M be if they did not dropped down to D2?

I think if M.I.T. stayed D1, and grew their stadium to close to 100,000? I think they would be in the Big 10 today in a heartbeat since they are an AAU school.

(09-26-2017 05:17 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Missouri, Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers, and Maryland to the Big 10?
6 Southern ACC Schools to the SEC?
Remaining Big East football schools fold into the ACC?

Assuming Notre Dame is off the table (after all this is 1994 in this scenario), I think the Big Ten tries to grab three from the ACC - Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina - to go with Rutgers and Missouri.

The SEC would be at an interesting crossroads - Texas A&M is in for certain as #13, but the best properties in the ACC are all in the SEC footprint - Florida State, Georgia Tech, and Clemson.My guess is they settle for NC State and Virginia Tech to satisfy the desire for market breadth, and then take Florida State as #16.

With five of the nine ACC schools gone, would the Big East add Duke, Clemson, Georgia Tech, and Wake Forest?

Boston College
Clemson
Duke
Georgia Tech
Miami (FL)
Pittsburgh
Syracuse
Temple (football only)/Villanova (I-AA)
Wake Forest
West Virginia
Connecticut (non-football)
Georgetown (I-AA)
Notre Dame (I-A independent)
Providence (non-football)
Saint John's (non-football)
Seton Hall (non-football)

(08-19-2017 03:04 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  So if the Pac's gambit in 2010 to gut the Big 12 actually succeeded, how would everything have gone down? I'm guessing that CU and the Texoma 4 (OU/OSU/UT/TT) wouldn't move until 2012. This would allow time for the other Big 12 schools to make arrangements with other conferences and permit the Big 12 to dissolve itself without anyone paying exit fees. This might also have delayed the departure of NU until 2012, but I'm not sure about that. Missouri and Texas A&M are picked up by the SEC in 2012 as actually occurred, while Baylor, ISU, KU, and KSU join the Big East.

I doubt that the Big East's expansion would slow the decline of the conference. If anything, I think adding such far-flung schools of dubious value (besides KU) would accelerate the decline. TCU was scheduled to join the Big East in 2012, but that would put the conference at 13 football members. Perhaps TCU's entrance would be delayed? I believe Pitt and Syracuse would still have left for the ACC in 2013, which was the more stable of the two major east coast conferences at the time. TCU joins in 2013 to keep the conference at 12 football members. Here the Big East is not as desperate to add schools as they were in our timeline, so Boise and SDSU don't receive an invite, while of the C-USA schools, only Houston is invited.

I think ND is given the same deal by the ACC as they actually were and so departs in 2013 too. Rutgers will leave for the Big Ten in 2014. Maryland is still going to be poached by the Big Ten, so the ACC is still going to seek a replacement, and Louisville is still likely to be that replacement. WVU is technically up for grabs too, but their academics are worse than Louisville. Would there be a split between the Catholic 7 and the football schools? I really don't know, though I'm inclined to say yes. They will take the Big East name, while the football schools might possibly pick up the discarded but valuable Big 12 name. In 2014, Louisville and Rutgers are replaced by UCF and Navy, the latter of which joins a year earlier than scheduled in reality.

Another question is does the Big East/Big 12 retain its "power" status with the advent of the CFP? My guess is that the conference is no longer considered a power, as it's not all that much better off than the American in our timeline.

The evolution of the (old) Big East/(new) Big 12:

2011 Big East
FB: Cincinnati, Louisville, Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse, UConn, USF, WVU
NFB: DePaul, Georgetown, Marquette, Notre Dame, Providence, Seton Hall, St. John's, Villanova

2012 Big East
FB (East): Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse, UConn, USF, WVU
FB (West): Baylor, Cincinnati, ISU, Kansas, KSU, Louisville
NFB: DePaul, Georgetown, Marquette, Notre Dame, Providence, Seton Hall, St. John's, Villanova

2013 Big 12
East: Cincinnati, Louisville, Rutgers, UConn, USF, WVU
West: Baylor, Houston, ISU, Kansas, KSU, TCU

2014 Big 12
East: Cincinnati, ISU, UCF, UConn, USF, WVU
West: Baylor, Houston, Kansas, KSU, Navy (FB only), TCU

I wonder how C-USA would replace UCF and Houston. They haven't been raided as extensively as in our timeline, so there is less need to add as many schools as possible. Perhaps this decreased desperation would lead them to stay put at 10. I suppose they could add FAU and/or FIU to get back into Florida.

