UCLA and USC joining Big 10

[BigRedMachineBigBlueNation]

It would be like the schools who count Helms titles, or count NIT titles when it was still a major tourney. The title count would get muddied. You'd have people just generically saying "National Championships" and including whichever titles gives their school the biggest number. And then you would have the people who just want to count the new organization's Championships, the way people now only count NCAA titles.

Same for the schools who join new conferences. They start out at 0 in terms of conference championships and lose rivalries that date back nearly a century. But hey, billions of dollars into the coffers right?

Everything about this is going to suck, except for the money that goes into the pockets of a select few. It's kind of like today's Supreme Court ruling in favor of coal states that prevents the EPA from capping greenhouse emissions. Everything about it sucks, except for the billions of dollars that will end up in the pockets of the coal Barrons. Sure we'll see insane amounts of air pollution. Sure it sets a judicial precedent that will prevent regulation on coal ash dumping, water pollution, FDA regulations on safe food, regulations on medicine, regulations on lead in water pipes. Sure it drastically slows down our transition to renewable energy sources and nuclear. But hey, billions of dollars into the pockets of a select few is worth all we're giving up right?

The only ones who would say only Super League titles count are the ones who will only have Super League title. It would be retarded to not count NCAA titles. Lol so now there were no titles between 1939 to whenever the Super League is formed? The Super League can easily count NCAA titles as valid. It’s not like Helms titles that were retroactively created decades later by a random baker. Nothing muddy about it. It’s pretty clear Oregon won in 1939 and Kentucky in 1948, 1949, 1951, 1958, 1978, 1996, 1998, 2012. Real games were played for the title National Champions. The only other arguments for titles are for the NIT and ONLY for the 1930s and 1940s

And you really don’t think USC, Bama, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Texas are willingly going to relinquish a 100 years of history and titles do you?

 

[Kerwinwaltonsafro]

The only ones who would say “only Super League titles count” are the ones who will only have Super League title. It would be retarded to not count NCAA titles. Lol so now there were no titles between 1939 to whenever the Super League is formed?

I mean, UK fans only count NCAA titles right? Do you know a single UK fan that talks about the 1946 NIT title? Because all the UK alums in my family only count the 1948 and 1949 NCAA titles. Yet the NIT was arguably the bigger tournament in the 40s, and it wasn't until the 50s that the NCAA made moves to start actually passing the NIT is prestige.

But here we are today. Only NCAA Championships matter. Even the NCAA Championships that occurred when the NIT was the premier tournament.

So if the SEC and B1G do break away from the NCAA and form a new governing body, there will eventually come a point in time where those new Championships are all that matters. And the old NCAA Championships matter as much as the 1946 NIT Championship.

Just another aspect of why expansion sucks.

 

[BigRedMachineBigBlueNation]

k

I mean, UK fans only count NCAA titles right? Do you know a single UK fan that talks about the 1946 NIT title? Because all the UK alums in my family only count the 1948 and 1949 NCAA titles. Yet the NIT was arguably the bigger tournament in the 40s, and it wasn't until the 50s that the NCAA made moves to start actually passing the NIT is prestige.

But here we are today. Only NCAA Championships matter. Even the NCAA Championships that occurred when the NIT was the premier tournament.

So if the SEC and B1G do break away from the NCAA and form a new governing body, there will eventually come a point in time where those new Championships are all that matters. And the old NCAA Championships matter as much as the 1946 NIT Championship.

Just another aspect of why expansion sucks.

NIT titles were overshadowed because they happened to overlap with the NCAA.

 

[bucsrule8872]

The only ones who would say only Super League titles count are the ones who will only have Super League title. It would be retarded to not count NCAA titles. Lol so now there were no titles between 1939 to whenever the Super League is formed? The Super League can easily count NCAA titles as valid. It’s not like Helms titles that were retroactively created decades later by a random baker. Nothing muddy about it. It’s pretty clear Oregon won in 1939 and Kentucky in 1948, 1949, 1951, 1958, 1978, 1996, 1998, 2012, The only other arguments for titles are for the NIT and ONLY for the 1930s and 1940s

And you really don’t think USC, Bama, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Texas are willingly going to relinquish a 100 years of history and titles do you?

It is possible that eventually they won’t really matter. Like 20-30 years from now.

Kind of like AFL and NFL champions prior to the Super Bowl. Unless you are a diehard fan, you don’t really care who won the NFL title in 1956 or 1962. But who won the Super Bowl in any given year, that’s a big deal.

