+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: College Sports and Conference Realignment (/forum-637.html)
+---- Thread: I'm bored - realignment idea (/thread-638666.html)
I'm bored - realignment idea - nzmorange - 07-02-2013 03:35 PM
4 DI conferences with stipends (EDIT: Current perks, like a scholarship, room and board, and so on, plus $2,000-$2,500 of spending money per year)
ACC
ATLANTIC
FSU
Clemson
WF
NCSU
Louisville (EDIT: Sorry about forgetting earlier)
Syracuse
Boston College
COASTAL
Miami
GT
Duke
UNC
UVA
VT
Pitt
PARTIALS (7 game min.)
ND
Texas
B1G
EAST
Maryland
Rutgers
Penn State
Ohio State
MIDEAST
Michigan
Michigan State
Indiana
Purdue
MIDEWEST
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Northwestern
Illinois
WEST
Nebraska
Iowa
Mizzou
Kansas
SEC
WEST
TA&M
OU
KSU
Arkansas
MIDWEST
Alabama
LSU
Auburn
'Ole Miss
MIDEAST
UF
UGA
Vanderbilt
Mississippi State
EAST
UTenn
USCarolina
WVU
UK
PAC-16
NORTH
UW
Oregon
WSU
OSU (EDIT: Oregon State)
EAST
USC
UCLA
Cal
Stanford
SOUTH
ASU
UA
SDSU
Texas Tech
WEST
Utah
BYU or Boise State (EDIT: BSU was accidently place in Colorado's place)
OSU (EDIT: Oklahoma State)
Colorado (EDIT: Sorry about forgetting you)
*The SEC, B1G, and Pac all have 9 game conference schedules. Divisions are made of two pods, and the divisions change every year, but the pods stay the same. Every year, each team plays it's division and two perm rivals.
*The ACC has an 8 game schedule that includes every team playing every other school in their division, a perm rival, and a rotating game against a team in the other division every year. In addition to that base conference schedule, each ACC team plays either Texas or Notre Dame every year in alternating years. So, an ACC team might play Texas, @ND, @Texas, and then ND in a four year cycle.
*the SEC would have their conference championship game in the Georgia Dome, the B1G would have it in Soldier Field, the Pac-12 would have it on campus, and the ACC would have it in Charlotte.
*The post season would consist of 3 parts: a playoff, a BCS, and a regular slate of bowls. Each of the four conference champions would get an auto bid for the four team championship tourney. In the event that either ND or Texas ranked higher than the lowest ranked conference champion, then the higher of ND or Texas could take that conference champion's spot. The #4 seed would play the #1 seed, and the #2 seed and the #3 seed would play each other.
**The Rose Bowl, the Sugar Bowl, and the Orange Bowl would host the tourney on a rotating basis, so that the Orange/Rose/Sugar Bowl would host the high seed one year, the national championship game the next, and the middle seeds the 3rd year.
**The losers of the conference championship games would play in "BCS Bowls," which would be owned by the conferences. The SEC would own the Cotton Bowl, the Pac-16 would own the Fiesta Bowl, the ACC would own the Chic Fil A Bowl, and the B1G would own the Capitol One Bowl. Each conference championship game loser would get a guaranteed spot in their conference's bowl and play an at large team. In the event that a conference championship team was booted from the playoff, the champion would get their conference's BCS bid, and the loser would get an at large bid.
**The conferences would then contract with bowls to sort out the remaining bowl eligible bowl-bound teams much like they have done in the past, only with provisions that allow for more rotation. For example, a conference might have a bowl tie in with the Pinstripe Bowl 2 out of every 3 years, the Gator Bowl 2 out of every 3 years, and the Music City Bowl 2 out of every 3 years.
