What do y'all think of this possibility:

Trade Vandy for Wake Forest. (I know, "He's a maaaadddd man!")

1) It's private for private so the SEC doesn't have to waste an expansion slot on finding a replacement private and can instead focus on the winning formula of adding public Flagships and/or Land Grants in virgin states.

2) Both conferences gain a new state to the footprint (#10 and #17 in population)

3) Wake is a great basketball school which the SEC needs more of and has shown it can be competitive in FB and win the ACC every now and then. The SEC brand will only help the Deacs brand expand in the crowded NC market.

4) Since this would be an amicable trade (and one of the only realignment proposals I've heard that would actually be possible in the real world), Wake could and would continue to schedule its traditional Tobacco road rivals.

(09-12-2014 10:29 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  What do y'all think of this possibility:

Trade Vandy for Wake Forest. (I know, "He's a maaaadddd man!")

1) It's private for private so the SEC doesn't have to waste an expansion slot on finding a replacement private and can instead focus on the winning formula of adding public Flagships and/or Land Grants in virgin states.

2) Both conferences gain a new state to the footprint (#10 and #17 in population)

3) Wake is a great basketball school which the SEC needs more of and has shown it can be competitive in FB and win the ACC every now and then. The SEC brand will only help the Deacs brand expand in the crowded NC market.

4) Since this would be an amicable trade (and one of the only realignment proposals I've heard that would actually be possible in the real world), Wake could and would continue to schedule its traditional Tobacco road rivals.

What you trade there is a top city market for Wake which is no longer located in Raleigh/Durham, almost 50,000 in attendance for 26,000 in attendance, and Wake is still part of the Duke, U.N.C. leadership core. N.C. State is not. The idea looks to be attractive on the surface but Vanderbilt is the better rated academic institution as well. Besides, we are the SEC and Vandy wants more money too.

But prima facia it would seem to be better than the current arrangement. Truly the devil is in the details.

(09-12-2014 12:49 AM)Phlipper33 Wrote:  What I meant by the "Has Baylor really done that much in the last 4 years" question was that they were so bad in football (what really matters) prior to this run was, is this current run really enough to overlook the fact that they had only something like 11 conference wins in like the first 12 years of the league? I will admit they have been fabulous lately, but will they keep it up?

What makes you think they won't keep it up? The coaching staff has gotten massive raises and they just built a $260 stadium, to go along with a new Athletic Nutrition center that is currently under construction. Baylor was one of the Top 4 teams over the last 20 years of the SWC. It took us sucking the first 12 years in the Big 12 for Tech to even TIE the series with Baylor. How about you not let the first 12 years of the Big 12 overlook the past that Baylor was a respectable SWC program before the Big 12.

(09-12-2014 12:49 AM)Phlipper33 Wrote:  Sure they've been around a long time. They are still a tiny school. A tiny school that was horrendous at football for a long time. SMU received the death penalty and was horrible for 20 years (and appears to be again) but they still have more fans in DFW because they are located here. I would have ranked TCU below both of the them, but over the last 15 years they built a winning tradition and earned that Big 12 invite. Baylor got into the Big 12 because the governor of Texas at the time was a Baylor grad.

Again with this revisionist history Gov. Richards BS. The Governor had NOTHING to do with Baylor getting in the Big 12. She might have graduated from Baylor but she was full Longhorn during her time in office. If anyone had a hand in it, it was Lt. Governor Bob Bullock who held degrees from both Baylor and Tech. Tech wasn't getting in either without political influence. In the final year of the SWC the top 4 teams were Texas, A&M, Baylor & Tech. The Top 4 in attendance over the last 10 years of the SWC were the 4 that got picked to join the Big 12. Baylor has an enrollment over 15,000 which is 3,000 more than SMU and 6,000 more than TCU. It is also 3,000 more than Vanderbilt. This tiny school of Baylor just happens to be the largest Baptist University in the world. I would be willing to bet the largest religion in the SEC is Baptist.

(09-12-2014 12:49 AM)Phlipper33 Wrote:  Baylor is a fine school, they have good academics, and their non-football sports have been pretty good. Unfortunately, Texas likes football (I'm also a Rangers season ticket holder, and hated when Josh Hamilton said we weren't a baseball town, but it's true - we care about football).

Baylor's non-football is far beyond pretty good. As for Texas Football, Baylor currently has the god of High School football coaches leading their football team. Baylor and A&M are neck and neck to see who rules the state in Football. By the way, your Texas Rangers are owned by a Baylor Alum.

(09-12-2014 12:49 AM)Phlipper33 Wrote:  Texas Tech had their first losing season in the Big 12 in 2011. They were the only Big 12 team to not have a losing record in any season for I believe 6 seasons prior to that. I'm too lazy to look that up right now, but they've been above average the entire time the Big 12 has existed. They are far from being a laughing stock in the league, and as a large public school, they have a pretty good following.

They have had a good football record for sure, but if you stack them up academically and athletically across the board with Baylor they don't come close to comparing to Baylor.

