I don't see any expansion unless the Big 10 wants two more ...

1) UVA & UNC (complicated, but enticing)
2) Texas & Oklahoma (complicated, but enticing)
3) Kansas & UConn (to challenge the ACC in BB; much easier, but less enticing)

(03-09-2015 08:35 PM)Phlipper33 Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 07:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  1. It's a great plan for Aggie fans to rid themselves of Bevo.

As much as I like to pick on my Longhorn friends with UT not being what they were 5 years ago, I miss the rivalry. I'm certainly glad that A&M joined the SEC, but I really wish we could have kept playing that game. I'd always dreamed of the two teams being undefeated going into that Thanksgiving game. I can't see them as conference members together anytime soon, but I really hope the AD's say enough is enough and start playing each other again.

Whereas I believe the exact opposite: never ever play them again in anything but especially NOT in football. It's over, it's dead, let it rot.

I don't doubt that it's unlikely, but I never would have thought the Big Ten was going to add Rutgers or Maryland either. I try to be open minded, and ran across someone mentioning the idea of a merger between the two conferences a couple of days ago (may have even been on this board, but I'm not sure exactly where it was) and it got me thinking about that might look like. I tried moving some of the Big Ten schools into the Pac, but I couldn't think of one reason why that might actually happen, so I flipped it and came up with this. In my head it actually started to make sense as a possible route, which doesn't normally happen when I try to make massive changes to conferences, so I decided to post it here and see what yall thought. I certainly didn't expect everyone to say it was a great idea. I really didn't expect more than a comment or two, figuring someone would point out some massive mistake is made like leaving USC out of a conference or somehow having Texas in 3 different conferences. I typed this up while pretending to work at the office, so I wouldn't have been surprised if I'd made some silly mistake like that.

Anyways, I appreciate your comments, the point about the two conferences failing to get a scheduling agreement that they'd tried to set is a good one. I remember them initially talking about it, but frankly I mostly follow the Big 12 and the SEC, and I didn't even realize they never got anything agreed upon.

(03-09-2015 08:43 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I don't see any expansion unless the Big 10 wants two more ...

1) UVA & UNC (complicated, but enticing)
2) Texas & Oklahoma (complicated, but enticing)
3) Kansas & UConn (to challenge the ACC in BB; much easier, but less enticing)

You forgot the one that is actually possible and viable when the big 12 ends.

Oklahoma & Kansas.

None of yours work.

(03-09-2015 08:56 PM)Phlipper33 Wrote:  I don't doubt that it's unlikely, but I never would have thought the Big Ten was going to add Rutgers or Maryland either. I try to be open minded, and ran across someone mentioning the idea of a merger between the two conferences a couple of days ago (may have even been on this board, but I'm not sure exactly where it was) and it got me thinking about that might look like. I tried moving some of the Big Ten schools into the Pac, but I couldn't think of one reason why that might actually happen, so I flipped it and came up with this. In my head it actually started to make sense as a possible route, which doesn't normally happen when I try to make massive changes to conferences, so I decided to post it here and see what yall thought. I certainly didn't expect everyone to say it was a great idea. I really didn't expect more than a comment or two, figuring someone would point out some massive mistake is made like leaving USC out of a conference or somehow having Texas in 3 different conferences. I typed this up while pretending to work at the office, so I wouldn't have been surprised if I'd made some silly mistake like that.

Anyways, I appreciate your comments, the point about the two conferences failing to get a scheduling agreement that they'd tried to set is a good one. I remember them initially talking about it, but frankly I mostly follow the Big 12 and the SEC, and I didn't even realize they never got anything agreed upon.

Yeah, to be honest you could chart the relationship between the two conferences entirely upon the viability and value of The Rose Bowl. Without that, there really isn't anything there to bring the two conferences closer. If anything, they are drifting apart.

(03-09-2015 08:36 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 08:28 PM)Phlipper33 Wrote:  Big Ten has a lot of history with the PAC schools. Getting into California is huge for recruiting and helps maintain a good population base as the Midwest is not growing at the rate the south and west coasts are. Is that enough to consider inviting the PAC schools? I don't know, but it's interesting to consider.