 

[BigRedMachineBigBlueNation]

It is possible that eventually they won’t really matter. Like 20-30 years from now.

Kind of like AFL and NFL champions prior to the Super Bowl. Unless you are a diehard fan, you don’t really care who won the NFL title in 1956 or 1962. But who won the Super Bowl in any given year, that’s a big deal.

Not really because AFL and NFL championships (while valid) are more akin to League champions and not National champions now. the AFL and NFL games became semi-finals to the Super Bowl. Nothing like that would happen.

 

[UK90]

The only ones who would say only Super League titles count are the ones who will only have Super League title. It would be retarded to not count NCAA titles. Lol so now there were no titles between 1939 to whenever the Super League is formed? The Super League can easily count NCAA titles as valid. It’s not like Helms titles that were retroactively created decades later.

You really don’t think USC, Bama, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Texas are willingly going to relinquish a 100 years of history and titles do you?

Yeah, folks would still acknowledge and count them. But they’d still have to deal with that asterisk of knowing those titles are not recognized by the organization that they’re now a part of.

It would also lead to a whole lot of controversy over who the true national champion is every year (in basketball, not football). Because, let’s face it, a LOT of the top basketball programs would not get invited into this new super conference organization (Villanova, Kansas and Gonzaga as just three examples). Let’s say UK wins the new organization’s title in the same year that a team with a better record like Villanova wins the NCAA title …which one is America gonna recognize as the true national champion?

 

[Kerwinwaltonsafro]

k

NIT titles were overshadowed because they happened to overlap with the NCAA.

NIT titles still overlap with the NCAA to this very day. The NIT still happens.

The reason no one talks about NIT titles from the 40s is because the NCAA has spent the last 70 years as the premier tourney. But the reality is the NIT was once the premier tournament, and NIT championships in the 40s were more prestigious than NCAA Championships. But no one remembers when the NIT mattered.

If the B1G/SEC break away, eventually their new Championship will be all that matters. It may take a couple decades, but eventually people will just look at NCAA titles the same way we all look at NIT titles.

 

[DudahUK]

That’s still no joy for the BIG. I mean( they haven’t been lighting the world on fire and you know Riley is figuring out how to get out of it. If he can’t handle the Sissy12, he def can’t handle the BiG and for sure doesn’t want no SEC smoke.

 

[Kerwinwaltonsafro]

Yeah, folks would still acknowledge and count them. But they’d still have to deal with that asterisk of knowing those titles are not recognized by the organization that they’re now a part of.

It would also lead to a whole lot of controversy over who the true national champion is every year (in basketball, not football). Because, let’s face it, a LOT of the top basketball programs would not get invited into this new super conference organization (Villanova, Kansas and Gonzaga as just three examples). Let’s say UK wins the new organization’s title in the same year that a team with a better record like Villanova wins the NCAA title …which one is America gonna recognize as the truth national champion?

Kansas is likely getting a B1G invitation soon. Replace them in your example with Duke and you're spot on.

 

[BigRedMachineBigBlueNation]

NIT titles still overlap with the NCAA to this very day. The NIT still happens.

The reason no one talks about NIT titles from the 40s is because the NCAA has spent the last 70 years as the premier tourney. But the reality is the NIT was once the premier tournament, and NIT championships in the 40s were more prestigious than NCAA Championships. But no one remembers when the NIT mattered.

If the B1G/SEC break away, eventually their new Championship will be all that matters. It may take a couple decades, but eventually people will just look at NCAA titles the same way we all look at NIT titles.

NIT hasn’t been taken seriously since the 50s. You’re being stupid

 

[BigRedMachineBigBlueNation]

NIT titles still overlap with the NCAA to this very day. The NIT still happens.

The reason no one talks about NIT titles from the 40s is because the NCAA has spent the last 70 years as the premier tourney. But the reality is the NIT was once the premier tournament, and NIT championships in the 40s were more prestigious than NCAA Championships. But no one remembers when the NIT mattered.

If the B1G/SEC break away, eventually their new Championship will be all that matters. It may take a couple decades, but eventually people will just look at NCAA titles the same way we all look at NIT titles.

A UNC fan arguing that his titles mean nothing.

