Yeah, it's definitely understandable why they would leave but christ are their potential replacements unappealing. As a random asshole with a Texas degree, I am using my power of veto to say no to Cinnci, hell no to TCU, and oh dear god please no to Louisville.
Conference Realignment Thread
- Thread starter RedOctober3829
- Start date
The decision by A&M to join the SEC and, if Missouri makes the same decision, will prove to be stupid for these two schools. Long-term success for any football program (and football is driving the bus here; any talk of other sports is filler) depends primarily on winning. Winning your division, winning your conference, winning MNCs, etc. The notion that somehow a move to the SEC will transform these programs from middle-of-the-table in the Big XII to conference and national championship contenders is stupid. A&M and Missouri can't win their own divisions in the Big XII, much less the conference championship. So, the idea is that they move to the SEC West, and the magic power of the SEC transforms these programs, the same schools run by the same people, into programs that will consistently beat LSU, Alabama, Auburn, and LSU (not to mention Georgia and Florida)? Finishing fifth or sixth consistently will make these schools worse at football, not better. Are MSU and Ole Miss better football programs just because they are in the SEC? Hard to argue when they are consistently at the bottom of the pile looking up. Finish fifth, sixth a few years in a row, which is where A&M will be next season. Recruiting declines because recruits want to play for high-profile winners, not SEC losers. Attendance sags because a lot of fans will find better things to do than watch LSU kick their heads in on Saturday afternoon. Coach is replaced because he can't win. Lather, rinse, repeat. They become Ole Miss and MSU v 2.0. They maybe make a few million more in TV revenue once the SEC deal gets re-negotiated, but that's about it. Whoop! Gig 'em!
These schools' administrations bitch and whine about stability, then they themselves cause that problem by bolting from the conference. Incredibly irresponsible decision-making.
But, screw them. If Texas and OU decide to keep the conference together, they'll add someone like BYU and Cincinnati, which will be adequate if uninspiring replacements for two adequate but uninspiring schools.
And Ken Starr may still get his TI suit, which would be fun to watch.
These schools' administrations bitch and whine about stability, then they themselves cause that problem by bolting from the conference. Incredibly irresponsible decision-making.
But, screw them. If Texas and OU decide to keep the conference together, they'll add someone like BYU and Cincinnati, which will be adequate if uninspiring replacements for two adequate but uninspiring schools.
And Ken Starr may still get his TI suit, which would be fun to watch.
From what I've read, they're only considering it because the conference put a gun to their head. No decision has been made yet. They have had jealous eyes for the Big Ten before though
Obviously winning is important, but for recruiting purposes, being on national TV is a big factor. Kids want to be on TV. Oklahoma and Texas are the big games, but once the conference lost Nebraska, Mizzou basically lost a yearly national game. Pretty much every game in the SEC is on CBS, ESPN or ESPN2, that's a big deal.
That said, competitively speaking, this makes less sense for Mizzou than for TAMU, since the latter can get the #2 players (and some #1) in a recruiting-rich state, which will help them compete. Mizzou has less hope in that regard; they normally get lesser recruits, a lot of 2-3star guys from Big 12 country (esp Ok and Tex), and have to coach em up. I still say they should wait until the Big Ten wants to expand again, if and when ND caves in.
Obviously winning is important, but for recruiting purposes, being on national TV is a big factor. Kids want to be on TV. Oklahoma and Texas are the big games, but once the conference lost Nebraska, Mizzou basically lost a yearly national game. Pretty much every game in the SEC is on CBS, ESPN or ESPN2, that's a big deal.
That said, competitively speaking, this makes less sense for Mizzou than for TAMU, since the latter can get the #2 players (and some #1) in a recruiting-rich state, which will help them compete. Mizzou has less hope in that regard; they normally get lesser recruits, a lot of 2-3star guys from Big 12 country (esp Ok and Tex), and have to coach em up. I still say they should wait until the Big Ten wants to expand again, if and when ND caves in.
I hope to goodness that if the Big 12 gets to 12 and goes back to divisional play, Oklahoma and Texas are in separate divisions. This is the one conference that needs some balancing
Two sections that I wanted to address.
If the issue is stability, and it's assumed (or just feared) that somebody else is going to one day pull a Texas A&M or a Nebraska and potentially pull the conference apart, or that the Big12 has no long-term viability, then Missouri might as well make a grab for some stability while they can. That applies to the Big10 or the SEC, neither of which are going anywhere anytime soon in any kind of reasonable scenario. Moving now might be better than later if there are concerns about all of the chairs being taken if they don't time the Big12 dissolution correctly.
