Which conference is more likely to break apart: ACC or Big 12?

[Buffnik]

A&M and Mizzou were joined at the hip? huh?

aTm and UT were. History and state politics. I didn't think they'd ever be in different conferences. Before that, I was shocked when Arkansas left UT and hasn't been playing them. With Mizzou, it's less strong, but it's really weird for them to separate from the KU rivalry. Never say never. Utah and BYU don't even play this year. Maryland without some of the other ACC teams on its schedule was unthinkable to its fans. Nebraska and Oklahoma don't play each other. Notre Dame dropped Michigan. Florida dropped Miami. This realignment business has caused a lot of unraveling of traditional ties.

 

[Liver]

I think that when the moves to 16 teams get rolling, and this will get rolling in the next few years, the p12 will go get texassss and the dirt burglars. If the price to get them is okie state and another texassssssss school, I am certain the p12 will pay that price.

I am also sure that we will end up in an 8 team east division with Utah, asu, ua, Texass, ou, okie state, and the 2nd texasssss school (insert houston, Baylor, tcu, whatever ).

People freak out about it, but that won't change the way this goes. I just hope it takes a few years and that we are back among the power teams when it happens.

 

[FlatironsBuff]

I think that when the moves to 16 teams get rolling, and this will get rolling in the next few years, the p12 will go get texassss and the dirt burglars. If the price to get them is okie state and another texassssssss school, I am certain the p12 will pay that price.

I am also sure that we will end up in an 8 team east division with Utah, asu, ua, Texass, ou, okie state, and the 2nd texasssss school (insert houston, Baylor, tcu, whatever ).

People freak out about it, but that won't change the way this goes. I just hope it takes a few years and that we are back among the power teams when it happens.

Sacky hated this so much he actually flew United just to pee in your shower.

 

[RalphieSpeaks]

Assuming one of the two collapses, I think it's 51% probable that the it's the BigXII. Geographically they're a mess. Academically and culturally, the schools are too different. ACC fans continue to hope and dream of Texas coming over (most don't spend as much time on Allbuffs as I do). Despite the couch burning, if WVU would even pretend to be concerned about academics, I'd love to see them in the ACC (huge rabid fan base, plus we win back the DC market following Maryland's departure).

That being said, I consider the following to be ACC "flight risks", listed in order of probability (with conferences most likely to be their destination):
1. FSU (SEC, BigXII)
2. North Carolina (B1G, SEC) -- if they go B1G, I think UVA goes with them.
3. Georgia Tech (you know the B1G is salivating over the ATL TV market)
4. Virginia Tech (SEC)
5. Clemson (Big XII)
6. UVA, but only in the scenario where they tag alone with UNC or GIT
7. Duke and Wake leave and join some conference of religious schools focused on basketball

FSU will never get into the SEC. Florida would veto.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

 

[MiamiBuffs]

The Texas 10.

With the ACC they have multiple "power" programs like FSU, Miami, UNC, and Duke at their core. Plus The old Big East overlaps much of their conference making it easy to plug in a replacement program if they need one.

After UT and OU the bigXii starts to get slim. And the conference is sandwiched between 4 other conferences that have an epicenter east or west of Yexas so they have to make a geographic stretch to add them to their footprint. No one wants UT.

 

[skibum]

I thought okie lite and the land thieves were joined at the hip in a way that many of the other schools are not; specifically that they either shared the same board of regents/directors/whatever or that there were several individuals that serve on both boards. There are a few scenarios where the best thing for both schools would be to go their separate ways, but they're going to try and avoid screwing over the pokes more so than you would see in other situations.

Also think about this in terms of OOC scheduling: could the land thieves afford to have both the UT and OSU be OOC? Probably not. And they probably have to keep both games going. So if the dominoes fall, wherever they end up, it will likely be with at least one of the two by their side...