Any thoughts?

Regarding this scenario I explored earlier: Suppose after the Texoma 4 go to the Pac, it is the Big 12 remnant (Baylor, ISU, KU, KSU) that absorbs the Big East instead of vice versa. The difference may be semantic, since I don't think the football membership would have been much different, if at all, from the above. However, it would likely have resulted in an earlier separation of the Big East non-FB schools (in 2012 rather than 2013). Would that have caused schools like UConn to hesitate more about leaving behind their Big East basketball buddies?

Also, you might think that a rebuilding Big 12 would take schools from the MWC. However, with the Big East adds, the conference would be centered more in the central/eastern US, so I don't think this would have been likely.

(07-10-2017 01:36 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(07-07-2017 05:42 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Post your alternate history scenarios here!

Here's the present day alignment of power conferences in an alternate timeline in which the Big East football wing never formed. The SEC added Florida State (before the ACC could) as well as independent Miami, while the ACC expanded north, picking up most of the would-be Big East football schools. The Big 8 was torn apart by the Pac, Big Ten, and SEC. The Southwest Conference lasted a bit longer than in our timeline (OTL), past Ann Richards's tenure as governor. Thus when they were eventually beheaded by the Pac, Houston came along rather than Baylor.

ACC
East: Maryland, Virginia, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
North: Boston College, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Temple
South: Duke, NC State, North Carolina, Wake Forest
West: Cincinnati, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Louisville

Protected crossovers: North Carolina/Virginia, Pittsburgh/West Virginia

Big 16
East: Indiana, Ohio State, Penn State, Syracuse
North: Michigan, Michigan State, Notre Dame, Purdue
South: Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska
West: Iowa, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin

Protected crossovers: Illinois/Northwestern, Indiana/Purdue, Michigan/Ohio State

Pac-16
East: Houston, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech
North: Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State
South: Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah
West: California, Stanford, UCLA, USC

Protected crossovers: none

SEC
East: Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Miami
North: Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
South: Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi State, Ole Miss
West: Arkansas, LSU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

Protected crossovers: Alabama/Tennessee, Auburn/Georgia

Annual interconference matchups
Clemson/South Carolina
Georgia/Georgia Tech
Kentucky/Louisville
Notre Dame/USC
Oklahoma/Texas
Penn State/Pittsburgh

Replace Temple with Syracuse.

(09-08-2017 10:20 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Would Pitt really have had it so bad in the Paterno League? Sure it would have meant agreeing to the revenue plan that was in Penn St's favor but instead they lost their biggest rival to the Big Ten and thus all of the exposure of playing an annual end of season instate rivalry with a true CFB blueblood. It also meant two decades of playing in the least stable and least valuable of the BCS 6 which died a slow and painful death.

Had the Paterno League came to fruition they could have added Miami at some point and maybe Florida St too. When 12 teams and a title game became in vogue Pitt would have been in the conference that did the raiding not left behind in the rump of the raided conference.

Replace ND in the Big Ten with anyone you would like.

(11-19-2017 04:16 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Replace ND in the Big Ten with anyone you would like.

I know this is your shtick, but you're not really contributing to the discussion.

The ACC adds FSU and Miami in the early 90’s...what does the Big East do?

We know Notre Dame would still join for Olympic sports, but who comes aboard as a full member right away? West Virginia, Rutgers? Does UConn start their football move sooner? Could UMass have made a push to Jon 1-A while their b-ball program was on the rise? ECU would probably get a football-only invite, or would wild-CARD Louisville come aboard? Would the Big East even have been considered a power league, or just on-par with C-USA?

All-Sports
BC
Syracuse
Pitt
UConn#

Football-Only
Rutgers
WVU
Temple
Virginia Tech
ECU*

Louisville?

