Texas A&M just joined the SEC...well maybe

• lhslep134

  

  SportsAndLady;861372 wrote:By the way..what's the difference in people bringing up missou and the St Louis market and people bringing up Rutgers and the NY market? I mean St Louis doesn't scream college city, and Missouri hasn't had much more success than Rutgers has

  
  NY TV market with Big 10 network becomes very valuable.
• karen lotz

  

  lhslep134;861663 wrote:I can't see ND joining a conference unless they get a sweeter TV deal than their current NBC one

  
  I guess NBC/Comcast is going to air a few ND games on Versus before changing that channel over to the NBC Sports Channel or something of that sorts. Probably just a couple of lower tier games to build a demand of that channel before the expand it further. If that channel takes off, Notre Dame will probably use that as part of their "Notre Dame Network" which will also include a lot of online content. Could be very profitable for both ND and NBC with the contract set to expire in 2015 IIRC.
• Tobias Fünke

  

  Notre Dame has told the Big Ten that they would join if Texas did.
  
  Personally I hate the idea of superconferences. I think it will hurt the game big time.
• karen lotz

  

  lhslep134;861667 wrote:NY TV market with Big 10 network becomes very valuable.

  
  I think Notre Dame would be a bigger draw in the NY market that either Rutgers or Syracuse.
• THE4RINGZ

  

  ND would be good for the Big10. Every team that plays ND would benefit.
• sleeper

  

  karen lotz;861671 wrote:I guess NBC/Comcast is going to air a few ND games on Versus before changing that channel over to the NBC Sports Channel or something of that sorts. Probably just a couple of lower tier games to build a demand of that channel before the expand it further. If that channel takes off, Notre Dame will probably use that as part of their "Notre Dame Network" which will also include a lot of online content. Could be very profitable for both ND and NBC with the contract set to expire in 2015 IIRC.

  
  So basically the entire season minus Stanford?
• Little Danny

  

  Tobias Fünke;861672 wrote:Notre Dame has told the Big Ten that they would join if Texas did.
  
  Personally I hate the idea of superconferences. I think it will hurt the game big time.

  
  I agree with this sentiment. One thing's for certain, it is going to be very rare for a team going undefeated with superconferences. We could see two 9-4 teams playing in the national championship game.
• Tobias Fünke

  

  But the Big Ten wouldn't necessarily be good for Notre Dame.
  
  If I'm Notre Dame, I'm saying this to the Big Ten:
  
  1) We will join if you bring Pittsburgh along too.
  2) We will be put into a division with Michigan, Michigan State, Pittsburgh, and Purdue.
  3) The Big Ten only plays 8 conference games.
• karen lotz

  

  sleeper;861688 wrote:So basically the entire season minus Stanford?

  
  
  Discounting 3 games against the Big Ten and the annual game against USC? USC has had decent success against your beloved bucks and the rest of the Big Ten.
• lhslep134

  

  karen lotz;861677 wrote:I think Notre Dame would be a bigger draw in the NY market that either Rutgers or Syracuse.

  
  Absolutely. But getting ND, imo, seems a lot harder than getting Rutgers.
• Tobias Fünke

  

  Little Danny;861691 wrote:I agree with this sentiment. One thing's for certain, it is going to be very rare for a team going undefeated with superconferences. We could see two 9-4 teams playing in the national championship game.

  
  Yeah, true.
  
  I just wish there was a cap on the size of conferences at 12. It's the perfect number.
• karen lotz

  

  lhslep134;861703 wrote:Absolutely. But getting ND, imo, seems a lot harder than getting Rutgers.

  
  
  Yes no doubt.
• dazedconfused

  

  florida st and clemson really do nothing for the sec. if i were them, i'd go after maryland and west virginia to fill the eastern void. gives the conference in-roads into the dc and western pa recruiting hotbeds.
  
  pac 12 should definitely go after the two oklahoma schools, one of texas tech/baylor, and a fourth team (either convince texas or go get a boise or byu) and create an eastern division with the arizona schools as well as colorado and utah
  
  i think the big 10's "dream" 4 additions would be missouri, nd, syracuse and rutgers but that might catch a snag if mizzou bolts to the sec before the big 10 can snatch them up
• Little Danny

  

  dazedconfused;861730 wrote:florida st and clemson really do nothing for the sec. if i were them, i'd go after maryland and west virginia to fill the eastern void. gives the conference in-roads into the dc and western pa recruiting hotbeds.
  
  pac 12 should definitely go after the two oklahoma schools, one of texas tech/baylor, and a fourth team (either convince texas or go get a boise or byu) and create an eastern division with the arizona schools as well as colorado and utah
  
  i think the big 10's "dream" 4 additions would be missouri, nd, syracuse and rutgers but that might catch a snag if mizzou bolts to the sec before the big 10 can snatch them up

