(10-17-2011 09:42 PM)RUfan03 Wrote:  I think BYU is #1 on the Big 12's radar screen. I think Louisville, W. Va is a diversion. They could also go after Boise St before seriously looking at Big East schools.

Boise will not get an invite to the Big whatever - academics my friend. Same excuse the ACC uses on WVU, when it is really all about the eyeballs on TV sets.

If Missouri going to the SEC was a wrench in the Big East plans, then the Big East plans were written in crayon. EVERY scenario over the past month should have assumed that Missouri was going to the SEC. All this posturing by the SEC and Mizzou examining their options was exactly what occurred when Texas A&M received its SEC invite. It was always, as Pete Thamel stated, inevitable.

(10-18-2011 09:11 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  If Missouri going to the SEC was a wrench in the Big East plans, then the Big East plans were written in crayon. EVERY scenario over the past month should have assumed that Missouri was going to the SEC. All this posturing by the SEC and Mizzou examining their options was exactly what occurred when Texas A&M received its SEC invite. It was always, as Pete Thamel stated, inevitable.

The Big East's "plan" was a Hail Mary from the start. Yes, it could be a pretty good FB conference yet, and I'd be reasonably happy with it, should UL/WVU remain, but it's pretty much everyone left's 2nd or worse choice.

(10-18-2011 09:11 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  If Missouri going to the SEC was a wrench in the Big East plans, then the Big East plans were written in crayon. EVERY scenario over the past month should have assumed that Missouri was going to the SEC. All this posturing by the SEC and Mizzou examining their options was exactly what occurred when Texas A&M received its SEC invite. It was always, as Pete Thamel stated, inevitable.

While your general assessment is somewhat true, there were big differences between Missouri's invite and Texas A&M's. A&M was never voted on and accepted by some, and rejected by others. The premise of expasnion was rejected once because of the situation. Missouri's situation was totally different. There were schools actually trying to block them. Big difference. Now, I agree that any plans should have had a contingency for Missouri leaving, but the two secnarioes were not the same.

If UL left the Big East will add another school from Temple, Memphis and ECU and go forward. I dont see Big12 going to 12 at this time so its either BYU or UL as the 10th member

The Big 12 is going to throw the monkey wrench into this for everyone by adding 7 teams (UofL, WVU, UC, USF, BYU, Memphis & AF).

(10-17-2011 08:18 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  i still think the BE should tell the FB 6 commit to the BE or get out NOW! Since the current B12 schools claim they're committed to each other for at least six years the BE should follow suit. This IMO would stop the B10 and ACC from expanding as well (since they are unlikely to want someone not in the "big 6". The SEC could stop at 14 with Missouri and the B12 if inclined could pursue BYU for the 10th team
Then when the P12 finally accepts some combo of the Texahoma schools, the shift can begin again (louisville would have a more accurate view of what they might be in for in the B12)

Oh please let that happen! Should have happened years ago with Notre Lame, but hey, if the FB schools can break apart clean with no exit fee by getting the boot, then that would be super.

(10-18-2011 09:59 AM)army56mike Wrote:  The Big 12 is going to throw the monkey wrench into this for everyone by adding 7 teams (UofL, WVU, UC, USF, BYU, Memphis & AF).

The Big 12 would be wise to go to 16 first. I said this some time ago on the realignment board. Ensure long term stability and puts pressure on others to do the same. If there is a stable Big 12, then the only place the SEC and the Big 10ish could look would be east at the ACC. Who says the Big 12 can't be one of the four superconferences who survive? Maybe the ACC dies?

(10-18-2011 10:02 AM)vinman3 Wrote:  The Big 12 would be wise to go to 16 first. I said this some time ago on the realignment board. Ensure long term stability and puts pressure on others to do the same.

That would be a very stupid idea for the Big XII. If the other conferences go to 16 teams, who the hell do you think they are going to pick from? Binding conference rights does no good if the conference is dead.

(10-18-2011 10:59 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-18-2011 10:02 AM)vinman3 Wrote:  The Big 12 would be wise to go to 16 first. I said this some time ago on the realignment board. Ensure long term stability and puts pressure on others to do the same.