(09-12-2014 12:49 AM)Phlipper33 Wrote:  Baylor has been good in basketball, both mens and womens, and yes that does improve their stock. But their mens basketball team is nowhere near the level of Texas or Kansas, and without looking at their records, I'd guess that Oklahoma State has had a better record in the Big 12 than Baylor in mens basketball. Women basketball? Sure, they dominate. How far down the line does womens basketball count when it comes to realignment? How about all those other conference championships they have? Nobody cares how good they are in golf or tennis or whatever.

You should have looked at their records instead of guessing. Baylor is 17-4 in postseason play over the last six seasons, which is the nation's second-best postseason winning percentage in that span, trailing only Connecticut's 17-3 record. Only Kentucky (20) and North Carolina (18) have more postseason wins in the last six years than Baylor. The Bears' 17-4 record included 8-3 in the NCAA Tournament and 9-1 in the NIT. Baylor is one of only 12 teams nationally to advance to three Sweet 16s in the last five seasons, joining Arizona, Duke, Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisville, Marquette, Michigan State, Ohio State, Syracuse and Wisconsin. They have played in the Big 12 Championship Title game 3 times in the last 6 seasons. As for Women's Basketball, ask Kentucky, Tennessee, LSU and even your Aggies about women's basketball. It might not decide whether or not Baylor comes, but it certainly puts a big check mark in the pro column while it would be a con for Tech and some of the other Big 12 schools.

(09-12-2014 12:49 AM)Phlipper33 Wrote:  I'm sure Baylor is beginning to get some fans in the area that are in high school or recently graduated because of their recent success. But the 25-50 year old male remembers a lot of Baylor losses. Of course, those same people remember a lot of SMU losses as well. Do I really think SMU has a chance of making it into the SEC? Not anytime soon. But hey, if I were to pick a school to specifically replace Vandy, I'd have to give SMU a long look simply because of those two schools history (Vandy was originally a Southern Methodist university, but they decided they didn't want to be religiously affiliated anymore and split from the church, which then founded SMU)

Those 35-50 year old males that followed the SWC would remember Baylor being a solid team. That statement alone makes me think you weren't around for the SWC.

(09-12-2014 12:49 AM)Phlipper33 Wrote:  Realistically, I don't see Vandy leaving, and the only schools west of the Mississippi that I'd consider for SEC expansion is OU and UT. Yes, being and Aggie, I'd pick OU first, but the SEC would almost certainly expand by 2 so UT would get the second pick. That being said, I'd only expand in the west if there was no way I could get into N Carolina and Virginia. If ECU can get their academics up, I'd love to have them and Va Tech join the league. I think ECU is more SEC like than either UNC or NC State, and would love to have another football crazy school like that. Likewise, I'd much rather have Va Tech over UVA, even if UVA is more academically prestigious. I'd have no problem waiting until the ACC GOR are up and see how far ECU has come in academics before making a decision though.

I know football doesn't count for everything in realignment, but its the primary factor for most conferences simply because of the money involved. And hey, if Baylor can consistently win 8 games a year between now and the end of the GOR, they'd get a look too. I just don't think the past 4 years is enough to erase the previous 20 years of being arguably the worst football team in any BCS conference.

Kansas says hello

(09-11-2014 08:15 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 08:08 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 07:42 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 07:25 AM)XLance Wrote:  You guys are starting to get delusional re: NC State.
If you understood the politics of the state, you wouldn't even waste your time on speculation of the possibility.

And Vanderbilt to the ACC? We already have a Dook, why would we want another?

The explain it to us. Would the Univ. System of NC really force NCSU to reject an SEC invite if one was forwarded?

Yep!

On the basis of what, that the Wolfpack might outshine the Tarheels in that state or would this simply be an act of spite?

First here, it would take a whole lot more than the "Mouse" to ever walk away from the blessings they have in the SEC. Secondly, NC State would pretty surely become the dominant recruiting school in NC.

(09-10-2014 08:33 PM)john01992 Wrote:  1. This theory died with the launch of the SEC network. it was however very realistic up until last month.

2. the SEC is one of just 2 P5 conferences that is plagued with the "Colorado dilemma." The fact of the matter is that no matter how you spin it, the SEC has a school that if given the opportunity, would leave for another conference in a heartbeat. I believe the Colorado Dilemma plagued the Big 12 from day 1 and no conference can really build themselves into a strong stable conference with that elephant in the room. That school is missouri and the only other schools who are in a similar situation are OU & WVU.

I think the 2 are actually the ACC and B12. For the reasons below.

FSU would leave for the SEC in a heartbeat. Maybe Clemson as well. There was a lot of smoke there a couple years ago. Some of those northern ACC schools might be tempted by the B1G, if an offer materialized. Even the B1G was getting feelers from FSU and OSU insiders say OSU was backing them. The ACC is likely to have financial pressure be the driver if it loses more schools.

I think MU will not even consider leaving the SEC for at least a couple decades, and then only if they really fall off drastically in FB and BB. MU really wanted the B1G once, but felt scorned and the SEC is their new darling. Plus, too many big donors were behind the SEC move and would close their wallets if they left it. Nobody else is leaving the SEC. The money gap is not there and the SEC is stable, and you don't leave your rivalries and history behind unless you are getting one or both.

