NCAA conference realignment

[MrG]

Originally Posted by crazyquik

In the 1920s, the Southern Conference had 23 teams (it later split and became the SEC and ACC, and then dropped some of the smaller schools).

Super-conferences have been here before. We may experience another round of expansion, but eventually they will split apart as well.

With that said, the ACC expansion was stupid, and the conference should be split into thirds (ACC North, Central, and South). I have no idea how you run a 16 team conference when there aren't 16 football games per year. I suppose you have 2 divisions, and you only play some teams once every other year? Not much room left for non-conference games. They seriously aren't going to play some teams in their own conference one out of every 3 years are they?

The 12-team conferences are already set up like this - each team plays its whole division (five games), one team from the other division that they play every year (for UGA it's AU), and two from the other division on a rotating basis. This means you only catch five of six teams from the other division less than half the time.

If a conference expanded you'd just adapt this model. For example, a 16 team conference could play seven inner-division games and four inter-division games a year.

That said, scheduling is one of my biggest objections to super conferences - it would leave teams with only one or two out-of-conference games. Right now, even in 12-team conferences, there are still four non-conference games to be scheduled each year, but enormous conferences would almost certainly change this. Given each team count one D-IAA opponent toward its BCS record, 16 team conferences could effectively end inter-conference D-IA play as we know it. Entire conferences could simply decide to play within themselves, with the only exception being their annual beatdown of a D-IAA school. I think that would suck, and it would mean the only halfway decent out-of-conference matchups would come in bowl games.

 

[Mark from Plano]

Originally Posted by MrG

I've heard this, and I think it sucks. I hate the fact that there's such an incentive to avoid playing quality teams. That said, as an SEC guy it will totally legitimize all of our "we're the best" bluster. I mean, we're so good that other teams, even teams that played in the NC recently, refuse to join our conference because it's so tough.

I'm not sure this is the right way to look at it. Texas/Oklahoma/TT moving as a block automatically increases the competitive level of whichever conference they go to. If it's the PAC 10 you increase that conference. But all of these teams rely on their record to be able to recruit and compete at a high level. You already have a system now that makes it hard for more than one team from either the SEC or the Big 12 to be considered in the elite schools in any given year, yet you get schools like TCU or Boise State that get a bowl bid with comparatively weak schedules. If you're Texas or Oklahoma you have to find a balance between a conference that is challenging, and one in which you're going to get beaten up by the relentless competition. Putting all of the elite teams (or most of them) into one conference doesn't really work out that well for anyone.

 

[mozart]

Texas will never go to the SEC because of academics.Further,Texas can't go anywhere without A&M and Tech.

My guess is the Pac 16(?) will make the better argument over the Big 16(?).Stanford and Cal trump Michigan and Northwestern in academics,the difference in money will be negligible,and Texas has no interest in playing at State College in December--bad weather has hurt the Big 10 in recruiting speed for years.

Texas has nothing to gain by joining a conference that is steadily becoming irrelevant to the national championship in football.

 

[Teacher]

Originally Posted by phreak

Why the need for such close proximity conferences anyway? These arent high school programs, I would think that all of them can afford to travel across the country once a week for a much more competitive schedule.

You're thinking along the lines of football only. Other sports play a lot more games in a season, or have longer competitions (swim- or track meets, for example). Plus, there's the number of school days missed, which increases with longer travel.

 

[retronotmetro]

Reports on ESPN and orangebloods.com seem to indicate that the Big 12 is basically finished. Nebraska to the Big 10, with the Pac 10 offering invitations to Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech and Colorado.

If it really goes down that way, I think it will be interesting to see whether the Pac superconference decides to split into divisions along east-west lines (saving travel for the new six) or north-south (which would assimilate the new teams better, at the cost of more travel for all).

 

[StephenHero]

They'll put the AZ schools with the Big 12 arrivals.

 

[bananananana]

There's no conf rivalries that will be broken by sending AZ to the east.

Only thing left is how they'll do basketball schedules. I guess pair up Colorado and TT but that's about as close as SF is to LA.

The MWC has said it won't expand, so Kansas is probably CUSA or Big East bound? Kansas and KState in the Big East would create an absurd basketball conf.

 

[StephenHero]

Kansas won't go to the MWC. K State might, but KU would try to go to the Big East or ACC temporarily until the Big 10 further expanded, and KU would be hoping they could catch on the Big 10 with Mizzou. When the Big East dissolves, there could be a new conference with KU, Mizzou, Iowa State, the Big East leftovers like Marquette and Louisville, Memphis, and maybe a couple filler schools.

 

[Saul Silver]

This is just a giant clusterfuck. I didn't really see what the problem was with the conferences in the first place. It sounds like it's just going to make conference schedules more competitive, so we're going to see the same guarantee game crap that's been happening the last few years. Florida's football schedule last year had juggernauts like Charleston Southern and Florida International.

