****The official NEW new conference realignment thread.****
 

the second thread has been pronounced dead.

First

It blew up when it broke in half over Topeka.

And can we make a Syracuse logo for this thread instead of Missouri.

Syracuse is by far the most significant program to move this time around.

Rumor has it that the Big XII is trying to get teams from the ACC.

Va Tech makes a nice target, but I know they still dream of the SEC.

KK says Clemson wants in the Big 12.

That would be interesting. If Clemson wants in the Big XII, they will be in the Big XII as long as they can get away from the ACC. Didn't they just sign some 20 year agreement, though?

If the ACC starts fracturing, UNC and VA Tech could round out the SEC. UNC doesn't want to move without Duke, and the SEC isn't going to accept Duke, but UNC might be willing to jump if the alternative is watching the ACC turn into the Big East.

I love this shit, especially now that Mizzou has the best seat in the house. It's great theater.

I don't see the ACC falling apart. Does one or two teams leave because they don't like the basketball direction? Maybe? But there are just too many name teams to break the whole thing up.

16 teams is just too many in one conference. It's been that way from the beginning.

I like 12 personally. But don't like the idea of Florida St. or Clemson mostly because of regional ridiculousness.

The problem with the ACC is they don't give a shit about football.

If Florida State/Virginia Tech and Clemson bolt, the ACC is in serious trouble. Duke and Wake Forest are two of the smallest D-1 football schools. Duke has a huge following, but they aren't even filling their arena this year. Even Boston College and Miami are tiny schools.

If two of the football powers leave, Miami would have to look hard at their options as well. It could easily bring down the conference.

16 teams is a good number if there are 4 of them. You would have 4 pods of 4 teams, and this would lend itself perfectly to a football playoff.

Article from yesterday about a committee Clemson has to long into their options.
http://cemetery-hill.com/2012-articl...he-way-in.html

CLEMSON, SC - Clemson Athletic Director, Dr. Terry Don Phillips, has announced the formation of an Athletic Advisory Committee. The committee is composed of 10 successful business leaders with strong ties to Clemson who will provide advice to the department from a strategic planning standpoint. The committee had a two-day meeting earlier this week.

"The nature of college athletics is changing in every area," said Phillips who has been Clemson's Athletic Director for nearly 10 years. "These changes are effecting how Clemson Athletics does business. It is a blessing to have access to successful business leaders who have and are facing similar issues in their industries.

"I have asked these Clemson loyalists to advise us as we strive to take our program to the next level. The candid and productive conversations we had and will have focus on key issues and strategies that will make Clemson athletics as good as it can be."

The Athletic Advisory Committee is composed of:

-discussion leader Harry Frampton, Vail, Colorado

-Steve Bond, Georgetown

-Jim Bostic, Atlanta

-Jim Brown, Florence

-Ray Cash, Seneca

-Tom Chapman, Atlanta

-Charles Dalton, Pickens

-Rich Davies, Charlotte

-Helen Hill, Charleston

-Rodney Williams, Greenville.

"Clemson is one of the top athletic programs in the nation," said Frampton. "We have only one agenda - how to help Clemson Athletics go to the next level.

"Every area of major college sports is being challenged - competition, academic success, student/athlete welfare, compliance, finances, brand marketing and conference structure. Clemson needs to lead change, not react to it.

"This Athletic Advisory Committee is not a decision making body, we are advisory. Clemson has very capable administrators and Boards to make decisions. We commend Terry Don and his staff for involving motivated business leaders in their strategic planning."

The next meeting of the Athletic Advisory Committee is scheduled for June 18 and 19."

2-

What does this committee mean? Well this quote from Clemson AD accurately describes it

"The nature of college athletics is changing in every area," said Phillips who has been Clemson's Athletic Director for nearly 10 years. "These changes are effecting how Clemson Athletics does business."

This scratches the surface or eludes to what our opinion is- College football is now an arms race; get "all the way in" the game or keep out. Kind of like say, Syracuse, Pitt, Duke or UNC. They are in a game; the difference is their game is basektball. Their game will never fully showcase ACC football so it's a respected national brand. Syracuse and Pitt's 848 football fans they will bring to Death Valley don't excite Clemson fans.

For ACC commissioner John Swofford and his gang their game is basketball plain and simple. Their motivations keep the ACC one dimensional, dumb down the competition in football and keep the prize football horses Clemson, VT, FSU and Miami off the race trac. Hire the worse college football officials money can buy and let the SEC, Big 12, Pac 12 and Big 10 stomp a mud hole in the ACC on national stages.



