(07-08-2019 08:34 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Mountain, the people who run the academic side of UT think like the people who run UVa, and UNC. It's a southern culture based on social class. To Texas, TAMU is just a cow college. It would not matter if TAMU made a break through on fusion, or cured cancer. Most people from the Big 10 area and the Northeast do not understand the cultural distinctions in the South or how various universities in the South are often expressions of various political views of the late 19th and early 20th century.

It's not much different from UVa and VT, right down to the Corps of Cadets.

There is more than one Moo U.?

The 2010-2013 expansion seems so pedestrian when compared to the early-mid 90s. You had schools like Penn St, Florida St, Miami, Arkansas, South Carolina, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Baylor, and ND (Olympic Sports) making big moves. The last round fell short of that level of drama.

(07-09-2019 08:08 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-08-2019 08:34 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Mountain, the people who run the academic side of UT think like the people who run UVa, and UNC. It's a southern culture based on social class. To Texas, TAMU is just a cow college. It would not matter if TAMU made a break through on fusion, or cured cancer. Most people from the Big 10 area and the Northeast do not understand the cultural distinctions in the South or how various universities in the South are often expressions of various political views of the late 19th and early 20th century.

It's not much different from UVa and VT, right down to the Corps of Cadets.

There is more than one Moo U.?

Texas is a very different state than Virginia or North Carolina. While the two schools are distinct, Texas and Texas A&M both have some people with money. Both have ranchers. UH is what would be considered the "lower social class."

The academic leadership of the University of Texas is really pretty similar to what you would see at a Big 10 school. Most of the leadership have Phds from the Ivy League, Big 10 or Cal, UCLA or Stanford.

(07-09-2019 08:10 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The 2010-2013 expansion seems so pedestrian when compared to the early-mid 90s. You had schools like Penn St, Florida St, Miami, Arkansas, South Carolina, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Baylor, and ND (Olympic Sports) making big moves. The last round fell short of that level of drama.

So far all of the moves have been to set up future moves. This next time around, if movement starts, it will be made as if they are final moves and not set up moves. To reach Texas and possibly North Carolina the SEC took bridge states in '92. In 2012 the SEC got one of their prizes with A&M and set the Northwest corner of the conference with Missouri.

When the Big 10 took Penn State they got a solid add but one which was a bridging move to the Northeast. Maryland bridges to the MidAtlantic and Rutgers was a market move.

The ACC expanded a bit more rapidly. First they took the schools they suspected the SEC might have an interest in: Miami, Virginia Tech, Florida State. Boston College was a bridge to the schools they knew the SEC would not be taking. In their next move they took Syracuse and Pitt which helped to land Notre Dame as a partial.

The PAC expansion has been a bridge building attempt toward new time zones.

The Big 12 has been defensive adding only enough to keep the TV contract viable.

Next time out the Big 10 and SEC will move on the prizes of Oklahoma and Texas with hopes of both and fallback positions designed to land at least one.

The ACC may wait until the Big 10 and SEC dust settles before deciding who to grow with again.

The PAC will be proactive and make a play for Texas and Oklahoma as well.

Right now the schools that add value to both the SEC and Big 10 are Texas and Oklahoma. Notre Dame would add value for the Big 10 and Florida State might add value for the SEC but neither of them will be available.

Kansas, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech could come into play as somebody's #2. I don't see many other potential moves out there right now.

(07-09-2019 08:10 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The 2010-2013 expansion seems so pedestrian when compared to the early-mid 90s. You had schools like Penn St, Florida St, Miami, Arkansas, South Carolina, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Baylor, and ND (Olympic Sports) making big moves. The last round fell short of that level of drama.

.... but the 1990s moves attracted a lot less attention and controversy, because for the most part they didn't involve many prominent oxes being gored.

E.g., Penn State, Miami, South Carolina and FSU were all independent, so when they joined their conferences, no other conferences were hurt. And when the biggest event happened - the Big 8 merging with the SWC - the only schools hurt were low-value brands like Houston that not many cared about.

