Conference Realignment Thread
- Thread starter RedOctober3829
- Start date
Your fixation on the name of the conference is almost as ridiculous as the spread-out nature of the conference. Get over it.
I mean what is more foolish - San Diego making 6 East Coast Trips a year for football or the entirety of the Big 12 going to Morganstown for all sports.
Big East Football with Boise St., UCF, and Houston is better than ACC football with Virginia Tech and Clemson
Whatever. You guys can make fun of my (SMU) new home all you want. I was so inspired I have a song I shall now sing.
Well we're movin on up! To the Big East.
To a deluxe conference in the BCS.
Movin on up! To the big east!
We finally got a piece of the TV revenue pie.
Mustangs won't waste away; no more conference USA. Pony Express coming your way, Onward to the big east, hey!
Now we're up in the big leagues, Gettin' our turn at bat.
As long as we live, it's you and me, big east, baby, There ain't nothin wrong with that.
Well we're movin on up, to the big east!
To a deluxe conference in the BCS.
Movin on up, to the big east!
We finally got a guaranteed bowl!
Well we're movin on up! To the Big East.
To a deluxe conference in the BCS.
Movin on up! To the big east!
We finally got a piece of the TV revenue pie.
Mustangs won't waste away; no more conference USA. Pony Express coming your way, Onward to the big east, hey!
Now we're up in the big leagues, Gettin' our turn at bat.
As long as we live, it's you and me, big east, baby, There ain't nothin wrong with that.
Well we're movin on up, to the big east!
To a deluxe conference in the BCS.
Movin on up, to the big east!
We finally got a guaranteed bowl!
What makes you think ACC football is going to get better? Miami is going to get ball stomped by the NCAA after this season and Florida St. is a mess and about to get their asses handed to them by Notre Dame of all teams. ACC just picked up Pittsburgh which I suppose is a borderline bowl team in the ACC and Syracuse who will challenge BC for most embarrassing Big East import.
Boise St and Houston move to a position where they are on East Coast television.
Move helps SMU, UCF, and South Florida too.
Edit - How long before South Carolina, Georgia, and Floida give up on cockblocking Clemson from its natural conference?
Houston yes, but Boise State has been good for a number of years now. I'd expect them to sustain a good level of success in the Big East.
Boise has played in a shit conference and been a top 20 team 8 out 10 years including 4 top tens. How many ACC teams could claim that despite having the huge advantage of being over ranked to begin every season (Florida St. was No. 6 to start the season)?
Houston used to be a great Football School. Then it was killed when it got crippling NCAA sanctions like SMU in the late 80s
Same shit Miami should be looking forward too.
Will Boise have stricter recruiting standards now? I have heard that one reason they are so good is they specifically recruit a lot of players that can't qualify academically for most of the Pac-10(12) schools.
I don't really know how the latest incantation of the Big East sees academics, or how the next version will when it adds these new four teams...but will being in a more serious conference (or, at least what used to be a more serious conference) hurt that recruiting strategy at all?
Big East might be slightly better than the SEC. That is about it. Boise should be fine.
The Big East will not be primarily in the East.
There are not 10 teams in the Big Ten.
There are not 12 teams in the Big XII.
Seems like par for the course.
There are not 10 teams in the Big Ten.
There are not 12 teams in the Big XII.
Seems like par for the course.
Deciding whether or not to accept non-qualifiers is up to the school -- AFAIK there aren't any conferences that have policies that prohibit it -- so conference affiliation shouldn't affect Boise's recruiting, at least as far as that is concerned.
In football? No, it doesn't want to be in any conference.
In basketball? Yes, it's the best conference that will have them without their football team.
I really wasn't talking about football. If they are joining a conference for football I know it won't be the Big East. I was wondering if they had any interest in playing those schools in basketball.
You're probably right. I still can't believe they kept the name "Big Ten" when there were 11 (and now 12) teams in it. :c070:
I'm really pumped for the budding rivalries with Houston, SMU, SDSU and Boise. The Rent will be rockin'. :c070:
AFA and Navy will be joining soon as well. BYU should join as well.