More seriously, two things on this piece. You are describing Missouri's future in the SEC West, not necessarily Texas A&M's. A&M should be positioned as being no better or worse than Arkansas, right up there with the titans of the West depending on where they are in any given roster maturity phase. Good coach/mature roster = up top with whichever two of LSU, Alabama, Auburn, or Arkansas happen to be great at the time. Bad coach/immature roster = fighting with Mississippi State, Ole Miss, and Missouri to be the least bad.
The second bit is that, if A&M and Missouri join the SEC West, Auburn moves to the East. Therefore, they only have to deal with Arkansas, LSU, and Alabama as the divisional titans, with rotating battles with Auburn, Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee.
The issue as I see it for A&M and Missouri, is that if it looks like the Big12 is either going to be perpetually locked in as the "Texas and Its Bitches" conference, or better yet a "Texas and Its Oklahoma Sidekick" conference, what's the difference? If they have no prospect of long-term success anyway, why not go for the conference that shares its revenues more equally? The middle of the table in the SEC might be a more lucrative option than in the Big12, even if it does nothing to enhance their actual on-field success.
If the issue is stability, and it's assumed (or just feared) that somebody else is going to one day pull a Texas A&M or a Nebraska and potentially pull the conference apart, or that the Big12 has no long-term viability, then Missouri might as well make a grab for some stability while they can. That applies to the Big10 or the SEC, neither of which are going anywhere anytime soon in any kind of reasonable scenario. Moving now might be better than later if there are concerns about all of the chairs being taken if they don't time the Big12 dissolution correctly.
Man, I know that Arkansas is the best school in the SEC West that nobody (outside of Arkansas fans, obviously) seems to fixate on, but that's just mean. Did the Cajuns and Creoles each get their own LSU? Actually, Arkansas might benefit more intangibly from the A&M (and possibly Missouri) additions, because I never get the impression that Arkansas is the game that gets the blood really pumping for the other SEC West contenders (LSU maybe? Is the boot a big deal? I get the impression that Saban and the last decade of Auburn-LSU while Alabama was down have made it basically a three-way hate fest that leaves Ark as the "eh" game), and that's probably partly due to geography and the SWC migration. A&M should help that quite a bit, and Missouri provides another nearby rival.
More seriously, two things on this piece. You are describing Missouri's future in the SEC West, not necessarily Texas A&M's. A&M should be positioned as being no better or worse than Arkansas, right up there with the titans of the West depending on where they are in any given roster maturity phase. Good coach/mature roster = up top with whichever two of LSU, Alabama, Auburn, or Arkansas happen to be great at the time. Bad coach/immature roster = fighting with Mississippi State, Ole Miss, and Missouri to be the least bad.
The second bit is that, if A&M and Missouri join the SEC West, Auburn moves to the East. Therefore, they only have to deal with Arkansas, LSU, and Alabama as the divisional titans, with rotating battles with Auburn, Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee.
That's the curious thing to me. The Big 12 -- or, at least the eight schools not named Mizzou -- have said they agreed to share Tier 1 and Tier 2 money equally, with Tier 3 still going to each school's coffers. Isn't that the same setup as the SEC, where schools like Florida make $8 million off the Sunshine Network? Mizzou would benefit from that agreement, after that, it's on them to make the most of the Tier 3 rights. KU ranks right up there with Texas (pre-Longhorn Network) and Oklahoma when it comes to revenue made, so why can't Mizzou -- with a better football program than KU, good basketball and double the statewide population with no second Division I football school like K-State -- do something similar?
If it's about stability, the grant-in-rights for at least six years should clear that up, unless Mizzou thinks it wouldn't have a seat anywhere in six years should Texas and Oklahoma leave then. But it's not like the SEC's the first option, Mizzou would probably prefer the Big Ten.
Louisville would be the first Big East team the Big 12 would take, or at least that's what it seems from here.
I believe the issue is that with college football, revenue is very much all-or-nothing. If Texas/Oklahoma left the conference, Mizzou can probably assume that football will always lose money, even if they win.
Now you could say this about lots of football programs/conferences. E.g. replace Texas/Oklahoma with Ohio State/Michigan and Mizzou with Illinois or Purdue or something. However, Ohio State and Michigan have shown no inclination towards moving elsewhere, while Texas at least has been doing the conference dance since the downfall of the SWC and hasn't shown signs of stopping.
Now you could say this about lots of football programs/conferences. E.g. replace Texas/Oklahoma with Ohio State/Michigan and Mizzou with Illinois or Purdue or something. However, Ohio State and Michigan have shown no inclination towards moving elsewhere, while Texas at least has been doing the conference dance since the downfall of the SWC and hasn't shown signs of stopping.
