UCLA and USC to join the Big Ten
- Thread starter MMC
- Start date
KingLB
Registered User
- Oct 29, 2008
- 9,035
- 1,160
I guess I shoulda said theoretically. What “big” schools are still left waiting to be scooped up?
No Fun Shogun
34-38-61-10-13-15
Yeah, a lot of people are claiming that the SEC are trying to pick up ACC schools, so loads of people are claiming sources when they likely have none.
Speaking of having no sources, my hunch is that the Big Ten eventually wants a southeastern expansion as well. Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia Tech are their likely raiding targets down there whenever they can wiggle out of the ACC's media deal, imho. I'd toss in Syracuse as well if we're talking about conference targets more broadly than regional targets.
Speaking of having no sources, my hunch is that the Big Ten eventually wants a southeastern expansion as well. Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia Tech are their likely raiding targets down there whenever they can wiggle out of the ACC's media deal, imho. I'd toss in Syracuse as well if we're talking about conference targets more broadly than regional targets.
KevFu
Registered User
Right, I didn't mean that (a) a guy running a swim site can't be knowledgeable or well connected (b) that the SEC or Big Ten or Big 12, or Pac-12 don't want any of the rumored candidates; It's just that it isn't really hard NEWS but the same rampant speculation that everyone makes off common sense and general knowledge of the arena.
NFS, you're totally right on the Big Ten and Southeast. When the Big Ten added Maryland, there was internal debate about going to 16 with Virginia and North Carolina at the same time.
Like I said, there's basically the Big Ten and SEC as Coke & Pepsi now. Virginia and North Carolina are battleground states, as neither have a team there. So they'll race to get the "best one" in each state, like Pepsi and Coke buying Aquafina and Gatorade and Dasani and Powerade.
NFS, you're totally right on the Big Ten and Southeast. When the Big Ten added Maryland, there was internal debate about going to 16 with Virginia and North Carolina at the same time.
Like I said, there's basically the Big Ten and SEC as Coke & Pepsi now. Virginia and North Carolina are battleground states, as neither have a team there. So they'll race to get the "best one" in each state, like Pepsi and Coke buying Aquafina and Gatorade and Dasani and Powerade.
IU Hawks fan
They call me IU
KevFu
Registered User
It's less about inventory and more about the legal ramifications. You can only purge a member for cause, not because they just suck at sports or don't bring a good TV market.
When Conference USA was formed, it was the Metro and the Great Midwest that merged but left one member behind (Dayton, who was in their only real stretch in program history of being bad). Dayton sued the former members of the Great Midwest. They reached a settlement, but Dayton had them dead to rights with emails (public record from the public schools via FOIA).
That was in 1995, when TV rights were tiny and half the parties were private schools, not subject to FOIA requests. And they technically did it "the right way" where they left an old conference for a "new conference."
There's no way to kick out a member without getting sued and losing, because the second you bring the subject up via email with anyone else in the conference, there's proof of conspiracy.
I have way too much useless conference realignment stuff in my brain. The details of if Dasani or Powerade existed as separate companies first is not worthy of displacing it.
I trust you got my point though? That Powerade exists as a Coke entity to compete in the same market with Gatorade, which Pepsi owns. And likewise, Virginia and Virginia Tech, North Carolina and NC State (or Duke) will find themselves being courted by the SEC and Big Ten.
KingLB
Registered User
- Oct 29, 2008
- 9,035
- 1,160
You might not be able to kick them out. But could you form a “new” conference? Especially if you eventually get down to 2 nationwide conferences?
KevFu
Registered User
You totally CAN form a new conference and leave members behind. BUT the caveat to that is, you need to have both enough continuous members that have been together that you can start as a new conference in year one, AND leave enough behind that they maintain their status as an active conference. Or else you're getting sued.
