Instead of the people deciding what their dream conference is, imagine instead that somehow all conferences were given the chance to essentially reboot. In this imaginary world, I would have to assume that the first coalitions that would start to re-form would be around the core of the Big Ten (focusing on large midwestern state schools), the SEC (I'm thinking Alabama/Auburn/Florida/Georgia immediately form an alliance), the west coast (USC/UCLA/Cal/Stanford/Oregon/Washington), the southwest (Oklahoma/Texas) and Tobacco Road (UNC/Duke). The question becomes, now freed free to form conferences of the size they wish and without legacy programs, what do you think would become of these conferences?

Personally, I would think the Big Ten lets Rutgers, Maryland, Nebraska and Northwestern and becomes a 10 team conference.

The Pac-12 lets Oregon State and Washington State go and also becomes a 10 team conference.

The SEC has a more substantial reorganization, letting the Mississippi schools, Arkansas and Vanderbilt become free agents and makes a play for Clemson and FSU (both of whom I think would jump at the chance), becoming a 12 team conference. The unknown is what becomes of Mizzou and Texas A&M, because...

I think the Big 12 would drastically change, with Nebraska and Arkansas joining up with Texas, Oklahoma, OK State and Kansas. That's 6 teams, and they'd be able to pick up who they actually want. Could they entice Mizzou and TAMU back for that? Not sure.

The question becomes what becomes of the Tobacco Road schools? I think FSU and Clemson would jump in a heartbeat. Who would they pick up? For sure they'd get back together with Maryland. But how else it would play out would be interesting...

USFFan

(02-13-2020 06:39 PM)usffan Wrote:  Instead of the people deciding what their dream conference is, imagine instead that somehow all conferences were given the chance to essentially reboot. In this imaginary world, I would have to assume that the first coalitions that would start to re-form would be around the core of the Big Ten (focusing on large midwestern state schools), the SEC (I'm thinking Alabama/Auburn/Florida/Georgia immediately form an alliance), the west coast (USC/UCLA/Cal/Stanford/Oregon/Washington), the southwest (Oklahoma/Texas) and Tobacco Road (UNC/Duke). The question becomes, now freed free to form conferences of the size they wish and without legacy programs, what do you think would become of these conferences?

Personally, I would think the Big Ten lets Rutgers, Maryland, Nebraska and Northwestern and becomes a 10 team conference.

The Pac-12 lets Oregon State and Washington State go and also becomes a 10 team conference.

The SEC has a more substantial reorganization, letting the Mississippi schools, Arkansas and Vanderbilt become free agents and makes a play for Clemson and FSU (both of whom I think would jump at the chance), becoming a 12 team conference. The unknown is what becomes of Mizzou and Texas A&M, because...

I think the Big 12 would drastically change, with Nebraska and Arkansas joining up with Texas, Oklahoma, OK State and Kansas. That's 6 teams, and they'd be able to pick up who they actually want. Could they entice Mizzou and TAMU back for that? Not sure.

The question becomes what becomes of the Tobacco Road schools? I think FSU and Clemson would jump in a heartbeat. Who would they pick up? For sure they'd get back together with Maryland. But how else it would play out would be interesting...

USFFan

There is nothing wrong with the Mississippi schools in the SEC. Both are usually competitive in all sports, both fan bases travel very well, and we like them. Somebody has to be the middle ground in any conference.

The issue in the SEC is Vanderbilt refusing to spend what it takes to upgrade facilities and to compete in the 3 major sports. They don't even field a softball team preferring instead to offer bowling.

We love their academics and they have a great history with us and we don't want to kick them out, but they are the bottom of every statistical metric possible for revenue athletics and if not for visiting fan bases their sporting venues wouldn't be even more weakly attended than they are. They have however won national championships in Women's bowling and Baseball.

Missouri, God bless them, just has problems. They have great folks who have been welcomed at all of our venues and have reciprocated the favor, but they've gone straight down in the SEC. Their once great hoops program is struggling, their baseball has been average and after Pinkel they have failed to remain competitive in football with sagging attendance, sagging donations, and all of that is on top of several campus issues that have beset them.

The simple fact is that there is nobody in the SEC their fans want to play.

Those are the two bottom feeders on revenue, attendance, and competitively.

Now if you replace those two with Clemson and Florida State it makes for a helluva conference. But it also destroys the remaining value of the ACC. I'm not sure how you put them back together without Florida State and Clemson.

