Yep. No need to blow up your travel budget for the same money and worse TV...
Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)
- Thread starter ISUcyclones11
- Start date
Playing Big East basketball would have been the best benefit for Memphis in that move but did the BE even want them? FB-wise, doesn't seem like there is a ton to gain. Maybe they turned it down bc the BE wasn't a realistic option? Non FB sports in the pac would be a no brainer to turn down.
The Big East has no reason to expand. Without football, they're pretty much tapped out for what anybody is going to pay them and there's no reason to split the pie further, plus Memphis doesn't fit institutionally in any way at all.
Southern Utah and Utah Tech to the Big Sky as full members.
RIP in peace to the WAC.
RIP in peace to the WAC.
More low major realignment...
The WAC is rebranding as the United Athletic Conference and adding Eastern Kentucky, North Alabama, Austin Peay, Central Arkansas and West Georgia from the ASUN to go along with the 3 remaining members (Abilene Christian, Tarleton and UT-Arlington).
This leaves the Summit intact and reduces the ASUN to 7 members (Bellarmine, Lipscomb, Queens, Jacksonville U, North Florida, Florida Gulf Coast and Stetson).
This is the way forward for low majors. Get into leagues that fit you travel wise and program wise to save as much money as you can. The exact opposite of how the power leagues are acting.
The WAC is rebranding as the United Athletic Conference and adding Eastern Kentucky, North Alabama, Austin Peay, Central Arkansas and West Georgia from the ASUN to go along with the 3 remaining members (Abilene Christian, Tarleton and UT-Arlington).
This leaves the Summit intact and reduces the ASUN to 7 members (Bellarmine, Lipscomb, Queens, Jacksonville U, North Florida, Florida Gulf Coast and Stetson).
This is the way forward for low majors. Get into leagues that fit you travel wise and program wise to save as much money as you can. The exact opposite of how the power leagues are acting.
Would you want this? From a geographic standpoint makes some sense but as we have seen that doesn't seem to matter much anymore.
Hey Stew: What if the ACC and the Big 12 made a trade? ACC gets: Cincinnati, West Virginia and UCF. Big 12 gets: Stanford, Cal and SMU. Who says no? — Andy J., Columbus, Ohio
It makes way too much sense.
Stanford and Cal get to reunite with Arizona/Arizona State/Colorado/Utah, plus frequent nonconference foe BYU. SMU gets back natural rival TCU and fellow Southwest Conference expats Baylor, Texas Tech and Houston. Meanwhile, Cincinnati and West Virginia used to be in the Big East with Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville and Boston College. (The Mountaineers also overlapped with Virginia Tech.) And UCF gets more bus rides to Tallahassee and Miami, fewer flights to Stillwater and Ames.
Now, the Stanford and Cal administrations were pretty dismissive of Big 12 academics last time around, but that was before they got stuck playing 3,000 miles from home for a 30 percent paycheck. Presumably, times have changed. But would the Big 12 want them? On the one hand, they don’t exactly help your football or men’s basketball products. But it’s not like the schools they’re losing are necessarily headliners, either. Not to mention the Bay Area schools would immediately become the best programs in many of the Big 12’s Olympic sports.
You’ve sold me, Andy. Make it happen.
Hey Stew: What if the ACC and the Big 12 made a trade? ACC gets: Cincinnati, West Virginia and UCF. Big 12 gets: Stanford, Cal and SMU. Who says no? — Andy J., Columbus, Ohio
It makes way too much sense.
Stanford and Cal get to reunite with Arizona/Arizona State/Colorado/Utah, plus frequent nonconference foe BYU. SMU gets back natural rival TCU and fellow Southwest Conference expats Baylor, Texas Tech and Houston. Meanwhile, Cincinnati and West Virginia used to be in the Big East with Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville and Boston College. (The Mountaineers also overlapped with Virginia Tech.) And UCF gets more bus rides to Tallahassee and Miami, fewer flights to Stillwater and Ames.
Now, the Stanford and Cal administrations were pretty dismissive of Big 12 academics last time around, but that was before they got stuck playing 3,000 miles from home for a 30 percent paycheck. Presumably, times have changed. But would the Big 12 want them? On the one hand, they don’t exactly help your football or men’s basketball products. But it’s not like the schools they’re losing are necessarily headliners, either. Not to mention the Bay Area schools would immediately become the best programs in many of the Big 12’s Olympic sports.
