header pic

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9   Go Down
Author

Topic: CFB Realignment

 (Read 9868 times)

Brutus Buckeye

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11243
  • Liked:
Re: CFB Realignment
« Reply #84 on: November 22, 2021, 12:40:09 PM »


Quote from: TyphonInc on November 22, 2021, 12:36:55 PM
Dump Rutgers, we all agree that has been a horrible experiment.

Maryland, beat Texas twice. They are not a football helmet, but they are a decent add. The worse thing Maryland has for it is they were added with Rutgers.


Rutgers beat the Wolverines once.
Logged
1919, 20, 21, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42, 44
WWH: 1952, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 67, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75
1979, 81, 82, 84, 87, 94, 98
2001, 02, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12222
  • Liked:
Re: CFB Realignment
« Reply #85 on: November 22, 2021, 01:25:58 PM »
Quote from: utee94 on November 22, 2021, 12:09:54 PM
Dump Rutgers and Maryland, and add FSU/Miami.
Two different ideas.

You don't have to dump 2 to add 2. As the SEC has just shown, going to 16 is certainly possible [and other conferences might follow]. 

If you dump Rutgers and Maryland, it still doesn't make FSU/Miami good additions. That said, you can also dump Rutgers and Maryland without adding anyone. Going from 14 back to 12 is certainly possible too. The PAC is likely to stay at 12 and I don't see it changing because of a lack of good teams to add, and a lack of geographic cohesion for any team to want to leave. The B1G would be strong enough at 12. 

That said, I don't think the first half of the statement will ever happen. I don't see the B1G tossing members, even recent additions, absent some sort of major off-field scandal or the school in question doing something like no longer choosing to field a football team. 
Logged

Brutus Buckeye

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11243
  • Liked:
Re: CFB Realignment
« Reply #86 on: November 22, 2021, 01:52:32 PM »
Quote from: betarhoalphadelta on November 22, 2021, 01:25:58 PM
Two different ideas.

You don't have to dump 2 to add 2. As the SEC has just shown, going to 16 is certainly possible [and other conferences might follow].

If you dump Rutgers and Maryland, it still doesn't make FSU/Miami good additions. That said, you can also dump Rutgers and Maryland without adding anyone. Going from 14 back to 12 is certainly possible too. The PAC is likely to stay at 12 and I don't see it changing because of a lack of good teams to add, and a lack of geographic cohesion for any team to want to leave. The B1G would be strong enough at 12.

That said, I don't think the first half of the statement will ever happen. I don't see the B1G tossing members, even recent additions, absent some sort of major off-field scandal or the school in question doing something like no longer choosing to field a football team.

When the SEC added Texas and Oklahoma, you insisted that the Big Ten had no choice but to add two more in order to keep up. Now you are suggesting contraction? 

That's one helluva change of perspective in just a few short months. 
Logged
1919, 20, 21, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42, 44
WWH: 1952, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 67, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75
1979, 81, 82, 84, 87, 94, 98
2001, 02, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12222
  • Liked:
Re: CFB Realignment
« Reply #87 on: November 22, 2021, 01:56:44 PM »
Quote from: Brutus Buckeye on November 22, 2021, 01:52:32 PM
When the SEC added Texas and Oklahoma, you insisted that the Big Ten had no choice but to add two more in order to keep up. Now you are suggesting contraction?

That's one helluva change of perspective in just a few short months.
No, I don't think I ever said that. In fact, I flat out argued against any schools such as Iowa State as "add ISU just because we know they'll say yes and need to add."

My argument then, and now, is that if there is a compelling addition that makes sense [more likely two, obviously], the B1G should do it. But we shouldn't be adding schools that don't bring more to us than they dilute from our existing brand. Kansas could be a positive addition [due to basketball]. Notre Dame [ugh!] could as well. Iowa State, KSU, OkSU, etc, who may be more than willing to say yes as the B12 implodes, do NOT bring more than they dilute. 
Logged

847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 25280
  • Liked:
Re: CFB Realignment
« Reply #88 on: November 22, 2021, 02:00:35 PM »
Quote from: utee94 on November 22, 2021, 11:29:14 AM
No major team is going to join a conference football-only, unless/until ALL schools decouple

Where's Miami going to park their non-revenue sports?  The ACC won't allow them to decouple football because, as you say, football is the only sport that matters.  Miami's football is the only sport that potentially generates any revenue for the ACC, and having the conference support their other sports without their football program, again, is a non-starter.

We've speculated a lot about what could be possible if ALL of the major schools decoupled football from the non-revenue sports, but until that happens for EVERYONE, a school like Miami wouldn't be able to go it alone.

