Division 1 College Conference Realignment

[scooter13]

Not sure we would get the two BEST teams with a playoff system

Yes we would. It's simple - if you keep beating everyone in your way and make it to the title game, you are one of the top two teams in the country that year.

With a "one-and-done" system, I am never convinced we get the best two teams in championships. Two teams could play each other ten times with one team winning nine of them. But that odd tenth time gets rolled on the real game day, and you have an upset. However, we are both agreed on a playoff system. If the best two teams can't beat other teams, that's just the way it is. They had their chance to prove it. Rather see two teams that weren't supposed to be there prove they belong. And like McCall said, no matter who the best two teams are, deciding the championship with games is far, far better than a damn computer.

[ESTONES6]

Just to stir the pot. I was thinking about the Penn State scandal and how it could potentially impact the Big Ten. If the NCAA revokes Penn State's right to have a BCS Football program, could the Big Ten look at Pitt for membership? I understand Pitt is ACC-bound, however, I would think that Pitt would rather be a part of the Big Ten as opposed to the ACC... for all the reasons that have been beaten to death throughout other expansion talks (football, basketball, tradition, money, academics).

[McCall]

Just to stir the pot. I was thinking about the Penn State scandal and how it could potentially impact the Big Ten. If the NCAA revokes Penn State's right to have a BCS Football program, could the Big Ten look at Pitt for membership? I understand Pitt is ACC-bound, however, I would think that Pitt would rather be a part of the Big Ten as opposed to the ACC... for all the reasons that have been beaten to death throughout other expansion talks (football, basketball, tradition, money, academics).

I don't believe the NCAA has authority over BCS status. The BCS is a seperate organization and only they can determine that. They can ban them from postseason play, but that's it in regards to the BCS.

My thing with Penn State and possible sanctions is, everything that went on was completely horrible, and those in the positions of authority should be properly dealt with. But unlike all the recruiting violations and agent related violations, this had absolutely NOTHING to do with the players. In recruiting scenarios, it involves a coach violating the recruitment of a player. Ohio State's scandal involved players. These players had no knowledge of what had happened before. They didn't play under Sandusky and have no bearing on what happened. I don't think it would be entirely fair to punish them. Force the school to replace all the coaches and administrators. But why punish the players?

[Burmy]

Just to stir the pot. I was thinking about the Penn State scandal and how it could potentially impact the Big Ten. If the NCAA revokes Penn State's right to have a BCS Football program, could the Big Ten look at Pitt for membership? I understand Pitt is ACC-bound, however, I would think that Pitt would rather be a part of the Big Ten as opposed to the ACC... for all the reasons that have been beaten to death throughout other expansion talks (football, basketball, tradition, money, academics).

I don't believe the NCAA has authority over BCS status. The BCS is a seperate organization and only they can determine that. They can ban them from postseason play, but that's it in regards to the BCS.

My thing with Penn State and possible sanctions is, everything that went on was completely horrible, and those in the positions of authority should be properly dealt with. But unlike all the recruiting violations and agent related violations, this had absolutely NOTHING to do with the players. In recruiting scenarios, it involves a coach violating the recruitment of a player. Ohio State's scandal involved players. These players had no knowledge of what had happened before. They didn't play under Sandusky and have no bearing on what happened. I don't think it would be entirely fair to punish them. Force the school to replace all the coaches and administrators. But why punish the players?

Well, I'd imagine the players would NOT want to be associated with that school anymore...the NCAA should at least allow them to transfer without losing any eligibility.

[McCall]

Just to stir the pot. I was thinking about the Penn State scandal and how it could potentially impact the Big Ten. If the NCAA revokes Penn State's right to have a BCS Football program, could the Big Ten look at Pitt for membership? I understand Pitt is ACC-bound, however, I would think that Pitt would rather be a part of the Big Ten as opposed to the ACC... for all the reasons that have been beaten to death throughout other expansion talks (football, basketball, tradition, money, academics).

I don't believe the NCAA has authority over BCS status. The BCS is a seperate organization and only they can determine that. They can ban them from postseason play, but that's it in regards to the BCS.

My thing with Penn State and possible sanctions is, everything that went on was completely horrible, and those in the positions of authority should be properly dealt with. But unlike all the recruiting violations and agent related violations, this had absolutely NOTHING to do with the players. In recruiting scenarios, it involves a coach violating the recruitment of a player. Ohio State's scandal involved players. These players had no knowledge of what had happened before. They didn't play under Sandusky and have no bearing on what happened. I don't think it would be entirely fair to punish them. Force the school to replace all the coaches and administrators. But why punish the players?