3-

Some say the knock on Clemson and FSU is they "play down to their comeptition" They're more right than they know. This crowd thinks it's because the team isn't focused. My view is they only get challenged properly 1/4 of the year.

For instance Clemson; these are the games that raise your heart beat when you see the schedule
-Auburn
-FSU
-VT
-GT
-South Carolina

The rest of the scehdule Clemson should win 8-9 times out of 10. Wake, Duke, NCST etc. It's my belief a Clemson team playing tougher teams week in and week out would bring the best out in our Tigers. Getting clipped at the ankles by a Jack Russell terrier playing Wake Forest won't make you better. They aren't the standard for Clemson in football. What happened when the SEC got "all the way in"? Their football product got better. Then the Big 10, Big 12, Pac 12 etc all are trying to duplicate their success. If the SEC ran their conference like Swofford they would have no national championships in a row. Instead they are piling them up.

4-

How does the ACC get better in football?

Two choices-

A- Fire John Swofford and his "baby blue mafia" and get them out of control.

B- Bring in Notre Dame and Penn St to round out the ACC with 16 teams.

I won't waste another word neither of those will happen.

5-

The real answer-

Clemson and Florida State pack their bags and tell Swofford "good luck with your basketball football teams"

The committee Clemson formed has a release to say what it is. The very fact that they have formed one could also be a sign they are taking a close look at everything. Rumors of the Big 12 expanding east billow in more smoke by the day.

This is the prize. This is from nine months ago and now is a done deal-

"The Big 12 plans to announce a 13-year/1.17 billion deal with Fox Sports in a teleconference today, according to John Ourand of the Sports Business Journal.

That figure would pay the league $90 million a year and, combined with a current deal with ESPN that pays the Big 12 $60 million per year, should be plenty to satisfy the league's powers, especially once additional conference revenue from basketball and football BCS berths are factored in. "

6-

15,216,064 reasons for the Big 12 to want Clemson and Florida St and 15,216,064 reason they should want the Big 12.

Conferences are expanding literally. Regional add on teams aren't attractive any more. These conferences want new areas and new eyeballs to watch their product like say Texas A&M and Mizzou to the SEC. The money those two footprints brought was a no brainer.

15,216,064 is the number of "households" in the states of South Carolina, Florida and Georgia; the prevailing TV viewing states Clemson and Florida State fans watch their football. These numbers indicate a huge opportunity for the Big 12 to garner TV money and tier TV $$$.

As long as Texas and Oklahoma have a say they won't look to crappy teams to make their conference better. Clemson and FSU bring football money, eyeballs and fans that love their schools. Rumors of WVU AD Oliver Luck being the guy to take the Big 12 commissioner job make things even more interesting. Luck is a mover and shaker and there are whispers he wants Clemson and FSU.

Before you quickly dismiss Clemson and FSU and their likelihood to jump off the All Carolina Conference think about how much this make sense. Before you start in on travel remember that conference expansion will involve new areas to their footprint and the tv money will out weigh fans traveling for an away game.

A Big 12 network means big money for each team in it. If say NBC/Comcast were to get back in the college football business Big 12 teams could have an exclusive network to broadcast their games. If a guy like Oliver Luck were in charge of the Big 12 you can guarantee relevance and big time TV money will job #1.

For Clemson and Florida St they can hope John Swofford brings in Notre Dame and Penn St or just say good bye and let him pick up the pieces while he sees how an all baskeball conference works out for him. We aren't saying this happens but with the day of the super conference coming soon it's time to listen.

The schools he puts down in this article are far more attractive than Clemson.

Syracuse and Pitt are far more attractive football teams than Clemson?

Negative

I took the tone of the article as putting down UNC and DUKE in addition to those schools...

UNC, DUKE and Syracuse are all teams I would want in a league over Clemson. I'll give you Pitt...

I'm sorry but Clemson has always had an extremely over-inflated view of themselves.

1. UNC
2. Clemson
3. Duke
4. Syracuse
5. Pitt

1. UNC
2. Duke
3. Syracuse
4. Clemson
5. Pitt

What? Clemson has been to a...BCS BOWL!!!!

Article put down the ACC as being basketball driven. Clemson fans are looking at it from a football perspective. Be a coup if the Big 12 could poach the ACC of the football schools. Wont happen, but would create the needed stability. Get the 4 from the ACC add Louisville and BYU for a 16 team conference.

No thanks, we already have our quota of "Basketball Schools".

If the goal is breaking KU's string of conference football losses (what is it now, 15?), yes. If its building a strong and stable conference, no.

