(05-07-2014 11:00 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(05-07-2014 10:45 AM)HoustonRocks Wrote:  http://www.suntimes.com/sports/colleges/...2ly6sf8QdM

Delany’s Big Ten moved on well from the Irish setback. Nebraska. Yawn, but a good move for BTN. Maryland and Rutgers. Really? Why? Television.

This is where the college athetics world is going. To head off a players’ union, the schools are insisting athlete-students they are not employees. But concessions are already being made, and college sports will move on just as sure as baseball moved on when it lost the reserve clause.

Stay tuned. Delany’s next move will be adding the 15th and 16th schools to the Big Ten. This will be needed to pay for increased labor costs that will stem from players organizing in one form or another.

Four 16-team leagues. And good luck if you’re not among those 64.

Aren't there already more than 64 teams in the P5? Could be that some already in will be left out and some more deserving will be included.

Don't fall for this Big Ten fear-mongering. Delany is always trying to roar to see who flinches. 0% chance we ever get to 4 X 16 conferences.

Delany, I see a light at the end of the tunnel...UH OH it's a train. RUN!!!!

(05-07-2014 01:54 PM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  

(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.

I'm not sure either of you bothered to follow the link. In it Larry Scott, the commish of the PAC 12 said SDSU and Boise were candidates.

And regarding the B1G, if this Illinois senator gets his wish, SIU will be joining the Big10 http://napervillesun.suntimes.com/news/s...14:article

Go Salukis!!

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.

(05-07-2014 12:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-07-2014 11:20 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  If there really is a conference shuffle like the one described you could see programs like Wake Forest being left out in favor of the best of the best of G5 / BYU.

Wake Forest is a founding member of the ACC. They aren't going to be left out of anything.

If it goes to four 16 school conferences and there is no ACC then Wake is out and probably BC as well. If the B12 dies instead then I would expect to see some combo of TT, Baylor, TCU and ISU be left out.

(05-07-2014 03:37 PM)Pirateoracle Wrote:  

(05-07-2014 10:45 AM)HoustonRocks Wrote:  http://www.suntimes.com/sports/colleges/...2ly6sf8QdM

Delany’s Big Ten moved on well from the Irish setback. Nebraska. Yawn, but a good move for BTN. Maryland and Rutgers. Really? Why? Television.

This is where the college athetics world is going. To head off a players’ union, the schools are insisting athlete-students they are not employees. But concessions are already being made, and college sports will move on just as sure as baseball moved on when it lost the reserve clause.

Stay tuned. Delany’s next move will be adding the 15th and 16th schools to the Big Ten. This will be needed to pay for increased labor costs that will stem from players organizing in one form or another.

Four 16-team leagues. And good luck if you’re not among those 64.

Be careful what you wish for..These greedy pigs about to drive this bus
To players unions...Next step will be Antitrust Case...Then IRS will be rolling in to hitch their wagon...Looking like Standard Oil..these self proclaimed geniuses gonna f up our sport..

When the plane blows up they just golden parachute onto their yachts. What do they care?

(05-07-2014 05:33 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(05-07-2014 01:54 PM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  

(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.

I'm not sure either of you bothered to follow the link. In it Larry Scott, the commish of the PAC 12 said SDSU and Boise were candidates.

And regarding the B1G, if this Illinois senator gets his wish, SIU will be joining the Big10 http://napervillesun.suntimes.com/news/s...14:article

Go Salukis!!

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.

I dont necessarily disagree with you regarding academics being a giant hurdle for those two. I just think they're legitimate enough candidates to not be written off so easily. Especially in our hypothetical end game realignment to 5 16 team conferences. Playing in California is a big deal to all the PAC members so you can bet that any additions will keep that balance which means SDSU and maybe Fresno are in play. Boise, UNLV/Nevada, I don't know why USU or CSU would be in play bc they already have those markets.

If its going to be five then you have to assume UT and OU anchor the Big12 otherwise there will only be a P4. If this scenario were to happen I think you'd find the expansion rules/preferences a little different and conferences are taking the best prepared schools even with their flaws (academics, flagship status, attendance etc).

(05-07-2014 03:11 PM)Bull Wrote:  

(05-07-2014 12:58 PM)PuddlePirate Wrote:  

(05-07-2014 12:23 PM)goldenhurricane2 Wrote:  

(05-07-2014 12:17 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-07-2014 11:39 AM)goldenhurricane2 Wrote:  If this were to happen, I'd hope Tulsa would just drop football all together. No reason to compete if it's not at the highest level...