Why would the PAC schools want to join with the Big 10? If conferences really are expanding to 16-20 schools or even higher, the PAC has very little to choose from. The could expand with the smaller state schools that aren't AAU like New Mexico and Nevada, but what good would that do them? They already tried getting the Texoma schools and weren't able to make that happen. Do they really think they'd be the ones to land them if the Big Ten or SEC were seriously looking to expand as well? Perhaps the only way for the larger west coast schools to get the bigger state schools that are AAU to be part of the same conference is not by inviting schools to join the Pac, but instead for the Pac schools to join the Big Ten?

To your first paragraph. Is it interesting to consider? Obviously, you made this thread and there is conversation going, that means it is interesting. That does not mean it is a viable scenario to ever happen. The Big Ten and PAC couldn't even agree on a scheduling agreement. You want folks to believe they could come to an agreement in regards to a merging simply because The Big Ten would benefit in recruiting? Good try but simplistic. The equal and opposite to what you said is that the PAC wouldn't want to give that benefit to The Big Ten yet you didn't mention that because it didn't aid your argument.

Good point.

Though to be fair to the conferences, the whole scheduling agreement idea was half-baked. There was never any agreement on which teams would play which other teams, or whether every team in each conference had to play one of these cross-conference games every year, or on how the matchups would be made. Apparently some teams asked about that and got the impression that TV would push for the most attractive matchups, meaning that teams like USC and Oregon might have to play teams like Ohio State and Michigan every year without ever getting a "breather" with, say, Indiana or Purdue. It's one thing to do that in basketball, where it doesn't hurt and might actually help Wisconsin, for example, to play Duke or Arizona in a non-con game. It's much different to do that in football.

The fact that several conferences have these scheduling agreements in basketball but none in football is a pretty good indication that, for football, it's a nice-sounding idea but runs into too many objections when you try to implement it.

I have always thought that somewhere deep in the vaults of the Big 10 and Pac-12 that there are mainframe computers that can only be operated with a key each commissioner wears around his neck. When the NCAA collapses or the two commissioners agree the NCAA no longer is viable for their leagues they each descend to the bunker and open the hotline and on a three count (administered by the Pac-12 since they can count) the two insert their keys and turn them, the mainframes stutter to life and begin merging the assets of the leagues and notify the TV networks they are in play and send a fax to Pasadena pledging continued loyalty, the computers then begin crafting new schedules that include a crossover game or two and begins sending out RFP's for championship events.

When Armageddon arrives I expect the two to clutch to each other because they have always hung together on important things like NCAA votes and post-season plans and even worked together on TV in the post-Regents world early days.

But despite their close relationship they are like the US and UK, mostly pals but happier independent of each other.

Alright, I am about to divulge one of the high level secrets about the relationship between The Big Ten and The PAC. I hope I don't get hanged for this one but the real reason why the two conferences have had what appeared to be a very close relationship is that neither of them is a threat to the other. That doesn't mean they want to get married though, ok?

Their best interests often run parallel to each other due to this and thus they do tend to vote similarly.

(03-09-2015 11:24 AM)bluesox Wrote:  I like the big 10 jumping to 24 with 10 pac 12 school's and having 3 pods of 8…get the pac 12 to dissolve.

[UM, MSU, IU, Pur] [OSU, PSU, RUt, MAr] + [UVA, UNC, Duke, VT]

[NW, ILL, WIS, Mizzou] [MIN, IO, NEB, KU], [OU, OSU, UT, TTU]

[USC, UCLA, CAL, STan], [ ARiz, ASU, UU, CU], [WASH, OREG, +OrSU, WSU
]
format 7-1-1 for football with 2 game playoff of pod winners…wash state and oreg state join the mwc. The problem is i don't think the original big 10 members would like it. Yet, that would be fixed with more expansion. The end result would be a 40 team big 10 with 4 divisions of 10 and 2 game playoff. The original 10 members of the big 10 would be in their own division down the road + you could have 4 big 10 network channels for each division. You would have a big 10 east built around penn state, big 10 south built around texas, big 10 west (original pac 10 with colorado and utah replacing wash state and oreg state) and big 10 north (original big 10). Each division would have a hoop tourney.

You didn't get crazy enough.
11 game round robin in division, 1 OOC.
Basketball
East: B1G + UVA, VT, UNC, Duke, Mizzou, - Nebraska
West: PAC + Texahoma 4, KU, Nebraska.
H:H in pod with 1 game versus rest of division for 20 games.

(03-09-2015 10:34 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Alright, I am about to divulge one of the high level secrets about the relationship between The Big Ten and The PAC. I hope I don't get hanged for this one but the real reason why the two conferences have had what appeared to be a very close relationship is that neither of them is a threat to the other. That doesn't mean they want to get married though, ok?