Nothing that happened in the 1990s really threatened the stability or existence of major conferences.

(07-10-2019 07:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 08:10 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The 2010-2013 expansion seems so pedestrian when compared to the early-mid 90s. You had schools like Penn St, Florida St, Miami, Arkansas, South Carolina, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Baylor, and ND (Olympic Sports) making big moves. The last round fell short of that level of drama.

.... but the 1990s moves attracted a lot less attention and controversy, because for the most part they didn't involve many prominent oxes being gored.

E.g., Penn State, Miami, South Carolina and FSU were all independent, so when they joined their conferences, no other conferences were hurt. And when the biggest event happened - the Big 8 merging with the SWC - the only schools hurt were low-value brands like Houston that not many cared about.

Nothing that happened in the 1990s really threatened the stability or existence of major conferences.

80 year old Southwest Conference? One of the strongest football conferences in the country in the 80s (90s slipped a good bit, but still top 5-7).

(07-09-2019 09:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 08:10 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The 2010-2013 expansion seems so pedestrian when compared to the early-mid 90s. You had schools like Penn St, Florida St, Miami, Arkansas, South Carolina, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Baylor, and ND (Olympic Sports) making big moves. The last round fell short of that level of drama.

So far all of the moves have been to set up future moves. This next time around, if movement starts, it will be made as if they are final moves and not set up moves. To reach Texas and possibly North Carolina the SEC took bridge states in '92. In 2012 the SEC got one of their prizes with A&M and set the Northwest corner of the conference with Missouri.

When the Big 10 took Penn State they got a solid add but one which was a bridging move to the Northeast. Maryland bridges to the MidAtlantic and Rutgers was a market move.

The ACC expanded a bit more rapidly. First they took the schools they suspected the SEC might have an interest in: Miami, Virginia Tech, Florida State. Boston College was a bridge to the schools they knew the SEC would not be taking. In their next move they took Syracuse and Pitt which helped to land Notre Dame as a partial.

The PAC expansion has been a bridge building attempt toward new time zones.

The Big 12 has been defensive adding only enough to keep the TV contract viable.

Next time out the Big 10 and SEC will move on the prizes of Oklahoma and Texas with hopes of both and fallback positions designed to land at least one.

The ACC may wait until the Big 10 and SEC dust settles before deciding who to grow with again.

ACC realignment is almost complete. There are almost no pieces that will interest ACC. The only few ones that ACC may take is Notre Dame (full), Penn State and Maryland. ACC will not even take Rutgers.

(07-10-2019 11:29 AM)ArQ Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 09:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 08:10 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The 2010-2013 expansion seems so pedestrian when compared to the early-mid 90s. You had schools like Penn St, Florida St, Miami, Arkansas, South Carolina, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Baylor, and ND (Olympic Sports) making big moves. The last round fell short of that level of drama.

So far all of the moves have been to set up future moves. This next time around, if movement starts, it will be made as if they are final moves and not set up moves. To reach Texas and possibly North Carolina the SEC took bridge states in '92. In 2012 the SEC got one of their prizes with A&M and set the Northwest corner of the conference with Missouri.

When the Big 10 took Penn State they got a solid add but one which was a bridging move to the Northeast. Maryland bridges to the MidAtlantic and Rutgers was a market move.

The ACC expanded a bit more rapidly. First they took the schools they suspected the SEC might have an interest in: Miami, Virginia Tech, Florida State. Boston College was a bridge to the schools they knew the SEC would not be taking. In their next move they took Syracuse and Pitt which helped to land Notre Dame as a partial.

The PAC expansion has been a bridge building attempt toward new time zones.

The Big 12 has been defensive adding only enough to keep the TV contract viable.

Next time out the Big 10 and SEC will move on the prizes of Oklahoma and Texas with hopes of both and fallback positions designed to land at least one.

