(10-22-2013 08:04 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Buffalo and UConn. Book it.

What makes you think Buffalo?

It would be quite an outlier since the rest of the conference is big flagship universities.

(10-22-2013 08:09 PM)CoogNellie Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 07:57 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  4 Conferences of 16+ is what's best for college Div1 football. It's good for the fans, TV, and schools. It'll be all or none, and right now the BigXII is the weakest link.

Man it amazes me how you forgot what it was like to be a have-not, considering Louisville has always been a have-not.

But no I guess we need 4 16 team conferences and nothing else. UCF doesn't deserve to play for the title, they aren't an elite program like Louisville... oh wait.

There will be something else and no, Houston won't be left out.

(10-22-2013 07:38 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  UConn to the B1G wouldn't scathe the ACC.

The BigXII's likely to get poached over the ACC. Dissolving a 10 team conference is easier than dissolving a 14 team conference. How you guys don't see that, I'll never know. Not that logic flies around here anyhow.

1. There are 15 ACC members.
2. I find it curious that the AD used the term "academically excellent" rather than to say an "AAU" member. What does "academically excellent" mean? Can this be taken to mean on a par with or better than Nebraska? I

Let's also remember that the Big Ten released the 2018/2019 football schedules less than a week ago.

(10-22-2013 08:17 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 07:38 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  UConn to the B1G wouldn't scathe the ACC.

The BigXII's likely to get poached over the ACC. Dissolving a 10 team conference is easier than dissolving a 14 team conference. How you guys don't see that, I'll never know. Not that logic flies around here anyhow.

1. There are 15 ACC members.
2. I find it curious that the AD used the term "academically excellent" rather than to say an "AAU" member. What does "academically excellent" mean? Can this be taken to mean on a par with or better than Nebraska? I

It means the likes of an Oklahoma or a Florida State. They have other aspects that would be considered "Very Desirable" by most of the Big Ten.

Notice how he said the vote would have to be a consensus vote not just a majority vote? Yeah, that means schools like UConn and Buffalo are just smokescreens. They have zero chance at getting everyone in the Big Ten to vote yes on them.

(10-22-2013 08:09 PM)CoogNellie Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 07:57 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  4 Conferences of 16+ is what's best for college Div1 football. It's good for the fans, TV, and schools. It'll be all or none, and right now the BigXII is the weakest link.

Man it amazes me how you forgot what it was like to be a have-not, considering Louisville has always been a have-not.

But no I guess we need 4 16 team conferences and nothing else. UCF doesn't deserve to play for the title, they aren't an elite program like Louisville... oh wait.

You're assuming that I said Houston would be left out. Frankly, I don't know the answer to that. However, 4/16 expands the playoffs de-facto and completely does away with the need for polls and rankings. The championship playoff would be expanded in a manner that benefits the top conferences. I'm sorry, but you can take to the bank that the power conferences will want to keep as much money in their pockets as possible.

Please, please, I've lost count. Lets do this alphabetically. Please name all the B1G ADs and Presidents that have stated that they will take whomever they want, from whatever conference they want. I'll begin....Barry Alvarez, from Wisconsin, in the Big Ten, with the microphone said.....we want Maryland and Rutgers cause we're scared Penn State will leave us..........


Now your turn!

The more i think about it, i like the Missouri + Arkansas option for the big 10 to jump to 16. NO GOR problems, geography works, than go for Texas post GOR of the big 12.

(10-22-2013 08:34 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  You're assuming that I said Houston would be left out. Frankly, I don't know the answer to that. However, 4/16 expands the playoffs de-facto and completely does away with the need for polls and rankings. The championship playoff would be expanded in a manner that benefits the top conferences. I'm sorry, but you can take to the bank that the power conferences will want to keep as much money in their pockets as possible.

It has nothing to do with Houston and everything to do with your attitude that only 64 schools deserve a shot at the national title. It's ridiculous that a Louisville, Utah, or TCU fan would look down on the non-AQs.

