http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/21...
It's being reported that the Big 12 is looking for alliances with the ACC and two other conferences. What this tells me is that the Big 12 is threatened by rumors of the SEC and B1G blowing up the ACC. More of interest is what this says about the Big 12's ability or lack thereof to attract desirable expansion candidates from the ACC. There's no doubt in my mind that the Big 12 would take Florida State in a heartbeat, for example, if given the opportunity. But this news suggests to me that Florida State, and other ACC schools, aren't all that interested in the Big 12. This news also indicates that some ACC schools dislike the idea of an SEC and B1G raiding party, and are looking at ways to contain the threat.
What should Delany do about these alliance overtures? Smile, sip on a tall cold one, and then put his finger on the map of the next school he intends to bring into the B1G fold -- and then take it.
Kill them all and let the paramedics sort out the bodies.
I guess it would make sense for the fragments of the acc and big 12 to form a new conference. Maybe even add the remainder of big least football schools...
It will be delicate with those conferences....do you want to align or wait for your potential partner to get raided and then you add the rest of their pieces. Its kind of like two guys hanging from a cliff. Do you pull the other guy up or push him off to get to safety? He could make it, you could make it, or you both could perish. But both arent gonna survive.
No.
What was there? :o
"YOLO" = I'm about to do something extremely ignorant/stupid & I need an excuse to do it.
The Big 12 is as likely trying to ward off encroachment from the PAC-12 as anything - remember that in the last expansion cycle, the Big 12 did lose members to the western conference, so they may be trying to form some type of alliance there. I'm skeptical of these types of alliances after the busted PAC-12/B1G combination (which I thought offered some attractive possibilities).
If the Big 12 is taking this approach, it tells me they are concerned their vaunted Grant of Rights isn't enough to hold schools in the conference, after all.
If you're a bigger team in the Big 12, I think you get five of your buddies in conference, use your majority six votes to eliminate the grant of rights, and head off to the PAC-12. Expansion is coming. The P12 has nowhere to go, and the B12 is also not in as strong a position as he B1G and SEC.
Agreed - I think the two or three logical targets for the PAC-12 get together and say "you thinkin' about switchin'?" while Texas and maybe Kansas look at each other and say "do you have Jim Delaney's phone number?" and collectively they vote to dissolve. West Virginia probably ends up going to the SEC, or alternately on the outside looking in (because they're not B1G material academically, obviously).
The Big 12 has a meeting on Monday where expansion will be a topic. I believe in response to this the B1G is having a meeting tomorrow (Sunday).
"Because the rules won't let you go for three." - Woody Hayes
THE Ohio State University
Let me preface by saying that what follows is pure speculation on my part - I might be totally misconstruing things and thus unfairly characterizing certain schools, but here goes . . .
I'm guessing that inasmuch as such efforts by the B12 relfects concerns about the BT and SEC raiding the ACC and other conferences that it's primarily coming from the usual suspects of "free riders" - Iowa State, Wake Forest, Kansas St, etc. In other words, schools that do not add much value on their own, but are fortunate to be in major conferences and therefore tend to be the most vulnerable to major realignment.
This is the same cast that used political maneuvers to ward off greater movement two years back when all the talk about Big Ten expansion was freaking everybody out, but (temporarily) concluded with only Nebraska moving. Supposedly, there was a bunch of behind-the-scenes efforts that involved politicians and other big wigs, which contributed to a bit of a cooling off period. And supposedly that's part of the reason Delany was more discreet about Rutgers and Maryland this time.
The schools that used politics to protect their positions of course bitched and moaned, and made big dramatic statements about how they were on the moral high road against the mercenary forces and so forth, but that was b.s. If anything, they were protecting their cushy positions from even smaller, less advantaged schools even lower on the totem poll, who do not benefit from being in a major conference, but are just as "valuable" as the Iowa States of the world. We're supposed to feel sorry for them and let keep riding on other schools that really "drive the meter."
RUN FIDO -- I think that is right. All the news I've been seeing on the topic suggests that Texas is not on board with adding new members. Now we can look at that in one of two ways or both: 1) they are quite satisfied with the current revenue sharing, and/or 2) they know they will be sitting pretty wherever they go be it the B1G or PAC-12. I'm not sold that Texas is planning on staying in the Big 12 forever.
Time to plunder
Unless the Big XII acts relatively quickly and adds Clemson and FSU, I think the PAC absorbing the bigger schools in the Big XII is inevitable. If the Big XII gets Clemson and FSU to join then they will likely look at some of the CUSA or WAC schools to simply bolster their numbers
I think the B1G, SEC and Big XII will cause the ACC to go the way of the Big East.
vacuuming sucks
No disagreement with posts above, HOWEVER:
Pac whiffed last time it moved on Texas and got the booby prizes of CU and Utah. Pac's 1 through 10 priority is Texas. 11 and 12 are Oklahoma and BYU. It WILL NOT take anyone else other than on a 'come with Texas' basis.
Texas does not need Pac, and does not really care who is in the Big XII. Sure, it wants Oklahoma to stay in, but bottom line, they do not care who joins or who leaves - hell, they didn't even schedule A&M after TAM bolted to the SEC.
Texas coming to the Pac could happen if the Pac bends over for them.
Texas coming to the BIG (or anyone other than PAC) won't happen until Waco freezes over
You had me right up to your parting shot... on what do you base such a confident assessment of Texas' distaste for the B1G?