For the B12, if state politics did not hold it together (KS, OK, TX), I think most B12 schools would leave for the B1G, SEC, or PAC if offered just for stability's sake. Most have no sure home, if UT decides to leave (even the TX schools have to have some concern if UT uses the A&M leaving alone card and has a UT grad for governor). Stability is the main driver for future B12 movement and was the biggest driver of the MU, NU, and CU defections (though money projections also played into it at the time as well) IMO.

The PAC is protected by geography or else they would have worries themselves. They are really on par with the B12 and ACC in interest and payout, but their timezone and isolation protect them.

The B1G is fine for now. They pay the most and have the longest history.

(09-12-2014 10:55 PM)BaylorFerg Wrote:  

(09-12-2014 12:49 AM)Phlipper33 Wrote:  I know football doesn't count for everything in realignment, but its the primary factor for most conferences simply because of the money involved. And hey, if Baylor can consistently win 8 games a year between now and the end of the GOR, they'd get a look too. I just don't think the past 4 years is enough to erase the previous 20 years of being arguably the worst football team in any BCS conference.

Kansas says hello

Kicking a dog when it's down

Just for fun. I don't think the SEC has any worries at the present time, but in a couple decades who knows? Things can change drastically. If the SEC ever had instability these are the top 2 schools I think the ACC, B1G, and B12 would be most likely to chase.

B12: Arkansas, LSU
B1G: A&M, UF
ACC: Vanderbilt, Auburn

The ACC was hard. After Vandy, I think Kentucky would have been the one selected, but since the ACC now has UL there is no need for a 2nd KY school, if they are serious about a future network. Florida would be a great fit, but they got 2 schools in Florida already. I think Auburn would be next. Very good football program which the ACC could use and I think Auburn fits well with schools like Clemson, GT, VT, NCSU, and FSU. Brings in another new state to the ACC footprint.

B12 gets Arkansas back for their former SWC members. LSU fits perfectly with the TX, OK, KS, and WV schools and those states' growing energy wealth (oil, gas, coal). Lot of business could get done before and after B12 contests. Replaces NU perfectly as the 3rd power in the B12.

The B1G would love to get into FL and/or TX recruiting in a big way. They need the FB recruits. If UF was ever on the market the B1G would come for them guns blazing. More realistic is MU and Vandy. But if the B1G had a choice I think the AAU schools in TX and FL would be on the menu.

(09-15-2014 01:56 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  Just for fun. I don't think the SEC has any worries at the present time, but in a couple decades who knows? Things can change drastically. If the SEC ever had instability these are the top 2 schools I think the ACC, B1G, and B12 would be most likely to chase.

B12: Arkansas, LSU
B1G: A&M, UF
ACC: Vanderbilt, Auburn

The ACC was hard. After Vandy, I think Kentucky would have been the one selected, but since the ACC now has UL there is no need for a 2nd KY school, if they are serious about a future network. Florida would be a great fit, but they got 2 schools in Florida already. I think Auburn would be next. Very good football program which the ACC could use and I think Auburn fits well with schools like Clemson, GT, VT, NCSU, and FSU. Brings in another new state to the ACC footprint.

B12 gets Arkansas back for their former SWC members. LSU fits perfectly with the TX, OK, KS, and WV schools and those states' growing energy wealth (oil, gas, coal). Lot of business could get done before and after B12 contests. Replaces NU perfectly as the 3rd power in the B12.

The B1G would love to get into FL and/or TX recruiting in a big way. They need the FB recruits. If UF was ever on the market the B1G would come for them guns blazing. More realistic is MU and Vandy. But if the B1G had a choice I think the AAU schools in TX and FL would be on the menu.

The interesting thing is that in two decades it is far more likely (given the direction of demographics) that it is the Big 10 that could face the pressure. Ohio State is contiguous to the SEC. It is not out of the realm of possibility that by that time many schools in the Big 10 may be gearing down on football due to declining success and even declining interest from a fan base with other interests (a problem that may face schools everywhere given this next generations trends). The football traditions at Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Penn State and Nebraska are extremely strong.

What I could see is that the Southeast and Southwest become the last bastion of football popularity left in the country. Schools like North Carolina, Virginia, Duke, Syracuse, B.C., Georgia Tech and Pitt have started pulling back on the sport. Miami as a private has as well. Florida State, Clemson and Virginia Tech along with Notre Dame need football first homes as well. So what we wind up with is a drastically reduced cadre of football schools.

Alabama, Auburn, Arkansas, Baylor, Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Iowa, Iowa State (their fans love football even if they lose), Kansas, Kansas State, Kentucky, Louisiana State, Louisville, Michigan, Michigan State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Nebraska, (perhaps N.C. State), Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Ohio State, Penn State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Virginia Tech, and West Virginia comprise the only football playing schools in the Midwest, Southeast, and Southwest. Note: Kentucky stays in because Louisville does. I don't see Vanderbilt sticking it out, but Baylor would because of their culture.

Out west it could be a bit more fickle. Arizona, Arizona State, B.Y.U., U.S.C., U.C.L.A., Oregon, Washington, and possibly Cal and Stanford stick it out. I don't know about Utah but it is likely they do as well. I think Colorado gives it the adios.