Notre Dame is not a football member.
Logged
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

Brutus Buckeye

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11243
  • Liked:
Re: CFB Realignment
« Reply #89 on: November 22, 2021, 02:26:26 PM »
When Miami was in the Big East, they were the only team south of Virginia Tech. Maybe they play better in cold weather. 
Logged
1919, 20, 21, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42, 44
WWH: 1952, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 67, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75
1979, 81, 82, 84, 87, 94, 98
2001, 02, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 17718
  • Liked:
Re: CFB Realignment
« Reply #90 on: November 22, 2021, 02:34:06 PM »
Quote from: 847badgerfan on November 22, 2021, 02:00:35 PM
Notre Dame is not a football member.
Miami ain't Notre Dame.  And, they play 5/8 football games in the ACC nowadays anyway, so they basically ARE a football member.
Logged

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 71626
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: CFB Realignment
« Reply #91 on: November 22, 2021, 02:37:22 PM »
ND has a strange relationship with the ACC they could not have with any other conference.
Logged

Brutus Buckeye

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11243
  • Liked:
Re: CFB Realignment
« Reply #92 on: November 22, 2021, 02:38:07 PM »
Quote from: Brutus Buckeye on November 22, 2021, 10:26:52 AM

Once upon a time the WAC added UTSA in a desperate attempt to save WAC Football.

Fast forward to today, and it's UTSA's little brother Incarnate Word out of San Antonio TX.




I just checked and Incarnate Word's FB stadium is only 6k. :o


« Last Edit: November 22, 2021, 02:43:31 PM by Brutus Buckeye »
Logged
1919, 20, 21, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42, 44
WWH: 1952, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 67, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75
1979, 81, 82, 84, 87, 94, 98
2001, 02, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

Brutus Buckeye

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11243
  • Liked:
Re: CFB Realignment
« Reply #93 on: November 22, 2021, 02:41:34 PM »
Quote from: Cincydawg on November 22, 2021, 02:37:22 PM
ND has a strange relationship with the ACC they could not have with any other conference.
It's weird that they didn't just keep their Olympic sports in the Big East like they were before. 

In fact it would make even more sense today now that the Big East doesn't sponsor football, and is nearly all Catholic. 
Logged
1919, 20, 21, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42, 44
WWH: 1952, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 67, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75
1979, 81, 82, 84, 87, 94, 98
2001, 02, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12222
  • Liked:
Re: CFB Realignment
« Reply #94 on: November 22, 2021, 02:46:12 PM »
Quote from: Brutus Buckeye on November 22, 2021, 01:52:32 PM
When the SEC added Texas and Oklahoma, you insisted that the Big Ten had no choice but to add two more in order to keep up. Now you are suggesting contraction?

That's one helluva change of perspective in just a few short months.
I should add that I was somewhat bullish on the idea of a B1G/PAC mega-merger idea, dropping the chaff and getting the best half or so of the conference (Colorado/Utah/Wash/Ore/Stan/USC, give or take based on who you say is "best"). I also was arguing for Colorado if we could entice them out of the PAC and needed someone to pair with a Kansas because I thought (and still feel) that it fits somewhat with the nature of the B1G and would create a true "west" group in NE/KS/CO that would be similar and a home much like PSU/UMD/RU do now. 

But again it was about "what will add to our conference?" more than "we have no choice but to add now!" I'm a fan of standing pat if the right situation isn't there. 
Logged

Brutus Buckeye

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11243
  • Liked:
Re: CFB Realignment
« Reply #95 on: November 22, 2021, 02:53:13 PM »
Quote from: betarhoalphadelta on November 22, 2021, 02:46:12 PM
I should add that I was somewhat bullish on the idea of a B1G/PAC mega-merger idea, dropping the chaff and getting the best half or so of the conference (Colorado/Utah/Wash/Ore/Stan/USC, give or take based on who you say is "best"). I also was arguing for Colorado if we could entice them out of the PAC and needed someone to pair with a Kansas because I thought (and still feel) that it fits somewhat with the nature of the B1G and would create a true "west" group in NE/KS/CO that would be similar and a home much like PSU/UMD/RU do now.

But again it was about "what will add to our conference?" more than "we have no choice but to add now!" I'm a fan of standing pat if the right situation isn't there.

Yeah my bad, I must have mixed you up with someone else. :-[
Logged
1919, 20, 21, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42, 44
WWH: 1952, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 67, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75
1979, 81, 82, 84, 87, 94, 98
2001, 02, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 71626
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: CFB Realignment
« Reply #96 on: November 22, 2021, 03:04:49 PM »
What's the news if any on the Pac/B1G/ACC thing?  It sounded to me like a large nothing.
Logged

Brutus Buckeye

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11243
  • Liked:
Re: CFB Realignment
« Reply #97 on: November 22, 2021, 03:23:39 PM »
Quote from: Cincydawg on November 22, 2021, 03:04:49 PM
What's the news if any on the Pac/B1G/ACC thing?  It sounded to me like a large nothing.


Every year the three commissioners are going to get together and draw teams out of a hat, and then that will be the conferences for that year. 
Logged
1919, 20, 21, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42, 44
WWH: 1952, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 67, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75
1979, 81, 82, 84, 87, 94, 98
2001, 02, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9   Go Up
« previous next »
 
Support the Site!
Purchase of every item listed here DIRECTLY supports the site.
WeatherPROOF Sign Single Sided

FAFO No Trespassing Sign