ESTONES6

Demonized (Please don't use it...ever. We beg of you. ) THANKS A TON! Why should I not use it, hidden joke or something lol what everyone else says. Use it. Overuse it.

I didn't realize the disparity was so large between the Big East and the B10/SEC. I mean, its staggering.

Not gonna happen. WVU's already got two out-of-conference rivalries to maintain (Maryland, which is actually a good competitive rivalry, and Marshall, which is pretty much mandated by the governor of West Virginia). TAMU probably won't play UT if they know the game will be broadcast on the Failhorn Network. And KU-Mizzou probably won't happen with the way Mizzou departed the Big XII. Mizzou wants to keep playing. It's Kansas who's being the whiny crybabies. But is Kansas really being crybabies? They are defending themselves and their conference, in a sense. Mizzou left for a money grab instead of honoring long traditions, so why should Kansas be expected to do the same? No they made a decision based on what was best for the school, stability in the top rated conference over instability in a sinking conference. It's kind of a no-brainer. They're priority is what's best for Missouri, not another school. The rivalry had a chance to continue non-conference. Mizzou wanted to keep it going, KU declined. Fine, but to come out and say Mizzou is abandoning them and that the rivalry should've superseded any reasoning for leaving is just ridiculous. They were upset because they weren't being sought after by other conferences like Mizzou and other schools were. You have no clue why Kansas is terminating the rivalry. To say you do know why is asinine. The Big XII could have remained stable with 10 teams, including aTm and Mizzou, however, neither school wanted to pledge their loyalty to the conference. Sure there is a bunch of BS behind the scenes with Texas and Oklahoma, but bottom line is, Mizzou left the conference for safer waters. They left Kansas. They shouldn't expect Kansas to hold on to the rivalry. In a way, Mizzou, Colorado, Nebraska, and Texas A&M leaving is a slap in the face to the remaining schools that don't have options. If those 4 schools didn't want to stand by the conference for stability and loyalty, then why should Kansas stay loyal to those rivalries? This is laughable. There is no way the Big 12 is anywhere near as stable as you've made it out to be. Oklahoma and Oklahoma State are more than likely off to the Pac-12 as soon as they get the chance, and Texas Tech is hoping they're included somehow. Texas has pretty much alienated every team in the conference. Even if OU were to stay, them and Texas are now going through a power struggle, so one would eventually get pissed and leave anyway. Mizzou did what was best for them. Kansas is bitter. Yes, I've seen some of their comments. It's pretty well known. If Kansas had the same opportunity, I guarantee you they would jump as well. Before laughing, read what's written. The Big XII could have been stable as a 10 team conference had aTm and Mizzou stayed. They would have eventually brought in someone like a Texas Christian and West Virginia, and they would have been fine. TCU isn't the caliber of Nebraska, but WV is better than Colorado. You are exactly right. Mizzou did what was best for them, so you can't expect Kansas to behave for the betterment of Mizzou. If Mizzou is going to get theirs, then I have no problem with Kansas getting theirs... or ANY team for that matter.

Not gonna happen. WVU's already got two out-of-conference rivalries to maintain (Maryland, which is actually a good competitive rivalry, and Marshall, which is pretty much mandated by the governor of West Virginia). TAMU probably won't play UT if they know the game will be broadcast on the Failhorn Network. And KU-Mizzou probably won't happen with the way Mizzou departed the Big XII. Mizzou wants to keep playing. It's Kansas who's being the whiny crybabies. But is Kansas really being crybabies? They are defending themselves and their conference, in a sense. Mizzou left for a money grab instead of honoring long traditions, so why should Kansas be expected to do the same? No they made a decision based on what was best for the school, stability in the top rated conference over instability in a sinking conference. It's kind of a no-brainer. They're priority is what's best for Missouri, not another school. The rivalry had a chance to continue non-conference. Mizzou wanted to keep it going, KU declined. Fine, but to come out and say Mizzou is abandoning them and that the rivalry should've superseded any reasoning for leaving is just ridiculous. They were upset because they weren't being sought after by other conferences like Mizzou and other schools were. You have no clue why Kansas is terminating the rivalry. To say you do know why is asinine. The Big XII could have remained stable with 10 teams, including aTm and Mizzou, however, neither school wanted to pledge their loyalty to the conference. Sure there is a bunch of BS behind the scenes with Texas and Oklahoma, but bottom line is, Mizzou left the conference for safer waters. They left Kansas. They shouldn't expect Kansas to hold on to the rivalry. In a way, Mizzou, Colorado, Nebraska, and Texas A&M leaving is a slap in the face to the remaining schools that don't have options. If those 4 schools didn't want to stand by the conference for stability and loyalty, then why should Kansas stay loyal to those rivalries?