In 20 years Jayhawk this might be the last bastion of college football in the U.S. That's 40 - 42 schools. It is enough to keep it alive and perhaps popular as a national sport. But the flavor of it will linger the longest in the Southeast and Southwest with bastions in the Midwest and far West.

I think if it comes to that there will be one national conference of football playing schools.

(09-15-2014 06:25 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-15-2014 01:56 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  Just for fun. I don't think the SEC has any worries at the present time, but in a couple decades who knows? Things can change drastically. If the SEC ever had instability these are the top 2 schools I think the ACC, B1G, and B12 would be most likely to chase.

B12: Arkansas, LSU
B1G: A&M, UF
ACC: Vanderbilt, Auburn

The ACC was hard. After Vandy, I think Kentucky would have been the one selected, but since the ACC now has UL there is no need for a 2nd KY school, if they are serious about a future network. Florida would be a great fit, but they got 2 schools in Florida already. I think Auburn would be next. Very good football program which the ACC could use and I think Auburn fits well with schools like Clemson, GT, VT, NCSU, and FSU. Brings in another new state to the ACC footprint.

B12 gets Arkansas back for their former SWC members. LSU fits perfectly with the TX, OK, KS, and WV schools and those states' growing energy wealth (oil, gas, coal). Lot of business could get done before and after B12 contests. Replaces NU perfectly as the 3rd power in the B12.

The B1G would love to get into FL and/or TX recruiting in a big way. They need the FB recruits. If UF was ever on the market the B1G would come for them guns blazing. More realistic is MU and Vandy. But if the B1G had a choice I think the AAU schools in TX and FL would be on the menu.

The interesting thing is that in two decades it is far more likely (given the direction of demographics) that it is the Big 10 that could face the pressure. Ohio State is contiguous to the SEC. It is not out of the realm of possibility that by that time many schools in the Big 10 may be gearing down on football due to declining success and even declining interest from a fan base with other interests (a problem that may face schools everywhere given this next generations trends). The football traditions at Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Penn State and Nebraska are extremely strong.

What I could see is that the Southeast and Southwest become the last bastion of football popularity left in the country. Schools like North Carolina, Virginia, Duke, Syracuse, B.C., Georgia Tech and Pitt have started pulling back on the sport. Miami as a private has as well. Florida State, Clemson and Virginia Tech along with Notre Dame need football first homes as well. So what we wind up with is a drastically reduced cadre of football schools.

Alabama, Auburn, Arkansas, Baylor, Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Iowa, Iowa State (their fans love football even if they lose), Kansas, Kansas State, Kentucky, Louisiana State, Louisville, Michigan, Michigan State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Nebraska, (perhaps N.C. State), Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Ohio State, Penn State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Virginia Tech, and West Virginia comprise the only football playing schools in the Midwest, Southeast, and Southwest. Note: Kentucky stays in because Louisville does. I don't see Vanderbilt sticking it out, but Baylor would because of their culture.

Out west it could be a bit more fickle. Arizona, Arizona State, B.Y.U., U.S.C., U.C.L.A., Oregon, Washington, and possibly Cal and Stanford stick it out. I don't know about Utah but it is likely they do as well. I think Colorado gives it the adios.

In 20 years Jayhawk this might be the last bastion of college football in the U.S. That's 40 - 42 schools. It is enough to keep it alive and perhaps popular as a national sport. But the flavor of it will linger the longest in the Southeast and Southwest with bastions in the Midwest and far West.

I think if it comes to that there will be one national conference of football playing schools.

There several G5 schools in the SE (and probably a couple of MAC schools as well) that would love to keep playing CFB as well, expenses be damned. Add them to you list and you get back to 64 in your future scenario.

(09-15-2014 01:42 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(09-12-2014 10:55 PM)BaylorFerg Wrote:  

(09-12-2014 12:49 AM)Phlipper33 Wrote:  I know football doesn't count for everything in realignment, but its the primary factor for most conferences simply because of the money involved. And hey, if Baylor can consistently win 8 games a year between now and the end of the GOR, they'd get a look too. I just don't think the past 4 years is enough to erase the previous 20 years of being arguably the worst football team in any BCS conference.

Kansas says hello

Kicking a dog when it's down

It wasn't intentional. Kansas seems to be one of the schools that is assumed will be kept in a power conference and rightfully so. But to not want Baylor because they sucked the first decade of the Big 12, seemed to ignore that other schools have been or currently are bad in football and they are still acceptable. Back when the PAC 16 looked like it was going to happen, both our schools were in the Forgotten Five group. I hope you guys can find a coach like we did and get your team turned around.

(09-15-2014 10:17 AM)BaylorFerg Wrote:  

(09-15-2014 01:42 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(09-12-2014 10:55 PM)BaylorFerg Wrote:  

(09-12-2014 12:49 AM)Phlipper33 Wrote:  I know football doesn't count for everything in realignment, but its the primary factor for most conferences simply because of the money involved. And hey, if Baylor can consistently win 8 games a year between now and the end of the GOR, they'd get a look too. I just don't think the past 4 years is enough to erase the previous 20 years of being arguably the worst football team in any BCS conference.