 

[FLounder]

I love the proposed OU, OSU, KU, and Houston. You add a big new market, a basketball elite, and football elite. Add in OSU's wrestling program(to quiet the Boise talks) I could see this working out pretty well.

 

[sackman]

I think that when the moves to 16 teams get rolling, and this will get rolling in the next few years, the p12 will go get texassss and the dirt burglars. If the price to get them is okie state and another texassssssss school, I am certain the p12 will pay that price.

I am also sure that we will end up in an 8 team east division with Utah, asu, ua, Texass, ou, okie state, and the 2nd texasssss school (insert houston, Baylor, tcu, whatever ).

People freak out about it, but that won't change the way this goes. I just hope it takes a few years and that we are back among the power teams when it happens.

Not gonna happen. You're assuming the PAC needs to expand. It does not. There's no reason for the PAC to bring on any new schools. This is not a freak out, just simple reality. People keep talking about how the PAC will "need" to expand to 16 teams, but never say why. Just because the SEC is a 16 teams, that's not a reason the PAC needs to expand. Quite to the contrary, in fact.

 

[Buffnik]

I think that when the moves to 16 teams get rolling, and this will get rolling in the next few years, the p12 will go get texassss and the dirt burglars. If the price to get them is okie state and another texassssssss school, I am certain the p12 will pay that price.

I am also sure that we will end up in an 8 team east division with Utah, asu, ua, Texass, ou, okie state, and the 2nd texasssss school (insert houston, Baylor, tcu, whatever ).

People freak out about it, but that won't change the way this goes. I just hope it takes a few years and that we are back among the power teams when it happens.

I don't want it to happen, but the money and power of the conference is way too high for them to say "no" to that expansion if it would be on the table. And the only way it would be likely to go through, as you said, is if the original Pac-8 members became the Western Division and got to play each other every year.

Should this come to pass, I would prefer pod scheduling since it would ensure 1 road trip into each Pac region every season. But I don't think it will happen that way.

 

[absinthe]

A&M and Mizzou were joined at the hip? huh?

To UT and KU.

The number of times I heard someone in the Big 12 talk about how the border war or what ever they called the KU/MIzzou game, l as the rivalry, the shared geographical fan base, and on, and on, and on, and on about how one school depended on the other when we were leaving the Big12 was ridiculous, not 12 months later Mizzou was gone. Same story with A&M and the history and how they *needed* UT to be relevant 12 months later they are gone and arguably the bigger fish.

Perception maybe different on the ground in Oklahoma or Austin but from the outside looking-in the right offer blows apart the conference be that the SEC calling OU or WVU, the B1G trying to add KU to lift its basketball prowess, or UT truly getting the chance to go independent and answer to and share with no one. That conference is held together right now but UT and OU are a marriage of the 90's that three other big8 members have already left, the current Big 12 is a marriage of convenience the right external lever pulls it apart.

 

[absinthe]

I think OU likes where they are now especially with the 4 team play off going into effect. No championship game as an extra hurdle. They'll just really, really, really miss Mack Brown.

Quoted for truth

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

aTm and UT were. History and state politics. I didn't think they'd ever be in different conferences. Before that, I was shocked when Arkansas left UT and hasn't been playing them. With Mizzou, it's less strong, but it's really weird for them to separate from the KU rivalry. Never say never. Utah and BYU don't even play this year. Maryland without some of the other ACC teams on its schedule was unthinkable to its fans. Nebraska and Oklahoma don't play each other. Notre Dame dropped Michigan. Florida dropped Miami. This realignment business has caused a lot of unraveling of traditional ties.

A&M and UT have one thing in common - they are both in Texas. Oklahoma and Texas actually have a lot in common, and they are ruling the roost in the Big 12, getting anything and everything they want. There's no reason for them to leave the Big 12. Not to mention there is a grant of rights agreement which doesn't expire until 2025!

 

[Dark Bohner]

OU just needs one reason to leave the Big 12 and I think they would go. That would do it. I think the ACC can exist just for the tradition of bball. The Big 12 has nothing left in all honesty if OU leaves. Everyone else abandons ship at that point.

