|
|
@MHver3
Notre Dame will never play a single game as a member of the ACC if what I'm hearing is true.
@MHver3
They've again contacted Dodds about possibilities and I'm told BiG10 has approached them as a partial member with a scheduling alliance 1/2
@MHver3
2/2 a scheduling agreement with a Division and access to the playoffs from that division.
@MHver3
A division that would consist of MSU UM Purdue.Then ND would likely play 2 other BiG teams per year plus semi and ccg if in 1st place in div
So it's all about who will make the most concessions for ND?Originally Posted by Camel at Sea
In actual confirmed realignment news http://www.wacsports.com/ViewArticle...CLID=206317161
The Western Athletic Conference announced today that the University of Missouri-Kansas City has accepted an invitation for membership to join the conference effective July 1, 2013.
UMKC becomes the ninth member of the conference in 2013-14, joining California State University, Bakersfield; Chicago State University; Grand Canyon University; University of Idaho; New Mexico State University; Seattle University, The University of Texas-Pan American and Utah Valley University.
http://www.umkckangaroos.com/
wow, that is shaping out to be such a strong football conference...
How can you could anyone believe this? ND is about to play a 4 game series with tu. Can anyone count how many times this guy uses the words "contacted" and "approached". They are just code words for wild **** speculation.
Texas A&M - 1997, 1998, 2010, 2012 Big 12 Champs*
Is this going to be an FCS conference then or is adding all these FCS schools their attempt to keep them in Div. IA (FBS)?
I heard that the MWC, MAC, C-USA and what was left of the WAC would form a sub division of Div. IA and play for a chance for the last spot in the playoff.
Drop the bottom ten from a Big 12/ACC merger to get to 14 teams and this conference blows any other conference out of the water in football.
These numbers are since the BCS was created.
01 Oklahoma......... 0.782
02 Texas............ 0.777
03 Virginia Tech.... 0.755
04 Texas Christian.. 0.754
05 Miami (Florida).. 0.695
06 Florida State.... 0.694
07 West Virginia.... 0.663
08 Louisville....... 0.652
09 Kansas State..... 0.640
10 Texas Tech....... 0.630
11 Georgia Tech..... 0.622
12 Clemson.......... 0.608
13 Boston College... 0.601
14 Oklahoma State... 0.587
01 Big 12........... 0.676
02 SEC.............. 0.582
03 Pac 12........... 0.550
04 Big Ten.......... 0.521
WAC are not sponsoring football. They will a D-1 basketball conference, but there is a crap load more D-1 in basketball.
OK, and the SEC would come out on top 9/10....sure the merged B12acc may compete in the games of #9 vs #9...but the top 6-7 of the SEC is light years ahead of the top 6-7 of a merged ACC B12.
Lol....way to try to make the numbers pad your argument that the SEC is just not as good as they are. "How about this...let me take two of the top 5 conferences, merge them...and then drop the worst half of the league.....does that equal a conference as good as the SEC???????"
Here's a clue for ya, merge the conferences...line the top ten of the SEC against the top of the B12ACC....SEC wins 7/10 at least.
I'm just going to start telling people Missouri joined the WAC
Louisville > Florida and Clemson > LSU during last year's bowl games. Obviously aggy ran all over us, but history is on our side there, at least.
Other than Alabama, I'm not convinced the gap is all that wide between SEC and everyone else. And even Bama was lucky to make the title game the last two years.
Well, duh. What's the winning percentage of that conference in conference games? 60? 70%? Given that conference wins are a zero sum, you just can't take the top 14 teams out of two conferences and combine the numbers and come up with something of any value.
I'm not trying to pad the numbers to make any argument. People are talking about merging the conferences and weeding out the bottom feeders. I was just showing what the conference would be like if we did. You can keep on sucking on that SEC **** if you'd like though.