Not gonna happen. WVU's already got two out-of-conference rivalries to maintain (Maryland, which is actually a good competitive rivalry, and Marshall, which is pretty much mandated by the governor of West Virginia). TAMU probably won't play UT if they know the game will be broadcast on the Failhorn Network. And KU-Mizzou probably won't happen with the way Mizzou departed the Big XII. Mizzou wants to keep playing. It's Kansas who's being the whiny crybabies. But is Kansas really being crybabies? They are defending themselves and their conference, in a sense. Mizzou left for a money grab instead of honoring long traditions, so why should Kansas be expected to do the same?

I didn't mean to come across as snotty... but I know there are some fonts that are very close to existing marks that teams have. I was just hoping to find something close.

There's a font called Werkman that's not similar but maybe 25% close to it. Any other guesses? I'm looking for something a little more similar. The "SAN DIEGO" wordmark is based on the font Industria, but the letterforms are extremely modified. Thanks... but that doesn't really help. I'm looking for the actual font or something damn close. Not just something that kinda, sorta looks similar with heavy modification.

There's a font called Werkman that's not similar but maybe 25% close to it. Any other guesses? I'm looking for something a little more similar.

Check, check. Check one two.

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.

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).

Anything close to this:

Big America Conference it is then. Great American Conference? Pros : Gac... that's a good name, Gac! (obligatory Seinfeld reference) Cons : Lawsuit from the WWE/WWF/WCW for Great American Bash

Same reason Canada has universal health care and we do not.

I could see the Big Ten being interested in Kansas State if they are looking for a 16th team, assuming Maryland, Rutgers, and Notre Dame have all agreed and Texas or Oklahoma are off the table.

Notre Dame is only going to be looking for a home for its non-football sports. Remember: they had ample opportunity to join the B1G but declined, even though every B1G school makes more money from the Big Ten Network than ND does from their NBC deal plus their Big East contract. Also it's worth noting the B1G is the one conference that still pretends like academics mean something, which narrows the list of possible expansion candidates to AAU Member Institutions (or at the very least schools with reputable academics). That eliminates about half of the Big XII right off the bat, and limits the ACC to Maryland and Georgia Tech. (Virginia is joined at the hip with Va Tech, UNC and Duke are joined at the hip with Wake Forest and NC State.) If there are 4 or 5 conference of 16 teams, Notre Dame will join the Big Ten. As for the AAU schools, there still is Maryland and Rutgers, which the Big Ten has made it fairly clear that they are interested in. The only stipulation with Notre Dame is that they want to be the final member in the conference. They don't want to be an odd numbered team, nor do they want to be just another team in the realignment. If the PAC, SEC, ACC/East are all at 16 and the Big Ten is sitting at 15, Notre Dame will join.

Well the ACC has already expanded to 14, just waiting on to find out when Pitt and Cuse can come over. My guess whatever the WVU-Big East settlement is will guide for those two. Well, Pitt and Syracuse could be any time from next year to 2014. No one really knows. Missouri seems to be starting play in 2012. Although the ACC is considered one of the 4 and 1/2 remaining major conferences, when it comes to football, the ACC is solid, but I wouldn't consider them a power house. I felt like the big impact was going to come from either the Big Ten or the SEC pushing to 14 teams. I could even see the PAC 12 moving to 14, however I don't think it would be as big of a splash because the schools that they are likely to add are significantly smaller (Utah) or have been fairly irrelevant in college football for a long time (Colorado). The big ripple would be from the Big Ten and SEC because they were likely to pick up teams along the lines of Notre Dame, Missouri, West Virginia, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, Texas, Oklahoma, etc. etc. etc.

