+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: College Sports and Conference Realignment (/forum-637.html)
+---- Thread: Retro: Going to 16 in the early ‘90’s (/thread-883089.html)
Pages: 1 2
Retro: Going to 16 in the early ‘90’s - Fighting Muskie - 09-18-2019 01:09 PM
Here’s a what if to think about:
What if instead of 12 being the standard when conferences started to expand to play CCGs they would have gone to 16 instead? What do our conferences look like by the mid 90s and what do they look like now?
RE: Retro: Going to 16 in the early ‘90’s - 1845 Bear - 09-18-2019 01:16 PM
Depends who moves first between the SEC and Big Ten and where they grab from. That dramatically shapes who’s available from and available for the Big8, SWC, ACC, Big East, WAC, and PAC10.
RE: Retro: Going to 16 in the early ‘90’s - JRsec - 09-18-2019 01:57 PM
(09-18-2019 01:16 PM)1845 Bear Wrote: Depends who moves first between the SEC and Big Ten and where they grab from. That dramatically shapes who’s available from and available for the Big8, SWC, ACC, Big East, WAC, and PAC10.
Well the Big 10's original target list would have included several in the OBE:
Let's say when they added Penn State they had taken Syracuse (then AAU), Notre Dame who was leaning that way before their donor alums stepped in, and before the ACC got healthy through expansion of their own they might well have been able to take Virginia (who supposedly had thoughts) and Nebraska begged in early from the Big 8.
So from 10 they move to 12 with Nebraska and Penn State, and to 15 with Syracuse, Notre Dame, and Virginia.
At the time North Carolina and Duke would have leaned more SEC if they could have been taken as a pair (and I base that on Cunningham's 2010 concerns when Maryland bolted and he called the SEC office to see if such a move would be possible should the worst happen in the ACC).
So I then believe the Big 10 would have looked West again to take Kansas taking them to 16. The hoops value was stronger in '90 and that's the basis for my thoughts:
So the Big 10:
Notre Dame, Penn State, Syracuse, Virginia
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue
Illinois, Northwestern, Ohio State, Wisconsin
Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska
If the Big 10 had beaten the ACC to the Big East targets of value the SEC would have been interested in taking a wholly different set of targets than the 6 we originally opted to seek. What's more the SWC would have been more likely to stick it out to see how they could expand or perhaps build a new conference entirely.
The SEC is at 10 in 1990 and with the ACC in weakened condition we move to 12 with Clemson and Florida State (2 of the original 6 targets of interest). North Carolina and Duke take us to 14. Virginia Tech to 15 and in 1990 they were in conversations with the SEC but were considered too much of an outlier. #16 would have been a decision between Georgia Tech, Miami, and N.C. State with the nod probably going to Georgia Tech. There would be empathy for their leaving and Atlanta is important to the SEC. But, as it becomes clear that N.C. State would be left out I think Duke and North Carolina threaten withdrawal without N.C. State and the SEC complies.
SEC:
Clemson, Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Vanderbilt
Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia Tech
Louisiana State, Florida State, Mississippi, Mississippi State
Texas and Oklahoma seeing the weakness of the SWC's footprint reform as a new conference.
They take in Iowa State, Kansas State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Colorado from the old Big 8. They drop SMU and Rice to make room for expanded footprints. They do not lose Arkansas. And they make market adds with Georgia Tech and Miami both with hub airports that help with the travel issues. They work with the two Arizona's who opt to stay with the PAC.
The New Conference looks like this:
Arkansas, Baylor, Texas, T.C.U.
Houston, Georgia Tech, Miami, Texas A&M
Iowa State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
Brigham Young, Colorado, Kansas State, Texas Tech
The PAC stays at 10.
We have a P4 of 58 schools.
A different kind of American Athletic Conference emerges:
Boston College, Connecticut, Pittsburgh, West Virginia
Cincinnati, Louisville, Memphis, Wake Forest
East Carolina, Central Florida, South Carolina, South Florida
Air Force, Army, Navy, Rutgers
Quite possibly this grouping would be considered a P conference keeping us at a P5. There are other schools that could replace the service academies if they opted out (Temple, Tulane, Southern Miss, S.M.U., etc.).
