Big 10 Expansion Thread -Big Ten ready for a playoff .. finally?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

On the November 2, 2006, Thursday night telecast of #3 West Virginia Mountaineers' 44–34 loss to #5 Louisville Cardinals delivered an average of 4,916,000 households (based on a 5.3 rating), the biggest household audience ever for a Thursday night game on the network and the second-biggest college football audience ever for an ESPN game (any day or time slot).

Indeed. And everything I've heard about WVU is that their fans are crazy for the team. Bowls love 'em, because the fans will travel and people will watch.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

On the November 2, 2006, Thursday night telecast of #3 West Virginia Mountaineers' 44–34 loss to #5 Louisville Cardinals delivered an average of 4,916,000 households (based on a 5.3 rating), the biggest household audience ever for a Thursday night game on the network and the second-biggest college football audience ever for an ESPN game (any day or time slot).

That was five years ago. ESPN had two games draw more viewers than that last week.

If we want to use pointless data, the 2007 MU-KU game was the highest rated regular season game of the year and set the record for highest-rated ESPN Gameday. Last year's Gameday visit to Missouri set the show record for largest crowd.

What does that mean? Nothing, which is exactly what 2006 WVU game's rating means.

I'll admit to being a homer, but I don't see the appeal of WVU over MU to the SEC. If anything, the attitude in Missouri is that the SEC wants us more than we wan them. Not sure it's true, but that's the perception.

[timmynausea]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

That was five years ago. ESPN had two games draw more viewers than that last week.

If we want to use pointless data, the 2007 MU-KU game was the highest rated regular season game of the year and set the record for highest-rated ESPN Gameday. Last year's Gameday visit to Missouri set the show record for largest crowd.

What does that mean? Nothing, which is exactly what 2006 WVU game's rating means.

I'll admit to being a homer, but I don't see the appeal of WVU over MU to the SEC. If anything, the attitude in Missouri is that the SEC wants us more than we wan them. Not sure it's true, but that's the perception.

You are right about the ratings. I googled highest rated college football games, and that quote was among the top results from wikipedia. In any case, WVU has done well in ratings consistently over the years. I don't care to dig too much to make a case for WVU over anyone, of course, because it is a waste of time. We'll see how it goes.

Edit to add: Actually, I only see one game - Michigan/Notre Dame - as higher rated than the WVU - Louisville game last week, but your point essentially stands.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Missouri had all those same things going for it last Summer, but the Big Ten chose to take the small market and inferior academic school in Nebraska.

I think 5-10 years from now we will look back on the Big Tn as having missed a huge opportunity ... Not necessarily in choosing NU over MU but in choosing to look in the past instead of the future. Nebraska is a past power with bad demographics ... The Big Ten should have been looking to build east and south to expand it's footprint. And I'll still contend MU brought more to the table than Nebraska did, but the Big Ten is in the past.

Originally Posted by tarcone

I dont think the B1G is joining this mess. There are no "homerun" schools out there that would join. UNC and Duke wont leave now. ND seems happy as an independent. Now if they got Texas, and ND followed along, I could see them going for Rutgers. But who would be 16?
Nope, the B1G will stay at 12 and enjoy their great conference as is.

How is Rutgers a home run for the Big Ten? If the Big Ten doesn't strike now, it will get sloppy seconds. If it doesn't try to grab a Texas or Missouri now, it's going to have to pick thru what's left of the Big East of it wants to grow.

The only way the Big Ten wins by standing pat is if the super conference format fails. Maybe it will ... But that's a big bet.

[timmynausea]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

I think 5-10 years from now we will look back on the Big Tn as having missed a huge opportunity ... Not necessarily in choosing NU over MU but in choosing to look in the past instead of the future. Nebraska is a past power with bad demographics ... The Big Ten should have been looking to build east and south to expand it's footprint. And I'll still contend MU brought more to the table than Nebraska did, but the Big Ten is in the past.

How is Rutgers a home run for the Big Ten? If the Big Ten doesn't strike now, it will get sloppy seconds. If it doesn't try to grab a Texas or Missouri now, it's going to have to pick thru what's left of the Big East of it wants to grow.