The SEC could have taken Florida State on 3 different occasions in the 80's and passed. That's where the SEC dropped that ball, leaving Papa Bowden with a chip on his shoulder.

Who you get to pair with them is another matter. Clemson's administration wasn't ready for the move in '92 when we were interested and South Carolina took their place. The Gamecocks have grafted in pretty well. Virginia Tech was interested in 1990 but was considered an outlier. West Virginia applied twice and we passed. In 1990 A&M was interested. I suppose if you were to rewrite the SEC's history we would have added Arkansas, South Carolina, Florida State and Texas A&M to have gotten to our 14.

Don't gloss over the political realities within states. If Michigan tried to dump Michigan State, Washington dump Washington State, Oklahoma dump Oklahoma State, North Carolina dump North Carolina State, etc., in nearly all cases they could find that dumping their in-state mates would cause them much more trouble than it would be worth, especially if, as seems likely, the "dumped" teams would end up in much worse situations than they were in before while their in-state rivals became much wealthier and more prominent.

Obviously -- as Mel Tucker could tell you -- everyone has their price, and if you want someone or something badly enough to keep upping the ante until they say yes, then 9 times out of 10, eventually they will. But in nearly all of these cases, the money needed to get a "big brother" to split off and form the most lucrative new alignment would be extremely high.

(02-13-2020 07:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  There is nothing wrong with the Mississippi schools in the SEC. Both are usually competitive in all sports, both fan bases travel very well, and we like them. Somebody has to be the middle ground in any conference.

Yes, anytime outsiders talk about reconfiguring the SEC, they always mention Ole Miss and Mississippi State, which they view as lucky "dead weight" schools.

This is a feeling shared by basically nobody in the SEC community. The Mississippi schools are founding members of the SEC, they have been playing all the other core SEC members in football since the 1890s, and fit like a glove geographically and culturally. They are an integral part of the SEC, past and present.

(02-13-2020 07:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-13-2020 07:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  There is nothing wrong with the Mississippi schools in the SEC. Both are usually competitive in all sports, both fan bases travel very well, and we like them. Somebody has to be the middle ground in any conference.

Yes, anytime outsiders talk about reconfiguring the SEC, they always mention Ole Miss and Mississippi State, which they view as lucky "dead weight" schools.

This is a feeling shared by basically nobody in the SEC community. The Mississippi schools are founding members of the SEC, they have been playing all the other core SEC members in football since the 1890s, and fit like a glove geographically and culturally. They are an integral part of the SEC, past and present.

It always points to 2 things. First the poster's relative age since the young ones have no sense of history for any region, and second to the poster's prejudices whether they were taught to have them or just assumed they should have them.

Wedge is also correct about why one state school doesn't leave another behind easily. A&M could do it because Texas was still there to cover Tech and Texas wasn't seen as a #2, but universally recognized as the high profile school in the state. So UT's shadow was large enough for A&M to escape. And that's not to impune Texas A&M's stature which is considerable but it is to make a factual assessment. Had A&M and UT left together there would have been a much greater issue raised about Tech.

Outside of going back in time and adding Notre Dame back in the 1920s, I honestly don’t think that the Big Ten would change a thing.

I’m not sure why so many people are quick to think that the Big Ten would somehow want to drop Northwestern. Once again, think like a university president and not like a sports fan. University presidents LOVE LOVE LOVE super elite schools like Northwestern. Elite private schools essentially get a multiplier bonus despite their smaller sizes (while non-flagship/research public schools get knocked down with a discount).

Why on Earth would the Big Ten give back Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland? Is the Big Ten bothered that it’s making too much money today? None of it makes sense.

Pretty much the only thing in recent conference realignment that might a league might want to do over is the Big 12 adding BYU and Louisville along with West Virginia, which was very close to happening. With Louisville now off the table, the options for the Big 12 to actually make money by expanding by 2 are much more difficult. That’s about it. Otherwise, I think the conference realignment moves by the Power Five over the past decade actually made sense.

Even when you read Big Ten team boards, no one brings up dropping Northwestern. They like Northwestern because (a) they’ve always been in the league and (b) a trip to Chicago. That seems to be an exclusively non-B1G fan thing.

(02-13-2020 07:51 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Outside of going back in time and adding Notre Dame back in the 1920s, I honestly don’t think that the Big Ten would change a thing.

