Comments on: Big Bang Theories: The Countdown To Super-Conferences (Part 3)

By: Your Saturday Chryco Auto News UPDATE | Chryco Auto News Digest

Your Saturday Chryco Auto News UPDATE | Chryco Auto News Digest — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 18:00:42 +0000

[...] for grabs” schools to see which ones would probably be on power conferences’ wish lists. In Part Three we looked at the five remaining power conferences and their various options moving forward. In [...]

By: PAUL ZBaR

PAUL ZBaR — Thu, 03 Jan 2013 11:10:35 +0000

The only place to get “info” is on blogs because it’s all made up for ad sales. Nobody comments on the SEC basketball stuff. Hence, if you don’t write about expansion no ads to sell. All the expansion stuff and my favorite source “Joe who sells athletic shoes in Virginia” is hype. Song and dance. That’s it.

By: buddha22

buddha22 — Thu, 03 Jan 2013 01:44:29 +0000

@Roggespierre @Ralph Yes, the MO Governor was ALL for getting out of the B12 and away from Texas…at the time B10 was seen as the most viable. What you maybe don’t know is that the governor has no say or influence over the university decisions…hence the (MU Alum) feel good political ploy versus crickets from Alden and Deaton. Hey, I get it, if it’s on the internet it must be true? MU was approached and they checked things out, however, they did not want the “spot” the Bugeaters took, which was a junior membership for something like 5 years. Indeed, the only comment from Alden after all of this is that MU had no interest in a “junior” membership. Few words, but speaks volumes. nU obviously felt they had nothing else going and didn’t want to end up in Mtn West or Big East…why else take such a horrible deal for such a “storied” university, well, that and they knew the use by date on their AAU status was expiring?

By: SloppyJoe

SloppyJoe — Thu, 03 Jan 2013 00:51:07 +0000

If Maryland can get through this unscathed, we might see this (my perfect storm):

1) Georgia Tech announce departure for B1G.
2) FSU and Clemson announce B12.
3) UVA and UNC declare SEC.
4) Duke announce B1G.
5) NC State and Va Tech also leave for B12.
6) Remaining ACC and Big East schools merge into non-BCS conference.

3 BCS conferences with 16 teams, 4 pods each. That day can’t come soon enough!

By: SouthernBoiSB

SouthernBoiSB — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 19:59:32 +0000

@torris187
A different sport, but those against it is like saying Dodgers/Angels, Giants/A’s, Mets/Yankees shouldn’t play each other either.

Or, for those that had them, high school teams in the same city.

By: SouthernBoiSB

SouthernBoiSB — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 19:56:10 +0000

@Roggespierre
Well, the main reason behind that is the whole “SEC’s non-conf. games suck because they play nobodies” argument thrown out there by others (mostly those on the west coast). SO…..if everybody is required to play 1 game against each other every season, that argument goes away. &, with each conference, if nothing else, the same size (#’s of schools), then match them up & rotate every 2 years.
Ex.: 2014-2015 SEC/PAC ACC/Big 12
2016-2017 SEC/ACC PAC/Big 12
2018-2019 SEC/Big 12 ACC/PAC

This kind of goes along with my other post about putting 1 top level & 1 bottom level fb schools in each pod. This allows everybody to get a balanced SOS (strength of schedule). Now, as to how to manage yearly rivalry games with that, don’t know.

Also, with everybody being a “cookie cutter” version of everybody else, it gives uniformity as to how everybody stacks up with everybody else in so many categories that we’ll have a better way to see how teams stand & gives the playoff selection committee a clear picture. Too many times in the BCS & NCG has there been debates as to who was chosen & why

By: torris187

torris187 — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 19:20:57 +0000

I believe in State Rivals will try to find a way to play each other, even if they are in different conferences. Here is my reasoning for that assumption. So worrying about playing an in-state rival in a different conference is just ridiculous.