The only way the Big Ten wins by standing pat is if the super conference format fails. Maybe it will ... But that's a big bet.

So it was a big mistake to take Nebraska over Missouri based on demographics, but it would also be a big mistake to favor Rutger's superior demographics over Missouri?

[DeToxRox]

The Nebraska football brand is still a pretty damn powerful thing. I am amazed people don't realize that. Sure the idea of what Nebraska was may be a thing of the past, but it's still ingrained into a lot of people.

[DeToxRox]

Also, I am not seeing how the Big Ten is screwed. If UT and ND went to the ACC to play football, then yes, they are a clear cut ahead of the Big Ten as far as football prestige would go. For now, the SEC is still the only conference ahead of them and the money will keep rolling in. There is no reason for the Big Ten to expand without getting some type of bell cow, such as either UT or ND, or Duke or Carolina (obviously from a hoops perspective).

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

I'll admit to being a homer, but I don't see the appeal of WVU over MU to the SEC. If anything, the attitude in Missouri is that the SEC wants us more than we wan them. Not sure it's true, but that's the perception.

I won't say that WVU is head and shoulders better than Missouri in the revenue sports, but they have clearly been better of late and can make a good argument that they have been better historically.

WVU has gone 88-38 in the past ten years. That is good for 14th (tied with Miami) during that time. They have played in 9 straight bowls in the past ten seasons and won two BCS games. Coming into this season, WVU has the 14th most wins in NCAA history with 691.

Missouri has gone 77-49 in the past ten years. That is good for 29th during that time. They have played in 6 straight bowl (7 total) and not appeared in a BCS game. Coming into this season, Missouri has the 33rd most wins in NCAA history with 620.

Missouri is enjoying its best stretch in history and has averaged 10-wins over the past four seasons. WVU has averaged 10-wins over the past six seasons and replaced their coach after last season.

Looking at that, West Virginia has been about a game better per year and has, as evidenced by its victories in BCS games, been better than Missouri at its best over the past ten years.

WVU's basketball program has a recent Final Four appearance (2010) and two Elite Eights and four Sweet 16 appearances since 2005. Missouri has never made the Final Four (WVU has made it twice and made it to the Finals once), and made the Elite 8 four times in its history, and has two Sweet 16s in the past ten years. WVU has more appearances in the Finals, Final 4, and Sweet 16 historically. Each team has the same amount of appearances in the NCAA tournament. West Virginia has more historical wins (1602-1499) and a better historical winning percentage (.618 to .591).

Sadly (for us), West Virginia is the winningest historical program without a national championship in both football and basketball.

So, yes. You are being a homer about it, which is fine. But if you cannot see the appeal of WVU (over Missouri, at least), you need to do a little bit of research. Missouri may well get the SEC nod over WVU, but it will be because of market size rather than athletic departments.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

So it was a big mistake to take Nebraska over Missouri based on demographics, but it would also be a big mistake to favor Rutger's superior demographics over Missouri?

Just because Rutgers is in New Jersey doesn't give it superior demographics over anyone. The Big Ten model is based solely on the most subscribers for BTN, which means forcing cable companies to put it on their standard tier and not a digital or sports tier. Nebraska has the kind of following that will get BTN 100 percent clearance on standard cable. Missouri would do the same. But there us not the same must-have mentality for Rutgers that would move BTN from the digital or sports tiers in Jersey or NYC. In that sense, Rutgers would bring nothing to the table for BTN.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Matthean

If so many conferences are going to 16, I wonder if the Big 10 is going add enough to be the same, or still hold to the idea of only adding top of the line universities.

Fourteen will be hard enough to manage. I don't see why the Big Ten needs to expand. If fourteen works for the SEC and the ACC, then maybe Notre Dame applies at some point, and maybe Pitt decides to jump again.

I understand why networks want more schools in conferences. More is better. I don't understand why conferences want expansion.

[Izulde]

I don't think Mizzou fits Big Ten's academic profile do they?

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I don't understand why conferences want expansion.

Fewer (Power) Conferences = Less Broadcasting Options = Higher Payouts for the Conferences

[Swaggs]

ACC presidents accept the applications from Pitt and Syracuse: ACC has approved addition of Pittsburgh, Syracuse – USATODAY.com

Looks like there will be a press conference at 9:30 AM.