I'd love to see some source info to support the bolded line. That seems completely counter-intuitive to me. Football drives revenue, KU's football program isn't, as far as I know, anywhere close to the revenue generator that Texas or Oklahoma's are, and I don't see how basketball could make up the difference.
I think the "wouldn't have a seat anywhere" concern is on Missouri's mind. I'm not sure that's a well-founded concern, frankly, because one or both of the BigTen/SEC would probably always be willing to find a spot for them, unless they both somehow got up to 16 without Missouri, and I'm not seeing how that could realistically happen in a world where the ACC exists.
This. As an OSU fan I will be the first to admit the league as been Texas, OU, and friends for many years now, and replacing 2 teams that finish 3rd or 4th in their division most of the time with two other schools that will do the same will have little change. Get over yourself A&M and Missouri, and have fun competing with Vanderbilt.
As of a couple years ago, Kansas' 3rd Tier deal was for $7.7M while Texas and OU were both at less than $400k. It was so unfairrrrrrr.
A move to the SEC for Mizzou makes them more money and gives them maybe a little more national exposure. Their coaching staff currently does a phenomenal job recruiting in Texas (Chase Daniel being one example, he committed to Texas than switched to Mizzou). If they can maintain those inroads in the SEC, and become a bit of a player in Florida prep (big ifs, especially without playing in Texas 1-2 times a year), they can avoid at least being a SEC bottom-feeder.
It's all the Big 10's fault. Mizzou would jump there in a heartbeat and it would make sense for everyone, but they just don't want to expand.
I'm not exactly a confidant of Mike Alden, but I can tell you that the general sense around the Mizzou athletic department is that the SEC move is going to happen. They're internally discussing plans about possibly preserving the Border Showdown for at least the major sports, but there are significant obstacles (KU doesn't really want to commit to playing MU yearly in football, and vice versa for basketball).
It's all the Big 10's fault. Mizzou would jump there in a heartbeat and it would make sense for everyone, but they just don't want to expand.
I'm not exactly a confidant of Mike Alden, but I can tell you that the general sense around the Mizzou athletic department is that the SEC move is going to happen. They're internally discussing plans about possibly preserving the Border Showdown for at least the major sports, but there are significant obstacles (KU doesn't really want to commit to playing MU yearly in football, and vice versa for basketball).
There's absolutely no historical evidence that would suggest this is where A&M "should be positioned."
In 15 years of the Big 12, A&M has had a better season than Texas 3 times, and a better season than OU 3 times. In the last decade, it's happened one time. They lose 2 out of every 3 games they play against both schools. And when A&M is bad, they plumb the depths of futility that UT and OU rarely reach -- four 5th place finishes.
Shit, they've finished better than Tech only 7 times in 15 years, while going 5-10 head-to-head. We're talking about Texas Tech here.
So you're saying that a program that struggles against Tech is going to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Alabama and LSU? Sorry, no. If anything you have added another Mississippi State.
Since Texas A&M opened the 1995 season by beating LSU 33-17, they have gone 0-7 vs SEC teams. They better hope Missouri comes along who they've been 3-4 against in that time period (last win 2006).
This whole thing about playing a game in this state or that state is totally overblown. Maybe it comes into play when 7 or 8 other things are even. Recruiting is about relationships -- Missouri does a solid job in Texas because they have taken the time to develop long term relationships with the high school programs in the state. If you go through their commits over the years you will see multiple guys out of Southlake Carroll, Gilmer, Mansfield, Denton Ryan, etc. This is in large part due to the coaches at those schools feeling like Mizzou is a good option for the guys who don't get offers from Texas/OU, are weirded out by A&M, and don't want to go to Baylor and spend 4 years getting pistol-whipped every week.
Anyway, the point is that these relationships don't dry up just because Mizzou ends up in a different conference.
And Chase Daniel never had an offer from Texas.
Yes, I should have mentioned that. And the average margin of victory in those games has been 16+ points.
Several points:
- there is no evidence at all to suggest that recruits will commit to a school because it will be on TV every weekend. None. It is an assumption to rationalize A&M's (and perhaps Missouri's) decision. I would argue that it is at best a neutral influence, and in some cases a negative one: why would you want to go to a school whose road games make it impossible for your friends and family to attend (Tuscaloosa is 630 miles from College Station)? Some Texas high school coaches are already questioning the A&M conference change and suggesting that it may negatively affect their view of A&M. Kids want to go where they will play and where they will win. The best will continue to go to the winners.
