Makes sense from both perspectives. It will be like CUSA on steroids, basically. In fact, it will look an awful lot like the original CUSA roster from the late 90s..
With the ACC's move obliterating the Big East, this seems like the logical and only endgame here. What I think remains to be seen is who else the SEC, ACC, and potentially Big10 take and then how many schools are left. You figure Mizzou and West Virginia are probably gone, and potentially UConn/Rutgers. That would leave 8 schools. That opens the door for schools like UH since you won't have Texas fighting it anymore.
My understanding is that if a conference drops below 6 members, it automatically dissolves, but I'm not sure if that's technically right. If so, they would need to replace members before the other members leave - which I'm sure TX/OU/etc would be willing to accomodate. But it might require a little bit of logistical work.
Looks like we are already setup for PAC, SEC, Big 10 and ACC to be the 4 super conferences. BCS will have to change the rules. They might start to have 2 schools from non-BCS con. and then the an at-large.
This is the reason why I never understood the super conferences. Not necessarily more money, more travel costs, more difficult to get to BCS bowl. It would make sense if we made a playoff out of it, but they aren't.
Many believe the super-conferences will mark the end of the current BCS and lead to an 8-team (or less likely, 16-team) playoff. For travel costs, the only issue is with the enlarged Pac 12. The ACC, Big Ten and SEC will be fine. The ACC will expand to 16 regional teams. The SEC will add WVU to reach 14 and might be finished expanding. The Big Ten wants ND, which is a natural.
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/colleg...venue-sharing-and-16-team-division-alignment/ Pac-12 expansion: The latest on Texas, revenue sharing and 16-team division alignment Talked to several sources this weekend about Texas joining the Pac-12 and the future of the Longhorn Network. Let’s get right to it. *** Texas-to-the-Pac is not happening in the next 24 or 36 hours, folks. It could be a week, or weeks. There are far too many issues still to be worked out, many of them involving UT’s ultimate willingness to make the concessions necessary to join the Pac-12. Despite what you may have read, the school and the conference are “nowhere near any agreement,” according to one source. (That doesn’t mean a deal won’t be reached, only that there are several layers to the negotiations and it could take time.) *** The Austin-American Statesman reported that Texas could join the Pac-12 and keep the Longhorn Network, essentially with its own revenue model: The Longhorns would be able to keep all of their revenue from the network if that amount is greater than one-sixteenth of what the entire Pac-12 receives for its third-tier rights. However, if one-sixteenth of the money the Pac-12 receives from third-tier rights ends up being a larger amount, the schools would divide the revenue evenly and everybody would receive the same amount, the source said. That is, at its very best, misleading. For one thing, the Longhorn Network would have to be folded into the Pac-12 regional model — it wouldn’t exist as a separate entity. What’s more, there is no chance that any school will have more than 1/16th of the revenue, whether it comes from the conference’s first, second or third-tier rights. NO CHANCE. We’re more likely to see USC give up football and join the Big West. Remember, the Pac-12 CEOs would like to have Texas, but they are not desperate to have Texas. They have all the leverage. Now … Would UT and ESPN have to work something out in regard to the $300 million Longhorn Network? Probably. A contract like that doesn’t simply get ripped up. (Quick aside: Based on what media industry sources have told me about revenue projections for the league’s third-tier rights, they would trounce what Texas stands to make off TLN over time.) *** Yes, yes, 100 times yes: The Pac-12 would add the Oklahoma schools and become a 14-team conference even if Texas follows a different path. And if the number is 14, there’s a very good chance the conference would use the Zipper model for division alignment (i.e., split the natural rivals). The league will not — I repeat: will not — pair USC and Oklahoma in the same division. *** There’s a lot of confusion and concern about the division alignment in a 16-team league. In particular, the Arizona schools, Utah and Colorado don’t want to be in the eastern division — they don’t want to get cut off from Los Angeles. Here’s my educated guess as to how the conference would handle the situation. Call it the pod rotation system: 1. Divide the 16 teams into pods of four: the Northwest schools, the California schools, the Mountain schools and the Texas/Oklahoma schools (or the Kansas/Oklahoma schools). You’d play the three teams in your pod every year and two teams from each of the other three pods to form the nine-game league schedule. 2. Pair two sets of pods to create one eight-team division and two sets of pods to create another eight-team division. 3. Keep the pods together for two years to provide home-and-home scheduling, and then switch the pod pairings. In other words, the California schools could be paired with the Mountain schools in a division for two years, and then the California schools could be paired with the Northwest schools in a division for two years … and so on. It’s critical to remember that — as with the 12-school negotiations last fall on divisions, scheduling and revenue sharing — commissioner Larry Scott’s goal would be to find a Pac-16 infrastructure that satisfies everyone … even if it doesn’t thrill anyone. *** Last point: I’ve read and heard a lot about whether Scott has the CEO support to expand or is getting significant push-back from a handful of presidents and chancellors. (Nine votes are needed to approve new members.) Bottom line: If Scott needs the votes, he’ll have the votes.
ChuckCarltonDMN Chuck Carlton Had been hot message board topic recently. RT @wilnerhotline: Source: Texas proposed placing its Olympic sports in ACC, not football team. ChrisLevel Chris Level At this point #TexasTech has no such meeting planned with their regents like Oklahoma State has just scheduled. UT/OU have meetings today. ChrisLevel Chris Level At this point #TexasTech has no such meeting planned with their regents like Oklahoma State has just scheduled. UT/OU have meetings today.
I just want to lay this out to see what it looks like: Pac 16 Texas OU TT OKSU Ore St Ore Wash St Wash UCLA USC Cal Stan Col Utah AZ St. AZ Big16 Mich Mich St. Wisc Minn OSU Northwestern Indiana Iowa Illini Neb Perdue Penn ST Missouri Kansas ND Rutgers? SEC16 TAMU ARK LSU Miss ST Ole' Miss Ala Ky Aub Fla Ga Vandy SC WVa FSU Clem VA Tech The ACC 16 NC NC State Duke WF GT Mia Md Va Pitt Syr Uconn Louisville? TCU SMU UH S. Fla. Baylor to Conf USA
Doesn't seem likely, insofar as neither Florida nor South Carolina (the spurrier belt...) is apparently eager to add an in-state rival, and because VT begged, cajoled, pleaded like crazy to be allowed to join the ACC, invoking state legislators, et al, not that long ago, and basically beggin to be tied to UVa.
Yeah I know. State legislators might be swayed by the revenue of keeping another game in your state (if only every 4 years if the teams are in a different pod) and it lowers travel costs for the non-revenue sports. I'm just spitballin
ACC Presidents just unanimously voted to double their exit fees to leave last week - no way any of the the ACC schools (FSU, Clemson) leave the ACC at this point. And no way the ACC adds a couple of random schools from Texas - they simply don't need them.
The SEC will need to flesh out with someone if the 16 team super conference is way of the future. I just did that as a thinking chart, feel free to suggest alternatives.
