Power 5 realignment
-
I may have done this before, but here is one take on how the Power 5 conferences could/should realign.
Realign may be the wrong word, for for this I have pretty much left the 5 conferences alone with their current roster. I have only actually shifted one single team between the P5. (WEST by God) What I am doing essentially is having each conference expand to 16 teams each by adding to each conference some somewhat geographically compatible schools to them. By that I mean essentially having each conference move into surrounding territory. This is done by: A. Emaculating the American Conference and B. Partially emasculating the Mountain West Conference. Here is the proposed lineup:
Big Ten:
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Nebraska
Michigan
Purdue
Michigan St.
Ohio St.
Penn St.
Maryland
Rutgers
Northwestern
add: West Virginia transfer in from B12, and Connecticut
ACC:
Boston College
Clemson
Duke
North Carolina
Wake Forest
NC ST.
Florida St.
Ga. Tech
Louisville
Miami
Pitt
Syracuse
Virginia
Va. Tech
add: Cincinnati, Memphis
SEC:
Alabama
Arkansas
Auburn
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
LSU
Ole Miss
Mississippi St.
Missouri
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas A&M
Vanderbilt
Add: East Carolina, Tulsa
Pac 12:
Arizona
Arizona St.
USC
UCLA
Stanford
Cal
Oregon
Oregon St.
Washington
Washington St.
Utah
Colorado
add: Hawaii, Boise St. New Mexico, Nevada
Big 12:
Iowa St.
Kansas
Kansas St.
Oklahoma
OK St.
Texas
TCU
Texas Tech
Baylor
add: Houston, SMU, Colorado St., Wyoming, Arkansas St. New Mexico St., Tulane
Here is my reasoning for some of the moves....most of which involve the expansion of the conferences into markets in surrounding states:
West Va.: With Ohio/PA/Maryland surrounding it, and it being basically in the middle of what is now Big Ten country, it seemed a natural shift.
Connecticut: This solidifies the Big Ten in its eastern expansion and allows it to surround the New York City market...now having Rutgers in the nearby west of NYC and UConn in the nearby east....and it gives it a foothold in New England
Cincinnati and Memphis in the ACC. Reunites these "city teams" with former compadres Louisville and Pitt. Plus it gives the ACC an incursion into Big Ten country with Cinci, and provides it with an additional incursion into SEC country with a team in either the #1 or 2 market in Tennessee.
East Carolina and Tulsa in the SEC. Similar reasons to the above. Puts the SEC into neighboring states NC and OK, Tulsa being #2 OK market. And while EC is not in the NC population centers, quite frankly....its football program is probably as strong or stronger than any of the other schools in that state. (and we are dealing with this realignment as a football....not basketball matter)
Hawaii, Boise, New Mexico, Nevada into the Pac 12. Primarily, this is done to fill the 16 slots with the main schools in the western states that fill in the P12 map. Since they have Utah and Colorado in there now....put the teams in from the other most westerly states. (If you wanted to go with UNLV rather than Nevada...that would be OK...UNLV in larger market)
Houston, SMU, Colorado St., Wyoming, Arkansas St. New Mex. St., Tulane. in the Big 12: Again market expansion and consolidation, plus with Houston and SMU it is bringing former affiliated schools back into the fold. I know some of these teams are "smaller programs", but these additions puts this conference into the Houston and New Orleans markets...plus into Ark, NM and Colorado to compete with SEC and P12 schools there. But, yes, it would be an upgrade for a lot of these schools.
-
Additional note: East Carolina average attendance for the last 5 years fluctuated between 45-50K
NC State averages about 53K
NC's average was 51,500
Wake about 28,000
Duke about 26,000.
So, attendance/competitive wise, ECU is NOT the weak sister in that state of FBS programs, not at all.
-
It's probably more likely that they move to a "field of 64"-type deal with four 16-team conferences, leaving all of those smaller schools in the next tier. In that case I think it's likely the Big 12 splits up.
Texas, Texas Tech, OU, OSU go West to the PAC 12.
Kansas to the Big 10. West Virginia, Notre Dame, Cincinatti, Connecticut, and Kansas State would be in flux between the Big 10 and the ACC. I'm guessing the Kansas schools will split. WVU will go to the ACC in large part because of Pitt. The Big 10 will balk at Cincinatti and the ACC will like the market expansion. You're probably right on Connecticut (Big 10). On ND, who knows. The ACC is probably more likely to bend to their will, and they already play other sports there so I would guess that's the spot. On the other hand, ND has history with the Big 10 and the conference could really make itself elite with that addition.