*100% of the conference championship money would be kept by the conference hosting the tourney. The first round of the playoff would be split amongst the four conferences evenly with cuts going to ND and Texas. The conference championship would be split amongst the 4 conferences evenly, with cuts going to ND, Texas, and lower levels of football (i.e. the schools that got "left behind"). The BCS money would be pooled and part of it would be split amongst the four conferences evenly and the rest would either be given to the teams playing in the game (after ND and Texas got a cut).
*The Big XII would keep TCU, Baylor, and ISU, and add Tulane, Memphis, UC, Houston, Rice, and SMU
*The American would add UMASS and Marshall
*The rest of the conferences would pretty much stay as is, adding where needed.
*The "schools that got left behind" would play a BCS, like it exists now. The Big XII would play the American in the Liberty Bowl, the Mac would host a Chicago Bowl, the MWC would host a Seattle Bowl, and the CUSA would host a bowl in Florida, and the Sun Belt would get an auto invite to the MWC, CUSA, and MAC bowl on a rotating basis. the remaining two slots would be at large bids, and one of them would also host a "mid major national championship." The mid major BCS bowls would be funded through a combinations of their own funding sources (i.e. TV contracts, sponsorships, and ticket sales) and money from the P4 championship game.
*P4 schools would not be allowed to play FCS teams, but would be allowed to play mid major teams (essentially like BCS schools can play FCS schools now).
In basketball:
*The ACC would have a 4 game mini-challenge with the B1G such that every ACC team would play on home challenge game and one away game against the SEC every 4 years, and the ACC would have a mini-challenge with the BIG EAST.
*The BIG EAST would have a mini-challenge with the ACC and the B1G.
*The B1G would have a mini-challenge with the BIG EAST and Pac-12.
*The Pac-12 would have a mini-challenge with the B1G and the SEC.
*The Big XII would have a full (8 game) challenge with the AAC.
RE: I'm bored - realignment idea - 10thMountain - 07-02-2013 03:56 PM
Good effort over all though not a fan of the division you have A&M in since its a Big 12 microcosm (couple of SWC schools joined with some Big 8 schools who like playing each other but have nothing in common with the schools from the other conference)
RE: I'm bored - realignment idea - nzmorange - 07-02-2013 04:17 PM
(07-02-2013 03:56 PM)10thMountain Wrote: Good effort over all though not a fan of the division you have A&M in since its a Big 12 microcosm (couple of SWC schools joined with some Big 8 schools who like playing each other but have nothing in common with the schools from the other conference)
Thanks, and I tried to keep geography tight, while keeping talent fairly equal, while paying homage to history. I figured that the pod would only make 1/3rd of a team's yearly conference schedule and 1/2 of a team's conf. perm schedule, so there would be a solid opportunity to assimilate into the rest of the conference. Out of curiosity, how would you have done the SEC?
RE: I'm bored - realignment idea - curtis0620 - 07-02-2013 04:21 PM
Where's Louisville?
RE: I'm bored - realignment idea - jml2010 - 07-02-2013 04:40 PM
Where is Oklahoma St?
RE: I'm bored - realignment idea - 10thMountain - 07-02-2013 05:12 PM
(07-02-2013 04:17 PM)nzmorange Wrote:(07-02-2013 03:56 PM)10thMountain Wrote: Good effort over all though not a fan of the division you have A&M in since its a Big 12 microcosm (couple of SWC schools joined with some Big 8 schools who like playing each other but have nothing in common with the schools from the other conference)
Thanks, and I tried to keep geography tight, while keeping talent fairly equal, while paying homage to history. I figured that the pod would only make 1/3rd of a team's yearly conference schedule and 1/2 of a team's conf. perm schedule, so there would be a solid opportunity to assimilate into the rest of the conference. Out of curiosity, how would you have done the SEC?
My assumption would be that if the SEC goes to 16 it will be with ACC rather than Big 12 schools. The thought there being the most likely 16 team scenario is UT/TTU/OSU/OU to the PAC at the end of the B12 GOR and with KU and UConn to the B1G.
