(01-16-2016 12:06 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-16-2016 12:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-16-2016 11:52 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-16-2016 11:47 AM)JRsec Wrote:  But more importantly should OU & Kansas move to either the Big 10 or SEC it creates a critical mass for schools in the ACC like F.S.U., Virginia Tech, Clemson, etc., because the disparity economically will grow to margins unbearable for those programs and that would create a bigger run.

Unless the ACC gets Texas.

I agree. A move by Texas to the ACC would most likely be accompanied by moves of Oklahoma & Oklahoma State to the SEC.

However, Texas and N.D. would both have to go all in to truly increase the payout for an ACCN and to boost the overall conference contract. Remember that between the two of them if they are only partial members that contractually speaking you only realize the value of 1. But an ACC with Texas, Notre Dame, Florida State, and Clemson and with Virginia Tech returning to form and North Carolina finally applying itself in football would be a conference at least on equal standing in terms of brands with the Big 10, and just one or two more potentially strong middle teams away from challenging the SEC in depth.

The trouble is that special deals only foment future issues. Would a Florida State rather play on equal footing elsewhere, or remain deprived of the privileges that an affiliated Texas and Notre Dame get? I think that's a topic for another discussion.

I agree, at least Texas would have to be a full member. I'm not sure that would be enough to convince ND to join though.

Ahhh, now you aren't being realistic. If Texas brings with it the LHN which is then turned into The ACC Network, Texas will be allowed to join in whatever capacity that they wish. Texas will have secured the future of the ACC.

If the Big XII dominoes fall with Texas, OU and others leaving, wouldn't the left-behinds combined with the best of the AAC plus perhaps BYU constitute an "Autonomy 5" worthy conference? Every school (except BYU) was previously in the BCS a few short years ago (albeit some for only a single year).

(01-16-2016 12:22 PM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  If the Big XII dominoes fall with Texas, OU and others leaving, wouldn't the left-behinds combined with the best of the AAC plus perhaps BYU constitute an "Autonomy 5" worthy conference? Every school (except BYU) was previously in the BCS a few short years ago (albeit some for only a single year).

Possibly. I think that depends more upon the political landscape than the football landscape. If the ulterior motive behind the reduction of P conferences to 4 is to provide a structure for the playoffs then it could be either yes or no.

If the motive is just conference consolidation for scheduling and income then quite possibly. The formation of two such conferences could form the basis for inclusion and a move to the much talked about 6 slots for a playoff with the conference champions of the two newly assembled conferences playing either a play in game to face the #1 seeded school in the 4 team playoff, or each facing the #3 & #4 seeds in the opening rounds while those seeded #1 & #2 draw a first round bye.

If however the reduction to a P4 is a prelude for eventual breakaway from the NCAA then no.

(01-15-2016 06:14 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 05:15 PM)connecticutguy Wrote:  Why would Texas want to go to the ACC?

They believe than can and should have the same deal as Notre Dame. The ACC will grant them that.

Perhaps I'm overly romantic about maintaining regionalism in college football, but Texas in the ACC makes even less sense than WV in the XII.

Boston to Austin? Doesn't make sense, to me.

(01-16-2016 12:22 PM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  If the Big XII dominoes fall with Texas, OU and others leaving, wouldn't the left-behinds combined with the best of the AAC plus perhaps BYU constitute an "Autonomy 5" worthy conference? Every school (except BYU) was previously in the BCS a few short years ago (albeit some for only a single year).

Yeah, I don't know if I see constriction among the majors. It wasn't like the Big East didn't have a place; politics rotted their chair at the table and nobody had a spare.

If the B12 were to suffer from the same fate, there's enough to stay at the table. Heck, it might finally clear the way to get some of those others in on the thing with enough to build back to a sixth major? When you consider possible B12 left-behinds, those who enjoyed AQ in the Big East (UConn, Cincy, USF, and Temple), the remaining non-major SWC schools (Houston, Rice, and SMU), Tulane, the SA's (because, face it, they'd be in a major conference if they wanted to be, lord knows they've been asked enough times)...you have an interesting pool. Still leaves out BYU and others, though.