(10-22-2013 08:43 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Please, please, I've lost count. Lets do this alphabetically. Please name all the B1G ADs and Presidents that have stated that they will take whomever they want, from whatever conference they want. I'll begin....Barry Alvarez, from Wisconsin, in the Big Ten, with the microphone said.....we want Maryland and Rutgers cause we're scared Penn State will leave us..........


Now your turn!

No, that is not what he said, nice spin job.

What exactly is the point of this post?

Must be a coincidence that Miko, Fred Glass and I just had lunch in the dowdy ficlken press box Monday. Wait for the thread.

on that note, who knows who the big will take. I keep waiting for them to split the VA and NC schools with the SEC. I think they hold until they get exactly who they want, or the SEC does.

Let's call them the Big 10 and not 'the Big.' 'The Big' sounds retarded and could also refer to the Big 12 or Big East.

(10-22-2013 08:51 PM)CoogNellie Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 08:34 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  You're assuming that I said Houston would be left out. Frankly, I don't know the answer to that. However, 4/16 expands the playoffs de-facto and completely does away with the need for polls and rankings. The championship playoff would be expanded in a manner that benefits the top conferences. I'm sorry, but you can take to the bank that the power conferences will want to keep as much money in their pockets as possible.

It has nothing to do with Houston and everything to do with your attitude that only 64 schools deserve a shot at the national title. It's ridiculous that a Louisville, Utah, or TCU fan would look down on the non-AQs.

I'm not the one that came up with the idea of a Div-4. I'm not looking down on anyone. I'm merely pointing out that the concept of 4 conferences of 16+ makes the most sense from a fan's perspective and a conference perspective. You're pinning things on me that I'm not saying!

(10-22-2013 08:44 PM)bluesox Wrote:  The more i think about it, i like the Missouri + Arkansas option for the big 10 to jump to 16. NO GOR problems, geography works, than go for Texas post GOR of the big 12.

Missouri fits in better with the B10 than it does with the SEC, IMOHO. I could see them being added along with Kansas... if Kansas State can be pacified.

For some reason, I could also see Texas and Oklahoma joining... if Texas Tech and Oklahoma State can also be taken care of.

UNC and UVA will not be able to get away from NCSU, Wake, Duke and Va Tech.

UConn would be a no-brainer, along with an ACC team, such as Georgia Tech (I think that they would bolt in a minute).

The most likely scenario is that nothing happens alignment-wise unless four-six teams leave the B12 (TX, OK, OK State, Texas Tech to the Pac12... along with possibly Kansas and Mizzu). Kansas State or WVU replaces Mizzu in the SEC.

(10-22-2013 07:46 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 07:43 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 07:38 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  NEW YORK aka Buffalo. they could use all that cash to upgrade their athletics (are they really that much worse than rutgers? they did beat uconn as we know)
you heard it here 1st

You can't really believe one FB game would determine a realignment decision, especially when UConn's all-time record against Buffalo is about 17-3.

UConn's record against ND is 1-0 (the Huskies won at South Bend in 2009). That was a blast, but it means less than nothing in the realignment game.

i was just teasing about the uconn win. however buffalo fits the BIG profile in every way (other than athletic history)
i dont think it will actually happen but crazier things have happened

The problem is UB isn't "The" Flagship in NY.

(10-22-2013 08:22 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 08:17 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 07:38 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  UConn to the B1G wouldn't scathe the ACC.

The BigXII's likely to get poached over the ACC. Dissolving a 10 team conference is easier than dissolving a 14 team conference. How you guys don't see that, I'll never know. Not that logic flies around here anyhow.

1. There are 15 ACC members.
2. I find it curious that the AD used the term "academically excellent" rather than to say an "AAU" member. What does "academically excellent" mean? Can this be taken to mean on a par with or better than Nebraska? I

It means the likes of an Oklahoma or a Florida State. They have other aspects that would be considered "Very Desirable" by most of the Big Ten.

Notice how he said the vote would have to be a consensus vote not just a majority vote? Yeah, that means schools like UConn and Buffalo are just smokescreens. They have zero chance at getting everyone in the Big Ten to vote yes on them.