The SEC will try to bring in a VA and NC ACC school but if that fails then and 16 is a must then the SEC would look at WVU and one more, possibly ECU if they are now averaging 60K and doing well in football and have improved academically in the 10 years we are talking here...or if not, maybe a last look at Florida State. For argument sake lets say we take a chance on the Pirates to get into NC:
WEST
TA&M
LSU
Arkansas
Mizzou
MIDWEST
Alabama
Auburn
Ole Miss
Mississippi State
MIDEAST
UF
UGA
USC
UK
EAST
UTenn
Vandy
WVU
ECU
RE: I'm bored - realignment idea - nzmorange - 07-02-2013 05:34 PM
(07-02-2013 04:40 PM)jml2010 Wrote: Where is Oklahoma St?
Pac-16 west -> Oklahoma State = OSU
(I just realized that I also used OSU for Oregon State, who is in the Pac-16 north)
RE: I'm bored - realignment idea - nzmorange - 07-02-2013 05:35 PM
(07-02-2013 04:21 PM)curtis0620 Wrote: Where's Louisville?
Good catch. They're inland so I forgot about them. They would stay in the ACC Atlantic. The ACC is unchanged, except I added Texas as a partial (i.e. a ND deal).
RE: I'm bored - realignment idea - jrj84105 - 07-02-2013 05:40 PM
Kudos for the Zipper-Pod hybrid for conference scheduling. Using your teams (not that those are really great), the PAC pods would be ASU/AZ/TTU/OkSU and SDSU/UU/BYU/BSU to maximize WAC/MWC history and give the latter pod one recruiting foothold.
RE: I'm bored - realignment idea - nzmorange - 07-02-2013 05:49 PM
(07-02-2013 05:40 PM)jrj84105 Wrote: Kudos for the Zipper-Pod hybrid for conference scheduling. Using your teams (not that those are really great), the PAC pods would be ASU/AZ/TTU/OkSU and SDSU/UU/BYU/BSU to maximize WAC/MWC history and give the latter pod one recruiting foothold.
I'm feeling confident about TTech and Oklahoma State.
It's the two of BYU, SDSU, and BSU that I am less sure of. BYU has the best history, money, national name, rivalries (i.e. with Utah), and academics out of the 3, as well as decent basketball, but it also has a religious affiliation, which is a big no no in the Pac, so I hear. BSU has the best current team, but the weakest history, basketball and academics out of the three. SDSU has a respectable team, a pretty good basketball program, and a great location, but I'm not sure that the other Cali school would want the added competition in southern Cal. That said, the state might see it as a way of raising funds, and strong arm Cal and UCLA into supporting SDSU's bid.
I don't see any other strong programs out west, and there are two slots, so I would imagine that it would have to be two of those three.
What did you have in mind?
RE: I'm bored - realignment idea - Freshy - 07-02-2013 08:20 PM
Your assumption that you can divide the conferences on the basis of who has stipends and who doesn't is incorrect. All FBS schools will likely be able to afford stipends, and probably forty or so FCS schools as well. It was not the G5 that killed stipends. Many of those schools had representatives who went on record in favor of stipends. It was the non-football D1 basketball schools who killed stipends. I can promise you that Southern Miss would have stipends just as soon as the state's pair of SEC schools do.
RE: I'm bored - realignment idea - jrj84105 - 07-02-2013 08:33 PM
(07-02-2013 05:49 PM)nzmorange Wrote:If the worst case scenario for the PAC came to be (forced expansion without UT) then I'm not sure what direction things would go. For cultural and academic fit, you have very few large VH level research institutions out West: Hawaii, UNM, CSU, and Houston being the ones to come to mind. None of TTU, OkSU, BYU, SDSU, or BSU fit this profile. I actually think Hawaii and UNM would have as good of a chance if not a better chance than TTU, OkSU, BYU, Boise, and SDSU in this worst case scenario.(07-02-2013 05:40 PM)jrj84105 Wrote: Kudos for the Zipper-Pod hybrid for conference scheduling. Using your teams (not that those are really great), the PAC pods would be ASU/AZ/TTU/OkSU and SDSU/UU/BYU/BSU to maximize WAC/MWC history and give the latter pod one recruiting foothold.