Let the SEC play nine conference games like the Pac 12 and Big 12 and see how awesome they are without padding their records with automatic wins. Alabama plays Florida and Vanderbilt and maybe wins both of those games, maybe not. A&M plays Georgia, S Carolina and Vanderbilt and probably loses two of those games. Johnny Football doesn't win the Heisman trophy or get to stomp Oklahoma in the Cotton Bowl. Georgia probably splits with A&M and LSU. LSU probably beats Georgia and Vanderbilt. Florida possibly beats Alabama and who knows who plays in the CCG. Maybe Florida/Alabama rematch. Vanderbilt loses to Alabama and A&M and doesn't finish in the top 25.
Let the Big 12 play eight conference games and K-State possibly goes undefeated in the regular season and plays a one loss Oklahoma team in CCG with the winner getting a shot at ND in the NCG. Texas finishes 9-3, oSu 8-4, Baylor 9-3, TCU, TT and WVU 8-4 with all eight teams in the top 25 and probably two teams in a BCS bowl. See how easy it is to pad your schedule to make yourself look awesome. The top seven in the SEC got to beat up on the other seven bottom feeders and their usual FCS opponents. The Big 12 only had two bottom feeders and a handful of FCS opponents to beat up on and were forced to beat up on each other.
It would help our image if Oklahoma and Texas would win the NCG when they get there though.
The following users like this post: Sooner 4 Life
What? That didn't make any sense at all. The win percentage shows the top teams since the inception of the BCS. I could've gone back to 1950 like most people do or gone back to each teams beginning to show what kind of football history that they have but the BCS era shows what programs have done in the last 14 years which sounds more relevant. Like I said before I posted the numbers, taking all 24 teams, the Big 12 and ACC combined would still be competetive with the Pac 12, B1G and SEC in football and the basketball would be outrageous. But nobody here wants to see anything like this. All they want to see is the Big 12 explode and OU go somewhere else. I really can't figure that one out since OU has as big a say as anyone in the Big 12 and has been a member of this conference since 1928. They're the ones that saved this conference when Nebraska and Colorado turned traitor and left and the Pac 10 tried to kill it. I can understand why they left. They had both become irrelevant and knew they'd never win another championship as long as they had to play OU or Texas or both to get there.
That's short sighted
OU Texas and FSU are just as strong as Bama LSU and Florida over any significant length of time. If you're taking about matching up 2012 teams sure the SEC would win most. Match up 2000-2003 teams and the Big 14 would win more than half. OU, Texas and others outside the SEC wont be down forever and Bama wont be up forever.
If something happens with FSU and GT to Big 10, I still don,t see Clemson, Miami, VT and Louisville going any where, could still make a good 14 team conference.
Swap out KU for BC and I love that conference.
That "good 14 team" conference may not have anywhere near the payout to keep Miami, Clemson, VT, Louisville, or others from leaving. If that payout gets slashed at all I would expect the SEC to move on VT at least and then it's a feeding frenzy.
I dont see VT being attractive to the SEC, UNC paired with Duke or NCST, also FSU and possibly GT. No other schools add value to the SEC
1- VT is one of the biggest football brands in the ACC. They add some value there.
2- They are the #1 football draw in Virginia and the SEC is going to start a network where getting monthly carriage fees from networks will be financially beneficial. VT fits perfectly in that model. Getting at least 50-90 cents per cable subscriber (on the cable provider) per month in Virginia is not going to be passed up if the Hokies want in.
3- They are a cultural fit
4- Add recruiting grounds
They would be VERY attractive to the SEC.
Now FSU and GT aren't being invited due to the network (not beneficial to double down in existing footprint states) and the fact that SEC schools tend to blackball in-state rivals from joining.
I was thinking the same thing. It would also further facilitate a scheduling agreement with the SEC since there are so many rivalries there:
Mizzou-KU
A&M-Texas
UF-FSU
USC-Clemson
UGA-GT
UK-Louisville
What would the other pairings be?
OU-'Bama
TT- Auburn?