 

[Kerwinwaltonsafro]

NIT hasn’t been taken seriously since the 50s. You’re being stupid

The NCAA enacted a series of rules in the 50s that allowed the NCAA tournament to overtake the NIT. Prior to that, the NIT was the premium tournament.

You never answered my question. Do you know any UK fans that celebrate the 1946 NIT title? Because that was the true national championship in 1946. The 1946 NIT championship is more of a true championship than the 48 and 49 NCAA titles. Yet no UK fans ever talk about that when they discuss National Championships.

 

[Kerwinwaltonsafro]

A UNC fan arguing that his titles mean nothing.

You've missed the point by an amazing amount.

The discussion is about the changing of perceptions over time. The fact you have read all of this and think "his titles mean nothing" is really perplexing.

We're talking about how different championships will be perceived decades into the future, after many years of the SEC/B1G breakaway tournament has been the most prestigious championship.

If seeing with your own eyes how your own fan base perceives the 1946 NIT Championship can't drive home the point I'm trying to make, then I don't think it's possible for you to understand this conversation.

 

[bucsrule8872]

Not really because AFL and NFL championships (while valid) are more akin to League champions and not National champions now. the AFL and NFL games became semi-finals to the Super Bowl. Nothing like that would happen.

The NFL champions were considered world champions in 50’s. The AFL did not start until 1960.

So it was a pretty big deal until the Super Bowl changed that.

Same thing probably happens in this instance. Maybe not to the same degree. I’m sure if KU gets left out of the mega conference realignment, they will still celebrate their four titles and many bread championships as well.

As for the Big 10 and SEC teams, those mega conference national titles will likely become more important over time.

 

[maysvilleky]

The interesting thing is could the SEC go to 20 as some speculated? I mean that is beyond ridiculous and a joke to me as you pretty much just have two conferences under one brand name umbrella at that point (hell, you already do) and trying to play everyone would take years in that scenario.

Maybe 30 north and 30 south. 2 really super conferences.

 

[Dr. H Lecter]

Do you need a safe space Snowflake? Did people attempting to save lives during the Pandemic really hurt you so badly you need to rant about it on a conference expansion thread? Maybe you'd feel better back on 4Chan talking about non-existant pizza parlor basements and how the government is putting 5G in your vaccine?

Ah low post count beta. You get triggered that easily with your 700 posts? I'm vaxed BTW dummy. As for the rest of your rant I don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. You probably don't actually watch basketball games....maybe when soccer is not on...but if you had done so you'd have seen full arenas around the nation.....but not there in LA. Only parents and few others. psssst. Men cannot have babies despite what you virtue signal.

 

[bbnkat02]

Ah low post count beta. You get triggered that easily with your 700 posts? I'm vaxed BTW dummy. As for the rest of your rant I don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. You probably don't actually watch basketball games....maybe when soccer is not on...but if you had done so you'd have seen full arenas around the nation.....but not there in LA. Only parents and few others. psssst. Men cannot have babies despite what you virtue signal.

Cut him some slack. He’s a UNC alum. Even with Tar Heels, they don’t have a leg to stand on.

 

[FurdTurgason]

I can see Arizona and Arizona State joining the SEC.

 

[Tampa_cat54_rivals112262]

Nah. The other way around. The PAC-12 still dominates California and the entire Pacific seacoast even without UCLA and USC. Add San Diego State - they already play 3-4 PAC-12 games a year, maybe UNLV for the growing La Vegas market, then poach Oklahoma State and Texas Tech.

That's stronger than any combination the Empty Prairie Conference can put together. The Big 12 is always going to be the Ugly Step-Sister as this shakes out. There's just no center of gravity to what they are doing. Central Florida? West Virginia? Cincinnati?

This was a pretty short-sighted post haha (but maybe mine will end up being also)

Now Oregon and Washington. are bolting the Pac-12 and rumors are that at least 2 more are coming also. Still think they absorb the Big12?

I mean...UCF, Cincy and West Virginia are better football programs than Oregon State, Washington State and Arizona??

Oklahoma State, Baylor, Iowa State, West Virginia, Texas Tech, Houston, Cincy, TCU, etc. is a FAR better basketball AND football league than what's remaining in the Pac-12.

Pac-12 is in a VERY bad spot, and Big-12 is already talking another round of expansion. Thinking the Pac-12 would absorb the Big-12 was a hot take haha but we'll see.

