Topic: Conference Membership thread

[Bone Crusher]

These days, conference membership is bound to change more frequently as schools seek different levels of competition and perhaps more money so I think we ought to start such a thread.

Memphis AD denies Big East rumors: http://www.sportingnews.com/college-basketball/article/2008-05-16/memphis-ad-denies-negotiating-big-east-move

I looked at some of the comments and one of them suggested a southern version of the Ivy league and would include Duke, Wake Forest, Vandy, Tulane, Wofford, Elon, Furman, Baylor, SMU, TCU, and Rice.

All wacky and radical conference aliginments can be discussed here.

[thedrUNKenLoper]

Jesuit Basketball Conference:
Creighton /Omaha, NE/ (MVC)
DePaul /Chicago, IL/ (Big East)
Notre Dame /South Bend, IN/(Big East)
Marquette /Milwaukee, WI/ (Big East)
St. Louis /St. Louis, MO/ (A10)
Xavier /Cincinnati, OH/ (A10)

Just a start

[Bone Crusher]

The MWC commish says there are no plans for expansion at the moment: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705319217/No-need-for-Boise-in-fight-vs-BCS.html

People just don't realize how subpar BSU's academics are compared to the MWC schools.  Only a few of the MWC schools can be a match with the Big 12 or Pac-10 when it comes to academics so you can forget Boise State ever joining the Pac-10.  Only Hawaii and Idaho from the WAC can make the jump to the Pac-10 when it comes to academics.  Utah and CSU (possibly BYU as well) can make that jump to the Pac-10 or Big 12 when it comes to academics.

[Bone Crusher]

Jesuit Basketball Conference:
Creighton /Omaha, NE/ (MVC)
DePaul /Chicago, IL/ (Big East)
Notre Dame /South Bend, IN/(Big East)
Marquette /Milwaukee, WI/ (Big East)
St. Louis /St. Louis, MO/ (A10)
Xavier /Cincinnati, OH/ (A10)

Just a start

What about Gonganza which is a Jesuit school as well but I guess geography would rule that out.  I'm going to work on some ideas that I have and get back to this thread eventually.  That will be based on the idea that football and basketball needs to have their own seperate conferences.

[thedrUNKenLoper]

I'd still like to see these schools all get in one conference for at least hoops because of how little they currently play each other. ill come up with some other one for other sports as well but this one has been on my mind for years.

[architechguy]

The MWC commish says there are no plans for expansion at the moment: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705319217/No-need-for-Boise-in-fight-vs-BCS.html

People just don't realize how subpar BSU's academics are compared to the MWC schools.  Only a few of the MWC schools can be a match with the Big 12 or Pac-10 when it comes to academics so you can forget Boise State ever joining the Pac-10.  Only Hawaii and Idaho from the WAC can make the jump to the Pac-10 when it comes to academics.  Utah and CSU (possibly BYU as well) can make that jump to the Pac-10 or Big 12 when it comes to academics.

The Pac 10 isn't going to take a religious school, it doesn't fit with what the Pac 10 wants to do.  They want research institutions, not parochial schools.  BYU wouldn't make the cut.  They'd be more likely to take Utah.  I don't know if the academics are up to par, but if I were a Pac 10 fan I would be begging and pleading for the conference to pick up UNLV and Nevada.  Vegas and Reno would be the two best weekend road trips known to mankind!

[Bone Crusher]

The Pac 10 isn't going to take a religious school, it doesn't fit with what the Pac 10 wants to do.  They want research institutions, not parochial schools.  BYU wouldn't make the cut.  They'd be more likely to take Utah.  I don't know if the academics are up to par, but if I were a Pac 10 fan I would be begging and pleading for the conference to pick up UNLV and Nevada.  Vegas and Reno would be the two best weekend road trips known to mankind!

UNR and UNLV are not where they need to be acamedically for the Pac-10's liking....YET.

[thedrUNKenLoper]

I hope the Pac10 just says no since they have the perfect round robbin during the season which you play everyone and have a "true" conference champion. that said the conference needs a better deal because for us CFB junkies how much sense does it make that after the east coast games are done that's when a Pac10 game comes on.

[architechguy]

Unfortunately, the Pac 10 coaches are lobbying to get rid of the 9th conference game.  It guarantees that half their teams are going to have an extra loss on the season, which costs the conference bowl money.  Also, I don't see the game times changing for Pac 10 teams.  Ideally, they would start their big games at 5pm so they can have a prime time start on the east coast, but when Florida-LSU is kicking off at 8:00 ET and Texas-Nebraska is kicking off at 7:00CT, only the west coast will be watching their game anyway.  I think it's the most unchangeable trend in all of sports, given the choice people are going to watch their home team or regional team on TV well before they watch the team from 2000 miles away.