Not that I question the move, but the urgency is still a bit puzzling for me. Particularly after observing how slow some of the other recent moves have been.

Hopefully, the Big East does not hold them to the 27-month waiting period.

[DeToxRox]

Originally Posted by Izulde

I don't think Mizzou fits Big Ten's academic profile do they?

All the schools are supposed to be members of the AAU. Nebraska just lost its AAU status. It caused a big stink from the school presidents but Nebraska apparently made a commitment to the other school presidents to commit itself to research.

[Izulde]

Makes me wonder what the procedure is for a conference losing AQ status. Love to see the Mountain West get it if Big East loses it.

[General Mike]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Just because Rutgers is in New Jersey doesn't give it superior demographics over anyone. The Big Ten model is based solely on the most subscribers for BTN, which means forcing cable companies to put it on their standard tier and not a digital or sports tier. Nebraska has the kind of following that will get BTN 100 percent clearance on standard cable. Missouri would do the same. But there us not the same must-have mentality for Rutgers that would move BTN from the digital or sports tiers in Jersey or NYC. In that sense, Rutgers would bring nothing to the table for BTN.

Bull fucking shit

Senator Frank R. Lautenberg

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Sadly (for us), West Virginia is the winningest historical program without a national championship in both football and basketball.

So, yes. You are being a homer about it, which is fine. But if you cannot see the appeal of WVU (over Missouri, at least), you need to do a little bit of research. Missouri may well get the SEC nod over WVU, but it will be because of market size rather than athletic departments.

Sadly, we can go bummer to bummer with WVU. We've been jockeying with BYU for the record of most NCAA tourney appearances without a final four.

But markets, revenue and momentum is exactly why I don't see how WVU is a gimme over Mizzou. Missouri has bigger markets, more population, ranks in the top 20 in NCAA merchandising and is generally a program on the rise in a lot of sports, not just football. I'm well aware of WVU's history, but I see WVU being head and shoulders above Mizzou in history and prestige. I do see Mizzou having a big edge from a financial standpoint.

I think both schools should be careful for what they ask for. Neither school would be as successful in the SEC in football as they have been. Missouri would have an advantage going into the SEC West.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by General Mike

Bull fucking shit

Senator Frank R. Lautenberg

That's my point. The NFL Network let K-State and Rutgers pick up the game locally for PR reasons ... But five years later NFL Network still isn't on standard cable everywhere in NJ, and it's not on Time Warner Cable in NYC. Rutgers didn't bring cable companies to their knees.

It's not a reflection or criticism of Rutgers ... It has more to do with the fact that Missouri is the only I-A and BCS program in the state.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Izulde

Makes me wonder what the procedure is for a conference losing AQ status. Love to see the Mountain West get it if Big East loses it.

BCS Future Automatic Qualification Standards


Under the terms of the agreements with the bowls and television rightsholder, the ACC, Big East, Big 10, Big 12, Pac-10 and SEC will have annual automatic qualification for their champions for the 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 seasons.

Results from the 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 regular seasons will be evaluated to determine whether a seventh conference earns automatic qualification for the 2012-13 and 2013-14 bowl games. The process is as follows:

*The evaluation includes the following for each conference (1) the ranking of the highest-ranked team in the final BCS Standings each year (if a conference does not place a team in the final BCS Standings, then its highest-ranked team is determined by the conference member that has the highest average ranking in the computer rankings used in the BCS Standings), (2) the final regular-season rankings of all conference teams in the computer rankings used by the BCS each year, and (3) the number of teams in the top 25 of the final BCS Standings each year, with adjustments to account for differences in the number of members of each conference.

A conference will become the seventh automatic qualifier if it finishes among the top six conferences in both No. 1 and No. 2 and if its ranking in No. 3 is equal to or greater than 50 percent of the conference with the highest ranking in No. 3.

*Further, a conference will be eligible to apply to the Presidential Oversight Committee for an exemption if it finishes among the top six in both No. 1 and No. 2 and if its ranking in No. 3 is equal to or greater than 33.3 percent of the conference with the highest ranking in No. 3, OR

If it finishes among the top seven in either No. 1 or No. 2 and among the top five in the other and if its ranking in No. 3 is equal to or greater than 33.3 percent of the conference with the highest ranking in No. 3.