Their best interests often run parallel to each other due to this and thus they do tend to vote similarly.

So are you saying the Big 10 should have a marriage to some conference with which they are hostile? BTW, my post was done only partially in sincerity as I was having sport with the limitations of the AAU thing. The serious part is that should FOX gain an interest in the PACN then there would be more of a basis upon which to make such a move, especially if ESPN doesn't land a whopper of a T1 deal from the Big 10. But I do think your remarks are telling. When the only one who might marry your conference is the "only" conference that doesn't feel threatened it must mean that all the others realize that it would be an abusive relationship in which to enter.

Oh now that is an absolutely hilarious piece of propaganda JR. What do you think this place is about? Earning votes for how Realignment finally ends? Stop acting so ridiculous.

The Big Ten doesn't have to marry anyone, stop trying to portray otherwise. Stop trying to use my comments, when it suits you, to directly define The Big Ten itself.

Besides, where did I say The Big Ten and the PAC are hostile? I didn't so you are also creating a straw man. This may sound harsh, as is intended, this post of yours was pathetic JR.

Politics and money produce strange bedfellows.

(03-10-2015 08:11 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Oh now that is an absolutely hilarious piece of propaganda JR. What do you think this place is about? Earning votes for how Realignment finally ends? Stop acting so ridiculous.

The Big Ten doesn't have to marry anyone, stop trying to portray otherwise. Stop trying to use my comments, when it suits you, to directly define The Big Ten itself.

Besides, where did I say The Big Ten and the PAC are hostile? I didn't so you are also creating a straw man. This may sound harsh, as is intended, this post of yours was pathetic JR.

H1 your reading comprehension is atrocious. I didn't say the Big 10 and PAC were hostile. You implied that the Big 10 didn't threaten them. By implication that means the Big 10 does threaten the others. Hence the humor in reversing your argument. That means if the Big 10 "married" (your parlance) another conference (not the PAC) it must be one that they are hostile towards (one that they threaten). It wasn't an anti Big 10 post. It was a turn He1nous's words around on him post. The intention was humor. Dang Dude, I thought reading comprehension was part of all of those fine AAU requirements in the Big 10!?

This could be done in a much simpler way. If the SEC and Big 12 merge, they are at 24 teams without anybody getting left behind. If the PAC schools were willing to leave Oregon State and Washington State behind, a merger with the Big Ten would also produce a 24 team league.

Why might the Big Ten be willing to consider this? How about a coast to coast BTN? Stranger things have happened. Why the PAC would want this is harder to see.

Similarly, the Big 12 would be much more inclined to like this than the SEC. For them, it's stability in perpetuity. For the SEC? What do they not have that they need?

That would suggest that if a merger were to happen, it would make more sense for it to be between the ACC and the Big 12. Again, the Big 12 gets stability. They also get a major eastern presence, which at least some of its members have expressed interest in. The ACC gets an already functional network, the BTN, and substantially more credibility as a football conference.

My question is whether there is any NCAA rule that says the Big 12 schools could not join the ACC as football only members, while remaining in the Big 12 for all other sports.

A four division 24 team ACC might look like this:

North....West Virginia, Miami, Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse, BC

Central..Texas, Va Tech, UNC, Ga Tech, Virginia, Duke

South....Clemson, Florida St, NC State, Kansas St, Baylor, Wake Forest

West.....Oklahoma, Texas Tech, Oklahoma St, Iowa St, Kansas, TCU

The NCAA's only concern is that a league have 8 full members playing FBS football in the league to be an FBS league. Within the autonomy group only one "league" would vote but they also have individual voting so no significant shift.

In the greater Division I structure one would be FBS the other I-AAA or whatever they call it now.

(03-10-2015 12:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 08:11 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Oh now that is an absolutely hilarious piece of propaganda JR. What do you think this place is about? Earning votes for how Realignment finally ends? Stop acting so ridiculous.

The Big Ten doesn't have to marry anyone, stop trying to portray otherwise. Stop trying to use my comments, when it suits you, to directly define The Big Ten itself.

Besides, where did I say The Big Ten and the PAC are hostile? I didn't so you are also creating a straw man. This may sound harsh, as is intended, this post of yours was pathetic JR.