 

[akaukswoosh]

 

[Tim Higgins]

I agree that many years from now March Madness will still exist but it will be a gimmick small school event. The power programs by then will have cut out the middle man, gotten rid of conferences and form their own alliance outside the NCAA.

All you’ll have left is smaller schools like EKU Morehead and UofL competing for March Madness. The big programs will be banned from the event and will put on a similar playoff structure to the pros. I doubt both titles will be equally recognized by the general public. Only one league will win out

 

[UK90]

The power programs by then will have cut out the middle man, gotten rid of conferences and form their own alliance outside the NCAA.

The NCAA ain’t really a “middle man”, instead the schools essentially ARE the NCAA. The organization is basically just a cartel made up of its member institutions, and the power programs are its most powerful members. We’re the ones who elect its leaders and approve its rules and rulings.

The real reason the mega conferences might break away is simply so that they no longer have to share the loot and deal with with the little guys who don’t produce as much revenue. But this new oganization would still have to set up some sort of governing body with its own rules and regulations controlling how it’s run. That body would no longer be called the NCAA, but it would be serving the same general purpose …that role ain’t being “cut out.”

 

[Joerules19]

If you want to figure out which schools will end up in the SEC and which will end up in the B1G, just look at the AAU members list.

Association of American Universities - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

AAU schools like UNC and UVA would likely go to the B1G. Non-AAU schools like VT and NC State would likely go to the SEC. After 2036 of course.

The B1G has only ever made 1 exception for a non-AAU school, and while football and TV money drive everything, a large portion of that revenue goes towards inter-conference academic endeavors.

It's the reason Kansas will end up in the B1G even though they are a closer cultural fit with the SEC.

Agree with everything you said except last sentence. Culturally, Kansas is way more in line with B1G than SEC. Nothing southern about KS and has definitely more of a midwestern vibe

 

[cmore79]

Kansas is likely getting a B1G invitation soon. Replace them in your example with Duke and you're spot on.

I don’t think the B1G wants KU.

 

[bucsrule8872]

So now I guess it’s a race between the Big 10 and SEC to grab the best programs available?

So who will be next?

 

[akaukswoosh]

 

[UKnCincy_rivals]

NIT titles still overlap with the NCAA to this very day. The NIT still happens.

The reason no one talks about NIT titles from the 40s is because the NCAA has spent the last 70 years as the premier tourney. But the reality is the NIT was once the premier tournament, and NIT championships in the 40s were more prestigious than NCAA Championships. But no one remembers when the NIT mattered.

If the B1G/SEC break away, eventually their new Championship will be all that matters. It may take a couple decades, but eventually people will just look at NCAA titles the same way we all look at NIT titles.

The NIT was never the premier tournament. It was roughly on par with the NCAA tournament, but was never the premier tournament.

In 1946, UK finished 28-2 and won the NIT by beating the following:

• Arizona (25-5)
• West Virginia (24-3)
• Rhode Island (28-2)

That same year, Ok State finished 31-2 and won the NCAA title by beating the following:

• Baylor (25-5)
• Cal (30-6)
• UNC (30-5)

There was nothing premier about the NIT in 1946. Both tournaments had quality fields, but this whole narrative that the NIT was once the better tournament is a bunch of nonsense from people who either don’t know what they’re talking about, or are trying to spin their school’s lack of NCAA titles during that period.

The 1949 season was the first year of the AP poll, which provides another easy way to compare the two tournaments. UK won the 1949 NCAA title after beating:

• #14 Villanova
• #4 Illinois
• #2 Ok State

San Francisco won the 1949 NIT after beating:

• Unranked Manhattan (18-8; one of 4 garbage NY teams in the NIT that year)
• #12 Utah
• #10 Bowling Green
• #16 Loyola

The reason UK fans count NCAA titles and not NIT titles, is because we actually know what we’re talking about when it comes to basketball. The NCAA was started by the college basketball coaches and you had to win your conference to qualify for it in those early years. The NIT was started by the NY basketball writers.

Since it’s founding, the NCAA tournament has always been the only legitimate tournament when it comes to determining who is the national champion.

 

[Pickle_Rick]

They should they are the best football program not on a power 5 conference. But the ACC is full of academic snobs.

Maybe, but they were desperate enough to add U6 when the alimentary excrement hit the oscillating air mover.

 

[bucsrule8872]

So I guess Bill Walton will have to change his catch phrase to “the Big 10, conference of champions” now that his beloved Bruins are no longer part of the PAC-12.