No. 3 above, the "Top 25 Performance Rating," will be calculated as follows: Points will be awarded to the conferences based on their teams' finishes in the top 25 of the final BCS Standings each year. Points will be awarded as follows:

Teams finishing 1-6: 4 points for each team

Teams finishing 7-12: 3 points for each team

Teams finishing 13-18: 2 points for each team

Teams finishing 19-25: 1 point for each team

The point totals will be adjusted to account for the size of the conference, as follows:

Conference membership | Adjustment

12 or more members | no adjustment

10 or 11 members | points increased by 12.5 percent

9 or fewer members | points increased by 25 percent

*The computations will be made according to the conference's membership on Dec. 4, 2011.

MWC probably had a pretty good chance of getting included in the next round until they lost Utah, BYU, and TCU. Now, they may get a provisional (2-year) admission. That said, with the likely extinction of either the Big East and/or Big 12, it would not surprise me to see the rules completely rewritten for the next cycle.

As it is, I doubt adding TCU and losing Syracuse and Pitt is going to hurt the Big East's BCS ratings. Syracuse has been awful and Pitt has been above average, but nowhere near TCU's level over the past several seasons (I think Pitt has maybe appeared in the final BCS rankings once over the past five years). WVU and Cincy have been the standard bearers during the last evaluation cycle.

[Toddzilla]

So now the Big East needs to go grab Marshall, Memphis, Temple, and maybe ECU out of Conference USA. Thats 11, and one more (Villanova?) gives them the magical conference championship game.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

But markets, revenue and momentum is exactly why I don't see how WVU is a gimme over Mizzou. Missouri has bigger markets, more population, ranks in the top 20 in NCAA merchandising and is generally a program on the rise in a lot of sports, not just football. I'm well aware of WVU's history, but I see WVU being head and shoulders above Mizzou in history and prestige. I do see Mizzou having a big edge from a financial standpoint.

Not sure that I follow.

WVU both generates more revenue and is more profitable than Missouri in both football and basketball (and that is with the Big East's horrendous television deal that they signed after the 2003 raid): Which Football and Basketball Programs Produce the Largest Profits? «

WVU outranks Missouri in merchandise sales: http://www.clc.com/clcweb/publishing...ings+2010-2011

And, as established in my post above, appear to be in a slightly favorable situation in athletic departments.

I concede academics and markets, but I think you are either way overselling Missouri or selling WVU short.

[Toddzilla]

oops - should have said Temple from the MAC.

and with the makeup of Conference USA after losing those 4 teams, maybe the 4 Texas schools (UTEP, Houston, Rice, and SMU) can all make for the Big 12.

[Toddzilla]

I think you guys both have a pretty good understanding of both WVU and Missouri, it's a matter of how important you think "academics and markets" is to a prospective conference.

Texas A&M hasn't won shit in anything (to my limited knowledge), but their academics and MARKET made them the perfect add for the SEC. Why would the SEC then add a 14th team completely contrary to that?

[DeToxRox]

I have to wonder if TCU lawyers aren't already working on their out. At this point staying in the MWC or joining a totally overhauled Big 12 seem far better then sticking with the Big East.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

So now the Big East needs to go grab Marshall, Memphis, Temple, and maybe ECU out of Conference USA. Thats 11, and one more (Villanova?) gives them the magical conference championship game.

If Big 12 teams are off the table and WVU stays, I'd say the five most likely candidates are UCF, Temple or Villanova, Houston, and East Carolina.

So, you get something like this:

Division 1:
West Virginia
Rutgers
UConn
Villanova/Temple
Houston
USF

Division 2:
TCU
UCF
Memphis
Louisville
Cincy
East Carolina

Pretty decent basketball conference with UConn, Louisville, Memphis, WVU, Cincy and Temple/Villanova. Sadly, I'm not sure that is much worse of a football conference.

[Swaggs]

One last snippet from me.