# 1-AA
* football-only

(11-19-2017 04:20 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(11-19-2017 04:16 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Replace ND in the Big Ten with anyone you would like.

I know this is your shtick, but you're not really contributing to the discussion.

This bizarre, way out fantasy thread equals a "discussion"? Ok....

(11-19-2017 08:00 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(11-19-2017 04:20 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(11-19-2017 04:16 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Replace ND in the Big Ten with anyone you would like.

I know this is your shtick, but you're not really contributing to the discussion.

This bizarre, way out fantasy thread equals a "discussion"? Ok....

It's fun to discuss the possibilities. If you don't like it, there's no need for you to participate.

(11-19-2017 04:55 PM)esayem Wrote:  The ACC adds FSU and Miami in the early 90’s...what does the Big East do?

We know Notre Dame would still join for Olympic sports, but who comes aboard as a full member right away? West Virginia, Rutgers? Does UConn start their football move sooner? Could UMass have made a push to Jon 1-A while their b-ball program was on the rise? ECU would probably get a football-only invite, or would wild-CARD Louisville come aboard? Would the Big East even have been considered a power league, or just on-par with C-USA?

All-Sports
BC
Syracuse
Pitt
UConn#

Football-Only
Rutgers
WVU
Temple
Virginia Tech
ECU*

Louisville?

# 1-AA
* football-only

Louisville might have been a suitable replacement. They were coming off a 10-1-1 season in 1990. I don't think they would have been added as a full member right away though. Maybe the Big East doesn't immediately extend full membership to any of the new football schools. I'm not sure how "powerful" the BE would be perceived as with Louisville football instead of Miami. Certainly less so, but they might still have been considered a power conference.

What if the OG BE FB conference wasn't associated with the Big East and formed their own 12 team conference in like 1989-90 with the eastern indies at the time?

North- PSU, Pitt, Temple, Cuse, Rutgers, BC

South- Miami, FSU, USC, ECU, VT, WVU

Thats a strong eastern FB conference.

(11-20-2017 01:05 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  What if the OG BE FB conference wasn't associated with the Big East and formed their own 12 team conference in like 1989-90 with the eastern indies at the time?

North- PSU, Pitt, Temple, Cuse, Rutgers, BC

South- Miami, FSU, USC, ECU, VT, WVU

Thats a strong eastern FB conference.

I like it. I wonder though whether any schools would immediately jump ship if the ACC, Big Ten, or SEC came calling.

(11-20-2017 01:46 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 01:05 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  What if the OG BE FB conference wasn't associated with the Big East and formed their own 12 team conference in like 1989-90 with the eastern indies at the time?

North- PSU, Pitt, Temple, Cuse, Rutgers, BC

South- Miami, FSU, USC, ECU, VT, WVU

Thats a strong eastern FB conference.

I like it. I wonder though whether any schools would immediately jump ship if the ACC, Big Ten, or SEC came calling.

Probably not the ACC since they were a basketball conference with no real FB clout. I think the B1G would have the biggest sway but would they try and poach from another conference back then? That wasn't really the norm.

(11-20-2017 01:53 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 01:46 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 01:05 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  What if the OG BE FB conference wasn't associated with the Big East and formed their own 12 team conference in like 1989-90 with the eastern indies at the time?

North- PSU, Pitt, Temple, Cuse, Rutgers, BC

South- Miami, FSU, USC, ECU, VT, WVU

Thats a strong eastern FB conference.

I like it. I wonder though whether any schools would immediately jump ship if the ACC, Big Ten, or SEC came calling.

Probably not the ACC since they were a basketball conference with no real FB clout. I think the B1G would have the biggest sway but would they try and poach from another conference back then? That wasn't really the norm.

Well, the SEC poached Arkansas from the SWC, although they were already looking for ways out of that conference.

(11-20-2017 02:34 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 01:53 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 01:46 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 01:05 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  What if the OG BE FB conference wasn't associated with the Big East and formed their own 12 team conference in like 1989-90 with the eastern indies at the time?

