(11-01-2014 12:18 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  Well, if we are looking for the mostly like place for expansion to happen next, that would be in the B1G in about two years.

Let's say they go after two ACC schools. I think UNC and Duke will try very hard to keep their conference regardless of tv pay outs. So AAU members UVA and GT join the B1G. This would leave VT in a financial short fall compared to UVA's B1G income, so they move the SEC. The SEC looks for a 16th and adds NC State when they play the A&M visibility card.

That would leave the ACC at 10 full members and ND. The ACC would lose teams in the Georgia and Virginia markets but all teams could play Notre Dame every other year which might boost the quality of the inventory, some what.

No ND fan would want every ACC team to play the Irish every year. That would be a non-starter.

Five games a year is bad enough. No more than that, ever.

Don't feel like the Lone Ranger TerryD.
There are many in the ACC that are really comfortable with the Irish as a partial member, but would be most unhappy if Notre Dame tried to become a full member of the conference.

(11-01-2014 11:05 AM)XLance Wrote:  Don't feel like the Lone Ranger TerryD.
There are many in the ACC that are really comfortable with the Irish as a partial member, but would be most unhappy if Notre Dame tried to become a full member of the conference.

Those people are my new best friends......

(10-28-2014 10:13 PM)colohank Wrote:  Did someone from Kansas say Cincinnati isn't exciting? Kansas? Really?

Yes, in realignment, Cincinnati is not exciting. If they were, they would already have been invited into the B12 with UL or BYU a couple years ago to get to 12. It has nothing to do with how exciting UC sports or the city itself are. Just the revenue involved. If the B12 had a conference network then UC would make a lot more sense due to bringing OH into the footprint and all the OH households we could try to get cash from; however, there is no B12N and UC doesn't bring any additional T1/T2 dollars if added. Many of the current B12 would not make the revenue cut either, if they were not already in the league. Nothing personal. The bottom of every league has schools that are lucky they are already in the P5 club, because they could be easily replaced by schools like UC, UCF, BYU, and UConn. I feel for the schools just out of the P5, especially UConn and Cincinnati who are as good or better than some of the schools in the P5, but are on the outside looking in.

To be fair there are scenarios I could see Kansas being left out, so this not personal.

(10-31-2014 08:16 PM)TerryD Wrote:  As an ND fan, I have below zero (actually absolute zero) interest in ND being in any conference based in the Midwest and especially in the Big 12 states.

Understood. The reason I said they would only join if forced by a champs only model. I can't see them in the B12 either. I think if forced to join, ND would prefer the ACC > PAC >>>> B1G/B12/SEC.

(11-03-2014 01:06 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 10:13 PM)colohank Wrote:  Did someone from Kansas say Cincinnati isn't exciting? Kansas? Really?

Yes, in realignment, Cincinnati is not exciting. If they were, they would already have been invited into the B12 with UL or BYU a couple years ago to get to 12. It has nothing to do with how exciting UC sports or the city itself are. Just the revenue involved. If the B12 had a conference network then UC would make a lot more sense due to bringing OH into the footprint and all the OH households we could try to get cash from; however, there is no B12N and UC doesn't bring any additional T1/T2 dollars if added. Many of the current B12 would not make the revenue cut either, if they were not already in the league. Nothing personal. The bottom of every league has schools that are lucky they are already in the P5 club, because they could be easily replaced by schools like UC, UCF, BYU, and UConn. I feel for the schools just out of the P5, especially UConn and Cincinnati who are as good or better than some of the schools in the P5, but are on the outside looking in.



To be fair there are scenarios I could see Kansas being left out, so this not personal.

(10-31-2014 08:16 PM)TerryD Wrote:  As an ND fan, I have below zero (actually absolute zero) interest in ND being in any conference based in the Midwest and especially in the Big 12 states.

Understood. The reason I said they would only join if forced by a champs only model. I can't see them in the B12 either. I think if forced to join, ND would prefer the ACC > PAC >>>> B1G/B12/SEC.

I was just trying to kick up some realignment discussion when I started this thread. I agree with you on N.D.'s preferences if ever forced. I also don't realistically see a possibility for Big 12 expansion that is profitable.

Even in the proposed scenario it works out for the Big 12 much better if the SEC and Big 10 stop at 16 in any realignment scenario involving the ACC. Should the SEC take Virginia Tech and North Carolina and the Big 10 take Virginia and Georgia Tech as some have proposed then it would leave a lot more on the table for the Big 12. Pitt and Louisville, N.C. State, Clemson, F.S.U. and even Duke for hoops. But unless the U.N.C. case takes a much stronger hit than I believe likely I can't see the instability that leads to that at this juncture. Inequity in earnings would be the primary catalyst and that's going to take a few years to become the issue that could lead to movement.

Unfortunately should it come to movement from the ACC I believe the Big 10 and SEC would be a lot greedier than just two schools each.

(11-03-2014 01:14 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 01:06 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 10:13 PM)colohank Wrote:  Did someone from Kansas say Cincinnati isn't exciting? Kansas? Really?

Yes, in realignment, Cincinnati is not exciting. If they were, they would already have been invited into the B12 with UL or BYU a couple years ago to get to 12. It has nothing to do with how exciting UC sports or the city itself are. Just the revenue involved. If the B12 had a conference network then UC would make a lot more sense due to bringing OH into the footprint and all the OH households we could try to get cash from; however, there is no B12N and UC doesn't bring any additional T1/T2 dollars if added. Many of the current B12 would not make the revenue cut either, if they were not already in the league. Nothing personal. The bottom of every league has schools that are lucky they are already in the P5 club, because they could be easily replaced by schools like UC, UCF, BYU, and UConn. I feel for the schools just out of the P5, especially UConn and Cincinnati who are as good or better than some of the schools in the P5, but are on the outside looking in.



To be fair there are scenarios I could see Kansas being left out, so this not personal.

(10-31-2014 08:16 PM)TerryD Wrote:  As an ND fan, I have below zero (actually absolute zero) interest in ND being in any conference based in the Midwest and especially in the Big 12 states.

Understood. The reason I said they would only join if forced by a champs only model. I can't see them in the B12 either. I think if forced to join, ND would prefer the ACC > PAC >>>> B1G/B12/SEC.

I was just trying to kick up some realignment discussion when I started this thread. I agree with you on N.D.'s preferences if ever forced. I also don't realistically see a possibility for Big 12 expansion that is profitable.

Even in the proposed scenario it works out for the Big 12 much better if the SEC and Big 10 stop at 16 in any realignment scenario involving the ACC. Should the SEC take Virginia Tech and North Carolina and the Big 10 take Virginia and Georgia Tech as some have proposed then it would leave a lot more on the table for the Big 12. Pitt and Louisville, N.C. State, Clemson, F.S.U. and even Duke for hoops. But unless the U.N.C. case takes a much stronger hit than I believe likely I can't see the instability that leads to that at this juncture. Inequity in earnings would be the primary catalyst and that's going to take a few years to become the issue that could lead to movement.