This makes me feel a bit better, since Brando has SEC connections:

TimBrando


@wvugodfather fear not. W.Virginia is on the radar. You will be fine. Oliver Luck will keep you relevant.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

If Big 12 teams are off the table and WVU stays, I'd say the five most likely candidates are UCF, Temple or Villanova, Houston, and East Carolina.

So, you get something like this:



Pretty decent basketball conference with UConn, Louisville, Memphis, WVU, Cincy and Temple/Villanova. Sadly, I'm not sure that is much worse of a football conference.

That's a horrible BCS conference.

I don;t mind Syracuse leaving - see ya! It'll be fun to see even more ex-Big East teams dominate the ACC. I don't like seeing the Panthers, our BFF, go. As far as I'm concerned, there are three core Big East foobtball programs, schools and teams that share so much, and everyone else can spin around - Virginia Tech, WVU and Pitt. If the other two are in the ACC, then as much as I really don;t like the ACC that much, I have to root that we'll end up there too.

[Abe Sargent]

Assuming no more moves, I'd do this:

WVU

UConn

USF

Cincinnati

Louisville

Rutgers


TCU



Add - no good targets. I agree add another Texas and Florida school - UCF and probably Houston. I think they both have the school size, stadiums, and athletic program to work.

Then? Temple blows. Perhaps UMass? Aren't they about to jump up? ECU is not ready. Memphis is not ready. Villanova is hope, but its not ready. Marshall's not ready. Maybe a MAC school like Toledo's ready, I'd have to do the research. Maybe an outside the box school like Navy? It's all a crap shoot after Houston and UCF.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

ACC news conference scheduled for 9:30 AM today. Pitt and Syracuse have been accepted into the conference. ACC may be looking at UConn and Rutgers to get to 16..........

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/colle...ast/50448806/1

Coach K wants to see 16 in the ACC......

Mike Krzyzewski says Pittsburgh Panthers, Syracuse Orange would be 'coup' for ACC - ESPN

More talk in the NY Times of what comes next. Says Mizzou will be looked to as #14 in SEC. Amusing quote regarding Texas....

“Texas is going to play with the Pac-12 and play with the A.C.C., and then do what’s best for Texas on Texas’ terms,” a high-ranking college official said. “That’s what they’ve always done.”

If Syracuse and Pitt Move On, Things Could Get Interesting - NYTimes.com

I still think all this debate over WVU and Mizzou is pretty meaningless. WVU will end up in the SEC and Mizzou will likely do the same. Just a matter of when at this point.

[SirFozzie]

Interesting bit in the USA Today article, if the ACC goes to 16, targets are UConn and Rutgers.

[Chubby]

http://suathletics.com/news/2011/9/1...918111038.aspx

GREENSBORO, N.C. (theACC.com) – The Atlantic Coast Conference Council of Presidents has unanimously voted to accept the University of Pittsburgh and Syracuse University as new members. The invitation followed the submission of letters of application from both universities.

“The ACC is a strong united conference that is only going to get better with the addition of the University of Pittsburgh and Syracuse University,” said Duke University President Richard Broadhead, chair of the ACC Council of Presidents. “Both schools are committed to competing at the highest level of academics and athletics. We welcome them as full partners in the ACC.”

“The ACC has enjoyed a rich tradition by balancing academics and athletics and the addition of Pitt and Syracuse further strengthens the ACC culture in this regard,” said Atlantic Coast Conference Commissioner John Swofford. “Pittsburgh and Syracuse also serve to enhance the ACC’s reach into the states of New York and Pennsylvania and geographically bridges our footprint between Maryland and Massachusetts. With the addition of Pitt and Syracuse, the ACC will cover virtually the entire Eastern Seaboard of the United States.”

“This is an exciting day for the University of Pittsburgh. We have a long history of competing and collaborating with the distinguished universities that already are members of the Atlantic Coast Conference, and have enormous respect for both their academic strengths and their athletic accomplishments,” said University of Pittsburgh Chancellor Mark A. Nordenberg. “In looking to our own future, we could not envision a better conference home for Pitt and are grateful to the Council of Presidents for extending an invitation to join the ACC community.”

