“Fell deeds awake! Now for wrath, now for ruin, and an Orange dawn!”
In a stunning development that virtually guarantees #CHAOS and #PANIC on the conference realignment front, Syracuse and Pittsburgh have abandoned the Big East in favor of the ACC. So the ACC is the first conference to reach 14 teams — the SEC presently being stuck in limbo between 12 and 13, as Texas A&M sorts out its legal issues — and the Big East, at least its football side, is suddenly in #ZombieWAC territory, with UConn playing the role of Utah State: the last piece holding the league together. If the Huskies stay, maybe the Big East’s remnants can merge with the Big 12’s remnants, and live to fight another day. If the Huskies bolt, forget about it. UConn and Rutgers to the Big Ten, West Virginia and Louisville to the SEC, TCU back to the Mountain West, South Florida and Cincinnati to Conference USA? The Big East: It’s a DIASPORA!!! Or, to put it in terms of another Lord of the Rings quote:
“My teams are spent. My league has ended. Syracuse has deserted us. Pitt’s betrayed me. Abandon your posts! Flee, flee for your lives!”
Meanwhile, it appears likely the Pac-12 will imminently add Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, and maybe — or by some accounts, almost certainly — Texas and Texas Tech as well, in which case #BrendanLoyPANIC! (From USC in Boulder every other year to USC in Boulder every 8 years? NOOOOOOOO!!!!)
The next few days appear likely to see massive developments all around, and who knows how everything will look when they’re done. Except, you know, crappy.
UPDATE: UConn is reportedly aggressively pursuing ACC membership. So that’ll be it for the Big East as a football league. I doubt Rutgers joins UConn in the ACC, since Syracuse already gives that conference a pretty good NYC market foothold. (I realize Syracuse and New York City are very far apart geographically, but there’s a strong Syracuse alumni and fan base in NYC.) Instead, probably either West Virginia or Louisville joins the ACC as its 16th member, with the other one going to the SEC. Rutgers then pounds on the Big Ten’s door, and with the Big East collapsing, maybe Notre Dame joins them. In that vein, the real question, I suppose, is whether the Big East can keep it together in non-football sports, since that’s all ND needs them for anyway. If they can’t, the Big Ten can certainly afford to go 16, with Notre Dame one of the 16; if they can, and thus ND stays put, I’m not sure the economic rationale is there for the Big Ten to add a collection of four Big East and Big XII castaways. Maybe Rutgers, Kansas, Kansas State and, uh, I dunno, Iowa State?? South Florida?!? (Cincinnati would presumably be vetoed by Ohio State. Maybe they’ll end up in the ACC once the SEC steals one of its power teams along with Missouri from the Big XII?)
Meanwhile, no matter how you look at it, TCU appears to be screwed. But hey, that’s good news for Boise State! If the Mountain West can keep both the Broncos and the Frogs, they’ll be more relevant and can continue to try and push back — with congressional help — against being completely marginalized in football by the superconferences. Even better if Baylor ends up in the Mountain West…
If this was going at all logically, I’d say UConn and West Virginia would follow Syracuse and Pitt to the ACC. Which would allow for the ACC to take another swing at realingment: Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, UConn, WVA, Maryland, Virginia, and Virginia Tech in the North, UNC, Duke, NC State, Wake Forest, Clemson, GA Tech, Florida State and Miami in the South.
My guess on how this plays out:
Pac-16 happens with Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State joiining. Scheduling is either divisions with 3-3-3 (same pod/other division pod/ cross division) schedule OR 3-2-2-2 pod schedule with NO divisions. Top two teams to championship game.
SEC goes to either 14 or 16. 14 by adding Mizzou, 16 by also adding VTech and FSU.
ACC goes to 14 or 16 by adding UConn and WVU but possibly losing VTech/FSU.
B1G TEN to 13 or 14. 13 with Rutgers, 14 with Notre Dame.
Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Baylor, Cincinatti, Louisville, TCU form the nucleus of a new conference. Possible adds include USF, UCF, Houston, SMU, ECU, Air Force, Army, Navy, Colorado State, Boise State, BYU.
D1 split in three with the 5 super conferences as 1-A, rest of FBS plus best of FCS as 1-B, rest of FCS as 1-C
Reportedly, West Virginia to the SEC is imminent. If that’s true, I think #15 and #16 will be Mizzou and VTech, with FSU staying in the ACC (Florida doesn’t want them in the SEC).
ACC, presently 13 if you subtract out VaTech, gets to 16 by adding UConn, Louisville and…uh…I’m not sure. Not South Florida (unless they lose FSU). Not Rutgers, I don’t think, because of Syracuse. Cincinnati, maybe?