- Missouri has very little recruiting success in Texas, if you measure success by four- and five-star guys. Chase Daniel went to Missouri because he was assured of a realistic shot at the starting job. He was going to be riding the pine at Texas. Missouri competes for guys who Texas, OU, LSU, etc. doesn't want or guys who can't start there. Moving to a new conference won't change that.
- A&M has no reason to think it will be anywhere but a notch behind the fourth place team in the SEC West, whoever that may be. Their historical record speaks to this and there is nothing at all to support the mythical notion that a move to the SEC will somehow transform their football fortunes; it's the same people running the same program. There is a strong case of confirmation bias at work here, a kind of aggy groupthink rationalization that has no basis in reality. A&M is losing a ton of seniors after this season, and is going to get curbstomped in the SEC next year. That will put them in a hole from which it will be difficult to climb out.
- the Big XII recently voted to share Tier One and Two money equally, leaving Tier Three to the schools. Same deal as SEC. (A&M consistently voted for unequal revenue sharing.) The Big XII has asked all schools to give a six-year commitment to this policy. Pretty reasonable step to ensure conference stability. How is that holding a gun to anyone's head? Talk of conference instability is rationalization for these schools creating that instability. PAC said no. Big 10 said no. Big XII members are prepared to strike a long-term deal. How is this representative of conference instability?
- all college football programs have down years. So if you are A&M or Missouri, why would you leave a conference with two historically strong programs and go to a conference with seven or eight historically strong programs? Simple math would tell you to stay in the Big XII, giving you better odds of a down year for Texas and OU than for a down year for Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, etc. That is not a complicated formula. Playing in a strong conference doesn't make you strong. Ask Ole Miss.
But, what the hell, do what you want Missouri. Follow A&M into permanent mediocrity. But don't blame it on Texas and OU.
- there is no evidence at all to suggest that recruits will commit to a school because it will be on TV every weekend. None. It is an assumption to rationalize A&M's (and perhaps Missouri's) decision. I would argue that it is at best a neutral influence, and in some cases a negative one: why would you want to go to a school whose road games make it impossible for your friends and family to attend (Tuscaloosa is 630 miles from College Station)? Some Texas high school coaches are already questioning the A&M conference change and suggesting that it may negatively affect their view of A&M. Kids want to go where they will play and where they will win. The best will continue to go to the winners.
- Missouri has very little recruiting success in Texas, if you measure success by four- and five-star guys. Chase Daniel went to Missouri because he was assured of a realistic shot at the starting job. He was going to be riding the pine at Texas. Missouri competes for guys who Texas, OU, LSU, etc. doesn't want or guys who can't start there. Moving to a new conference won't change that.
- A&M has no reason to think it will be anywhere but a notch behind the fourth place team in the SEC West, whoever that may be. Their historical record speaks to this and there is nothing at all to support the mythical notion that a move to the SEC will somehow transform their football fortunes; it's the same people running the same program. There is a strong case of confirmation bias at work here, a kind of aggy groupthink rationalization that has no basis in reality. A&M is losing a ton of seniors after this season, and is going to get curbstomped in the SEC next year. That will put them in a hole from which it will be difficult to climb out.
- the Big XII recently voted to share Tier One and Two money equally, leaving Tier Three to the schools. Same deal as SEC. (A&M consistently voted for unequal revenue sharing.) The Big XII has asked all schools to give a six-year commitment to this policy. Pretty reasonable step to ensure conference stability. How is that holding a gun to anyone's head? Talk of conference instability is rationalization for these schools creating that instability. PAC said no. Big 10 said no. Big XII members are prepared to strike a long-term deal. How is this representative of conference instability?
- all college football programs have down years. So if you are A&M or Missouri, why would you leave a conference with two historically strong programs and go to a conference with seven or eight historically strong programs? Simple math would tell you to stay in the Big XII, giving you better odds of a down year for Texas and OU than for a down year for Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, etc. That is not a complicated formula. Playing in a strong conference doesn't make you strong. Ask Ole Miss.
But, what the hell, do what you want Missouri. Follow A&M into permanent mediocrity. But don't blame it on Texas and OU.
This exactly. Football drives the bus, but when it comes to 3rd tier money basketball does a pretty good job; of the schools where the info is public, Carolina is #1 in 3rd tier revenue and Kentucky and Kansas are both top-5. The ACC is the 2nd-highest average conference after the SEC.
Football has a higher percentage of their games picked up by the 1st and 2nd tier contracts, so there's not much left over for 3rd tier bidding. So if you're in a conference where the individual school pockets the 3rd tier rights, you can be better off being a Kansas or UConn than being a solid but not spectacular football school.
http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/05/06/school-specific-broadcasting-revenue/ has some figures, but they're incomplete.