"We are very excited to be joining the ACC. This is a tremendous opportunity for Syracuse, and with its outstanding academic quality and athletic excellence, the ACC is a perfect fit for us," said Nancy Cantor, Chancellor and President of Syracuse University. "The ACC is home to excellent national research universities with very strong academic quality, and is a group that Syracuse will contribute to significantly and benefit from considerably. As a comprehensive, all-sports conference, the ACC provides Syracuse tremendous opportunities for quality competition and growth in all sports, while also renewing some of our historic rivalries. This move will also bolster our continued efforts to look outward, engage, and extend Syracuse’s reach to key areas of the country, including the southeast, as we grow and expand our national connections to alumni, partners and the students of the future. We are pleased that Syracuse adds a New York City dimension to the ACC, a region in which we have built strong identity and affinity, and we look forward to bringing ACC games to the Big Apple. Overall, for Syracuse, this opportunity provides long-term conference stability in what is an uncertain, evolving, and rapidly shifting national landscape."

“This is a very significant day for all of our student-athletes, coaches and staff at the University of Pittsburgh,” said Steve Pederson, University of Pittsburgh Director of Athletics. “The strength and quality of the ACC is highly regarded by everyone at Pitt. When we set high expectations for our student-athletes in their academic, athletic and personal goals, it is important to provide every opportunity and resource to enable that success. Joining the ACC and the outstanding institutions in this conference will give every Pitt student-athlete the chance to achieve their highest aspirations.”

"Today is a day that we will remember for years to come," said Syracuse University Director of Athletics Dr. Daryl Gross. "We are truly excited that academically and athletically we will be a member of the ACC, one of the nation's premier collegiate athletic conferences. As New York's College Team, we plan to compete at the highest level across all of our sports and help to enhance this great conference."

About the Atlantic Coast Conference:
Now in its 59th year of competition, the ACC has long enjoyed the reputation as one of the strongest and most competitive intercollegiate conferences in the nation. Since the league’s inception in 1953, ACC schools have captured 122 national championships, including 65 in women’s competition and 57 in men’s. In addition, NCAA individual titles have gone to ACC student-athletes 140 times in men’s competition and 99 times in women’s action. For more information on the Atlantic Coast Conference visit theACC.com.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Negotiations will be interesting on SU/Pitt exit if they want to leave earlier than 2014, which I would assume they do.

[miked]

If RU goes to the ACC, I'll be so happy. Local games against GT, Clemson just 2 hours away, and my neighbors are from FSU and go to Tallahassee for like every game.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

sad. but BE football always felt like a hodge podge. and adding more mid level football programs was making the bball conference a mess.

no msg BET sucks. but lacrosse superconference now, so... that's something.

[bronconick]

Man, Big East bloggers have totally dropped the ball on this one. Every day there's 27 new rumors about what's going on in the Big 12 amongst the teams, and then Pitt and Syracuse move within like three days of the first leaked rumor.

[Chubby]

now the question becomes, what does ND do?

I think SU and PItt are counting on the BE falling apart (which I agree will happen) makingthe buyout and 27 months irrelevant.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Chubby

now the question becomes, what does ND do?

I think SU and PItt are counting on the BE falling apart (which I agree will happen) makingthe buyout and 27 months irrelevant.

I think they will have to pay some form of buyout, because I don't know that everyone is going to find a home. I doubt that they are forced to wait 27-months. I would think that everyone involved would probably like to move on next season.

[CU Tiger]

Take this fwiw, a random bs post on message board, but I had a Clemson BOT member tell me this morning that TCU was negotiating a deal break with the BE and then a TCU UT pairing to join the ACC with UT maintaining the LHN and showing TCU "equal love" on the "TEXACC" network.

I know ACC doesn't want TT academically and TCUfits much better there, but damn this eems disjointed as hell with 2 Texas teams.

[General Mike]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

That's my point. The NFL Network let K-State and Rutgers pick up the game locally for PR reasons ... But five years later NFL Network still isn't on standard cable everywhere in NJ, and it's not on Time Warner Cable in NYC. Rutgers didn't bring cable companies to their knees.

It's not a reflection or criticism of Rutgers ... It has more to do with the fact that Missouri is the only I-A and BCS program in the state.

Of course not, because it was one game on one day on one network. If Rutgers had been playing 5 games a year on the NFL network like they would have with a Big Ten network, then the cable companies would have been forced to pick it up.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Interesting bit in the USA Today article, if the ACC goes to 16, targets are UConn and Rutgers.