Big Ten won’t stop at 13 because that’s not a viable number long-term. (For one thing, it’s mathematically impossible to play a 9-game schedule with 13 teams. You need an even number of teams.) So, if Notre Dame won’t come, they either stand pat at 12, or they add Rutgers and…I think maybe South Florida. That sounds stupid but I think it’s more likely than a lot of other options because if gives their “footprint” (hate that word) a toehold in Florida. I don’t know that they have sufficiently attractive options to expand to 16 without Notre Dame, unless maybe they grab Kansas and Kansas State.
As for the “nucleus of a new conference,” rest assured that said conference will either be called the “Big East” or the “Big XII.” It won’t actually be “new,” even if the large majority of its members are. Remember, Karl Benson of the WAC pushed the NCAA to eliminate the “6 core teams together 5 years” rule, so either conference potentially remains viable no matter what its teams are. And since those conferences have BCS berths until someone takes them away, it would be crazy to start from scratch rather than folding the new membership into the old conference’s structure.
My guess is, because the Big East will need to retrench and focus on basketball with all its non-football members, the Big XII will inherit the Big East castaways rather than vice versa. So, if my above projected scenarios happen, you end up with Iowa State, Baylor, TCU, Boise and some of the other teams you mentioned — basically, the best of C-USA and the MWC — plus Kansas and KSU if they aren’t picked up by the Big Ten, Cincy if they don’t go ACC, Louisville if the SEC doesn’t want ’em — in the “Big XII.” And then dare the other leagues to take away their BCS bid, at which point they’d have both threats of congressional action and threats of legal action in the courts (potentially against various conference and various TV networks).
The Big XII becomes, basically, a glorified mid-major conference with a BCS berth, at least for the time being. The remainder of the Mountain West and the WAC probably re-merge, thus saving the WAC. Likewise you might see a merger between C-USA’s remnants and the Sun Belt and/or MAC. This could lead to several mid-major superconferences, who will resist the creation of the three-tiered division structure you’ve discussed. Indeed I’m not sure what the point would be of formalizing such tiers — seems like the mid-majors either drop to 1-AA or stay in 1-A. They might become a de facto middle tier (arguably they already are, but might become even moreso), but what would be the end game of creating a formalized middle tier? Would they still go to bowls? Playing against each other? Who would watch? Or would they have a playoff? Okay, then why not join the 1-AA playoff?
I totally didn´t see this coming. The ACC´s move here is monumental, as they´ve basically assured that the Big East — and not the ACC — is the next conference to implode. By ratcheting up the conference exit fee and aggressively expanding to take Pitt and Syracuse, the ACC has now gone from the hunted to the hunter; they´ve virtually assured that the price is too high for the SEC or Big Ten to pìck off any ACC schools. David´s idea of Florida State going to the SEC is not going to happen because of Florida´s pact with Georgia and South Carolina to keep out Clemson, Georgia Tech, and Florida State, and Virginia Tech has simply been way too vociferous in shooting down rumors about heading to the SEC for me to believe they´re a realistic option to leave ” especially since the ACC just hiked the exit fees.
The ACC is also smart to hold off at 14 for now; once OU and Texas declare for the Pac-16 tomorrow, it’ll be a free-for-all between the ACC, Big Ten, and SEC to expand. I could see the ACC going after Kansas and Kansas State, although more likely they take UConn and another Big East school (West Virginia?). Another wild thought: the ACC makes overtures to Vanderbilt and Notre Dame. Who knows what happens east of the Mississippi, all I know is I really like how Swofford´s playing his hand right about now.
Some other thoughts:
– If given the option, Missouri goes to the Big Ten before they go to the SEC, but I guarantee you Missouri is the 16th team for Jim Delany and company (they want, in order: Notre Dame; the NE-NY-DC markets; and then maybe Missouri). If Delany plays his cards really well, he might pick up Notre Dame, UConn, Rutgers, and Missouri, and I´d throw in Kansas as an option over Missouri if they can avoid having to take Kansas State, too. At the end of the day, though, the Big Ten wants ACC schools and won´t be able to get them (they should have taken Syracuse while they were still in the Big East, but they missed their chance).
– Baylor is my darkhorse candidate to join Texas A&M to the SEC, after the SEC whiffs on getting any of the mid-Atlantic schools (UNC, NC State, Duke, Va Tech, Maryland, UVA). Contrary to popular assumption, the SEC is not keen on adding powerhouse football schools — they just want to shore up new markets, preferably by adding schools don´t threaten the current elite teams in football but add cachet in other sports and academics. For instance, Mike Slive would sell his left nut to get Duke and North Carolina. But the ACC schools are now darn near untouchable, so shoring up Texas to compete with the Pac-16 makes a lot of sense, and you do that by preserving for Texas A&M an in-state rivalry with Baylor, which is a good academic school (also, I hear there are a lot of Baptists in the South).