 

[UKnCincy_rivals]

So I guess Bill Walton will have to change his catch phrase to “the Big 10, conference of champions” now that his beloved Bruins are no longer part of the PAC-12.

Maybe not. There’s probably a chance he might not even notice anything has changed.

 

[Tim Higgins]

The NCAA ain’t really a “middle man”, instead the schools essentially ARE the NCAA. The organization is basically just a cartel made up of its member institutions, and the power programs are its most powerful members. We’re the ones who elect its leaders and approve its rules and rulings.

The real reason the mega conferences might break away is simply so that they no longer have to share the loot and deal with with the little guys who don’t produce as much revenue. But this new oganization would still have to set up some sort of governing body with its own rules and regulations controlling how it’s run. That body would no longer be called the NCAA, but it would be serving the same general purpose …that role ain’t being “cut out.”

I agree completely. I never said the NCAA was a middle man, I said the conferences are. The TV deals are through them. And they are the ones that will be cut out when all is said and done.

There will eventually be an alliance of 30-40 schools that will act as a super conference, I’m saying the current conferences themselves, as they exist today, will be cut out of it all

 

[serdi]

They should they are the best football program not on a power 5 conference. But the ACC is full of academic snobs.

But one of the snobs carried out the greatest academic fraud scam in the history of the NCAA

 

[ok-cats-computer]

Anyone else remember how smug the commissioners from the Big 10, ACC, and PAC-12 were while announcing their “alliance” to improve conference stability in response to Texas and Oklahoma joining the SEC?

 

[UK90]

 

[Bluesnky]

If this guy is right, then neither of us were on target. And a lot of other nonsense in this thread is off-base, like the B-Ten taking the cheaters or anyone else in the ACC.

According to this SI analyst, the Big Ten is looking to basically strip the Pac-12 and create the "Big Ten Western Conference" in a 20 program league. IF this is true, then basically the Pac-12 just goes away, the Big Ten and the SEC - after picking up a couple more programs - become the clear cut winners, and everyone else, like the ACC and the dregs of the B-12, are reduced to second-tier status.

https://www.si.com/fannation/colleg...ege-football-expansion-big-ten-adding-schools

That would be 22 teams.

 

[UKWildcats1987]

That would be 22 teams.

You beat me to it....SI guy clearly does not have a calculator or basic addition skills.

22 team is beyond stupid...but whatever. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, at that point you are pretty much just combining 2 (or 3) conferences under one umbrella brand name, but you won't ever play any of these west coast teams much, at least in football. I mean, what are they going to do, go to an 11 game conference schedule where you play 1 rival each season and then rotate 10 on, 10 off every other year? LOL

 

[UK90]

According to this SI analyst, the Big Ten is looking to basically strip the Pac-12 and create the "Big Ten Western Conference" in a 20 program league.

If that is true, then I’d think Oregon, Stanford, Cal and Washington would be the four they’d choose to get to 20. That would give the conference complete stranglehold control over all the major West Coast media markets, maintain its lofty academic profile, and make it a true coast to coast media force.

Then I suppose they’d combine the West Coast six with Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin to form the new “Big 10 West.”

 

[bucsrule8872]

If that is true, then I’d think Oregon, Stanford, Cal and Washington would be the four they’d choose to get to 20. That would give the conference complete stranglehold control over all the major West Coast media markets, maintain its lofty academic profile, and make it a true coast to coast media force.

Then I suppose they’d combine the West Coast six with Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin to form the new “Big 10 West.”

Will the SEC counter and add Zona, ASU, Utah, and Colorado to get to 20?

Or will the Big 10 try to add them and go to 24?

 

[bucsrule8872]

If the SEC added Zona, ASU, Colorado, and Utah, then it could realign the divisions.

SEC West

Zona
ASU
Colorado
Utah
Oklahoma
Texas
A&M
Mizzou
Arkansas
LSU

SEC East

Bama
Auburn
Ole Miss
MSU
UK
Tenn
Vandy
SC
UF
UGA

 

[UKWildcats1987]

If the SEC added Zona, ASU, Colorado, and Utah, then it could realign the divisions.

SEC West

Zona
ASU
Colorado
Utah
Oklahoma
Texas
A&M
Mizzou
Arkansas
LSU

SEC East

Bama
Auburn
Ole Miss
MSU
UK
Tenn
Vandy
SC
UF
UGA

LSU would love that LOL