You’ve sold me, Andy. Make it happen.
Stanford and Cal were so dismissive that I'm cool if they have to **** around and fly 3000 miles for a game.
Want no part of those 2....or Utah while we're at it
The big 12 only gets one new geographic region in this deal and loses 3. It already has Dallas and the bay area schools are geographic redundant. All 3 of the big 12 schools also have better fanbases and brands for the big sports.
Another article on the ACC’s settlement. The most interesting part is it evidently has language to make clear what will happen if some schools want to leave for a super league.
There is also some commentary in the article on the uneven revenue distribution that is supposed to allow the top schools to be competitive with the BigTen/SEC while the rest remain competitive with the Big12. I’m not sure how that’s possible, but I guess if SMU, Cal, and Stanford take very little and they just redistribute their shares to FSU and Clemson then maybe it is.
Suppose at least six members want to leave the same sport to join a “single sport league, conference or other association” alongside other schools. In that case, they’ll owe $75 million or 50 percent of the current withdrawal figure (whichever is greater). In practice, that would allow, say, Florida State, Clemson, Miami, North Carolina and a few other top programs to leave for a super league in football while remaining ACC members in basketball, baseball and every other sport.
There is also some commentary in the article on the uneven revenue distribution that is supposed to allow the top schools to be competitive with the BigTen/SEC while the rest remain competitive with the Big12. I’m not sure how that’s possible, but I guess if SMU, Cal, and Stanford take very little and they just redistribute their shares to FSU and Clemson then maybe it is.
Suppose at least six members want to leave the same sport to join a “single sport league, conference or other association” alongside other schools. In that case, they’ll owe $75 million or 50 percent of the current withdrawal figure (whichever is greater). In practice, that would allow, say, Florida State, Clemson, Miami, North Carolina and a few other top programs to leave for a super league in football while remaining ACC members in basketball, baseball and every other sport.
There is no effin way those schools would remain as ACC members in all other sports.
Currently.
If B12 Presidents had a vote on this swap, they would go for it due to academic and rational geographic reasons. If I had a vote, would also vote for it.
Win-Win for both conferences.
SMU is the only one of those schools that care about sports, the other two never will. I also don't really agree about geography. Houston is as close to Orlando as Tucson is to the Bay Area. All 3 of the schools you want to get rid of are close to Ames than the California schools. This move only makes sense for the 4 pac schools and BYU. It doesn't change anything for the majority of Big 12 schools other than some longer road trips. Great move for the ACC, bad more the big 12. Glad it will never happen.
The interesting part to me is the idea that the super League would be just for football. Honestly, I'd be happy about it. Would hopefully allow the rest of the sports to align in more geographically sensible leagues hopefully. Only question mark is whether basketball would affect that.
Stanford doesn't care about sports? Better check recent Learfield Cup standings. Both Cal and Stanford FB and MBB has recently nosedived due to bad coaching hires on Stanford's part and aversion to NIL/Pay for Play without any guardrails.
Now if you want to view this through ISU centric lens only, then I can see that bias causing you to disagree with the swap. Only bad thing about the swap is the B12 not dumping Houston on the ACC as well.
But I agree it will never happen due to existing TV deals and when those deals end, something more rational with geographic-based 10-team conferences will hopefully evolve.
I’d say no to Stew’s ask. All that does is appease a group of West Coast schools who couldn’t get a deal done together. It also strengthens the ACC as a regional power. Strong pass.
Now if they want to talk adding VT, NCST, Louisville, to the XII then I’m all ears.
Now if they want to talk adding VT, NCST, Louisville, to the XII then I’m all ears.
It's incredibly easy to finish high in Directors Cup when you (1) offer 30+ sports and (2) offer sports with low national participation.
Winning men's gymnastics (16 teams) is worth the same number of points as winning basketball (350+ teams), baseball (300+ teams), etc.
Point is , they do it and do it well. Stanford and Cal would have a hell of an Olympic Team just by themselves. I don't want to trade anybody, but I would love either / or both of them in the Big XII.
I’d consider it if we could then be called “The conference of champions…” Maybe the second go will be better!