– As speculated above, I think Notre Dame has a hard time choosing between the Big Ten and the ACC and potentially ends up in the latter. There are simply too many Big Ten schools in the vicinity of Notre Dame to make sense from a recruiting standpoint, although they´ll find it very hard to sever the Big Ten rivalries they have (Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue) or keep them upon their move to the ACC. Sadly, I could see the USC-Notre Dame game being a victim of conference expansion, too.
– The SEC and Big Ten, too picky to choose any of the remaining Big 12, Big East, MWC, or other non-BCS schools, and unable to pull schools from the ACC, are forced to put off expansion to 16 teams until well after the Pac-16 and ACC as conference members explore trying to hold at 12 or 14 teams instead of adding less enticing options that potentially dilute their existing per-school revenue.
– As posited by David above, I see a fifth superconference emerging from the ashes of the Big East and Big 12, along with select candidates from the MWC and Conference USA. It´s too bad the Conference USA moniker is already taken, as that´d be the perfect name for this new conference, which would likely spread from the East Coast to California (8, 9, or 10 teams each in West and East divisions).
– The WAC, MAC, and Sun Belt conferences are officially screwed. I just can´t see there being enough cachet lying around to form a sixth superconference, and I´m not sure where these teams fit in the whole scheme of things once the superconferences bring upon us the era of the 8- or 16-team playoff.
Sadly, I could see the USC-Notre Dame game being a victim of conference expansion, too.
#PANIC! #PANIC! #PANIC! #PANIC! #PANIC!
Call me naive, but I can’t see Notre Dame accepting any solution that would require giving up annual games with — in order of priority — Navy, USC, or Michigan. Giving up independence is bad enough, to be done only out of necessity. But giving up any of those games would cause open revolt among the alumni and fan base. I realize that rivalries come and rivalries go; we’ve already seen Nebraska-Oklahoma go by the wayside, and now maybe Texas-Oklahoma and Texas-Texas A&M and Pitt-West Virginia, and perhaps Syracuse-Georgetown and Syracuse-UConn in basketball, etc. etc … but, rightly or wrongly, Notre Dame and its fan base fancy themselves as being “different,” and to give up any of the Big Three annual games* in service of joining a superconference would be to surrender that notion irretrievably.
*Boston College is not an annual rivalry. Michigan State has been annual recently, but it’s not remotely on the level of Navy, USC or Michigan.
Notre Dame to B1G TEN for a number of reasons:
1) Rivarlies – put it in the same division as Michigan and Michigan State and you preserve two of its bigger rivalries.
2) Academics – B1G TEN has the best collection of academics overall outside the Ivy League. Pac-12 and ACC are about even after that. SEC is the worst by far.
3) Geography – For olympic sports the local travel would be easier, although they’ve done the Big East thing for years so who knows, lower priority i’m guessing.
I don’t think recruiting is ever going to be a problem for Notre Dame so I don’t think Andrew’s assertion about the ACC for recruiting footprint will matter.
I think its not unreasonable that Notre Dame, seeking to preserve the Navy rivalry could push for them as a B1G TEN member as well.
Here’s a thought, what if, in addition to the four super-conferences there are TWO additional “BCS” conferences, one in the west one in the east? There are enough teams to do it from the remnants of the Big East, Big XII, and the best of the Mountain West and Conference USA. Split those six conferences off into a new division. 2 auto bids for each of the big four, plus 1 each for the smaller two. 10 BCS game slots.
The remaining schools/conferences plus some of the better FCS conferences can form a new division. They’ll probably have more success there than they have in the FBS level.
The Michigan State rivalry, in and of itself, isn’t all that important. I say this as a ND fan who viscerally hates Sparty more than any other rival, for some reason. But the Big 3 rivalry games are clearly Navy, USC and Michigan, with Boston College (already non-annual) possibly fourth, and then a number of somewhat less important rivalries like Michigan State, Purdue and the other service academies.
But anyway, yes, joining the Big Ten — and presumably insisting on being in the same division as Michigan — would go a long way toward preserving one big rivalry and several smaller ones. And I do think there’s some logic to your Navy idea, even if the Midshipmen in a BCS conference would be a bit of a misfit in a lot of ways. Certainly it would give the Irish a helluva lot more scheduling flexibility if they were guaranteed annual conference games with Michigan and Navy, plus the non-conference game with USC, leaving 2 other open dates each year instead of just one.
