Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Power 5 realignment


The Gipper

Recommended Posts

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.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 PM

 

Last 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They don't need to play there. No one goes to their games.

Well, I don't know. They have been putting on the best show and winning the most games in Texas for like a decade now. In 2008 they finished #7 nationally, 2009 #6, 2010 #2, 2014 #3.

 

And , I see that they have expanded their stadium from like 32,000 to about 45,000 in just the last few years. They put in 164 million in renovation to it.

 

Here were the attendance figures for all Texas schools for 2013:

Here’s how the area teams break down. [Number of home games / Total attendance at home games / average]....and 2014 next to it:

1. Texas – 6 / 593,897 / 98,976....94,103

2. Texas A&M – 8 / 697,003 / 87,125...105,123

3. Oklahoma – 6 / 508,334 / 84,722

4. Texas Tech – 6 / 347,597 / 57,933...58,935

5. Baylor – 7 / 321,639 / 45,948...46,710

6. TCU – 6 / 261,587 / 43,598...44,719

7. UNT – 6 / 126,182 / 21,030

8. SMU – 6 / 112,347 / 18,725....21,528

9. Houston..............................28,311

It seems that 44,719 is pretty good. I wouldn't say that is nobody.

And TCU is right in the heart of Cowboys country...so naturally there is more of an affinity around there to attend Cowboys games than college football. Plus SMU is nearby.

There are no Pro teams down around the area where Texas and A&M play. That could be a bit of a factor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, stop citing results in a discussion about attendance. Second, if If they're actually getting 44K then fine, that's adequate, but they're not. Name another P5 team that would do this for a CONFERENCE game, ESPECIALLY with all the success they've had:

 

80r7O5K.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They don't sell beer at the games. Stadium food/drinks are very unpopular down here since they're terrible and you can load up at the tailgate. I'll see if I can find the game on YouTube and take a screenshot later in the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I have a bunch of awesome 4th quarter, 7-point game, screenshots of the teams on the sideline and the front 3 rows that they're showing are all virtually empty. I don't know why Patterson shows the school so much loyalty when they're clearly not reciprocating it. He would be the best hire any school could make, yet no one's been able to.

 

Then again some guys just do better at the smaller schools. A big chunk of big time coaching is egos management. No one knows whether Patterson is worth a darn or not in that department.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I have a bunch of awesome 4th quarter, 7-point game, screenshots of the teams on the sideline and the front 3 rows that they're showing are all virtually empty. I don't know why Patterson shows the school so much loyalty when they're clearly not reciprocating it. He would be the best hire any school could make, yet no one's been able to.

 

Then again some guys just do better at the smaller schools. A big chunk of big time coaching is egos management. No one knows whether Patterson is worth a darn or not in that department.

See: Saban, Nick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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.

I like the idea of ECU in the SEC. They are almost the bully of the state as it is.....give them the ability to recruit kids as a SEC school, ECU would own the recruiting in North Carolina and bully up real quick..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the idea of ECU in the SEC. They are almost the bully of the state as it is.....give them the ability to recruit kids as a SEC school, ECU would own the recruiting in North Carolina and bully up real quick..

I don't know if ECU plays NC, NS St., Duke, Wake....but if they do I suggest they do very well against them. My idea is for the SEC to expand into NC....but not take away any of the current NC schools away from the ACC. ECU could be a fit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...