bitcruncher Wrote:I bet Fresno would be happy to replace Arizona in the Pac 10. They would be a pretty good fit for the conference too.

Except for the fact that it would be breaking up a great rivalry game, and really doesn't add much market wise(oh and Arizona has a BBall team too)

bitcruncher Wrote:

MichiganTiger Wrote:

bitcruncher Wrote:I bet Fresno would be happy to replace Arizona in the Pac 10. They would be a pretty good fit for the conference too.

The PAC-10 requires unanimous approval for expansion, and Fresno has 4 built in no votes from USC, UCLA, Cal, and Stanford just becuase they're in the Cal State system.

Of course, none of them want to look bad by losing to Fresno.

That's not true, I think it is becuase Fresno has a penchant for recruiting thugs and criminals(it might not be true, but that's what alot of people say)

CatsClaw Wrote:I disagree, Wake earns money in basketball, they have been to the NIT and NCAA Tournament numerous times and have advanced in both tournaments. Vanderbilt adds academic excellence which is still very important. Just because they stink in one sport doesn't take away what they add in other sports.

Wake also has deep pockets. They won't be dropping down at all.

Boston College - ACC
South Florida - Big East

chess Wrote:

CatsClaw Wrote:I disagree, Wake earns money in basketball, they have been to the NIT and NCAA Tournament numerous times and have advanced in both tournaments. Vanderbilt adds academic excellence which is still very important. Just because they stink in one sport doesn't take away what they add in other sports.

Wake also has deep pockets. They won't be dropping down at all.

Exactly. I think people look at programs that struggle in one or two sports and think they don't belong there or that they are willing to drop down. People forget that conferences aren't just linked by sports, they're linked by finances, student enrollment and academics and research facilities. One of the reasons Cincinnati wanted to move into the Big East was because, now, their research facilities and libraries are linked to schools like Notre Dame, Providence, Seton Hall, Syracuse, Connecticut, and other top flight universities. Also, the Big East is linked to the Big Ten and Pac-10 so that allows your university to tap into those conferences now that we're a Big East member. There are a LOT of things that go into this.

This is exactly why UC had to fire Huggins. UC was becoming the Fresno State of the east. Deserved or undeserved, UC had do drop Huggins inorder to move up to the next level. If UC was gonna get mentioned with Syracuse and Pitt in academics, then they had to change the image of the basketball program. They couldn't afford to spent that kind of money and have the team overshadow the university.

mattsarz Wrote:

Hoquista Wrote:There was a story recently that Colorado was having budget problems too.

I've seen that they will be in the red as well.

The point wasn't whether schools could compete on the field or the court, but whether financially they could continue to compete with even the schools in their own conference.

Colorado isn't going to go anywhere, but that program does have major budget issues. Before recently hiring Boise's coach, they tried to woo Steve Kragethorpe from Tulsa. He turned them down and Tulsa fans took that to mean he will not ever leave them for any BCS school short of Texas A&M (he has ties there). Reality is that any sensible coach in a good situation would have turned CU down because they pay next to nothing salary wise compared to most BCS teams, their facilities are recognized as easily dead last in the Big 12, and they have very low donor levels.

Quote:If UC was gonna get mentioned with Syracuse and Pitt in academics, then they had to change the image of the basketball program.

Anybody that matters knows UC has good academic credentials (I didn't know it until they were accepted into the Big East, but then again I am among the many that don't matter in the grand scheme of conference expansion).

Was that really the reason for Huggins firing? I know he didn't make it any easier on himself with the DUI.

I think its entirely possible that schools will be dropping out of the BCS....

Its unlikely to be a situation where one school gets the boot.

What is more likely to happen to Wake, Vandy, and Baylor is something similiar to what happened to SMU, Rice, and TCU.......the big guys will form a new more powerful conference leaving the smaller guys behind.

There has been talk of a new SWC forming that would inculde Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Arkansas, Colorado, TCU and New Mexico.......9 schools for more revenue. This scenario would leave Baylor out in the cold.

SMU, Rice, TCU, Army, Navy, Air Force, Tulane, Syracuse? have all been force out of the Big Time by the BCS........How long could it be before Wake, Vandy, and Baylor?........Stanford and Northwestern should be okay because they are in big markets and TCU might get back in because of its big market.

Airport KC Wrote:There has been talk of a new SWC forming that would inculde Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Arkansas, Colorado, TCU and New Mexico.......9 schools for more revenue. This scenario would leave Baylor out in the cold.

First I've heard of it...and New Mexico and TCU? Are you kidding? TCU's nice and they've done well recently, but the old SWC folks wanted nothing to do with TCU before and want very little to do with them now when it comes to scheduling them. Why invite them into a conference?

As for New Mexico...no. The only school that most of those old SWC schools would likely consider would be LSU. They have the built in rivalry with Arkansas and would fit in a lot more.