TCU- Vanderbilt?
OSU-MSU?
KSU-Ole Miss?
VT-UT
What happens if the B1G expands and then the ACC stabilizes? I tend to agree with Frank the Tank's theory that the Big 12 and ACC are opposites in that the ACC is a group of schools that like their conference but hate their TV deal while the Big 12 is a group of schools that like their TV deal but hate their conference. Let's say the B1G adds UVA and one more ACC team, the ACC is then able to somehow stabilize and get a grant of rights, leaving the SEC stuck at 14 and the XII stuck at 10. What happens? Do the Big 12 schools get nervous again and start looking for new homes? Does the SEC and PAC start looking at the Big 12 for new real estate opportunities? The GOR won't mean anything if 8/10 can find a safe haven. I say the Big 12 is in real trouble if this scenario unfolds.
S11-Baylor is right. Schools from NC and VA would help their soon-to-be network immensely. The SEC covets (at least) two out of UNC, Duke, NCSt, UVA and VaTech. VaTech is the best fit culturally.
Slive won't try to poach the ACC like Delany did. But you can be sure he'd leave the welcome mat out for any of those 5 schools should they care to pay him a visit.
The PAC-12 would consider taking 8 all by themselves to keep from being left out when the super-conferences form. If Texas won't let go of the LHN, they're out. The B1G would gladly take KU. It would require a lot of different parties moving in concert (3 conferences, 33 schools if you don't count Texas) but don't think that hasn't been discussed at high levels.
if the BIG expands with 2 ACC schools (likely) then the ACC won't stabilize the SEC will then also expand and so will the Big12
WVU Kentucky (Hatfields & McCoys) would be a good one to add to rivalry week. OSU -Arkansas if we started played NU every year
See I think if the right 2 went to the B1G the ACC wouldn't be hurt....say UVA and Syracuse and/or Boston College. I wouldn't see a lot of other ACC schools wanting to jump ship over those 2 out of 3. The ACC has 14 now...losing 2 brings you down to 12. Now if the SEC can add 2 and add 2 football programs, THEN the Big 12 starts to look like a good alternative. Can the SEC get North Carolina and Duke? Virginia Tech and North Carolina St?
So...the idea that the ACC could become stable with the right loss of teams is something I wonder about too. I think the SEC is the key as much if not more so than the B1G on the Big 12's chances to land ACC schools
The following users like this post: lobster999
I appreciate the responses. I posted this same question on the WVU board and was accused of trolling and all that nonsense. Big mistake on my part. I agree that losing UVA is not the deathknell of the ACC. Everyone thought A&M would be the piece of the big 12 that would cause it to tumble. We all were wrong. A couple of mid level ACC schools going to the B1G seems like a blow, but not deadly.
the difference is that OU/Texas control the big12 UNC/Duke control the ACC but FSU/Clemson/VaTech are football first ... if GaTech/Virginia leave to the BIG Fsu/CU/VaTech will not be happy and will be looking to leave
Obviously it isn't done until it's done but you'd have to think FSU, Clemson, VT, and Miami would not like either of the two following outcomes:
1- Replacing GT and UVA with Cincy and UConn
2- The TV deal getting slashed due to lost inventory and loss of quality (more on the GT side here)
I could easily see them look around if that happens.
In 66.7/75% of the games a conference has (they will have a combined winning percentage of 50%. (Each conference game has a winner and a loser) ****uming a conference plays 8 conference games and 4 OOC games, the max winning percentage of the conference is 66.667%, ignoring bowls. (4 conference wins and 4 OOC wins= 8/12) With bowls, the maximum winning percentage comes out to 69.2%. (4 conference wins, 4 OOC wins, 1 bowl win= 9/13)
Your conference has a winning percentage that is 97.68% of the theoretical maximum. To get that in real life, your conference would have to win 68.369 out of the 70 OOC/Bowl games it plays every year. Are you saying that those teams have a combined 97.68 winning percentage in OOC and bowl games since the inception of the BCS?