I loathe using US News Undergraduate Rankings for any purpose other than teaching students the worthlessness of canned data, but for the sake of ease I notice the following:

This year Nebraska is ranked 101, Indiana 75, Iowa and MSU are ranked at a tied 73. Now if the B10 considers these institutions academically excellent (and they are) that means the following schools with major athletic programs are also academically excellent at least at the undergrad level:

Tied at 101 - Kansas, Oklahoma, NC State, Tennessee
97 - Mizzou
Tied at 91 - Auburn, FSU
86 - Bama
75 - Baylor
69- Virginia Tech
Tied at 62 - Clemson and Syracuse
60 - UGA
57 - UConn
52 - Texas
47- Miami FL
36 - GT
30 - UNC
23 - UVA
18 - ND
17 - Vandy
7 - Duke

The bolded and italized schools are also graduate research intensive and on average have higher rankings in the various other rankings that rank for such things and the B10 is graduate research intensive. That's Kansas, NC State, Tennessee, Mizzou, VT, Texas, GT, UNC, UVa, Vandy, and Duke - that's not to say the others at 101 and above don't do graduate research, just that it's not as heavy an emphasis, meaning that these 11 are a little more like a B10 school, than the others, a little, not a lot, with the exception of Notre Dame, Miami, and Baylor, which if memory serves, are very undergraduate oriented.

Since the AAU only has 61 members in the US (Toronto and McGill are in Canada of course) if you dissect the statement and put it under a microscope, it seems that the B10 could be prepping itself in an attempt to lure one or two of the following non-AAU members - Oklahoma, NC State, Va Tech, and UConn.

OU is the most obvious.

Va Tech gives them the exact same thing as UVa in the Va/DC markets with a better football product than UVa, however, anything that involves VT, involves UVa, which involves UNC, which then involves NC State and Duke. Unlike VT, NC State is not at fan parity with UNC, however, they give the B10 a footprint in the NC market.

However any team that is added at the Southeast or Southwest boarder of the B10 will be on an almost West Va/B12 island.

I also don't think the B10 has a great ability to "poach" anyone. Nebraska left the B12 because they hated Texas. Maryland left the ACC because their new President was a B10 man and because Maryland fell into a financial hole that they hoped the B10 could fill. Competing against 8 professional teams between DC and Baltimore for the sale of tickets is difficult and the Nationals new facility really hurt MD (look at the cost of room and board at MD and that will tell you something if you know anything about this profession).

At the end of the day, I think OU and Kansas are the best the B10 can do, and to do that, they have to break up the B12 and to break up the B12, they probably need help.

(10-22-2013 08:58 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  I'm merely pointing out that the concept of 4 conferences of 16+ makes the most sense from a fan's perspective and a conference perspective. You're pinning things on me that I'm not saying!

From what fans perspective? College football seems pretty wildly successful the way it is. And the only conferences that want that to happen are the SEC, Big 10, Pac 12, and whoever sucks the least any given year between the ACC and Big 12.

(10-22-2013 09:06 PM)CoogNellie Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 08:58 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  I'm merely pointing out that the concept of 4 conferences of 16+ makes the most sense from a fan's perspective and a conference perspective. You're pinning things on me that I'm not saying!

From what fans perspective? College football seems pretty wildly successful the way it is. And the only conferences that want that to happen are the SEC, Big 10, Pac 12, and whoever sucks the least any given year between the ACC and Big 12.

From a practical standpoint, once you reach 16, you don't have a single conference - you have two under one name and a scheduling agreement for tournaments.

(10-22-2013 09:03 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 08:22 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 08:17 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 07:38 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  UConn to the B1G wouldn't scathe the ACC.

The BigXII's likely to get poached over the ACC. Dissolving a 10 team conference is easier than dissolving a 14 team conference. How you guys don't see that, I'll never know. Not that logic flies around here anyhow.

1. There are 15 ACC members.
2. I find it curious that the AD used the term "academically excellent" rather than to say an "AAU" member. What does "academically excellent" mean? Can this be taken to mean on a par with or better than Nebraska? I

It means the likes of an Oklahoma or a Florida State. They have other aspects that would be considered "Very Desirable" by most of the Big Ten.