[Bone Crusher]

The MWC commish says there are no plans for expansion at the moment: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705319217/No-need-for-Boise-in-fight-vs-BCS.html

People just don't realize how subpar BSU's academics are compared to the MWC schools.  Only a few of the MWC schools can be a match with the Big 12 or Pac-10 when it comes to academics so you can forget Boise State ever joining the Pac-10.  Only Hawaii and Idaho from the WAC can make the jump to the Pac-10 when it comes to academics.  Utah and CSU (possibly BYU as well) can make that jump to the Pac-10 or Big 12 when it comes to academics.

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/ncfnation/0-9-345/WAC-commissioner-talks-Boise-State--Mountain-West.html

It almost seems like the WAC could be resigned to losing BSU in the not too distant future.

[Bone Crusher]

http://bigxiiboards.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=29605#29605

A juicy rumor about CU to the Pac-10 in 2011.

[architechguy]

Here's what I don't understand about the whole "Big 12 is becoming the Big SWC" argument, if CU left to be in the Pac 10 and Mizzou left for the Big 10, then it would be MORE Texas teams replacing them.  TCU would be first in line.  Houston would jump at the opportunity.  Arkansas ain't leaving the money of the SEC to make less money with us.  All this complaint is really about is Texas throwing their weight and influence around, it ain't A&M since at the moment they ain't got much weight to throw around, it ain't Tech and it ain't Baylor.  Texas has more resources than any public school in the country, they're gonna get what they want wherever they go.  If a team left for the Pac 10 or the Big 10, don't you think that USC or Ohio State is gonna be the same way?  The "grass is always greener on the other side" mentality can be a whole lot more trouble than it's worth.

[Bone Crusher]

Archi, I do understand how the Big 12 could be trying to become the Big SWC.  More North schools are recruiting Texas talent and the only North school that seems to duck that is CU since the Buffs traditionally recruit California heavily and that is one of the many reasons why the CU to the Pac-10 rumors won't ever die.  There are over 100,000 CU alumni living on the west coast as well (I have pointed out in past threads that CU has a large alumni and fanbase in SoCal).

The largest out of state group of students that enrolls at CU is California followed by Texas.  I don't know if there is a push at CU to bring in more Texas students (and players) than California students so the Buffs would be more of a Big 12 team than a MWC or Pac-10 team.

If Dan Hawkins is unable to get CU going, I can see CU going with a coach who would seriously recruit Texas much more than Hawkins has done so.  One of the reasons why Gary Barnett was able to succeed at CU and win those North titles earlier this decade was his ability to bring in Texas kids.  CU was able to bring in a few Texas kids for the 2009 class but Hawkins will really need to step it up with Texas kids and hiring Denver Johnson was a step in the right direction but CU's former OL coach Grimes hailed from Texas as well.

[architechguy]

Archi, I do understand how the Big 12 could be trying to become the Big SWC.  More North schools are recruiting Texas talent...

How does that make the conference more SWC-ish?  North schools recruiting Texas is to their advantage, and to the disadvantage of the Texas schools.

[Bone Crusher]

http://www.buffzone.com/news/2009/aug/21/cu-must-decide-if-competitive-is-actual-goal/

Woelk: CU must decide if 'competitive' is actual goal

By Neill Woelk
Friday, August 21, 2009

BOULDER, Colo. — It seems that every few years, the question arises concerning the University of Colorado and its athletic department.

What, exactly, are the expectations that should be associated with CU's programs?

It's pertinent again today because the upcoming year might just be one of the most important in years for CU's athletic department.

Important because CU's fortunes in the "marquee" sports -- football and men's and women's basketball -- have been less than productive in the win-loss column in recent years. Important because a positive step forward by each of those programs is vital to the long-term viability of not only each individual program, but vital to the overall success of the entire department.

And, important because it's time for the school -- not just the athletic department, but the entire administration -- to decide whether the Buffs should actually compete in the Big 12 or simply be merely a member of the conference with no expectations attached.

By no means is this the first time such a question has been asked. Fact is, it's been an issue at CU for decades, and the answer has ebbed and flowed as administrations have come and gone.

It's no secret that the zenith of Colorado's athletic successes coincided with the presidency of Gordon Gee (now the president at Ohio State). Gee and then-athletic director Bill Marolt built a foundation for success at CU that set the stage for Bill McCartney's 1990 national championship team, the opening of the Dal Ward Center in 1991 and what turned out to be maybe the most successful overall stretch ever for CU athletics in the ensuing half-dozen years.

That stretch also set the stage for CU to earn a seat on the national stage across the board. While some members of academia -- not all, but some -- are loath to admit it, successful athletic programs benefit a school in myriad ways. The marketing potential of successful athletics can't be over-stated, and CU reaped the benefits in the '90s.

