(04-20-2013 07:28 PM)IR4CU Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 07:16 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 10:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-14-2011 09:15 PM)miko33 Wrote:  The age of superconferences will begin within 5 years. That is my prediction, and it seems that a number of the Big10 schools are beginning to arrange their future OOC schedules around 2016 and beyond with ND, Pitt, Rutgers and Syracuse. Case in point, PSU has had zero desire to play Pitt since 2000. Now, it appears that PSU has changed on that stance. Why? Because they need to expand their eastern presence and that when superconferences become a reality the B1G will need to deepen those bonds with the more traditional eastern FB teams, which ND is included in due to their "eastern feel". The link below is merely the beginning of a progression of steps that will be occurring in within the next 5 years.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11165/1153636-100-2.stm

I would rather see Syracuse and Pitt in the Big 10 than in the SEC. And I would rather see Florida State and Georgia Tech in the SEC than in the Big 10. But most of all I would rather they just all stay in the ACC. If we must get to 16 each in 4 conferences then let's agree how best to divide the one in the middle of the country and end this thing.

Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech and Texas to the PAC.
Kansas and Iowa State to the Big 10.
Baylor and Oklahoma to the SEC.
Connecticut and West Virginia to the ACC.

The ACC gets contiguous states. The SEC gets one national brand and a good program close enough to Dallas/Ft.Worth. The Big 10 gets 1 national brand and two AAU schools. The PAC gets one national brand in Texas a West Texas school as a bridge, and two central time zone states with two strong football programs.

Naw, the magic number is 18.

The Pac takes Texas, Tech, OU, OSU, KU, KSU

B1G takes UVA, UNC, Duke, GT

SEC takes VT, NC St, FSU, Baylor

ACC/Big XII/AAC merger (A.K.A. The Big 16)

WF, BC, Cuse, Pitt, UofL, ISU, TCU, Cincy, WVU, Clemson, USF, UCF, Houston, SMU, Miami, UConn, Temple, Memphis.

Thats your Big Four right there. Real consolidation of power.

From a Clemson perspective, this would be tantamount to football extinction. Outside of WVU and possibly Miami, not a natural rival in this scenario. Numerous near zero fan interest match ups (BC, WF, UCONN, Temple, & Memphis). Several match ups that might be interesting the first few go rounds (Cuse, Pitt, ISU, Cincy, UofL, Houston, USF, UCF, TCU, SMU) but nothing that I see that would hold long term interest for Clemson fans (maybe UofL). I would foresee our recruiting taking a massive nose dive and the travel would be beyond horrendous. The recruiting aspect would make it near to impossible for us to be competitive with our in-state SEC rival (South Carolina). In this scenario I would actively push for and support Clemson moving from BCS to FCS, rejoining the Southern Conference, and dropping the annual South Carolina game.

I'm surprised that you put Wake Forest in the zero fan interest category. Clemson and Wake Forest have a long history that started way before the ACC was formed.

(04-20-2013 08:14 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 07:28 PM)IR4CU Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 07:16 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 10:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-14-2011 09:15 PM)miko33 Wrote:  The age of superconferences will begin within 5 years. That is my prediction, and it seems that a number of the Big10 schools are beginning to arrange their future OOC schedules around 2016 and beyond with ND, Pitt, Rutgers and Syracuse. Case in point, PSU has had zero desire to play Pitt since 2000. Now, it appears that PSU has changed on that stance. Why? Because they need to expand their eastern presence and that when superconferences become a reality the B1G will need to deepen those bonds with the more traditional eastern FB teams, which ND is included in due to their "eastern feel". The link below is merely the beginning of a progression of steps that will be occurring in within the next 5 years.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11165/1153636-100-2.stm

I would rather see Syracuse and Pitt in the Big 10 than in the SEC. And I would rather see Florida State and Georgia Tech in the SEC than in the Big 10. But most of all I would rather they just all stay in the ACC. If we must get to 16 each in 4 conferences then let's agree how best to divide the one in the middle of the country and end this thing.

Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech and Texas to the PAC.
Kansas and Iowa State to the Big 10.
Baylor and Oklahoma to the SEC.
Connecticut and West Virginia to the ACC.

The ACC gets contiguous states. The SEC gets one national brand and a good program close enough to Dallas/Ft.Worth. The Big 10 gets 1 national brand and two AAU schools. The PAC gets one national brand in Texas a West Texas school as a bridge, and two central time zone states with two strong football programs.

Naw, the magic number is 18.

The Pac takes Texas, Tech, OU, OSU, KU, KSU

B1G takes UVA, UNC, Duke, GT

SEC takes VT, NC St, FSU, Baylor

ACC/Big XII/AAC merger (A.K.A. The Big 16)

WF, BC, Cuse, Pitt, UofL, ISU, TCU, Cincy, WVU, Clemson, USF, UCF, Houston, SMU, Miami, UConn, Temple, Memphis.

Thats your Big Four right there. Real consolidation of power.

From a Clemson perspective, this would be tantamount to football extinction. Outside of WVU and possibly Miami, not a natural rival in this scenario. Numerous near zero fan interest match ups (BC, WF, UCONN, Temple, & Memphis). Several match ups that might be interesting the first few go rounds (Cuse, Pitt, ISU, Cincy, UofL, Houston, USF, UCF, TCU, SMU) but nothing that I see that would hold long term interest for Clemson fans (maybe UofL). I would foresee our recruiting taking a massive nose dive and the travel would be beyond horrendous. The recruiting aspect would make it near to impossible for us to be competitive with our in-state SEC rival (South Carolina). In this scenario I would actively push for and support Clemson moving from BCS to FCS, rejoining the Southern Conference, and dropping the annual South Carolina game.

I'm surprised that you put Wake Forest in the zero fan interest category. Clemson and Wake Forest have a long history that started way before the ACC was formed.

8-9 of those games have zero fan interest from Syracuse's perspective.

None of:

WF, ISU, TCU, USF, UCF, Houston, SMU, Temple (it's a reason to go to Philly - that's something, right?), Memphis

do anything for SU, except maybe Temple, but that's just because it's a reason to go to Philly and possibly WF because they are a private school with elite academics (I'm really reaching). Many of those teams would bring down the conference's payout (Temple, ISU, WF...). If that happens, I'm OK with SU going indy and forming a scheduling alliance with BC, ND, Pitt, WVU, Miami, and Clemson (I know the Clemson fan above wasn't overly enthused with CU playing SU, but Death Valley is too big to go empty and we would be the best option), playing UCONN and RU OOC every year, playing PSU in alternating years (or every year if they will let us), playing some other elite team in alternating years (assuming PSU doens't play us every year), and then playing 3 privates in a schedule-filler "who cares about football? snob bowl" (2 of Vandy, Duke, NW, WF, Rice, Stanford, USC [if they will play us] and Tulane and one of Cornell and Colgate).

I say the SEC take FSU and Clemson if they went to 18 schools. Definitely not Baylor. Probably not TCU. I think the ACC/Big 12 merger would look something akin to:

West: Baylor, TCU, ISU, Memphis, SMU, Houston
East: Cuse, UConn, Pitt, Temple, WVU, Miami
South: UCF, USF, WF, ECU, UL, UC

Bball is imbalanced, but whatever.

(04-20-2013 08:14 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 07:28 PM)IR4CU Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 07:16 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 10:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-14-2011 09:15 PM)miko33 Wrote:  The age of superconferences will begin within 5 years. That is my prediction, and it seems that a number of the Big10 schools are beginning to arrange their future OOC schedules around 2016 and beyond with ND, Pitt, Rutgers and Syracuse. Case in point, PSU has had zero desire to play Pitt since 2000. Now, it appears that PSU has changed on that stance. Why? Because they need to expand their eastern presence and that when superconferences become a reality the B1G will need to deepen those bonds with the more traditional eastern FB teams, which ND is included in due to their "eastern feel". The link below is merely the beginning of a progression of steps that will be occurring in within the next 5 years.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11165/1153636-100-2.stm

I would rather see Syracuse and Pitt in the Big 10 than in the SEC. And I would rather see Florida State and Georgia Tech in the SEC than in the Big 10. But most of all I would rather they just all stay in the ACC. If we must get to 16 each in 4 conferences then let's agree how best to divide the one in the middle of the country and end this thing.

Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech and Texas to the PAC.
Kansas and Iowa State to the Big 10.
Baylor and Oklahoma to the SEC.
Connecticut and West Virginia to the ACC.

The ACC gets contiguous states. The SEC gets one national brand and a good program close enough to Dallas/Ft.Worth. The Big 10 gets 1 national brand and two AAU schools. The PAC gets one national brand in Texas a West Texas school as a bridge, and two central time zone states with two strong football programs.

Naw, the magic number is 18.

The Pac takes Texas, Tech, OU, OSU, KU, KSU

B1G takes UVA, UNC, Duke, GT

SEC takes VT, NC St, FSU, Baylor

ACC/Big XII/AAC merger (A.K.A. The Big 16)

WF, BC, Cuse, Pitt, UofL, ISU, TCU, Cincy, WVU, Clemson, USF, UCF, Houston, SMU, Miami, UConn, Temple, Memphis.

Thats your Big Four right there. Real consolidation of power.

From a Clemson perspective, this would be tantamount to football extinction. Outside of WVU and possibly Miami, not a natural rival in this scenario. Numerous near zero fan interest match ups (BC, WF, UCONN, Temple, & Memphis). Several match ups that might be interesting the first few go rounds (Cuse, Pitt, ISU, Cincy, UofL, Houston, USF, UCF, TCU, SMU) but nothing that I see that would hold long term interest for Clemson fans (maybe UofL). I would foresee our recruiting taking a massive nose dive and the travel would be beyond horrendous. The recruiting aspect would make it near to impossible for us to be competitive with our in-state SEC rival (South Carolina). In this scenario I would actively push for and support Clemson moving from BCS to FCS, rejoining the Southern Conference, and dropping the annual South Carolina game.

I'm surprised that you put Wake Forest in the zero fan interest category. Clemson and Wake Forest have a long history that started way before the ACC was formed.

I have the utmost respect for Wake Forest. I did not intend any disrespect to them or to any of the other schools - just saying from a Clemson football fan's perspective, Wake as well as the others do not generate much excitement on game day. I know we have played Wake for numerous years - and for the vast majority of those years I would say that many if not all Clemson fans just chalked the Wake game up as another football game - something to see and do on a Saturday afternoon but no excitement. Georgia, Auburn, FSU, VT, USC and to a lesser degree NCSU, GT, and and even UNC generate a "buzz" when they come to town. Think about it this way Clemson and UNC have played basketball many times through the years and Clemson has even managed to beat UNC a few times at home but of course we have never beaten UNC at UNC. Does Clemson create anywhere near the "buzz" that Duke or NCSU create when they play BB at Chapel Hill? I can not imagine that Clemson creates even the remotest "buzz" for UNC fans when they play BB games at UNC - probably the only thing that causes any kind of excitement for UNC fans for the Clemson home games is the fear that the streak may end! I guess my point is that "history" does not necessarily create "excitement".

(04-21-2013 01:25 PM)IR4CU Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 08:14 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 07:28 PM)IR4CU Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 07:16 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 10:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I would rather see Syracuse and Pitt in the Big 10 than in the SEC. And I would rather see Florida State and Georgia Tech in the SEC than in the Big 10. But most of all I would rather they just all stay in the ACC. If we must get to 16 each in 4 conferences then let's agree how best to divide the one in the middle of the country and end this thing.

Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech and Texas to the PAC.
Kansas and Iowa State to the Big 10.
Baylor and Oklahoma to the SEC.
Connecticut and West Virginia to the ACC.