I'm feeling confident about TTech and Oklahoma State.
It's the two of BYU, SDSU, and BSU that I am less sure of. BYU has the best history, money, national name, rivalries (i.e. with Utah), and academics out of the 3, as well as decent basketball, but it also has a religious affiliation, which is a big no no in the Pac, so I hear. BSU has the best current team, but the weakest history, basketball and academics out of the three. SDSU has a respectable team, a pretty good basketball program, and a great location, but I'm not sure that the other Cali school would want the added competition in southern Cal. That said, the state might see it as a way of raising funds, and strong arm Cal and UCLA into supporting SDSU's bid.
I don't see any other strong programs out west, and there are two slots, so I would imagine that it would have to be two of those three.
What did you have in mind?
RE: I'm bored - realignment idea - nzmorange - 07-02-2013 09:34 PM
(07-02-2013 08:20 PM)Freshy Wrote: Your assumption that you can divide the conferences on the basis of who has stipends and who doesn't is incorrect. All FBS schools will likely be able to afford stipends, and probably forty or so FCS schools as well. It was not the G5 that killed stipends. Many of those schools had representatives who went on record in favor of stipends. It was the non-football D1 basketball schools who killed stipends. I can promise you that Southern Miss would have stipends just as soon as the state's pair of SEC schools do.
It wasn't an assumption. I didn't say that this would happen, just that in my mind, it should happen. Also, I know that schools like OSU are strongly in favor of stipends and there has been a LOT of talk about a separation amongst BCS schools, with the upper tier allowing stipends and the lower tier not.
I don't have any personal knowledge on the subject, but I'm not sure A) how much power non-football schools have in the NCAA in general, B) how much power they have on football matters, C) and/or even why they would even have a say in football matters. So, although I don't know for sure, I don't think that you're right. However, if you have sources and feel like definitively proving it one way or the other, I'm willing to listen.
RE: I'm bored - realignment idea - nzmorange - 07-02-2013 09:37 PM
(07-02-2013 08:33 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:(07-02-2013 05:49 PM)nzmorange Wrote:If the worst case scenario for the PAC came to be (forced expansion without UT) then I'm not sure what direction things would go. For cultural and academic fit, you have very few large VH level research institutions out West: Hawaii, UNM, CSU, and Houston being the ones to come to mind. None of TTU, OkSU, BYU, SDSU, or BSU fit this profile. I actually think Hawaii and UNM would have as good of a chance if not a better chance than TTU, OkSU, BYU, Boise, and SDSU in this worst case scenario.(07-02-2013 05:40 PM)jrj84105 Wrote: Kudos for the Zipper-Pod hybrid for conference scheduling. Using your teams (not that those are really great), the PAC pods would be ASU/AZ/TTU/OkSU and SDSU/UU/BYU/BSU to maximize WAC/MWC history and give the latter pod one recruiting foothold.
I'm feeling confident about TTech and Oklahoma State.
It's the two of BYU, SDSU, and BSU that I am less sure of. BYU has the best history, money, national name, rivalries (i.e. with Utah), and academics out of the 3, as well as decent basketball, but it also has a religious affiliation, which is a big no no in the Pac, so I hear. BSU has the best current team, but the weakest history, basketball and academics out of the three. SDSU has a respectable team, a pretty good basketball program, and a great location, but I'm not sure that the other Cali school would want the added competition in southern Cal. That said, the state might see it as a way of raising funds, and strong arm Cal and UCLA into supporting SDSU's bid.
I don't see any other strong programs out west, and there are two slots, so I would imagine that it would have to be two of those three.
What did you have in mind?