Key is OU in the Big XII. They decide to tell UT to **** themselves and the conference goes kablooie and sets off the next round. I still think OU and OSU could be the target of LS along with kU. Add in a Houston or SMU and watch it fall apart. The ACC will hold because of bball longterm. Too much to Tobacco Road and their blue blood bball tradition to see it fall completely apart.

How quickly you all forget. OU was actively seeking entry into the Pac 12, leaving UT behind, because they were fed up with the Horns. The Pac 12 voted and said no thanks. OU doesn't have as much clout as people think.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/21/s...ahoma-may-agree-to-remain-in-big-12.html?_r=0

 

[Buffnik]

How quickly you all forget. OU was actively seeking entry into the Pac 12, leaving UT behind, because they were fed up with the Horns. The Pac 12 voted and said no thanks. OU doesn't have as much clout as people think.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/21/s...ahoma-may-agree-to-remain-in-big-12.html?_r=0

I think that was a "no" vote on OSU. Boone Pickens attitude along with the "Dexter Manley School for Kids Who Can't Read Good and Want to Do Other Stuff Good Too" was just too much for the Pac-12 presidents and chancellors to accept.

 

[Highlander]

Why do we all of a sudden believe that if the Pac12 went to 16, they would not do a pod system as originally discussed?

I would take my chances in a pod with Utah, AU, & ASU, and then playing 2 teams from the other 3 pods each year.

At that point, the playing against UT all the time is a non-factor, IMO, and they would not have the influence within conference that they do now - not by a long shot. Of course, they would have to agree to revenue sharing for this to happen and that isn't going to happen, so it is a non-starter despite turning the Pac into a juggernaut in all sports and TV revenue.

 

[Buffnik]

Why do we all of a sudden believe that if the Pac12 went to 16, they would not do a pod system as originally discussed?

I would take my chances in a pod with Utah, AU, & ASU, and then playing 2 teams from the other 3 pods each year.

At that point, the playing against UT all the time is a non-factor, IMO, and they would not have the influence within conference that they do now - not by a long shot. Of course, they would have to agree to revenue sharing for this to happen and that isn't going to happen, so it is a non-starter despite turning the Pac into a juggernaut in all sports and TV revenue.

The great thing about a pod system is the scheduling balance.

We'd get one California school, one OK/TX school and one OR/WA school to come to Folsom every year and we'd make one road trip to each of those areas. The rest of our conference games would be within the 4 Corners region.

For the CA schools, they get the 3 games against each other that they demand along with the home/home with the other 3 regions.

Same goes for the other 2 pods with playing their regional rivals and gaining exposure from and to every other conference region every season.

It makes the most sense to me. No need to have divisions. Do a conference championship between the 2 highest ranked teams. If they end up being UO/UW or USC/UCLA or CU/ASU or UT/OU then so be it. There would also be an opportunity for a 2-round playoff for even more conference revenue (3 games instead of 1 to decide the Pac-16 champion).

I love the pod system. I just think there are too many folks on the coast who dream of a Pac-8 division.

 

[MtnBuff]

I think that was a "no" vote on OSU. Boone Pickens attitude along with the "Dexter Manley School for Kids Who Can't Read Good and Want to Do Other Stuff Good Too" was just too much for the Pac-12 presidents and chancellors to accept.

I have no question that this is spot on. The PAC would love to have Oklahoma. They are not an academic powerhouse but they have made major gains in that area and continue to pour money into improving their academic standing.

They are also reasonably strong in a variety of non-revenue sports and would be a good fit in that regard.

Okie Lite on the other hand would be a lousy fit in the PAC academically and culturally. Still doesn't mean that circumstances in the future wouldn't dictate strong consideration of taking OSU as part of a package deal but they would not ever be a choice to enter on their own.