Ok...rather than a merger of the Big East and the ACC like I suggested, it's just the ACC forcibly taking the Big East over.

[timmynausea]

I think Swaggs called it a while back. The Big East not only was flirting with NBC (and to a lesser degree Fox) over ESPN for their next contract, the commissioner was bragging about it constantly. Makes a lot of sense to me that the ESPN just had the ACC, whom they've already signed to a long term deal, take out the Big East in response.

And of course the Big East commissioner John Marinotto was completely blindsided by this. This is why I couldn't believe it when Marinotto was calling for a face to face meeting with the Big 12 and ACC commissioners a few weeks ago to talk about what their plans were. This isn't the mickey mouse club, and you're a complete idiot if you think one or both of those conferences isn't plotting to take you out. Did he think the ACC was going to tip their hand at this meeting or something? I honestly think he was convinced that the Big East was in the driver's seat with a new contract on the way and wanted to do those conferences the courtesy of letting them know the Big East's intention of expanding (probably just going for the Big 12 leftovers, but there were rumors about approaching BC or Maryland as well, depending on how big the NBC offer was.)

After the 2003 ACC raid, the Big East administrators have been obsessed with the idea of doing things "the right way" and being "above board." So instead of actually being proactive, he wants a face to face meeting to telegraph his plans, is completely blindsided and is now reading headlines this morning like "Marinotto Clueless as the Big East Crumbles".

[General Mike]

I would guess you would see the 4 or 5 left over from the Big East, plus the 4 or 5 left over from the Big XII combine, and then try to pick up a couple extras that have TV financial value whether its a Memphis for basketball, a Boise State for football or some other teams.

[Toddzilla]

Maybe after the C-USA teams from Texas skip to the Big-12, you combine the leftovers from both the BigEast and CUSA:

Cincinnati
Connecticut
Louisville
Rutgers
South Florida
TCU
West Virginia

East Carolina
Marshall
Memphis
Southern Miss
UAB
UCF
Tulane

14 teams, nice and tidy.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

Maybe after the C-USA teams from Texas skip to the Big-12, you combine the leftovers from both the BigEast and CUSA:

Cincinnati
Connecticut
Louisville
Rutgers
South Florida
TCU
West Virginia

East Carolina
Marshall
Memphis
Southern Miss
UAB
UCF
Tulane

14 teams, nice and tidy.

unless ACC adds UCONN and Rutgers, which I think is far more likely than adding texas schools

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

That's my point. The NFL Network let K-State and Rutgers pick up the game locally for PR reasons ... But five years later NFL Network still isn't on standard cable everywhere in NJ, and it's not on Time Warner Cable in NYC. Rutgers didn't bring cable companies to their knees.

It's not a reflection or criticism of Rutgers ... It has more to do with the fact that Missouri is the only I-A and BCS program in the state.

For the record, Rutgers is only BCS program in the the NYC metro area. Obviously the only one in NJ but also NY other than Syracuse which isn't close to the city no matter how they try to sell themselves as NYC's team which I'd concede might be true in college basketball with the demise of St. John's.

That said, Rutgers academics and AAU membership coupled with their investment in football should ensure they won't be left in the cold when this dust all settles. I hope they end up in the B1G because it seems like a better fit than a 16-team ACC.

Also, there is no way the B1G can afford to sit on the sidelines in all of this, this is a domino effect that will surely involve them sooner or later.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Congress likely will scrutinize the conference realignment...............

Pittsburgh and Syracuse Join A.C. C. - NYTimes.com

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Congress likely will scrutinize the conference realignment...............

Pittsburgh and Syracuse Join A.C. C. - NYTimes.com

YAWN, because his state's college is getting boned?

We won't investigate the BCS but we will look at conferences? oooooooooh ok

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Chubby

YAWN, because his state's college is getting boned?

We won't investigate the BCS but we will look at conferences? oooooooooh ok

I don't think either of those is going to matter in the end. A playoff in some form is pretty likely after this shakes out. I'm not sure how much the NCAA threats matter either. Most of these schools would love to boot the current NCAA governance to the curb.