That's exactly the kind of thing I was interested in, thanks. I wasn't aware of the nice 3rd Tier payoff that the basketball schools were managing to get.
I'm not quite sure what to make of the analysis of A&M's chances, because I'm not exactly a NCAA football historian/guru, but I'm also somewhat hesitant to completely trust very thorough and statistically based analyses of A&M that are coming from fans of their most hated rival (and it's clearly a two-way thing there, especially with this going on). I appreciate the info regardless, I'm just not sure what to make of it.
Pffft. That's just it, this "rivalry" is a one-way street and always has been. There is a reason why UT fans are about 99% in favor of maintaining the series/relationship w/ OU and about 90% are either completely ambivalent about A&M or would be happy to never see them again. And it has nothing to do with what happens on the field. You'll get this soon enough.
Looks like the Big 12 are interested in getting their own Vanderbilt
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/7063633/missouri-tigers-hope-join-sec-had-wanted-big-ten-invite-most
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/7063633/missouri-tigers-hope-join-sec-had-wanted-big-ten-invite-most
TCU invited to the Big 12
http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2011/10/tcu_bypasses_big_east_to_join.html
apparently they have to pay the Big East exit fee ($5m, whoopie), and can start Big 12 play next year.
If/when Mizzou leaves, that's three spots left to get back to twelve; BYU, WVU, Cinci, Louisville and Tulane have been mentioned.
http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2011/10/tcu_bypasses_big_east_to_join.html
apparently they have to pay the Big East exit fee ($5m, whoopie), and can start Big 12 play next year.
If/when Mizzou leaves, that's three spots left to get back to twelve; BYU, WVU, Cinci, Louisville and Tulane have been mentioned.
Blech. Don't care for the TCU invite at all. Recycling the SWC. Medium-sized private school In a market that the conference already dominates. Only strong in football recently. If Patterson ever leaves it's Baylor v 2.0. Would have preferred a larger state school in a new market, or BYU.
Oh well. When Missouri leaves we can get someone better.
Oh well. When Missouri leaves we can get someone better.
Nope. It's Missouri's fault for sucking and not being a big enough name.
Apparently, the SEC is still not as attractive as the Big Ten:
The Big Ten has no reason to expand right now unless they can reel in an actual big fish like Notre Dame or Texas, neither of which looks like it will happen. Missouri just doesn't have the cache of those programs and any future additions will be spurred by a move to expand the Big Ten's visibility. Missouri would be a great second school to partner with one of those other schools, but it isn't coming to the Big Ten by itself.
I have no problems with Missouri, but to say it is the Big Ten's fault is just misguided. The Big Ten is going to watch out for the best interests of the Big Ten and its member schools. Missouri just doesn't represent that by itself right now. You guys can go to the SEC if you want, but I have a feeling that if the Big Ten ever does expand, bringing in a school like Notre Dame, Missouri will still be pining to get into the Big Ten.
I feel like Mizzou is just looking for an excuse to leave right now.
In my book, TCU would bring a lot of value to the Big 12 now. A year ago, no way, but Texas A&M leaving changed that dynamic.
If Big 12 schools are concerned about the SEC making inroads into Texas thanks to A&M (and they should be), the best way to counter that would be to add from a position of strength. Make sure the northern schools make at least one road trip into Texas per season. Make sure the SEC can't grab TCU and make it two Texas schools to three for the Big 12 -- in the DFW and Houston markets, at that.
So long as the other three additions are the right ones -- BYU (No. 32 market, national fan base); Louisville (No. 50 market, well-funded, fans travel) and West Virginia (strong all-around, Pittsburgh market) -- TCU doesn't take away from the Big 12 expanding into new, profitable markets. I would much rather TCU be the fourth Texas team than gamble on a commuter school like Cincy, which doesn't travel and doesn't seem to have passionate fans.
shit is happening fast http://www.bigeastcoastbias.com/2011/10/6/2473465/report-louisville-next-in-line-for-big-xii-invitation
Louisville gets invited if/when Missouri decides to leave
Louisville gets invited if/when Missouri decides to leave
I'm not sure why 10 teams is such a desirable number. If you're willing to go to 12 if missouri leaves, why not do it if they stay too and just forget Tulane and/or West Virginia?
RE: Infield Infidel
Pretty ironic that Pitino comes out and says that UConn going to the ACC would be stupid, then it's his school that might be on the move.
Pretty ironic that Pitino comes out and says that UConn going to the ACC would be stupid, then it's his school that might be on the move.
- The SEC already recruits in Texas. A&M joining the SEC isn't going to force SEC schools to realize that they should be recruiting in Texas, because, as I said, the SEC already recruits in Texas.