Then Rutgers and UConn and Louisville will leave
AFA and Navy will be joining soon as well. BYU should join as well.
Then Rutgers and UConn and Louisville will leave
How many ACC teams could go 11-1 playing in the Mountain West? I'm pretty sure Georgia Tech would have had the same record with Boise's schedule. And before you point to UGA, I'll point out that UGA got a lot better between the time Boise played them and Georgia Tech player them.
The Big 12 allegedly would give Notre Dame the same deal it enjoys in the Big East, so long as there's a four- to six-game guarantee for conference members to play the Irish in football. BYU would be the football-only place-holder splitting the 12th spot (Louisville supposedly will be the 11th some time in the spring).
If that summary of what beat writers across the conference have speculated on is true, you would think the Irish would have to sleep on it. Read somewhere they hoped to make a decision on their conference affiliation by Jan. 2.
It's clearly not the same deal for ND's non-revenue Sports. Big XII can't offer what it doesn't have.
Football, Hockey & Fencing are outlayers for any Conference they look at.
However, BIG XII Conference doesn't sponsor Mens Lax, Womens Lax, Men's Soccer, Men's Swimming&Diving (Women's Swimming now down to 3 teams with 2 recent defections). I suppose ND could drop some of those Sports and start a Varsity Equestrian Team.
And Basketball in Big XII is taking Notre Dame out of NYC, Philly, DC, Cincinnati and the urban Catholic markets that traditionally support ND athletics. Texas and Oklahoma are not traditional markets for Notre Dame athletics.
If they were looking to move their FOOTBALL program, the BIG XII makes sense but they have no reason to to move other Sports to that region at this point without Football.
The ACC is the far better match for ND athletics but so far they won't take ND without Football.
Notre Dame made the right call going to Hockey East. While I do realize the Big East sponsors some sports the Big 12 doesn't, given the fact it's Notre Dame, they would find a home in some conference, right? Can't imagine those sports being left behind with a switch to the Big 12, where the basketball would be better once Pitt, Syracuse, West Virginia and Louisville all jump ship.However, BIG XII Conference doesn't sponsor Mens Lax, Womens Lax, Men's Soccer, Men's Swimming&Diving (Women's Swimming now down to 3 teams with 2 recent defections). I suppose ND could drop some of those Sports and start a Varsity Equestrian Team.
And Basketball in Big XII is taking Notre Dame out of NYC, Philly, DC, Cincinnati and the urban Catholic markets that traditionally support ND athletics. Texas and Oklahoma are not traditional markets for Notre Dame athletics.
Bottom line: Notre Dame has made a lot of decisions based on money. If the Big 12's TV contracts doubles the Big East's, and if Notre Dame can air its home basketball games and Olympic sports on NBC Sports like it recently announced it would do with hockey and pocket the Tier 3 money, that would be something to consider.
Mind you, Notre Dame -- even for Olympic sports-only -- is still probably a long shot. But it's something for them to think about.if they could swallow their pride on football, the ACC is a perfect match in every way.
Air Force won't be joining the Big East anytime soon.
Then there's this little nugget from the same article...
How does Big XII basketball get better than Big East? Big East still has Nova, Georgetown, UConn, Cinn, Marquette. Also where is Louisville going? Big 12?
I still think Boise St and TCU you would have ate up Georgia Tech.
If I had to say only Clemson and VTech would have had a chance. Tech all run would have got them in trouble on the wrong day in the MWC. Florida St was a garbage team.
ACC football outside of Clemson and VTech really does suck. Georgia Tech was severely overrated this year. Virginia lost to Southern Miss at home.
Clemson is good but I wouldn't be shocked if West Virginia wipes the floor with them. Then again Smith could decide not to show up and Clemson could murder them. Both teams are inconsistent.
Both conferences suck. Big East gets a lot better with Boise coming in to replace West Virginia. I would probably say the Big Mess is a substantially better football conference now to the ACC especially with Miami about to be bludgeoned to death which should help UCF and South Florida.
