The Conference Expansion Thread

[Giantsfan1080]

Rutgers in the new Conference USA with all those teams makes no sense.

[diabsoule]

The Pac12 will likely not add any schools with religious affiliations: BYU, Baylor, TCU all likely won't be considered.

West Virginia could be in play for the SEC but I see Florida State higher on the expansion list than West Virginia. I see Texas A&M, Virginia Tech, and Missouri as the top 3 with even North Carolina being ahead of WVU. Oklahoma State is likely not in consideration. They don't offer much in terms of tv markets and revenue.

Oklahoma will follow Texas. If Texas goes to the Pac12 then Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State will follow them.

If Notre Dame is invited to the Big Ten, and they accept, I see Boston College going with them. Adds the Boston market, which the Big Ten wants, plus maintains the ND/BC rivalry which was renewed for the past 10 years. Helps with scheduling and it could be incentive for ND to join. Syracuse, Rutgers, Missouri then UConn likely top the Big Ten expansion lists due to media markets and academics. Media and academics are what drives the Big Ten.

Maryland would also be in consideration but they take their ACC affiliation more seriously than most because of their rivalries with the North Carolina schools.

Way I see conference expansion is this:

Missouri, Texas A&M, Virginia Tech, Florida State to SEC

Syracuse, Rutgers, Notre Dame, Boston College to the Big Ten

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech to the Pac12

Remaining ACC/Big East schools merge:

Miami, Clemson, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, NC State, Duke, Wake Forest, Virginia, Maryland, Pitt, West Virginia, UConn, Louisville, West Virginia, USF, Cincinnati

Those are 16 schools for that with TCU being left out. Only way Big East survives is if they invite Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa St, Baylor to get back to twelve (including TCU). ACC would be left with 9 schools in that case.

[Smooth Criminal]

I've always been a fan of Pitt to the Big Ten. Probably just cause I'm from Pittsburgh, but I think it's a good fit. Pitts a great academic school, great basketball program, and I think could recover as a football program with a jump to the Big Ten.

[bearsfan_51]

Big Ten doesn't need Pitt. They already have western Pitt with Penn State and Ohio State.

If they add anyone from the Big East, and I don't think they will, it will be Syracuse and/or Rutgers.

[diabsoule]

Reason I have Syracuse and Rutgers is because of the media markets they cater to with Rutgers in the NJ/NYC market and Syracuse also bringing in the NY market. Double down on the state to obtain the media. Of course, if Virginia Tech leaves for the SEC then Virginia could seek affiliation with the Big Ten which would help the conference pull in the DC market.

If the Big Ten wants to maintain an increased level of competition, like they did when they added Nebraska, then Syracuse and Virginia would take precedence over Rutgers. Looking at conference win/loss percentages going back to 1991 for Syracuse (when the Big East began operating as a football conference) and the same year for Virginia (year ACC became a 10 team football conference) the Orange have a winning percentage of .511% while the Cavaliers have a winning percentage of .557%.

Rutgers, on the other hands, has a winning percentage of .290%, which would be a second lowest winning percentage in the Big Ten, only in front of Indiana whose winning percentage is .236%. All depends on how confident Jim Delaney and the Big Ten front offices are in Rutgers providing the NYC market.

[jrdrylie]

Originally Posted by Giantsfan1080

Rutgers in the new Conference USA with all those teams makes no sense.

If there are 4 super conferences, that is 64 teams. Right now, there are 66 BCS teams, so that means two are going to get screwed. TCU, Boise State, and UCF will likely get invites, which means at least five teams will get screwed, with Rutgers being one of them.

[Giantsfan1080]

Originally Posted by jrdrylie

If there are 4 super conferences, that is 64 teams. Right now, there are 66 BCS teams, so that means two are going to get screwed. TCU, Boise State, and UCF will likely get invites, which means at least five teams will get screwed, with Rutgers being one of them.

We are so much better academically and have a much bigger athletic budget than all those other schools. It just doesn't make sense.

[Smooth Criminal]

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

Big Ten doesn't need Pitt. They already have western Pitt with Penn State and Ohio State.

If they add anyone from the Big East, and I don't think they will, it will be Syracuse and/or Rutgers.

I understand the whole it brings nothing tv and money wise, which is of course the driving force, just somethign I'd love to see.

[Smooth Criminal]

Originally Posted by diabsoule

Reason I have Syracuse and Rutgers is because of the media markets they cater to with Rutgers in the NJ/NYC market and Syracuse also bringing in the NY market. Double down on the state to obtain the media. Of course, if Virginia Tech leaves for the SEC then Virginia could seek affiliation with the Big Ten which would help the conference pull in the DC market.

If the Big Ten wants to maintain an increased level of competition, like they did when they added Nebraska, then Syracuse and Virginia would take precedence over Rutgers. Looking at conference win/loss percentages going back to 1991 for Syracuse (when the Big East began operating as a football conference) and the same year for Virginia (year ACC became a 10 team football conference) the Orange have a winning percentage of .511% while the Cavaliers have a winning percentage of .557%.