1 of UNC and NCSU and 1 of UVA and VT to the SEC.
-
So of the teams that are now in P5 conferences, the following get left out:
Baylor, Iowa State, TCU. It would be hard to shut Baylor out because they've made big strides as a program that will last long term (new beautiful stadium first and foremost), but they may be too close geographically (no new market) to A&M and UT to be taken instead of Texas Tech in the PAC. TCU has been good under Patterson but aside from that there aren't many compelling reasons to include them in the field of 64. Stadium is abysmally small. They play some games with literally 15,000 people there. Very weak fan base and no command of the DFW TV market.
-
WVU is a stretch academically for the B1G
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
Michigan should have to join the Big Sky conference
-
WVU is a stretch academically for the B1G
Yeah thought the same thing. Nebraska is the only Big 10 school that's not an AAU member. ACC definitely looks like the better play there.
-
Let's add Chicago. Aren't they in the B1G for academics anyway?
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
So of the teams that are now in P5 conferences, the following get left out:
Baylor, Iowa State, TCU. It would be hard to shut Baylor out because they've made big strides as a program that will last long term (new beautiful stadium first and foremost), but they may be too close geographically (no new market) to A&M and UT to be taken instead of Texas Tech in the PAC. TCU has been good under Patterson but aside from that there aren't many compelling reasons to include them in the field of 64. Stadium is abysmally small. They play some games with literally 15,000 people there. Very weak fan base and no command of the DFW TV market.
So of the teams that are now in P5 conferences, the following get left out:
Baylor, Iowa State, TCU. It would be hard to shut Baylor out because they've made big strides as a program that will last long term (new beautiful stadium first and foremost), but they may be too close geographically (no new market) to A&M and UT to be taken instead of Texas Tech in the PAC. TCU has been good under Patterson but aside from that there aren't many compelling reasons to include them in the field of 64. Stadium is abysmally small. They play some games with literally 15,000 people there. Very weak fan base and no command of the DFW TV market.
Well, I was going for expansion rather than contraction. As for "tiers" the NCAA doesn't recognize tiers among the schools I have mentioned...though we know they exist. (yes, some of those MWC schools may be tantamount to MAC level schools....but unlike MAC schools, those schools are the top level in their states).
As for TCU....the fact is they have been the most competitive school in Texas the last decade...., so I see no more compelling reason than that to include them....and there are stadiums in Dallas that they can play in if need be....including the Jerry Dome.
-
WVU is a stretch academically for the B1G
While yes, WVU would be the lowest ranked school academically of the 16 BiG Ten schools I mention.....it wouldn't be that far off. I mean, it not like its the University of Phoenix or something.
Plus, it has one other factor in common with many other Big Ten schools: It is a Original Land Grant University....established in the 1860s or 1890s. There are only 57 schools in the country that have that distinction....including Ten of Big Ten schools: Illinois, Wisconsin, Penn St. Ohio St. Purdue, Maryland, Minnesota, Michigan St. Nebraska, Rutgers...and Connecticut (my other nominee)
(Only Northwester, Mich, Indiana and Iowa are not Land Grant.
That is an important consideration for these programs believe it or not...which could trump a somewhat lower academic ranking.
-
I've never heard of being a Land Grant university as one of the determining factors for adding a school to the B1G. Not that it is incorrect, I've just never heard that. Competitiveness, TV Market, location, culture, academics, etc... Yeah. But not land grant.
That got me interested so I did some quick googling (mainly wondering why Michigan and the other three weren't). It looks like these were based off of legislation from 1862. Those four universities were founded earlier than that. Michigan was all of the way back in 1817. I imagine this is why Michigan, Indiana, etc aren't Land Grant Universities.
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
Let's add Chicago. Aren't they in the B1G for academics anyway?
They are.....already considered a member:
Big Ten universities—or, in two cases, their parent university systems—are also members of the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC), a leading academic consortium of Big Ten universities and the University of Chicago. In 2012, CIC members generated more than $10 billion in research expenditures.[3
But for sports, they play at the D-III level. Here is there 2015 schedule:
Date Opponent Time Sept. 5 Case Western Reserve 12 PM Sept. 19 at Millsaps* 1 PM Sept. 26 Centre* 1 PM Oct. 3 at Birmingham Southern* 1 PM Oct. 10 Berry* 12 PM Oct. 17 at Rhodes* 1 PM Oct. 24 Hendrix* (Homecoming) 1:25 PM Oct. 31 Sewanee* (Senior Day) 12 PM Nov. 7 at Carnegie Mellon 12 PM (ET) Nov. 14 at Washington-St. Louis* 12 PMLast year they played Trinity where my daughter attend, the year before they played Kenyon where my son went....