The ACC may wait until the Big 10 and SEC dust settles before deciding who to grow with again.

ACC realignment is almost complete. There are almost no pieces that will interest ACC. The only few ones that ACC may take is Notre Dame (full), Penn State and Maryland. ACC will not even take Rutgers.

I have a buddy who's uncles ex girlfriends little brother told him that Rutgers was asked to join the ACC in 2005 and Rutgers laughed and said no. Is that true?

He also said that Notre Dame begged to be a full member in football but the ACC said "hell no"! You'll be a partial member and we are only giving you 5 games a year.

Having fun!

(07-10-2019 11:29 AM)ArQ Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 09:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 08:10 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The 2010-2013 expansion seems so pedestrian when compared to the early-mid 90s. You had schools like Penn St, Florida St, Miami, Arkansas, South Carolina, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Baylor, and ND (Olympic Sports) making big moves. The last round fell short of that level of drama.

So far all of the moves have been to set up future moves. This next time around, if movement starts, it will be made as if they are final moves and not set up moves. To reach Texas and possibly North Carolina the SEC took bridge states in '92. In 2012 the SEC got one of their prizes with A&M and set the Northwest corner of the conference with Missouri.

When the Big 10 took Penn State they got a solid add but one which was a bridging move to the Northeast. Maryland bridges to the MidAtlantic and Rutgers was a market move.

The ACC expanded a bit more rapidly. First they took the schools they suspected the SEC might have an interest in: Miami, Virginia Tech, Florida State. Boston College was a bridge to the schools they knew the SEC would not be taking. In their next move they took Syracuse and Pitt which helped to land Notre Dame as a partial.

The PAC expansion has been a bridge building attempt toward new time zones.

The Big 12 has been defensive adding only enough to keep the TV contract viable.

Next time out the Big 10 and SEC will move on the prizes of Oklahoma and Texas with hopes of both and fallback positions designed to land at least one.

The ACC may wait until the Big 10 and SEC dust settles before deciding who to grow with again.

ACC realignment is almost complete. There are almost no pieces that will interest ACC. The only few ones that ACC may take is Notre Dame (full), Penn State and Maryland. ACC will not even take Rutgers.

Doesn't matter for Rutgers. They hit their pay day in the B-10. Maryland won't be returning either and you will never get Penn State out of the B-10. So your really only left with ND going all in (which they won't), so you are right that there are almost no pieces out their that will interest the ACC.

(07-10-2019 11:13 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-10-2019 07:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 08:10 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The 2010-2013 expansion seems so pedestrian when compared to the early-mid 90s. You had schools like Penn St, Florida St, Miami, Arkansas, South Carolina, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Baylor, and ND (Olympic Sports) making big moves. The last round fell short of that level of drama.

.... but the 1990s moves attracted a lot less attention and controversy, because for the most part they didn't involve many prominent oxes being gored.

E.g., Penn State, Miami, South Carolina and FSU were all independent, so when they joined their conferences, no other conferences were hurt. And when the biggest event happened - the Big 8 merging with the SWC - the only schools hurt were low-value brands like Houston that not many cared about.

Nothing that happened in the 1990s really threatened the stability or existence of major conferences.

80 year old Southwest Conference? One of the strongest football conferences in the country in the 80s (90s slipped a good bit, but still top 5-7).

At the time, the formation of the Big 12 was viewed nationally as more of a merger between them rather than the dissolution of the SWC, even though not all SWC schools were included.

That's because the big brands were.

E.g., here's a contemporary story from the time. The word "merger" is prominent:

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-...story.html

(07-10-2019 11:29 AM)ArQ Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 09:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 08:10 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The 2010-2013 expansion seems so pedestrian when compared to the early-mid 90s. You had schools like Penn St, Florida St, Miami, Arkansas, South Carolina, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Baylor, and ND (Olympic Sports) making big moves. The last round fell short of that level of drama.