Kansas says hello

Kicking a dog when it's down

It wasn't intentional. Kansas seems to be one of the schools that is assumed will be kept in a power conference and rightfully so. But to not want Baylor because they sucked the first decade of the Big 12, seemed to ignore that other schools have been or currently are bad in football and they are still acceptable. Back when the PAC 16 looked like it was going to happen, both our schools were in the Forgotten Five group. I hope you guys can find a coach like we did and get your team turned around.

Ferg, I got to watch a Grant Teaff coached Baylor in action decades ago. Baylor has had ups and downs it's really not a case of them stinking and then only having a few good years recently. They've had good years before. Being old is not a bed of roses but one of the great parts about it is the vantage point of time yields a much better perspective than those who don't have a clue as to what happened just 5 years before they were born let alone 20, 30 or even 40 years before they were born. Many things in life can only be understood from witnessing the continuum. Business's rise and decline, political movements and their evolving, and sports are just a few that fall into that category. I don't think your Bears are getting left out. But they might well replace a school that opts out of one of the P5's before it is over with.

Baylor's problem is similar to ECU's problem. They have some merits and are not the worst choice.....but because of their other issues they are not on anybody's short list and a lot of of other programs would have to say "no" before they will even consider Baylor.

(09-15-2014 10:17 AM)BaylorFerg Wrote:  

(09-15-2014 01:42 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(09-12-2014 10:55 PM)BaylorFerg Wrote:  

(09-12-2014 12:49 AM)Phlipper33 Wrote:  I know football doesn't count for everything in realignment, but its the primary factor for most conferences simply because of the money involved. And hey, if Baylor can consistently win 8 games a year between now and the end of the GOR, they'd get a look too. I just don't think the past 4 years is enough to erase the previous 20 years of being arguably the worst football team in any BCS conference.

Kansas says hello

Kicking a dog when it's down

It wasn't intentional. Kansas seems to be one of the schools that is assumed will be kept in a power conference and rightfully so. But to not want Baylor because they sucked the first decade of the Big 12, seemed to ignore that other schools have been or currently are bad in football and they are still acceptable. Back when the PAC 16 looked like it was going to happen, both our schools were in the Forgotten Five group. I hope you guys can find a coach like we did and get your team turned around.

Thanks for the kind words. I was joking haha. Our program is depressing right now. It is better off then when Gill was here off the field, but Weis is not going to get results on the field IMO. He is too full of himself. Hopefully the next coach turns the corner on the field because it sucks to not even be competitive. We need to hire someone a little older, like early 50s, who has a record of success. Someone like Bohl at Wyoming (NDSU 3 FCS titles) similar to Snyder for KSU or Briles for Baylor. Someone with great Xs and Os who is old enough this could be his last job and due to age less likely to be sniped by a bigger program when they need a new coach, but with enough energy left to not sit back and collect a paycheck. We also need to get a new or renovated stadium. Ours is an eyesore. Our other facilities are top notch, but the stadium ...

Baylor deserves to be in the P5 based on AD revenue and commitment. You have really invested in your programs to turn them around and that new stadium is sweet. What hurts Baylor, unfairly, is being a religious, private school. If Baylor was a state school you would have less (or no) worries in realignment.

(09-15-2014 06:25 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-15-2014 01:56 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  Just for fun. I don't think the SEC has any worries at the present time, but in a couple decades who knows? Things can change drastically. If the SEC ever had instability these are the top 2 schools I think the ACC, B1G, and B12 would be most likely to chase.

B12: Arkansas, LSU
B1G: A&M, UF
ACC: Vanderbilt, Auburn

The ACC was hard. After Vandy, I think Kentucky would have been the one selected, but since the ACC now has UL there is no need for a 2nd KY school, if they are serious about a future network. Florida would be a great fit, but they got 2 schools in Florida already. I think Auburn would be next. Very good football program which the ACC could use and I think Auburn fits well with schools like Clemson, GT, VT, NCSU, and FSU. Brings in another new state to the ACC footprint.

B12 gets Arkansas back for their former SWC members. LSU fits perfectly with the TX, OK, KS, and WV schools and those states' growing energy wealth (oil, gas, coal). Lot of business could get done before and after B12 contests. Replaces NU perfectly as the 3rd power in the B12.

The B1G would love to get into FL and/or TX recruiting in a big way. They need the FB recruits. If UF was ever on the market the B1G would come for them guns blazing. More realistic is MU and Vandy. But if the B1G had a choice I think the AAU schools in TX and FL would be on the menu.

The interesting thing is that in two decades it is far more likely (given the direction of demographics) that it is the Big 10 that could face the pressure. Ohio State is contiguous to the SEC. It is not out of the realm of possibility that by that time many schools in the Big 10 may be gearing down on football due to declining success and even declining interest from a fan base with other interests (a problem that may face schools everywhere given this next generations trends). The football traditions at Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Penn State and Nebraska are extremely strong.