Examples:
The Mountain West formed because the WAC expanded from 10 teams to 16. Some of the old members didn't like not playing each other every year and held the infamous Airport meeting, where five presidents flew in and over a day of meetings and phone calls, got 3 more to leave the WAC. Then sent out a series of faxes withdrawing from the WAC and announcing the Mountain West to the world and then flew home. If you thought the Texas/Oklahoma or USC/UCLA news was a blindside, imagine getting a fax that eight teams just left your conference. It was like a Grisham novel.
The WAC had 8 members left and was an existing conference so they maintained their status as an NCAA conference. The new MWC had 7 members who'd been together for five years together; which meets the requirement of a conference. So they had one year without getting an auto bid to NCAA Tournaments (The reason for the one-year wait was because the NCAA didn't know what to do with the Tourney format, give one less at-large or expand it. They expanded it to 65).
The Big East WAS going to split along football lines 10 years earlier, but the "Catholic Five" would lose their status. So they added Marquette and DePaul with the football schools. When the "Catholic Seven" decided it was time 10 years later. No problem. American and Big East both had autobids.
KevFu
Registered User
Realistically, there's only one conference remaining who could remotely consider this.
The Atlantic 10. The league now has 15 members and the bottom half of the league has dragged them down the last few years. They used to get 3-5 NCAA bids, now they get 2-3 bids.
But they probably still won't do it. Because they don't actually have a "Top half and bottom half."
They have 2 at the top, 3 at the bottom and then TEN TEAMS in the middle who've had like 4 NCAA bids in 20 years each, and can bounce between 26-8 and 9-22 seasons.
And the best market teams (Fordham, La Salle, Duquesne) are generally the worst teams, and the smallest market teams (St. Bonaventure, Davidson, Rhode Island) have been the best of the second tier.
The A-10 can't have an airport meeting where the "Top half" split, because the first two guys to talk about it probably wouldn't agree on whom to invite to the airport, let alone whom to invite after that.
The Atlantic 10. The league now has 15 members and the bottom half of the league has dragged them down the last few years. They used to get 3-5 NCAA bids, now they get 2-3 bids.
But they probably still won't do it. Because they don't actually have a "Top half and bottom half."
They have 2 at the top, 3 at the bottom and then TEN TEAMS in the middle who've had like 4 NCAA bids in 20 years each, and can bounce between 26-8 and 9-22 seasons.
And the best market teams (Fordham, La Salle, Duquesne) are generally the worst teams, and the smallest market teams (St. Bonaventure, Davidson, Rhode Island) have been the best of the second tier.
The A-10 can't have an airport meeting where the "Top half" split, because the first two guys to talk about it probably wouldn't agree on whom to invite to the airport, let alone whom to invite after that.
The other risk with Virginia is Va. Tech. IIRC< the state legislature essentially forced UVa to negotiate that Va Tech had to be part of any ACC expansion they would approve. Have to imagine that situation hasn't changed.
No Fun Shogun
34-38-61-10-13-15
Network expansion. Virginia is a growing and wealthy market. BTN is all about that.
IU Hawks fan
They call me IU
Dear Andy: Which ACC schools do Big Ten/SEC covet? And who's to blame for grant of rights?
Don't expect college football to use the concepts of promotion and relegation, or underperformers like Illinois and Vandy to be uninvited.
I'll stand by my $$$'s If a school can't bring in Current deal / X (Current members) in dollars then they are a drain on the contract.. For example Would Modern Vanderbilt or Illinois get invited? I would bet not.. However they are effectively grandfathered in..
But yeah I could be wrong.. but monies seem to be the driving force in all this so... I expect monies will still be the reason to do/no do a thing.
But yeah I could be wrong.. but monies seem to be the driving force in all this so... I expect monies will still be the reason to do/no do a thing.
KevFu
Registered User
Vandy, no because Tennessee brings more people from the state.
Illinois, yes, because they're the flagship school of a big state. Virginia yes, for the same reason. As a general rule of thumb, that's what's important.