H1 your reading comprehension is atrocious. I didn't say the Big 10 and PAC were hostile. You implied that the Big 10 didn't threaten them. By implication that means the Big 10 does threaten the others. Hence the humor in reversing your argument. That means if the Big 10 "married" (your parlance) another conference (not the PAC) it must be one that they are hostile towards (one that they threaten). It wasn't an anti Big 10 post. It was a turn He1nous's words around on him post. The intention was humor. Dang Dude, I thought reading comprehension was part of all of those fine AAU requirements in the Big 10!?

There is a difference between threatening someone and someone finding your very presence to be threatening. There is a difference, check your own reading comprehension. There is no reverse in my argument, there is just your attempt to argue against your own created straw man.

You didn't turn anything around on me, you were just an ass and are now being even more of an ass by attempting to be the "Troll Mod".

The AAU isn't a requirement, its just that The Big Ten is in such a position that they have that choice.

Keep trollin guy, you may get good at it some day.

(03-10-2015 10:21 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 12:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 08:11 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Oh now that is an absolutely hilarious piece of propaganda JR. What do you think this place is about? Earning votes for how Realignment finally ends? Stop acting so ridiculous.

The Big Ten doesn't have to marry anyone, stop trying to portray otherwise. Stop trying to use my comments, when it suits you, to directly define The Big Ten itself.

Besides, where did I say The Big Ten and the PAC are hostile? I didn't so you are also creating a straw man. This may sound harsh, as is intended, this post of yours was pathetic JR.

H1 your reading comprehension is atrocious. I didn't say the Big 10 and PAC were hostile. You implied that the Big 10 didn't threaten them. By implication that means the Big 10 does threaten the others. Hence the humor in reversing your argument. That means if the Big 10 "married" (your parlance) another conference (not the PAC) it must be one that they are hostile towards (one that they threaten). It wasn't an anti Big 10 post. It was a turn He1nous's words around on him post. The intention was humor. Dang Dude, I thought reading comprehension was part of all of those fine AAU requirements in the Big 10!?

There is a difference between threatening someone and someone finding your very presence to be threatening. There is a difference, check your own reading comprehension. There is no reverse in my argument, there is just your attempt to argue against your own created straw man.

You didn't turn anything around on me, you were just an ass and are now being even more of an ass by attempting to be the "Troll Mod".

The AAU isn't a requirement, its just that The Big Ten is in such a position that they have that choice.

Keep trollin guy, you may get good at it some day.

There's a difference between trolling and having fun H1. If I wanted to troll you, you would know it. I've posted with you in various places for over 3 years now. This is coming to an end soon enough and then we'll both see what happens. Until then don't be so defensive.

(03-10-2015 10:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 10:21 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 12:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 08:11 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Oh now that is an absolutely hilarious piece of propaganda JR. What do you think this place is about? Earning votes for how Realignment finally ends? Stop acting so ridiculous.

The Big Ten doesn't have to marry anyone, stop trying to portray otherwise. Stop trying to use my comments, when it suits you, to directly define The Big Ten itself.

Besides, where did I say The Big Ten and the PAC are hostile? I didn't so you are also creating a straw man. This may sound harsh, as is intended, this post of yours was pathetic JR.

H1 your reading comprehension is atrocious. I didn't say the Big 10 and PAC were hostile. You implied that the Big 10 didn't threaten them. By implication that means the Big 10 does threaten the others. Hence the humor in reversing your argument. That means if the Big 10 "married" (your parlance) another conference (not the PAC) it must be one that they are hostile towards (one that they threaten). It wasn't an anti Big 10 post. It was a turn He1nous's words around on him post. The intention was humor. Dang Dude, I thought reading comprehension was part of all of those fine AAU requirements in the Big 10!?

There is a difference between threatening someone and someone finding your very presence to be threatening. There is a difference, check your own reading comprehension. There is no reverse in my argument, there is just your attempt to argue against your own created straw man.

You didn't turn anything around on me, you were just an ass and are now being even more of an ass by attempting to be the "Troll Mod".

The AAU isn't a requirement, its just that The Big Ten is in such a position that they have that choice.

Keep trollin guy, you may get good at it some day.

There's a difference between trolling and having fun H1. If I wanted to troll you, you would know it. I've posted with you in various places for over 3 years now. This is coming to an end soon enough and then we'll both see what happens. Until then don't be so defensive.

But I'm having fun.

What if the sky is yellow at sunset, from all the pee that evaporates during the day.