What I could see is that the Southeast and Southwest become the last bastion of football popularity left in the country. Schools like North Carolina, Virginia, Duke, Syracuse, B.C., Georgia Tech and Pitt have started pulling back on the sport. Miami as a private has as well. Florida State, Clemson and Virginia Tech along with Notre Dame need football first homes as well. So what we wind up with is a drastically reduced cadre of football schools.

Alabama, Auburn, Arkansas, Baylor, Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Iowa, Iowa State (their fans love football even if they lose), Kansas, Kansas State, Kentucky, Louisiana State, Louisville, Michigan, Michigan State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Nebraska, (perhaps N.C. State), Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Ohio State, Penn State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Virginia Tech, and West Virginia comprise the only football playing schools in the Midwest, Southeast, and Southwest. Note: Kentucky stays in because Louisville does. I don't see Vanderbilt sticking it out, but Baylor would because of their culture.

Out west it could be a bit more fickle. Arizona, Arizona State, B.Y.U., U.S.C., U.C.L.A., Oregon, Washington, and possibly Cal and Stanford stick it out. I don't know about Utah but it is likely they do as well. I think Colorado gives it the adios.

In 20 years Jayhawk this might be the last bastion of college football in the U.S. That's 40 - 42 schools. It is enough to keep it alive and perhaps popular as a national sport. But the flavor of it will linger the longest in the Southeast and Southwest with bastions in the Midwest and far West.

I think if it comes to that there will be one national conference of football playing schools.

Definitely the B1G (or PAC) could someday be in the cross-hairs too. If football continues to dominate the air waves and the B1G football struggles continue for the next decade plus. And demographics as well. There are things they could do to encourage more participation and development of better players though. I think OSU (who is most concerned with the falling B1G fortunes IMO), NU, and PSU are the 3 schools I would worry about most. UMD as well, though they don't have much football cache. Many of their alums still want to be in the ACC.

I think football is at it's apex right now. I think the concussion worries are going to reduce participation and already is in the north, pac coast, and east coast IMO. I really think basketball will start regaining value in relation to football over the next couple decades, especially if the post season revenue is wrested from the NCAA's grubby paws. If I was the NFL I would be doing everything I could do get better equipment, especially helmets, designed, which will trickle down to colleges and high schools. If they want to remain the number one sport they need to reduce concussions drastically. People have always known football was violent and that you would pay later in aches and pains for your years of playing. What they did not realize was how many former players can't remember what they had for lunch today or become suicidal due to head trauma from FB. I took care of my grandfather with Alzheimer's and it is the worst thing possible to lose your memory and ability to think clearly. You lose so much of your humanity. I used to fear a crippling injury or disease, but after taking care of him my worst fear is, by far, losing my memory and ability to think.

ACC has no interest in SC and vice versa

(09-15-2014 06:25 AM)JRsec Wrote:  The interesting thing is that in two decades it is far more likely (given the direction of demographics) that it is the Big 10 that could face the pressure. Ohio State is contiguous to the SEC. It is not out of the realm of possibility that by that time many schools in the Big 10 may be gearing down on football due to declining success and even declining interest from a fan base with other interests (a problem that may face schools everywhere given this next generations trends). The football traditions at Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Penn State and Nebraska are extremely strong.

Don't forget Iowa.

Quote:What I could see is that the Southeast and Southwest become the last bastion of football popularity left in the country. Schools like North Carolina, Virginia, Duke, Syracuse, B.C., Georgia Tech and Pitt have started pulling back on the sport. Miami as a private has as well. Florida State, Clemson and Virginia Tech along with Notre Dame need football first homes as well. So what we wind up with is a drastically reduced cadre of football schools.

Alabama, Auburn, Arkansas, Baylor, Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Iowa, Iowa State (their fans love football even if they lose), Kansas, Kansas State, Kentucky, Louisiana State, Louisville, Michigan, Michigan State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Nebraska, (perhaps N.C. State), Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Ohio State, Penn State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Virginia Tech, and West Virginia comprise the only football playing schools in the Midwest, Southeast, and Southwest. Note: Kentucky stays in because Louisville does. I don't see Vanderbilt sticking it out, but Baylor would because of their culture.

Out west it could be a bit more fickle. Arizona, Arizona State, B.Y.U., U.S.C., U.C.L.A., Oregon, Washington, and possibly Cal and Stanford stick it out. I don't know about Utah but it is likely they do as well. I think Colorado gives it the adios.

In 20 years Jayhawk this might be the last bastion of college football in the U.S. That's 40 - 42 schools. It is enough to keep it alive and perhaps popular as a national sport. But the flavor of it will linger the longest in the Southeast and Southwest with bastions in the Midwest and far West.

I think if it comes to that there will be one national conference of football playing schools.