1. Ticket sales are a major concern for Football now, just look at how many of the bowl games are not selling out. Since many people can now watch high-def football from their couch for virtually no money, and the cost of going to an away game out of state is relativley very high now. These long distance games are having a big impact on filling up stadiums.
2. Since the cost of traveling in state to play a rival is very low for the fans, the fans will be more willing to go to these games. Example, I graduated from USF, the attendance for the USF vs UCF series was higher than the attendance for the Rutgers vs USF or the WVU vs USF series, and those two schools are much more prestigious than UCF.
3. The current in state rival games for non-conferences almost always sell out (Clemson vs USC, UF vs FSU, GT vs UGA, etc.. )

By: Roggespierre

Roggespierre — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 18:39:54 +0000

@SouthernBoiSB I agree that something like that would be the best solution, but I don’t think it’s possible. The conferences are separate businesses that can’t even agree on eligibility requirements (in excess of those instituted by the NCAA) and recruiting over-signs. They’ll never be able to get together on conference formatting and scheduling. It’s going to be up to the individual schools.

This makes some sense if you think about it. Vanderbilt, for example, is on the upswing in football. But it has a limited ceiling. It isn’t going to win a national championship. Scheduling a relatively easy non-conference slate is key to getting to a bowl every year, which should probably be Vandy’s goal. Schools like Georgia and Florida already have in-state non-conference games. One more game with somebody in the Big Ten or Big XII would probably do it for those schools.

We might see another expansion of special games like the Cowboy Classic. That’s fine, but I really hope that the end game includes bringing traditional rivals like A&M/Texas and Oklahoma/Nebraska (slated to play in a few years) back together for good.

It could also temper the political push-back that would come with separating UNC/NC St and UVa/VT in different conferences. If South Carolina and Clemson can play every year despite being in different conferences, why can’t everybody?

By: AndrewMartin

AndrewMartin — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 17:49:50 +0000

@Roggespierre This is the link I used: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf11313/tables/tab27.xls

By: SouthernBoiSB

SouthernBoiSB — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 17:31:24 +0000

Hince my proposal of every conference being set up the same way & having a mandatory game against another conference each season.

This way you can’t say “You didn’t play anybody”.

By: Roggespierre

Roggespierre — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 16:07:16 +0000

@AllTideUp Scheduling is going to be the next frontier of controversy, I think. The selection committee model for the new playoff system will see to that. It’s one thing when you’re trying to determine the 68th spot in the basketball tournament among teams that went 19-12 . It’s entirely another when you’re choosing four teams for a football playoff. Non-conference scheduling is going to become very important, particularly post-Big Bang. Playoff candidates will be judged according to their performance against the opponents they actually played, rather than the strength of their respective conferences. If the football committee is anything like the basketball committee, then non-conference road victories against quality opponents – the portion of the schedule that the schools control – will be at or near the top of the list of criteria.

By: Roggespierre

Roggespierre — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:53:39 +0000

@AndrewMartin I actually work at the National Science Foundation, so I asked around. I’m told that historical information can be found at the following link. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/rdexpenditures/

By: Roggespierre

Roggespierre — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:41:18 +0000

@AndrewMartin This is a good question. Could it be that the numbers vary significantly from year to year? That’s just a guess.

By: AndrewMartin

AndrewMartin — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 14:06:46 +0000

I meant the US Science Foundation not US Department of Education.

By: AndrewMartin

AndrewMartin — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 14:03:50 +0000

@SouthernBoiSB Sorry, there is no AAU ranking per say. It is basically pass / fail. You are either a member or not. The ranking I provided is for the amount of research expenditures by individual school which is a key barometer for making the case to be or become an AAU school. The research expenditures are provided by the US Department of Education.

By: SouthernBoiSB

SouthernBoiSB — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 12:42:47 +0000

@AndrewMartin
To ask the obvious questions:

A. Does their AAU ranking really matter as long as they’re AAU status?
B. Does their AAU ranking change & what determines that?

By: AndrewMartin

AndrewMartin — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 05:44:30 +0000