That would be a very stupid idea for the Big XII. If the other conferences go to 16 teams, who the hell do you think they are going to pick from? Binding conference rights does no good if the conference is dead.

Thought I answered that in my post. If there is a stable Big 12, SEC and Big 10ish would have to look east, and that means picking from the ACC. If I am the commish of the Big 12, I have to look at the long term sustainability of my conference, not just assume it is temporary until everything shakes down. That would be a mistake...Look no further than the Big East for shortsightedness in the conference game.

(10-18-2011 11:23 AM)vinman3 Wrote:  Thought I answered that in my post. If there is a stable Big 12, SEC and Big 10ish would have to look east, and that means picking from the ACC. If I am the commish of the Big 12, I have to look at the long term sustainability of my conference, not just assume it is temporary until everything shakes down. That would be a mistake...Look no further than the Big East for shortsightedness in the conference game.

A "Stable" big 12 is a relative term. It can be stable, unless outside forces cause it to be unstable. If there is a move towards 16, the Big XII will not be the stable one between them and the ACC. What you neglected to mention is how the ACC becomes unstable. And a movement to 16 teams, would be that force. Simply put, in order for teams to go to 16, the Big XII cannot survive, because the PAC 12 has to pick teams from somewhere. They are not going to add ACC schools. Once that happens, the Big Ten and SEC fight over who is left in the Big XII to fill out. There may be one or two ACC teams that become affected, but if there is a mass exodus, which conference do you think it will be: the one that nearly breaks up every year, and has lost four team to three different conferences, or the one that stared the Big Ten and SEC in the eye, and did not lose a member?

(10-18-2011 11:37 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-18-2011 11:23 AM)vinman3 Wrote:  Thought I answered that in my post. If there is a stable Big 12, SEC and Big 10ish would have to look east, and that means picking from the ACC. If I am the commish of the Big 12, I have to look at the long term sustainability of my conference, not just assume it is temporary until everything shakes down. That would be a mistake...Look no further than the Big East for shortsightedness in the conference game.

A "Stable" big 12 is a relative term. It can be stable, unless outside forces cause it to be unstable. If there is a move towards 16, the Big XII will not be the stable one between them and the ACC. What you neglected to mention is how the ACC becomes unstable. And a movement to 16 teams, would be that force. Simply put, in order for teams to go to 16, the Big XII cannot survive, because the PAC 12 has to pick teams from somewhere. They are not going to add ACC schools. Once that happens, the Big Ten and SEC fight over who is left in the Big XII to fill out. There may be one or two ACC teams that become affected, but if there is a mass exodus, which conference do you think it will be: the one that nearly breaks up every year, and has lost four team to three different conferences, or the one that stared the Big Ten and SEC in the eye, and did not lose a member?

Fair enough. Pac 12 does have to look somewhere, but the wrench in that part of the plan is the LHN. If the Big 12 keeps Texas happy with the LHN and Tier 3 TV rights, the Big 12 stays stable at 16, or 10 for that matter. But the 16 makes it a player in the superconference sweepstakes. I'm just saying that if I am the commish of the Big 12, I do my best to be aggressive and keep my league sustainable. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't, but at least I am proactive instead of reactive like Marinatto and Tranghese.

If the Big 12 destroys the Big East, they and Chuck Neinas should be smacked with the biggest collusion lawsuit of all-time, ranking right next to possible action against ESPN and the ACC.

Neinas was advising CUSA and the MWC on ways their cute little alliance could get a BCS bid before the Big 12 brought him out of mothballs last month. Now he can make that dream real.

If one of his first acts upon regaining power is to destroy a BCS AQ league, conveniently giving the hodgepodge group he was advising a chance to grab the AQ instead, that is suspicious.

That would not be collusion though. The biggest difference is that with espn and the acc, you are talking about parties who had good faith contracts with the conference they meddled in. Since he never worked for the BE nor was in a working relationship with them, it is totally different.

This is potentially great news for Louisville, WVU, and maybe Cincinnatti. For the rest of us? Yikes.