If they really want to fix something wrong with college sports, fix the BCS.

 

[crazyquik]

From a friend, which I am beginning to agree with:

I think it's kind of a waste of time. I think everyone is going to switch all this up, ruin every rivalry that exists and then realize they're not making any more money. If people do make money, it'll only be in the short term. The reason people love college sports is because it reminds us of a better time and it never changes. When you change it a bunch, people stop caring.

 

[JoyDiffusion]

Originally Posted by Ted Miller/ESPN

The new conference would be split into divisions with Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Colorado forming an Eastern Division with Arizona and Arizona State opposite the former Pac-8 (USC, UCLA, Stanford, Washington, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington and Washington State) in the Western Division. The coach said it's possible the Pac-16 would push for two automatic bids to the BCS, one for each division champion. That potential bonanza could open the possibility of the two division champs from one league playing for the national title, and it would eliminate the need for a conference championship game. [...] It would take a week to 10 days to finalize the details of a Pac-16. The blockbuster deal would add the nation's No. 5 (Dallas), No. 10 (Houston) and No. 16 (Denver) TV markets to the conference, which already includes No. 2 Los Angeles, No. 6 San Francisco, No. 12 Phoenix and No. 13 Seattle. With that large population base, the new conference would start its own network and, along with other broadcast partners, likely would distribute around $20 million per member, comparable broadcast revenue to the Big Ten ($22 million) and SEC ($17 million), the source said. The Big 12 distributed $7-12 million per year. The Pac-10 distributed $8-10 million.
Rest of article: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5270048 It's all about the TV dollars, and got nothing to do with the actual competition. Big-12 elite (Nebraska and to a lesser extent Texas/Oklahoma) felt they weren't getting enough money, and the Pac-10 is happy taking two of them, plus four smaller programs, to form their new TV network. Plus it certainly makes for a stronger football conference, as USC is no longer the only national powerhouse in Pac-10. Also, Big Ten has wanted a conference championship game for a while (needs 12 teams). But ND (most obvious choice) didn't want to join, Nebraska was next best, and if they leave the Big-12, the dominos fall which kills the conference (with ramifications for several others as well). The part about a Pac-16 trying to get away with two automatic bids to the BCS is interesting... doubt that would ever happen, but maybe this becomes like an arms race, with all the big leagues racing become a 16 team super-conference. It's looking like a major shakeup is on the way, including potentially Big East/ACC as well. Sounds like that's the only way Big Ten will get ND.

 

[Bradford]

As someone who grew up in Tucson as an Arizona fan and having my masters from ASU so now being a Sun Devil fan, I love the PAC-16 idea.

I would love to see Arizona and Arizona State in a division with the new arrivals from Texas, Oklahoma and Colorado. Yes, it would hurt both Arizona schools for a while in football, but it would also open up more recruiting in Texas and nationwide for both schools and the additional money from a new ESPN contract would be huge.

In other sports, I'd think both Arizona schools would be competitive immediately. Arizona is already a basketball powerhouse and ASU is on the upswing. A PaC-16 baseball conference would be awesome as would the competition in sports like golf, women's softball, track and field, swimming, volleyball, wrestling etc.

Plus, Tucson and Tempe are actually closer to the new schools than they are to the Oregon and Washington schools they play now in the PAC-10.

 

[retronotmetro]

Originally Posted by bananananana

There's no conf rivalries that will be broken by sending AZ to the east.

Only thing left is how they'll do basketball schedules. I guess pair up Colorado and TT but that's about as close as SF is to LA.

The MWC has said it won't expand, so Kansas is probably CUSA or Big East bound? Kansas and KState in the Big East would create an absurd basketball conf.

I wasn't talking about the traditional rivalries, just thinking about how splitting the conference would break up the round robin travel patterns. If anything, kicking Arizona and ASU to an eastern division is a return to tradition by bringing back the old Pac 8.

 

[bananananana]

This is all about money, no doubt about that. But essentially, I don't think there's that big of a difference on the field. For casual fans, the Big 12 essentially lives on as the Pac16 East conference, unless you really cared about the Kansas Mizzou rivalry or Nebraska, who hasnt been relevant for the greater part of this decade.

I think what may happen with the BCS now is the Pac16, Big 10/13, and SEC each getting 2 automatic bids, the ACC and Big East getting 1 each, and then 2 wildcards. Basically forces the ACC and Big East to merge together in the near future as well, although I wouldn't say the SEC is immune especially if the Big East gets a real jump on their own TV network. Florida will probably nix any inclusion of FSU and Miami into the same conference unless it meant a huge payday for them.

I also see college football regular season schedules creeping up to 14 or 15 games for big conference teams.

 

[StephenHero]

I think the Arizona schools really benefit from this. They'll push out schools like Missouri from Texas for recruits.