So....while they may be a school that an SEC might like to schedule....the Big Ten schools would not play them.
-
Woah, woah, woah, woah, woah, woah, woah! The big ten conference has 14 members? What. The. FUCK?!
-
Woah, woah, woah, woah, woah, woah, woah! The big ten conference has 14 members? What. The. FUCK?!
-
Right Gipper. I want to make Chicago a power again.
Though NW may not be too happy about it...
-
Right Gipper. I want to make Chicago a power again.
Though NW may not be too happy about it...
Right Gipper. I want to make Chicago a power again.
Though NW may not be too happy about it...
Yea, that won't happen. UC has no interest in having that happen.
If a team were to be "elevated" in the strength of its program from the Big Ten country, it would have to probably come from the likes of Ohio U, Indiana St., Illinois St. or the like.
-
Cincy!
-
So of the teams that are now in P5 conferences, the following get left out:
Baylor, Iowa State, TCU. It would be hard to shut Baylor out because they've made big strides as a program that will last long term (new beautiful stadium first and foremost), but they may be too close geographically (no new market) to A&M and UT to be taken instead of Texas Tech in the PAC. TCU has been good under Patterson but aside from that there aren't many compelling reasons to include them in the field of 64. Stadium is abysmally small. They play some games with literally 15,000 people there. Very weak fan base and no command of the DFW TV market.
Well, I was going for expansion rather than contraction. As for "tiers" the NCAA doesn't recognize tiers among the schools I have mentioned...though we know they exist. (yes, some of those MWC schools may be tantamount to MAC level schools....but unlike MAC schools, those schools are the top level in their states).
As for TCU....the fact is they have been the most competitive school in Texas the last decade...., so I see no more compelling reason than that to include them....and there are stadiums in Dallas that they can play in if need be....including the Jerry Dome.
Well, I was going for expansion rather than contraction. As for "tiers" the NCAA doesn't recognize tiers among the schools I have mentioned...though we know they exist. (yes, some of those MWC schools may be tantamount to MAC level schools....but unlike MAC schools, those schools are the top level in their states).
As for TCU....the fact is they have been the most competitive school in Texas the last decade...., so I see no more compelling reason than that to include them....and there are stadiums in Dallas that they can play in if need be....including the Jerry Dome.
They don't need to play there. No one goes to their games.
-
I've never heard of being a Land Grant university as one of the determining factors for adding a school to the B1G. Not that it is incorrect, I've just never heard that. Competitiveness, TV Market, location, culture, academics, etc... Yeah. But not land grant.
That got me interested so I did some quick googling (mainly wondering why Michigan and the other three weren't). It looks like these were based off of legislation from 1862. Those four universities were founded earlier than that. Michigan was all of the way back in 1817. I imagine this is why Michigan, Indiana, etc aren't Land Grant Universities.
I've never heard of being a Land Grant university as one of the determining factors for adding a school to the B1G. Not that it is incorrect, I've just never heard that. Competitiveness, TV Market, location, culture, academics, etc... Yeah. But not land grant.
That got me interested so I did some quick googling (mainly wondering why Michigan and the other three weren't). It looks like these were based off of legislation from 1862. Those four universities were founded earlier than that. Michigan was all of the way back in 1817. I imagine this is why Michigan, Indiana, etc aren't Land Grant Universities.
I don't know if "Land grant" status is...or would be a major criteria now.....but it may be a minor one. But in the past I am pretty sure it was a big issue. Perhaps Mich/Iowa/Indiana were private at one time before becoming public.....here is what I found:
Indiana was founded as a state seminary in 1820. Name changed from Indiana State Seminary to Indiana college in 1828. 1838 became Indiana University.
Iowa was founded as Iowa University in 1847....but before the Land Grant statute.
Michigan was founded in 1817 as the Catholepistemiad, or The University of Michigania....in Detroit. It moved to Ann Arbor in 1837.
Northwestern was founded in 1851 supposedly to serve "the Northwest Territory"....except the "Northwest Territory ceased to exist before the school was founded. All the states that made up the Northwest Territory except one: Minnesota, were admitted to the union some long before the school was founded: Ohio 1803, Indiana 1816, Illinois 1818, Michign 1837, Iowa 1846, Wisconsin 1848, Minnesota 1858. So, the name doesn't make sense. But it was founded as a private school...and remains so.
-
Basically, the 4 schools that aren't land grant came to be before land grant universities were a thing
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login