ACC wil now be the premier basketball conference adding the depth of Syracuse and Pittsburgh but Big East will be number 2.
Correct. Speculation in Big 12 country is that Louisville already has the invite, the conference merely wants to announce the Cards with whoever the 12th team will be some time in the spring. For now they're waiting on Notre Dame's decision, which is supposed to come by Jan. 2. Once Notre Dame says no, the Big 12 will move on to other options.
As for Big East vs. Big 12 ...
Nova, Georgetown, UConn, Cinn, Marquette
Kansas, K-State, Texas, Baylor, Louisville
... But remember, the Big 12 wouldn't be dragged down by UCF, USF, SMU, Houston, DePaul, Seton Hall, Providence, etc. And if UConn gets its wish and leaves for the ACC, scratch another off the list of Big East heavy-hitters.
With the afa and naval academy gone, the hnnbe (horrible new new big east) will have to move toward teams like temple and Memphis. Which means Louisville and cincy would be in the "west". I'm sure that will be very attractive for them.
The Big East probalby has a better high-end team in Boise (I'm not buying Houston's sustained success once their coach leaves for a big time program), the ACC probably has better middle of the pack teams, and both conferences' bottom teir teams suck so let's call that a wash. Basically you're stuck with two bottom end BCS conferences.
Glad we could clear that up.
No they both have shitty teams in the middle. Big East doesn't have teams that suck as much BC, Duke, Maryland, and now Syracuse. I would say all of those teams should probably not even bother fielding a football team but BC basketball sucks as well. I guess maybe just be a hockey school like BU?
Meh, it's arguing semantics about which is the biggest runt of a BCS conference. Both suck and you can argue either way which one sucks.
And nice BC potshot. I thought you were supposed to be the funny one around here. Jealousy and obsession are funny things.
Edit: Big East schools also aren't destination schools, which inherently lead to more program instability. While the ACC isn't full of them, at least coaches at VTech, FSU and Clemson and a couple others depending on who the coach is aren't constantly looker for greener pastures.
Great, even if this were true going into the future, who the hell judges the quality of the conference by the bottom quarter. Wee, maybe the bottom of the conference wins the short bus competition, congrats. The Big East even with its recent expansion has exactly one program worth anything.
They both suck. Both are basketball driven conferences. ACC has two or three SEC holdouts. Clemson does not fit at all with ACC profile. It should be an SEC school. I would argue the same for Florida St. Both the Techs are weird I suppose could be fits in either one.
I love taking potshots at BC people. They wave their noses in the air as they blew up their program to join a conference in which they are absolutely crap. I am not going to lie, it delights me to no end how much BC has fallen to the point UMass is going to end up surpassing them. I really only cheer for BC Hockey so them being the worst school hands down in the ACC really delights me.
To be honest though out of the ACC / Big East, Clemson is the school I cheer for the most. My future brother in law's family are huge fans and I have a cousin down there. I went to Death Valley myself this year.
Honestly I have aways found ACC fans to be the most abasive overtitled smug douchewads I have ever met. UNC is all right and so is Georgia Tech and Clemson. But to have Duke, Wake Forest, BC, Virginia, and the UMiami in one conference and now you adding Syracuse. Good shit. The ACC - where assholes are mass produced.
But lets all be honest, Outside of the SEC and Big1G there are only scraps of football here and there. There are the two true football conferences. Sure you have Texas, Oklahoma, OSU, USC, Notre Dame, Oregon, Oregon St., and the occasional UCLA or Stanford revival. But outside them and Virginia Tech and Boise St.
If we are talking National Programs:
Texas
Oklahoma
Oklahoma St
LSU
Alabama
Arkansas
Georgia
Florida
South Carolina
Tennessee
Auburn
Nebraska
Penn St.
Michigan
Michigan St.
Wisconsin
tOSU
Notre Dame
Boise St
Virginia Tech
Florida St.
Clemson
West Virginia
Utah
TCU
And ACC has only ever won two BCS games
If we are talking National Programs:
Texas
Oklahoma
Oklahoma St
LSU
Alabama
Arkansas
Georgia
Florida
South Carolina
Tennessee
Auburn
Nebraska
Penn St.