I think the AAU designation is important, but AAU membership doesn’t appear completely objective and is sort of a private club. Looking at the latest research expenditures by institution, here are the rankings for the most discussed expansion targets and if they are part of the coveted AAU: #7 Duke (AAU), #19 UNC (AAU), #22 Pittsburgh (AAU), #22 GA Tech (AAU), #44 VA Tech, #47 NCST, #73 VA (AAU), #95 FSU, and #100 Clemson. UConn, BC, Syracuse, Miami, and Notre Dame are not ranked in the top 100 and are not likely to join that fraternity in near term. Wake Forest is ranked in the top 100, but not considered viable for SEC or Big 10 expansion.
For comparison purposes, several current or future Big 10 members expenditure research rankings that already have an AAU designation are ranked similar to or lower than many expansion targets without the AAU designation: #41 MD (AAU), #50 MI State (AAU), #54 Rutgers (AAU), # 61 Iowa (AAU). In addition, NE lost its AAU status recently and is ranked #51 in research expenditures. Seems like the AAU needs more reviews to correct its membership and reflect today’s leaders in academic research.
As far as SEC schools, Texas A&M University (AAU) had the highest ranking at #20. Florida, Vanderbilt and Missouri also have the AAU designation.

By: AllTideUp

AllTideUp — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 23:10:17 +0000

@AndrewMartin @Big That’s exactly what I wish the SEC would do. UNC and NC State are the best options in the long run anyway. Duke would be a good addition academically, but probably won’t have the opportunity to have relevant sports forever. They already don’t have a solid football program outside of a bowl appearance this year. Duke is a small private school with alumni scattered all over. Large state schools are the best way to go if you’re looking to truly enlarge the footprint and increase viewership over time.

By: AndrewMartin

AndrewMartin — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 22:50:24 +0000

@Big Bob Marley The SEC should insist that both UNC and NCST come to the SEC. UNC will not go to Big Ten and leave NCST hanging. The NC regents have a fiduciary responsibility to choose what is best for both schools and the Big Ten will not take both. Game theory says both or nothing for the SEC and then the SEC has even more control for future expansion by getting them both. The Big Ten will then take Duke.

By: AllTideUp

AllTideUp — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 18:59:47 +0000

@Roggespierre Realignment as a whole has been a very interesting topic the last few years. It’s certainly fun to read about rumors, hypotheticals, and fan-devised scenarios; but I don’t want all the instability of this period to last forever. We need to reach the end game soon so we don’t start losing casual fans of the game. That and I want to get to the point where we have a system in place for scheduling rivals more frequently. It’s getting frustrating not knowing from year to year what the scheduling plan is.

By: Roggespierre

Roggespierre — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 08:04:29 +0000

@buddha22 @Roggespierre @Ralph Here we go – found the Missouri governor’s quote that dates back to 2009. Like I said, this is not news. Notice how he artfully slams Oklahoma State and Texas Tech. The guy might be an idiot, but if he is then he’s an idiot that really wanted Mizzou in the Big Ten. http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/28595/missouri-governor-spurred-buffs-pac-10-move

By: Roggespierre

Roggespierre — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 08:01:26 +0000

@buddha22 @Roggespierre @Ralph Here’s a link to a story in the Chicago Tribune. Is that a Bugeater’s Are Best Blog? It says that Missouri “wanted the spot that Nebraska got.” This isn’t exactly news. Everybody knew this three years ago. The Missouri governor openly lobbied for the cause. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-10-07/sports/chi-big-ten-commissioner-we-have-what-we-want-20111007_1_jim-delany-longhorn-network-realignment

By: Roggespierre

Roggespierre — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 07:53:25 +0000

@buddha22 @Transic No, no drugs. Sorry. Check out this link to one of many ESPN stories about Missouri being “all dressed up at the alter” for the Big Ten but having to “settle” for the SEC (ESPN’s words, not mine). http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/34960/missouri-wants-big-ten-but-isnt-wanted

By: Roggespierre

Roggespierre — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 07:45:05 +0000

@AllTideUp Lol. I know what you mean. I wish we could just fast-forward to the Big Bang.

By: AllTideUp

AllTideUp — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 05:48:18 +0000

@ruizhe I knew UCF had a huge enrollment, USF for that matter as well. I knew Miami was a private school also although I figured with their name “brand” so to speak that they would at least be a solid 3rd on that list. Oh well, that just continues to feed into my theory that Miami is not that relevant. They are located in one of the top 10 largest metro areas in the country and can’t fill half their stadium. Amazing really. Miami is more of a beach/party town anyway. Even the big time pro-sports struggle there.

By: ruizhe

ruizhe — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 05:26:55 +0000

@AllTideUp AllTideUp: the numbers for TX and FL don’t surprise me. UCF has a huge enrollment & Miami is a relatively small private school. In TX, TTech & Houston are much bigger schools than TCU, but TCU has made new fans out of neutrals in recent years with their recent success.