Unfortunately should it come to movement from the ACC I believe the Big 10 and SEC would be a lot greedier than just two schools each.

No problem. I think we all know you are generating discussion and playing devil's advocate at times. All the regular participants in the realignment talks here appreciate it.

I agree on movement. So far it has been every man for himself. However, I am guessing that the final move, if it happens anytime in the next few years will be some sort of compromise where everyone gets something of value, but not everything they want. Plus, likely nobody is dropped from the P5, unless they opt out due to increased costs going forward. However, if the end of the GoR hits and they are not extended by the B12 and/or ACC then the SEC, B1G, and PAC will try to grab the pieces which are most valuable to them and some schools will be left outside the P5 most likely.

(10-27-2014 11:55 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-27-2014 09:54 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  If I was ESPN and could do whatever I wanted, I'd move:

UConn, UNC, UVA, Duke, BC, and Syracuse to the B1G 20 to land the T1 rights. B1G owns the east coast to VA. Builds a fantastic BB conference to drive the B1GN in the NE which they totally dominate now. Best academic conference among the P4 by far. B1G at 20 also allows a possible future merger with the PAC 12, who has poor expansion options outside of B12 schools which are now off the board. B1G gains VA and NC FB recruiting, but little added FB prowess beyond average. Might be sticking point with OSU and NU. Gains BC hockey to help with B1GN as well and some lacrosse powers to go with John Hopkins and Maryland. B1G would drive the removal of basketball monies from the NCAA's control and would benefit the most from such a change.

SEC gets VT, NCST. Gain the 2 most coveted states for their network. Keeps the B1G out of GA and FL by moving FSU and GT to B12. If the SEC wanted to go bigger and could get past culture problems Cincinnati and Pitt would be great for your network with Ohio and Pennsylvania being added to the footprint. Also they add BB value which the SEC could use.

B12: FSU, Clemson, GT, Miami, Louisville, Pitt. B12 network created from the LHN and T1 would get a bump due to some added name value to offset the loss in revenue Texas might take. This conference gives the SEC some competition for the best conference, though it is still likely #2 most of the time. Kansas gains a rival for BB dominance in Louisville which would give the B12 a UK/UF dynamic and Pitt and GT are often pretty good at roundball.

Wake Forest is odd man out and joins the Big East or AAC. ND does a partial with whoever does the best deal unless forced to join a conference by a champs only model. Problem is, ESPN has a lot of influence, but I am pretty sure they don't have this much pull, plus it probably is not what any of the involved conferences/schools want as well in many cases.

Okay, Jayhawk, the set up is biased to the Big 10 and SEC so your critique is fair to a point. The reason I picked 18 is because it is the only way to dissolve that GOR. And I do firmly believe, especially now that Lou Holtz is saying it, that the Irish will be expected by everyone to join a conference should the structure continue to change. I agree Wake is the odd man out. But part of the reason I placed some of the Northeastern schools into the Big 12 was to garner for their "new network" which is the subject of the speculation, some larger market exposure. But if you truly want to look at balancing matters let's take another tack.

Duke, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse and Virginia surprise everyone and become the Eastern division of the PAC 18.

Virginia Tech, N.C. State join the SEC.

Connecticut and Boston College join the Big 10.

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, Louisville, and B.Y.U. join the Big 12.

Now the Big 10 is:

Boston College, Connecticut, Maryland, Penn State

Indiana, Ohio State, Purdue, Rutgers

Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern

Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin


You know the SEC.

The Big 12 is:
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

Iowa State, Kansas, Louisville, West Virginia

Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas

Brigham Young, Kansas State, T.C.U., Texas Tech

The six schools leaving for the PAC are happy because they are with better academic schools.

The SEC is happy because they expend little to gain a lot.

The Big 12 is happy because they can compete.

Only the Big 10 is unhappy because while they sewed up New England they landed no football props.

The PAC is happy because they didn't have to trade academics to gain East coast exposure for their network.

Other than joining a conference Notre Dame should be happy because they are in a division they should dominate and they can probably work out the scheduling to keep U.S.C. and Stanford as annual cross divisional games.

How's that for out of the box and off the wall?

But seriously the way to parse the ACC is for the Big 10 to take Boston College, Pittsburgh, Syracuse and Notre Dame to move to 18. This builds a new Eastern division of 6 and bolsters the Old Big 10 lineup.

Boston College, Maryland, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse

Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue

Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin



The SEC takes North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, and Virginia Tech

Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Texas A&M



The Big 12 takes 6: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Miami, N.C. State and sticks to 16

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

Iowa State, Louisville, N.C. State, West Virginia

Baylor, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas

Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Christian, Texas Tech

Add the 12 PAC schools and we stand at 64.

Interesting. The PAC scenario is something I could see happening if ND was willing to join the PAC someday if the ACC came apart and those ACC schools plus ND did not get invited or want to join the B1G/SEC/B12. I always assumed it would be more of a ND/Syracuse/BC/Pitt pod in a PAC 16 though. Nobody from the ACC as big and southern as Duke/UNC/UVA.

My often stated opinion is that nobody is going to force ND to do anything. It will remain as it is, status quo, for the next....thirty years?

Why do I think that? Because I think that these futuristic conference expansion ideas will all come to naught.

I think that the five existing P5 conferences will survive and continue in the future pretty much as they are right now.

(11-03-2014 01:14 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 01:06 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  [quote='colohank' pid='11303345' dateline='1414552410']
Did someone from Kansas say Cincinnati isn't exciting? Kansas? Really?

Yes, in realignment, Cincinnati is not exciting. If they were, they would already have been invited into the B12 with UL or BYU a couple years ago to get to 12. It has nothing to do with how exciting UC sports or the city itself are. Just the revenue involved. If the B12 had a conference network then UC would make a lot more sense due to bringing OH into the footprint and all the OH households we could try to get cash from; however, there is no B12N and UC doesn't bring any additional T1/T2 dollars if added. Many of the current B12 would not make the revenue cut either, if they were not already in the league. Nothing personal. The bottom of every league has schools that are lucky they are already in the P5 club, because they could be easily replaced by schools like UC, UCF, BYU, and UConn. I feel for the schools just out of the P5, especially UConn and Cincinnati who are as good or better than some of the schools in the P5, but are on the outside looking in.



To be fair there are scenarios I could see Kansas being left out, so this not personal.