Rutgers, on the other hands, has a winning percentage of .290%, which would be a second lowest winning percentage in the Big Ten, only in front of Indiana whose winning percentage is .236%. All depends on how confident Jim Delaney and the Big Ten front offices are in Rutgers providing the NYC market.

Thats my problem with addin Rutgers. I'm much more worried about the Big Ten adding quality teams than the money they make. But of course, theyre biggest motivation is the money and exposure.

I see Rutgers getting invited at some point, hopefully they'll use the jump to improve the programs and compete. Big Ten doesn't need any more bottom feeders.

[diabsoule]

Originally Posted by jrdrylie

If there are 4 super conferences, that is 64 teams. Right now, there are 66 BCS teams, so that means two are going to get screwed. TCU, Boise State, and UCF will likely get invites, which means at least five teams will get screwed, with Rutgers being one of them.

I can easily see TCU being left out of the next wave of expansion especially if the ACC and Big East merge, like some predict. Only way they don't is if the Big East scoops up the remaining Big 12 members of K-State, Kansas, Iowa State, and Baylor.

If the remaining Big East schools don't see that as a viable option and instead opt to merge with the ACC schools then I could see TCU forming their own conference with the remaining Big 12 members while inviting Boise State, BYU, Air Force, Nevada, Fresno State, Tulsa, Southern Miss, and Memphis to form a league that looks like this:

TCU
Kansas State
Iowa State
Kansas
Baylor
Southern Miss
Houston
Tulsa
Air Force
Boise State
Nevada
Fresno State

If that happens and they want to keep the conference a little more contracted then any two of Memphis, UTEP, New Mexico, and Colorado State could be subbed for Nevada and Fresno State. Only reasons the Wolfpack and Bulldogs are mentioned is due to the competitive edge they offer over the other schools.

[Giantsfan1080]

Originally Posted by Smooth Criminal

Thats my problem with addin Rutgers. I'm much more worried about the Big Ten adding quality teams than the money they make. But of course, theyre biggest motivation is the money and exposure.

I see Rutgers getting invited at some point, hopefully they'll use the jump to improve the programs and compete. Big Ten doesn't need any more bottom feeders.

Rutgers has been improving very slowly the last 10 years. Last year was a huge bump in the road but we've come back strong recruiting wise. We're a consistent top 40 recruiting team the last few years and getting better so that should eventually translate onto the field. Also, if you look at our winning percentage the last 7-8 years it's not nearly as bad. Schiano had to rescue this program from a dumpster.

[Smooth Criminal]

Originally Posted by Giantsfan1080

Rutgers has been improving very slowly the last 10 years. Last year was a huge bump in the road but we've come back strong recruiting wise. We're a consistent top 40 recruiting team the last few years and getting better so that should eventually translate onto the field. Also, if you look at our winning percentage the last 7-8 years it's not nearly as bad. Schiano had to rescue this program from a dumpster.

I've seen a lot of Rutgers living in Big East country. While improving, I dont think they'd fend well in the Big Ten at all. Unless they could use the jump to boost recruiting even higher, but theres no way to tell. It seems like its likely to happen, so I'll just have to hope they can bring something other than money to the Big Ten.

[Giantsfan1080]

Originally Posted by Smooth Criminal

I've seen a lot of Rutgers living in Big East country. While improving, I dont think they'd fend well in the Big Ten at all. Unless they could use the jump to boost recruiting even higher, but theres no way to tell. It seems like its likely to happen, so I'll just have to hope they can bring something other than money to the Big Ten.

Well the recruiting continually is getting better. We had a top 25 class last year and the talent we're bringing in this year is even better. We might get a top 5 player in the country which has never happened. I agree that right now we'd be a bottom of the barrel Big Ten team but in a few years we could easily be middle of the pack. Let's not forget that joining the Big Ten would also help out recruiting wise. Rutgers has a lot to offer besides money.

[scottyboy]

people don't realize that Rutgers is on the cusp of becoming the greatest football powerhouse ever over the next 10 years.
After our BCS bowl win this year, you'll see, YOU'LL ALL SEE

but seriously, with Rutgers improvement over the last 10 years, they're coming ever so close to becoming a legit football school. Looking at our past win percentage is dumb, no offense Diab, because those 1 and 2 win teams in the 90's have nothing to do with the state of Rutgers right now.

That, and just look at what happened when we had our good run a few years back, NYC jumped on Rutgers' back. They lit the Empire State building red for pete's sake.

[Shane P. Hallam]

Originally Posted by scottyboy

but seriously, with Rutgers improvement over the last 10 years, they're coming ever so close to becoming a legit football school. Looking at our past win percentage is dumb, no offense Diab, because those 1 and 2 win teams in the 90's have nothing to do with the state of Rutgers right now.

How DARE those teams be compared to our 4-8 team last year that won 1 Big East game!

[JoeJoeBrown]

Originally Posted by Shane P. Hallam

How DARE those teams be compared to our 4-8 team last year that won 1 Big East game!

LOL!