By: AllTideUp

AllTideUp — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 02:43:30 +0000

John kept us waiting nearly a week between Parts 2 and 3 of this series. I hope he’s getting read to debut Part 4 soon as I think my addition to this topic is getting worse…lol.

By: AllTideUp

AllTideUp — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 02:29:37 +0000

@Roggespierre @JRsec I think Pitt’s inclusion would come with a few preconditions. Pitt would certainly have to commit to becoming the best they can be so to speak. I don’t think the SEC would be interested in adding them knowing all the while Pitt would settle for mediocrity. In the long run, there would be no real market penetration with that sort of program. So from that perspective, I don’t think Slive and company would be interested in adding them just as a punching bad. If Pitt comes to the SEC and becomes competitive then so be it. The more quality the better.

I’m not as optimistic about the potential of Pitt as JRsec is, but they are on a higher plain than the mid-majors out there or even the likes of Cincinnati. They average 40-50K in attendance, and competed for national titles as recently as the 70s and 80s. I don’t think they would ever really be comparable to PSU in popularity, but I don’t think they would have to be in order to be a quality addition. PA is a huge market with a lot of football talent. They’ve also had one of the best basketball programs in the country and that would definitely add value to a conference network. I think Pitt would be a solid addition all the way around.

We have to remember the low quality of Big East football since Miami and VT left almost 10 years ago. There’s not much for the people up there to get excited about right now and it’s been that way for a long time. It’s hard to get excited when there’s nothing of great value to compete for and all the other schools coming through town are mediocre at best.

By: AllTideUp

AllTideUp — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 02:19:56 +0000

@Roggespierre @JRsec Yeah, Finebaum is on XM. Not sure what channel though.

By: AllTideUp

AllTideUp — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 02:16:41 +0000

@ruizhe I don’t think the 2 Sun Belt schools in LA hurt LSU or the 2 CUSA schools for that matter. I don’t think the MAC schools in OH hurt OSU either. I’m not saying that. What I’m saying is that the market is big enough for another player under the right circumstances. AL, SC, KY, OK, and MS are all either of comparable size or smaller than LA and yet all those states have 2 major programs in the FBS. There’s room for a competitor in LA as well, but one has never really materialized and probably never will. I put Cincinnati in a slightly different category because of the size of the institution, the alumni base, and the fact that they are already in the top 70-80 of revenue generators. La Tech, Memphis, and other “mid-majors” are way down the list.

Given the size of the market, UC could be relevant(although they would never really challenge OSU) under the right circumstances. Either way though, I’m not saying UC should be high on the list. There are others that should be targets of the SEC first and foremost, but depending on how big these leagues get, UC would not be a bad option.

By: AllTideUp

AllTideUp — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 02:02:14 +0000

@ruizhe I saw this a few months back, but had not thought of it in light of expansion. Interesting numbers in FL especially, basically no difference between Miami and UCF. I hope the polls were scientific though and not too random. Also in TX, it’s Texas, Texas A&M, then everyone else. I didn’t think TCU, TT, and Houston would all be in the same boat essentially.

By: buddha22

buddha22 — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 01:27:19 +0000

@Roggespierre @Ralph B The Big Ten learned in its due diligence that Nebraska football is more popular than either Missouri or Kansas football and basketball in KC and St. Louis. Ultimately, that’s why Big Red is in the B1G.
C’mon man, in what world do you believe that nU football or basketball “dominates” the KC and StL markets? You really need to get ahold of yourself and quit believing everything you read on Bugeater’s Are Best Blog!

By: buddha22

buddha22 — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 01:24:14 +0000

@Ralph B Seriously, can ANYONE deliver proof this mythical document has been signed by Texas?

By: buddha22

buddha22 — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 01:22:10 +0000

@Transic Dude, you are on drugs…Nebraska had choices/could write their own ticket and A&M/MU did not? It sure wasnt their million or less cable households, their fading football program or their academics…so if you really believe this it must be drugs! If they could write their own ticket why did they grovel and beg to get in before anyone left anything and took a JUNIOR membership? If that’s the ticket you could write with “choices” no wonder that AAU was pulled!