(01-15-2016 05:09 PM)NoDak Wrote:  IMHO, Bowen has an offer outstanding from the Big 10 and is baiting Texas to leave, which would give Oklahoma reason to leave. Under conference rules, Texas can't prevent expansion.

Texas and Rice/Tulane the to ACC. OU/KU to the B1G.

Oklahoma doesn't fit the institutional profile of B1G schools. They're just only at Nebraska's level by including the OKC med center. And Nebraska is by far the lowest in the B1G West. But if they included the Omaha med center they'd be up around Iowa.

And culturally it doesn't fit either.

So I disagree the B1G has or will invite OU.

(01-15-2016 07:34 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 06:57 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 06:51 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 06:22 PM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 05:09 PM)NoDak Wrote:  IMHO, Bowen has an offer outstanding from the Big 10 and is baiting Texas to leave, which would give Oklahoma reason to leave. Under conference rules, Texas can't prevent expansion.

Texas and Rice/Tulane the to ACC. OU/KU to the B1G.

If the ACC actually got Texas ... there would be zero need for another school.

And definitely not Rice or Tulane.

The ACC would give Texas the same Notre Dame dealio, and then would wait to see if either ND or Texas wanted to end their football independence ...

As a travel partner for Olympic sports, Texas would insist on it.

Not necessarily

It a long way to Austin for only one game for most ACC teams. Louisville made a lot of sense to partner with South Bend. Conference logistics are important still.

Austin to Rice is not bad. And Rice has good baseball.

But I have to think of OU, Texas, etc. are "gettin' out while the gettin's good" then no way would Tech, Baylor and TCU allow Rice to get selected over them. Even Houston and SMU might have something to say.


But as the other poster said, going from 15 to 17 in non-football doesn't make much sense.

(01-16-2016 12:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-16-2016 12:22 PM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  If the Big XII dominoes fall with Texas, OU and others leaving, wouldn't the left-behinds combined with the best of the AAC plus perhaps BYU constitute an "Autonomy 5" worthy conference? Every school (except BYU) was previously in the BCS a few short years ago (albeit some for only a single year).

Possibly. I think that depends more upon the political landscape than the football landscape. If the ulterior motive behind the reduction of P conferences to 4 is to provide a structure for the playoffs then it could be either yes or no.

If the motive is just conference consolidation for scheduling and income then quite possibly. The formation of two such conferences could form the basis for inclusion and a move to the much talked about 6 slots for a playoff with the conference champions of the two newly assembled conferences playing either a play in game to face the #1 seeded school in the 4 team playoff, or each facing the #3 & #4 seeds in the opening rounds while those seeded #1 & #2 draw a first round bye.

If however the reduction to a P4 is a prelude for eventual breakaway from the NCAA then no.

And we already have the precedent of how it doesn't work: the Big East. They tried to maintain being a BCS auto-bid conference. But eventually the blood-letting did in for them.

(01-16-2016 12:41 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 06:14 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 05:15 PM)connecticutguy Wrote:  Why would Texas want to go to the ACC?

They believe than can and should have the same deal as Notre Dame. The ACC will grant them that.

Perhaps I'm overly romantic about maintaining regionalism in college football, but Texas in the ACC makes even less sense than WV in the XII.

Boston to Austin? Doesn't make sense, to me.

I gave up the idea of maintaining "my father's ACC" a long time ago. At least Texas fits in institutionally. Plus, Austin is like 4 hours from the ocean, that's closer than Louisville!

(01-16-2016 12:59 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-16-2016 12:41 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 06:14 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 05:15 PM)connecticutguy Wrote:  Why would Texas want to go to the ACC?

They believe than can and should have the same deal as Notre Dame. The ACC will grant them that.

Perhaps I'm overly romantic about maintaining regionalism in college football, but Texas in the ACC makes even less sense than WV in the XII.

Boston to Austin? Doesn't make sense, to me.