RE: Retro: Going to 16 in the early ‘90’s - Nerdlinger - 09-18-2019 05:12 PM
I'd like to think that if the original minimum for divisions and a CCG had been 16 instead of 12, we'd have seen more of a true Atlantic Coast Conference as the ACC expanded to include PSU and most of what ended up as the Big East FB wing in our timeline.
Atlantic: Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, NC State, North Carolina, Virginia, Wake Forest
Coastal: Maryland, Miami-FL, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
Boston College might be a better choice than Wake Forest, but as long as they're starting with the ACC as a base, Wake already has an in. BC would be in if PSU didn't bite. Perhaps Pitt and Syracuse (and BC) would be FB only, at least at first, due to reluctance to leave behind the other Big East members.
RE: Retro: Going to 16 in the early ‘90’s - JRsec - 09-18-2019 05:53 PM
(09-18-2019 05:12 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote: I'd like to think that if the original minimum for divisions and a CCG had been 16 instead of 12, we'd have seen more of a true Atlantic Coast Conference as the ACC expanded to include PSU and most of what ended up as the Big East FB wing in our timeline.
Atlantic: Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, NC State, North Carolina, Virginia, Wake Forest
Coastal: Maryland, Miami-FL, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
Boston College might be a better choice than Wake Forest, but as long as they're starting with the ACC as a base, Wake already has an in. BC would be in if PSU didn't bite. Perhaps Pitt and Syracuse (and BC) would be FB only, at least at first, due to reluctance to leave behind the other Big East members.
Okay, so a 2 football contender conference becomes a 3 football contender conference. That's still going to be half the value of the Big 10 or SEC.
Now instead of just Clemson and usually F.S.U. you can add Penn State.
It's why in realignment value added drives moves. Geography, while most of us would like to see it play more of a role, simply doesn't weigh as heavily in the equation as value added, and national reach.
Mostly things happened as they did because of money (network valuations) and markets (national & regional draw).
What is on your side in this what if scenario is that in 1990 the differences in conference revenues wasn't much at all. Since then, the ones that made the most profitable moves have been able to draw the next round of profitable moves. The PAC and ACC have been left behind and the Big 12 has lost some ground but remains valuable because of the immense brand value of Texas and Oklahoma.
RE: Retro: Going to 16 in the early ‘90’s - Nerdlinger - 09-18-2019 06:10 PM
(09-18-2019 05:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:(09-18-2019 05:12 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote: I'd like to think that if the original minimum for divisions and a CCG had been 16 instead of 12, we'd have seen more of a true Atlantic Coast Conference as the ACC expanded to include PSU and most of what ended up as the Big East FB wing in our timeline.
Atlantic: Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, NC State, North Carolina, Virginia, Wake Forest
Coastal: Maryland, Miami-FL, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
Boston College might be a better choice than Wake Forest, but as long as they're starting with the ACC as a base, Wake already has an in. BC would be in if PSU didn't bite. Perhaps Pitt and Syracuse (and BC) would be FB only, at least at first, due to reluctance to leave behind the other Big East members.
Okay, so a 2 football contender conference becomes a 3 football contender conference. That's still going to be half the value of the Big 10 or SEC.
Now instead of just Clemson and usually F.S.U. you can add Penn State.
It's why in realignment value added drives moves. Geography, while most of us would like to see it play more of a role, simply doesn't weigh as heavily in the equation as value added, and national reach.
Mostly things happened as they did because of money (network valuations) and markets (national & regional draw).
What is on your side in this what if scenario is that in 1990 the differences in conference revenues wasn't much at all. Since then, the ones that made the most profitable moves have been able to draw the next round of profitable moves. The PAC and ACC have been left behind and the Big 12 has lost some ground but remains valuable because of the immense brand value of Texas and Oklahoma.
Miami, VT, WVU....
RE: Retro: Going to 16 in the early ‘90’s - XLance - 09-18-2019 07:08 PM
In the early 70's the ACC was distributing more money than any other conference and had just snagged Florida State away from the arms of the SEC. If the goal was to go to 12, I would imagine the ACC would have continued to pursue Syracuse (the original plan was to approach bot Syracuse and Florida State).
In the early 70's Florida and Georgia had made contact and flirted with the ACC so I would add them to the list.
