Well, it's officially the off season. All the lunatics are coming out of the woodwork with outrageous - and completely stupid - expansion scenarios, because they have nothing better to do...

I keep hearing aTm is going to the SEC, and maybe Oklahoma. Complete crap. I know aTm is tired of being in the Longhorn's shadow, but unless the SEC money is better than the current Big12 money. No way aTm or Oklahoma would even consider it. The Big12 is like a bad marriage. It might be bad, but it would cost too much money to permanently seperate, so they choose to stay together.

Remember, College football is only about money, not what's best for the sport.

(01-29-2011 01:00 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Well, it's officially the off season. All the lunatics are coming out of the woodwork with outrageous - and completely stupid - expansion scenarios, because they have nothing better to do...

Nice... what's the point of this board again?

How is this scenario "completely stupid" or "outrageous"?

Well I was thinking the other day that if the SEC really wanted to move to 16 teams with out rocking the boat to much then they should go after ATM, Kansas, KSU and Missouri to round out the conference. This would upgrade the basketball portion while keeping the football very competitive but not to out of control. Lets face it football runs this conference, and the powers to be are not going to let someone come in who could dethrown the locals who have been there since the 30's and before that. The only issue I would see is you would have to relocate two teams to the East Diviosion, and man that would be one power house division in football.

East: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

West: Arkansas, Kansas, Kansas State, LSU, Miss. State, Missouri, Ole Miss, Texas A&M

The only argument most likely would be Kentucky in basketball, and possibly Florida with Alabama moving over into the East Division in football. This is never going to happen, but if I didn't want the boat get rocked to much then this is what I would look at. If some thing happens I am sure the SEC will do some thing, but IMO they will try to tip the scales to where they are king and nothing else.

i agree except for Kansas State. How about Texas A&M, Oklahoma State, Kansas and Missouri instead?

(01-29-2011 10:37 PM)Big Dub Wrote:  

(01-29-2011 01:00 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Well, it's officially the off season. All the lunatics are coming out of the woodwork with outrageous - and completely stupid - expansion scenarios, because they have nothing better to do...

Nice... what's the point of this board again?

How is this scenario "completely stupid" or "outrageous"?

I believe most ignorant comments were relegated to the smack board...

(01-30-2011 10:19 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  i agree except for Kansas State. How about Texas A&M, Oklahoma State, Kansas and Missouri instead?

The politics of big brother little brother is why I went with KSU, and you would have the same thing going on with OU, and OSU as well. I think the foot print of the teams I mentioned work best, but that is my opinion.

My point is you get the State of OK in the footprint, plu OK State is better than KS State in both football and basketball. However, I see your point.

How does dismantlanting B-12 & other conf reacting not rocking the boat

I dont think the Big East will be raiding Big12. The reality is that the Big12 staying together was one big reson that superconference did not happen, why would you roc a boat in which you are most likely to fall off it.

but that would basically be the c-usa in the big east..

(01-27-2011 03:05 PM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  

(01-27-2011 02:21 PM)MagicKnightmare Wrote:  

(01-27-2011 02:00 PM)frogforever Wrote:  

(01-27-2011 01:27 PM)MagicKnightmare Wrote:  New Pac 14
Texas Tech

All credibility lost. Why would the PAC add Tech? As a package deal with UT, sure. By itself? They have no media market. They are in lubbock which is a garbage town surrounded by feed lots, windmills, and desert wasteland.

Credibility? I said all hell would break loose and that it was "CRAZY REALIGNMENT!"

Credible isn't exactly what I was going for.

There will continue to be 6-7 BCS conferences. They won't drop it to 5. I think a 16 team ACC is more likely than Texas A&M going to the SEC. ACC has BC on an island.

ACC: Northern
BC
Cuse
UConn
WVU
Pitt
Maryland
Virginia
Virginia Tech

ACC Southern
UNC
Dook
NC State
WF
Clemson
GT
FSU
Miami

SEC East
Florida
Georgia
Tennessee
South Carolina
Kentucky
Vanderbilt

SEC West
Alabama
Auburn
Miss St
Ole Miss
LSU
Arkansas
Texas A&M

Big Ten
Rutgers
PSU
Michigan
Michigan St
OSU
Indiana
Purdue
Northwestern
Illinois
Iowa
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Nebraska

Big 12,10,9,8...
Texas
Texas Tech
Baylor
Oklahoma
Oklahoma St.
Kansas
Kansas St.
Missouri
Iowa St
BYU

Big East
UC
UL
USF
TCU
UCF?
Memphis?
Houston?
ECU?
AF?
SMU?