Well, I'd imagine the players would NOT want to be associated with that school anymore...the NCAA should at least allow them to transfer without losing any eligibility.

They probably would. I believe Baylor basketball players were allowed to.

[rams80]

Just to stir the pot. I was thinking about the Penn State scandal and how it could potentially impact the Big Ten. If the NCAA revokes Penn State's right to have a BCS Football program, could the Big Ten look at Pitt for membership? I understand Pitt is ACC-bound, however, I would think that Pitt would rather be a part of the Big Ten as opposed to the ACC... for all the reasons that have been beaten to death throughout other expansion talks (football, basketball, tradition, money, academics).

You're more likely to see the AQ schools tell the NCAA to piss up a rope and break away. Which I think would be a likely endgame to any attempt to administer the death penalty to Penn State over this.

[ESTONES6]

Yeah but no one really knows where the NCAA's boundaries are. I understand with the "alleged" murder at Baylor, they didn't touch the program. But for some reason, this just seems to be on a different level. With all the allegations and the depth at which this reaches (Head Coach, Athletic Director, President, University Police, District Attorney, even reaching into the City Police and FED).

This day and age in big time college football is not like it was in the 60's and 70's. The history, tradition, and prestige of Michigan, or USC, or Ohio State, or Penn State doesn't mean as much (if anything) compared to who is coaching the football team. High Schools stars are choosing college based off the head coach, not because a school is loaded with tradition.

[DarkJourney]

Now there are rumors that the Big East might pursue San Diego State. I know geography doesn't mean jack anymore but come on!

[McCall]

Tokyo Tech to the Big East! Woot! Woot!

[Jigga]

I'm going to really laugh at the Big East when the BCS only runs the championship game and there are no longer automatic qualifiers.

[Lights Out]

They're still going to have more money and more TV exposure than any mid-major conference, which still makes them a better option for Boise, Houston, SMU, etc. even in that scenario.

[RyanMcD29]

Nothing says Big East like the southwestern-most city in the United States being represented in the conference!

Thank goodness we're getting out of that clown car...

[McCall]

They're still going to have more money and more TV exposure than any mid-major conference, which still makes them a better option for Boise, Houston, SMU, etc. even in that scenario.

And nothing says last ditch desperation like a conference based in Providence, RI adding a member in San Diego, CA.

[FiddySicks]

Add that to the fact that it's freaking San Diego State, who's known more for drunken idiots and drug raids than they are for success on the field or in the classroom, and you've got the most pathetic attempt at saving a conference you could imagine.

[Telemundo219]

Tokyo Tech to the Big East! Woot! Woot!

I'm going to really laugh at the Big East when the BCS only runs the championship game and there are no longer automatic qualifiers.

Nothing says Big East like the southwestern-most city in the United States being represented in the conference!

Thank goodness we're getting out of that clown car...

They're still going to have more money and more TV exposure than any mid-major conference, which still makes them a better option for Boise, Houston, SMU, etc. even in that scenario.

And nothing says last ditch desperation like a conference based in Providence, RI adding a member in San Diego, CA.

Add that to the fact that it's freaking San Diego State, who's known more for drunken idiots and drug raids than they are for success on the field or in the classroom, and you've got the most pathetic attempt at saving a conference you could imagine.

What's up with the double standard? I mean, a couple weeks ago, people on this site and everywhere else were applauding or supporting the BIG 10, PAC12, SEC raiding conferences of teams (which in my opinion is all about $$$) even the ACC (are Pittsburgh or Syracuse really on the Atlantic? Come on!). But now, that the Big East is picking up/trying to pick up SMU, Houston, etc. (which I don't even support), it doesn't make sense? The Big 10 is the Big 10 with 12 teams, and no one thinks they should change their name.

Pretty much if we're gonna criticize the Big East for merely trying to survive in this dog-eat-dog business that is the NCAA, shouldn't we have the same judgment towards the "BIG" conferences as well? And please don't talk about oh because these are the "BIG" conferences they deserve or can get a pass. Ultimately this is all about money and pretty much we're letting financial greed destroy not only college sports tradition but also geographical common sense that actually is not looking out for the best interests of these student athletes who will end having to travel hundreds, now even thousands of miles to just play a conference foe.

If only the conference musical chairs could cease.

[RyanMcD29]

Here's my position on the Big East in a couple of points

1. The Big East had the opportunity to be proactive, but sat on their hands when everything was blowing up.

2. It's not so much the Big East going after mid-majors as much as the Big East going after schools on the West Coast. If they got Temple back in or got Villanova to move up or added the service academies, that would be fine. It fits the geographic footprint. Adding San Diego freakin' State, however does not.

2A. Syracuse and Pitt do so fit the ACC. Last time I checked UVA and VT are pretty far inland. I also don't think of Atlanta being an "Atlantic" city. The way I see it, the new ACC will kinda be like the Big East of old combined with the original ACC with Cuse, Pitt, BC, Miami, and VT all on board. Should we get to the 16-team conference endgame (I hope not), then adding Rutgers and UConn basically gives you the entire Big East circa 2002 plus one.

3. The Big East cared too much about the 8 schools that played basketball and not the 8 that also have football. That drove a lot of the poor decision making that the conference made.

Look, I love Big East hoops as much as any other person in the northeast. The problem is that the Big East didn't adapt to the changes that were occurring, and now they're left to scramble by adding schools that are absolutely nowhere near where the base of the conference is. At least in the Pac 12's case, Colorado and Utah have borders with Arizona, who's got 2 schools in the conference. In the Big 10's case they just added one school and doesn't throw off things too much. Even with Pittsburgh and Syracuse, they help compliment BC in the northeast like the old Big East. The Big East's plan? Not even close to the radar. They're literally going in a diagonal line from the east coast at Providence, RI to the west coast at San Diego, CA. By no means does that sound reasonable in terms of having a collegiate athletic conference (yes I know the whole Louisiana Tech situation in the WAC, but save for Hawaii in the conference even that's not as ridiculous as the Big East is proposing).

Though I'm with you, I'm waiting for all the movement to stop and things to begin to settle in the college sports landscape.

[Lights Out]

The handwringing over the Big East picking up these non-AQ's just cracks me up. Firstly, after years and years of the SOS argument and cries of "join a REAL conference", it's very telling that many big conference fans are now complaining because those schools are going AQ. What, did they expect those schools to not jump at the chance to put that lame argument to rest?

Second of all, even the Big East comes with a lot more money and access than a non-AQ conference. You don't have to be absolutely perfect and still hope for other teams to drop games they shouldn't just to make the Fiesta or Sugar. You don't have to slum it on CBS College Sports, the MTN, West Bumblecrap Cable Access, and other boondock channels nobody gets. You can finally think about upgrading your small stadiums and less-than-stellar facilities. Moving to the Big East provides a real growth opportunity to these mid-majors, and crapping on that in the name of tradition is so myopic.

[dfwabel]

The handwringing over the Big East picking up these non-AQ's just cracks me up. Firstly, after years and years of the SOS argument and cries of "join a REAL conference", it's very telling that many big conference fans are now complaining because those schools are going AQ. What, did they expect those schools to not jump at the chance to put that lame argument to rest?

Second of all, even the Big East comes with a lot more money and access than a non-AQ conference. You don't have to be absolutely perfect and still hope for other teams to drop games they shouldn't just to make the Fiesta or Sugar. You don't have to slum it on CBS College Sports, the MTN, West Bumblecrap Cable Access, and other boondock channels nobody gets. You can finally think about upgrading your small stadiums and less-than-stellar facilities. Moving to the Big East provides a real growth opportunity to these mid-majors, and crapping on that in the name of tradition is so myopic.

What happens if NBC Sports Channel (Versus) wins the open bidding for the TV contract? Sure, the money will be nice, but nobody will watch you.

[Thad]

Is ECU that bad of an add that the Big East would pick San Diego State over them? Why not Villanova, Temple, or heck even UMass since they are moving up to FBS?

It just seems like the Big East is going down bowl lists from year's past in Phil Steele's pre-season magazine without even thinking about who they are really asking.

[BBTV]

Villanova initially rebuffed them for football, and the league has since refused to extend another offer. However, 'Nova still has a great deal of power in the conference and has blocked Temple at every opportunity, both in a football-only and all-sports capacity. Despite their claims to the contrary, it's almost similar to how they essentially broke up the Philadelphia Big 5 back in the day, which has lead to decades of resentment and hatred from fans of the other Philadelphia Big 5 (St. Joes, Temple, LaSalle, and Penn (and, even to an extent Drexel)) schools.