(05-09-2014 06:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-08-2014 01:29 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  For the ACC it was either Louisville or UConn; and anyone with sense knew that it was going to be Louisville, because UConn has a few enemies in the ACC. It sucks for UConn, but it is great for the AAC. Either way the AAC would have had Louisville or UConn come next season.

Yes, UConn burned ACC bridges with their lawsuit and public whining about Miami leaving for the ACC ten years before. Memories in academia are long as is the half-life of bitterness engendered by perceived insults (I have a colleague who, when he was a doctoral student, made a very mild crack about a professor at a conference roundtable session when that professor was in attendance. It a elicited a slight titter of laughter from the 3-4 others who heard it and they doubtless forgot about it within the next 5 minutes. That was about 23 years ago, and the professor still won't answer his e-mails).

Louisville's President James Ramsey was a Provost and Bursar at UNC, so he had ACC support and good contacts.

Because you know, Larry Scott and the other conference commissioners are known for laying all their cards on the table and telegraphing their moves.

Besides which, a commissioner can ***say*** what they want, it's the University presidents who eventually make the call. And in the minds of Stanford and UC Berkley, who view themselves as academically elite, Boise State is a jumped up JUCO and San Diego State is a "local"/city college.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But, obviously, I don't think I am.
[/quote]

You are 100% right. Boise St and San Diego St will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER get invited to the PAC. Link all you want with the Larry Scott /Boise mention reference. I don't care. If Boise and SDSU were invited to the PAC then that means that Stanford, Cal, UCLA and USC are no longer members of the league. They would never allow it in a million years. These schools are not academic peers

(05-09-2014 12:58 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 06:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-08-2014 01:29 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  For the ACC it was either Louisville or UConn; and anyone with sense knew that it was going to be Louisville, because UConn has a few enemies in the ACC. It sucks for UConn, but it is great for the AAC. Either way the AAC would have had Louisville or UConn come next season.

Yes, UConn burned ACC bridges with their lawsuit and public whining about Miami leaving for the ACC ten years before. Memories in academia are long as is the half-life of bitterness engendered by perceived insults (I have a colleague who, when he was a doctoral student, made a very mild crack about a professor at a conference roundtable session when that professor was in attendance. It a elicited a slight titter of laughter from the 3-4 others who heard it and they doubtless forgot about it within the next 5 minutes. That was about 23 years ago, and the professor still won't answer his e-mails).

Louisville's President James Ramsey was a Provost and Bursar at UNC, so he had ACC support and good contacts.

I think Louisville got the nod over UConn because (a) UConn burned those bridges, and (b) at that moment of decision, for the first time ever in ACC history, it wasn't the core North Carolina schools whose opinion mattered the most, it was the opinion of the two football powers who were threatening to leave, FSU and Clemson, that mattered most. They had to be mollified, and they wanted football help, and Louisville seemed to have stronger football.

The 4 conference, 16 team has, in my opinion, always been the end game. 64 has always been the magic number. Why? Because it has always been the football majority. Of course Notre Dame always gets included, but my guess is this will be the end game that finally gets them in to a conference all the way.

There aren't going to be any teams added. They are not going to take a 64 piece pie and divide it in to 80 pieces. No reason to do that. They will have 4 conferences, 2 divisions each, and those 8 winners will be your playoff teams.

There could be some substitution if there are schools that don't want to play college professional football. Maybe somebody like Vandy will think spending $150MM a year doesn't fit their mission. If that happens then somebody like UCF has a chance to step up.

Why is everyone, including the Chicago rag's author of the article, stuck on the idea each P5 will want the same amount of teams in each conference?

If TV is driving the bus, (with the 65 passengers on board - 5, of which, are employed by the transportation cartel), then it's more of a chance each P5 conference will not have equal membership.

Although, I do see Big12 being forced to at least go to 12 and have a CCG...."force" not by P5 legislative governance, but "force" by economic governance.

So it looks to me that at least 2 G5'rs will make the big stage.....but really it will be more.....as I see B1G going to 16, which will cause a mini-domino effect throughout the rest of the P5.....so.....I see at least 4 G5'rs making bank in a P5 conference around the upcoming years the B1G will be negotiating their tv contract (2016).

And do I see Big12 or ACC dropping out of the Power ranks?.......nah!.....so there will still be a P5, not P4, at least for the next 10 to 15 years.

....and what I'm hoping for is, in the aftermath of B1G's tv contract, the remaining of this first 10 years of the new college sports era morphing from "P5+BigEast/G5/rest-of-div1" to "P5/SP2+BigEast,wcc,a10/rest-of-div1+maybe a G3,2,or 1".

SP = Semi-Power....and I see that as the American and the MW with somewhat different memberships than currently due to what I said earlier about "at least 4 more G5's to P5"....some CUSA teams will probably be a part of the SP2 as members of AAC and MW.

Exciting times, my friends.

This may be true, but everyone was saying the exact same thing about Louisville to the ACC a few years ago....

