(10-20-2014 07:09 PM)Bearband36 Wrote:  Whats with no love for Colorado State?

Man, CSU gets left out of all the fun, highly unlikely realignment scenarios!

I'm of the opinion the B12 should have tried to move west with its expansion to become the second power conference for the west.

CSU, New Mexico, BYU would all be good pickups.

(10-21-2014 08:53 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  PSU just got two fellow peer schools in the East added to the Big Ten. The Big Ten now has more of PSU's peer schools there in the East than the ACC has. Sorry, the ACC was soundly defeated in their talks with PSU by the Maryland and Rutgers move.

Each of Pitt, SU, VT, ND, and (in this scenario) WVU substantially outweigh either RU or UMD, and when they're combined the difference is massive. So no, the B1G does not have more of State's peers in the east. Also, calling either school one of PSU's peers would upset most PSU fans. UMD is something like 1-39 against PSU and I honestly don't know a single PSU fan who thinks that RU belongs on the same field as them. Your B1G RU bias is showing.

(10-21-2014 09:36 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(10-21-2014 08:53 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  PSU just got two fellow peer schools in the East added to the Big Ten. The Big Ten now has more of PSU's peer schools there in the East than the ACC has. Sorry, the ACC was soundly defeated in their talks with PSU by the Maryland and Rutgers move.

Each of Pitt, SU, VT, ND, and (in this scenario) WVU substantially outweigh either RU or UMD, and when they're combined the difference is massive. So no, the B1G does not have more of State's peers in the east. Also, calling either school one of PSU's peers would upset most PSU fans. UMD is something like 1-39 against PSU and I honestly don't know a single PSU fan who thinks that RU belongs on the same field as them. Your B1G RU bias is showing.

Ohio State is also a peer of PSU, though not located on the East Coast but as a major border state.

The chances of PSU moving to an Eastern Conference disappeared in 1990 once they moved to the B1G. The size of the B1G institutions fit Penn State's profile while ACC is smaller schools. Mostly except for Maryland and they are now B1G.

WVU stuck in the B12 makes your scenario more problematic and VT is not a rival of Penn State at all. VT was not a player in college football when PSU was rolling in the 70's and 80's. In fact Penn State and Virginia Tech have never played each other before. PSU holds an all time record of 48-9 over WVU but WVU would be more competitive today which is something that is not in PSU's interest. They don't want to legitimize their program.

(10-21-2014 09:36 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 07:09 PM)Bearband36 Wrote:  Whats with no love for Colorado State?

Man, CSU gets left out of all the fun, highly unlikely realignment scenarios!

I'm of the opinion the B12 should have tried to move west with its expansion to become the second power conference for the west.

CSU, New Mexico, BYU would all be good pickups.

If the Big XII had a mass exodus I could see that possibly happening....If they retained the autobid, you could see BYU, Houston, Cincinnati, UConn, and East Carolina all join together to make sure the Big XII keeps afloat....those schools belong with the P5 anyways

I will bite on the Power 4

Big12 EAST

FSU
WVU
Louisville
OU
OSU
Miami
GT


Big12 West

UT
Kansas ST
TCU
Baylor
TT
BYU
Iowa ST

BiG 10 Leaders East

Maryland
Rutgers
BC
Cuse
UCONN

Big 10 Legends East

ND
Pitt
Purdue
Penn ST
Illinois

Big 10 Legends West

Michigan
Minnesota
MSU
Wisconsin
Ohio ST

Big 10 Leaders West

Indiana
Northwestern
Iowa
Nebraska
Kansas

Pac North

Oregon
CU
Oregon ST
Utah
UW
Wash ST
Boise ST

PAC South

Stanford
Arizona
ASU
UCLA
USC
CAL
UNM

SEC EAST

USC
Florida
UGA
Duke
NC State

SEC North

Virginia Tech
North Carolina
Kentucky
Virginia
Clemson



SEC South

Tennessee
Vandy
Alabama
Auburn
Ole Miss

SEC West

Mizzou
Texas AM
LSU
Miss ST
Arkansas

Stop creating new fantasy conferences, my eyes can't take it.

(10-21-2014 10:46 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(10-21-2014 09:36 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 07:09 PM)Bearband36 Wrote:  Whats with no love for Colorado State?

Man, CSU gets left out of all the fun, highly unlikely realignment scenarios!

I'm of the opinion the B12 should have tried to move west with its expansion to become the second power conference for the west.

CSU, New Mexico, BYU would all be good pickups.

If the Big XII had a mass exodus I could see that possibly happening....If they retained the autobid, you could see BYU, Houston, Cincinnati, UConn, and East Carolina all join together to make sure the Big XII keeps afloat....those schools belong with the P5 anyways

The B12 does not have an autobid......it has a contract with the Sugar Bowl to have its champ play opposite the SEC.

Now if there is continued attrition of B12 schools will their champ still be worthy of a contract in the sugar to square against the mighty SEC? I don't think that is very likely. However, the B12 will have the voting structure advantages and tradition that will make it appealing for G5 schools joining.