Obviously until it happens, nobody will know for sure, but I would imagine that athletics > academics in terms of conference expansion, and I think that Hawai'i is too much of a pain geographically for a major DI program to put up with.
I don't know much about CSU, though. I could see CU v. CSU being an exciting in-state rivalry, so you might be right about that. I honestly didn't think about 'em. How much of an athletic dept. do they have?
RE: I'm bored - realignment idea - He1nousOne - 07-02-2013 09:48 PM
Not bad....but your scenario requires the passing of over a decade before it can happen. For a realignment idea due to being bored....you are bordering on being a masochist.
In order for Texas to move to the ACC anytime soon enough for us to actually talk about it now, it will require a disintegration of the Big 12 as a whole. That requires votes and getting votes means making those schools comfortable that they have a place at the table after the Big 12 goes bye bye.
That means you cannot cut out as many Big 12 schools as you have done.
Giving Texas that kind of deal means the ACC can take two more Big 12 schools in order to help this happen. I realize as fans you guys go
over whom I and others have talked about going with Texas to the ACC but take a look at the whole picture. If the ACC goes along with that then the talk about which one of the two conferences survives and which one dies will be over. If you take Baylor you get a great basketball program and more coverage in the State of Texas which could really help the ACC boost themselves from the bottom up in competitiveness in football. I am not talking about the FSU's of the ACC, I am talking about the Pitt's and the Virginia's and the NC State's. Perhaps the ACC can bargain for Baylor and WVU but if the SEC wants WVU out of the deal then likely WVU will go to them. I don't see what is so bad about tripling up in the State of Texas for the ACC. A scheduling agreement with Texas and their boost to the ACC's Bowl agreements. Bring in Baylor and TCU and suddenly Texas is an Atlantic Ocean bordering State that is absolutely ACC Territory as much as it is anyone else's. Is that really so horrible?
ACC
North
Miami
Boston College
Pitt
Syracuse
Mid-Atlantic
North Carolina
Virginia Tech
Virginia
Duke
South
FSU
Clemson
Georgia Tech
North Carolina State
West
Louisville
Baylor
TCU
Wake Forest
That ACC right there has all the elements to be wildly successful. Remember it has the power of Notre Dame and Texas added to it's SoS AND it's Bowl Negotiating strength. This line up would allow your historical powers to all remain such in regards to leading to a four team conference tournament while at the same time it allows some of your new schools with improving national programs to continue that trend.
In regards to getting enough Big 12 schools. I think we would see WVU definitely going to the SEC and personally I do believe Oklahoma would choose the Big Ten, if the Big Ten wanted them. Oklahoma's program is sliding downwards, not upwards. Moving into the SEC would only accelerate that trend where as membership in the Big Ten would "artificially" keep them propped up at the top of the rankings as well as being a regular participant in the National Scene. The SEC would be just as well off with Oklahoma State. In fact they might be better off with OSU considering what they actually need. Kansas and Oklahoma to the Big Ten and WVU and OSU to the SEC.
Big Ten
East
Ohio State
Penn State
Maryland
Rutgers
North
Michigan
Michigan State
Indiana
Purdue
Midwest
Wisconsin
Northwestern
Illinois
Minnesota
West
Oklahoma
Nebraska
Iowa
Kansas
This would be a dream set up for so many in the Big Ten. If a Tournament was suddenly in the pipeline, I think most folks would see a "miraculous" change of opinion at Michigan and Ohio State about them having to be in the same division and playing in the final week of the regular season. Traditions pass all the time, it just takes enough temptation for folks to move on. There is a ton of brand potential in that line up.
SEC
East
Florida
Georgia
South Carolina
Auburn
Central
Alabama
Ole Miss
Vanderbilt
Miss State
West
LSU
Texas A&M
Arkansas
Oklahoma State
Border
Tennessee
West Virginia
Kentucky
Missouri
Edit: Had to change my SEC commentary. It is not possible for them to get ECU without giving up on WVU and that is not going to happen. ECU will have to work towards domination at the Mid-Major level and hope for inclusion in an 8 team National Playoff. WVU and Oklahoma State are many leaps ahead of ECU still and that North Carolina market is nice but the Bigger Picture calls.