I’m not sure why so many people are quick to think that the Big Ten would somehow want to drop Northwestern. Once again, think like a university president and not like a sports fan. University presidents LOVE LOVE LOVE super elite schools like Northwestern. Elite private schools essentially get a multiplier bonus despite their smaller sizes (while non-flagship/research public schools get knocked down with a discount).

Why on Earth would the Big Ten give back Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland? Is the Big Ten bothered that it’s making too much money today? None of it makes sense.

What does Nebraska bring to the Big Ten? Academics aren't AAU and are the worst in the Big Ten. They're in the least populous state and (not that it matters anymore) but few BTN subscribers in Nebraska. Football? Mediocre. And all the Eastern schools have to fly to Nebraska for all non revenue sports and basketball.

(02-13-2020 08:00 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Even when you read Big Ten team boards, no one brings up dropping Northwestern. They like Northwestern because (a) they’ve always been in the league and (b) a trip to Chicago. That seems to be an exclusively non-B1G fan thing.

I'm an Illini and I never liked Northwestern in the Big Ten. When they sucked, you had nothing to gain and everything to lose by playing them. Now they're competition. It's not a coincidence to me that once Northwestern got competitive in football and men's basketball that Illinois started to suck in both. If it weren't for the BTN and the great payouts Northwestern got, they would still be what they were in the 80's and 90's, dead weight. One snotty rich elitist private school doesn't belong with a bunch of state schools.

(02-13-2020 08:11 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(02-13-2020 08:00 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Even when you read Big Ten team boards, no one brings up dropping Northwestern. They like Northwestern because (a) they’ve always been in the league and (b) a trip to Chicago. That seems to be an exclusively non-B1G fan thing.

I'm an Illini and I never liked Northwestern in the Big Ten. When they sucked, you had nothing to gain and everything to lose by playing them. Now they're competition. It's not a coincidence to me that once Northwestern got competitive in football and men's basketball that Illinois started to suck in both.

Even when Northwestern stunk, everyone got a quasi-home game in the #1 or #2 out-of-state city where their alums live. That’s a perfect bottom feeder for a conference.

Quote:If it weren't for the BTN and the great payouts Northwestern got, they would still be what they were in the 80's and 90's, dead weight.

What? Northwestern literally won its 3 modern B1G championships — 1995, 1996, 2000 — years before BTN was even created.

I’d say that the SEC, Big Ten, and PAC 12 wouldn’t mind relieving themselves of Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Wash St and Ore St if they had it to do all over again.

Plug ND in for NW

Swap in FSU for Vandy

Keep the PAC at 10.

(02-13-2020 07:51 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Outside of going back in time and adding Notre Dame back in the 1920s, I honestly don’t think that the Big Ten would change a thing.

I’m not sure why so many people are quick to think that the Big Ten would somehow want to drop Northwestern. Once again, think like a university president and not like a sports fan. University presidents LOVE LOVE LOVE super elite schools like Northwestern. Elite private schools essentially get a multiplier bonus despite their smaller sizes (while non-flagship/research public schools get knocked down with a discount).

Why on Earth would the Big Ten give back Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland? Is the Big Ten bothered that it’s making too much money today? None of it makes sense.

Pretty much the only thing in recent conference realignment that might a league might want to do over is the Big 12 adding BYU and Louisville along with West Virginia, which was very close to happening. With Louisville now off the table, the options for the Big 12 to actually make money by expanding by 2 are much more difficult. That’s about it. Otherwise, I think the conference realignment moves by the Power Five over the past decade actually made sense.

I don't think going to 14 made sense except in the conference network model.

People mention the Mississippi schools and it’s odd. As previously mentioned, they’re founding schools in the SEC. Ole Miss has won national championships and recently won a Sugar Bowl in football with a 100+ million dollar budget. Sheesh. Get a grip.

(02-13-2020 09:22 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  People mention the Mississippi schools and it’s odd. As previously mentioned, they’re founding schools in the SEC. Ole Miss has won national championships and recently won a Sugar Bowl in football with a 100+ million dollar budget. Sheesh. Get a grip.

Football isn't everything. Athletics isn't everything. Academics, geography, and demographics matter. Well at least to the Big Ten. I'm not sure they do to the SEC. Florida State isn't good enough for the SEC but not one but two schools in Mississippi are? Florida should just join the ACC then. Academically and demographically they're more of an ACC school than an SEC school and they can actually play men's basketball.