I agree with Sacky that there is nothing inherently wrong with 12 and that going to 16 has many more negatives than positives. The becomes huge if the expansion includes a Texas program that has long proven that they don't work well with others.

A logical order of expansion potential schools from both a financial and cultural perspective would start with Oklahoma and Kansas.

From there it becomes a problem because you are either looking at schools that don't have the support to justify inclusion financially (i.e. CSU,) academically (Boise, OSU,) or culturally (BYU, Baylor.) I can't see the PAC having interest in adding a school that doesn't significantly add to viewership and media revenues. I also can't see them interested in adding a church affiliated school which also excludes TCU and SMU.

The academic issue is a bit stickier when the money issue comes into play but there is a difference between compromise and absolute disregard and OSU may fit in the latter category.

 

[Mick Ronson]

OU had a SEC invite the last time, but the state ties to OSU kept them from jumping. what i don't get is why the SEC isn't interested in OSU. as long as Gundy is there, they are a top 25 team or better imo and pretty good at hoops most year though i'm not sold on Ford. not like Ole Miss or MSU are media market juggernauts or the SEC is afraid of hillbilly states. OSU is also really good at the so called "spring sports" like golf and baseball that are big in the South. I think that was a mistake the SEC made.

and as far as the academic argument about OU and the Pac, OU is as good or better than Utah, Wazzou, Oregon State, the Arizona schools. the Pac is big at the top, low at the bottom. as i posted many times, Iowa State is generally ranked higher than half the Pac. and as someone else posted, OU has a sort of plan and raising moneys to get better. they have a focused, funded national merit scholar program to keep the best kids in state (insofar as it's possible), an Honors program that is apparently pretty good....CU has none of that. i worked at CU for a decade, there is no plan at CU. just the same administrators driving Saabs, taking ski fridays, and getting fat on out of state tuition in a bad economy has generally been CU's "plan" for the last 30 years or so.

edit: i'm not in favor of further Pac expansion or 16 team conferences. but, no one is asking me. :lol:

 

[sackman]

I'm amused. I see a lot of "I don't want expansion, but..." It seems nobody wants expansion. So why are we even discussing it? We don't want it. The PTB in the PAC12 don't want it. Truth be told, UT and OU really aren't interested in coming here anyway. Yet here we are, rehashing a subject that has been over hashed. The horse is dead, folks. Stop beating the sh*t out of it.

 

[Duff Man]

You so sure the Presidents and Larry Scott do not want expansion?

 

[MtnBuff]

I'm amused. I see a lot of "I don't want expansion, but..." It seems nobody wants expansion. So why are we even discussing it? We don't want it. The PTB in the PAC12 don't want it. Truth be told, UT and OU really aren't interested in coming here anyway. Yet here we are, rehashing a subject that has been over hashed. The horse is dead, folks. Stop beating the sh*t out of it.

If ESPN / ABC came to the PAC and said add UT and OU and you can make an extra $10 million per year per school you don't think they would be interested?

I happen to agree that the PAC is much better at 12, there were those who still wish the PAC was at 10 or 8. Who knows what the future will bring?

 

[Buffnik]

You so sure the Presidents and Larry Scott do not want expansion?

No way they'd do something that would increase the money and power of their organizations.

 

[onealcd]

No way they'd do something that would increase the money and power of their organizations.

Exactly. Scott would add Texas and Oklahoma in a second if Texas would actually accept the terms the rest of the conference took. Those are two major programs and major tv markets not to mention the other two teams that would also add value. Obviously it may not be the best thing for CU but I have a hard time believing it wouldn't be the best thing for the conference as a whole. We would battle the SEC every year for the best conference.

 

[CUAviator]

Why does everyone keep talking about how OU and UT have to be tied together? They've only been in the same conference together since 1996.

 

[MtnBuff]

Why does everyone keep talking about how OU and UT have to be tied together? They've only been in the same conference together since 1996.