Notice how he said the vote would have to be a consensus vote not just a majority vote? Yeah, that means schools like UConn and Buffalo are just smokescreens. They have zero chance at getting everyone in the Big Ten to vote yes on them.

I loathe using US News Undergraduate Rankings for any purpose other than teaching students the worthlessness of canned data, but for the sake of ease I notice the following:

This year Nebraska is ranked 101, Indiana 75, Iowa and MSU are ranked at a tied 73. Now if the B10 considers these institutions academically excellent (and they are) that means the following schools with major athletic programs are also academically excellent at least at the undergrad level:

Tied at 101 - Kansas, Oklahoma, NC State, Tennessee
97 - Mizzou
Tied at 91 - Auburn, FSU
86 - Bama
75 - Baylor
69- Virginia Tech
Tied at 62 - Clemson and Syracuse
60 - UGA
57 - UConn
52 - Texas
47- Miami FL
36 - GT
30 - UNC
23 - UVA
18 - ND
17 - Vandy
7 - Duke

The bolded and italized schools are also graduate research intensive and on average have higher rankings in the various other rankings that rank for such things and the B10 is graduate research intensive. That's Kansas, NC State, Tennessee, Mizzou, VT, Texas, GT, UNC, UVa, Vandy, and Duke - that's not to say the others at 101 and above don't do graduate research, just that it's not as heavy an emphasis, meaning that these 11 are a little more like a B10 school, than the others, a little, not a lot, with the exception of Notre Dame, Miami, and Baylor, which if memory serves, are very undergraduate oriented.

Since the AAU only has 61 members in the US (Toronto and McGill are in Canada of course) if you dissect the statement and put it under a microscope, it seems that the B10 could be prepping itself in an attempt to lure one or two of the following non-AAU members - Oklahoma, NC State, Va Tech, and UConn.

OU is the most obvious.

Va Tech gives them the exact same thing as UVa in the Va/DC markets with a better football product than UVa, however, anything that involves VT, involves UVa, which involves UNC, which then involves NC State and Duke. Unlike VT, NC State is not at fan parity with UNC, however, they give the B10 a footprint in the NC market.

However any team that is added at the Southeast or Southwest boarder of the B10 will be on an almost West Va/B12 island.

I also don't think the B10 has a great ability to "poach" anyone. Nebraska left the B12 because they hated Texas. Maryland left the ACC because their new President was a B10 man and because Maryland fell into a financial hole that they hoped the B10 could fill. Competing against 8 professional teams between DC and Baltimore for the sale of tickets is difficult and the Nationals new facility really hurt MD (look at the cost of room and board at MD and that will tell you something if you know anything about this profession).

At the end of the day, I think OU and Kansas are the best the B10 can do, and to do that, they have to break up the B12 and to break up the B12, they probably need help.

Yep, I agree with all of the above except that the Big Ten might look at NC State. I do think Virginia Tech would get looked at but I couldn't say either way as to whether or not they could receive a consensus of votes from the Presidents.

I am of the mindset that the two targets are Oklahoma and Kansas.

Yes, that will require help. I think that help comes from ESPN mainly. They will provide the grease and the leverage to get the conferences to finish realignment in a way that best suits them. ESPN may not like realignment but if it has to happen in order to settle things down then they are likely to fashion a realignment scenario that is in their best interests.

If a conference has to go, which one do you think ESPN would care about the least?

(10-22-2013 09:09 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 09:06 PM)CoogNellie Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 08:58 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  I'm merely pointing out that the concept of 4 conferences of 16+ makes the most sense from a fan's perspective and a conference perspective. You're pinning things on me that I'm not saying!

From what fans perspective? College football seems pretty wildly successful the way it is. And the only conferences that want that to happen are the SEC, Big 10, Pac 12, and whoever sucks the least any given year between the ACC and Big 12.

From a practical standpoint, once you reach 16, you don't have a single conference - you have two under one name and a scheduling agreement for tournaments.

Not if you move to four divisions.