I gave up the idea of maintaining "my father's ACC" a long time ago. At least Texas fits in institutionally. Plus, Austin is like 4 hours from the ocean, that's closer than Louisville!

But Louisville (and Notre Dame) are in the Eastern timezone, at least!!

Texas is smack dab in the middle of the country. How can they possibly belong in the eastern coast conference?? Ugh.


I guess on the other hand, it's no less geographically stupid than the Cowboys being with NYC, Philly and DC.

(01-16-2016 01:11 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-16-2016 12:59 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-16-2016 12:41 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 06:14 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 05:15 PM)connecticutguy Wrote:  Why would Texas want to go to the ACC?

They believe than can and should have the same deal as Notre Dame. The ACC will grant them that.

Perhaps I'm overly romantic about maintaining regionalism in college football, but Texas in the ACC makes even less sense than WV in the XII.

Boston to Austin? Doesn't make sense, to me.

I gave up the idea of maintaining "my father's ACC" a long time ago. At least Texas fits in institutionally. Plus, Austin is like 4 hours from the ocean, that's closer than Louisville!

But Louisville (and Notre Dame) are in the Eastern timezone, at least!!

Texas is smack dab in the middle of the country. How can they possibly belong in the eastern coast conference?? Ugh.


I guess on the other hand, it's no less geographically stupid than the Cowboys being with NYC, Philly and DC.

Texas, like ND, has a fairly national fan base. The distance from campus to campus is only one factor. Another is from fans to fans. Texas is much closer in that regard.

All that said, I do NOT think that Texas will leave the Big XII, and neither will OU. Both schools will just squeeze the rest of the conference (except for possibly KU), who will have no choice but to take it.

Actually reading the article (something I should have done in the first place) was interesting. There does seem to be more support in the Big 12 along with Oklahoma than I would have guessed. I am still guessing against changes to the status quo, but not nearly as strongly as before.

(01-16-2016 12:45 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-16-2016 12:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-16-2016 12:22 PM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  If the Big XII dominoes fall with Texas, OU and others leaving, wouldn't the left-behinds combined with the best of the AAC plus perhaps BYU constitute an "Autonomy 5" worthy conference? Every school (except BYU) was previously in the BCS a few short years ago (albeit some for only a single year).

Possibly. I think that depends more upon the political landscape than the football landscape. If the ulterior motive behind the reduction of P conferences to 4 is to provide a structure for the playoffs then it could be either yes or no.

If the motive is just conference consolidation for scheduling and income then quite possibly. The formation of two such conferences could form the basis for inclusion and a move to the much talked about 6 slots for a playoff with the conference champions of the two newly assembled conferences playing either a play in game to face the #1 seeded school in the 4 team playoff, or each facing the #3 & #4 seeds in the opening rounds while those seeded #1 & #2 draw a first round bye.

If however the reduction to a P4 is a prelude for eventual breakaway from the NCAA then no.

And we already have the precedent of how it doesn't work: the Big East. They tried to maintain being a BCS auto-bid conference. But eventually the blood-letting did in for them.

The hybrid conference killed the Big East. The Catholic 7 refused to add any football members which lead the top names in football leaving for the AAC, and Rutgers to the Big 10. The blame been placed on the none-football schools.

(01-16-2016 10:37 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(01-16-2016 12:45 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-16-2016 12:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-16-2016 12:22 PM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  If the Big XII dominoes fall with Texas, OU and others leaving, wouldn't the left-behinds combined with the best of the AAC plus perhaps BYU constitute an "Autonomy 5" worthy conference? Every school (except BYU) was previously in the BCS a few short years ago (albeit some for only a single year).

Possibly. I think that depends more upon the political landscape than the football landscape. If the ulterior motive behind the reduction of P conferences to 4 is to provide a structure for the playoffs then it could be either yes or no.

If the motive is just conference consolidation for scheduling and income then quite possibly. The formation of two such conferences could form the basis for inclusion and a move to the much talked about 6 slots for a playoff with the conference champions of the two newly assembled conferences playing either a play in game to face the #1 seeded school in the 4 team playoff, or each facing the #3 & #4 seeds in the opening rounds while those seeded #1 & #2 draw a first round bye.