That would have given the ACC:
Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Clemson, NCSU
Carolina, Duke, Wake Forest, UVa, Maryland, Syracuse
RE: Retro: Going to 16 in the early ‘90’s - Nerdlinger - 09-18-2019 07:16 PM
(09-18-2019 07:08 PM)XLance Wrote: In the early 70's the ACC was distributing more money than any other conference and had just snagged Florida State away from the arms of the SEC. If the goal was to go to 12, I would imagine the ACC would have continued to pursue Syracuse (the original plan was to approach bot Syracuse and Florida State).
In the early 70's Florida and Georgia had made contact and flirted with the ACC so I would add them to the list.
That would have given the ACC:
Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Clemson, NCSU
Carolina, Duke, Wake Forest, UVa, Maryland, Syracuse
The ACC didn't add FSU until 1991.
Getting Florida and Georgia to join the ACC would have been pretty cool.
RE: Retro: Going to 16 in the early ‘90’s - XLance - 09-18-2019 07:19 PM
(09-18-2019 07:16 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:(09-18-2019 07:08 PM)XLance Wrote: In the early 70's the ACC was distributing more money than any other conference and had just snagged Florida State away from the arms of the SEC. If the goal was to go to 12, I would imagine the ACC would have continued to pursue Syracuse (the original plan was to approach bot Syracuse and Florida State).
In the early 70's Florida and Georgia had made contact and flirted with the ACC so I would add them to the list.
That would have given the ACC:
Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Clemson, NCSU
Carolina, Duke, Wake Forest, UVa, Maryland, Syracuse
The ACC didn't add FSU until 1991.
Getting Florida and Georgia to join the ACC would have been pretty cool.
I'm too old to multi-task anymore...my bad.
I didn't even get to 16.
RE: Retro: Going to 16 in the early ‘90’s - Fighting Muskie - 09-18-2019 07:21 PM
My personal take on how things might have gone in the early 90s if the goal was 16:
The Big Ten and SEC would likely have their choice of what’s out there. For the SEC I think they get much of their original targets:
Florida St, South Carolina, Arkansas, Texas, Texas A&M, TTU
The Big Ten is a little trickier. I’m inclined to say an eastern move would be in order but I’m torn on what the intentions would be on the Western Front. For now, I’m going to say they go only to the East:
Penn St, Notre Dame, Syracuse, Pitt, Rutgers, BC
VT and Miami become the 9th and 10th members of the ACC. The PAC 10 makes no changes. The Big 8 goes untouched but take the opportunity to add Houston, Baylor, TCU, and SMU to make 12, with Oklahoma and Oklahoma St forming the Southern Division with the newcomers.
WVU and Temple are probably left independent but there’s an outside chance the ACC Takes them in.
RE: Retro: Going to 16 in the early ‘90’s - JRsec - 09-18-2019 07:32 PM
(09-18-2019 07:21 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: My personal take on how things might have gone in the early 90s if the goal was 16:
The Big Ten and SEC would likely have their choice of what’s out there. For the SEC I think they get much of their original targets:
Florida St, South Carolina, Arkansas, Texas, Texas A&M, TTU
The Big Ten is a little trickier. I’m inclined to say an eastern move would be in order but I’m torn on what the intentions would be on the Western Front. For now, I’m going to say they go only to the East:
Penn St, Notre Dame, Syracuse, Pitt, Rutgers, BC
VT and Miami become the 9th and 10th members of the ACC. The PAC 10 makes no changes. The Big 8 goes untouched but take the opportunity to add Houston, Baylor, TCU, and SMU to make 12, with Oklahoma and Oklahoma St forming the Southern Division with the newcomers.
The SEC's 6 original targets were Clemson, Florida State, Arkansas, Texas, Texas A&M, and an unnamed school who was interested in joining with Texas (Oklahoma).
Clemson was the most tepid of the 6. When Texas decided to wait, Oklahoma was out, A&M was trapped by in state politics, and when F.S.U. opted for the ACC of course Clemson was out as well. South Carolina then entered the picture.
The reason the question is interesting is because had the Big 10 moved on its targets to the East along with Penn State the ACC would have been truly hemmed in and Florida State and Clemson might have had more to consider.