- The University of Texas isn't any more or less concerned about competing for recruits against SEC schools, because, you know, the SEC already recruits in Texas. So does OU, OSU, etc. etc. Kids don't play for a school because it is in conference X. Kids want to go where they will play and where they will win.
- TCU is not ever going to the SEC. Ever. That is a conference for big southern state schools. TCU is none of these things. The best they could do was the Big East until now. One Texas team is enough for the SEC.
- TCU brings nothing new to the conference - no new markets, no consistently big-time programs, no huge fanbase. Average attendance at their small stadium is fewer than 45,000. This looks like a convenient stopgap before adding attractive teams to get to 12. But TCU isn't an add "from a position of strength". It's filler because they want to get to 10 first and BYU isn't ready to jump yet.
Texas has said that they are happy at 10, which avoids divisions and a conference championship game, which as I understand it coaches don't like (one more chance to lose). But at the same time, they seem to be angling toward 12, so I'm not sure what is going on there. If they do want to go to 12 it seems like they won't have much difficulty finding worthy applicants. I'd be happy with some combination of BYU, Louisville, Cincy, Missouri. But not Tulane, please. Apart from the road trips, they bring even less to the table than TCU.
Taking TCU out from the house of cards known as the Big East will make it far easier for the BIG XII to grab Louisville, WVU, Cincinnati if they want any or all of them.
The idea of BIG EAST FOOTBALL is dead.
Last rights will be given by the Presidents of the Catholic Schools.
Xavier & Dayton will be waiting by the phone in the rectory to hear from the basketball schools.
The only way back to a BCS bid will be through a revitalized Conference USA that takes the BE Football leftovers and probably adds Temple or UMASS and hopes the NCAA & TV networks takes mercy on them. Of Course, Conf USA is still talking to the WAC so who knows what that might bring. There is enough Football schools to form a 6th League but the question remains whether it is viable BCS material.
After BE Football crumbles, the only question remains does Notre Dame want it's Olympic Sports with the Catholic schools or do they want to shove them in a BCS Conference. They already have their own TV deal for independent Football. They are going to have a TV deal for their Hockey team with NBC also which will be a part of the Hockey East.
The Catholic schools offer them competive and rival basketball games in Men's AND Women's Hoops. Syracuse is gone but Lacrosse is still good at Georgetown, Villanova, etc. Cold weather baseball all around so similar issues across the conference in that sport.
Notre Dame will have the football money the other small private schools don't have so seems like an easier path to make it to NCAA in those Olympic Sports and still face school with good academics.
Once the Catholic schools have 10 members, they can look around to see who else might be left out of Football equation but offer competitive basketball programs. Memphis? Butler? ODU?
Then they can decide if they need 12 Basketball teams.
The idea of BIG EAST FOOTBALL is dead.
Last rights will be given by the Presidents of the Catholic Schools.
Xavier & Dayton will be waiting by the phone in the rectory to hear from the basketball schools.
The only way back to a BCS bid will be through a revitalized Conference USA that takes the BE Football leftovers and probably adds Temple or UMASS and hopes the NCAA & TV networks takes mercy on them. Of Course, Conf USA is still talking to the WAC so who knows what that might bring. There is enough Football schools to form a 6th League but the question remains whether it is viable BCS material.
After BE Football crumbles, the only question remains does Notre Dame want it's Olympic Sports with the Catholic schools or do they want to shove them in a BCS Conference. They already have their own TV deal for independent Football. They are going to have a TV deal for their Hockey team with NBC also which will be a part of the Hockey East.
The Catholic schools offer them competive and rival basketball games in Men's AND Women's Hoops. Syracuse is gone but Lacrosse is still good at Georgetown, Villanova, etc. Cold weather baseball all around so similar issues across the conference in that sport.
Notre Dame will have the football money the other small private schools don't have so seems like an easier path to make it to NCAA in those Olympic Sports and still face school with good academics.
Once the Catholic schools have 10 members, they can look around to see who else might be left out of Football equation but offer competitive basketball programs. Memphis? Butler? ODU?
Then they can decide if they need 12 Basketball teams.
I'm seeing secondhand that UT (via Orangebloods mouthpiece Chip Brown) is running the idea of the XII replicating ND's Big East deal up the flagpole.
That's not even a question. ND wants the Olympic sports in a conference where they can compete for national titles. And that's a BCS conference, not a hypothetical Catholic conference.
The question all along has been whether we can get that and keep football independent.
I hate the idea of there being separate divisions, only because it means Texas and OU could play each other twice and diminish the rivalry game. That's one of the best atmospheres in sports, and it would suck to mess with.
Actually, the worst part of separating Texas and OU would them not being able to play every year (at least under the old north/south schedule method.)