I still don’t see the logic of a middle division of Division 1. In the scenario you’ve outlined about the two additional BCS conferences, I think the remnants just drop down to FCS. What would they be playing for in a middle division? To what audience?
One way TCU might not be screwed would be to try to get into the SEC ahead of Baylor. The logistics make a hell of a lot more sense than the Big East does for them, and TCU puts the SEC in Dallas.
Matt, SMU is in Dallas, TCU is in Fort Worth, and Baylor is in Waco – about an hour south of Dallas-Fort Worth. None of them move the needle in that television market like the Longhorns or Aggies, so the real issue is having a traditional rival for A&M. Baylor is by far the best academic school of the three and has a more historic rivalry with A&M. Still, Baylor to the SEC is a longshot, and TCU and SMU are even more improbable (despite TCU´s recent football success, they don´t have a strong alumni base or fanatical local support).
The military academies would end up in my hypothetical “Conference USA” rather than the Big Ten, ACC, SEC, or Pac-16.
David, I think Notre Dame to the ACC is a stronger possibility than you think. What I meant by the recruiting comment is that, Notre Dame and the ACC bring more to each other market- and recruiting-wise than Notre Dame and the Big Ten do. Notre Dame to the Big Ten makes sense for all the reasons you pointed out, but Notre Dame adds more to the ACC than to the Big Ten, and the Domers also have a superiority complex (they would be the de facto Big Dog in an ACC North division) that suffers playing fifth fiddle to the likes of Michigan, Ohio State, Nebraska, and Penn State.
@Andrew
Ok that makes more sense. I wonder if the ACC would be ammenable to an arrangment with Notre Dame where they would move their non-football sports there (they do have a good basketball team that fits the league well) and a scheduling agreemtn to play a set number (4-6) ACC schools per year. That would allow Notre Dame football to remain independent and have room to keep its other rivalries.
@Brendan – re-alignment of the divisions makes sense from the standpoint that you have teams at the top of FCS who are as good as or better than some FBS schools, and teams at the bottom of FCS who are way below the rest. That a school like Ball State who can’t even manage 10,000 fans per game is FBS while Montana or Appy State or Georgia Southern aren’t is bizzare.
I understand that, David, but what would the middle division play for? The bottom division (I-AA/FCS) plays for a national championship, via an NCAA bracket. The top division (I-A/FBS) plays for bowls/BCS and, perhaps in the superconference era, a bowl/playoff hybrid system. What would the middle division play for? Would Appy State give up the chance to play for a national title in order to compete in the PapaJohns.com Bowl? Would anyone watch an entire bowl slate full of Ball State-Delaware or Wyoming-Montana type games? Remember, if they’re in different divisions, there would be no crossover games against “BCS” or “upper division” teams… so if bowls are the “NIT” equivalent undercard to a superconference playoff, we’re talking “CIT” or “CBI” level bowls in your hypothetical middle division. I realize people do watch Idaho-Bowling Green and Wyoming-Fresno type bowls now, but a proliferation of them, building an entire NCAA division out of them, seems absurd.
Alternatively, instead of bowls, how about a playoff? Would there be separate “I-AA” and “I-AAA” playoffs? Three difference Division 1 national champs?! That doesn’t make sense either. If that’s the goal, then just merge everyone into I-AA/FCS.
I get that the bottom of FBS is in many cases worse than the top of FCS, so the middle division would be competitive, but I just don’t understand what its purpose would be.
I think the middle division woudl have a national championship, there would be less bowls.
Whats the purpose of divsiions at all? To group schools on a competitive/size based level. I don’t think the re-alignment would happen at JUST the Division1 level, I think you could see a wholesale restructuring across ALL levels by the end of things.
So if Montana, Delaware, Appy St, etc., move up to the middle division, the lower division will be watered down, but will still have its own national champion? Seems more likely the top of FCS would expand, and if necessary, some teams at the bottom of FCS would go down to Division II. I still just don’t see why there would need to be a three-tiered Division I.
Could go down to DII but some of those schools might want to stay in the mix for NCAA tourney ( I have no idea if thats even realistic, just spitballing here) or want to offer full scholarships. DII has a different scholly limit.
One interesting point that we lose is the fact that the ACC has agreed to raise its conference exit fee. This is important, because it signals to me that the conference is fairly united. The Big East and Big Twelve . . . ish haven’t raised their fees, even though it would be beneficial for them to do so. Why? Because too many schools in those conferences are thinking about leaving, so they can’t get an agreement there. The ACC has maybe one school that could leave . . . maybe. The rest are locked in, and are saying “hey, we’re locked in to this”.