(If you need to see the correlation between athletics and top-ranked public institutions, check any of the annual lists compiled by a variety of magazines. The top 20 always includes schools such as Virginia, Cal, North Carolina, Washington, Illinois, Utah, Texas and Florida. Those same schools, of course, all boast successful athletic programs.)

It's also no secret that when Gee left in 1990, CU's ability to excel on the field began to slowly erode. McCartney had recruited well enough to keep CU nationally competitive for the ensuing six seasons, but support from the administration was never the same. The result was that maintaining competitive facilities became more difficult, as did the ability to attract the athletes necessary to compete in one of the nation's most-competitive conferences. By the end of the decade, CU had slipped significantly.

Gee's departure is one of the reasons McCartney finally left in 1994, when support from the administration waned. It's also one of the reasons Marolt followed suit just a couple of years later, and it's at least in part why Rick Neuheisel left for Washington after the 1998 season.

And, it's one of the reasons CU's fortunes have since see-sawed, with the successes of the 1990s becoming more and more a memory rather than a constant.

How do administrations play a role in athletic success?

In the case of schools such as Colorado, it means making the playing field relatively level wherever possible.

Clearly, CU will never compete on a financial basis with schools such as Texas, Nebraska, Michigan, etc. Those schools are economic heavyweights, with the booster dollars to provide whatever is necessary to facilitate success.

But CU can make sure its athletic programs are not hamstrung in other areas, such as academic admissions, necessary facilities and the day-to-day process of doing business.

Check out CSU's latest football press guide. In glossy color, it boasts of a $13 million indoor practice facility and a $7 million academic and training center. It's by no means a Taj Mahal, but it keeps CSU competitive in its conference.

CU can make no such claims in the Big 12.

In terms of admissions, I've never, ever advocated that CU accept the NCAA's bare minimum standards. CU should be proud of its academic excellence. No shortcuts allowed.

But there are also cases in which some student athletes are on the cusp and are turned away. That's not wise. Exceptions can and should be made. It was standard practice under Gee, and the university certainly seemed no worse for the wear.

By no means should Colorado compromise or taint the quality of its academic reputation.

But if CU officials -- and fans and donors and students -- do indeed want Colorado to actually compete in the Big 12, the administration must also be willing to make some concessions to make the playing field level wherever possible. That means admissions, facilities, and simply eliminating unnecessary on-campus barriers that don't exist at CU's peer institutions.

It takes strong, bold leadership to create such an atmosphere.

But if being competitive isn't the goal, CU's administration should make that clear. Colorado should never hide behind the facade of claiming to be a productive member of one of the nation's premier conferences if that isn't actually the case.

Instead, CU administrators should consider another conference, because in the Big 12, the majority of schools do indeed see being competitive as a positive experience rather than a burden.

Woelk is one of the best sportswriters out there in my opinion when it comes to having a good feel on the department, community, etc.  Conference membership has been a hot topic for CU fans for the last few years.  I do openly advocate CU moving to the MWC because I do not feel that CU has the support of their own adminstration and Woelk's article reinforces my feelings about CU in the Big 12.

If CU's football team and basketball teams have another season like last season, this could be the beginning of the end of CU's membership in the Big 12...I can imagine the cries for a new conference will grow in Colorado for the state's flagship school.  I cannot stress enough that A LOT is riding on this season for the Buffs as the article states.

[Scarecrow]

If CU and Mizzou left I could see Texas State eventually becoming a replacement.  It seems they are working hard and spending the money to move up to FBS.

[Bone Crusher]

If CU and Mizzou left I could see Texas State eventually becoming a replacement.  It seems they are working hard and spending the money to move up to FBS.

I think the conference would stay with just ten teams unless the schools feel that losing the football championship game $$$ is too much to overcome.

Texas State seems to be ticketed towards the C-USA but I suspect that the Texas schools in C-USA could eventually break away and form a new conference such as a new SWC...I read that Texas State has the rights to the SWC name somewhere but can't recall where I saw that.  North Texas, if they build a new stadium would be able to go to C-USA.  The Mean Green couldn't get in due to their facilities.

Boise State seems like they really do want to join the MWC but I'm not sure if the MWC schools will accept BSU's academic creds at the moment (that is why BSU joining the Pac-10 seems very absurd at this point).

[architechguy]

Texas State would need to start off in the Sun Belt, they're not even ready for CUSA competition yet.

Why would Colorado leave and give up millions in revenue each season?  Even if they make the decision to simply participate in the Big 12 rather than be competitive, why would they willingly move to another conference that would pay them less?