  
  P12 would never take Baylor, BYU or Boise. A major reason teams form a conference is that the member conference have similar cultures, missions and academics. BYU and Baylor are religious schools. They would never fit in with the cultures of Stanford, Cal, Oregon and the others on the Left Coast. As for Boise State, they've made nice strides as a football program, but they are not a far cry from a JUCO as far as academics go. Say what you want about the P12 but their academics are top notch, they'd never let BSU in.
• dazedconfused

  

  Little Danny;861741 wrote:P12 would never take Baylor, BYU or Boise. A major reason teams form a conference is that the member conference have similar cultures, missions and academics. BYU and Baylor are religious schools. They would never fit in with the cultures of Stanford, Cal, Oregon and the others on the Left Coast. As for Boise State, they've made nice strides as a football program, but they are not a far cry from a JUCO as far as academics go. Say what you want about the P12 but their academics are top notch, they'd never let BSU in.

  
  yeah that's the problem for the pac-12 pushing it to 16. if 16 becomes the new magic number in college football (seems inevitable at this point), the pac-12 will have at least one team it really has no use for just for the sheer fact of lack of options out west
• Tobias Fünke

  

  Boise State is already a member of the Pac-12 in some sports. I could see it happening with football.
• the_system

  Little Danny;861691 wrote:I agree with this sentiment. One thing's for certain, it is going to be very rare for a team going undefeated with superconferences. We could see two 9-4 teams playing in the national championship game.

  Tobias Fünke;861672 wrote:Notre Dame has told the Big Ten that they would join if Texas did.
  
  Personally I hate the idea of superconferences. I think it will hurt the game big time.

  
  I like it just because I think setting up four (16 team superconferences) is necessary to get everyone on the same idea of playoffs.
• Tobias Fünke

  

  So what. You completely destroy the regular season in the process. No good OOC regular season match ups. The schedules become the same year after year. When it's only 48 teams, the university presidents will destroy the system because it's minority now with 48/~120.
• sleeper

  

  Tobias Fünke;861769 wrote:So what. You completely destroy the regular season in the process. No good OOC regular season match ups. The schedules become the same year after year. When it's only 48 teams, the university presidents will destroy the system because it's minority now with 48/~120.

  
  Has the playoffs destroyed the regular season in the NFL?
• dazedconfused

  

  the_system;861762 wrote:I like it just because I think setting up four (16 team superconferences) is necessary to get everyone on the same idea of playoffs.

  
  on one hand, i really like the thought of the 4 superconference theory for playoff purposes. on the other hand, i'm really not digging the one "superconference" - aka the one not named sec, big 10 or pac 12(16).
  
  for hypothetical purposes, let's say a&m, missouri, maryland and west virginia form the 16 team sec. the big ten follows up by notching nd, rutgers, syracuse and pitt. the pac 12 then nets oklahoma, texas, oklahoma st and texas tech. so now we have three 16 team superconferences and whole lot of uncertainty about the other conference. basically you have 11 members of the acc, about four members of the big east and big 12 as well as byu and boise fighting for 16 spots in that fourth conference. just doesn't really do anything for me
• enigmaax

  the_system;861762 wrote:I like it just because I think setting up four (16 team superconferences) is necessary to get everyone on the same idea of playoffs.

  
  I still don't think super conferences = playoffs. Do you think that just because 6 "big boys" become 4 that all the remaining little guys are going to say, "oh, you can do a playoff by just taking all your champions - that's cool, we'll go back to being excluded."
• Little Danny

  

  dazedconfused;861792 wrote:on one hand, i really like the thought of the 4 superconference theory for playoff purposes. on the other hand, i'm really not digging the one "superconference" - aka the one not named sec, big 10 or pac 12(16).
  
  for hypothetical purposes, let's say a&m, missouri, maryland and west virginia form the 16 team sec. the big ten follows up by notching nd, rutgers, syracuse and pitt. the pac 12 then nets oklahoma, texas, oklahoma st and texas tech. so now we have three 16 team superconferences and whole lot of uncertainty about the other conference. basically you have 11 members of the acc, about four members of the big east and big 12 as well as byu and boise fighting for 16 spots in that fourth conference. just doesn't really do anything for me

  
  
  Your post highlights what I have always thought about conference expansions and super conferences: in order for their to be balance, some conferences need to take what some perceive as lesser programs to round out the bottom. Take the present makeup of college football for example, in the B10 the traditional power schools in the conference have benefitted by having your Indiana's, Minnesota's sucking every year. It makes for better balance at the top. When you have a conference that is made up of all elite schools, someone will have to become the bottom feeder.
• sportchampps

  The theory behind the super conferences is they will eventually break away from the NCAA. They want to form their own group and pay players. It was supposed to have been agreed upon by Texas nebrasaka and osu.
• SportsAndLady

  

  KU, Pitt, ND, and Mizzou to the Big Ten? Makes sense to me!
  
  
• jordo212000

  

  Kansas isn't nearly as attractive because their football program sucks. It's all about football