(05-07-2014 01:47 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(05-07-2014 01:34 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(05-07-2014 01:31 PM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  The PAC have already indicated that if need be they'd look at SDSU and Boise: http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-s...ncaaf.html

Boise State will not be in the same conference as Stanford.

^^^
YUP!

And UC-Berkley and UCLA will likewise block San Diego State on academic grounds.

For the umpteenth time... DIFFERENT CONFERENCES HAVE DIFFERENT QUALITIES THEY ARE LOOKING FOR!

The PAC will NEVER:
-allow a sectarian institution (ie. Baylor, BYU, or SMU) into their conference.
-take an institution of dubious or low academic value (BSU, SDSU) into their conference.

IF the PAC were going to expand, I'd imagine that they'd be looking first at the large, State Flagship schools (ie. Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Nevada, even Colorado State). Then, in the second level (ie. they'd take them if they "had" to or if they needed the membership) they're probably looking/thinking about Texas Tech, New Mexico, UNLV (that would be a hard swallow...).

The academic issue has more flex in it than the sectarian issue. IF an institution like UNLV could demonstrate that they are improving and present a plan for academic investment, THEN...the Pac probably would be ready to look at it.

And before someone says "Nevada! They don't draw more than 30k to their games!" REMEMBER! Different conferences have DIFFERENT qualities they are looking for. The PAC has been able to live with Washington State, who played most of their history in a 35k stadium. The "numbers" in attendance are nowhere NEAR as important for the PAC. In fact, I'd say that the North-South balance is more important than the actual attendance issue for the Pac. So, if it came down to it, and the PAC needed a last member, yes...I'd believe that the PAC would add Nevada...IF it met their needs.

The four sixteen team scenario I don't get it why bother?
Expanding the playoffs solves the problem better .
What happens when USC and Oregon are one and two four conferences don't help.

I could see the AAC adding four MWC schools to eliminate competition for the Access Bowl.
New Mexico good basketball and facilities.
Colorado State building new 250 million dollar stadium.
Fresno State good football history and California.
SDSU mostly on potential .

Boise State probably burned bridges.

The Texas schools plus Tulsa and Tulane would make a nice Western division .UNLV would also be a candidate weakening your competition and adding exposure.

(05-11-2014 06:37 PM)MJG Wrote:  The four sixteen team scenario I don't get it why bother?
Expanding the playoffs solves the problem better .
What happens when USC and Oregon are one and two four conferences don't help.

I could see the AAC adding four MWC schools to eliminate competition for the Access Bowl.
New Mexico good basketball and facilities.
Colorado State building new 250 million dollar stadium.
Fresno State good football history and California.
SDSU mostly on potential .

Boise State probably burned bridges.

The Texas schools plus Tulsa and Tulane would make a nice Western division .UNLV would also be a candidate weakening your competition and adding exposure.

I like the idea, but currently, it does not "pay" to join the AAC. If the lookin period would lead to about an 8 million per team payout, than we are in business.

(05-08-2014 01:25 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  [quote='FrancisDrake' pid='10734448' dateline='1399571697']
How about BYU. Makes sense since Utah is already in. Then there is Nevada and New Mexico.

BYU is the one you can say will never happen. It's not just religious affiliation, but the particular religion, the church of LDS, which has been a thorn in the side of several PAC 12 schools, in terms of their research. With BYU being not just a member, but more or less owned by them, that is big fat no, and far from being "just" being a religious affiliated school. While other religious schools likeBbaylor have only a slim chance of ever getting in, BYU's issues are near impossible to overcome.

(05-11-2014 06:37 PM)MJG Wrote:  The four sixteen team scenario I don't get it why bother?
Expanding the playoffs solves the problem better .
What happens when USC and Oregon are one and two four conferences don't help.

I could see the AAC adding four MWC schools to eliminate competition for the Access Bowl.
New Mexico good basketball and facilities.
Colorado State building new 250 million dollar stadium.
Fresno State good football history and California.
SDSU mostly on potential .

Boise State probably burned bridges.

The Texas schools plus Tulsa and Tulane would make a nice Western division .UNLV would also be a candidate weakening your competition and adding exposure.

I lightly agree with this ^^^ post

I don't think the AAC will need these schools you mention above to eliminate said competition.

Remember BYU could still join, their affiliation believes however will be a concern and also difficult to schedule around, IMO.

If BYU joins, Air Force and perhaps one other from the MWC would be sufficient enough to rule the G4 with muscle.

That been said, North East presence remains the area AAC wants so I wouldn't count UMass out just yet.

If four schools are added these will be it, IMO.

BYU
Air Force/New Mexico
UMass
UNLV

I would take BYU, Fresno, AF, New Mex, Boise, UNLV, SDSU and Col St in a heartbeat.

(05-12-2014 07:26 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  I would take BYU, Fresno, AF, New Mex, Boise, UNLV, SDSU and Col St in a heartbeat.

Which would make it an American Athletic Conference

Rice and Tulane would be in before a lot of these schools, particularly in the west. Quality of institution, especially AAU, budget and being national institutions count. A lot of the schools on the list are sunbelt profile institutions (with better current teams and attendance) and will have a hard time getting in.