Or, like I said, when you take 14 teams from 2 conferences and combine their results, the conference is not bound by the given that each conference game has a winner and a loser. Most of the losses are suffered by teams that didn't make the cut which does wonders for the conference winning percentage. You don't see how that is a problem?
The academic types on Tobacco Road won't like the ACC nearly as much, either, without UVA and Georgia Tech.
Something that will be interesting to watch with regards to expansion, is if and when the B1G (or whoever moves first), expand to sixteen only or move beyond sixteen. There is quite a bit of whisperings from high sources that the B1G actually may expand to 18-20. If that is the case, I don't see either the ACC or Big 12 surviving, and we'll be left with three 18-20 team super conferences --- B1G, SEC, and PAC.
If conferences only expand to sixteen, then it looks like the ACC will be the loser. Money isn't there and ESPN doesn't want another conference network in virtually the same footprint as the ESPN-backed SEC Network. Only way ACC is saved is if ESPN decides they can't lose multiple schools to the B1G, and they dramatically increase the ACC media contract.
However, if expansion goes beyond sixteeen, I see both ACC and Big 12 dying. The B1G and SEC cutting up the ACC, and then a merger of Big 12 and Pac. I'm beginning to think that the 18-20 team model will be the one that will win out.
the SEC is not going to 20 .. the BIG might ... if the SEC goes to 16 and the BIG goes to 20 ... the Pac and the Big12 will both be in the 12-14 range
So 9 division games and 1-2 non division games?
Will be hard for teams with neutral site game to get 6 homes games every year
We need to do something, the Current Big XII is just weak tea. We have OU and UT and.... nobody else. You even saw UT's recruiting take a hit this year in the state of Texas.... Honestly what kid will look at our schedule and say "Wow, I get to play Iowa State, Kansas and K-State as well as 5 other nobody teams...." or "Wow, I can play against LSU, Bama, Florida and Georgia" By staying with Texas in this crap conference we have hamstrung ourselves in recruiting for the foreseeable future.
Aug. 31......... Virginia Tech.............................. Atlanta, Ga.
Sept. 14......... *at Texas A&M............................ College Station, Texas
Sept. 21......... Colorado State............................. Bryant-Denny Stadium
Sept. 28......... *Ole Miss..................................... Bryant-Denny Stadium
Oct. 5............ Georgia State............................... Bryant-Denny Stadium
Oct. 12.......... *at Kentucky............................... Lexington, Ky.
Oct. 19.......... *Arkansas.................................... Bryant-Denny Stadium
Oct. 26.......... *Tennessee.................................. Bryant-Denny Stadium
Nov. 9........... *LSU.............................................. Bryant-Denny Stadium
Nov. 16......... *at Mississippi State................. Starkville, Miss.
Nov. 23......... Chattanooga................................. Bryant-Denny Stadium
Nov. 30......... *at Auburn................................... Auburn, Ala.
You think the quality of opponent drives players to Bama?
I'm going to say players like to win, and there is a ****-ton of local talent.
How many of these teams were in he top 25 at the end of the year?
Top 50?
Conference perception has a lot more to do with individual member brands than it has to do with a product on the field. Once you've established a brand, it's still fun for other teams to see your helmet, even when you're down. Kids still get excited about playing Tennessee and Auburn, even if both programs are down.
The Big 12 has two brands. OU and Texas. If we're going to stay at ten teams, he league needs to stop playing musical chairs at the top and establish another brand. Creating a good brand isn't impossible. Oregon has done it over the last decade. They were a junk program prior to the 90's. Stanford's football brand was mediocre and trending to horrible until about five years ago. They key at both places is that they've won consistently and they've won big games.