If the Big XII goes back to two divisions and they put Texas and OU in different divisions, there will be a carve-out for the Texas-OU game. Texas and OU will play forever.
True from a football perspective. As an OU baseball fan, though, this move is good for conference baseball. TCU (which has already been playing OU fairly often) fields a strong baseball team and enhances a competitive environment in that regard.
BCS doesn't govern the set-up of Volleyball, Lacrosse, Cross-country, Soccer, Baseball, Softball, Tennis etc.
National Championships in Olympic sports are won in NCAA tournaments not in Conferences play. You have to make the NCAA playoffs or be an individual qualifier to win a National Title.
Oddly, the only sport that is run by the BCS manipulation does not even crown an official NCAA Champion. The only NCAA trophy awarded to a Division I Football Champion was Eastern Washington last year.
BTW, there is nothing hypothetical about the 5 small private eastern schools that don't sponser FBS football and have played Big East basketball together for 30 years. The group of BE schools without Football may be of varying Catholic origins but the basketball they dribble is still orange.
There are 8 Big East schools without conference Football affiliation.
5 of 8 were in the Men's NCAA Men's Basketball tournament. (Xavier also was in again)
5 of 8 were in the Women's Basketball tournament (Xavier & Dayton were both in)
Unless Notre Dame is bringing football with them, they are going to have a hard time finding a place to keep their olympic sports.
"BCS conference" is a shorthand for the conferences that are strong in all sports, not just a handful. You want to tell me just what sports a hypothetical Catholic conference is going to be good at besides basketball? Even the Big East is only a borderline power when you get away from men's soccer and men's and women's basketball, and most of the non-ND power is from the schools with FBS football.
I refer to the Catholic conference as hypothetical because it is hypothetical. It's an obvious direction that the non-football Catholic schools in the Big East might take, but it's by no means a given---several of them might be able to ride ND's coattails into either the XII or the ACC as a non-football member.
Regarding your comment:
I refer to the Catholic conference as hypothetical because it is hypothetical. It's an obvious direction that the non-football Catholic schools in the Big East might take, but it's by no means a given---several of them might be able to ride ND's coattails into either the XII or the ACC as a non-football member.
Regarding your comment:
Well, Orangebloods (which I take to be a mouthpiece for at least a faction in the UT athletic department) has once again floated the idea that the XII might take ND as a non-football member. Pete Thamel of the New York Times is suggesting that the ACC might take ND as a non-football member in return for a guarantee of a certain number of football games against ACC teams (say, three or four). Maybe there's nothing to that, but it's an awful lot of smoke. Yeah, neither fits the Irish as well as the Big East, but with Pitt and 'Cuse gone to the ACC and the XII poised to raid for Louisville, maybe UC, maybe WVU, the Big East as it is now is well on its way to being a memory.
whispers of ECU, UCF to the Big East circulating in the blogosphere.
here's an outlandish, desperate, Hail Mary way for the Big East to potentially keep its BCS bid (assuming Mizzou to SEC and WVU/Louisville to the Big 12)
1. Add decent non-AQ schools to get to nine or ten (Temple, UCF, ECU, Southern Miss, Houston) to USF, Cinci, UConn, Rutgers
2. Make a new, 19- or 20-team football-only conference with the Mountain West, where there's a Mountain West Division and a Big East Division. teams only play intra-divisional games (that's more or less what the MWC/C-USA merger talks were about). Call it the East-West Conference. The divisional winners would meet for a championship. They'd at least have teams with 5 BCS bids the last five years (Boise 2, Cinci 2, UConn 1).
All other sports would stay the same as today.
The thing is, I know for basketball there's a clause where if you don't carry over 5 teams over a three-season span, you lose the tourney bid. Does the BCS have a similar clause for BCS bids? Because if that is the case, if only four teams carry over from the Big East, they could lose their bid immediately instead of after 2014
here's an outlandish, desperate, Hail Mary way for the Big East to potentially keep its BCS bid (assuming Mizzou to SEC and WVU/Louisville to the Big 12)
1. Add decent non-AQ schools to get to nine or ten (Temple, UCF, ECU, Southern Miss, Houston) to USF, Cinci, UConn, Rutgers
2. Make a new, 19- or 20-team football-only conference with the Mountain West, where there's a Mountain West Division and a Big East Division. teams only play intra-divisional games (that's more or less what the MWC/C-USA merger talks were about). Call it the East-West Conference. The divisional winners would meet for a championship. They'd at least have teams with 5 BCS bids the last five years (Boise 2, Cinci 2, UConn 1).
All other sports would stay the same as today.