First, if your school is in the G5, you already aren't competing at the highest level. You've been relegated to a lesser domain.

Second, so you think the FCS schools as well as Division II and III schools should all drop football? I think that would be a shame and don't understand why.

Finally, the highest level of football is the NFL and nobody in college competes there.

Nice job of taking what I said and completely turning it around.

It would be demoralizing for a fan base to go from competing at a higher level to a lower level... regardless of fbs, fcs, d2 or d3.

I think you know I was talking about college football, not NFL.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Best to just ignore that guy. Might as well be rationalizing with a stop sign.

I'm pretty sure UCF just 'competed at the highest level'. This time we ARE talking about on the field performance, not ancillary items like TV $$. And we can thank good old Mr. Aresco for that reserve slot for the G5 leader.

Actually, Aresco actually spearheaded a failed plan, to create a "7th bowl" that would feature a G5 school.

(05-08-2014 11:11 AM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  

(05-07-2014 05:33 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(05-07-2014 01:54 PM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  

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

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

I'm not sure either of you bothered to follow the link. In it Larry Scott, the commish of the PAC 12 said SDSU and Boise were candidates.

And regarding the B1G, if this Illinois senator gets his wish, SIU will be joining the Big10 http://napervillesun.suntimes.com/news/s...14:article

Go Salukis!!

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.

I dont necessarily disagree with you regarding academics being a giant hurdle for those two. I just think they're legitimate enough candidates to not be written off so easily. Especially in our hypothetical end game realignment to 5 16 team conferences. Playing in California is a big deal to all the PAC members so you can bet that any additions will keep that balance which means SDSU and maybe Fresno are in play. Boise, UNLV/Nevada, I don't know why USU or CSU would be in play bc they already have those markets.

If its going to be five then you have to assume UT and OU anchor the Big12 otherwise there will only be a P4. If this scenario were to happen I think you'd find the expansion rules/preferences a little different and conferences are taking the best prepared schools even with their flaws (academics, flagship status, attendance etc).

Boise State in the same conference as Stanford.

I understand that the PAC12 commissioner threw out a couple of names and then went all blah, blah, blah on the situation. But c'mon man.

(05-07-2014 03:02 PM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  SEC
+Oklahoma State*
+NC State OR East Carolina (Depends if NC State sticks with ACC)
SEC offers same deal to Okie State and NC State as it did Texas A&M leave your big brother behind and make a name for yourself. NC State is so stuck with UNC/Duke basketball may not leave. If not SEC goes for East Carolina.

Virginia Tech would get an invite before ECU. Even Kansas State

(05-08-2014 11:49 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(05-08-2014 11:11 AM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  

(05-07-2014 05:33 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(05-07-2014 01:54 PM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  

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

I'm not sure either of you bothered to follow the link. In it Larry Scott, the commish of the PAC 12 said SDSU and Boise were candidates.

And regarding the B1G, if this Illinois senator gets his wish, SIU will be joining the Big10 http://napervillesun.suntimes.com/news/s...14:article

Go Salukis!!

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.

I dont necessarily disagree with you regarding academics being a giant hurdle for those two. I just think they're legitimate enough candidates to not be written off so easily. Especially in our hypothetical end game realignment to 5 16 team conferences. Playing in California is a big deal to all the PAC members so you can bet that any additions will keep that balance which means SDSU and maybe Fresno are in play. Boise, UNLV/Nevada, I don't know why USU or CSU would be in play bc they already have those markets.

If its going to be five then you have to assume UT and OU anchor the Big12 otherwise there will only be a P4. If this scenario were to happen I think you'd find the expansion rules/preferences a little different and conferences are taking the best prepared schools even with their flaws (academics, flagship status, attendance etc).

Boise State in the same conference as Stanford.

I understand that the PAC12 commissioner threw out a couple of names and then went all blah, blah, blah on the situation. But c'mon man.

Then pray tell who, in this hypothetical Power 5 x 16 team conferences would the PAC add? Rice?

(05-07-2014 05:33 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(05-07-2014 01:54 PM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  

(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.