(01-28-2011 09:58 PM)Raleighwood Pirate Wrote:  

(01-28-2011 01:05 PM)New York Bull Wrote:  12 is the magic number. I can see UCF in the Texas 12, unless they are looking west.

Of course, also could see them in Big East.

Anyone think ECU would do football only? With Nova moving up, that could get us to 10/18

I would be fine with that. I am pretty sure Terry Holland and Chancellor Ballard would be too. Terry Holland has pitched that to the BE.

me too. but maybe throw us in there for baseball too?

(01-27-2011 03:05 PM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  

(01-27-2011 02:21 PM)MagicKnightmare Wrote:  

(01-27-2011 02:00 PM)frogforever Wrote:  

(01-27-2011 01:27 PM)MagicKnightmare Wrote:  New Pac 14
Texas Tech

All credibility lost. Why would the PAC add Tech? As a package deal with UT, sure. By itself? They have no media market. They are in lubbock which is a garbage town surrounded by feed lots, windmills, and desert wasteland.

Credibility? I said all hell would break loose and that it was "CRAZY REALIGNMENT!"

Credible isn't exactly what I was going for.

There will continue to be 6-7 BCS conferences. They won't drop it to 5. I think a 16 team ACC is more likely than Texas A&M going to the SEC. ACC has BC on an island.

ACC: Northern
BC
Cuse
UConn
WVU
Pitt
Maryland
Virginia
Virginia Tech

ACC Southern
UNC
Dook
NC State
WF
Clemson
GT
FSU
Miami

SEC East
Florida
Georgia
Tennessee
South Carolina
Kentucky
Vanderbilt

SEC West
Alabama
Auburn
Miss St
Ole Miss
LSU
Arkansas
Texas A&M

Big Ten
Rutgers
PSU
Michigan
Michigan St
OSU
Indiana
Purdue
Northwestern
Illinois
Iowa
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Nebraska

Big 12,10,9,8...
Texas
Texas Tech
Baylor
Oklahoma
Oklahoma St.
Kansas
Kansas St.
Missouri
Iowa St
BYU

Big East
UC
UL
USF
TCU
UCF?
Memphis?
Houston?
ECU?
AF?
SMU?

That would be a conference full of former C-USA members
UL,USF,TCU,UCF,Memphis,Houston,ECU,SMU were all C-USA members in the past 6 years..

(01-29-2011 10:37 PM)Big Dub Wrote:  

(01-29-2011 01:00 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Well, it's officially the off season. All the lunatics are coming out of the woodwork with outrageous - and completely stupid - expansion scenarios, because they have nothing better to do...

Nice... what's the point of this board again?

How is this scenario "completely stupid" or "outrageous"?

ok, i will bite on this.
A 16 team hybrid BE is viewed as being too big, not going to work, too focused on BB blah blah blah......

So why would a LARGER HYBRID ACC be better than the current ACC or the current BE? that scenario would have 17 fb members(incl nova) Why?

its almost as outrageous as just combining the BE and ACC, OR the BE and the B10 for that matter, in 2012 and adding one more school to get to 30

The concept that any of the major FBS programs will move beyond a 12 team conference has NEVER been shown to be finanically viable. People talk of the ACC going to 16 teams - but just how would that work financially?? Under the new TV deal just signed last July, each ACC team receives approximately $13M a year. Since no conference would expand just to remain flat financially, I am sure the ACC would be looking for an increase to each school's payout - say an increase to $15M per school per year. That means that if 4 schools were added, the ACC would need an additional $84M a year in revenues from their deal - or a whopping $1.008B over the course of the 12 year contract.

There's a reason why these conferences didn't expand to 16 during the last go-around. Unless Texas or ND were included in the equation (and even then I am not sure the $$'s work for everyone else), it doesn't work. As we have seen with the recent Texas deal and ND's current deal, neither have any economic interest whatsoever to join an expanded conference - now or in the future.

Not withstanding being the school's left out, i think a 20 team ACC could possibly work with 4 big east football and than the 4 big east prime rib catholic hoop school's, st john's, nova, gtown, and ND (huge markets, traditional basketball powers + ND). I like that concept better than the ACC jumping to 16 all sports with 4 big east football school's which was the theme of this thread. In this case, the acc returns to a slimmer league, ie divisions really would be separate conferences...i guess eventually you could just have two separate leagues and two hoop tourneys, 10 team ACC + 10 team new league, 6 football school's + 4 catholic hoop.