As I stated earlier my first two choices if we had to expand would be OU and Kansas. There is however a couple things you can't ignore about UT. One is that while they have only been in the same conference as OU since 96 their yearly war has been going on since long before that so they are connected in that manner.

The other big issue is as much as I hate them and as much as aTm would like to dispute it UT is still the big hog at the trough in terms of Texas popularity. Texas has been down and aTm has had Johnny Football but Texas still brings in a lot more money than aTm. The conference that has UT can be assured of getting solid TV ratings throughout the state of Texas including the significant markets of Houston and Dallas/Ft. Worth and even San Antonio which has grown into a major market.

Add Texas and OU to the PAC and look at what happens to the cable penetration numbers for the PAC12 network.

I don't want Texas, I'd rather give up the money and avoid the conflicts that inevitably arise in dealing with Texas, and I'd like to protect our west coast scheduling which adding Texas would severely disrupt.

All that said from a purely financial standpoint if you aren't discussing Texas you are thinking with your heart, not your head.

 

[sackman]

You so sure the Presidents and Larry Scott do not want expansion?

There are so many reasons NOT to expand, and the only reason to expand is more money. The only way it makes any sense is if there is a boatload of money involved. Some of the schools in the PAC 12 don't need more money (Stanford, Oregon, USC). The headaches that come with expansion make the extra money less attractive for the remaining schools. On top of all that, even if none of that were the case, and there was an appetite for expansion, the only two schools that would make it financially attractive have no interest in leaving their current situation. It's fun to talk about, I suppose. But it's just talk.

 

[77buff]

The SEC wants nothing to do with Texas, but they would love to have OU and OSU. A&M and Mizzo were a big get for the SEC, and only the sour grape fans of the Big 12 would say what they got with TCU and WV made up for it.

 

[Mick Ronson]

The SEC wants nothing to do with Texas, but they would love to have OU and OSU. A&M and Mizzo were a big get for the SEC, and only the sour grape fans of the Big 12 would say what they got with TCU and WV made up for it.

the SEC said no to OSU in the last go round. but, i think ATM and Mizzou have shown well for themselves in the almighty SEC. i agree, as a lifelong Big 8/Big XII fan until just a few years ago....Nebraska was also a huge loss despite the low low prices on red polyester in Fort Collins still....but, it's my minority opinion, that the bugeaters made a mistake. no one cares about them in the Big 10. at least in medium markets like OKC and KC and Omaha the red was respected. no one in Chicago cares and the one's that do are all Michigan and Buckeye.

 

[Buffnik]

There are so many reasons NOT to expand, and the only reason to expand is more money. The only way it makes any sense is if there is a boatload of money involved. Some of the schools in the PAC 12 don't need more money (Stanford, Oregon, USC). The headaches that come with expansion make the extra money less attractive for the remaining schools. On top of all that, even if none of that were the case, and there was an appetite for expansion, the only two schools that would make it financially attractive have no interest in leaving their current situation. It's fun to talk about, I suppose. But it's just talk.

Here's a crazy thought...

Maybe the PAC-12 would be less concerned with football and more concerned with basketball and other sports due to a need for programming volume of live events that would be popular in Asia and Latin America. Could that end up driving expansion? Will there be a push on members adding Men's Soccer and Men's Volleyball if they don't have it? Of targeting 4 schools that are strong in hoops & Olympic sports?

 

[skibum]

Why does everyone keep talking about how OU and UT have to be tied together? They've only been in the same conference together since 1996.

They've played the red river showdown one hundred and eight times. It's played on a neutral site (cotton bowl), and the crowd is as close to 50/50 as you will ever see in any stadium. Both teams are more closely tied to that game than they are to any of their "traditional" in-conference rivalries (see NU, ATM).

108 times. We haven't played ANY team that many times. Hell, Michigan and tOSU have only played 2 more times than that, and Army - Navy has been played a grand total of 6 more times.

They may go back to separate conferences if the B12 has more upheaval, but, yeah they're tied together.