And I'm not big on history. Why are Kansas State, Iowa State, and Mississippi State "good enough" but Illinois State not good enough? Because they were back before most of us were born?

(02-13-2020 07:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-13-2020 07:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  There is nothing wrong with the Mississippi schools in the SEC. Both are usually competitive in all sports, both fan bases travel very well, and we like them. Somebody has to be the middle ground in any conference.

Yes, anytime outsiders talk about reconfiguring the SEC, they always mention Ole Miss and Mississippi State, which they view as lucky "dead weight" schools.

This is a feeling shared by basically nobody in the SEC community. The Mississippi schools are founding members of the SEC, they have been playing all the other core SEC members in football since the 1890s, and fit like a glove geographically and culturally. They are an integral part of the SEC, past and present.

Bingo. Both schools fit SEC culture and geography perfectly and both fan bases travel well.

(02-13-2020 07:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-13-2020 07:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-13-2020 07:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  There is nothing wrong with the Mississippi schools in the SEC. Both are usually competitive in all sports, both fan bases travel very well, and we like them. Somebody has to be the middle ground in any conference.

Yes, anytime outsiders talk about reconfiguring the SEC, they always mention Ole Miss and Mississippi State, which they view as lucky "dead weight" schools.

This is a feeling shared by basically nobody in the SEC community. The Mississippi schools are founding members of the SEC, they have been playing all the other core SEC members in football since the 1890s, and fit like a glove geographically and culturally. They are an integral part of the SEC, past and present.

It always points to 2 things. First the poster's relative age since the young ones have no sense of history for any region, and second to the poster's prejudices whether they were taught to have them or just assumed they should have them.

Another +1. But I’m not sure it’s age as much as it is ignorance. History is one of if not the most important factor in college sports. The ones who writeoff history while bringing an arrogance to their put-downs are the ones who leave everyone else cringing. No one wants to be that guy.

(02-13-2020 11:55 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Another +1. But I’m not sure it’s age as much as it is ignorance. History is one of if not the most important factor in college sports. The ones who writeoff history while bringing an arrogance to their put-downs are the ones who leave everyone else cringing. No one wants to be that guy.

No one also wants to be UCF or Cincinnati or UConn who can't get a place in the big boy's table (P5) because all of the seats are taken by schools that don't deserve to be there because of history. At least UConn will get back to the Big East in basketball but is it too late? Their men's program is nowhere near what it was since they won their last national championship. Instead of the old Big East playing Syracuse and Georgetown, they're playing SMU, Houston, and Tulsa and traveling halfway across the Mississippi in the middle of the winter. I wonder why kids don't want to go there anymore. It's even affected their women's team. They haven't won a title since 2016. And Temple is irrelevant in men's basketball. Next year the only "local" AAC team leaves. I live in Philly and see the state of Temple athletics. We lost our baseball and softball teams because we couldn't afford flying our teams to Dallas and Houston. Why shouldn't I be angry at Mississippi State who has everything and only got it because they were in the SEC before I was born? UCF finished the regular season unbeaten twice and didn't even make the CFP. They beat Auburn in the Peach Bowl. Guess who made more $, UCF or Auburn? Better yet, who made more $, UCF or Mississippi State, who UCF would mop the floor with?

Man I hate the off season.

If conferences were starting from scratch, wouldn’t they want to minimize the number of schools from the same state? I have wondered if the Pac-12 and Big 12 reshuffled and formed two ten team conferences with the Universities of Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Utah, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma and Kansas, along with Cal and UCLA in one conference, and WSU, OSU, ASU, BYU, ISU, OK. State, TTech, along with Stanford and USC in the other conference, would both conferences be able to negotiate a similarly sized media rights deal and remain G5. In addition, you could have a conference challenge as every team has a state rival in the opposite conference with the exception of Colorado and Iowa State, and those two could rekindle it’s old Big 8 rivalry.

(02-14-2020 08:16 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  Man I hate the off season.

The 2019 season CFP title game was played over a month ago, and yet there are still 197 days to go until the first kickoff of 2020.

In that time we will crown a college hoops champ, NBA champ, and NHL champ. The MLB season doesn't start for six weeks but each team will have played at least 135 games by then. All 4 golf majors will have been played. The 2020 Summer Olympics will have ended three weeks before.