Also, I suspect TCU would join the Big 12 yesterday if they get the opportunity.  If Colorado left, they'd probably be the first phone call.  If Missouri left, too SMU or Houston would get a call too.  Then, all you people who claim the Big 12 is too Texas-centric would REALLY have something to complain about.

[Scarecrow]

I don't think the complaints are against Texas-centric, I think they are against UT-centric.  No other teams benefits more from the formation of the Big 12 more than UT, but that belongs in another thread, and we've already hashed it out.

I don't think any moves will be made for another 5-10 years.  That's why I see Texas St. as a possible option.  They have played competitive when they have played Big 12 teams before.  If/When they make the jump, it will only help them even more.

[Bone Crusher]

I don't think the complaints are against Texas-centric, I think they are against UT-centric.  No other teams benefits more from the formation of the Big 12 more than UT, but that belongs in another thread, and we've already hashed it out.

I don't think any moves will be made for another 5-10 years.  That's why I see Texas St. as a possible option.  They have played competitive when they have played Big 12 teams before.  If/When they make the jump, it will only help them even more.

We also forgot about UTSA who is just starting a football team and they have said that they want to move to FBS ball as well.  If I was a resident of San Antonio, I'd be excited about having college football in that town since I believe they will play at the Alamodome (a deal was in place last time I checked).  UTSA also has been talked about going directly to C-USA as well.  That would give C-USA seven Texas schools and if you throw in UNT, that's eight schools and big enough to start a new conference...perhaps the "new" SWC.

[architechguy]

Texas State has never really played any of the Texas schools.  Tech has never played them.  Texas played them once, beat them 39-0 in 1930.  A&M beat them twice, first in 1919 and last in 2005 winning by 13 points.  Baylor is 7-0 against them, playing in 2004 and 2007 with both games being close.  Losing by a touchdown to Baylor doesn't hardly make them worthy of the Big 12.  I wouldn't even call that competitive.  I don't see it changing 5 or 10 years down the road either because the alternatives are better.

I don't expect UT San Antonio to make a big splash either.  They already have college football down there, Austin is an hour away and College Station is two hours away.  It's the same as it is here in Atlanta, Georgia State is starting their college football program next year and wants to be FBS too, but they know it's a long, long way away.

[Scarecrow]

If I remember right, aTm was trailing Texas St. in the 4th quarter in 2005.

With the right coach and being in a respectable conference, I could see Texas St. making a splash because everything is there for them being just as successful as TTU and aTm.  They have the student body, they no longer are a directional school by name, they are near a metro area that is fast growing, they have a large alumni base, they are making the facility upgrades, in a hot recruiting bed and can offer immediate playing time,  and they have had success in FCS.  I think they can make the next step successful. 

Conference USA is getting pretty big.  I think the TX schools could renew the SWC maybe with the LA schools.  An important component I think is to make sure SMU and TCU join the conference since they have some football tradition and history to add to the conference.

[architechguy]

Those are pretty big ifs though, huge ifs.  With the right coach, any team could be a contender, too bad only about 25 of the 120 teams in FBS have the right coach.  I don't see how Texas State is going to jump up and accomplish what Houston, SMU and TCU can't do, and they've been trying for decades, but Texas State is in such a better position to do it?  I think the best case scenario for them is to be a quality mid major.  It's better for them that way, if they were in the Big 12 they'd be 1-7 in conference every year, and playing other BCS conference teams in September giving them 2 or 3 more losses.  As a mid major, they get to play a lesser schedule and have a shot at bowl games.  Even getting to the level that Houston is at will be tough for them, much less an instate program from the Big 12.

[Scarecrow]

My timeline is in 10 years.

I see Texas St. making it in the same way that Texas Tech did.  I don't rmemeber Tech ever being a force in football until they joined the Big 12 and hired Leach.  Before that, I remember Tech being about the same level as New Mexico St.  They were really never a force and Usually lost everytime they played against a Big 8 team.

Texas St. is different than TCU and SMU because they are a much larger school, and are a public university.  I know they are leaps and bounds away from their beauty school beginnings as Southwest Texas University.   From where I am standing, I see them making a lot of necessary moves to make it at the next level.  They are even become more of an option for kids that would otherwise choose TCU, SMU, Baylor, and Houston. 

My big question is will they be able to raise their academic standards enough to be included into the Big 12.  I think they will have to build themselves in a mid major conference for about a decade taking kids that may not qualify for Texas and aTm until they can actually compete at the BCS level.

[Bone Crusher]

'Crow, that is why I can see Texas State and UTSA being able to jump into the C-USA right away.  The C-USA is also getting another upstart program in South Alabama so the C-USA is to grow by at least three more members.  UNT is a possibly if they can get their new stadium built.  They were turned down in favor of UTEP due to facilities.