If that exodus is timed with a GOR will it be an opportunity for the ACC to grab West Virginia for another solid eastern football school? If so the B12 could replace WVU, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas with BYU, Colorado St, New Mexico and Houston. That would make all the power conferences nice and neat.

The American grabs Rice, MWC grabs NMSU and UTEP, CUSA grabs ULL/AState. That leaves the SBC at 8 schools so I guess James Madison?

This thread starts with the premise that the Big 12 might fall apart. For years it was obvious that there were forces pulling the Big East apart, so it wasn't surprising when it eventually happened. But what forces threaten to break up the Big 12?

Why should we assume that if Texas were to take a Notre Dame type deal with the ACC that the Big 12 would crumble? It looks to me like they would be just fine without UT. There is no reason for them to do anything, including finding a replacement for Texas. They could just stay at nine members, and now would have a nice, balanced 8 game schedule with plenty of opportunities for compelling OOC games against neighboring P5 conferences.

The only thing the Big 12 would lose if Texas left is the drama.

(10-21-2014 10:54 AM)Dawg87 Wrote:  I will bite on the Power 4

Big12 EAST

FSU
WVU
Louisville
OU
OSU
Miami
GT


Big12 West

UT
Kansas ST
TCU
Baylor
TT
BYU
Iowa ST

BiG 10 Leaders East

Maryland
Rutgers
BC
Cuse
Pitt

Big 10 Legends East

ND
Ohio ST
Purdue
Penn ST
Illinois

Big 10 Legends West

Michigan
Minnesota
MSU
Wisconsin
Indiana

Big 10 Leaders West

Mizzou
Northwestern
Iowa
Nebraska
Kansas

Pac North

Oregon
CU
Oregon ST
Utah
UW
Wash ST
Boise ST

PAC South

Stanford
Arizona
ASU
UCLA
USC
CAL
UNM

SEC EAST

USC
Florida
UGA
Duke
NC State

SEC North

Vandy
North Carolina
Kentucky
Duke
Clemson



SEC South

Tennessee
Virginia
VT
Alabama
Auburn

SEC West

Ole Miss
Texas AM
LSU
Miss ST
Arkansas

You have Duke in the SEC twice. Maybe add East Carolina and you are good to go!

(10-21-2014 11:23 AM)ken d Wrote:  This thread starts with the premise that the Big 12 might fall apart. For years it was obvious that there were forces pulling the Big East apart, so it wasn't surprising when it eventually happened. But what forces threaten to break up the Big 12?

Why should we assume that if Texas were to take a Notre Dame type deal with the ACC that the Big 12 would crumble? It looks to me like they would be just fine without UT. There is no reason for them to do anything, including finding a replacement for Texas. They could just stay at nine members, and now would have a nice, balanced 8 game schedule with plenty of opportunities for compelling OOC games against neighboring P5 conferences.

The only thing the Big 12 would lose if Texas left is the drama.

Texas going would be a blow to the conference but their is enough equity in the remaining members to sustain it.

Quality members to potentially add. New Mexico for example would bring to the B12 a school that owns its state, makes the state a B12 state and has some of the best basketball attendance in the country. In the MWC they are nothing more than a crappy football school but they have tangibles that help the perception of the B12 as a power conference.

(10-20-2014 02:58 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  How many "What happens if the Big 12 Breaks up" does a forum need?

As long as people respond to them as many as it takes...lol

Having *4* divisions for a conference -- REALLY?

That's completely ridiculous, just like a 20-team conference. Why not make EVERYONE in the same conference -- and just have different divisions? Oh -- oh, and then call the divisions conferences? :)

That's why I say the ideal is to limit teams to 12 (6vs6). You play Everyone in your division, and a Majority in the other division + 4 OOC games. You could press it to 14 (7vs7), since there is existing 14 team-conferences, and play everyone in your division (6) + almost-half of the other (3) --- but limit it to 3 OOC games. I would be OK with that, even though I CHERISH OOC games -- but said conferences would Have to Drop D1AA/FCS games for their OOC games.

Going to 16+ teams enters the realm of stupidity, because:
(a) You don't play enough teams in your conference to truly judge who Rightfully should be the winner, OR
(b) You'd have to cut out on half of OOC games (2) -- which would make a conference too much a microcosm.

Oh these are fun... why not.

"If" it happens, it would probably be because the Longhorn network didn't workout financially. In that case, the best move would be for Texas, Tech, Oklahoma and OSU to go to the Pac12 and converting the Longhorn to being a regional network for the Pac12. (the OP has Oklahoma going to the B10...not happening. They aren't AAU and the B10 would never invite them.

From there we look if anybody in the B12 would bring in enough value to be added to the SEC or Big 10. I say no. If there was, then they would have been taken last time around. It would have been easy to do then and cost less since now there are all sorts of GORs, exit fees and a ton of law suits that would be filed. With that premise...