The thing is, I know for basketball there's a clause where if you don't carry over 5 teams over a three-season span, you lose the tourney bid. Does the BCS have a similar clause for BCS bids? Because if that is the case, if only four teams carry over from the Big East, they could lose their bid immediately instead of after 2014
A few thoughts:
-- Twenty years ago, UT fans considered A&M their arch-rival, and OU considered Nebraska theirs. That's a lot of change for a sport that prides itself on tradition.
-- Perhaps the country's most enduring rivalry is Alabama-Auburn. Will Auburn willingly move to the East division? If not, can the SEC force them to move?
-- If ND is forced to find a new home for its Olympic sports, negotiating a reasonable exit fee will be key. The alumni want an independent football program, but the economic case for moving to the Big Ten is strong, and becoming more so. When that happens, they don't want lacrosse or wrestling to be a roadblock.
-- Does a school like Cincinnati bring enough to the table to justify having each Big XII school send two dozen sports teams all the way to Ohio each year? I wonder if this is why they opted for TCU, and why they're reportedly considering adding Tulane.
-- Twenty years ago, UT fans considered A&M their arch-rival, and OU considered Nebraska theirs. That's a lot of change for a sport that prides itself on tradition.
-- Perhaps the country's most enduring rivalry is Alabama-Auburn. Will Auburn willingly move to the East division? If not, can the SEC force them to move?
-- If ND is forced to find a new home for its Olympic sports, negotiating a reasonable exit fee will be key. The alumni want an independent football program, but the economic case for moving to the Big Ten is strong, and becoming more so. When that happens, they don't want lacrosse or wrestling to be a roadblock.
-- Does a school like Cincinnati bring enough to the table to justify having each Big XII school send two dozen sports teams all the way to Ohio each year? I wonder if this is why they opted for TCU, and why they're reportedly considering adding Tulane.
but is it really any different getting to New Orleans than it is Cincinatti? Yea, in the case of UT, I guess you could take a 9 hour bus trip (512 miles) to New Oreleans, instead of a flight, but basically anywhere else in the conference is going to require a plane flight, and at that point does it really matter if it is CInci or NO?
OU/Texas was important to fans but meant nothing in the end. Nebraska/OU decided seasons and dynasties.
Right, but since the post Ringo was replying to said 'UT fans considered A&M their main rival,' the point stands.
It sure looks to me like the momentum is building in the opposite direction. Back around 2000, there was serious discussion about ND going to the Big Ten. Now, all the talk appears to be about the XII and ACC. And Jack Swarbrick isn't talking about "the economic case", he's talking about things like the institution's values.
I bet ND goes to the ACC if they go anywhere. M/W Basketball, baseball, and m/w lacrosse would be in arguably the best league in it's sport while hockey has already secured Hockey East.
BCS is not now and has NEVER been shorthand for Conferences strong in all sports. It is a FOOTBALL based configuration with the vast majority of the participants being state funded institutions. Some BCS conference are good in one sport and horrible in another. The Football revenue plus the Public institutions receiving state money does help fund athletic facility expansion which does aid many of the BCS schools in non-revenue sports but there is a lot of other variables.
I think you are making a number of assumptions that are not accurate regarding the 50% of the recent Big East conference that never participated in BE Football. Any rebooted BIG EAST would be foremost a basketball first conference and although the majority of the members much like the original Big East would be private catholic institutions, there would always be consideration for adding schools that would benefit the conference going forward. Seems to be a lot of people getting hung up on the "CYO League" attack on such an option. The 7 non-FBS schools have interest to band together because of their athletic similarities in budgeting, travel and cost concerns more than the religious crosses on the front of the buildings. In the end, USF has no other BCS suitors and there is no guarantee that Cincinnati will land somewhere or even that Rutgers has too many other options if the ACC witholds an offer. Those schools may end up parking their football schools in ConfUSA, MAC or some "new" East Coasr non-BCS League while staying attached to the Big East non-football schools in basketball and other sports. Memphis also finds itself in similar predicament hoping for upgraded basketball affiliation from ConfUsa.
Nope.
Texas and Texas A&M have played each other 117 times. On only seven occasions were both teams ranked in the top 20. On only four occasions was the game a "winner-take-all" contest to decide a conference championship.
Texas and Oklahoma have played 105 times. Both have been ranked in the top 20 for the game an amazing 36 times. Both teams have been in the top 10 for this game 16 times.
The A&M game has always had meaning within the boundaries of the rivalry between the two schools and their fans, but the real football rivalry is with OU, as that game almost always means something significant. A&M comes at the end of the season, when things are pretty much decided, and has historically not been a meaningful game in the polls or the standings.