So far all of the moves have been to set up future moves. This next time around, if movement starts, it will be made as if they are final moves and not set up moves. To reach Texas and possibly North Carolina the SEC took bridge states in '92. In 2012 the SEC got one of their prizes with A&M and set the Northwest corner of the conference with Missouri.

When the Big 10 took Penn State they got a solid add but one which was a bridging move to the Northeast. Maryland bridges to the MidAtlantic and Rutgers was a market move.

The ACC expanded a bit more rapidly. First they took the schools they suspected the SEC might have an interest in: Miami, Virginia Tech, Florida State. Boston College was a bridge to the schools they knew the SEC would not be taking. In their next move they took Syracuse and Pitt which helped to land Notre Dame as a partial.

The PAC expansion has been a bridge building attempt toward new time zones.

The Big 12 has been defensive adding only enough to keep the TV contract viable.

Next time out the Big 10 and SEC will move on the prizes of Oklahoma and Texas with hopes of both and fallback positions designed to land at least one.

The ACC may wait until the Big 10 and SEC dust settles before deciding who to grow with again.

ACC realignment is almost complete. There are almost no pieces that will interest ACC. The only few ones that ACC may take is Notre Dame (full), Penn State and Maryland. ACC will not even take Rutgers.

The four schools you mentioned are completely unavailable to the ACC. ACC's only chance for expansion in 2024-2025 timeframe is if they manage to find a pairing for West-By-God, (Cincy?) if ESPN will permit it. Otherwise the next round is no more nor less complicated than wht JR described.

(07-10-2019 11:29 AM)ArQ Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 09:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 08:10 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The 2010-2013 expansion seems so pedestrian when compared to the early-mid 90s. You had schools like Penn St, Florida St, Miami, Arkansas, South Carolina, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Baylor, and ND (Olympic Sports) making big moves. The last round fell short of that level of drama.

So far all of the moves have been to set up future moves. This next time around, if movement starts, it will be made as if they are final moves and not set up moves. To reach Texas and possibly North Carolina the SEC took bridge states in '92. In 2012 the SEC got one of their prizes with A&M and set the Northwest corner of the conference with Missouri.

When the Big 10 took Penn State they got a solid add but one which was a bridging move to the Northeast. Maryland bridges to the MidAtlantic and Rutgers was a market move.

The ACC expanded a bit more rapidly. First they took the schools they suspected the SEC might have an interest in: Miami, Virginia Tech, Florida State. Boston College was a bridge to the schools they knew the SEC would not be taking. In their next move they took Syracuse and Pitt which helped to land Notre Dame as a partial.

The PAC expansion has been a bridge building attempt toward new time zones.

The Big 12 has been defensive adding only enough to keep the TV contract viable.

Next time out the Big 10 and SEC will move on the prizes of Oklahoma and Texas with hopes of both and fallback positions designed to land at least one.

The ACC may wait until the Big 10 and SEC dust settles before deciding who to grow with again.

ACC realignment is almost complete. There are almost no pieces that will interest ACC. The only few ones that ACC may take is Notre Dame (full), Penn State and Maryland. ACC will not even take Rutgers.

Rutgers is not interested in the ACC. They won the $1 billion Powerball in the Big Ten. They would be foolish to leave the wealthiest and most prestigious conference for the ACC.

Penn State will NOT give up annual games vs Michigan, Ohio State and Michigan State plus the alumni and fans in NYC and Philly can make the trip to Rutgers every other year for games vs Pitt, Syracuse, BC and Louisville. No thanks. As I was told at a PSU alumni gathering last year, Penn State would be a big whale in a very small pond (ACC).

Maryland is never going back. The ACC fanboys should get over it. Good luck convincing Notre Dame in giving up its independence.

The only realistic options the ACC has are schools like Cincinnati, Temple, Memphis, Houston, UConn, the U_F twins, etc. I would keep an eye on Houston. It would open a new market for the ACCN and recruiting.