I see the Big 10, SEC staying at 14, the Pac 12 is now 16. I think the ACC would make the move and add UConn which bring them to 16 (sorta, thanks Notre Dame).

Now you have a power 4 but that's really not enough inventory for a separate division (which I believe is the direction that this is going) so I see the B12 adding teams.
Cinci, Memphis, USF, UCF, Houston, BYU, Colorado St and Tulane are added to get to 14. Maybe they go to 16, who knows. If they stay at 12, you could see Tulane and Houston left out of that and instead they, along with SMU and Tulsa make the move to the MWC.

Overall I tend to believe that most of the MWC, and Most of the AAC are included in whatever plans will happen when the conferences separate from the other FBS teams. THey then expand to 8 or 12 playoff spots.
In basketball, they invite a handful of conferences including the Big East, A10 and maybe one of the western conferences to separate and form their own basketball tournament. This would limit football to about 78-80 teams and basketball would be around 120.

This thread is not worthy of comment.

(10-21-2014 09:51 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(10-21-2014 09:36 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(10-21-2014 08:53 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  PSU just got two fellow peer schools in the East added to the Big Ten. The Big Ten now has more of PSU's peer schools there in the East than the ACC has. Sorry, the ACC was soundly defeated in their talks with PSU by the Maryland and Rutgers move.

Each of Pitt, SU, VT, ND, and (in this scenario) WVU substantially outweigh either RU or UMD, and when they're combined the difference is massive. So no, the B1G does not have more of State's peers in the east. Also, calling either school one of PSU's peers would upset most PSU fans. UMD is something like 1-39 against PSU and I honestly don't know a single PSU fan who thinks that RU belongs on the same field as them. Your B1G RU bias is showing.

Ohio State is also a peer of PSU, though not located on the East Coast but as a major border state.

The chances of PSU moving to an Eastern Conference disappeared in 1990 once they moved to the B1G. The size of the B1G institutions fit Penn State's profile while ACC is smaller schools. Mostly except for Maryland and they are now B1G.

WVU stuck in the B12 makes your scenario more problematic and VT is not a rival of Penn State at all. VT was not a player in college football when PSU was rolling in the 70's and 80's. In fact Penn State and Virginia Tech have never played each other before. PSU holds an all time record of 48-9 over WVU but WVU would be more competitive today which is something that is not in PSU's interest. They don't want to legitimize their program.

As you said, OSU isn't eastern. Therefore they're irrelevant in a discussion confined to eastern schools. There are several major programs in the B1G that interest PSU and thre are many reasons for PSU to stay in the B1G. Nobody is denying that. My point is that the ACC does have a significant advantage in that one area.

Anyway, FWIW, I think that OSU sees Michigan as their only peer. That said, PSU does see OSU as a peer, so don't read too much into OSU's arrogance.

Second and third, VT ('99) is in a power conference and has played in a more recent NC than PSU ('86/arguably '94). The whole "don't legitimize them" argument stopped being valid about 20 years ago. That boat sailed. If you don't believe that there are significant overlaps in fan bases between VT and PSU and WVU and PSU, go to SC. Heck, Hackenburg even grew up in Virginia. Both games would be circled games every year.

Fourth, my scenario assumes WVU would get the invite. The likelihood of that happening speaks to the likelihood of my scenario happening, not the likelihood of PSU being attracted in such a scenario (i.e. what we're discussing). So, your whole argument that WVU is tied up is irrelevant to the discussion that we're having. That said, I tend to agree with you. Nothing major will happen for a decade or so. The Big XII's sky is not falling.

(10-21-2014 09:36 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(10-21-2014 08:53 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  PSU just got two fellow peer schools in the East added to the Big Ten. The Big Ten now has more of PSU's peer schools there in the East than the ACC has. Sorry, the ACC was soundly defeated in their talks with PSU by the Maryland and Rutgers move.

Each of Pitt, SU, VT, ND, and (in this scenario) WVU substantially outweigh either RU or UMD, and when they're combined the difference is massive. So no, the B1G does not have more of State's peers in the east. Also, calling either school one of PSU's peers would upset most PSU fans. UMD is something like 1-39 against PSU and I honestly don't know a single PSU fan who thinks that RU belongs on the same field as them. Your B1G RU bias is showing.

I am sorry but none of those are similar peer status. Yes they have history with PSU but if PSU was motivated by History THEY NEVER WOULD HAVE JOINED THE BIG TEN. They would already be gone as well.

I don't have any Rutgers bias you moron. I only have Rutgers listed because I am interested in how Big Ten membership affects them in the short term. So stop saying stupid **** that only displays your ignorance. Try asking first.

I don't give a **** what PSU fans think. They don't make the decisions, that is obvious. Your argument is a terrible rambling mess of a rant.

PSU isn't going anywhere and your past rivalry with them is long gone.

So don't talk to me about bias showing, Mr Syracuse.

I hope this thread wasn't started so that people can troll others. That's my fear.