I still think there is an outside chance for the B1G to land Texas as part of Texas-Notre Dame combo. That was the original plan from the outset and by all accounts, Texas seriously entertained the idea of jumping to the B1G. One account even indicates that Notre Dame and Texas made an offer to the B1G, but the terms weren't favorable to the B1G, and it was rejected.
I'm not suggesting that it will happen, but it is within the realm of possibility. More likely now it appears, the B1G is going to go on a huge raiding party of the ACC and complete its ultimate mission of moving south and picking up key recruiting grounds. But you have to think Delany, Gee and company will always wonder "what if" ...when it couldn't seal the deal with Texas.
Ego and Money, AndyVance.
Texas' ego is unparalleled, and it doesn't see the Pac as having any team to rival it. It thinks it beat SC by 50 in the NCS and believes it is academically superior to Stanford and Cal. No way it will mix with UM or OSU and have to face some inconvenient truths.
Money has some Texas ego tied up in it also. Texas math will not compare Big share versus Longhorn Network share. It will compare Big share with what the Network Share "Should" be.
Okay - I get that. I'm not sold it'll never happen, but I get where you're coming from.
You've been right on plenty of issues, and I have no "source" to back me up .... just my 50 year old eyes and my 40 year memory.
I wouldn't be disappointed if Texas went to the Big, though my dithers would be to add N Dame, renege on the Maryland invite, and spend the next 30 years integrating our new conference-mates.
Your 40-year memory has a great point about the ego of Texas. They've been a really big fish in the Big XII pond, and becoming an equal partner with schools like Purdue and Minnesota will take some getting used to, and could very likely be a detriment to Delaney making a credible pitch.
Bonus points, though, for your observation about integrating our new conference-mates. Does Penn State finally feel like it "belongs" in the B1G yet? My memory is a little shorter that yours, so they've "always" been a part of the conference for me. How long did it take for them to "fit" in your mind (if they do yet, at all)?
As a 41 year old, I can tell you Penn State doesn't fit for me. When I name the members of the conference, they are always the one I forget.
I'm in favor of expansion for many reasons, but a part of me will always see the B1G as the original Big Ten. That part died a little when PSU joined.
Okay, My Dad died 5 year ago and was still lamenting Sparty being admitted .... in 1958.
I am evolved and actually believed that Penn State was fully integrated UNTIL the SOBs started crying about what the Big had "done to them" in the aftermath of Sandusky.
So that's the first place they go when there is some triggering event ... that they want out of the conference??
So now, like so many other things, I am adopting my Dad's position on allowing in the newbies.
P.S. I watched the Pac integrate the Arizonas masterfully, and am watching as CU integrates, which appears to be a tougher process.
Ha, and with that I automatically like your father, may he rest in peace. There is much to be said for tradition.
Thanks. Me too.
I find the integration question interesting because I've read about the initial consternation over Penn State (I had forgotten that Sparty wasn't an original member of the club - we often forget Ohio State was not at the table the first couple of decades, either).
It doesn't seem as though I see anything much discussed regarding Nebraska's integration - it's like they're already viewed as one of the powerbrokers in the conference, and no one remembers that they weren't there just a couple of years ago.
I think we'll be talking about Maryland and Rutgers' integration for quite some time.
Yes, I think that is true. I've had a much easier time with Nebraska mentally than I did with Penn State.
I think it comes down to fit. I see Nebraska as a midwestern school, and I see Penn State as an eastern school. To a large extent, PSU fans feel that same way.
I think Rutgers and Maryland will have similar integration issues due to not fitting with the midwestern feel of the original Big Ten. To some extent, though, it gets easier with each addition. Rutgers and MD will find it easier to integrate as they have the eastern thing in common with PSU. UVA and UNC, should they enter, will have something in common with PSU, Rutgers and Maryland as far as being Atlantic Coast, and with MD as far as being ex-ACC schools. Same for GA Tech and Florida State.
The primary thing I don't like about expansion is that it is hard to see a scenario where OSU doesn't end up in the Eastern side of the conference. I hate that. I feel like OSU belongs with the midwest, and given my preference would always be with TSUN, Mich State, Wisconsin, Purdue, etc.
Your last comment really struck me - I think it will be really surreal, and not a little frustrating, if a season arrives in the near future in which Ohio State doesn't play a team from a traditional Corn Belt state...
East/West divisions will make the most sense, but when we get to the 16-20 team behemoth, the dividing line will probably be I-75, and we'll be in with Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia Tech and perhaps FSU (in a 16-team conference).
If we add Texas, Kansas and/or Mizzou (or Notre Dame if you don't ascribe to my theory that we should ignore Notre Dame henceforth) to get to 20, then perhaps we pick up M*ch*g*n and Purdue or Indiana, which will be a little soothing.
That's part of my love/hope for a pod system. In a pod system we are more likely to be with geographically close schools, and the playing rotation means we'd play the Midwest schools more often than in a division setup.
Cplunk,
Would you prefer rotating pods or simply playing a couple of teams from each pod every year? The difference I see is that rotating pods every year, you play 4 games against your pod (assuming 20) and then 5 against another pod. That gets you to 9 conference games. If you did two per pod every year, that would be 10 conference games.
"Because the rules won't let you go for three." - Woody Hayes
THE Ohio State University
I really like the rotating pods idea. The problem is it only works if TSUN is in the same pod, otherwise no more Game.