could they? YES. Will they? NO!

(07-27-2019 07:20 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  could they? YES. Will they? NO!

Unless a conference has specific bylaws, criteria, that spell out how a school can be eliminated, it won't happen because they would lose the legal fight that would surely come. Most conferences have bylaws that have nothing to do with profitability or competitiveness, just the basics like you are required to field teams in X number of men's and women's sports.

Another reason is that money isn't the only thing that matters. E.g., there is basically zero grumbling around the SEC about Vandy and Mississippi State because both are founding members and are valued for other reasons - Vandy for being the most respectable academic face of the conference, and MSST because several of the truly powerful school in the conference have been playing them in football since the 1890s and the fans value the traditions.

Also, the author himself says that this will never happen, so it's a pointless exercise.

(07-27-2019 07:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-27-2019 07:20 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  could they? YES. Will they? NO!

Unless a conference has specific bylaws, criteria, that spell out how a school can be eliminated, it won't happen because they would lose the legal fight that would surely come. Most conferences have bylaws that have nothing to do with profitability or competitiveness, just the basics like you are required to field teams in X number of men's and women's sports.

Another reason is that money isn't the only thing that matters. E.g., there is basically zero grumbling around the SEC about Vandy and Mississippi State because both are founding members and are valued for other reasons - Vandy for being the most respectable academic face of the conference, and MSST because several of the truly powerful school in the conference have been playing them in football since the 1890s and the fans value the traditions.

Also, the author himself says that this will never happen, so it's a pointless exercise.

Lets say the money dries up with the P5 tv deals? It is drying up already at the PAC 12 as we speak. Rumors about the PAC 12 losing members could happen. Big 12 is looking at Arizona and Arizona State and a boaster at UCLA wants to get UCLA into the ACC. If those school Presidents want a change of conference? It could happen. Both the Big 12 and the PAC 12 are not safe from losing members.

(07-27-2019 07:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-27-2019 07:20 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  could they? YES. Will they? NO!

Unless a conference has specific bylaws, criteria, that spell out how a school can be eliminated, it won't happen because they would lose the legal fight that would surely come. Most conferences have bylaws that have nothing to do with profitability or competitiveness, just the basics like you are required to field teams in X number of men's and women's sports.

Another reason is that money isn't the only thing that matters. E.g., there is basically zero grumbling around the SEC about Vandy and Mississippi State because both are founding members and are valued for other reasons - Vandy for being the most respectable academic face of the conference, and MSST because several of the truly powerful school in the conference have been playing them in football since the 1890s and the fans value the traditions.

Also, the author himself says that this will never happen, so it's a pointless exercise.

Plus Vandy is in downtown Nashville and is a cool place to go as a visiting fan. If the SEC ever went to a divisionless setup I hope they’d end up as one of our permanent opponents

(07-27-2019 06:39 AM)seaking4steel Wrote:  Football is not and will never be the breadwinner at Duke. They are still in the ACC because of basketball. Even then, Duke football has been better than ECU's as of late. Thinking ECU would be a better fit in the ACC than Duke in either football or basketball is a joke. Do some basic research before you type.

Football was the breadwinner at Duke until the mid-1970's and certainly in the Wallace Wade and Bill Murray eras. If Duke basketball slumps post-Krzyzewski, which is certainly possible, a football run is not completely out of the question.

(07-27-2019 01:11 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(07-27-2019 06:39 AM)seaking4steel Wrote:  Football is not and will never be the breadwinner at Duke. They are still in the ACC because of basketball. Even then, Duke football has been better than ECU's as of late. Thinking ECU would be a better fit in the ACC than Duke in either football or basketball is a joke. Do some basic research before you type.

Football was the breadwinner at Duke until the mid-1970's and certainly in the Wallace Wade and Bill Murray eras. If Duke basketball slumps post-Krzyzewski, which is certainly possible, a football run is not completely out of the question.

Seriously? If football was their breadwinner they would have starved. You clearly don't know what you are talking about.

Schools like Duke, Vanderbilt and Wake Forest are more basketball first than football. They do have the same mind set of the Big East. If football was first? I have not seen any of them trying to get the national championships.

(07-26-2019 03:23 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-26-2019 09:38 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Cut Loose The Weakest Links

Good article to read. I think football standards would be schools not getting fan support. Since someone pointed out that football is king and basketball is not in this market. Basketball did not saved UConn on staying in the AAC. Could we expand with 2 new P5 conferences in the MWC and AAC while they drop their weakest schools and add castaways which could open up a WAC and SWC as two return conferences.