By: buddha22

buddha22 — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 01:12:09 +0000

@Roggespierre @JansonRoberts That depends on how alert Mr Slive was and how interested he was in landing MU and A&M.

By: Missouri A.D. Mike Alden On Expansion: “There’s More Coming. It’s Not Over”

Mon, 31 Dec 2012 23:58:54 +0000

[...] On the possibility of super conferences in college football, an idea that we’ve covered in detail here at MrSEC. [...]

By: ruizhe

ruizhe — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 22:12:39 +0000

@Roggespierre @JansonRoberts @AndrewMartin @dafreshness318 For example, right now, Michigan & OSU have almost the same number of commits from OH (8 & 9, respectively).

By: ruizhe

ruizhe — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 22:07:03 +0000

@Roggespierre @JansonRoberts @AndrewMartin @dafreshness318 Also, this idea that the B10 currently loses local kids to the SEC simply doesn’t jibe with reality. In 2012, there were 9 Rivals top 100 recruits in the B10 states. 7 of them went to B10 schools. Gunner Kiel committed to ND. A PA kid went to Rutgers. 0 went to an SEC school.

As a comparison, the states with SEC schools produced 46 Rivals top 100 recruits. 26 went to SEC schools. Most of the rest went to either ACC or B12 schools. 1 went to a B10 school.

By: JRsec

JRsec — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 20:46:18 +0000

@Roggespierre @AllTideUp For the markets the risk is acceptable. After all they would then be an SEC school. All competition involves risk and if you can’t deal with someone else’s success then the problem is yours alone.

As for Penn State their fan base is wonderful and showed it this year. The problems I was referring to are those that are going to come from the severe scholarship restrictions that will impede development of their program for the next 3 years. One has to assume then that it would take at least another full recruiting class matriculation before they were competitive again. That makes 7 years. Then it will take at least 3 more to re-establish their reputation as a dominant program. There’s the decade in which Pitt could make giant strides towards at least competing for the state’s affections.

By: ruizhe

ruizhe — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 20:23:03 +0000

@Roggespierre @JansonRoberts @AndrewMartin @dafreshness318 Ugh. Roggespierre, please research B10 recruiting a bit. NE OH is actually the recruiting goldmine in OH and Michigan under Hoke has done very well there.

By: JansonRoberts

JansonRoberts — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 20:20:51 +0000

@SouthernBoiSB
Well, I really doubt the SEC or B1G can just go to UVA and get them to accept an invitation straight up. The same for UNC. IF either the B1G or SEC were to just go to those 2 schools with invites, the chances of actually getting both of those 2 schools to leave everyone else the ACC behind is pure fantasy. To get those 2 schools to leave the ACC, there is going to have to be a big bang effect. UNC is the ACC, at least in the minds of those at UNC. In order to get UNC to leave, you have to take away any reason to stay. That is my reasoning on why we will see more than 1 or 2 trickle down effect in the next round. Once you get Universities moving out of the ACC, there will not be anyone that wants to be left behind holding the “bag”. Just my personal thoughts. But other than FSU / Clemson, which it is has been said would jump quick for the SEC if given the chance, GT is the only other school which may be in a position to jump to the B1G as a stand alone depending upon the Maryland exit fee outcome. So again my thinking is take those 3, FSU / Clemson / GT in a big bang and Virginia / North Carolina Schools are jumping out without alot of delays.

By: ruizhe

ruizhe — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 20:20:26 +0000

@Roggespierre @JansonRoberts @AndrewMartin @dafreshness318
Roggespierre: Actually, that’s not true at all (though that is the perception). Eastern PA has several times the population of Western PA (and produces several times the prospects).

By: JansonRoberts

JansonRoberts — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 20:07:03 +0000

There are 2 glaring RED flags that stand out to me when I think about the ACC conference.
#1 flag is that with Maryland leaving and all the talk of FUS to the Big 12 coupled now with rumors of GT / UVA to the B1G, the ACC could not / would not get a GOR that could have possibly stablized their conference.
#2 flag is a cause in effect to the first flag. If the conference payouts are legit, there is know way these ACC schools can stand pat and let these other conferences gain such a large advantage in terms of money.