The PAC is the conference that has the least say in all of this. They have zero potential expansions currently so really any Big 12 programs are an improvement over their current choices. That means the likes of Iowa State, Kansas State and Texas Tech move out West. Those three give the PAC three much needed locations to display PAC matchups in the Central Time Zone. That alone gives them a big boost to their TV contracts. They can have PAC games playing in every single scheduling time. Currently they miss out. Toss one more in as you desire. Personally I think New Mexico makes for a good add.
PAC
North
Oregon
Washington
Oregon State
Wash State
West
USC
UCLA
Stanford
California
South
Arizona
Arizona State
Utah
New Mexico/Colorado
East
Texas Tech
Kansas State
Iowa State
Colorado/New Mexico
Personally I would have Colorado with it's previous Big 12 conference mates. It works better geographically. Texas Tech may have issues with being "Left Behind" but this isn't all bad for them. Just like how the Aggies are moving on to be their own Brand instead of living under the Longhorn shadow, the same can be said of Tech in this scenario. They will be the regular team to beat in that division and a regular participant in the PAC's four team tournament. That will boost Tech's National Recognition. Since their division isn't all that tough, they won't need to worry so much about having a fully padded OOC schedule. A 9 game conference schedule means 3 OOC games and they can schedule 2-3 of those all in the State of Texas. That really isn't so bad at all. Texas is going to have 7 open OOC games on their schedule with that new ACC arrangement. Pretty sure Tech will be a regular in that scenario.
A scenario like this could potentially happen where as one that doesn't take enough of the Big 12 into consideration is really just idle chat to pass the time.
RE: I'm bored - realignment idea - jrj84105 - 07-02-2013 11:54 PM
(07-02-2013 09:37 PM)nzmorange Wrote:It takes a lot less resources to build a football program than it does to build an academic profile. I honestly think in the worst case scenario, that academiec/cultural fit would prevail. I also think that Larry Scott is looking to reach Asian markets and Hawaii is the best launching point for market penetration there (think UCLA vs. Yomiuri Giants in a Honolulu based exhibition game). I think Scott's ideal 16 team conference would be achieved by adding HI, UT, OU, and KU. In your pod format this would be BigXII pod (UT/CU/KU/OU) and WAC pod (HI/ASU/AZ/UU). Pretty far fetched but so is the idea of forced expansion to 16. The PAC would probably be more likely to go to 20 with 8 big Xii teams, dissolving the GOR in one fell swoop.(07-02-2013 08:33 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:(07-02-2013 05:49 PM)nzmorange Wrote:If the worst case scenario for the PAC came to be (forced expansion without UT) then I'm not sure what direction things would go. For cultural and academic fit, you have very few large VH level research institutions out West: Hawaii, UNM, CSU, and Houston being the ones to come to mind. None of TTU, OkSU, BYU, SDSU, or BSU fit this profile. I actually think Hawaii and UNM would have as good of a chance if not a better chance than TTU, OkSU, BYU, Boise, and SDSU in this worst case scenario.
Obviously until it happens, nobody will know for sure, but I would imagine that athletics > academics in terms of conference expansion, and I think that Hawai'i is too much of a pain geographically for a major DI program to put up with.
I don't know much about CSU, though. I could see CU v. CSU being an exciting in-state rivalry, so you might be right about that. I honestly didn't think about 'em. How much of an athletic dept. do they have?