If however the reduction to a P4 is a prelude for eventual breakaway from the NCAA then no.

And we already have the precedent of how it doesn't work: the Big East. They tried to maintain being a BCS auto-bid conference. But eventually the blood-letting did in for them.

The hybrid conference killed the Big East. The Catholic 7 refused to add any football members which lead the top names in football leaving for the AAC, and Rutgers to the Big 10. The blame been placed on the none-football schools.

I disagree about the hybrid being the death. The conference wasn't seen as the best before the first ACC raid, and was thought of as a BCS in name only too often afterward. Adding a few football schools wouldn't have changed that and a conference that had lost most it's big market/bigger name teams was not going to keep the power status label after the later raids (and adding teams wouldn't have changed the pecking order of conferences).

Beyond all that, the 16 team Big East actually should be viewed as a success for almost everyone. The Catholic 7 were part of the basketball conference they wanted for years and when it disappeared got another one they wanted. Pitt, Syracuse, and Louisville all made homes in the ACC thanks to time there and Notre Dame went from a good relationship with the Big East to the ACC. West Virginia got a good home in the Big 12. If you'd expanded and others had success some of those member might not have worked out as well.

Of the last three, they lost out, but at least Cincinnati did gain some from the structure of the Big East at the time. They greatly increased their football program strength and that might not have happened in a bigger Big East football conference.

(01-16-2016 10:37 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(01-16-2016 12:45 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-16-2016 12:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-16-2016 12:22 PM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  If the Big XII dominoes fall with Texas, OU and others leaving, wouldn't the left-behinds combined with the best of the AAC plus perhaps BYU constitute an "Autonomy 5" worthy conference? Every school (except BYU) was previously in the BCS a few short years ago (albeit some for only a single year).

Possibly. I think that depends more upon the political landscape than the football landscape. If the ulterior motive behind the reduction of P conferences to 4 is to provide a structure for the playoffs then it could be either yes or no.

If the motive is just conference consolidation for scheduling and income then quite possibly. The formation of two such conferences could form the basis for inclusion and a move to the much talked about 6 slots for a playoff with the conference champions of the two newly assembled conferences playing either a play in game to face the #1 seeded school in the 4 team playoff, or each facing the #3 & #4 seeds in the opening rounds while those seeded #1 & #2 draw a first round bye.

If however the reduction to a P4 is a prelude for eventual breakaway from the NCAA then no.

And we already have the precedent of how it doesn't work: the Big East. They tried to maintain being a BCS auto-bid conference. But eventually the blood-letting did in for them.

The hybrid conference killed the Big East. The Catholic 7 refused to add any football members which lead the top names in football leaving for the AAC, and Rutgers to the Big 10. The blame been placed on the none-football schools.

Are you aware that the Big East football schools had a contractual "get out of jail free" card which allowed them all to leave the Big East, set up their own conference, and expand as they saw fit?

The football schools either were afraid to do so or could not agree among themselves.

The basketball only schools are a convenient scapegoat for the demise of The Big East.

“The University of Texas is a proud member of the Big 12,” Fenves said. “It is a vibrant and competitive conference with a great future, and I look forward to discussing ideas for a conference championship game at the Big 12 board meeting next month.”

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/sports/c...ial/np6YY/

(01-17-2016 12:27 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  “The University of Texas is a proud member of the Big 12,” Fenves said. “It is a vibrant and competitive conference with a great future, and I look forward to discussing ideas for a conference championship game at the Big 12 board meeting next month.”

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/sports/c...ial/np6YY/

Is this the same as "the coach has our full support" kiss of death . . .

(01-17-2016 12:27 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  “The University of Texas is a proud member of the Big 12,” Fenves said. “It is a vibrant and competitive conference with a great future, and I look forward to discussing ideas for a conference championship game at the Big 12 board meeting next month.”

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/sports/c...ial/np6YY/

In other words. Texas is the kiss of death of the Big 12.