And had the Big 10 already snagged Nebraska and Kansas to go with them and the SWC had no reason to move with what was in the offing, then an all out raid on the ACC would have been possible.
RE: Retro: Going to 16 in the early ‘90’s - Fighting Muskie - 09-18-2019 07:39 PM
Do you see where the 6 I moved to the SEC could be realistic?
Clemson still resists and South Carolina is swapped in
Florida St sees what they are trying to build signs up
Arkansas, Texas, and A&M are all in but state politics require giving TTU the spot meant for OU
Regarding Clemson and Florida St being hemmed in I’m working from the premise that the SEC goes to 16 dfirst before the Big Ten so that when Clemson passes, they do so not realizing that the balance of power is about to change dramatically and that the ACC is going to have few expansion prospects
RE: Retro: Going to 16 in the early ‘90’s - JRsec - 09-18-2019 07:46 PM
(09-18-2019 07:39 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: Do you see where the 6 I moved to the SEC could be realistic?
Clemson still resists and South Carolina is swapped in
Florida St sees what they are trying to build signs up
Arkansas, Texas, and A&M are all in but state politics require giving TTU the spot meant for OU
Regarding Clemson and Florida St being hemmed in I’m working from the premise that the SEC goes to 16 dfirst before the Big Ten so that when Clemson passes, they do so not realizing that the balance of power is about to change dramatically and that the ACC is going to have few expansion prospects
Yes, but that is the way things are breaking now, not the way they would have broken in 1990 had the Big 10 or SEC been the first to move to 16. And since the Big 10 was the first to add (Penn State) it is logical therefore to assume they should have moved first and that move would have changed everything.
RE: Retro: Going to 16 in the early ‘90’s - Fighting Muskie - 09-18-2019 07:55 PM
So do you think that Big Ten was well aware of the potential of the CCG when they added Penn St and were simply unwilling to waiver on their 12th unless they got ND?
RE: Retro: Going to 16 in the early ‘90’s - JRsec - 09-18-2019 08:04 PM
(09-18-2019 07:55 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: So do you think that Big Ten was well aware of the potential of the CCG when they added Penn St and were simply unwilling to waiver on their 12th unless they got ND?
Roy Kramer kept the rule permitting the CCG under wraps until the SEC expanded.
Had the Big 10 considered utilizing it I think they would have had a back up for N.D. already lined up. Syracuse would have been logical as a means into the New York market with Penn State. At the time they were AAU, in the right state, and might have been willing. The mark against them is that they were a private. I still think an attempt for Virginia at that time might have been met with a little more interest and Virginia Tech was shopping around.
RE: Retro: Going to 16 in the early ‘90’s - ChrisLords - 09-18-2019 09:23 PM
If the NCAA rule was for conferences of 16 or more can have a championship game instead of 12, I think the only difference would have been an essential merger between the ACC and Big East. The ACC would have absorbed 7 or the 8 Eastern Independents that formed the Big East and maybe just for football only.
North
-----
Boston College
Syracuse
Rutgers
Temple
Maryland
Pitt
Virginia Tech
Miami
South
-----
UVA
UNC
Duke
NCST
Wake Forest
Clemson
Georgia Tech
FSU
RE: Retro: Going to 16 in the early ‘90’s - Fighting Muskie - 09-19-2019 02:55 PM
(09-18-2019 08:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:(09-18-2019 07:55 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: So do you think that Big Ten was well aware of the potential of the CCG when they added Penn St and were simply unwilling to waiver on their 12th unless they got ND?
Roy Kramer kept the rule permitting the CCG under wraps until the SEC expanded.
Had the Big 10 considered utilizing it I think they would have had a back up for N.D. already lined up. Syracuse would have been logical as a means into the New York market with Penn State. At the time they were AAU, in the right state, and might have been willing. The mark against them is that they were a private. I still think an attempt for Virginia at that time might have been met with a little more interest and Virginia Tech was shopping around.
I was always dumbfounded that once the SEC in acted the CCG that the Big Ten didn’t put more pressure on ND to join or make overtures that they were looking for an alternative #12.
RE: Retro: Going to 16 in the early ‘90’s - JRsec - 09-19-2019 03:46 PM
(09-19-2019 02:55 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:(09-18-2019 08:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:(09-18-2019 07:55 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: So do you think that Big Ten was well aware of the potential of the CCG when they added Penn St and were simply unwilling to waiver on their 12th unless they got ND?