I'm not sure either of you bothered to follow the link. In it Larry Scott, the commish of the PAC 12 said SDSU and Boise were candidates.

And regarding the B1G, if this Illinois senator gets his wish, SIU will be joining the Big10 http://napervillesun.suntimes.com/news/s...14:article

Go Salukis!!

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.

Didn't people say the same thing about the ACC and Louisville not too many years ago?

(05-08-2014 11:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-07-2014 03:11 PM)Bull Wrote:  

(05-07-2014 12:58 PM)PuddlePirate Wrote:  

(05-07-2014 12:23 PM)goldenhurricane2 Wrote:  

(05-07-2014 12:17 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  First, if your school is in the G5, you already aren't competing at the highest level. You've been relegated to a lesser domain.

Second, so you think the FCS schools as well as Division II and III schools should all drop football? I think that would be a shame and don't understand why.

Finally, the highest level of football is the NFL and nobody in college competes there.

Nice job of taking what I said and completely turning it around.

It would be demoralizing for a fan base to go from competing at a higher level to a lower level... regardless of fbs, fcs, d2 or d3.

I think you know I was talking about college football, not NFL.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Best to just ignore that guy. Might as well be rationalizing with a stop sign.

I'm pretty sure UCF just 'competed at the highest level'. This time we ARE talking about on the field performance, not ancillary items like TV $$. And we can thank good old Mr. Aresco for that reserve slot for the G5 leader.

Actually, Aresco actually spearheaded a failed plan, to create a "7th bowl" that would feature a G5 school.

Does not change my point one bit. Now one of the six bowls will always feature a G5 school.

To be fair, I think his attempt was to get a 7th bowl for the old Big East... and surely we can agree that was never going to happen.

(05-08-2014 12:54 PM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  

(05-08-2014 11:49 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(05-08-2014 11:11 AM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  

(05-07-2014 05:33 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(05-07-2014 01:54 PM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  I'm not sure either of you bothered to follow the link. In it Larry Scott, the commish of the PAC 12 said SDSU and Boise were candidates.

And regarding the B1G, if this Illinois senator gets his wish, SIU will be joining the Big10 http://napervillesun.suntimes.com/news/s...14:article

Go Salukis!!

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.

I dont necessarily disagree with you regarding academics being a giant hurdle for those two. I just think they're legitimate enough candidates to not be written off so easily. Especially in our hypothetical end game realignment to 5 16 team conferences. Playing in California is a big deal to all the PAC members so you can bet that any additions will keep that balance which means SDSU and maybe Fresno are in play. Boise, UNLV/Nevada, I don't know why USU or CSU would be in play bc they already have those markets.

If its going to be five then you have to assume UT and OU anchor the Big12 otherwise there will only be a P4. If this scenario were to happen I think you'd find the expansion rules/preferences a little different and conferences are taking the best prepared schools even with their flaws (academics, flagship status, attendance etc).

Boise State in the same conference as Stanford.

I understand that the PAC12 commissioner threw out a couple of names and then went all blah, blah, blah on the situation. But c'mon man.

Then pray tell who, in this hypothetical Power 5 x 16 team conferences would the PAC add? Rice?

How about BYU. Makes sense since Utah is already in. Then there is Nevada and New Mexico.

(05-08-2014 01:00 PM)Knightshift Wrote:  

(05-07-2014 05:33 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(05-07-2014 01:54 PM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  

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

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

I'm not sure either of you bothered to follow the link. In it Larry Scott, the commish of the PAC 12 said SDSU and Boise were candidates.

And regarding the B1G, if this Illinois senator gets his wish, SIU will be joining the Big10 http://napervillesun.suntimes.com/news/s...14:article

Go Salukis!!

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.

Didn't people say the same thing about the ACC and Louisville not too many years ago?

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.

(05-08-2014 01:00 PM)Knightshift Wrote:  

(05-07-2014 05:33 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(05-07-2014 01:54 PM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  

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

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

I'm not sure either of you bothered to follow the link. In it Larry Scott, the commish of the PAC 12 said SDSU and Boise were candidates.

And regarding the B1G, if this Illinois senator gets his wish, SIU will be joining the Big10 http://napervillesun.suntimes.com/news/s...14:article

Go Salukis!!

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.

Didn't people say the same thing about the ACC and Louisville not too many years ago?