(Obviously, like UMass and Buffalo aren't big deals; although I think Buffalo is a school that really should be considered more by these conferences, like the American).
Conference realignment is a two-way street. It's not JUST what a school brings to a conference; the conference brand brings a lot to the school. It's "What will this school be IN OUR CONFERENCE" that people are looking at.
Illinois, yes, because they're the flagship school of a big state. Virginia yes, for the same reason. As a general rule of thumb, that's what's important.
(Obviously, like UMass and Buffalo aren't big deals; although I think Buffalo is a school that really should be considered more by these conferences, like the American).
Conference realignment is a two-way street. It's not JUST what a school brings to a conference; the conference brand brings a lot to the school. It's "What will this school be IN OUR CONFERENCE" that people are looking at.
KevFu
Registered User
Kind of yes. The state legislature definitely told Virginia that they were only allowed to vote for ACC expansion plans that included Virginia Tech, as a way to protect Va Tech from being left behind.
However, this is a slightly different animal, because Virginia can't control whom is invited by the Big Ten or SEC; while they COULD control (somewhat) whom the ACC invited.
You also need to consider that at the time, Va Tech football was just totally better than Boston College and Syracuse football, by a long shot. (And Boston College was eager to join the ACC because they knew that if the ACC didn't expand, the next time the ACC looked to expand north, it would be UCONN and not BC; BC is basically Northwestern/Vandy/Wake status. But they had FBS football and UConn didn't and the ACC wanted a big market up north).
It's also different because Va Tech being "left behind" is in the ACC, which has 15 teams right now and is going to be a top 5 conference no matter what, because if they lose members they're still going to be better than the old Big East ever was and can raid the Big 12 and/or American. They might have to trade UNC and UVA for Kansas and TCU, but they'll be fine.
And of course, legislatures change. The Texas legislature wouldn't let Texas and Texas A&M join the Big 8 without Baylor; because the governor and 3/4 of the board of regents were Baylor grads. But when Texas left for the SEC, there were more UT alums in those positions so no one did anything...
(Except a hilarious hearing where they had the UT President and AD testify, and the alums of other schools just lambasted them with snide questions. I was in Austin watching on local news and it was amazing. The questions were like "How much money do you spend on athletics? Is that the most of any school? Oh, it's up there? And you're still 2-6 against TCU in the last eight years?")
KevFu
Registered User
Also hilarious...
When UVA told the ACC about the Virginia legislature's requirement that they only vote for expansion that includes Va Tech... VT replaced Syracuse in the ACC's plans, because Syracuse was apprehensive about the move (since they identify more with basketball and were the lynchpin between the Big East basketball and football schools).
But the NC State chancellor was on vacation when they swapped in VT for SU. She had only done research on Miami, BC and Syracuse as a group, and not done due diligence on VT, so she abstained from voting.
Miami and VT still had enough votes... but BC fell one shy. Which meant they were still on the Big East; and thus part of the lawsuit that the Big East and it's members filed against the ACC, Miami and Boston College!
When UVA told the ACC about the Virginia legislature's requirement that they only vote for expansion that includes Va Tech... VT replaced Syracuse in the ACC's plans, because Syracuse was apprehensive about the move (since they identify more with basketball and were the lynchpin between the Big East basketball and football schools).
But the NC State chancellor was on vacation when they swapped in VT for SU. She had only done research on Miami, BC and Syracuse as a group, and not done due diligence on VT, so she abstained from voting.
Miami and VT still had enough votes... but BC fell one shy. Which meant they were still on the Big East; and thus part of the lawsuit that the Big East and it's members filed against the ACC, Miami and Boston College!
PCSPounder
Stadium Groupie
Jon Wilner is tweeting a hint that the University of California Board Of Regents is going into session regarding a lawsuit. Not sure if they’re bringing one or facing one. It is definitely in regards to UCLA’s Big Ten move.