Well, I think they would have looked nice with a B1G logo on the jersey, but their style of play definitely fits the SEC. The next 2 weeks should be interesting. The first major conference with 14 teams. I expect this to send a bigger ripple through the NCAA ranks. There is money to be had, had it will be.

Idaho Board of Education gives Boise State the OK to join the Big East. http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7186814/idaho-state-board-education-gives-boise-st-ok-join-big-east

No it doesn't. If it had stability, why would they go and raise the exit fee to $20m? Obviously the folks in ACC-ville are paranoid of the B1G raiding Maryland (though I have no idea why they'd go after a basketball school with an Athletic Department that's flat broke) and the SEC raiding Clemson and/or Florida State. Compared to the Big East though it's the rock of Gibraltar. Yes there is a chance certain schools might bolt if specific conferences came calling, but all of the ACC's membership isn't actively looking for an escape. You can't say that about the Big East. Just because the ACC is more stable than the Big East doesn't mean the ACC is actually stable. That's like comparing Danny DeVito to a garden gnome. Stability is a 12 year, all-inclusive contract with ESPN through 2024 worth at least $3B. The Big East is in their last year of a contract which possesses one-third the ACC's annual value and the non-AQ conferences have TV contracts which are at less than one-tenth the ACC's value per year. Plus, if the SEC still has the "gentlemen's agreement" not to add a second school from a member state, there are somewhat limited choices. FSU, Miami, GT, Clemson, and any Texas school are out. Viable options from the football side would just leave Maryland, VT, NC State and possible UNC (who is looking at probation in the face). One of the Virginia schools + NC State seem the most likely if the SEC were to go to 16, assuming Texas and Oklahoma are taken off the table. That being said, the stability of the Big XII is connected to the stability of the Oklahoma/Texas relationship. If Texas decides to go Independent or Oklahoma decides to join the SEC, the Big XII won't be around for long. I don't think they can hang their hat on a Conference either solely located within Texas, nor can they survive with ONLY Texas, Texas Christian, and Oklahoma State. One could argue that the Big East is more "stable" that the Big XII based on looking at the situation from a unique perspective. If you look at the Big East, its still considered a major conference... for how long, no one knows. But, the Big East does have the appeal of lower school like East Carolina or Memphis to jump up a rank. The Big East could survive by inviting lesser schools, but the Big East may not be a major conference anymore. The Big XII, on the other hand, has pretty much tied itself to Texas and Oklahoma. If Oklahoma bounces, I don't see Texas just sitting around by itself. Similarly, if Texas were to leave for the B1G or go independent, I don't see Oklahoma (and by default, Oklahoma State) sticking around in the Big XII. I think if you take away Oklahoma or Texas, the conference basically collapses in on itself. The Big XII seems like it would have a harder time inviting school like UTEP and Tulane than the Big East would have inviting Memphis and East Carolina.

Right. Could they get raided? Sure. But they already have a larger number of schools in the conference and probably will only gain more over the next 12-15 months. A few schools here and there could be picked up by the B1G and SEC, but I think that would be if you see conference expansion greater than 16 teams. I don't see it going much passed 16 teams, so I would say they are pretty stable.

No it doesn't. If it had stability, why would they go and raise the exit fee to $20m? Obviously the folks in ACC-ville are paranoid of the B1G raiding Maryland (though I have no idea why they'd go after a basketball school with an Athletic Department that's flat broke) and the SEC raiding Clemson and/or Florida State. Maryland = Baltimore + Washington DC I would say the ACC is stable. I'm not sure how you can say its NOT stable. I think increasing the buyout fee increases the stability of the conference. If it only cost a few mill to hop ship, more schools probably would. Looking at it from a football stand point, they have Clemson, NC State, Virginia, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Miami, and Virginia Tech. Within the next 3 years, Pitt will also be a member. When it comes to basketball (which can't be ignored since it is a revenue-generating sports), they have Duke, North Carolina, Florida State, Miami, Maryland, and Wake Forest. Within the next 3 years, Pitt and Syracuse will also be members. I wouldn't put them on the same plane as the B1G or SEC when it comes to stability, but they are far from NOT being stable. Yes, there is potential of the B1G and SEC plucking a few more members (Maryland to the B1G, 2 of the following: Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Miami, Virginia, Virginia Tech to the SEC). Again, they may not be sitting on bedrock, but they are damn close.

I don't see Boise State declining and invite to the Big East... at least based on athletic reasons. They may decline because of travel expenses since they are so far west. For Boise, it looks like a win-win. They get into a conference with an AQ Bid that is by far, the worst football conference left in the nation. Than can, probably will, and should win the Big East fairly easily, thus giving them a legitimate shot at a National Title game. If it doesn't pan out and they are still getting "disrespected," it could set them up for a move to the PAC 12 (once they decide to expand further) or the Big XII (if they are still around in 3-5 years. Now, even if Boise State has caught lightning in a bottle the last 4-5 years with the current recruiting class they have (may not get solid recruits after the seniors leave), then jumping to a "major" conference will only help their recruiting, as well as reserve their place in an AQ Conference in case they don't have as good of recruiting classes in the future. It still gives them a chance to win the Big East with a down year/team. Playing in the Big East will increase their revenue from football, as well. Yes, their stadium is fairly small, but with the improvements and future improvements (which I'm sure are in the works), the capacity issue will be less relevant.

The Big 12 is easily tied with the Big 10 as the second strongest football conference now. OU, OSU, Texas, WVU, TCU have all been consistant Top 25 teams for the past 5 years. I was ranking them according to the strength of their realignment. I think the Big XII's loss of Nebraska, Texas A&M, and Missouri is far greater than their addition of Texas Christian and West Virginia.

Well it can all come down to one thing; why the hell would anybody leave a stable, yes stable, ACC to go to a conference that may not even exist in a year or two, and if it does survive, it will just end up being Conference USA with under a different name. If Maryland does leave the ACC, it would be for the Big Ten. Which is just one of the reason the ACC got Pitt and Syracuse, and potentially UConn and Rutgers. If they do in fact lose a few teams, they'll be set up to maintain at least 12-14 schools afterwards. That's just smart. In all honesty, I think they've done the best job out of all the BCS conferences. True, the Pac-12, SEC and Big Ten are not going to lose anybody, and it was never even a possibility, but once it looked like they could lose FSU, Clemson and maybe Georgia Tech, they upped the buyout to $20m to make it at least a little bit harder for those schools to bail, and then added Pitt and Syracuse, which could entice those schools to stay, or at the very least, have some cushioning if they do depart. I'll say its a nice cushion, but I can't say that the ACC did the best job. The SEC basically did nothing, and landed 2 top 25 football programs in Texas A&M and Missouri. The SEC basically just sat back, let the bees come to the honey, and with little to no effort, expanded their footprint, the Conference, future TV deal, and superiority over the PAC and Big Ten in football. The ACC had to work to gain Pitt and Syracuse, who yes, have great basketball programs, but neither are football power houses... not even Pitt. The PAC didn't do too bad. They added a team with some tradition in Colorado and a team that had hype over the last 10 years in Utah. But Colorado and Utah are far from Texas A&M and Missouri. Lastly, the Big Ten added Nebraska, who, not only increases the footprint but brings in a ton of tradition in football. In my opinion, the ACC tied for 3rd best out of all these conference, which is respectable when you consider the amount of moving and shaking that happened, was rumored to happen, and still may happen. In order: 1.) Southeast Conference 2.) The Big Ten Conference 3.) The PAC 12 Conference / The Atlantic Coast Conference 5.) The Big XII Conference 6.) The Big East Conference