Roy Kramer kept the rule permitting the CCG under wraps until the SEC expanded.
Had the Big 10 considered utilizing it I think they would have had a back up for N.D. already lined up. Syracuse would have been logical as a means into the New York market with Penn State. At the time they were AAU, in the right state, and might have been willing. The mark against them is that they were a private. I still think an attempt for Virginia at that time might have been met with a little more interest and Virginia Tech was shopping around.
I was always dumbfounded that once the SEC in acted the CCG that the Big Ten didn’t put more pressure on ND to join or make overtures that they were looking for an alternative #12.
They did. And the ND administration was trying to get it done when donors at N.D. got involved and stopped it. That's why if Delany had realized the urgency he might have been better off to go for Virginia and then Syracuse in order to do the same.
The Big 8 wasn't shaky enough yet for Nebraska to bolt. So a Big 10 move to 12 at least, could have been in the offing. I say Syracuse because destabilizing the Big East might have been his best approach to fishing N.D. at that time.
What if he had offered Syracuse, Pitt, Maryland., Virginia, and N.D.?
That would have been 4 AAU's and N.D. at that time.
That's a whopping market with a strong national draw. The Big 10 influence and domination over the Northeast would have been immediate.
So the SEC responds with Va Tech, Duke, UNC, N.C. State, Florida State and Clemson and we go back essentially to what I laid out earlier.
The SEC is wholly satisfied to be essentially the Old South and to own its footprint pretty much outright.
The Big 8 essentially stays in place and intact. If the PAC wants to move to 16 they have Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Missouri, Colorado, and add Utah to do it. For them that's 3 AAU's and a national brand. Why mess with Texas if you can do that?
The SWC picks up Iowa State, Kansas State and Oklahoma State, Louisville, Georgia Tech, Miami, and B.Y.U. and possibly Tulane, which when added to Texas, Houston, S.M.U., T.C.U., Texas A&M, Rice, Texas Tech, and Arkansas.
So now you have an upper tier of 4 conferences with 64 schools.
B1G:
Maryland, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Virginia
Indiana, Notre Dame, Purdue, Syracuse
Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State
Iowa, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin
SEC:
Clemson, Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Vanderbilt
Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia Tech
Louisiana State, Florida State, Mississippi, Mississippi State
SWC:
Iowa State, Kansas State, Louisville, Oklahoma State
Georgia Tech, Houston, Miami, Tulane
Baylor, Texas, Texas A&M, Rice
Brigham Young, S.M.U., T.C.U., Texas Tech
PAC:
Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma
Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State
California, U.C.L.A., U.S.C., Stanford
Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah
Now you have a P4 that makes geographical sense with the only conference stretching a bit being the SWC which grabs markets in Utah, Louisville, Miami, and Atlanta and picks up 3 of the Big 8 States in the process. Texas keeps its minions in its home state and Bevo is satisfied.
We have a P4 and the CFP which eventually emerges needs no selection committee.
RE: Retro: Going to 16 in the early ‘90’s - Fighting Muskie - 09-19-2019 04:18 PM
JR—
I like your Big Ten proposal. Maryland and UVA, historically southern schools, might have been an odd fit. Maryland has developed more of a northeastern flavor but UVA is still very much a southern institution. Rutgers would have been a reasonable AAU substitute for the Hoos.
I see Clemson and Florida St as no brainer SEC adds. I don’t see the SWC getting involved though. The ACC survives and replaces its losses with schools from the Big East.
RE: Retro: Going to 16 in the early ‘90’s - JRsec - 09-19-2019 07:36 PM
(09-19-2019 04:18 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: JR—
I like your Big Ten proposal. Maryland and UVA, historically southern schools, might have been an odd fit. Maryland has developed more of a northeastern flavor but UVA is still very much a southern institution. Rutgers would have been a reasonable AAU substitute for the Hoos.
I see Clemson and Florida St as no brainer SEC adds. I don’t see the SWC getting involved though. The ACC survives and replaces its losses with schools from the Big East.
Virginia while once truly Southern is now truly Beltway. Maryland has long been that way. I think the Big 10 would much rather have UVa than Rutgers.