There appear to be two definitions of "exciting" being bandied about in realignment discussions: one relating to on-field and on-court performance, and the other to market size and capture. If a school enjoys success on the playing field, as does Louisville, then it's exciting. If a school is located in or near a sizeable TV market, as is Rutgers, then it's exciting too. But if a school has both attributes, as does the University of Cincinnati, then it's not exciting?

I've heard that the University of Cincinnati, Ohio's second largest state university (enrollment 43,600, with a high research profile and large endowment), isn't considered exciting because, like Louisville, Pitt, and Syracuse, it has a city moniker. I've also heard that UC isn't exciting because, like Pitt, it's located in a city with professional sports franchises. Greater Cincinnati, with a population of 2.3 million, has only a slightly smaller population (and thus TV sets) than the entire state of Kansas (2.8 million). More population and TV sets than Louisville, more than Syracuse, more than the entire state of West Virginia, and about the same as Pittsburg. Also a long, long history of superb high school football and thus very fertile recruiting grounds, but still... ...not exciting?

In terms of geography, culture, sports prowess, and academics, I think UC would be a much better fit with the ACC than with the Big XII. It would also restore some great rivalries going back to UC's Big East days and before. Here's hoping the ACC folks are open-minded enough to consider yet another definition of "exciting," and that they soon offer UC a place at their table.

(11-03-2014 12:10 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 01:14 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 01:06 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  [quote='colohank' pid='11303345' dateline='1414552410']
Did someone from Kansas say Cincinnati isn't exciting? Kansas? Really?

Yes, in realignment, Cincinnati is not exciting. If they were, they would already have been invited into the B12 with UL or BYU a couple years ago to get to 12. It has nothing to do with how exciting UC sports or the city itself are. Just the revenue involved. If the B12 had a conference network then UC would make a lot more sense due to bringing OH into the footprint and all the OH households we could try to get cash from; however, there is no B12N and UC doesn't bring any additional T1/T2 dollars if added. Many of the current B12 would not make the revenue cut either, if they were not already in the league. Nothing personal. The bottom of every league has schools that are lucky they are already in the P5 club, because they could be easily replaced by schools like UC, UCF, BYU, and UConn. I feel for the schools just out of the P5, especially UConn and Cincinnati who are as good or better than some of the schools in the P5, but are on the outside looking in.



To be fair there are scenarios I could see Kansas being left out, so this not personal.

There appear to be two definitions of "exciting" being bandied about in realignment discussions: one relating to on-field and on-court performance, and the other to market size and capture. If a school enjoys success on the playing field, as does Louisville, then it's exciting. If a school is located in or near a sizeable TV market, as is Rutgers, then it's exciting too. But if a school has both attributes, as does the University of Cincinnati, then it's not exciting?

I've heard that the University of Cincinnati, Ohio's second largest state university (enrollment 43,600, with a high research profile and large endowment), isn't considered exciting because, like Louisville, Pitt, and Syracuse, it has a city moniker. I've also heard that UC isn't exciting because, like Pitt, it's located in a city with professional sports franchises. Greater Cincinnati, with a population of 2.3 million, has only a slightly smaller population (and thus TV sets) than the entire state of Kansas (2.8 million). More population and TV sets than Louisville, more than Syracuse, more than the entire state of West Virginia, and about the same as Pittsburg. Also a long, long history of superb high school football and thus very fertile recruiting grounds, but still... ...not exciting?

In terms of geography, culture, sports prowess, and academics, I think UC would be a much better fit with the ACC than with the Big XII. It would also restore some great rivalries going back to UC's Big East days and before. Here's hoping the ACC folks are open-minded enough to consider yet another definition of "exciting," and that they soon offer UC a place at their table.

No other ACC school has an enrollment of 46,000 students. The largest ACC school is Florida State which is about 3/4 the size of Cincinnati.
UC is just too big to fit the ACC profile.

(10-31-2014 05:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-31-2014 04:16 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 05:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Now here's the deal. Nobody in the SEC will get excited about E.C.U. and U.C.F. but both are great growth prospects. E.C.U. does give us a share in the North Carolina. The SEC's presence in South Florida isn't as secure as in the upper Central and Panhandle of the State. Plus it's a destination game. Oklahoma State gives us a piece of DFW and Baylor gives us a second Texas school that with Oklahoma State nails down the DFW area. Are they home runs. No way. But they give us decent balance and a concise footprint.

ECU and UCF just don't bring enough to the table. Those two could not bring enough money to the SECN to even keep the per team payouts the same. Honestly, if you are going to add two that will help the SECN's inventory, bring in UNC and Duke. Those two blue bloods with Kentucky would be a major upgrade to the basketball inventory and those two schools might be the catalysts that elevates the SEC into a very strong basketball league while the SEC brand and proper coaches could turn their football programs into something respectable to SEC standards.

XLance asked about a way to get to 6 conferences without breaking up the ACC. I have no disagreement with your logic or post. I was merely illustrating how to include 72 schools without breaking up the ACC. Breaking up the Big 12 is the much more likely of the two scenarios as their top schools may eventually choose to do that out of self interest.

Personally I like 18 as a number but not the configuration I posted as a 4 x 18 where the ACC isn't touched. If it were just my world and I could pick an 18 school SEC I would take Virginia Tech and North Carolina to 16 and if I wanted expanded Western markets I would hope for Oklahoma and Texas. That would be a helluva conference, but unfortunately still weak in the East. At 16 it depends on whether we expand East or West. Either way the two schools remain the same as the 18 school scenario.

That said I don't think we will have an opportunity to expand from both the East and West. And if we expanded from the West the likelihood of landing two top prospects would be relatively low. We might wind up with an Oklahoma / West Virginia pair at best and an Oklahoma school and Baylor at worst. I don't see expansion from the West taking us to 18, just 16.

If the Big 10 raided the ACC again, or more likely ESPN leveraged some of their properties to get a long term T1 contract from the Big 10, then a move to 18 from the ACC might not only be possible, but even likely. Obviously to get North Carolina somebody is probably going to have to take Duke too. But what the Heels would really want is keeping the gang together. A combination of Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina and Duke, or Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, & N.C. State might be a requirement. And to be quite honest I'm not sure that would be in the SEC's best long term interest. That would be a 4 way voting block for the Heels. Not enough to challenge the SEC's relative harmony, but enough to make waves. I think that is why the early speculation was to avoid the egos and go for Virginia Tech and N.C. State. So even in this scenario 16 might be better unless the mixture was different. But who would you add instead of extra Virginia and Carolina schools? Pitt is a new market but no cultural fit. Georgia Tech doesn't give us anything that Georgia does already give us. Ditto for Clemson and South Carolina. Florida State could be a nice stop in the Sunshine State because at least then they would actually have to beat someone to make the national playoffs and it would add another Florida stop for recruiting for SEC schools and like Texas, Florida may be a state where we actually wind up needing a second school. So now who do you get for a 4th to go with Va Tech, N.C. St. & F.S.U.? Maybe then we lobby hard to get Oklahoma, a second Texas school, or West Virginia. But that's a hard road to 18. What are your thoughts on that?

And as an aside how would you feel about taking a Texahoma deal for the SEC to 18? I curious to hear a Hog's viewpoint on this because such a move might really open up those old Arkansas recruiting advantages in Texas.

I think a Texahoma deal for the SEC would be perfect, but I will have to qualify that by saying that I believe that the B1G will expand to 16 with Kansas and Missouri.

(11-03-2014 12:32 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 12:10 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 01:14 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 01:06 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  [quote='colohank' pid='11303345' dateline='1414552410']
Did someone from Kansas say Cincinnati isn't exciting? Kansas? Really?

Yes, in realignment, Cincinnati is not exciting. If they were, they would already have been invited into the B12 with UL or BYU a couple years ago to get to 12. It has nothing to do with how exciting UC sports or the city itself are. Just the revenue involved. If the B12 had a conference network then UC would make a lot more sense due to bringing OH into the footprint and all the OH households we could try to get cash from; however, there is no B12N and UC doesn't bring any additional T1/T2 dollars if added. Many of the current B12 would not make the revenue cut either, if they were not already in the league. Nothing personal. The bottom of every league has schools that are lucky they are already in the P5 club, because they could be easily replaced by schools like UC, UCF, BYU, and UConn. I feel for the schools just out of the P5, especially UConn and Cincinnati who are as good or better than some of the schools in the P5, but are on the outside looking in.



To be fair there are scenarios I could see Kansas being left out, so this not personal.

There appear to be two definitions of "exciting" being bandied about in realignment discussions: one relating to on-field and on-court performance, and the other to market size and capture. If a school enjoys success on the playing field, as does Louisville, then it's exciting. If a school is located in or near a sizeable TV market, as is Rutgers, then it's exciting too. But if a school has both attributes, as does the University of Cincinnati, then it's not exciting?

I've heard that the University of Cincinnati, Ohio's second largest state university (enrollment 43,600, with a high research profile and large endowment), isn't considered exciting because, like Louisville, Pitt, and Syracuse, it has a city moniker. I've also heard that UC isn't exciting because, like Pitt, it's located in a city with professional sports franchises. Greater Cincinnati, with a population of 2.3 million, has only a slightly smaller population (and thus TV sets) than the entire state of Kansas (2.8 million). More population and TV sets than Louisville, more than Syracuse, more than the entire state of West Virginia, and about the same as Pittsburg. Also a long, long history of superb high school football and thus very fertile recruiting grounds, but still... ...not exciting?

In terms of geography, culture, sports prowess, and academics, I think UC would be a much better fit with the ACC than with the Big XII. It would also restore some great rivalries going back to UC's Big East days and before. Here's hoping the ACC folks are open-minded enough to consider yet another definition of "exciting," and that they soon offer UC a place at their table.

No other ACC school has an enrollment of 46,000 students. The largest ACC school is Florida State which is about 3/4 the size of Cincinnati.
UC is just too big to fit the ACC profile.

Ouch!

(11-03-2014 12:53 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-31-2014 05:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-31-2014 04:16 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 05:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Now here's the deal. Nobody in the SEC will get excited about E.C.U. and U.C.F. but both are great growth prospects. E.C.U. does give us a share in the North Carolina. The SEC's presence in South Florida isn't as secure as in the upper Central and Panhandle of the State. Plus it's a destination game. Oklahoma State gives us a piece of DFW and Baylor gives us a second Texas school that with Oklahoma State nails down the DFW area. Are they home runs. No way. But they give us decent balance and a concise footprint.

ECU and UCF just don't bring enough to the table. Those two could not bring enough money to the SECN to even keep the per team payouts the same. Honestly, if you are going to add two that will help the SECN's inventory, bring in UNC and Duke. Those two blue bloods with Kentucky would be a major upgrade to the basketball inventory and those two schools might be the catalysts that elevates the SEC into a very strong basketball league while the SEC brand and proper coaches could turn their football programs into something respectable to SEC standards.

XLance asked about a way to get to 6 conferences without breaking up the ACC. I have no disagreement with your logic or post. I was merely illustrating how to include 72 schools without breaking up the ACC. Breaking up the Big 12 is the much more likely of the two scenarios as their top schools may eventually choose to do that out of self interest.

Personally I like 18 as a number but not the configuration I posted as a 4 x 18 where the ACC isn't touched. If it were just my world and I could pick an 18 school SEC I would take Virginia Tech and North Carolina to 16 and if I wanted expanded Western markets I would hope for Oklahoma and Texas. That would be a helluva conference, but unfortunately still weak in the East. At 16 it depends on whether we expand East or West. Either way the two schools remain the same as the 18 school scenario.

That said I don't think we will have an opportunity to expand from both the East and West. And if we expanded from the West the likelihood of landing two top prospects would be relatively low. We might wind up with an Oklahoma / West Virginia pair at best and an Oklahoma school and Baylor at worst. I don't see expansion from the West taking us to 18, just 16.

If the Big 10 raided the ACC again, or more likely ESPN leveraged some of their properties to get a long term T1 contract from the Big 10, then a move to 18 from the ACC might not only be possible, but even likely. Obviously to get North Carolina somebody is probably going to have to take Duke too. But what the Heels would really want is keeping the gang together. A combination of Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina and Duke, or Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, & N.C. State might be a requirement. And to be quite honest I'm not sure that would be in the SEC's best long term interest. That would be a 4 way voting block for the Heels. Not enough to challenge the SEC's relative harmony, but enough to make waves. I think that is why the early speculation was to avoid the egos and go for Virginia Tech and N.C. State. So even in this scenario 16 might be better unless the mixture was different. But who would you add instead of extra Virginia and Carolina schools? Pitt is a new market but no cultural fit. Georgia Tech doesn't give us anything that Georgia does already give us. Ditto for Clemson and South Carolina. Florida State could be a nice stop in the Sunshine State because at least then they would actually have to beat someone to make the national playoffs and it would add another Florida stop for recruiting for SEC schools and like Texas, Florida may be a state where we actually wind up needing a second school. So now who do you get for a 4th to go with Va Tech, N.C. St. & F.S.U.? Maybe then we lobby hard to get Oklahoma, a second Texas school, or West Virginia. But that's a hard road to 18. What are your thoughts on that?

And as an aside how would you feel about taking a Texahoma deal for the SEC to 18? I curious to hear a Hog's viewpoint on this because such a move might really open up those old Arkansas recruiting advantages in Texas.

I think a Texahoma deal for the SEC would be perfect, but I will have to qualify that by saying that I believe that the B1G will expand to 16 with Kansas and Missouri.

Then we would be talking Texahoma plus Wildcats or with WVU, or extra Texas sauce on the side.

(11-03-2014 12:10 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 01:14 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 01:06 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  [quote='colohank' pid='11303345' dateline='1414552410']
Did someone from Kansas say Cincinnati isn't exciting? Kansas? Really?

Yes, in realignment, Cincinnati is not exciting. If they were, they would already have been invited into the B12 with UL or BYU a couple years ago to get to 12. It has nothing to do with how exciting UC sports or the city itself are. Just the revenue involved. If the B12 had a conference network then UC would make a lot more sense due to bringing OH into the footprint and all the OH households we could try to get cash from; however, there is no B12N and UC doesn't bring any additional T1/T2 dollars if added. Many of the current B12 would not make the revenue cut either, if they were not already in the league. Nothing personal. The bottom of every league has schools that are lucky they are already in the P5 club, because they could be easily replaced by schools like UC, UCF, BYU, and UConn. I feel for the schools just out of the P5, especially UConn and Cincinnati who are as good or better than some of the schools in the P5, but are on the outside looking in.



To be fair there are scenarios I could see Kansas being left out, so this not personal.

There appear to be two definitions of "exciting" being bandied about in realignment discussions: one relating to on-field and on-court performance, and the other to market size and capture. If a school enjoys success on the playing field, as does Louisville, then it's exciting. If a school is located in or near a sizeable TV market, as is Rutgers, then it's exciting too. But if a school has both attributes, as does the University of Cincinnati, then it's not exciting?

I've heard that the University of Cincinnati, Ohio's second largest state university (enrollment 43,600, with a high research profile and large endowment), isn't considered exciting because, like Louisville, Pitt, and Syracuse, it has a city moniker. I've also heard that UC isn't exciting because, like Pitt, it's located in a city with professional sports franchises. Greater Cincinnati, with a population of 2.3 million, has only a slightly smaller population (and thus TV sets) than the entire state of Kansas (2.8 million). More population and TV sets than Louisville, more than Syracuse, more than the entire state of West Virginia, and about the same as Pittsburg. Also a long, long history of superb high school football and thus very fertile recruiting grounds, but still... ...not exciting?

In terms of geography, culture, sports prowess, and academics, I think UC would be a much better fit with the ACC than with the Big XII. It would also restore some great rivalries going back to UC's Big East days and before. Here's hoping the ACC folks are open-minded enough to consider yet another definition of "exciting," and that they soon offer UC a place at their table.

I would not argue against a school because it's named after a city, though some people automatically discount city schools as being lesser schools. Miami used to be the most exciting school in CFB for a couple decades in the not too distant past. It's all about revenue now, unfortunately. Among the schools left in the G5 none are certain to bring enough revenue to justify expansion for even the B12. You are taking this a little personally. It has nothing to do with a city school versus a small state. It has to do with schools that bring enough revenue to the table to get the schools in a conference to vote yes on expansion. Nebraska is in a small state, but it has the brand to generate revenue for the B1G due it's national football brand. If UC can prove to some conference and the networks it will generate increased revenue payouts due to the market is can deliver and/or it's university brand it will get an invite to the P5. If it can't, it won't. It's the same for any school looking to join a conference.

(11-04-2014 01:28 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 12:10 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 01:14 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 01:06 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  [quote='colohank' pid='11303345' dateline='1414552410']
Did someone from Kansas say Cincinnati isn't exciting? Kansas? Really?

Yes, in realignment, Cincinnati is not exciting. If they were, they would already have been invited into the B12 with UL or BYU a couple years ago to get to 12. It has nothing to do with how exciting UC sports or the city itself are. Just the revenue involved. If the B12 had a conference network then UC would make a lot more sense due to bringing OH into the footprint and all the OH households we could try to get cash from; however, there is no B12N and UC doesn't bring any additional T1/T2 dollars if added. Many of the current B12 would not make the revenue cut either, if they were not already in the league. Nothing personal. The bottom of every league has schools that are lucky they are already in the P5 club, because they could be easily replaced by schools like UC, UCF, BYU, and UConn. I feel for the schools just out of the P5, especially UConn and Cincinnati who are as good or better than some of the schools in the P5, but are on the outside looking in.



To be fair there are scenarios I could see Kansas being left out, so this not personal.

There appear to be two definitions of "exciting" being bandied about in realignment discussions: one relating to on-field and on-court performance, and the other to market size and capture. If a school enjoys success on the playing field, as does Louisville, then it's exciting. If a school is located in or near a sizeable TV market, as is Rutgers, then it's exciting too. But if a school has both attributes, as does the University of Cincinnati, then it's not exciting?

I've heard that the University of Cincinnati, Ohio's second largest state university (enrollment 43,600, with a high research profile and large endowment), isn't considered exciting because, like Louisville, Pitt, and Syracuse, it has a city moniker. I've also heard that UC isn't exciting because, like Pitt, it's located in a city with professional sports franchises. Greater Cincinnati, with a population of 2.3 million, has only a slightly smaller population (and thus TV sets) than the entire state of Kansas (2.8 million). More population and TV sets than Louisville, more than Syracuse, more than the entire state of West Virginia, and about the same as Pittsburg. Also a long, long history of superb high school football and thus very fertile recruiting grounds, but still... ...not exciting?

In terms of geography, culture, sports prowess, and academics, I think UC would be a much better fit with the ACC than with the Big XII. It would also restore some great rivalries going back to UC's Big East days and before. Here's hoping the ACC folks are open-minded enough to consider yet another definition of "exciting," and that they soon offer UC a place at their table.

I would not argue against a school because it's named after a city, though some people automatically discount city schools as being lesser schools. Miami used to be the most exciting school in CFB for a couple decades in the not too distant past. It's all about revenue now, unfortunately. Among the schools left in the G5 none are certain to bring enough revenue to justify expansion for even the B12. You are taking this a little personally. It has nothing to do with a city school versus a small state. It has to do with schools that bring enough revenue to the table to get the schools in a conference to vote yes on expansion. Nebraska is in a small state, but it has the brand to generate revenue for the B1G due it's national football brand. If UC can prove to some conference and the networks it will generate increased revenue payouts due to the market is can deliver and/or it's university brand it will get an invite to the P5. If it can't, it won't. It's the same for any school looking to join a conference.

No I'm not taking anything personally, and whatever happens in the realm of realignment isn't going to change my life in the least. But I do find it a bit baffling that the rules or criteria or whatever governing realignment, if indeed there are any, seem to be so fluid, contradictory, and subject to whim.

In addition, I couldn't disagree more with your last sentence. Cincinnati was a member of a major conference until two years ago, and it acquitted itself nicely during its Big East years, winning two outright football championships and shares of two other football championships during its brief tenure in that conference. It also made Orange Bowl and Sugar Bowl appearances while in the Big East. And then, poof, it's suddenly perceived that Cincy doesn't quite measure up.

That's a tough pill to swallow when there are so many perennial bottom-feeders occupying space in the P5.

(11-04-2014 06:09 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 01:28 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 12:10 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 01:14 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 01:06 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  [quote='colohank' pid='11303345' dateline='1414552410']
Did someone from Kansas say Cincinnati isn't exciting? Kansas? Really?

Yes, in realignment, Cincinnati is not exciting. If they were, they would already have been invited into the B12 with UL or BYU a couple years ago to get to 12. It has nothing to do with how exciting UC sports or the city itself are. Just the revenue involved. If the B12 had a conference network then UC would make a lot more sense due to bringing OH into the footprint and all the OH households we could try to get cash from; however, there is no B12N and UC doesn't bring any additional T1/T2 dollars if added. Many of the current B12 would not make the revenue cut either, if they were not already in the league. Nothing personal. The bottom of every league has schools that are lucky they are already in the P5 club, because they could be easily replaced by schools like UC, UCF, BYU, and UConn. I feel for the schools just out of the P5, especially UConn and Cincinnati who are as good or better than some of the schools in the P5, but are on the outside looking in.



To be fair there are scenarios I could see Kansas being left out, so this not personal.

There appear to be two definitions of "exciting" being bandied about in realignment discussions: one relating to on-field and on-court performance, and the other to market size and capture. If a school enjoys success on the playing field, as does Louisville, then it's exciting. If a school is located in or near a sizeable TV market, as is Rutgers, then it's exciting too. But if a school has both attributes, as does the University of Cincinnati, then it's not exciting?

I've heard that the University of Cincinnati, Ohio's second largest state university (enrollment 43,600, with a high research profile and large endowment), isn't considered exciting because, like Louisville, Pitt, and Syracuse, it has a city moniker. I've also heard that UC isn't exciting because, like Pitt, it's located in a city with professional sports franchises. Greater Cincinnati, with a population of 2.3 million, has only a slightly smaller population (and thus TV sets) than the entire state of Kansas (2.8 million). More population and TV sets than Louisville, more than Syracuse, more than the entire state of West Virginia, and about the same as Pittsburg. Also a long, long history of superb high school football and thus very fertile recruiting grounds, but still... ...not exciting?

In terms of geography, culture, sports prowess, and academics, I think UC would be a much better fit with the ACC than with the Big XII. It would also restore some great rivalries going back to UC's Big East days and before. Here's hoping the ACC folks are open-minded enough to consider yet another definition of "exciting," and that they soon offer UC a place at their table.

I would not argue against a school because it's named after a city, though some people automatically discount city schools as being lesser schools. Miami used to be the most exciting school in CFB for a couple decades in the not too distant past. It's all about revenue now, unfortunately. Among the schools left in the G5 none are certain to bring enough revenue to justify expansion for even the B12. You are taking this a little personally. It has nothing to do with a city school versus a small state. It has to do with schools that bring enough revenue to the table to get the schools in a conference to vote yes on expansion. Nebraska is in a small state, but it has the brand to generate revenue for the B1G due it's national football brand. If UC can prove to some conference and the networks it will generate increased revenue payouts due to the market is can deliver and/or it's university brand it will get an invite to the P5. If it can't, it won't. It's the same for any school looking to join a conference.

No I'm not taking anything personally, and whatever happens in the realm of realignment isn't going to change my life in the least. But I do find it a bit baffling that the rules or criteria or whatever governing realignment, if indeed there are any, seem to be so fluid, contradictory, and subject to whim.

In addition, I couldn't disagree more with your last sentence. Cincinnati was a member of a major conference until two years ago, and it acquitted itself nicely during its Big East years, winning two outright football championships and shares of two other football championships during its brief tenure in that conference. It also made Orange Bowl and Sugar Bowl appearances while in the Big East. And then, poof, it's suddenly perceived that Cincy doesn't quite measure up.

That's a tough pill to swallow when there are so many perennial bottom-feeders occupying space in the P5.

The issue for Cincinnati is that your best in would be with the Big 12. Yet, the Big 12 is not expanding because Texas and Oklahoma don't know what they want to do long term so they are stalling things there.

You do not have AAU status so no Big 10. You aren't Southern enough for the SEC although the culture of Cincinnati is more Southern than Northern in many ways. And you are not a flagship school for the state of Ohio. So, the SEC is very doubtful. The ACC should they be raided again is a distinct possibility. Also I can foresee a scenario that might get you into the PAC with Big 12 schools but that is the longest long shot.

So your chances of landing in a P5 conferences hinge on this:

1. Big 12 stays together and expands to 12.

2. ACC is raided and they come calling.

3. The PAC reaches for new markets and you slip in with Iowa State, a Kansas school, an Oklahoma school and two Texas schools to round out an Eastern division of 6 and to match up versus Ohio State in a PAC / Big 10 scheduling arrangement.

(11-04-2014 06:09 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 01:28 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 12:10 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 01:14 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 01:06 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  [quote='colohank' pid='11303345' dateline='1414552410']
Did someone from Kansas say Cincinnati isn't exciting? Kansas? Really?

Yes, in realignment, Cincinnati is not exciting. If they were, they would already have been invited into the B12 with UL or BYU a couple years ago to get to 12. It has nothing to do with how exciting UC sports or the city itself are. Just the revenue involved. If the B12 had a conference network then UC would make a lot more sense due to bringing OH into the footprint and all the OH households we could try to get cash from; however, there is no B12N and UC doesn't bring any additional T1/T2 dollars if added. Many of the current B12 would not make the revenue cut either, if they were not already in the league. Nothing personal. The bottom of every league has schools that are lucky they are already in the P5 club, because they could be easily replaced by schools like UC, UCF, BYU, and UConn. I feel for the schools just out of the P5, especially UConn and Cincinnati who are as good or better than some of the schools in the P5, but are on the outside looking in.



To be fair there are scenarios I could see Kansas being left out, so this not personal.

There appear to be two definitions of "exciting" being bandied about in realignment discussions: one relating to on-field and on-court performance, and the other to market size and capture. If a school enjoys success on the playing field, as does Louisville, then it's exciting. If a school is located in or near a sizeable TV market, as is Rutgers, then it's exciting too. But if a school has both attributes, as does the University of Cincinnati, then it's not exciting?

I've heard that the University of Cincinnati, Ohio's second largest state university (enrollment 43,600, with a high research profile and large endowment), isn't considered exciting because, like Louisville, Pitt, and Syracuse, it has a city moniker. I've also heard that UC isn't exciting because, like Pitt, it's located in a city with professional sports franchises. Greater Cincinnati, with a population of 2.3 million, has only a slightly smaller population (and thus TV sets) than the entire state of Kansas (2.8 million). More population and TV sets than Louisville, more than Syracuse, more than the entire state of West Virginia, and about the same as Pittsburg. Also a long, long history of superb high school football and thus very fertile recruiting grounds, but still... ...not exciting?

In terms of geography, culture, sports prowess, and academics, I think UC would be a much better fit with the ACC than with the Big XII. It would also restore some great rivalries going back to UC's Big East days and before. Here's hoping the ACC folks are open-minded enough to consider yet another definition of "exciting," and that they soon offer UC a place at their table.

I would not argue against a school because it's named after a city, though some people automatically discount city schools as being lesser schools. Miami used to be the most exciting school in CFB for a couple decades in the not too distant past. It's all about revenue now, unfortunately. Among the schools left in the G5 none are certain to bring enough revenue to justify expansion for even the B12. You are taking this a little personally. It has nothing to do with a city school versus a small state. It has to do with schools that bring enough revenue to the table to get the schools in a conference to vote yes on expansion. Nebraska is in a small state, but it has the brand to generate revenue for the B1G due it's national football brand. If UC can prove to some conference and the networks it will generate increased revenue payouts due to the market is can deliver and/or it's university brand it will get an invite to the P5. If it can't, it won't. It's the same for any school looking to join a conference.

No I'm not taking anything personally, and whatever happens in the realm of realignment isn't going to change my life in the least. But I do find it a bit baffling that the rules or criteria or whatever governing realignment, if indeed there are any, seem to be so fluid, contradictory, and subject to whim.

In addition, I couldn't disagree more with your last sentence. Cincinnati was a member of a major conference until two years ago, and it acquitted itself nicely during its Big East years, winning two outright football championships and shares of two other football championships during its brief tenure in that conference. It also made Orange Bowl and Sugar Bowl appearances while in the Big East. And then, poof, it's suddenly perceived that Cincy doesn't quite measure up.

That's a tough pill to swallow when there are so many perennial bottom-feeders occupying space in the P5.

It continuously confounds me how people like this guy need to have it explained to them that collegiate athletic conferences are not professional sports leagues. They are not created solely due to the results on the field or on the court or in whatever sports competition this sad sad person seems to think defines such.

Rutgers and Maryland got in to the Big Ten ahead of Cincinnati due to reasons that have nothing to do with athletics. If such a person is continuously going to come out into public and talk as if they think these conferences should be put together based solely upon athletics then they basically show that they are a complete simpleton and think the athletics of a University are more important than the Academic nature of the University.

Because I know his response to that, yes Cinci is a great University but as it is defined it is not what Maryland and Rutgers are. Grow up, sports are not as important as the relationships created between Institutions through athletics. Those Universities don't care to create that relationship with Cincinnati. Deal with it.

(11-05-2014 11:39 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 06:09 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 01:28 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 12:10 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 01:14 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Yes, in realignment, Cincinnati is not exciting. If they were, they would already have been invited into the B12 with UL or BYU a couple years ago to get to 12. It has nothing to do with how exciting UC sports or the city itself are. Just the revenue involved. If the B12 had a conference network then UC would make a lot more sense due to bringing OH into the footprint and all the OH households we could try to get cash from; however, there is no B12N and UC doesn't bring any additional T1/T2 dollars if added. Many of the current B12 would not make the revenue cut either, if they were not already in the league. Nothing personal. The bottom of every league has schools that are lucky they are already in the P5 club, because they could be easily replaced by schools like UC, UCF, BYU, and UConn. I feel for the schools just out of the P5, especially UConn and Cincinnati who are as good or better than some of the schools in the P5, but are on the outside looking in.



To be fair there are scenarios I could see Kansas being left out, so this not personal.

There appear to be two definitions of "exciting" being bandied about in realignment discussions: one relating to on-field and on-court performance, and the other to market size and capture. If a school enjoys success on the playing field, as does Louisville, then it's exciting. If a school is located in or near a sizeable TV market, as is Rutgers, then it's exciting too. But if a school has both attributes, as does the University of Cincinnati, then it's not exciting?

I've heard that the University of Cincinnati, Ohio's second largest state university (enrollment 43,600, with a high research profile and large endowment), isn't considered exciting because, like Louisville, Pitt, and Syracuse, it has a city moniker. I've also heard that UC isn't exciting because, like Pitt, it's located in a city with professional sports franchises. Greater Cincinnati, with a population of 2.3 million, has only a slightly smaller population (and thus TV sets) than the entire state of Kansas (2.8 million). More population and TV sets than Louisville, more than Syracuse, more than the entire state of West Virginia, and about the same as Pittsburg. Also a long, long history of superb high school football and thus very fertile recruiting grounds, but still... ...not exciting?

In terms of geography, culture, sports prowess, and academics, I think UC would be a much better fit with the ACC than with the Big XII. It would also restore some great rivalries going back to UC's Big East days and before. Here's hoping the ACC folks are open-minded enough to consider yet another definition of "exciting," and that they soon offer UC a place at their table.

I would not argue against a school because it's named after a city, though some people automatically discount city schools as being lesser schools. Miami used to be the most exciting school in CFB for a couple decades in the not too distant past. It's all about revenue now, unfortunately. Among the schools left in the G5 none are certain to bring enough revenue to justify expansion for even the B12. You are taking this a little personally. It has nothing to do with a city school versus a small state. It has to do with schools that bring enough revenue to the table to get the schools in a conference to vote yes on expansion. Nebraska is in a small state, but it has the brand to generate revenue for the B1G due it's national football brand. If UC can prove to some conference and the networks it will generate increased revenue payouts due to the market is can deliver and/or it's university brand it will get an invite to the P5. If it can't, it won't. It's the same for any school looking to join a conference.

No I'm not taking anything personally, and whatever happens in the realm of realignment isn't going to change my life in the least. But I do find it a bit baffling that the rules or criteria or whatever governing realignment, if indeed there are any, seem to be so fluid, contradictory, and subject to whim.

In addition, I couldn't disagree more with your last sentence. Cincinnati was a member of a major conference until two years ago, and it acquitted itself nicely during its Big East years, winning two outright football championships and shares of two other football championships during its brief tenure in that conference. It also made Orange Bowl and Sugar Bowl appearances while in the Big East. And then, poof, it's suddenly perceived that Cincy doesn't quite measure up.

That's a tough pill to swallow when there are so many perennial bottom-feeders occupying space in the P5.

It continuously confounds me how people like this guy need to have it explained to them that collegiate athletic conferences are not professional sports leagues. They are not created solely due to the results on the field or on the court or in whatever sports competition this sad sad person seems to think defines such.