(07-10-2019 11:29 AM)ArQ Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 09:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 08:10 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The 2010-2013 expansion seems so pedestrian when compared to the early-mid 90s. You had schools like Penn St, Florida St, Miami, Arkansas, South Carolina, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Baylor, and ND (Olympic Sports) making big moves. The last round fell short of that level of drama.

So far all of the moves have been to set up future moves. This next time around, if movement starts, it will be made as if they are final moves and not set up moves. To reach Texas and possibly North Carolina the SEC took bridge states in '92. In 2012 the SEC got one of their prizes with A&M and set the Northwest corner of the conference with Missouri.

When the Big 10 took Penn State they got a solid add but one which was a bridging move to the Northeast. Maryland bridges to the MidAtlantic and Rutgers was a market move.

The ACC expanded a bit more rapidly. First they took the schools they suspected the SEC might have an interest in: Miami, Virginia Tech, Florida State. Boston College was a bridge to the schools they knew the SEC would not be taking. In their next move they took Syracuse and Pitt which helped to land Notre Dame as a partial.

The PAC expansion has been a bridge building attempt toward new time zones.

The Big 12 has been defensive adding only enough to keep the TV contract viable.

Next time out the Big 10 and SEC will move on the prizes of Oklahoma and Texas with hopes of both and fallback positions designed to land at least one.

The ACC may wait until the Big 10 and SEC dust settles before deciding who to grow with again.

ACC realignment is almost complete. There are almost no pieces that will interest ACC. The only few ones that ACC may take is Notre Dame (full), Penn State and Maryland. ACC will not even take Rutgers.

The ACC is definitely not going to pry anyone loose from the Big Ten, especially not Maryland, even if they actually wanted them back.

Landing ND as a full member is a worthy goal, if somewhat lofty. If the ACC were smart, it would add WVU as #16. They should have been #12, TBH. But the ACC is not smart.

(07-10-2019 03:28 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(07-10-2019 11:29 AM)ArQ Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 09:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 08:10 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The 2010-2013 expansion seems so pedestrian when compared to the early-mid 90s. You had schools like Penn St, Florida St, Miami, Arkansas, South Carolina, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Baylor, and ND (Olympic Sports) making big moves. The last round fell short of that level of drama.

So far all of the moves have been to set up future moves. This next time around, if movement starts, it will be made as if they are final moves and not set up moves. To reach Texas and possibly North Carolina the SEC took bridge states in '92. In 2012 the SEC got one of their prizes with A&M and set the Northwest corner of the conference with Missouri.

When the Big 10 took Penn State they got a solid add but one which was a bridging move to the Northeast. Maryland bridges to the MidAtlantic and Rutgers was a market move.

The ACC expanded a bit more rapidly. First they took the schools they suspected the SEC might have an interest in: Miami, Virginia Tech, Florida State. Boston College was a bridge to the schools they knew the SEC would not be taking. In their next move they took Syracuse and Pitt which helped to land Notre Dame as a partial.

The PAC expansion has been a bridge building attempt toward new time zones.

The Big 12 has been defensive adding only enough to keep the TV contract viable.

Next time out the Big 10 and SEC will move on the prizes of Oklahoma and Texas with hopes of both and fallback positions designed to land at least one.

The ACC may wait until the Big 10 and SEC dust settles before deciding who to grow with again.

ACC realignment is almost complete. There are almost no pieces that will interest ACC. The only few ones that ACC may take is Notre Dame (full), Penn State and Maryland. ACC will not even take Rutgers.

The ACC is definitely not going to pry anyone loose from the Big Ten, especially not Maryland, even if they actually wanted them back.

Landing ND as a full member is a worthy goal, if somewhat lofty. If the ACC were smart, it would add WVU as #16. They should have been #12, TBH. But the ACC is not smart.

The ACC used the old hammer and anvil tactic: strike from the north and squash ‘em in the middle.