The ACC gets contiguous states. The SEC gets one national brand and a good program close enough to Dallas/Ft.Worth. The Big 10 gets 1 national brand and two AAU schools. The PAC gets one national brand in Texas a West Texas school as a bridge, and two central time zone states with two strong football programs.

Naw, the magic number is 18.

The Pac takes Texas, Tech, OU, OSU, KU, KSU

B1G takes UVA, UNC, Duke, GT

SEC takes VT, NC St, FSU, Baylor

ACC/Big XII/AAC merger (A.K.A. The Big 16)

WF, BC, Cuse, Pitt, UofL, ISU, TCU, Cincy, WVU, Clemson, USF, UCF, Houston, SMU, Miami, UConn, Temple, Memphis.

Thats your Big Four right there. Real consolidation of power.

From a Clemson perspective, this would be tantamount to football extinction. Outside of WVU and possibly Miami, not a natural rival in this scenario. Numerous near zero fan interest match ups (BC, WF, UCONN, Temple, & Memphis). Several match ups that might be interesting the first few go rounds (Cuse, Pitt, ISU, Cincy, UofL, Houston, USF, UCF, TCU, SMU) but nothing that I see that would hold long term interest for Clemson fans (maybe UofL). I would foresee our recruiting taking a massive nose dive and the travel would be beyond horrendous. The recruiting aspect would make it near to impossible for us to be competitive with our in-state SEC rival (South Carolina). In this scenario I would actively push for and support Clemson moving from BCS to FCS, rejoining the Southern Conference, and dropping the annual South Carolina game.

I'm surprised that you put Wake Forest in the zero fan interest category. Clemson and Wake Forest have a long history that started way before the ACC was formed.

I have the utmost respect for Wake Forest. I did not intend any disrespect to them or to any of the other schools - just saying from a Clemson football fan's perspective, Wake as well as the others do not generate much excitement on game day. I know we have played Wake for numerous years - and for the vast majority of those years I would say that many if not all Clemson fans just chalked the Wake game up as another football game - something to see and do on a Saturday afternoon but no excitement. Georgia, Auburn, FSU, VT, USC and to a lesser degree NCSU, GT, and and even UNC generate a "buzz" when they come to town. Think about it this way Clemson and UNC have played basketball many times through the years and Clemson has even managed to beat UNC a few times at home but of course we have never beaten UNC at UNC. Does Clemson create anywhere near the "buzz" that Duke or NCSU create when they play BB at Chapel Hill? I can not imagine that Clemson creates even the remotest "buzz" for UNC fans when they play BB games at UNC - probably the only thing that causes any kind of excitement for UNC fans for the Clemson home games is the fear that the streak may end! I guess my point is that "history" does not necessarily create "excitement".

Point well taken.

A lot of these "buzz" games are cyclical.
When I was in school the State game was just a meh. Now because of a few good State runs in the last 20 years, the younger fans think that State is Carolina's big "rival". Those in my generation still get pumped for the UVa and Dook games more than State. In fact I would rather play Wake Forest or Clemson every year instead of NC State. Oh Well! times change.
Sometimes one game can create a rivalry...........what would Clemson/FSU be if it had not been for the fumblerooski?

(06-15-2011 12:11 PM)NoGoodBum Wrote:  it may be true that the SEC has no desire to add additional privates at any time in the future, having at least one in a conference yields benefits to the conference over-all. Keeps the conference's books closed for one & other reasons. That is why I believe the next conference to add a team will be the MWC to replace TCU with another private in 2013. Just one person's opinion.

That wasn't a bad guess, IMHO, but it didn't turn out that way. What private school would be available to the Mtn.?

(04-20-2013 03:55 AM)lew240z Wrote:  There is no law requiring the two Oklahoma schools to be in the same conference. Contrary to what some believe, it is not in the state constitution, either.

While governor, OU president David Boren was instrumental in establishing the verterinary school at OSU. Mrs. Boren is a graduate of OSU. OSU president Burns Hargis got his law degree from OU. Many Oklahomans describe it as a family relationship.

Guess not. It's practically over.

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten