Division 1 College Conference Realignment

[rams80]

Considering North Carolina and Virginia as 15 and 16... Gerogia Tech will definitely be in play with Kansas or Kansas State being 17 and 18. I would lean towards Kansas State because they are receiving heavy research dollars and their basketball and football teams are more competitive than Kansas', however Kansas does have a larger national following in football. Not to mention, the recent surge of the B16 TEN in basketball.

As for 19 and 20, I think there is some room for dispute. I think they ultimately would like to add Missouri (as I believe Missouri was in the long term plans before they jumped to the SEC). I would have to believe Clemson and Florida State would also be in play and strongly pushed for.

And we have gone through the looking glass.

Clemson and Florida State are more viable candidates than Kansas State, and will certainly be on the offer list. Florida State has actively sought a new conference in the past and has limited history in the ACC (and is likely barred from the SEC), and neither school will have much incentive to stick around after the ACC implodes with key members departing.

And in less than a decade they'll be looking to leave the Big Ten. The cultural fit isn't there, the research profile and money isn't there, and the cable money won't always be there. Ideally expansion doesn't end in the league flying apart in less than a decade.

KSU is NOT coming to the Big Ten, not now, not ever. Kansas is a long-shot, and only even possible if Missouri re-enters as an option or Texas comes on board. The B1G had a chance to bring in Missouri and look at Kansas when Nebraska joined, and the B1G rejected them.

If you were just going to grab one school in the first expansion, Nebraska was the one to grab, as it was the one with the National profile and cultural fit. Now, if you're going for an unwieldy monstrosity that you still think might hold together, Kansas State and the National Agro and Bio Defense Facility is a great fit. Plus, they do have a dedicated fanbase and are decent at football.

Ever since BTN, I've been pushing that the B1G look to 16 or 20 teams and look to consume the best schools from the Big 12 or ACC. IMO, taking Nebraska was a mistake without moving on the then-Big 12 schools worth something (Missouri, KU, OU, OSU, Texas, and A&M), but what's done is done, and by now the Missouri ship has likely sailed.

There were 3 Big XII football schools with national football profiles and fanbases. The Big Ten grabbed the one that could be dislodged and wanted to be in the Big Ten without bringing tagalongs or undue travel burdens for minor sports. Yes, Nebraska has fewer people, but more people across the country want to watch the Cornhuskers than Missouri, Kansas, and A&M.

At 14 with MD and Rutgers, the next move is that they're going to be looking to get into new markets in the south. Georgia Tech, North Carolina, and Virginia are the no-doubt next 3 to be offered. At that point, you're at 17, the ACC is dead, and you're competing with the SEC directly.

And Georgia Tech is insane and stupid. Virginia and North Carolina would be stupid, but at least there's a cultural fit and a chance they might want to stay in the league. Doubling down on going after the SEC in its home turf is kind of like staging a (horse) cavalry charge against a formation of tanks. It won't end well for the Big Ten.

From there, I would list preferences as follows:

1. Notre Dame - past aside, take them if they want to come

They don't want to come and aren't worth it.

2. Texas - take them if they want to come, and if they do, take Oklahoma and Kansas (or Oklahoma State).

Existing membership may object and they're likely not worth it either long run or short run. Administration's an utter mess, and that 10 year grant of media rights is killer.

3. Florida State

Doesn't have the fanbase you think it does, nor the research support.

4. Boston College

Has worked out swimmingly for the ACC market-wise.

5. Miami

*Archimedes Laughing*

6. Clemson

Kind of insane, kind of iffy on the cultural fit, and the Big Ten's more into meth than cocaine.

7. Syracuse

Hey look, actually cultural fit, minus the total absence of graduate-level research and the private school bit.

8. Pitt

Do we really need to double down on Pittsburgh?

9. NC State

Probably should be higher if you're in North Carolina and have an odd number.

10. Missouri

Probably should be a lot higher on the expansion priority list.

11. Oklahoma

Won't come without Texas

12. Kansas/Oklahoma State

13. Louisville

14. West Virginia

This whole thing is controlled by expanding/dominating TV networks and cable/satellite subscription packages. That's why in realignment schools like Kansas State and Iowa State and Baylor are garbage leftovers no one wants.

It's going to be hilarious when the cable bubble bursts and once again a bunch of MBAs are proven to be utter idiots at, well, everything.

[RyanMcD29]

"Clemson: The Big Ten is more into meth than cocaine"

YOU GUYS YOU GUYS YOU GUYS YOU GUYS I MEAN DON'T BE HATIN' ON THAT BESIDES I'M KINDA LATCHED ONTO FLORIDA STATE WHENEVER THE BIG XII OFFICES FINALLY DON'T RETURN TO SENDER SOME KILOS I'M TRYIN' TO BRIBE THEM WITH BUT THAT'S ALRIGHT FOR NOW I GUESS I MEAN AT LEAST WE'RE NOT PLAYING A THURSDAY NIGHT GAME OH GOD WE ARE MAN THAT'S MY NIGHT FOR PICKING UP MY STASH THE FREAKIN' ACC'S RUINING EVERYTHING YOU GUYS

[joechicago]

We agree that expanding for the sake of cable is stupid, and will likely blow up in a few years, but it's the reality that's driving the Big Ten's plans recently.

We also agree that culturally/research-wise, you're correct on Miami/Clemson/FSU/etc. The problem is that the Big Ten already threw academics aside for one school (UNL), and arguably for a second a long time ago (MSU), and I have no doubt that they'll discard research/academics for new blood. They already became a cultural mish-mash when they added Nebraska and followed it up with Rutgers. Cultural identity is so far gone at that point, you might as well just say screw it. And if UNC/Clemson/FSU/Virginia/Georgia Tech join together, you've got a solid block of southeastern schools. They don't care about beating the SEC, just getting on the TV packages (they don't care that NYC generally doesn't care about Rutgers, why would they worry about FSU?)

Culture is the reason why I would have advocated taking either the choice B12 schools OR the choice ACC schools, but not both. It's obvious they don't care about that, especially if they turn around and go after Missouri (which, frankly, is as southern as Virginia or UNC in its own way).

And as far as research/academics, KSU isn't even in the AAU. It's more likely they'd add Iowa State.

Actually, I completely forgot the AAU was a huge issue in the last expansion. That adds bonus points to Duke, Iowa State, Virginia, Duke, UNC, Kansas, Missouri, Texas, Texas AM, Colorado (why not?), and Pitt (this is one reason why Pitt is always mentioned in these).

Personally, I hope they stop at 16, but the reality is that they're looking to dominate media and put the ACC out of its misery.

[dfwabel]

The Big Ten (11 schools at the time) of the possible of adding the 12th school, they knew that Nebraska-Lincoln was in jeopardy of losing AAU status and that Syracuse was going to voluntarily leave the AAU. It went so far that it is reported that in voting Nebraska out did include as many as four Big Ten schools (Michigan and Wisconsin for sure).

UNC-CH is under SACS review so severe, that it is usually applicable to the HBCUs of the south like Texas Southern, Fisk, and Prairie View. The decades of non-existent classes is much worse than the one year probation SACS placed on Texas Tech in 2007 for failing to show its curriculum produced college-level skills.

Plus, the "cable subscriber fee bubble" is not the biggest concern for university presidents in the near future...it is the student loan crisis, combined with the cost of capital improvements with the last decade which has left many schools (public and private) with more debt than cash.

[BigMac12]

Notre Dame might be considering joining the "Catholic 7" Big East for a year before joining the ACC...

[DarkJourney]

Notre Dame should just join the Catholic 7 and forget about the ACC. Football will always be independent.

[rams80]

We agree that expanding for the sake of cable is stupid, and will likely blow up in a few years, but it's the reality that's driving the Big Ten's plans recently.

We also agree that culturally/research-wise, you're correct on Miami/Clemson/FSU/etc. The problem is that the Big Ten already threw academics aside for one school (UNL), and arguably for a second a long time ago (MSU), and I have no doubt that they'll discard research/academics for new blood. They already became a cultural mish-mash when they added Nebraska and followed it up with Rutgers. Cultural identity is so far gone at that point, you might as well just say screw it. And if UNC/Clemson/FSU/Virginia/Georgia Tech join together, you've got a solid block of southeastern schools. They don't care about beating the SEC, just getting on the TV packages (they don't care that NYC generally doesn't care about Rutgers, why would they worry about FSU?)

Nebraska does do research. It just doesn't do the correct research for the AAU (Ag and bio sciences are apparently no good.) FWIW the Nebraska endowment is higher than Iowa's. Also it's not a cultural mishmash; Nebraska is a Midwestern Land Grant that cares strongly about football and even plays what could be stereotyped as "Big Ten football", They also spent much of the first half of the 20th Century trying to get into the Big Ten. Nebraska IS NOT where everything went off the rails with expansion. Hell, it was probably the best move of this entire cycle. And Michigan State is also not a place where things went off the rails either; there was a conscious plan in place to build up Michigan State into a research institution.

And as far as research/academics, KSU isn't even in the AAU. It's more likely they'd add Iowa State.

KSU has more green on the research dollar front.

[dfwabel]

We agree that expanding for the sake of cable is stupid, and will likely blow up in a few years, but it's the reality that's driving the Big Ten's plans recently.

We also agree that culturally/research-wise, you're correct on Miami/Clemson/FSU/etc. The problem is that the Big Ten already threw academics aside for one school (UNL), and arguably for a second a long time ago (MSU), and I have no doubt that they'll discard research/academics for new blood. They already became a cultural mish-mash when they added Nebraska and followed it up with Rutgers. Cultural identity is so far gone at that point, you might as well just say screw it. And if UNC/Clemson/FSU/Virginia/Georgia Tech join together, you've got a solid block of southeastern schools. They don't care about beating the SEC, just getting on the TV packages (they don't care that NYC generally doesn't care about Rutgers, why would they worry about FSU?)

Nebraska does do research. It just doesn't do the correct research for the AAU (Ag and bio sciences are apparently no good.) FWIW the Nebraska endowment is higher than Iowa's. Also it's not a cultural mishmash; Nebraska is a Midwestern Land Grant that cares strongly about football and even plays what could be stereotyped as "Big Ten football", They also spent much of the first half of the 20th Century trying to get into the Big Ten. Nebraska IS NOT where everything went off the rails with expansion. Hell, it was probably the best move of this entire cycle. And Michigan State is also not a place where things went off the rails either; there was a conscious plan in place to build up Michigan State into a research institution.

And as far as research/academics, KSU isn't even in the AAU. It's more likely they'd add Iowa State.

KSU has more green on the research dollar front.

Exactly. It does not assist UN-L that the state Medical School is based in Omaha rather than Lincoln.

Plus, for all those people who want School X, Y, or Z to join B1G, keep in mind that for both football and Men's basketball, the confernce has revenue sharing like the NFL for non-premium seating.

Not bowl game money or NCAA tournament shares/money. The B1G shares regular season, conference game money.

The only way a move to the B1G works out is if a school is willing to give up 35% of a conference in exchange for not giving upwards of $1M to a FCS or lower FCS opponent as a greater long term plan.

[Island_Style]

Notre Dame should just join the Catholic 7 and forget about the ACC. Football will always be independent.

I think ND waiting a year to join the ACC is a bad sign for the stability of the ACC.

[hailstateunis]

If I'm not mistaken all conferences except the Pac-12, the SEC and the Big Ten have lost members. Could you ever see them losing a existing member in any of this mess? I could see Missouri as a big if, but I can't really imagine any others from the SEC or any in the Big Ten and Pac 12 doesn't really have anywhere else to go.

Thoughts?

The SEC has lost members in the past. Swanee(now D-|||), Tulane, and Georgia Tech were once members.

[TBGKon]

Hey, former Big East schools....bring back the Metro Conference! Most of your current teams fit the bill of being in decent metropolitan areas.

[pcgd]

Notre Dame should just join the Catholic 7 and forget about the ACC. Football will always be independent.

I think ND waiting a year to join the ACC is a bad sign for the stability of the ACC.

ND has to wait or pay a penalty. Catholic 7/Big East is the only thing they can do.

[illwauk]

Hey, former Big East schools....bring back the Metro Conference! Most of your current teams fit the bill of being in decent metropolitan areas.

Are you referring to the football schools, or the Catholic 7(+2)? The Metro name would be more appropriate for the football schools, since a lot of them (Lousiville, Cincy, Memphis, South Florida, Tulane) are former Metro members.

[Geoff]

The league will just have a new name. It will still be the same league.

Not really, it's just Conference USA 2.0.....and this coming from a fan of a team in the new conference.

My hope is that more dominoes fall ahead of USF, so that the ACC will have to replenish their Florida presence.

I mainly meant it as it's just a name change. I'm not trying to say it's the same as the old Big East but it's just a simple name change for the current league.

[TBGKon]

Hey, former Big East schools....bring back the Metro Conference! Most of your current teams fit the bill of being in decent metropolitan areas.

Are you referring to the football schools, or the Catholic 7(+2)? The Metro name would be more appropriate for the football schools, since a lot of them (Lousiville, Cincy, Memphis, South Florida, Tulane) are former Metro members.

Im talking about the football schools. The BE has always been a b-ball conference, so I don't mind the BE name sticking with the b-ball schools.

Metro Conference works well for the remaining football schools in the following locales:

Tampa

Orlando

Dallas

Houston

Cincinnati

Hartford

Philadelphia

Memphis

New Orleans

[Lights Out]

"Clemson: The Big Ten is more into meth than cocaine"

YOU GUYS YOU GUYS YOU GUYS YOU GUYS I MEAN DON'T BE HATIN' ON THAT BESIDES I'M KINDA LATCHED ONTO FLORIDA STATE WHENEVER THE BIG XII OFFICES FINALLY DON'T RETURN TO SENDER SOME KILOS I'M TRYIN' TO BRIBE THEM WITH BUT THAT'S ALRIGHT FOR NOW I GUESS I MEAN AT LEAST WE'RE NOT PLAYING A THURSDAY NIGHT GAME OH GOD WE ARE MAN THAT'S MY NIGHT FOR PICKING UP MY STASH THE FREAKIN' ACC'S RUINING EVERYTHING YOU GUYS

[joechicago]

We agree that expanding for the sake of cable is stupid, and will likely blow up in a few years, but it's the reality that's driving the Big Ten's plans recently.

We also agree that culturally/research-wise, you're correct on Miami/Clemson/FSU/etc. The problem is that the Big Ten already threw academics aside for one school (UNL), and arguably for a second a long time ago (MSU), and I have no doubt that they'll discard research/academics for new blood. They already became a cultural mish-mash when they added Nebraska and followed it up with Rutgers. Cultural identity is so far gone at that point, you might as well just say screw it. And if UNC/Clemson/FSU/Virginia/Georgia Tech join together, you've got a solid block of southeastern schools. They don't care about beating the SEC, just getting on the TV packages (they don't care that NYC generally doesn't care about Rutgers, why would they worry about FSU?)

Nebraska does do research. It just doesn't do the correct research for the AAU (Ag and bio sciences are apparently no good.) FWIW the Nebraska endowment is higher than Iowa's. Also it's not a cultural mishmash; Nebraska is a Midwestern Land Grant that cares strongly about football and even plays what could be stereotyped as "Big Ten football", They also spent much of the first half of the 20th Century trying to get into the Big Ten. Nebraska IS NOT where everything went off the rails with expansion. Hell, it was probably the best move of this entire cycle. And Michigan State is also not a place where things went off the rails either; there was a conscious plan in place to build up Michigan State into a research institution.

And as far as research/academics, KSU isn't even in the AAU. It's more likely they'd add Iowa State.

KSU has more green on the research dollar front.

Culturally, there is more difference between Penn State and Nebraska that there is between Penn State and Virginia or North Carolina. I'm sorry if you think Nebraska and Michigan have any more in common than Michigan and Georgia Tech. You would be wrong.

In every previous expansion discussion, the fact that a school has research money has been de minimus. AAU membership and general academic prestige have been the driving points when it comes to a school being academically acceptable. On the sports side, it's all about TV sets. K State has neither the academics or the TV sets. It's that simple. They're regarded even worse than UN-L and taking UN-L was a stretch. If the B1G wants to go to Kansas, they're taking KU and that's it, end of discussion.

[rams80]

Culturally, there is more difference between Penn State and Nebraska that there is between Penn State and Virginia or North Carolina. I'm sorry if you think Nebraska and Michigan have any more in common than Michigan and Georgia Tech. You would be wrong.

Well historically Penn State is the Pennsylvania ag and science school in addition to having the liberal arts portfolio (as part of a "one school to rule them all" model combining land grant and liberal arts-like Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Nebraska-hell, toss in Maryland and Rutgers for good measure), so I wouldn't put too much money on that academic cultural difference. Now for specific comparisons-Michigan = liberal arts school, Georgia Tech = ridiculously hard sciences school and engineering school, Nebraska = land grant with a side of liberal arts. Since Nebraska has at least some credible liberal arts program, or at least more than Georgia Tech, I bet Nebraska does have more in common with Michigan.

Additionally, outside of being on the East Coast and public schools with interests in serious research of some form or another, Penn State has little in common academically and culturally with Virginia and North Carolina. Penn State embraces being a public school; Virginia runs from it, and North Carolina goes much, much harder towards the liberal arts.

(Speaking of which, you do understand what a land grant school is and what that entails, correct? And that in addition to the above named 5+2 schools the Big Ten has "straight" land grants Michigan State, Ohio State, and Purdue). Nebraska may not completely fit in with Michigan, but it sure as hell does with the bulk of the Big Ten's membership, AAU or no AAU.

Now, while we are on the subject, North Carolina and Virginia just have the Liberal Arts portfolio, which means that, yes, they do have a lot in common with Michigan's academic culture, but not as much with the very large "cow college" land grant wing of the Big Ten and the CIC. And that wing would happen to be rather numerous and loved to get its hands on Federal Biological Research Labs. The money is just as green.

In every previous expansion discussion, the fact that a school has research money has been de minimus. AAU membership and general academic prestige have been the driving points when it comes to a school being academically acceptable.

You're putting the cart before the horse-prestige comes from research money and activity. AAU membership may be an indicator of research activity, but it isn't the only one, because again, it only tracks certain types of research. Now Nebraska may funnel its Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC) (AKA the Big Ten's academic wing) money into the "correct" research much like what Penn State and Michigan State did when they joined. And yeah, research money is rather important to the Big Ten. There's a reason Chicago is still a member of the CIC.

On the sports side, it's all about TV sets. K State has neither the academics or the TV sets. It's that simple. They're regarded even worse than UN-L and taking UN-L was a stretch. If the B1G wants to go to Kansas, they're taking KU and that's it, end of discussion.

There is one school in Kansas that is good at football and can expect to be good at football for some time to come, and it's most definitively NOT the school that recently hired Baron Harkonnen Charlie Weis and his decided schematic advantage. Additionally, did you know that Kansas State has been a net contributor to the Big XII's revenue sharing program for the bulk of that Conference's existence? Could it be that more people care about the Wildcats than they Jayhawks?

[joechicago]

You're out of your element if you think Michigan is primarily a liberal arts school (do you know anyone who went to Michigan?) and Georgia Tech is a "ridiculously hard sciences school and engineering school." Michigan, Illinois, Purdue, and the Big Ten are known for engineering, and the first two are tough to get into. It's the top program at those three schools and a significant program at Wisconsin, Northwestern, Penn State, etc. Yes, they all operate under the land grant model and offer solid liberal arts programs, but if you want to talk about the history of the land grants, the entire point of a land grant was to offer practical education, i.e., science and engineering. The schools that emphasize engineering (basically everyone except Indiana) would gladly welcome Georgia Tech, and likely the reciprocal. Clemson is a land grant and shares a similar institutional role as Purdue. Virginia has a well-regarded engineering program and offers an academic/research role that would appeal to the entire Big Ten. The differences that you're seeing just aren't there.

But again, if academic culture meant anything, Nebraska would have been DOA. Sure, they're similar to Iowa, but no one wanted them academically. No one. You're the one who raised the argument of a cultural issue. I'm telling you, it's just not there.

As to Kansas State, they will never be in the B1G. I'm sorry if you believe they are bigger than KU or a desirable candidate for B1G membership. It's not happening. KU has 4x the endowment, significantly more political pull, and dwarfs KSU in interest in the Kansas City area. IF (big if) the Big Ten wants to go into Kansas, they will take KU over K State 100 times out of 100. And there is no reason for them to take both. During previous expansion discussions, Kansas State was actually viewed as a problem because there were concerns the Kansas legislature would block the B1G taking Kansas unless it also took K State, and no one wanted to take K State.

[ESTONES6]

AAU Membership is big (sorry) for the B16 TEN, but the main academic factor is research dollars. AAU Membership is just a bonus, as long as the large amount of research funding is there.

It doesn't matter if AAU member schools are within the B16 TEN foot print, i.e. Iowa State, Pitt. The B16 TEN isn't adding a school within its footprint unless its ND... and I'm pretty sure that ship has sailed. The B16 TEN won't add Duke if they already have North Carolina, they won't take Kansas State if they already have Kansas, and they won't take Pitt since they already have Penn State.

Being outside of the current foot print is 1A and 1B most important factors along with large amounts of research dollars from the State and Federal Governments.