If Clemson was this great football school I would be on board.

They have a pretty good fanbase so no, they wouldn't hurt the conference.

They just aren't nearly the name that UNC, Duke and Syracuse are.

Yeah, they are just dying to get into the Big 12 I'm sure.

I love stability.

Endowments:

UNC - $2 Billion

Duke - $4.8 Billion

Syracuse - $850 Million

Clemson - $382 Million

In

Do you even know what an endowment is?

I assume the answer is no since you think it is some sort of proxy for university/athletic dept/conference stability.

No one is making conference membership decisions based on endowments. Endowments don't generate TV revenue.

DanBeebe Fake Dan Beebe
So Kansas every year, then RT @Rhyno_21: @DanBeebe last place finisher gets auto-bid to Beebe O'Beebe Bowl

Heh.

Hey, be nice. He spelled a big word correctly.

You should go after Harvard, then. Endowments having something to do with athletic conferences and all.

Hey, they would probably win more conference games than Kansas.

Yeah, but they get to play Kansas. That gives them an advantage over KU in terms of strength of schedule.

I love how you shift so easily in the wind.

Two days ago you were touting Mizzou because of the money the athletics bring in.

Now it's only athletic achievement that makes a program attractive.

UNC, Duke and Syracuse all have more national standing and more monetary value than Clemson.

If you want to hitch your wagon to that school over the other three it's fine with me.

Yes, the schools I listed (sans Clemson) fall much more in line with the endowment level of my school. The University of Kansas. This is one of the many reasons I would want any of them over Clemson.

You do understand that money generated by the athletic department has nothing to do with the school's endowments, right? You're not very bright, but you're smart enough to have figured this out.

Of course.

However a large endowment is essential to winning championships at major college universities. Facilities, recruiting, advertising, etc... all go into winning.

This is why schools like UNC, Duke and Syracuse win. This is why they are more valuable on television then a school like Clemson.

If Harvard wanted to compete at a big time level in sports they would. They just have no interest. They are an academic institution first.

TV revenue.....exactly.

I don't think I've ever seen Duke play a football game on television.

Duke whored themselves out to some SEC team a couple seasons ago. I think it was on TV.

That's funny because West Virginia and Clemson have nearly identical endowments.

I found a list from 2009 that listed 791 schools by endowments. It's not 100% up to date, but I'm going to assume that it's close enough to paint a pretty accurate picture.



Boise State is 437th
Memphis is 246th
UCONN is ranked 189th
Wisconsin is ranked 187th
Kansas State is ranked 182nd
Clemson is ranked 158th
Auburn is ranked 157th
South Carolina is ranked 156th
Oregon is ranked 148th
Arizona is ranked 140th
Virginia Tech is ranked 138th
Florida State is ranked 128th
LSU is ranked 119th
Stanford is ranked 3rd
Yale is ranked 2nd
Harvard is ranked 1st


There is minimal correlation between endowments and athletic performance, and there is no causation because the primary purpose of endowments is not typically to fund athletic ventures. Your point, as usual, is reeruned.

I assume you meant to say athletic performance.

Yes

Seems like the more prestigious academic schools have higher endowments which leads to increased academic success.

Ever looked at the tuiton to Harvard? It's a tad bit high.

The best schools churn out the most successful graduates who donate the most money back to the schools.

Yep.


It's expected at Harvard that you make donations.

It's expected from us at the Dental School, but good luck with that. I've paid that place enough.

They've also been around forever.

Damn I'm glad we dodged the B1G bullet. Funny how things work out.

There were 2 B1G games today.

Illinois beat (10)Michigan State 42-41
(20) Wisconsin beat Penn State 52-46

The WINNING teams combined for 94 points. Mizzou scored 104 in a game earlier this season. The losing teams combined for 87. Mizzou has scored 87 or more 8 times this season.

40 minutes of fail.

Trololololoickedson as always.

Can you provide the link to this list?

I'd like to chart some teams too.

Like... Alabama, Florida, Texas, USC, Ohio State, Miami, Oklahoma, Duke, North Carolina, Kansas



I'm just curious.

Texas - 3rd
Duke -15th
USC - 21st
UNC - 29th
Ohio State - 31st
Florida - 54th
Kansas - 55th
Oklahoma - 58th

I stopped at top 60.

My list has 17 National Champions.

Yours has 5 National Champions.


(in the last decade)

You're a stud. Your list has more champions.

That will pull the best ass for literally weeks.

I just call it the cost of doing business.