Michigan
Michigan St.
Wisconsin
tOSU
Notre Dame
Boise St
Virginia Tech
Florida St.
Clemson
West Virginia
Utah
TCU
And ACC has only ever won two BCS games
This is about as facutally accurate as when you said Virginia Tech hasn't had success since joining the ACC.
Edit: Wait, you consider Utah a solid national programs? I mean they're decent and all but I would think you need to be successful for more than, like, 3 years before you are up there. I guess I could give you TCU, though they've really been a fringe top 25 team aside from Dalton's three years.
I never said Virginia Tech hasn't had success since joining the ACC. I said both Miami and BC have become nothing programs since joining the ACC. They are. BC is barely a FBS team anymore. I said Virginia Tech is at the same spot they were in in the Big East. A top team in a bad Major Football Conference.
Utah has been very successful even after Urban left. Christ they were number #2 in the nation three years ago.
Quick pop quiz: Aside from USC, which is an obvious oversight since TRic mentioned it above, which is the only team in the top 20 for 2010 NCAAF attendance missing from this list?
Hell, if you can include Oklahoma State as a football school, you should include every school who's ever been in the top 10.
Are you just completely forgetting 06-08 on this? Or are you just ignorant? BC hit #2 a few years ago and finished right around #10 for the season. Nevermind, this dont fit your agenda, so you wont include it.
The problems with BC have nothing to do with the league.
As I said, they've had three good years since Urban left (2008-10) and that was playing in MWC. Following Urban they were 7-5, 8-5, and 9-4, in the MWC mind you, and this year they are 7-5 in the Pac 12. If that's your criteria BC should definitely be up there based on its recent record. That's not a solid national program by any measure.
And BC has had considerably more success than Miami in all sports. Two ACCCGs in football, an ACC regular season championship in basketball, a couple of good runs in the ACC tourney, etc.
Wait a minute... You are saying a program that made top 5 twice with completely different rosters over the last 10 years is not a good program?
BC hasn't finished in the top 10 since what WWII? Outside of Matt Ryan, Flutie Years, and 1940, BC has not had any sustained success. BC is a lot closer to a Houston (actually Houston I would argue have more historic success) than a Utah.
Since 2001 Utah is 100-37, good for a .730 winning percentage. Throw out this yer and they have a .744 winning percentage.
Since 2001 BC is 92-49, good for a .652 winning percentage. Throw out this year and they have a .682 winning percentage.
BC played in the Big East for 4 years and ACC for 6 years. Utah played in the MWC for 9 years and the Pac 12 for one. But you haven't let facts get in the way earlier, so why start now?
Edit: I'm not suggesting BC is a national program. I'm suggesting Utah isn't. You seem to have lost that point after you read the letters B and C.
Winning Percentage is great an all but if you are looking at a FBS team how good they are you have to look at ranking.
BC was been ranked 5 times in the top 25 at the end of the season not once in top ten. (only once in the ACC)
Utah has been ranked 5 times with 2 top ten finishes
BC was been ranked 5 times in the top 25 at the end of the season not once in top ten. (only once in the ACC)
Utah has been ranked 5 times with 2 top ten finishes
Why do you insist on comparing Utah to BC as if they're some sort of national program metric between what is and isn't a national program?
And why does it not matter what they did in those in between years? They've had two really good years, a couple of decent years and a bunch of mediocre years.
And why does it not matter what they did in those in between years? They've had two really good years, a couple of decent years and a bunch of mediocre years.
Utah has had a couple of really great seasons but has hardly been a model of consistency. We can argue about what is success but in the last 10 years here's the final AP Rankings for each. I'd have to disagree with your assessment based on the actual facts. Also, BC finished #10 in the final AP poll in 2007.
BC
2001 (21)
2004 (21)
2005 (18)
2006 (20)
2007 (10)
Houston
Not ranked in the final Top 25 in the last 10 years before this year.
Utah
2004 (4)
2008 (2)
2009 (18)