In the Big 12, you get a different contender every year. Both OSU and K-State have blown a national title shot in each of the last two years. Baylor had a Heisman winner, but hasn't really contended for even a conference title. TCU won the Rose Bowl in 2010. West Virginia has three great BCS bowl wins, but can't ever seem to be a national contender in consecutive seasons. Tech had a Top 5 team for part of 2008. KU had a Top 5 team in 2007. We just need a third team to step up for several consecutive seasons and grow into an exciting game on the schedule.
The following users like this post: S11-Baylor
A 20 team league will involve 4 pods of 5 teams. Each team plays the other four teams in its pod every year. Each pod will align with one of the other three pods in any given year (five more games). That's nine conference games total. The other two pods will align and play each other, thus creating informal divisions for each year. The two winners of the informal divisions will then play in a conference title game. Since there is no cross divisional play among the divisions, there will be no rematch, and it will guarantee be a fresh, novel conference title game. Then, the next year, the pods rotate, and its a different alignment. So if there are East, North, South, and West pods in a 20 team league, in Year 1, the winner of the East + West pod informal division will play the winner of the North + South informal division. In Year 2, the winner of the East + North division will play the winner of the West + South division...Year 3, East + South division will play West + North division...Year 4, start over again, East + West vs. North + South etc. In 3 years, every team has played everyone else, in 6 years, every team has played everyone else home and away. For the olympic sports, you can form two 10 team divisions and keep the divisions separate schedule wise, so that, say, the men's gymnastics team doesn't have to travel to Syracuse and vice versa, and only these teams face each other in conference tournament play.
So the ACC, SEC, and B1G are all at 14. Let's say the B1G and SEC both poach the ACC for 4 teams (UVA and Ga Tech to the B1G, UNC and Duke to the SEC), that leaves 10 teams for the ACC. The Big 12 and ACC can then form a 20 team conference of the remaining teams, form 5 pods with only minimal controversy (UT/OU/OSU/Baylor/Tech "SW" pod, TCU/KU/KSU/ISU/Louisville "Central" pod, WVU/Pitt/BC/Syracuse/Va Tech "North" pod, Miami/FSU/Clemson/Wake/NCState "SE" pod), and move along our merry way, with a large geographic swath to build a conference network and earn a whole lot of money, plus some new faces to create excitement. The SW and SE pods may be a bit top heavy, but since its a rotational informal division alignment, it would only come up with the SW and SE pods play each other in schedule. Play 9 conference games plus a title game. Liberated from playing deadweight every year, trading playing the same 9 teams every year for playing the same 4 teams every year, and cycling in an interesting alotment of programs for the other 5 conference games.
Stanford and Oregon made their way at the expense of USC. Georgia was ready to clean house two seasons ago, Auburn just did the same.
It is not in OU or Texas' best interest to "develop" another team. We both have a great formula for getting into the title hunt, we just need to win more games.
How would you divide the pods?
Which 1 team is in the California Pod? OU and Texas in same pod?
Is it in OU or Texas' best interest to play in a strong Big 12? I would say so. Better league = better recruiting = better TV deal. If that means that beating OSU is harder today than it was during the 60's, so be it.
You realize that you can't drop teams when throwing these percentages around a collective conference is .500 against eachother. If you eliminate the bottom ten you are obviously getting a crazy biased stat.
Texas A&M - 1997, 1998, 2010, 2012 Big 12 Champs*
It already is harder to beat them. It is also harder to beat TCU and WVU and KSU than it was to beat 3-8 in the big 8 (most years). It's not like we are Boise...we are not going to get snubbed if we go undefeated.
And neither will Florida State.
Texas A&M - 1997, 1998, 2010, 2012 Big 12 Champs*
I would say that largely depends upon who else goes undefeated.
With the way OOC and Conference strength have been trending, I would say that if every conference produced an undefeated champ, order would be:
SEC
Big 12/Big 10 (a toss up here)
PAC
ACC
FIFY
Hope you're joking. There is no substantial "groundswell" to support this ****ertion
Posting Permissions