KU **** YEAH.....
Posted via Mobile Device

mu **** yeah...
Posted via Mobile Device

Sorry.


MU **** YEAH...
Posted via Mobile Device

That's incorrect. We are in the conference we want to be in.

I think it's pretty clear that Wicked isn't very well endowed.

Mizzou should have stated in the Big XII. We would have the third best class.

Heard from a teacher in Shawnee Mission today that it's "wear your favorit college team gear" today because of the MU/KU game. Evidently there is a much larger Mizzou following this year than in past years. Doesn't really mean much, but I thought it was interesting to hear that about a school 30 minutes from Lawrence.

Sounds like lots of people from Missouri have moved to Kansas after realizing how much better of a place to live it is... just like you.

That must be.

But to your point I always thought it was really strange ever since I was born that whenever I was on the Missouri side of the line (Chiefs games, Royals games, the Plaza, Crown Center, etc etc) all I saw was KU gear.

So instead of 2 students wearing MU colors, there were 6? I remember a girl in highschool who wanted to be a photographer and was going to go to the MU J-school, the rest were on their way to KU/KSU. There were those who were going to good schools as well, but they were the tiny minority.

I guess that tells you where all the good stuff is, doesn't it?

Hey Ethel, we could stay home and watch the ****ing wheat sway in the breeze, or go to Missouri and do something interesting!

"Hey! We could imitate the wheat! It could become a tradition."

Well you need to do SOMETHING when you score and win all the time...

That's been the case at this school. Evidently it was around 5-1 last year but less than 2:1 this year. The exact e-mail quote was "actually pretty equal". I'm guessing a lot of it can be attributed to Mizzou's success this year compared to last year at this time.

The university has grown by 45% in the last decade, and the school has been considering capping enrollment. KU's enrollment has been in decline for several years now since peaking immediately after the Orange Bowl season.

It's no coincidence. Football success does a lot for the popularity of schools.

I think the number one thing is how many "in state" kids there are. Other things might matter, but not nearly to that extent. I have no idea why KU's enrollment is down, it could be due to football or maybe KSU is pulling more in or it could be some other factors. I just know that if it's between going to an instate school and paying 12k/year (or whatever it is now) and going to an out of state school and paying 20k+ a year, a lot of kids are going to go with instate. That's just the way it is.

MU has like 3k more students than Kansas.

Do you realize how ridiculous that is?

The state has 8 MILLION people in it. Kansas has less than 3. AND has to split the state with another BCS level school.

Thank God the KU enrollment has slowed. That school was about to explode.

True, but those things have always been part of the equation. It didn't suddenly become the case. Mizzou is actually slightly more expensive and has more strict admission guidelines.

Mizzou is among the fastest growing universities in the country.

You should tell that to the university officials. They will be relieved to learn that declining enrollment is a good thing. They've even gone as far as to upping recruitment efforts in order to reduce the trend. I'm sure you know better than Bernadette, though.

K-State could be the largest school in Kansas by the end of the decade. If you remove Edwards campus and the med center, they actually just surpassed KU. As it is, K-State has narrowed the gap to under 5,000 after being 6,000 just a year ago.

I believe they set a freshman enrollment record 4 years ago.

Sure it is down since then. Hence the term "record".

The article I read stated that the drop in enrollment is mostly because of less kids in Kansas high schools. Most likely because of the drop in certain places in the country with having children.

Lower income areas of the country are seeing booms in population. Not sure this is the case in Kansas. The population is pretty steady. Never rising and falling very much.

Setting the record for most football and basketball victories by an NCAA Division 1 program in 2008 probably helped set the enrollment record.

But when you reach that high there really isn't anywhere to go but down.

I guess Turner Gill is a hero, then. Without him, the school might have exploded.

I wouldn't say he was a hero.

But I agree that it's good to see the education in the local area spreading around instead of everyone simply wanting to go to KU.

Lots of errors in this post but that is typical.

Missouri only has 6 million people in the state not 8. Missouri State is on the verge of passing K-State in enrollment and will do so easy in the next decade, so that is another faulty logic by you. Not to mention UMKC and UMSL take away students from the main campus. Both of those together are the same size as UMC.

Why are you including UMKC and UMSL? I understand they are part of the Missouri "system" but I wouldn't consider them the same school.

UMKC fields a Division 1 basketball team for Pete's sake. come on man, you're brighter then that.

You are correct on the population. Missouri is more than double the population of Kansas as opposed to slightly less than three times the population.

UMKC and UMSL are under the MU system.

Missouri state had about 23000 students a couple years ago when I graduated. It is growing a ton.