I could see Tex,TexA&M,TexT,Colo,Okla,Missouri,Kansas hooking up with USC,UCLA,Cal,Stanford,ASU,Oregon,Wash & leaving the other 8 schools behind. Take all the Revenue from Pac-10 & B-12 divide by 14.

mattsarz Wrote:

Airport KC Wrote:There has been talk of a new SWC forming that would inculde Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Arkansas, Colorado, TCU and New Mexico.......9 schools for more revenue. This scenario would leave Baylor out in the cold.

First I've heard of it...and New Mexico and TCU? Are you kidding? TCU's nice and they've done well recently, but the old SWC folks wanted nothing to do with TCU before and want very little to do with them now when it comes to scheduling them. Why invite them into a conference?

As for New Mexico...no. The only school that most of those old SWC schools would likely consider would be LSU. They have the built in rivalry with Arkansas and would fit in a lot more.

The idea behind TCU is having a school in the large Dallas-FT.Worth market....and TCU does have a 48,000 seat stadium giving it the ability to host BCS opponents........TCU is a much better idea than Baylor which adds nothing to the Big XII.

IF LSU wanted in the new SWC, I'm sure there would be a spot for them but the assumption is they don't want a spot in it.........thus New Mexico would be a backup choice.....and a good one at drawing 40,000 in FB plus 15,000 in BB......rival for Texas Tech and Colorado.

templefootballfan Wrote:I could see Tex,TexA&M,TexT,Colo,Okla,Missouri,Kansas hooking up with USC,UCLA,Cal,Stanford,ASU,Oregon,Wash & leaving the other 8 schools behind. Take all the Revenue from Pac-10 & B-12 divide by 14.

Exactly.

The idea of having the 2 major instate schools in the BCS conference (e.g. Oregon-OregonSt, Washington-WashingtonSt) could fall to the wayside with money talking.

Try this realingment

PAC-12
USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, ASU, Oregon, Washington, Utah, UNLV, New Mexico, Colorado, Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma

SEC
Akansas, LSU, Mississippi, Alabama, Auburn, Tennesse, Kentucky, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, Maryland, West Virginia

Big 10
Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, Illinios, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers, UConn

3 conferences of 14 that would completely dominate NCAA athletics.

mattsarz Wrote:I'm posting this here because the Big East had a large re-configuration in the last round of conference alignment and there's been some discussion about athletic budgets here recently.

In this week's Sports Business Journal (I can't post the article as its a pay membership site), there is an article about the red ink that the University of Arizona's athletic department has been bleeding despite playing many of their sports in the PAC-10. They've cut a large number of employees over the past few years and a few sports, and the school's AD is starting to believe that when Lute Olson retires, he won't be able to be able to bring in a decent coach to replace him. Olson only makes $750K from UA, he makes at least that in deals with sponsors not affiliated with UA.

There are other factors regarding university marketing and how money for athletics is funded (no student fees go towards athletics, I believe only jersey sales on campus go back into the athletics coffers) and the school has limited its sponsorships, particularly in alcohol sponsorships. The outgoing president was also involved in the formation of the Patriot League and believes that athletics revenues should go back into the school whenever possible.

I thought this might be interesting to look at. I can't see the PAC-10 allowing one of its institutions to look elsewhere if they can't meet requirements in terms of sports offered (if it ever comes to that), but Tulane was looking at dropping football altogether before the hurricane, and it will be interesting if Tulane's athletics can survive after. The article states that the AD is projecting a $5 million shortfall in the budget in 2010 and there is no relief in site at this point.

In my opinion, if things don't turn around at UA, they could be a domino in the next conference realignment.

BCS teams have some class.... hmmm... :banned:

SEC needs Vandy and the Big 12 needs Baylor for some simple reasons - one its a guaranted win for the big boys. You might have a stacked conference but they need some wins, you cant have everybody beating up each other each week.

Airport KC Wrote:The idea behind TCU is having a school in the large Dallas-FT.Worth market....and TCU does have a 48,000 seat stadium giving it the ability to host BCS opponents........TCU is a much better idea than Baylor which adds nothing to the Big XII.

Texas and Texas A&M already dominate the DFW market. They don't need a TCU that practically gets ignored there.

OUBOBCATJOHN Wrote:This is exactly why UC had to fire Huggins. UC was becoming the Fresno State of the east. Deserved or undeserved, UC had do drop Huggins inorder to move up to the next level. If UC was gonna get mentioned with Syracuse and Pitt in academics, then they had to change the image of the basketball program. They couldn't afford to spent that kind of money and have the team overshadow the university.

I MIGHT have agreed with you a 5 years ago, but not now. UC's academics are well respect among the people who matter. When Bob Goin presented Notre Dame with UC's academic profile during Big East expansion they were very impressed as was the rest of the Big East.

MissouriStateBears Wrote:SEC needs Vandy and the Big 12 needs Baylor for some simple reasons - one its a guaranted win for the big boys. You might have a stacked conference but they need some wins, you cant have everybody beating up each other each week.

Great point and it's exactly why the SEC wanted the BCS to drop their BCS requirement standards. They felt that they were beating each other up and hurting their BCS profile as far as averaging a Top 12 ranking and getting 2 teams in the BCS.