I think the next trend in realignment is all the football-first schools leave their current conferences in order to form a loose confederation of programs and schedule each other for games. Notre Dame would be part of this grouping, as this won't require them to "join a conference". Scheduling would be from this grouping alone:

Iowa, Texas, Oklahoma, LSU, Alabama, Michigan, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Florida, Florida State, Notre Dame, Navy, Stanford, Georgia, USC, UCLA, Oregon, Washington, Arizona State, Ohio State, South Carolina, Auburn, Alabama, Tennessee, Penn State, Nebraska, Kansas State, Texas A&M, West Virginia, ECU, Missouri, Arkansas, Virginia Tech, Clemson, Louisville, BYU

Conferences would become more interesting and reflect the survival instincts of the remaining schools:

- Indiana, Purdue, Kentucky, Cincinnati, Illinois, Northwestern, Iowa State, Minnesota

- Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College, UConn, Rutgers, Temple, Maryland, Army

- Virginia, UNC, NC State, Duke, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, Miami, South Florida

- Mississippi State, Ole Miss, Vanderbilt, Central Florida, Tulane, Houston, Rice, Memphis

- Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, SMU, Tulsa, Kansas, New Mexico

- Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Nevada, Air Force, Oregon State, Washington State, Cal

The so-called G5 would be reorganized into regional groupings. Olympic sports saves a lot of money from less travel.

(09-19-2014 06:55 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  ACC has no interest in SC and vice versa

I know that there were some high level talks a couple of years ago. So serious in fact that Hyman (UNC grad) left Columbia as to not appear that he had undue influence on the negotiations in favor of the ACC.

(09-19-2014 09:00 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(09-15-2014 06:25 AM)JRsec Wrote:  The interesting thing is that in two decades it is far more likely (given the direction of demographics) that it is the Big 10 that could face the pressure. Ohio State is contiguous to the SEC. It is not out of the realm of possibility that by that time many schools in the Big 10 may be gearing down on football due to declining success and even declining interest from a fan base with other interests (a problem that may face schools everywhere given this next generations trends). The football traditions at Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Penn State and Nebraska are extremely strong.

Don't forget Iowa.

Quote:What I could see is that the Southeast and Southwest become the last bastion of football popularity left in the country. Schools like North Carolina, Virginia, Duke, Syracuse, B.C., Georgia Tech and Pitt have started pulling back on the sport. Miami as a private has as well. Florida State, Clemson and Virginia Tech along with Notre Dame need football first homes as well. So what we wind up with is a drastically reduced cadre of football schools.

Alabama, Auburn, Arkansas, Baylor, Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Iowa, Iowa State (their fans love football even if they lose), Kansas, Kansas State, Kentucky, Louisiana State, Louisville, Michigan, Michigan State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Nebraska, (perhaps N.C. State), Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Ohio State, Penn State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Virginia Tech, and West Virginia comprise the only football playing schools in the Midwest, Southeast, and Southwest. Note: Kentucky stays in because Louisville does. I don't see Vanderbilt sticking it out, but Baylor would because of their culture.

Out west it could be a bit more fickle. Arizona, Arizona State, B.Y.U., U.S.C., U.C.L.A., Oregon, Washington, and possibly Cal and Stanford stick it out. I don't know about Utah but it is likely they do as well. I think Colorado gives it the adios.

In 20 years Jayhawk this might be the last bastion of college football in the U.S. That's 40 - 42 schools. It is enough to keep it alive and perhaps popular as a national sport. But the flavor of it will linger the longest in the Southeast and Southwest with bastions in the Midwest and far West.

I think if it comes to that there will be one national conference of football playing schools.

I think the next trend in realignment is all the football-first schools leave their current conferences in order to form a loose confederation of programs and schedule each other for games. Notre Dame would be part of this grouping, as this won't require them to "join a conference". Scheduling would be from this grouping alone:

Iowa, Texas, Oklahoma, LSU, Alabama, Michigan, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Florida, Florida State, Notre Dame, Navy, Stanford, Georgia, USC, UCLA, Oregon, Washington, Arizona State, Ohio State, South Carolina, Auburn, Alabama, Tennessee, Penn State, Nebraska, Kansas State, Texas A&M, West Virginia, ECU, Missouri, Arkansas, Virginia Tech, Clemson, Louisville, BYU

Conferences would become more interesting and reflect the survival instincts of the remaining schools:

- Indiana, Purdue, Kentucky, Cincinnati, Illinois, Northwestern, Iowa State, Minnesota

- Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College, UConn, Rutgers, Temple, Maryland, Army

- Virginia, UNC, NC State, Duke, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, Miami, South Florida

- Mississippi State, Ole Miss, Vanderbilt, Central Florida, Tulane, Houston, Rice, Memphis

- Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, SMU, Tulsa, Kansas, New Mexico

- Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Nevada, Air Force, Oregon State, Washington State, Cal

The so-called G5 would be reorganized into regional groupings. Olympic sports saves a lot of money from less travel.

Just a note, and unfortunately one I've had to repeat too often on this board, but the service academies will not pursue any high tier football membership. Their height and weight restrictions on applicants put them at an 80 to 100 lb weight disadvantage across the line, their service requirements preclude top quality players at skill position, and their mission is to turn out military officers and not professional athletes. Given the disparities consistent competition against P5 schools is considered to be an undue jeopardy to the health of their cadets. Expect them to pursue competition among mid level G5 schools and lower in the future. This is not to say that as long as they may schedule old traditional rivals like Notre Dame or Colorado, etc. that the academies won't continue to seek games with a few P5 schools, but the commandants are in agreement that pursuing a consistent schedule in those ranks is not in their future.