AAC cuts Tulsa, Tulane, Houston and SMU.
ACC cuts Louisville, Boston College, Duke, Wake Forest, Notre Dame, and Pittsburgh.
Big 10 cuts Northwestern, Rutgers and Maryland.
Big 12 cuts West Virginia, Baylor and Kansas
C-USA cuts Charlotte, UAB, FIU, FAU.
MAC cuts Northern Illinois, Eastern Michigan, Kent State, and Ball State
MWC cuts UNLV, San Jose State and Utah State.
PAC 12 cuts Oregon State and Washington State
SEC cuts Vanderbilt and Kentucky
SBC cuts Georgia State, Coastal Carolina, and La.-Monroe along with Little Rock and UTA.

AAC as P7 adds Duke, Wake Forest, Rutgers, Maryland, Boston College, West Virginia and Kentucky.
ACC could add Vanderbilt, UCF and ECU.
Big 10 adds Kansas.
Big 12 adds Memphis, Houston, Colorado State, BYU and New Mexico
C.-USA adds Arkansas State, Appalachian State and Georgia Southern, S. Alabama and Stony Brook
MAC adds football only North Dakota State, South Dakota State, James Madison U. and Delaware.
MWC P7 adds Oregon State, Washington State, Kansas, Baylor and UTEP.
PAC 12 stays at 10
SEC stays at 12
SBC adds FAU, Jacksonville State, and some others.

We could figure out where other schools would go. This is just an example of what could happen. The P5 schools I mentioned could still be in a power conference. Just need all the FBS conferences do musical chairs, and enforced the 15,000 attendance rule, and bring up FCS schools that can keep it in the 15,000 and above.

Though admittedly I am guessing, I believe the first and second references to Kansas mean Kansas leaving the Big12 and joining the B1G. The third reference to Kansas in the MWC is likely Kansas State, not Kansas.

(07-27-2019 05:11 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-27-2019 01:11 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(07-27-2019 06:39 AM)seaking4steel Wrote:  Football is not and will never be the breadwinner at Duke. They are still in the ACC because of basketball. Even then, Duke football has been better than ECU's as of late. Thinking ECU would be a better fit in the ACC than Duke in either football or basketball is a joke. Do some basic research before you type.

Football was the breadwinner at Duke until the mid-1970's and certainly in the Wallace Wade and Bill Murray eras. If Duke basketball slumps post-Krzyzewski, which is certainly possible, a football run is not completely out of the question.

Seriously? If football was their breadwinner they would have starved. You clearly don't know what you are talking about.

Ken, DFW is correct.

From the time Duke joined the Southern Conference in 1928 until the end of the 1971 football season, football indeed was Duke's bread and butter sport. That's why they had Wallace Wade Stadium. No school on the ACC side of the ACC/SEC split of the Southern Conference was as successful as Duke and that included a Maryland program that won the National Championship in 51 or 52.

Duke basketball, while always top 3 in the SoCon and ACC was inferior to NC State from 1947 until 1961 and inferior to UNC from 1956 to 1961. It was only after UNC and NC State suffered probation from the Point Shaving Scandal that Duke basketball finally broke to the top of the ACC, but even then that did not last very long becasue although Duke had hired NC State's planned replacement for Everett Case, Vic Bubus, Bubas left for an administrative job and Duke tried to hire Adolph Rupp and the faculty erupted..

Duke took itself out of major college football after 1962 with the 800 SAT rule. Duke didn't need money from sports mind you. 20 years of horrible Duke football after Steve Jones graduate and went to the St. Louis Cardinals and the combination of Bill Foster and then K finally made Duke a basketball dependent school since you could only sell Duke football tickets to UNC, NC State, and WF traveling fans.


As for Duke "slumping" after K. Duke basketball has had one slump in the past 80 years. The time under Bucky Waters as Duke struggled with athletic integration and it's appeal to the best black players. As a basketball centric university whose private system protects anyone who enrolls and whose alumni can easily take care of any player on the back-end Duke will "slump" only for as long a they refuse to fire a bad coach.

As for this topic, it invites anti-trust actions that can not be won due to nature of the potentially "targeted" parties.

Some of the parties termed weak links have nearly infinite resources and could pretty much as they damn well please.

It's hubris to think you can win a legal fight Duke, Vandy, NW, ND, etc. With their sacks of money they will go around your Athletic Director, Chancellor, Board President, and all the way to your State's governor to get what they want, especially if they hang together.

(07-26-2019 11:39 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  David— I stopped reading at Houston being cut from the AAC. That’s one of their best programs

Louisville has the top 3 revenue with Florida State and Clemson on football, also has top 3 revenue with Duke and Syracuse on basketball. It doesn't make sense to cut Louisville.

(07-27-2019 07:20 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  could they? YES. Will they? NO!

How could they? A conference can't kick out a member just because some clown on the internet proposes they downsize. If a school is meeting its contractual agreements, there's no legal basis for arbitrary downsizing.

(07-27-2019 11:43 PM)ArQ Wrote:  

(07-26-2019 11:39 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  David— I stopped reading at Houston being cut from the AAC. That’s one of their best programs

Louisville has the top 3 revenue with Florida State and Clemson on football, also has top 3 revenue with Duke and Syracuse on basketball. It doesn't make sense to cut Louisville.