Louisville is a much better school than Boise State. I don't even like Louisville and can tell you that much. The Cardinals have done a LOT in the last 10 years to elevate their status past the old "commuter school" label that has haunted them in the past.

I am skeptical that the Sun Times author is at all close to Big Ten movers and shakers. Sounds like more of the same uninformed speculation constantly being passed off as news.[/align]

(05-08-2014 01:25 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(05-08-2014 12:54 PM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  

(05-08-2014 11:49 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(05-08-2014 11:11 AM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  

(05-07-2014 05:33 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  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.

I dont necessarily disagree with you regarding academics being a giant hurdle for those two. I just think they're legitimate enough candidates to not be written off so easily. Especially in our hypothetical end game realignment to 5 16 team conferences. Playing in California is a big deal to all the PAC members so you can bet that any additions will keep that balance which means SDSU and maybe Fresno are in play. Boise, UNLV/Nevada, I don't know why USU or CSU would be in play bc they already have those markets.

If its going to be five then you have to assume UT and OU anchor the Big12 otherwise there will only be a P4. If this scenario were to happen I think you'd find the expansion rules/preferences a little different and conferences are taking the best prepared schools even with their flaws (academics, flagship status, attendance etc).

Boise State in the same conference as Stanford.

I understand that the PAC12 commissioner threw out a couple of names and then went all blah, blah, blah on the situation. But c'mon man.

Then pray tell who, in this hypothetical Power 5 x 16 team conferences would the PAC add? Rice?

How about BYU. Makes sense since Utah is already in. Then there is Nevada and New Mexico.

I think BYU is a non-starter bc of their religious affiliation, but they would be a good add. IMO BYU feels more like a Big12 school but there too, they were omitted bc they will not play on Sundays. I cannot say I know enough about Nevada one way or the other, but I think UNLV if they get the act together would likely be a candidate. VEGAS BABY! If New Mexico could get off the floor in football I'd agree with them too. Larry Scott is a shrewd dude. He added Utah and Colorado and upped the conference payday to 20 mil a team when no one though Utah was worth that kinda dough. He could likely do the same adding three new markest in UNLV, New Mexico and Boise. Then tack on SDSU for the Cali presence.

I still maintain though, that if this scenario were to materialize the P5 would look for those school most prepared athletically and their academic preferences would take a back seat.

(05-08-2014 02:10 PM)BE4evah Wrote:  I am skeptical that the Sun Times author is at all close to Big Ten movers and shakers. Sounds like more of the same uninformed speculation constantly being passed off as news.[/align]

No sh6t sherlock. That's why it's called an opinion piece.

(05-08-2014 01:08 PM)Bull Wrote:  

(05-08-2014 11:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-07-2014 03:11 PM)Bull Wrote:  

(05-07-2014 12:58 PM)PuddlePirate Wrote:  

(05-07-2014 12:23 PM)goldenhurricane2 Wrote:  Nice job of taking what I said and completely turning it around.

It would be demoralizing for a fan base to go from competing at a higher level to a lower level... regardless of fbs, fcs, d2 or d3.

I think you know I was talking about college football, not NFL.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Best to just ignore that guy. Might as well be rationalizing with a stop sign.

I'm pretty sure UCF just 'competed at the highest level'. This time we ARE talking about on the field performance, not ancillary items like TV $$. And we can thank good old Mr. Aresco for that reserve slot for the G5 leader.

Actually, Aresco actually spearheaded a failed plan, to create a "7th bowl" that would feature a G5 school.

Does not change my point one bit. Now one of the six bowls will always feature a G5 school.

To be fair, I think his attempt was to get a 7th bowl for the old Big East... and surely we can agree that was never going to happen.

We can, but it does change your point. The plan that Aresco spearheaded was a 7th bowl. That was when he was not seeking any kind of unity with the rest of the G5, quite the opposite, he was still trying to salvage a kind of AQ status for the Big East above the other minor conferences.

In contrast, the G5 access for the 6th bowl, the plan that was adopted, was the collective effort of the G5, not Aresco, who was way-slow to recognize that a G5 existed and that we were part of it. The rest of the G5 pushed for this access on the grounds of "fairness", so as to replicate the access that they had gained in 2004 in the BCS system, and that argument prevailed.

(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. It was really just intended as a harmless joke but it fell flat. That was about 23 years ago, and the professor still won't answer his e-mails).