That is why Navy's inclusion in your list simply won't happen, nor will the constant speculation by ACC posters that Navy will be a candidate for the ACC that will add Maryland back to their footprint, or the Big 12 posters who always raise the AFA as a possible addition. The unique mission of those schools will stay in focus.

(09-20-2014 02:44 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-19-2014 09:00 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(09-15-2014 06:25 AM)JRsec Wrote:  The interesting thing is that in two decades it is far more likely (given the direction of demographics) that it is the Big 10 that could face the pressure. Ohio State is contiguous to the SEC. It is not out of the realm of possibility that by that time many schools in the Big 10 may be gearing down on football due to declining success and even declining interest from a fan base with other interests (a problem that may face schools everywhere given this next generations trends). The football traditions at Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Penn State and Nebraska are extremely strong.

Don't forget Iowa.

Quote:What I could see is that the Southeast and Southwest become the last bastion of football popularity left in the country. Schools like North Carolina, Virginia, Duke, Syracuse, B.C., Georgia Tech and Pitt have started pulling back on the sport. Miami as a private has as well. Florida State, Clemson and Virginia Tech along with Notre Dame need football first homes as well. So what we wind up with is a drastically reduced cadre of football schools.

Alabama, Auburn, Arkansas, Baylor, Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Iowa, Iowa State (their fans love football even if they lose), Kansas, Kansas State, Kentucky, Louisiana State, Louisville, Michigan, Michigan State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Nebraska, (perhaps N.C. State), Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Ohio State, Penn State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Virginia Tech, and West Virginia comprise the only football playing schools in the Midwest, Southeast, and Southwest. Note: Kentucky stays in because Louisville does. I don't see Vanderbilt sticking it out, but Baylor would because of their culture.

Out west it could be a bit more fickle. Arizona, Arizona State, B.Y.U., U.S.C., U.C.L.A., Oregon, Washington, and possibly Cal and Stanford stick it out. I don't know about Utah but it is likely they do as well. I think Colorado gives it the adios.

In 20 years Jayhawk this might be the last bastion of college football in the U.S. That's 40 - 42 schools. It is enough to keep it alive and perhaps popular as a national sport. But the flavor of it will linger the longest in the Southeast and Southwest with bastions in the Midwest and far West.

I think if it comes to that there will be one national conference of football playing schools.

I think the next trend in realignment is all the football-first schools leave their current conferences in order to form a loose confederation of programs and schedule each other for games. Notre Dame would be part of this grouping, as this won't require them to "join a conference". Scheduling would be from this grouping alone:

Iowa, Texas, Oklahoma, LSU, Alabama, Michigan, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Florida, Florida State, Notre Dame, Navy, Stanford, Georgia, USC, UCLA, Oregon, Washington, Arizona State, Ohio State, South Carolina, Auburn, Alabama, Tennessee, Penn State, Nebraska, Kansas State, Texas A&M, West Virginia, ECU, Missouri, Arkansas, Virginia Tech, Clemson, Louisville, BYU

Conferences would become more interesting and reflect the survival instincts of the remaining schools:

- Indiana, Purdue, Kentucky, Cincinnati, Illinois, Northwestern, Iowa State, Minnesota

- Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College, UConn, Rutgers, Temple, Maryland, Army

- Virginia, UNC, NC State, Duke, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, Miami, South Florida

- Mississippi State, Ole Miss, Vanderbilt, Central Florida, Tulane, Houston, Rice, Memphis

- Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, SMU, Tulsa, Kansas, New Mexico

- Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Nevada, Air Force, Oregon State, Washington State, Cal

The so-called G5 would be reorganized into regional groupings. Olympic sports saves a lot of money from less travel.

Just a note, and unfortunately one I've had to repeat too often on this board, but the service academies will not pursue any high tier football membership. Their height and weight restrictions on applicants put them at an 80 to 100 lb weight disadvantage across the line, their service requirements preclude top quality players at skill position, and their mission is to turn out military officers and not professional athletes. Given the disparities consistent competition against P5 schools is considered to be an undue jeopardy to the health of their cadets. Expect them to pursue competition among mid level G5 schools and lower in the future. This is not to say that as long as they may schedule old traditional rivals like Notre Dame or Colorado, etc. that the academies won't continue to seek games with a few P5 schools, but the commandants are in agreement that pursuing a consistent schedule in those ranks is not in their future.

That is why Navy's inclusion in your list simply won't happen, nor will the constant speculation by ACC posters that Navy will be a candidate for the ACC that will add Maryland back to their footprint, or the Big 12 posters who always raise the AFA as a possible addition. The unique mission of those schools will stay in focus.

Totally agree. If these cadets sustain a severe injury it will also ruin their careers which is why they chose to be cadets in the first place.

(09-19-2014 09:09 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-19-2014 06:55 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  ACC has no interest in SC and vice versa

I know that there were some high level talks a couple of years ago. So serious in fact that Hyman (UNC grad) left Columbia as to not appear that he had undue influence on the negotiations in favor of the ACC.

Please elaborate, never heard of this.

Hyman was never well liked here, I doubt he would have the clout to do any kind of maneuver like that.

There is a small minority who would support a move to the ACC but they are almost exclusively in their 70s or 80s