Rutgers and Maryland got in to the Big Ten ahead of Cincinnati due to reasons that have nothing to do with athletics. If such a person is continuously going to come out into public and talk as if they think these conferences should be put together based solely upon athletics then they basically show that they are a complete simpleton and think the athletics of a University are more important than the Academic nature of the University.

Because I know his response to that, yes Cinci is a great University but as it is defined it is not what Maryland and Rutgers are. Grow up, sports are not as important as the relationships created between Institutions through athletics. Those Universities don't care to create that relationship with Cincinnati. Deal with it.

Thanks for the compliments. This simpleton and sad, sad person, as you characterize me, is as much aware of the total spectrum of considerations guiding realignment as you. So tell me, what does it take to earn respect beyond sound and continually improving academics, a top 25 research profile, a billion-dollar endowment, a large student body and TV market, decent athletics, upgraded facilities, and one of the most distinctive campuses in the country?

Hubris? The kind of hubris which purports to speak for all those institutions which, in your words, "don't care to create that relationship with Cincinnati?"

What are you trying to do, prove the old adage that the ones who know aren't talking, and those who talk don't know?

For the record, the B1G has never been on my radar. Before Gordon Gee was fired for shooting off his mouth once too often, he made it abundantly clear that the Buckeyes would never tolerate or even acknowledge the success of any other school in the state of Ohio, and I take him at his word. And he wasn't the first person in Columbus to express or imply that sentiment (OSU even sued the much older Ohio University some years ago to try to compel it to stop using "Ohio" as an identifier). Ohio University was established in 1804, and Ohio State University sixty-six years later, in 1870. That's hubris, too

My apologies to the good folks on the SEC board for whatever part I played in leading this thread off-topic.

(11-07-2014 01:15 AM)colohank Wrote:  

(11-05-2014 11:39 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 06:09 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 01:28 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 12:10 PM)colohank Wrote:  There appear to be two definitions of "exciting" being bandied about in realignment discussions: one relating to on-field and on-court performance, and the other to market size and capture. If a school enjoys success on the playing field, as does Louisville, then it's exciting. If a school is located in or near a sizeable TV market, as is Rutgers, then it's exciting too. But if a school has both attributes, as does the University of Cincinnati, then it's not exciting?

I've heard that the University of Cincinnati, Ohio's second largest state university (enrollment 43,600, with a high research profile and large endowment), isn't considered exciting because, like Louisville, Pitt, and Syracuse, it has a city moniker. I've also heard that UC isn't exciting because, like Pitt, it's located in a city with professional sports franchises. Greater Cincinnati, with a population of 2.3 million, has only a slightly smaller population (and thus TV sets) than the entire state of Kansas (2.8 million). More population and TV sets than Louisville, more than Syracuse, more than the entire state of West Virginia, and about the same as Pittsburg. Also a long, long history of superb high school football and thus very fertile recruiting grounds, but still... ...not exciting?

In terms of geography, culture, sports prowess, and academics, I think UC would be a much better fit with the ACC than with the Big XII. It would also restore some great rivalries going back to UC's Big East days and before. Here's hoping the ACC folks are open-minded enough to consider yet another definition of "exciting," and that they soon offer UC a place at their table.

I would not argue against a school because it's named after a city, though some people automatically discount city schools as being lesser schools. Miami used to be the most exciting school in CFB for a couple decades in the not too distant past. It's all about revenue now, unfortunately. Among the schools left in the G5 none are certain to bring enough revenue to justify expansion for even the B12. You are taking this a little personally. It has nothing to do with a city school versus a small state. It has to do with schools that bring enough revenue to the table to get the schools in a conference to vote yes on expansion. Nebraska is in a small state, but it has the brand to generate revenue for the B1G due it's national football brand. If UC can prove to some conference and the networks it will generate increased revenue payouts due to the market is can deliver and/or it's university brand it will get an invite to the P5. If it can't, it won't. It's the same for any school looking to join a conference.

No I'm not taking anything personally, and whatever happens in the realm of realignment isn't going to change my life in the least. But I do find it a bit baffling that the rules or criteria or whatever governing realignment, if indeed there are any, seem to be so fluid, contradictory, and subject to whim.

In addition, I couldn't disagree more with your last sentence. Cincinnati was a member of a major conference until two years ago, and it acquitted itself nicely during its Big East years, winning two outright football championships and shares of two other football championships during its brief tenure in that conference. It also made Orange Bowl and Sugar Bowl appearances while in the Big East. And then, poof, it's suddenly perceived that Cincy doesn't quite measure up.

That's a tough pill to swallow when there are so many perennial bottom-feeders occupying space in the P5.

It continuously confounds me how people like this guy need to have it explained to them that collegiate athletic conferences are not professional sports leagues. They are not created solely due to the results on the field or on the court or in whatever sports competition this sad sad person seems to think defines such.

Rutgers and Maryland got in to the Big Ten ahead of Cincinnati due to reasons that have nothing to do with athletics. If such a person is continuously going to come out into public and talk as if they think these conferences should be put together based solely upon athletics then they basically show that they are a complete simpleton and think the athletics of a University are more important than the Academic nature of the University.

Because I know his response to that, yes Cinci is a great University but as it is defined it is not what Maryland and Rutgers are. Grow up, sports are not as important as the relationships created between Institutions through athletics. Those Universities don't care to create that relationship with Cincinnati. Deal with it.

Thanks for the compliments. This simpleton and sad, sad person, as you characterize me, is as much aware of the total spectrum of considerations guiding realignment as you. So tell me, what does it take to earn respect beyond sound and continually improving academics, a top 25 research profile, a billion-dollar endowment, a large student body and TV market, decent athletics, upgraded facilities, and one of the most distinctive campuses in the country?

Hubris? The kind of hubris which purports to speak for all those institutions which, in your words, "don't care to create that relationship with Cincinnati?"

What are you trying to do, prove the old adage that the ones who know aren't talking, and those who talk don't know?

For the record, the B1G has never been on my radar. Before Gordon Gee was fired for shooting off his mouth once too often, he made it abundantly clear that the Buckeyes would never tolerate or even acknowledge the success of any other school in the state of Ohio, and I take him at his word. And he wasn't the first person in Columbus to express or imply that sentiment (OSU even sued the much older Ohio University some years ago to try to compel it to stop using "Ohio" as an identifier). Ohio University was established in 1804, and Ohio State University sixty-six years later, in 1870. That's hubris, too

My apologies to the good folks on the SEC board for whatever part I played in leading this thread off-topic.

Don't worry about it. It's not like leading a thread off topic has never happened here before. Besides, Cincinnati is your school, the do meet P5 metrics and should be included somewhere. We may consolidate down to a P4 with between 64 -67 schools, but IMO eventually 72 is likely, and for a variety of reasons.