RE: I'm bored - realignment idea - bitcruncher - 07-03-2013 10:29 AM
(07-02-2013 05:12 PM)10thMountain Wrote:Swap out ECU and UK, and you've got the geography tight, and the strength of the divisions is still unchanged, except in basketball, where any division (or pod) that has Kentucky will have the edge in basketball...(07-02-2013 04:17 PM)nzmorange Wrote:My assumption would be that if the SEC goes to 16 it will be with ACC rather than Big 12 schools. The thought there being the most likely 16 team scenario is UT/TTU/OSU/OU to the PAC at the end of the B12 GOR and with KU and UConn to the B1G.(07-02-2013 03:56 PM)10thMountain Wrote: Good effort over all though not a fan of the division you have A&M in since its a Big 12 microcosm (couple of SWC schools joined with some Big 8 schools who like playing each other but have nothing in common with the schools from the other conference)Thanks, and I tried to keep geography tight, while keeping talent fairly equal, while paying homage to history. I figured that the pod would only make 1/3rd of a team's yearly conference schedule and 1/2 of a team's conf. perm schedule, so there would be a solid opportunity to assimilate into the rest of the conference. Out of curiosity, how would you have done the SEC?
The SEC will try to bring in a VA and NC ACC school but if that fails then and 16 is a must then the SEC would look at WVU and one more, possibly ECU if they are now averaging 60K and doing well in football and have improved academically in the 10 years we are talking here...or if not, maybe a last look at Florida State. For argument sake lets say we take a chance on the Pirates to get into NC:
WEST
TA&M
LSU
Arkansas
Mizzou
MIDWEST
Alabama
Auburn
Ole Miss
Mississippi State
MIDEAST
UF
UGA
USC
UKECU
EAST
UTenn
Vandy
WVU
ECUUK
RE: I'm bored - realignment idea - nzmorange - 07-03-2013 07:15 PM
I don't see the SEC taking ECU. IMO, ECU is too upstart and the SEC is too established.
I know they have a ton of momentum, but the #1 conference taking a school that has #5 best academics in the state, #3/4 football in the state, and #4/5 basketball in the state is more that I think most SEC fans could handle. I know status as a SEC member would improve all of those ratings, but it's still asking a lot. If nothing else, it would mean NC would have 5 BCS schools in it, which is more than any state not named Texas, California, or Florida can handle in my opinion.
RE: I'm bored - realignment idea - nzmorange - 07-03-2013 08:28 PM
(07-02-2013 11:54 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:(07-02-2013 09:37 PM)nzmorange Wrote:It takes a lot less resources to build a football program than it does to build an academic profile. I honestly think in the worst case scenario, that academiec/cultural fit would prevail. I also think that Larry Scott is looking to reach Asian markets and Hawaii is the best launching point for market penetration there (think UCLA vs. Yomiuri Giants in a Honolulu based exhibition game). I think Scott's ideal 16 team conference would be achieved by adding HI, UT, OU, and KU. In your pod format this would be BigXII pod (UT/CU/KU/OU) and WAC pod (HI/ASU/AZ/UU). Pretty far fetched but so is the idea of forced expansion to 16. The PAC would probably be more likely to go to 20 with 8 big Xii teams, dissolving the GOR in one fell swoop.(07-02-2013 08:33 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:(07-02-2013 05:49 PM)nzmorange Wrote:If the worst case scenario for the PAC came to be (forced expansion without UT) then I'm not sure what direction things would go. For cultural and academic fit, you have very few large VH level research institutions out West: Hawaii, UNM, CSU, and Houston being the ones to come to mind. None of TTU, OkSU, BYU, SDSU, or BSU fit this profile. I actually think Hawaii and UNM would have as good of a chance if not a better chance than TTU, OkSU, BYU, Boise, and SDSU in this worst case scenario.
Obviously until it happens, nobody will know for sure, but I would imagine that athletics > academics in terms of conference expansion, and I think that Hawai'i is too much of a pain geographically for a major DI program to put up with.
I don't know much about CSU, though. I could see CU v. CSU being an exciting in-state rivalry, so you might be right about that. I honestly didn't think about 'em. How much of an athletic dept. do they have?