When the SEC expands in 2036, it’s going to be a coinflip between Florida St, Clemson, & Louisville. No way the ACC ever cuts one of their power trio.

The MAC would NEVER voluntarily expel Northern Illinois.

The Power 5 blue-bloods need the Oregon St's, Wake Forests, Illinois', Rutgers', Vanderbilts, etc to beat up on.

(07-27-2019 09:02 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(07-27-2019 05:11 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-27-2019 01:11 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(07-27-2019 06:39 AM)seaking4steel Wrote:  Football is not and will never be the breadwinner at Duke. They are still in the ACC because of basketball. Even then, Duke football has been better than ECU's as of late. Thinking ECU would be a better fit in the ACC than Duke in either football or basketball is a joke. Do some basic research before you type.

Football was the breadwinner at Duke until the mid-1970's and certainly in the Wallace Wade and Bill Murray eras. If Duke basketball slumps post-Krzyzewski, which is certainly possible, a football run is not completely out of the question.

Seriously? If football was their breadwinner they would have starved. You clearly don't know what you are talking about.

Ken, DFW is correct.

From the time Duke joined the Southern Conference in 1928 until the end of the 1971 football season, football indeed was Duke's bread and butter sport. That's why they had Wallace Wade Stadium. No school on the ACC side of the ACC/SEC split of the Southern Conference was as successful as Duke and that included a Maryland program that won the National Championship in 51 or 52.

Duke basketball, while always top 3 in the SoCon and ACC was inferior to NC State from 1947 until 1961 and inferior to UNC from 1956 to 1961. It was only after UNC and NC State suffered probation from the Point Shaving Scandal that Duke basketball finally broke to the top of the ACC, but even then that did not last very long becasue although Duke had hired NC State's planned replacement for Everett Case, Vic Bubus, Bubas left for an administrative job and Duke tried to hire Adolph Rupp and the faculty erupted..

Duke took itself out of major college football after 1962 with the 800 SAT rule. Duke didn't need money from sports mind you. 20 years of horrible Duke football after Steve Jones graduate and went to the St. Louis Cardinals and the combination of Bill Foster and then K finally made Duke a basketball dependent school since you could only sell Duke football tickets to UNC, NC State, and WF traveling fans.


As for Duke "slumping" after K. Duke basketball has had one slump in the past 80 years. The time under Bucky Waters as Duke struggled with athletic integration and it's appeal to the best black players. As a basketball centric university whose private system protects anyone who enrolls and whose alumni can easily take care of any player on the back-end Duke will "slump" only for as long a they refuse to fire a bad coach.

Those two bolded statements contradict one another. While Duke may have not been as good as Carolina and State in the early years of the ACC, that doesn't mean that football was their "breadwinner". Thanks in no small part to the scarcity of tickets to the ACC tournament, many - maybe most - ACC schools brought in big bucks (by the standard of the day) in donations and season ticket sales.

In the 60's and 70's, Duke was a below average football program. It's only by comparing them to the dumpster fire that was the 90's and 00's that their early years in the ACC look respectable.

(07-27-2019 07:51 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-27-2019 07:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-27-2019 07:20 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  could they? YES. Will they? NO!

Unless a conference has specific bylaws, criteria, that spell out how a school can be eliminated, it won't happen because they would lose the legal fight that would surely come. Most conferences have bylaws that have nothing to do with profitability or competitiveness, just the basics like you are required to field teams in X number of men's and women's sports.

Another reason is that money isn't the only thing that matters. E.g., there is basically zero grumbling around the SEC about Vandy and Mississippi State because both are founding members and are valued for other reasons - Vandy for being the most respectable academic face of the conference, and MSST because several of the truly powerful school in the conference have been playing them in football since the 1890s and the fans value the traditions.

Also, the author himself says that this will never happen, so it's a pointless exercise.

Lets say the money dries up with the P5 tv deals? It is drying up already at the PAC 12 as we speak. Rumors about the PAC 12 losing members could happen. Big 12 is looking at Arizona and Arizona State and a boaster at UCLA wants to get UCLA into the ACC. If those school Presidents want a change of conference? It could happen. Both the Big 12 and the PAC 12 are not safe from losing members.

UCLA should join ACC for football only and park their basketball and other sports on West Coast Conference.

(07-26-2019 02:51 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-26-2019 01:30 PM)TDenverFan Wrote:  The ACC cuts Duke? C'mon dude, even you can't think that's a good/realistic idea

Duke gets way less than 30,000 fans for football, but ECU gets 40,000. Duke to the ACC makes them fit better there along with Wake since they are the 2 runts in the ACC who do not have fan support.

Duke is a national brand. ECU is not.

David St. threads: Like driving by car wrecks since Dec 2013