North- PSU, Pitt, Temple, Cuse, Rutgers, BC

South- Miami, FSU, USC, ECU, VT, WVU

Thats a strong eastern FB conference.

I like it. I wonder though whether any schools would immediately jump ship if the ACC, Big Ten, or SEC came calling.

Probably not the ACC since they were a basketball conference with no real FB clout. I think the B1G would have the biggest sway but would they try and poach from another conference back then? That wasn't really the norm.

Well, the SEC poached Arkansas from the SWC, although they were already looking for ways out of that conference.

Well they didn't poach them as much as Arkansas asked to join.

(11-20-2017 04:34 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 02:34 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 01:53 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 01:46 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 01:05 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  What if the OG BE FB conference wasn't associated with the Big East and formed their own 12 team conference in like 1989-90 with the eastern indies at the time?

North- PSU, Pitt, Temple, Cuse, Rutgers, BC

South- Miami, FSU, USC, ECU, VT, WVU

Thats a strong eastern FB conference.

I like it. I wonder though whether any schools would immediately jump ship if the ACC, Big Ten, or SEC came calling.

Probably not the ACC since they were a basketball conference with no real FB clout. I think the B1G would have the biggest sway but would they try and poach from another conference back then? That wasn't really the norm.

Well, the SEC poached Arkansas from the SWC, although they were already looking for ways out of that conference.

Well they didn't poach them as much as Arkansas asked to join.

Fair enough. You know, a strong eastern football conference like that might end up absorbing the ACC rather than the other way around.

(11-20-2017 04:45 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 04:34 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 02:34 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 01:53 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 01:46 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  I like it. I wonder though whether any schools would immediately jump ship if the ACC, Big Ten, or SEC came calling.

Probably not the ACC since they were a basketball conference with no real FB clout. I think the B1G would have the biggest sway but would they try and poach from another conference back then? That wasn't really the norm.

Well, the SEC poached Arkansas from the SWC, although they were already looking for ways out of that conference.

Well they didn't poach them as much as Arkansas asked to join.

Fair enough. You know, a strong eastern football conference like that might end up absorbing the ACC rather than the other way around.

That's likely what would have occurred in the end had the BE-B12 merger happened. UT-TT-OU-OSU-CU over to the PAC; KU, KSU, ISU, Baylor take the B12 credits in a merger with the BE - WVU, Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville no longer leave for the ACC now that the BE is solidified and have upgraded in bball and football; Maryland and Rutgers still leave for the B1G, which opens up the poaching of the ACC by the BE, SEC and B1G due to an already unhappy FSU, Miami and Clemson.

(11-21-2017 12:26 AM)AntiG Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 04:45 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 04:34 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 02:34 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 01:53 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  Probably not the ACC since they were a basketball conference with no real FB clout. I think the B1G would have the biggest sway but would they try and poach from another conference back then? That wasn't really the norm.

Well, the SEC poached Arkansas from the SWC, although they were already looking for ways out of that conference.

Well they didn't poach them as much as Arkansas asked to join.

Fair enough. You know, a strong eastern football conference like that might end up absorbing the ACC rather than the other way around.

That's likely what would have occurred in the end had the BE-B12 merger happened. UT-TT-OU-OSU-CU over to the PAC; KU, KSU, ISU, Baylor take the B12 credits in a merger with the BE - WVU, Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville no longer leave for the ACC now that the BE is solidified and have upgraded in bball and football; Maryland and Rutgers still leave for the B1G, which opens up the poaching of the ACC by the BE, SEC and B1G due to an already unhappy FSU, Miami and Clemson.

I was referring to a different scenario wherein a new eastern football-sponsoring conference forms in the late '80s, preventing football from being added to the Big East.

The BE-B12 merger occurs in the scenario wherein the Pac-16 gambit in 2010 succeeds. I don't see a combination of the remaining Big 12 schools and BE football schools being very stable. I think Pitt and Syracuse still leave for the relative safety of the ACC, as does Louisville when the Big Ten takes Maryland. The ACC also strikes a deal with ND similar to the one in our timeline.