As for the sec, if they jumped to 16, i would add two teams the west and two the the east. In the west, i'll assume texas is out, so texas a&M gets the 1st invite. Invite #2 goes to oklahoma. If the sooners won't jump without ok state, i would invite missouri instead. In the sec east, i'd call up UNC and offer them the 1st invite for the east and tell they can pick the other school, which I'd assume UNC would want to pick duke. If the carolina school's didn't budge, than i'd call UVA and offer them a package with v.tech. The ideal package would be UNC + UVA but that's probably not possible. If none of the Carolina or Virginia school's bite, than i'd offer wvu and probably target clemson or georgia tech to also join. Ok, that's some crazy stuff but i'm sure both those leagues are game planning every possible move even though the odds are slim superconferences happen.

bluesox - there is absolutely no support within the ACC to EVER move to a hybrid conference. Not a single member school would support the concept - not a single one. Frankly, the problems with the hybrid structure have been all to evident in the BE.

As the ACC Commish has stated, the conference is pretty content right now as things stand. Nobody is looking to leave and, frankly, nobody is likely to be looking to jump even if overtures come from the SEC and B10. People who say otherwise usually have an outside agenda that includes some sort of ACC expansion.

Again, these expansion theories all fall apart when the economics are applied. If it cannot make the member schools more money, they will not be interested. Also, in the ACC's case, they like a 12 team all-sports conference and want to stay that way. They have made this fact clear over and over and over again. Since the ACC members are the only ones who can make decisions about this, perhaps people should listen to them.

Just sayin...

(01-30-2011 03:06 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  bluesox - there is absolutely no support within the ACC to EVER move to a hybrid conference. Not a single member school would support the concept - not a single one. Frankly, the problems with the hybrid structure have been all to evident in the BE.

As the ACC Commish has stated, the conference is pretty content right now as things stand. Nobody is looking to leave and, frankly, nobody is likely to be looking to jump even if overtures come from the SEC and B10. People who say otherwise usually have an outside agenda that includes some sort of ACC expansion.

Again, these expansion theories all fall apart when the economics are applied. If it cannot make the member schools more money, they will not be interested. Also, in the ACC's case, they like a 12 team all-sports conference and want to stay that way. They have made this fact clear over and over and over again. Since the ACC members are the only ones who can make decisions about this, perhaps people should listen to them.

Just sayin...

I've heard reports that several conferences have looked at the hybrid model. Yes, we have issues. However, we dominate basketball. The truth of the matter is that there are nearly three times as many D1 basketball schools as BCS football schools. Further, as long as you have more football schools than basketball only schools, the football schools will rule the conference.

The Big East routinely rakes in more money that the other conferences in Basketball because we have such great depth. The Big 10, with the BTN could easily use the inventory for live games, which brings in greater advertising dollars.

The advertising dollar will be more important in the future when more and more television is seen over the internet and the cable and satellite companies begin to see the subscriptions shrink (they won't go away for a very long time, but they will shrink).

I know its a contradiction but if the acc got larger it would actually get smaller since it would create divisions...the 20 team, 16 football + 4 non football, concept is basically creating the old acc conference with an old school big east conference that share a football league. The hybrid model works a lot better when you take the crown jewels, nova, gtown, st john's, and ND and ditch the other catholic hoops...those 4 carry some $ and work as an nice eastern conference with 6 football school's. On their own, those two hypothetical leagues, 10 team acc + 10 team new big east with a shared football league would have some nice paydays. Granted, the problem of losing a bcs bid is a big ? The only way this would probably happen is if the landscape produces 4 "super conferences", pac 10, big 10, sec, and acc. In this case the acc probably would lose some members so you bring in lville, cincy, usf..., not sure tcu makes it but i don't see why you leave gtown, nova, st johns, and nd on the outside of these super conferences when the acc could bring them in with this format.

(01-30-2011 11:37 AM)gosports1 Wrote:  ok, i will bite on this.
A 16 team hybrid BE is viewed as being too big, not going to work, too focused on BB blah blah blah......

So why would a LARGER HYBRID ACC be better than the current ACC or the current BE? that scenario would have 17 fb members(incl nova) Why?

its almost as outrageous as just combining the BE and ACC, OR the BE and the B10 for that matter, in 2012 and adding one more school to get to 30

The addition of WVU, Pitt, Syracuse and UConn to the ACC would not be a hybrid and it would have 16 members...