The ACC has NO interest in Rutgers and never did. Remember that time they invited Syracuse and Pitt instead?

(07-09-2019 12:19 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 09:04 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 07:47 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-08-2019 10:56 AM)cubucks Wrote:  Here's the one that just has always confused me. Why did the ACC not ever grab West Virginia? Is Louisville a better fit than them? I honestly think, if comparing the two, West Virginia would have been best. The Mountaineers draw some nice numbers on the Television.

I don't have any inside knowledge or anything, but I reckon it was in part academic snobbery. In 2012 they were 401-500 (US 138-150), and UWV was unranked (that was before the AWRU extended their list from 500 to 1,000).

In addition to academic snobbery being foolish to begin with, that's also a reminder that for results based rankings are subject to change ... Louisville is in the most recent 2018 AWRU in the 601-700 tier, below UWV in the 401-500 tier.

I would not be surprised if, even more, while Louisville was picked to placate the Football schools, Louisville still had a stronger BBall pedigree than UWV ... currently 42 tournament appearances, 76-43, 10 final fours, 3 championships, to 28 appearances, 29-28, 2 final fours, no championships.

Also, the Mountaineers getting an invitation to the Big 12 might have been part of what got the ACC FB schools to press the case ... Louisville sitting out there available to turn the Big 12 island in West Virginia into more of a peninsula couldn't have been a happy thought when the alternative was a FB program like UConn.

It's actually WVU. West Virginia is one of the few states that has its eponymous university with the state name preceding "University". Indiana is another.

Although for some reason, the Big 8 schools called themselves OU, CU, NU, and KU. Missouri's short name was generally Mizzou. Don't really remember them referred to as UM or MU.

When you saw all of the schools listed by abbreviation they were MU. I think it's just a regional thing where they view the order the words go in as interchangeable. It's the University of Nebraska, but the fight song refers to them as "Dear Old Nebraska U," for instance.

(07-09-2019 09:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 08:10 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The 2010-2013 expansion seems so pedestrian when compared to the early-mid 90s. You had schools like Penn St, Florida St, Miami, Arkansas, South Carolina, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Baylor, and ND (Olympic Sports) making big moves. The last round fell short of that level of drama.

So far all of the moves have been to set up future moves. This next time around, if movement starts, it will be made as if they are final moves and not set up moves. To reach Texas and possibly North Carolina the SEC took bridge states in '92. In 2012 the SEC got one of their prizes with A&M and set the Northwest corner of the conference with Missouri.

When the Big 10 took Penn State they got a solid add but one which was a bridging move to the Northeast. Maryland bridges to the MidAtlantic and Rutgers was a market move.

The ACC expanded a bit more rapidly. First they took the schools they suspected the SEC might have an interest in: Miami, Virginia Tech, Florida State. Boston College was a bridge to the schools they knew the SEC would not be taking. In their next move they took Syracuse and Pitt which helped to land Notre Dame as a partial.

The PAC expansion has been a bridge building attempt toward new time zones.

The Big 12 has been defensive adding only enough to keep the TV contract viable.

Next time out the Big 10 and SEC will move on the prizes of Oklahoma and Texas with hopes of both and fallback positions designed to land at least one.

The ACC may wait until the Big 10 and SEC dust settles before deciding who to grow with again.

The PAC will be proactive and make a play for Texas and Oklahoma as well.

Right now the schools that add value to both the SEC and Big 10 are Texas and Oklahoma. Notre Dame would add value for the Big 10 and Florida State might add value for the SEC but neither of them will be available.

Kansas, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech could come into play as somebody's #2. I don't see many other potential moves out there right now.

Don't forget WVU for the ACC or even as a SEC #2 if they whiff on one or more of the big boys.

(07-10-2019 08:08 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 09:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 08:10 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The 2010-2013 expansion seems so pedestrian when compared to the early-mid 90s. You had schools like Penn St, Florida St, Miami, Arkansas, South Carolina, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Baylor, and ND (Olympic Sports) making big moves. The last round fell short of that level of drama.