I agree that it takes less to build a football program, but the equation isn't that simple. It would have to be wroth a school's while to do it. Not counting student aid, the University of Alabama spent something like $36 million on football last year. Syracuse spent something like $21 million. Syracuse University has an endowment that's something like 66% bigger than 'Bama's. Now, an endowment is only a mark of a school's financial stability, not necessarily it's wealth, but I think that there is usually a general correlation. And, assuming that there is a correlation, there is a very good chance that Syracuse is significantly richer than the University of Alabama. So, why doesn't SU flex its muscle and outspend the Tide, hire an elite coach, build elite facilities, and win national championships. The answer isn't because Syracuse University doesn't want it. It's because it isn't worth SU's while to do that. 'Bama has an elite name (not that Syracuse's isn't good), is in the most talent-rich area of the nation, and has a national fan bases that rivals any team's. To get the same bang, Syracuse would have to spend significantly more than $36 million. We might have to spend over $50 million. Furthermore, not only would we have to spend more, but we would make less, given the same result. If Alabama runs the tables and wins a NC, the athletic dept. can expect to make $X. If SU runs the table, the athletic dept. can expect to make $Y. And, unfortunately in this case, $X>$Y. That means that the Tide can do what they do and still make money, whereas if the Orange were to do what the Tide does, we would lose our shirts. It wouldn't be worth our time.
IMO, academic association is marginal at best when schools hit a certain point. I do not think that the amount/type of research that happens at one school tangibly affects the other schools in their conference. Sure, with pooled buying there is more buying power and items are cheaper, but that advantage is marginal. How much cheaper can pencils get? Will adding a school that buys $1,500,000 worth of pens a year really reduce the cost of pens tangibly more than adding a school that buys $1,000,000 worth of pens a year? I know when I did research in the B1G, the CIC had almost nothing to do with us. We worked with professors from WVU (of all places). In fact, other than pooled purchasing, the CIC had nothing to do with us. Anyway, there's no rule that states that you have to be in the same conference to pool. Like every other school in America, Syracuse pools library with every school in our region, including schools like Cornell, and we have never been in the same conference as Cornell. IMO, the advantage to conference affiliation (and athletics) is marketing, and playing big-named schools will showcase your school on a bigger and better stage to more people. There are small schools that are better than Duke (not that Duke isn't an elite school), but who has heard of Williams? Everyone has heard of Duke. Why? ...because of their basketball team and ACC membership. That's the importance of athletics. That advantage is heightened when playing similar schools because it insures that the right audience is watching. A SU v. Stanford football game doesn't do either school a ton of good. The students watching Syracuse play aren't considering Stanford and visa versa. However, SU v. BC is a different story. Not only will prospective northeastern students watch that game, but SU and BC undergrads will watch that game, which bodes will for grad school recruitment of both schools IMO. BC matriculating SU grads into their grad school, SU matriculating BC grads into our grad schools, and NE kids tuning out the Rutgers v. Minnesota game, or the Maryland v. Iowa game to watch the BC v. SU game, because two prospective schools are playing instead of one is marketing GOLD. IMO, that's the importance of academic ranking, geography (from an academic perspective), and culture. IMO, that's what conference look for when they want to improve academics.
Also, I think geography matters because the student part of student athlete MUCH easier. That's the other reason why I would be surprised about Hawai'i.
Anyway, that's why I think that established brands with similar cultural academic fits are important.
You make a good point about Hawai'i, though.
RE: I'm bored - realignment idea - nzmorange - 07-03-2013 08:32 PM
IMO, geographic proximity is important from a financial perspective because it minimizes travel expenses, and, more importantly, it increases fan enthusiasm and attendance. Not only will visiting teams travel better (boosting attendance) if the game is close, but losing to a neighbor stinks and will drive people to cheer for their school better, give more money, and follow their program closely so they take full advantage of bragging rights.