Yes, please just take a sample from the mid-to-late 2000's. Ignore the other decades of football that Rutgers has played. Thanks!

[Giantsfan1080]

Well the program is in a completely different place now as compared to 10 years ago. It's night and day but we still have a long way to go. The foundation of a good program has been built but like I said earlier the results do need to show on the field more. Another problem was when we were awesome in 2006 a lot of people felt as if we had arrived but that was still more of an outlier. In the end Rutgers is not where it wants to be yet but it is slowly improving.

[diabsoule]

Those winning percentages are taken into account by the Big Ten. Recent moderate success is good but for a tradition steeped conference like the Big Ten they would rather invite schools that have a history of being contenders unless you can offer one of the biggest television markets in the country (like NYC).

If Rutgers were to play Ohio State, Nebraska, Michigan, Notre Dame, and Penn State on a yearly/semi-annual basis then it would help boost recruiting and the Scarlet Knights could become better. However, as it stands, from the time Rutgers started playing conference football until now, a 20 year window, they have been pitiful and would be the only school besides Indiana with a conference winning percentage in roughly the same time frame below 30%.

I used 1993 as the starting point for the Big Ten schools since that is the year Penn State joined.

[bearsfan_51]

Originally Posted by diabsoule

If Rutgers were to play Ohio State, Nebraska, Michigan, Notre Dame, and Penn State on a yearly/semi-annual basis then it would help boost recruiting and the Scarlet Knights could become better.

Getting embarrassed by those schools probably wouldn't help recruiting very much.

[diabsoule]

If Syracuse, Rutgers, Boston College, and Notre Dame are added to the Big Ten here is likely what the divisions would look like as they preserve every rivalry in one way or another (only the Land Grant Trophy between Michigan State and Penn State isn't preserved on an annual basis).

Each division breaks down to be mathematically even in terms of overall conference winning percentage.

Michigan .674
Notre Dame .610
Wisconsin .608
Boston College .538
Iowa .524
Michigan State .490
Minnesota .319
Rutgers .290
.507

Ohio State .788
Nebraska .669
Penn State .625
Syracuse .511
Purdue .462
Northwestern .431
Illinois .344
Indiana .236
.508

Permanent crossover rivalries:
Ohio State/Michigan, Purdue/Notre Dame, Michigan State/Indiana, Iowa/Nebraska, Penn State/Minnesota, Rutgers/Illinois, Boston College/Syracuse, Northwestern/Wisconsin

Just food for thought.

[scottyboy]

Originally Posted by JoeJoeBrown

LOL!

Yes, please just take a sample from the mid-to-late 2000's. Ignore the other decades of football that Rutgers has played. Thanks!

you're so right! because the record of Rutgers in the 80s and 90s plays such a HUGE factor into their upcoming season and future. how silly of me.

and come on Shane, everyone who watched Rutgers last year knew we were so horrendous due to Schiano's boner love for the Wildcat.

Granted, if we're playing OSU and PSU right now, we'd get beat fairly badly, but we're a young team who've been getting better and better recruiting classes by the year.

[JoeJoeBrown]

Originally Posted by scottyboy

you're so right! because the record of Rutgers in the 80s and 90s plays such a HUGE factor into their upcoming season and future. how silly of me.

and come on Shane, everyone who watched Rutgers last year knew we were so horrendous due to Schiano's boner love for the Wildcat.

Granted, if we're playing OSU and PSU right now, we'd get beat fairly badly, but we're a young team who've been getting better and better recruiting classes by the year.

I admire your fanaticism, it's cool. But Rutgers has realistically had half a dozen years of top 60 teams and a couple of years of top 20 teams.

And the B1G would be silly if they didn't look at historical performance from the perspective of fan support, administrative support, and revenue.

Also, the B1G would have to exclude Rutgers in any case for having Snooki as a commencement speaker. Terrible. :)

[diabsoule]

Only two things work in Rutgers favor: they're an AAU schools which fits the academic criteria the Big Ten looks for and they can bring in the NJ market, which in itself is a top television market. If the Big Ten feels that they can bring in the NYC market then they'll receive an invite. If the Big Ten doesn't, then they go after another team likely either Virginia or Maryland. Both have had more continual success than RU and are just as strong, if not stronger, in academics. Plus, either school would give the Big Ten the D.C. market and with Maryland they not only give the D.C. market but the Baltimore market as well.

[Iamcanadian]

I don't believe you'll see a conference larger than 12 teams for many years. It would dilute the # of times a 12 team conference could show off its top teams on TV. It would likely affect their TV contract negatively as well since their top teams would appear even less during the season.
I think once a conference reaches 12 teams, it will think long and hard before expanding beyond that point.

[bearsfan_51]

Originally Posted by Iamcanadian

I don't believe you'll see a conference larger than 12 teams for many years. It would dilute the # of times a 12 team conference could show off its top teams on TV. It would likely affect their TV contract negatively as well since their top teams would appear even less during the season.
I think once a conference reaches 12 teams, it will think long and hard before expanding beyond that point.

So Texas A&M is leaving the Big 12 to go independent?