So far all of the moves have been to set up future moves. This next time around, if movement starts, it will be made as if they are final moves and not set up moves. To reach Texas and possibly North Carolina the SEC took bridge states in '92. In 2012 the SEC got one of their prizes with A&M and set the Northwest corner of the conference with Missouri.

When the Big 10 took Penn State they got a solid add but one which was a bridging move to the Northeast. Maryland bridges to the MidAtlantic and Rutgers was a market move.

The ACC expanded a bit more rapidly. First they took the schools they suspected the SEC might have an interest in: Miami, Virginia Tech, Florida State. Boston College was a bridge to the schools they knew the SEC would not be taking. In their next move they took Syracuse and Pitt which helped to land Notre Dame as a partial.

The PAC expansion has been a bridge building attempt toward new time zones.

The Big 12 has been defensive adding only enough to keep the TV contract viable.

Next time out the Big 10 and SEC will move on the prizes of Oklahoma and Texas with hopes of both and fallback positions designed to land at least one.

The ACC may wait until the Big 10 and SEC dust settles before deciding who to grow with again.

The PAC will be proactive and make a play for Texas and Oklahoma as well.

Right now the schools that add value to both the SEC and Big 10 are Texas and Oklahoma. Notre Dame would add value for the Big 10 and Florida State might add value for the SEC but neither of them will be available.

Kansas, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech could come into play as somebody's #2. I don't see many other potential moves out there right now.

Don't forget WVU for the ACC or even as a SEC #2 if they whiff on one or more of the big boys.

Why would the SEC whiff? We haven't taken anyone like Rutgers in either of our moves!

(07-10-2019 04:05 PM)esayem Wrote:  The ACC has NO interest in Rutgers and never did. Remember that time they invited Syracuse and Pitt instead?

(07-10-2019 08:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-10-2019 08:08 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 09:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 08:10 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The 2010-2013 expansion seems so pedestrian when compared to the early-mid 90s. You had schools like Penn St, Florida St, Miami, Arkansas, South Carolina, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Baylor, and ND (Olympic Sports) making big moves. The last round fell short of that level of drama.

So far all of the moves have been to set up future moves. This next time around, if movement starts, it will be made as if they are final moves and not set up moves. To reach Texas and possibly North Carolina the SEC took bridge states in '92. In 2012 the SEC got one of their prizes with A&M and set the Northwest corner of the conference with Missouri.

When the Big 10 took Penn State they got a solid add but one which was a bridging move to the Northeast. Maryland bridges to the MidAtlantic and Rutgers was a market move.

The ACC expanded a bit more rapidly. First they took the schools they suspected the SEC might have an interest in: Miami, Virginia Tech, Florida State. Boston College was a bridge to the schools they knew the SEC would not be taking. In their next move they took Syracuse and Pitt which helped to land Notre Dame as a partial.

The PAC expansion has been a bridge building attempt toward new time zones.

The Big 12 has been defensive adding only enough to keep the TV contract viable.

Next time out the Big 10 and SEC will move on the prizes of Oklahoma and Texas with hopes of both and fallback positions designed to land at least one.

The ACC may wait until the Big 10 and SEC dust settles before deciding who to grow with again.

The PAC will be proactive and make a play for Texas and Oklahoma as well.

Right now the schools that add value to both the SEC and Big 10 are Texas and Oklahoma. Notre Dame would add value for the Big 10 and Florida State might add value for the SEC but neither of them will be available.

Kansas, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech could come into play as somebody's #2. I don't see many other potential moves out there right now.

Don't forget WVU for the ACC or even as a SEC #2 if they whiff on one or more of the big boys.

Why would the SEC whiff? We haven't taken anyone like Rutgers in either of our moves!

1. whiff as in strike out. It's not guaranteed you'll land either OU or Texas. Hence WHIFF

2. Don't get all sensitive JR