By: SouthernBoiSB

SouthernBoiSB — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 20:06:01 +0000

While thinking about this over lunch, I thought about pairing 1 of the upper level teams with 1 of the lower levels. This makes everybody on a more level playing field & doesn’t put anybody way out in front or too far behind.

By: SouthernBoiSB

SouthernBoiSB — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 20:02:51 +0000

@JansonRoberts
So, you’re saying that you expect to see 1 huge expansion between fb seasons instead of a few here/there?

&, as far as conf. size, who knows? While it would be nice if everybody was uniform on schedule setup & # of members, it’s still up in the air if even that will happen.

By: SouthernBoiSB

SouthernBoiSB — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 20:01:31 +0000

@JansonRoberts
So, you’re saying that you expect to see 1 huge expansion between fb seasons instead of a few here/there?

By: JansonRoberts

JansonRoberts — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 19:49:26 +0000

@SouthernBoiSB
I dont personally think the conferences will get to 24 teams which many have stated would require an all conference schedule. Based on a 12 game scheduling format for 24 teams. There is no legal way to get out of OOC in-state meetings that have been mandated within certain states. The only option in that type of situation would be to raise the number of games played to 13 and that is not going to happen. I will never say never, but I think the conferences that are going to the superconference era are probably going to stop at 20 maximum. I could be way wrong and it could in fact go to 24 but I think 20 is more realistic.
I think the SEC would love to add 2 more teams before the New SEC network is unvailed. But Slive and company aren’t desparate and could launch as is with 14 teams if the Schools that are in the crosshairs from expansion are not forthcoming before 2014.
As for bridge seasons, the SEC is having that scenario play out now I believe with A&M and Mizzou. My personal thought is that the next round will be a much larger endeavor with possibly having 4 to 6 schools crossing through to membership. Not necessarily all on the same day. LOL. No one in the ACC is going to want to be left behind and they aren’t going to want to go into a holding mode before they can get their share of the pie. SO I think if and when anything happens, it will be quite a rush effect with no one having to wait. But it is just my opinion more than anything, and of course my opinion is based more on what I would prefer rather than what the commishioner and presidents are looking to do in reality.

By: Roggespierre

Roggespierre — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 19:32:55 +0000

@JRsec @AllTideUp This is plausible, I suppose, but there are a couple of caveats. First, Pitt just isn’t as big as Penn State. Second, try to imagine something like the PSU scandal happening at an SEC school. I’m not saying that it would, but I guarantee you that just about everyone at Penn State outside of the hierarchy could not have envisioned this, either. Anyway, would the backers of, say, LSU or Georgia let their football program go down the tubes? I can’t imagine that happening. Penn State folks are every bit as headstrong as SEC fans. That program will suffer, and deservedly so, but it’s not going down in the long term. Perhaps that’s what should have happened, but that’s another discussion.

Also, be careful what you wish for with regards to Pitt. Yes, it could be built up and the SEC would definitely give it an opportunity to improve its fortunes. But remember that we’re talking about a school in a large city that is a one day per week tenant in an NFL stadium. The Steelers will always be the number-one team in town, just like the Redskins here in DC. Heinz Field will be full on Saturdays only if Pittsburgh wins. If it joins the SEC, then that will mean beating SEC teams on a somewhat regular basis. Is the SEC willing to give that kind of power to Pitt? Fans are not going to show up to watch Pitt get clobbered by Alabama and Florida. They will need to beat Alabama and Florida. In other words, the SEC can’t have it both ways. Is it willing to risk having Pitt playing in the championship game in Atlanta? I doubt that the Pitt administration is interested in being another Vanderbilt on the athletics front.

By: Roggespierre

Roggespierre — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 19:21:56 +0000

@AllTideUp @JRsec @AGator Me, too. The WaPo has been on top of the Maryland situation from the outset, and even it has not said anything about a timetable for the exit fee case.

By: JansonRoberts

JansonRoberts — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 19:09:12 +0000

@Roggespierre @AndrewMartin @dafreshness318
I would agree, I don’t know about 4th tierkids, but I get what you are saying. Its just natural for me to immediately think recruiting when thinking about adding a new state. Speed kills down here in the south for sure. Good insight, thanks. I tend to think too much when this tpic of expansion starts churning. LOL