I’ve seen suggested elsewhere that this had come up before the BOR, so Cal-Berkeley knew about this and did nothing. One possibility: maybe it did NOT come up and should have. Or maybe Cal wasn’t buying it. Now there could be an issue.
I’ve seen suggested elsewhere that this had come up before the BOR, so Cal-Berkeley knew about this and did nothing. One possibility: maybe it did NOT come up and should have. Or maybe Cal wasn’t buying it. Now there could be an issue.
KevFu
Registered User
I saw someone post an article which stated that in California, the athletics department decisions aren't up to the BOR (because the system is far too big to deal with it. Nothing about UC San Diego moving up to Division I mentioned the BOR at all).
It isn't like Alabama, where the Alabama BOR cut UAB's football program because Bear Bryant's son held a grudge.
I believe every major conference likes to have at least one private school in it because it protects them from freedom of information requests. If you've noticed of the big conferences pretty much every single one since 2000 has had a private school in it. Vandy (SEC), Northwestern (Big 10), Stanford (Pac-12), Miami/Duke/Syracuse/Boston College (ACC), and Baylor/TCU (Big 12).
UNC and one of the two Virginia schools definitely are in play for this major realignment as they bring large potential TV regions to the table.
KevFu
Registered User
Eh, it's not really that deep of a reason for those schools to be in those conferences.
Northwestern is a founding member of the Western Conference (which changed its name to the Big Ten when they added a 10th school).
Vandy is a founding member of the SEC
Duke is a founding member of the ACC
Stanford joined the Pacific Coast Conference (which disbanded and reformed as the Pac-8, 10, 12 later; but the Pac-12 claims the history).
Baylor joined the Big 12 when the Southwest Conference broke up (and they only got in because the Texas board of regents and the governors office was full of Baylor grads who told Texas and A&M they couldn't join the Big 12 without Baylor!). The SWC had Baylor, TCU, SMU and Rice in it; all private schools; The Big 8 did not have a private school and wouldn't have had Baylor without Anne Richards intervention.
But the point is, the B10 (1905), SWC (1914), SEC (1923), Pac-12 (1915) and ACC (1953) all predate the Freedom of Information Act by at least a decade (1966).
That's a big reason though for keeping those struggling football programs around even if they don't bring in ideal markets (outside of Stanford, Northwestern, and BC). I'd be surprised to see schools like Vandy and Northwestern forced out to make way for a new super conference. I guess SEC could replace Vandy with Miami.
Different era of course but one of the rumors in the early 90s when the SEC was expanding from 10 to 12, was that Miami didn't want SEC because they didn't think they fit the conference as a private school.
FSU would have been the best choice but UF didn't really want another FL school and FSU thought the SEC would treat them like UF's little brother. But of all the schools in the 'southeast' (not that region matters anymore) FSU always was the most non-SEC, SEC type program/school/culture, to me.
Yeah, different era. I think any school that can find its way into the SEC or B1G that isn't named Notre Dame will rush to take it as long as they aren't hit with massive financial penalties in the process.
FSU is pretty much right in SEC territory, and the part of Florida that you'd consider the old South.
KevFu
Registered User
I mean, it's definitely to their benefit, but it's not something that ever happened on purpose. No one gets kicked out of conferences unless they do something like "Drop their football / basketball program."
The closest is when the conference "encourages" a school to find new membership, like Chicago State; or Charlotte and Saint Louis when C-USA turned from a hybrid league with Marquette/DePaul to a football league with SMU, Marshall, UCF, etc.
Ad
Upcoming events
-
GAME 5 - Cape Breton Eagles @ Baie-Comeau Drakkar - Baie-Comeau Drakkar leads series 3-1Wagers: 3Staked: $225.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Game 3 Rochester Americans @ Syracuse Crunch - Series tied 1-1Wagers: 5Staked: $1,285.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
-
Series Winner Boston Bruins vs Toronto Maple LeafsWagers: 5Staked: $11,677.00Event closes- Updated: