CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: OrangeAfroMan on October 10, 2024, 12:39:14 AM
-
Just what we all needed.
Ahead of the SEC, B1G meetings, there's a "Project Rudy" being discussed online (people are saying...). It's 70 teams (all the P4 programs + ND + ORST + Wazzou), no G5 or FCS scheduling (uh oh for them), and expanded playoffs (going to 16, I'm sure).
.
Also, conferences wouldn't have individual TV deals, but all of college football would.
All 12 games would be vs teams of the other 69 schools.
.
What do you guys think?
-
What do you guys think?
Rose: PAC 10 versus Big TEN
Orange: Big 8 vs. At large
Sugar: SEC vs. At large
Cotton: SWC vs. At large
Fiesta: At large vs. at large
-
Well right off the bat, it brings the Pac-2 back into the fold. Plus the programs that sort of got in under the buzzer, like UCF, SMU, Houston, and BYU.
They'd be the in-crowd, and basically parallel programs like South Florida, Tulane, etc are OUT.
-
So the 70 teams would be a super league...meaning who-is-in-what-conference technically wouldn't matter. That being said, I think the big-boy conferences would simply want their original 10 members. 7 x 10, basically.
It works out pretty well for 6 groups:
Original (1970s-2000s) PAC-10
Original SEC
Original Big Ten
SWC light, plus OU/OKST (Texas schools + OK schools + Ark)
.
After those, you're left with a smattering of schools across the west and plains, plus a bunch of eastern/southeastern schools.
Instead of picking and choosing and making a mess of things in the east, just draw a Mason-Dixon line along the VA/NC border.
There's 10 unaffiliated schools below it (FSU, GT, UCF, Miami, USCe, Clemson, WF, UNC, Duke, NCST) and there's 10 above it (WV, VT, UVa, UMd, Pitt, PSU, RU, BC, Syr + ND instead of Cinci). We finally get our Eastern conference and a southernesque ACC.
.
That leaves "the others." 10 schools that aren't naturally in the previous groups.
Utah, BYU....CU....KU, KSU.....UNL...ISU...Mizzou.....Louisville....Cinc innati
.
I don't think this works without having a group like this, as there's just not as many programs out west as there are in the east. It's odd having a program like Nebraska in 'the others,' but I'm not sure what else would feasibly occur. Maybe you take the OK schools out of the SWC and throw the Utah schools into it. At least then "the others" would look like an evolved Big 8. Idk.
-
A lot of people are talking that really don't have the power to change anything.
In the end, the Big Ten and the SEC have the power and I dont see them giving it back to the other conferences they just separated themselves from.
From this point forward, it's the P2, M2, Notre Dame and the G6. And there is not much room left in the P2 for expansion. Possibly Flor St, UNC, and a couple more.
Probably about 10 to 20 years from now the Big Boys in the Big Ten SEC, ACC, and Notre Dame will decide to leave their conferences and form a new Power-1 conference with about 16-24 schools total. All the dead weight bottom feeders will be left behind in the old Big Ten which will probably include my school, iowa, which probably won't make the cut.
This has been the trend from the very beginning. Iowa once was in a conference that included Grinell College. There is a reason the Big Ten formed in the first place. The Big Universities in the Midwest wanted to separate themselves and compete with other schools at the same "level'. At one time that "level" meant academics and state flagship status, and it sorta still does. Now it also includes football revenue, and population growth .
Anyway, after they went to all this trouble to sort out the Wash St and Ore St from everybody else, they aren't going back.
-
In the end, the Big Ten and the SEC have the power and I dont see them giving it back to the other conferences they just separated themselves from.
yup
-
I think if this had been pitched a decade ago, rather than the slow trickle we've had with no eye for the future, yes.
But like others have said, why would the Big Ten and SEC relinquish any power?
Would it be better for the long term health of the sport? Probably. But what about any of this hasn't been short sighted?
-
My thought is this is somewhat akin to various message board propossals, not some entity with real influence. I might be wrong.
Money talks.
-
Maryland is more likely to be kicked out than Oregon St invited back in
-
My thought is this is somewhat akin to various message board propossals, not some entity with real influence. I might be wrong.
Money talks.
Private capital investment of $9 billion. ADs commenting on the proposal. SEC and B1G heads having seen the proposal.
This shows that having those 'other' programs as fodder and keeping elite programs having elite W-L records does matter to them. At least they're not stupid.
Also included are tiers, based on performance, and given different monies. As long as we don't have teams with 8-4 records winning the NC all the time, we're good.
-
as long as the power brokers in the B1G & SEC make more money than today and not less, they'll listen
-
Sure. Money is the reason this thing has legs. Jack Swarbrick (former ND AD) is with this proposal group.
-
I could go for that. (https://i.imgur.com/Vr4sPIP.jpeg)
-
I'm for anything that has the same teams playing each other annually
the above with 10-team conferences and 9-team schedules is perfect
even better that it's regional
I think it's what's best for the sport
so, it probably won't happen
-
Put Iowa back in the Big Ten, move Notre Dame into the Eastern Independents, I mean Big East, and Cincinnati into the Big 8?
I would also put Oklahoma and Oklahoma State in the Big 8, and move BYU and Utah to the SWC
-
My question: Are there any B12/ACC and other schools that are left out of the super league? And if so, who?
And do the super league teams play any games vs the old G5 like they do now?
-
Put Iowa back in the Big Ten, move Notre Dame into the Eastern Independents, I mean Big East, and Cincinnati into the Big 8?
I would also put Oklahoma and Oklahoma State in the Big 8, and move BYU and Utah to the SWC
Yeah, why leave Iowa out of the Big 10? Iowa has actually done something in the Big 10 in history, whereas Purdue, IU, and Illinois have not.
-
What is 'Project Rudy'? New proposal to reimagine college football includes 70 teams, private equity backing - CBSSports.com (https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/what-is-project-rudy-new-proposal-to-reimagine-college-football-includes-70-teams-private-equity-backing/)
The "Super League" and "Project Rudy" were born in successive weeks.
"There's like five or six of these types of groups out there," said a member of College Sports Tomorrow who had seen the deck. "I've seen them all. They're all smart guys, but what I think is somewhat unique and vasty differentiated from College Sports Tomorrow and Smash is those issues are very commercially oriented. In many ways, this is overstating the obvious. College football is, by a long margin, the second-most valuable sport in the United States of America. It's sort of under-marketed, under-distributed and under-monetized."
-
(https://i.imgur.com/ichjglT.png)
-
Apparently there are several groups talking about this sort of thing (including this board and others). I suspect something of this ilk will happen, but probably a bit down the road, and different from what anyone is proposing. The effort to further monetize the sport is fascinating.
-
I could go for that. (https://i.imgur.com/Vr4sPIP.jpeg)
I could definitely go for this.
I wonder if maybe the schools are looking at the costs to send non-revenue teams across the country all the time. It adds up. Going to something like this knocks that down by a LOT.
I'll add this:
If we are mandating that all 12 games be among this group then I'd go back down to eight league games. That does mean you'd miss one league opponent every year but so what? I presume that the leagues aren't dropping CG's so if say Ohio State and MSU don't play and both go undefeated they'll settle it in the CG anyway.
By dropping to eight league games you'd have four OOC and you could do two scheduled in advance and two scheduled by the controlling entity based on preseason rankings. Ie:
- For 2025 (I realize probably not done that quick but just for example), Big 10 hosts SWC and travels to SEC. So you go by preseason rankings. If Ohio State is preseason #1 in the Big 10 then they host the SWC preseason #1 and visit the SEC preseason #1.
- For 2026 the Big 10 hosts the SEC and travels to the Big8. If Ohio State is preseason #2 in the Big 10 they host the SEC #2 and visit the Big8 #2.
- For 2027 the Big 10 hosts the Big8 and travels to the Pac10. If Ohio State is preseason #3 in the Big 10 they host the Big8 #3 and visit the Pac10 #3.
- For 2028 the Big 10 hosts the Pac10 and visits the BigEast. If Ohio State is preseason #1 in the Big 10 they host the Pac10 #1 and visit the BigEast #1.
- For 2029 the Big 10 hosts the BigEast and travels to the ACC. If Ohio State is preseason #2 in the Big 10 they host the BigEast #2 and visit the ACC #2.
- For 2030 the Big 10 hosts the ACC and travels to the SWC. If Ohio State is preseason #1 in the Big 10 they host the ACC #1 and visit the SWC #1
- 2031 returns to the 2025 arrangement
- etc.
So each school has eight league games and two OOC games scheduled by the controlling entity with their other two games scheduled on their own so that schools like UF/FSU and USC/ND can maintain traditional rivalries that either never were or are no longer in conference. I'd want to see Ohio State use those to frequently schedule prior league games so Iowa, PSU, and to a lesser extent, UNL.
-
Yeah, why leave Iowa out of the Big 10? Iowa has actually done something in the Big 10 in history, whereas Purdue, IU, and Illinois have not.
Illinois is an interesting case. They are very much feast-or-famine.
-
friggin overtime game
-
Regionality is my most treasured aspect of the whole deal.
And why, so far --- I haven't ben too bent out of shape over the conference realignment stuff, since the SEC still maintains some semblance of regionality.
-
Regionality is my most treasured aspect of the whole deal.
And why, so far --- I haven't ben too bent out of shape over the conference realignment stuff, since the SEC still maintains some semblance of regionality.
Yup. Even if you had a 7-5 type season, maybe MSU got bragging rights over Michigan, or maybe they ruined Ohio State or Penn State's championship hopes.
Even if MSU had upset Oregon last week, ok, whatever. I've never met an Oregon fan in my life, and I have no random guy who played for them a decade ago who was a little too cocky for my liking as an opposing fan that I hate.
-
maybe they ruined Ohio State or Penn State's championship hopes.
In this era of expanded playoffs, isn't this pretty much dead anyway?
-
Yeah, but more generally, I think I would enjoy beating a 8 or 9 win Penn State or Ohio State than an 11 or 12 win Oregon
-
In this era of expanded playoffs, isn't this pretty much dead anyway?
Nah. Arkansas may have just killed my hopes.
-
I could go for that. (https://i.imgur.com/Vr4sPIP.jpeg)
Take ND out of the B1G and put them in the Big East to replace UCF. Iowa to the Big Ten. UNLV to the Big 8, or whoever they choose.
-
Yup. Even if you had a 7-5 type season, maybe MSU got bragging rights over Michigan, or maybe they ruined Ohio State or Penn State's championship hopes.
Even if MSU had upset Oregon last week, ok, whatever. I've never met an Oregon fan in my life, and I have no random guy who played for them a decade ago who was a little too cocky for my liking as an opposing fan that I hate.
Consider yourself lucky. Extremely arrogant fan base.
-
I briefly met some Oregon fans here a couple years back. They were packing up outside a local hotel and I chatted with them. They seemed normal, to me.
I'm not convinced any fan base is worse than most others, I hear Nebraska has the best fans. Ole Miss fans were pretty cool.
-
I briefly met some Oregon fans here a couple years back. They were packing up outside a local hotel and I chatted with them. They seemed normal, to me.
I'm not convinced any fan base is worse than most others, I hear Nebraska has the best fans. Ole Miss fans were pretty cool.
That's because they don't have a superiority complex for Georgia.
-
What do you guys think?
I think this part pisses me off.
Also included are tiers, based on performance, and given different monies. As long as we don't have teams with 8-4 records winning the NC all the time, we're good.
So we're going to have 70 teams, and we're going to bake in the relative non-parity, instead of actually trying to have a system with parity.
Helmets gonna helmet, I guess.
I guess I should just be happy my team will be able to be the doormat instead of not being allowed on the property.
-
doormats get paid
-
doormats get paid
Yeah. I guess a way to think about it, for non-helmets, is-- do you care about any OTHER sports? For example, as I recall, Purdue traditionally has a pretty good roundball team, and Purdue fans seem to care about that silly sport.
So, if you DO like other sports, well, being in a top football conference, is how you pay for them, regardless of whether or not your actual football team is ever going to challenge for a championship.
-
Ed Zachery
-
I think this part pisses me off.So we're going to have 70 teams, and we're going to bake in the relative non-parity, instead of actually trying to have a system with parity.
Helmets gonna helmet, I guess.
I guess I should just be happy my team will be able to be the doormat instead of not being allowed on the property.
Yeah, I don't get that part. I get it, but I don't.
The fact that the number is 70 made me believe the powers that be (or a newfangled Disney omni-god boardroom) understood that having the full (P4-P5) bell curve of teams/schools ensured that you'd have the elite programs and the chum programs, allowing for continued 11-1 type records going forward.
But the tiered system makes it look like the helmet programs don't believe in their own helmet-ness and they want to deny the mid-level and low-level programs even their once-in-a-decade/generation peaks...which is odd. You have every single built-in, institutional advantage...but that's not enough?!? You also need to suppress the oppressed???
Why?
You're Alabama, why do you need to limit Miss State's oxygen? You're Michigan, why do you need to ration Minnesota's food? It's just bizarre.
There's no need. You get steak and they get a hotdog, and you go the extra mile to say they only get half a hotdog.
Fuck that noise.
-
You're Alabama, why do you need to limit Miss State's oxygen? You're Michigan, why do you need to ration Minnesota's food? It's just bizarre.
Because one point lost in all of this realignment discussion is that in these super-conferences, someone's gotta eat the losses. And the helmets don't want to dine at that table.
-
greed
why give the gophers something if you can have it
greed
-
Because one point lost in all of this realignment discussion is that in these super-conferences, someone's gotta eat the losses. And the helmets don't want to dine at that table.
Taking away the have-not's glimmer of hope is stupid and bad for the sport. Really smart people can be really stupid sometimes, especially when near-future money is involved. The health of the sport is what matters most, and they don't see it.
Evidence of that: SEC & B1G are like 'Nah' (https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/41723519/sec-big-ten-meet-show-united-front-private-equity)
-
Yeah. I guess a way to think about it, for non-helmets, is-- do you care about any OTHER sports? For example, as I recall, Purdue traditionally has a pretty good roundball team, and Purdue fans seem to care about that silly sport.
So, if you DO like other sports, well, being in a top football conference, is how you pay for them, regardless of whether or not your actual football team is ever going to challenge for a championship.
Yeah, so be happy with your second-tier status, because the alternative is we just kick you out entirely.
Which is the same BS that the G5 has been dealing with for decades.
I say, why keep the lie going? Why make this a 70-team league. We know that's not what the helmets and helmet-adjacent teams actually want.
If you're not going to do SOMETHING to try to actually have parity, take your 32 top teams and stop lying to us that we're equal when you're deliberately setting up a tiered system where we can't be equal.
You're Alabama, why do you need to limit Miss State's oxygen? You're Michigan, why do you need to ration Minnesota's food? It's just bizarre.
There's no need. You get steak and they get a hotdog, and you go the extra mile to say they only get half a hotdog.
Fuck that noise.
Because you have to keep the boot on their neck, so that they know no matter how hard they fight, they'll NEVER, EVER get steak.
-
Hunger Games.
-
Yeah, so be happy with your second-tier status, because the alternative is we just kick you out entirely.
Which is the same BS that the G5 has been dealing with for decades.
I say, why keep the lie going? Why make this a 70-team league. We know that's not what the helmets and helmet-adjacent teams actually want.
If you're not going to do SOMETHING to try to actually have parity, take your 32 top teams and stop lying to us that we're equal when you're deliberately setting up a tiered system where we can't be equal.
Because you have to keep the boot on their neck, so that they know no matter how hard they fight, they'll NEVER, EVER get steak.
Vandy just stole Bama's steak right off their plate. Swiped their bottle of Chateau Lafite Rothschild, too. Twas glorious.
(until they do the same thing to Texas in a couple of weeks)
-
A less talented team with a good mobile QB can cause better teams "issues".
-
Would this league be as appealing if the W/L records varied between 9-3 and 3-9? And the teams bounced around between those marks every few years? Parity?
-
Would this league be as appealing if the W/L records varied between 9-3 and 3-9? And the teams bounced around between those marks every few years? Parity?
Helmet fans would probably not really like being "good" and still only making 5-7.
-
Vandy just stole Bama's steak right off their plate. Swiped their bottle of Chateau Lafite Rothschild, too. Twas glorious.
(until they do the same thing to Texas in a couple of weeks)
Yeah so occasionally a team can be the Spoilermakers or the... uhhh... Spoilerdores?
Only in the new system losing to Vandy doesn't knock Bama out of the playoff, and beating Bama doesn't get Vandy any closer to the playoff.
David beat Goliath. But it was only important because it wasn't a 12-game season where David had to face 12 Goliaths in successive weeks.
-
One reason I don't like the NFL is seeing 10-6 teams (and worse) make the playoffs.
-
One reason I don't like the NFL is seeing 10-6 teams (and worse) make the playoffs.
In 2011, the "World Champions" of the NFL went 9-7 (the Giants vs non-16-0 Pats). Had a 4-game losing streak in November. Lost both its games to 5-11 Washington.
Champs.
-
Because one point lost in all of this realignment discussion is that in these super-conferences, someone's gotta eat the losses. And the helmets don't want to dine at that table.
Yes, that's what I'm saying. But that would happen without tiers. The helmets simply don't buy into their own advantages. They lack confidence?
-
Which is the same BS that the G5 has been dealing with for decades.
I say, why keep the lie going? Why make this a 70-team league. We know that's not what the helmets and helmet-adjacent teams actually want.
This is what I find odd. Why radically change everything if you're just keeping the big, fat lie going? It doesn't make sense.
.
I mean, the skeptic pessimist in me would say these decision-makers (ie money-makers) know a tiered system will create a further gap, so that sometime in the future, the top-tier can break away. But why spend the time to do that? Just propose it now. Stop the foreplay.
.
Also, mimicking the NFL with a lesser on-field product is the WORST idea possible. I can't emphasize that enough. They HAVE to see that, right?!?!?!?
-
[img width=500 height=310.996]https://i.imgur.com/ichjglT.png[/img]
70 teams in 7 groups of 10 would also make a pretty easy 8 team playoff. 7 champs, and the best non champ.
I would make the 3 "non conference" games based on pairing teams who finished in the same position the prior year, like the NFL does.
How do you make anyone care about those non-conference games? I think that best non-champ is determined by overall record, and then "bowl" selections are also determined by overall record. Those bowl payments go directly into the NIL payments to the schools, but only to participating players.
-
Wake me when it happens. It seems to be an unending "discussion", most of which ends up in the weeds.
-
Wake me when it happens. It seems to be an unending "discussion", most of which ends up in the weeds.
In the weeds, between the hedges, what's the difference?
-
I simulated out a season a couple years ago with 8 team conferences, that left nobody out.
After 7 games it went to a 128 team double elimination tournament, that again included everyone, and teams were slotted like FIFA tournaments, where teams were pre-slotted based on their finish within their conference, based on the difficulty of their conference.
It would never happen, but that's a great way to make every game "matter". Even if it's a Game 6 matchup with 5th place on the line, that might mean a home game. And the playoffs would be home games at least down to 16
-
This one has an outside group with direct connections to the SEC/B1G commishes and all the ADs. And a $9 billion kicker.
ELA, an expanded playoff is part of the plan, so I'm thinking 16 teams.
-
One reason I don't like the NFL is seeing 10-6 teams (and worse) make the playoffs.
Of course. And if the NFL were like College Football, those NFL teams would be playing 12 of their 16 (now 17) regular season games against USFL-level football teams. Of COURSE they wouldn't go 10-6.
Parity means that you might lose a few more games than in the past. Better to just make sure you schedule enough teams you can beat so you don't bruise your fragile ego by only going 7-5 because you played real competition.
-
The other thing about being 10-6 is often, I think, you are no better than a 6-10 team, but a few games flipped your way, randomly. You won by 3 points when you easily could have lost by 3.
A lot of the games end up within one score, which to me means the winner is random.
-
The other thing about being 10-6 is often, I think, you are no better than a 6-10 team, but a few games flipped your way, randomly. You won by 3 points when you easily could have lost by 3.
A lot of the games end up within one score, which to me means the winner is random.
Yes, parity. That's kinda how that works.
If I look at this weekends 13 remaining NFL games, not a single one has a spread of >=10 points, per ESPN. Only 1 of the 13 has a spread greater than a TD at 9.5. So 92% have a spread within a TD.
ESPN shows 49 college game odds on the weekend. 8 of them have a spread >20. 28 of the games, or only a little over half (57%), have a spread that's within a TD.
Of the 17 games played involving one of the teams being ranked in the top 25, only 8 have a spread within a TD. 7 games have spreads >20.
It's a lot easier to rack up nice W/L totals when you overmatch your opponents by so much, so often.
-
I turned off the NFL about 30 years ago. I completely lost interest. I think it's more of a betting scheme now than a sport.
It seems clear that CFB is morphing into NFL Lite, and I personally suspect that won't end well in 20 years. It will be the NFL's Minor Leagues, with somewhat comparable interest levels with baseball's minors.
-
It seems clear that CFB is morphing into NFL Lite, and I personally suspect that won't end well in 20 years. It will be the NFL's Minor Leagues, with somewhat comparable interest levels with baseball's minors.
CFB never had the allure it had because of the format, IMHO. It had the allure it had because people form a powerful emotional bond with their alma mater.
Going to an NFL Lite format won't destroy that. Other things might, like a growing apathy from students who don't attend games and then tune out after college, pricing families out of the stands, etc. But not the format.
-
CFB never had the allure it had because of the format, IMHO. It had the allure it had because people form a powerful emotional bond with their alma mater.
How many UGA fans are alumni? Ten percent? Less?
-
How many UGA fans are alumni? Ten percent? Less?
Maybe not a ton, but how many of them had a dad or mom who was an alum? Or a sibling? Or a favorite uncle or grandpa? Or just a close friend?
I think a lot of fandom grows from a personal connection to the school, even if it wasn't you yourself that attended.
And then of course helmet fans get bandwagoners. And there's ND.........
-
I think quite a bit of CFB team fan choice is a result of having a successful program nearby. Folks are Dawg fans because they've been winning, and they live in the state. I doubt many in Idaho are Dawg fans, Braves fans yes. The fans who have some personal connection to the school are probably pretty limited, from what I've seen.
We have Falcons fans here of course, I guess they sell out the stadium often as not (maybe). They are fans because they are here.
ND is indeed a special case.
Would the "Bandwagon" fans lose interest if all this happened? Some would. Same as if the Dawgs started languishing and did a "Florida".
-
Maybe not a ton, but how many of them had a dad or mom who was an alum? Or a sibling? Or a favorite uncle or grandpa? Or just a close friend?
I think a lot of fandom grows from a personal connection to the school, even if it wasn't you yourself that attended.
And then of course helmet fans get bandwagoners. And there's ND.........
There is also a distinction between alums and people who attended. Plenty of people who only attended Ohio State for a few Quarters (they were on Quarters when I was there) are as big of fans as people like me who graduated.
I agree with you, lots of people are fans because of second-level connections.
-
There is also a distinction between alums and people who attended. Plenty of people who only attended Ohio State for a few Quarters (they were on Quarters when I was there) are as big of fans as people like me who graduated.
Of course... And many of those who didn't graduate maybe did so because they were more interested in Buckeye football and Buckeye coeds and Buckeye keg parties than they were in Buckeye classrooms :57:
-
Interestingly, perhaps, I always thought of Cincinnati as a pro sports town, there is an obvious reason of course. But the difference was quite profound relative to here. I see folks with UGA gear frequently (and Tech too, but I'm a couple miles from campus). I only see Falcons gear on Sunday, and then rarely.
Atlanta only attracted pro teams in the 1960s. The tradition here is more college oriented, and it's not close.
-
Getting to Know UGA (fan base and beyond) | mgoblog (https://mgoblog.com/diaries/getting-know-uga-fan-base-and-beyond)
Posted by a Michigan fan back when.
-
Atlanta only attracted pro teams in the 1960s. The tradition here is more college oriented, and it's not close.
I do think this is a trend there in the Southeast. AL, MS, AR, SC, KY all don't have NFL teams, as well as new SEC state OK. NC (not SEC) and TN not until the mid-late 90's. I think it has led to a heavier emphasis on college football than in much of the rest of the country.
-
Yes.
All throughout rural GA, you see UGA stuff in the yards and on vehicles. Almost none of them went to UGA. But the Dawgs were THE representative for that area for decades before any pro teams showed up. The Braves are an institution, but the Falcons (as Cincy said) are not. But the Braves were on TV every day on most every television. And they had sustained success.
Same with the state of FL. The Dolphins were big for a time, but not so much since Marino retired. The Bucs and Jags are 'meh' in the state consciousness. FSU stuff? Plenty. Gators stuff? All over. You'll even see like 3 Canes stickers if you tour the entire state.
People don't realize that all the red areas on political maps are largely college fans, as pro sports tend to belong to and are contained within the big cities (GB notwithstanding).
Good ole state U.
I probably struggle with realizing the appeal of the NFL because of this. I grew up pretending I was Barry Sanders and Emmitt Smith (OK State and UF versions) on the playground. It was super cool to live in Jax as the team was formed, but I wasn't dying to go to Jags games.
Hence 90,000+ every Saturday in smaller college towns > 65,000 in big cities on Sundays
-
There is also a distinction between alums and people who attended. Plenty of people who only attended Ohio State for a few Quarters (they were on Quarters when I was there) are as big of fans as people like me who graduated.
I agree with you, lots of people are fans because of second-level connections.
Not many schools distinguish here. Most (if not all) consider anyone who attended as alumni. Even just for one class.
-
Of course... And many of those who didn't graduate maybe did so because they were more interested in Buckeye football and Buckeye coeds and Buckeye keg parties than they were in Buckeye classrooms :57:
Ed Zachery my situation at UNL
I've never cornsidered myself an alum
I thought I needed a degree to qualify
I've been wrong about many things
It's a great day!
As of this morning I cornsider myself a proud alum of UNL!
-
Yes, you are.
-
I think I logged 6 semesters
memory of the early 80s is a little foggy
-
Not many schools distinguish here. Most (if not all) consider anyone who attended as alumni. Even just for one class.
Uhhh...what? Is this a joke?
-
Not many schools distinguish here. Most (if not all) consider anyone who attended as alumni. Even just for one class.
I consider an alum as a person who graduated. But the definition given says I'm wrong.
alum nus. Merriam - Webster definition of alumnus. 1: a person who has attended or has graduated from a particular school, college or university.
-
Yeah, they make those license plate borders for people that attended 1 class.
-
I'm actually quite surprised at that definition, not that I had given the topic much thought.
I have walked through the Ohio State campus, maybe that is sufficient? I've even walked through Harvard. Maybe I should buy a tie.
-
wonders whether the definition changed a bit or was added to......
-
Uhhh...what? Is this a joke?
Nope. Do some research.
Schools like to send out letters to alumni looking for money all the time.
-
$$$ seems a great reason to alter the definition slightly
-
I mean you say that it will be NFL lite and it won’t end well but NFL is by and large the #1 sport in America with the most viewers and the most money.
-
Nope. Do some research.
Schools like to send out letters to alumni looking for money all the time.
You couldn't cut it here 10 years ago, but maybe now you have some extra cash.....
Awesome.
-
How about we leave the thing the way it is for like 15-20 years. Don’t like the greedy networks and conferences re-arranging stuff every couple years. Definitely against anything called “Rudy.”
-
Imagine a league of 12 teams with perfect parity, say the object was to flip an honest coin. You have say 16 contests in the year, and you'd end up, by chance, with teams having records ranging from about 4-12 to 12-4, obviously most would be in the 6-10 to 10-6 range. It would be exceedingly boring (to me), perfect parity, and a statistical outcome that varied each year without regard to who was "better", as better would be impossible.
-
I mean you say that it will be NFL lite and it won’t end well but NFL is by and large the #1 sport in America with the most viewers and the most money.
Sure but that doesn't mean it's better. Budweiser is a terrible tasting beer but it sells a lot.
But more importantly, most fervent fans of college football have traditionally liked it BECAUSE it is unique. BECAUSE it is not exactly like the NFL. If you remove that, then a lot of the most die-hard college football fans will fade away. I certainly lose interest more and more each passing year, with each change to the sport.
Will those fading college football fans be replaced by NFL fans? NFL fans who already like their sport and don't really need an addition or a substitute? I doubt it...
-
Imagine a league of 12 teams with perfect parity, say the object was to flip an honest coin. You have say 16 contests in the year, and you'd end up, by chance, with teams having records ranging from about 4-12 to 12-4, obviously most would be in the 6-10 to 10-6 range. It would be exceedingly boring (to me), perfect parity, and a statistical outcome that varied each year without regard to who was "better", as better would be impossible.
Yes, your absurd hypothetical is an absurd hypothetical.
The NFL is one of the most parity-positive leagues out there. But they still have coaching. They still have a draft. They still have free agency, trades, and other roster management. And the cream rises to the top.
The idea of parity isn't to turn everything into a coin flip. The idea is to reduce unfair advantages so everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed--and then see which teams do. The way the NFL does it is to have a draft (with picks weighted towards the worst teams), have a CBA defining rookie contracts, and then have a defined free agency system. Also to have a salary cap and defined roster size limits.
College football has historically been all about recruiting, and now has added an immediate [unregulated] transfer portal. It's a system designed to have the haves and have-nots. You just happen to be a fan of one of the haves, so you like it this way.
-
Yes, your absurd hypothetical is an absurd hypothetical.
The NFL is one of the most parity-positive leagues out there. But they still have coaching. They still have a draft. They still have free agency, trades, and other roster management. And the cream rises to the top.
The idea of parity isn't to turn everything into a coin flip. The idea is to reduce unfair advantages so everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed--and then see which teams do. The way the NFL does it is to have a draft (with picks weighted towards the worst teams), have a CBA defining rookie contracts, and then have a defined free agency system. Also to have a salary cap and defined roster size limits.
College football has historically been all about recruiting, and now has added an immediate [unregulated] transfer portal. It's a system designed to have the haves and have-nots. You just happen to be a fan of one of the haves, so you like it this way.
What would be really awesome is if some super rich alum of a not-have college (like Purdue for example) said F it, went out and legally paid for the best players and donated enough money for the best coaches available and started really winning like we've never seen in modern times. Everything possible within the current rules, and maybe even some sketchy shit a little outside the rules that we know all the programs do, because they have to.
I bet it wouldn't take long for the "Have's" to make some rule changes.
-
What would be really awesome is if some super rich alum of a not-have college (like Purdue for example) said F it, went out and legally paid for the best players and donated enough money for the best coaches available and started really winning like we've never seen in modern times. Everything possible within the current rules, and maybe even some sketchy shit a little outside the rules that we know all the programs do, because they have to.
I bet it wouldn't take long for the "Have's" to make some rule changes.
You're effectively seeing this with Oregon-- an historical nobody team.
Now, granted, they started their rise with dirty under-the-table bag money and rampant cheating, but if NIL had been allowed two decades earlier, then the current result would be the same.
There's not really anything that the "Haves" or "Historical Bluebloods" can do about it.
-
Yes, your absurd hypothetical is an absurd hypothetical.
The NFL is one of the most parity-positive leagues out there. But they still have coaching. They still have a draft. They still have free agency, trades, and other roster management. And the cream rises to the top.
The idea of parity isn't to turn everything into a coin flip. The idea is to reduce unfair advantages so everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed--and then see which teams do. The way the NFL does it is to have a draft (with picks weighted towards the worst teams), have a CBA defining rookie contracts, and then have a defined free agency system. Also to have a salary cap and defined roster size limits.
If the NFL had any balls, they wouldn't let teams trade their draft picks. Like MLB. Take the bad decisions out of the hands of the shitty GMs and force those team's rosters get so talented that they can't help but succeed (think Cubs, Astros, and now Tigers).
-
If Oregon didn't win it all with that team in 2014, they never will.
-
I mean you say that it will be NFL lite and it won’t end well but NFL is by and large the #1 sport in America with the most viewers and the most money.
I'm not sure aspiring to be Pepsi is a good plan. No one drinks it when Coke is available.
Being the same product, but worse product on a different day is a shit plan.
Stay different.
-
If the NFL had any balls, they wouldn't let teams trade their draft picks. Like MLB. Take the bad decisions out of the hands of the shitty GMs and force those team's rosters get so talented that they can't help but succeed (think Cubs, Astros, and now Tigers).
Well, you cant accumulate talent the same way in the NFL, simply because of the CBA. You cant draft guys when they are 17 or 18, stash them for a few years, and then still control them.
Also the Astros and Cubs are the only teams that has worked for. The White Sox failed, the Pirates failed. Hell, the Phillies failed, aside from Nola, so they went and bought Harper, Realmuto, Castellanos, Wheeler and Schwarber. The Blue Jays look on the cusp of failing. The Orioles MIGHT work. The Tigers are a poor example because they just had a couple hot months due to Plan B guys. They had two 1-1 picks. One was left off the postseason roster. One was awful, and was back in the minors for most of the year. Their big money free agent (Javy Baez) was also left off the roster. Their best bat was a 16th round pick, and their Cy Young pitcher was a 9th round pick
-
At some point parity gets boring
-
We prefer Pepsi over Coke. Roughly half of the restaurants around here serve Pepsi products.
-
I'm not sure aspiring to be Pepsi is a good plan. No one drinks it when Coke is available.
Being the same product, but worse product on a different day is a shit plan.
Stay different.
241 billion market cap for Pepsi. That’s Billion.
-
coke, pepsi, and other soft drinks should have a surgeon general's warning
-
We limit ourselves to only having it when we dine out, which is twice per week max. Yesterday I had to suffer through a Diet Coke.
-
don't remember the last time I had one
it's been years
-
We used to drink a LOT of the stuff.
I stick to mostly water, Gatorade and iced tea now. No coffee.
Just cracked a Gatorade.
-
I have one cup of coffee each morning to get things movin
-
Yup same here, down to 1 cup a day. It was 2-3 cups for a long time. Before I married my i s c & a aggie wife, I was drinking several cokes per day, so this is likely better.
-
I'm down to 2 cups of coffee a day. They're pretty big mugs though.
Essentially never touch soda. I damage myself enough with beer.
Don't do Gatorade either, except when I play golf or when I'm doing a Peloton ride that's longer than an hour... At that point I'm trying to make sure I'm replacing electrolytes. Other than that, I drink water.
-
Yeah I mostly drink water as well, almost a gallon per day.
I like iced tea just fine but not enough to want to spend an extra $2 or whatever they're charging these days, when we're out to eat. If I'm not drinking beer or wine with a meal while dining out, then water it is.
-
Yeah I mostly drink water as well, almost a gallon per day.
I like iced tea just fine but not enough to want to spend an extra $2 or whatever they're charging these days, when we're out to eat. If I'm not drinking beer or wine with a meal while dining out, then water it is.
I bring my own caffein free mix and put it in their water.
-
I'm not sure aspiring to be Pepsi is a good plan. No one drinks it when Coke is available.
Being the same product, but worse product on a different day is a shit plan.
Stay different.
Coke is my last choice over just about any and all carbonated beverages. I hate going somewhere and all they serve is Coke products
-
Coke is my last choice over just about any and all carbonated beverages. I hate going somewhere and all they serve is Coke products
Ewww. You sound like a yankee.
Coke is it. Can't beat the real thing. Have a coke and a smile.
-
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/big-ten-sec-in-discussions-over-landmark-scheduling-agreement-with-focus-on-revenue-solidifying-cfp-spots/
-
Ewww. You sound like a yankee.
Coke is it. Can't beat the real thing. Have a coke and a smile.
I've never heard that take from anyone. Maybe Canadian?
-
I like an occasional ice cold coke, Pepsi a close second. But rare. Mostly water.
But when I do buy it- it’s the stuff made in Mexico. They use real sugar as opposed to high fructose embalming fluid.
-
241 billion market cap for Pepsi. That’s Billion.
What's Coke's? And specifically Pepsi the soda vs Coke the soda.
-
We prefer Pepsi over Coke. Roughly half of the restaurants around here serve Pepsi products.
You do this a lot. As if your community negates the rest of the earth.
Why do you do this?
-
You do this a lot. As if your community negates the rest of the earth.
Why do you do this?
It's what I see. Is it wrong to point out what I see, and what I prefer?
Is this wrong?
No one drinks it when Coke is available.
Yes, it is.
-
What's Coke's? And specifically Pepsi the soda vs Coke the soda.
You cannot separate them. They operate as one business with different profit centers.
Coke is at around $300 Billion at this time.
-
Mountain Dew is the ultimate cheat code if they carry Pepsi products.
-
I've never liked that stuff. Too sweet.
I like Ginger Ale a lot.
-
Fresca
-
What's Coke's? And specifically Pepsi the soda vs Coke the soda.
I’m not sure the data is available. But nobody on here will claim that Pepsi as a stand alone beverage is more popular than coke, because we all know that coke is #1, even for the people on here who prefer coke.
But, we can also all agree that Pepsi, the beverage not the company, is wildly successful as well.
Myself, I’m actually more of a Dr Pepper man.
-
I’m not sure the data is available. But nobody on here will claim that Pepsi as a stand alone beverage is more popular than coke, because we all know that coke is #1, even for the people on here who prefer coke.
But, we can also all agree that Pepsi, the beverage not the company, is wildly successful as well.
Myself, I’m actually more of a Dr Pepper man.
Posted above.
Coke $300 Billion
Pepsi $241 Billion
You cannot separate them into Coke and Pepsi only. They are one business with different profit centers.
-
Well, no shit Sherlock. But Pepsi owns fast food chains ( Taco Bell! ) and chips and all kinds of other enterprise.
Coke has all sorts of businesses as well.
I’m not going to look it up, but I don’t have to to know that Coke is the number one soda, and Pepsi is not. By how much, who knows ?
-
My info was outdated. Pepsi sold their food division years ago, but they still own Lays.
-
I was going to say... Sherlock.
-
They used to have those Kentucky-Taco-Huts at rest stops, back when Pepsi owned all three.
-
Yep.
-
You can find the data out there. I saw it in MBA grad school many years ago, whatever the most updated Harvard Business Cases most likely have it.
-
It's what I see. Is it wrong to point out what I see, and what I prefer?
Is this wrong?
Yes, it is.
Idk, you just seem to not understand or not care about statistical significance.
I found a source that pinpointed only 4 areas where more people drink Pepsi than Coke. Middle Appalachia, Montana, North Dakota, and Buffalo NY. The whole rest of the country prefers Coke, which is an overwhelming % of the population.
Let's use WV for "middle Appalachia" and do some math. Those 4 places have about 3.25 million people. The US at large has 335 million. That's less than 1%. For a product to be so widely available - at nearly half the food places, every gas station, tons of vending machines (Pepsi's issue is NOT availability) and to only be preferred by 1% of the country tells us something.
It tells us a great deal more than what you see around you.
.
And while $241 billion dollars is a ton of money and this "yeah but" and that "you're wrong," my point is quite sound.
But let me be more precise, just for you.
When both are available, an overwhelming percentage of people prefer Coke - so overwhelming that the percentage that prefer Pepsi is statistically insignificant.
Happy?
(and it's stupid I have to waste time posting this)
-
Move along.
I prefer Pepsi and it's not close.
I could not care less what others prefer.
You literally posted EVERYONE would order Coke over Pepsi.
Deal with it.
Move along.
-
I think this makes you an "old cuss."
Valuing your sample size of one over the 99%. Cool.
-
Plenty of folks buy Pepsi when Coke is right there.
-
Plenty of folks buy Pepsi when Coke is right there.
And more buy Coke. Coke is higher in sales than Pepsi. This has been true for as long as any of us have been alive.
But, this has become a silly argument regardless.
-
Sure, but the hyperbole and absolutism merits being called out.
-
And more buy Coke. Coke is higher in sales than Pepsi. This has been true for as long as any of us have been alive.
But, this has become a silly argument regardless.
We know all of this.
But, if literally nobody buys Pepsi, they'd stop making it.
I refer you to Coke's shutdown of Tab, for example.
-
In Europe they don't have Diet Coke, they have Coca Cola Light. And it's not the same thing, it actually has some sugar in it, just not as much. It tastes better than the artificially sweetened diet drinks here in the USA.
-
Sure, but the hyperbole and absolutism merits being called out.
Statistically, it's not hyperbolic at all. But no one is interested in validity, it seems.
Coke is Alabama, Pepsi is Auburn. It's the red-headed stepchild of soda and we all know it. And the people in Buffalo NY probably only 'prefer' it because it has the Bills' colors.
-
In Europe they don't have Diet Coke, they have Coca Cola Light. And it's not the same thing, it actually has some sugar in it, just not as much. It tastes better than the artificially sweetened diet drinks here in the USA.
Most cruise ships I've been on also have Coke Light. It does taste better, but not as good as Diet Pepsi.
-
Most cruise ships I've been on also have Coke Light. It does taste better, but not as good as Diet Pepsi.
Now you're just goading me, lol. Diet Pepsi is swill. Look at the sales. Diet Coke makes as much money as regular Coke. Pepsi is now way behind, even being surpassed by Dr Pepper. Diet Pepsi isn't even on any breakdown list I can find. It might as well be RC Cola, which I no doubt believe you find lovely.
-
Most cruise ships I've been on also have Coke Light. It does taste better, but not as good as Diet Pepsi.
Diet Pepsi has the same artificial sweetener gross aftertaste flavors as Diet Coke and all of the other zero cal/zero sugar diet drinks, so I can't agree with you there.
Regardless, I rarely drink any of them anymore. I reserve pretty much all of my sinful high calorie consumption for beer, wine, and various mixed drinks.
-
Now you're just goading me, lol. Diet Pepsi is swill. Look at the sales. Diet Coke makes as much money as regular Coke. Pepsi is now way behind, even being surpassed by Dr Pepper. Diet Pepsi isn't even on any breakdown list I can find. It might as well be RC Cola, which I no doubt believe you find lovely.
Hey now, full-sugar Royal Crown Cola is delicious. You're from the South, sort of. Haven't you ever heard of RC Cola and moonpies?
-
Does RC still exist? I don't think I've seen it on shelves here.
-
Yup it's still around, but understandably gets very little shelf space in stores.
-
Diet Pepsi has the same artificial sweetener gross aftertaste flavors as Diet Coke and all of the other zero cal/zero sugar diet drinks, so I can't agree with you there.
Regardless, I rarely drink any of them anymore. I reserve pretty much all of my sinful high calorie consumption for beer, wine, and various mixed drinks.
(https://i.imgur.com/sbiW8hT.jpeg)
Yes. Aspartame. We have always referred to it as “assflames”
-
Never thought I'd see a semi-heated debate amongst grown men over cola. LOL
FWIW -- Coke is better than Pepsi. But, the only way I can drink one, on rare occasion, is a fountain drink, or a canned drink poured over ice.
Those plastic bottles --- gross. Just about everything tastes nasty out of those --- except water.
And even if I was 500 lbs, I'd never drink a diet soda of any kind. How can anyone choke it down? That taste never goes away, and anyone that has ever been accidentally served a diet Coke in place of a regular Coke, knows exactly what I am talking about.
-
Even as someone who had four diabetic grandparents, I'd rather drink regular Coke and deal with the consequences than drink roofing tar disguised as Diet Coke.
-
I prefer the tastes of the diets versus the regular.
Too sweet for my pallet.
I could not tolerate Diet Rite or Tab under any conditions. Rather drink bunny piss.
-
I'm not sure I ever had a Tab. As kids we drank fully leaded soft drinks and my parents didn't drink them at all, they drank iced tea.
-
MSU will be playing their 5th consecutive night game against Michigan next week. On a 5th different network.
I think part of the problem is they have killed night games = big game. They stick random games there to fill time slots. Then FOX realized they could dominate noon.
If they do reach some joint agreement, I hope they do something much more like the NFL in terms of scheduling (stupid Thursday night aside)
Like if the P4 agreed to all put their 2 biggest games at 3:30 and 7:30, and every other game at noon, you would get 4 big games at 3:30, 4 big games at 7:30, and then tons of games at noon, that may not be "big" but by quantity, a few are likely to be big, and you can find those.
Obviously won't happen because they wouldn't want BTN or SECN or whatever to have nothing to show after 4, but ir would be better for viewing, and I think bring back big game feel to late afternoon/primetime
-
My wife likes Coke, so we have it on hand. I drink maybe 6 a year, I do my best to avoid sugar (fructose in particular). I certainly prefer Coke to Pepsi, but other folks feel differently of course. There isn't much Pepsi to be had around these parts outside Kroger et al.
My ex would drink Tab and bourbon. That's what she'd order, either that or "house Chablis" when we were out and about. Bartenders uniformly found Tab and bourbon to be weird. I think "house Chablis" is weird now, but didn't know any better then.
I recall when Gallo sold their version of "chablis" and something called "Hearty Burgundy", which is kind of an oxymoron and them some, sort of akin to "Calfornia Champagne" (which is still allowed for some brands).
-
MSU will be playing their 5th consecutive night game against Michigan next week. On a 5th different network.
I think part of the problem is they have killed night games = big game. They stick random games there to fill time slots. Then FOX realized they could dominate noon.
If they do reach some joint agreement, I hope they do something much more like the NFL in terms of scheduling (stupid Thursday night aside)
Like if the P4 agreed to all put their 2 biggest games at 3:30 and 7:30, and every other game at noon, you would get 4 big games at 3:30, 4 big games at 7:30, and then tons of games at noon, that may not be "big" but by quantity, a few are likely to be big, and you can find those.
Obviously won't happen because they wouldn't want BTN or SECN or whatever to have nothing to show after 4, but ir would be better for viewing, and I think bring back big game feel to late afternoon/primetime
Stick to the topic, dammit!
-
Statistically, it's not hyperbolic at all. But no one is interested in validity, it seems.
Instead of saying "no one buys Pepsi", which is an absolute, one could accurately just say "More folks buy Coke than Pepsi, given the option."
It's a matter of plain English and being accurate, if one is interested in validity.
In communication, precision is often useful over hyperbole and overgeneralizations.
-
Stick to the topic, dammit!
Sorry, I have to take drink a lot of Coke to stay up late to watch a crappy team
-
The whole coke vs pepsi thing is weird to me as a buyer for reasons I can't fully explain other than some kind of subconscious deep advertising brain-washing "thing".
For example, sometimes I'm out and about and for whatever reason they don't have my drink of choice, Dr Pepper. So they have coke. I'll drink a coke for the first time in forever and think. that was good.
Next time they'll have pepsi, but not coke. I'll get the pepsi, and think, that was actually really good, I like Pepsi just as much as I like Dr. Pepper. But, when I'm out and about and they have Coke or Pepsi, I always choose the coke, never the pepsi, unless I'm really thinking about it.
So whatever coke has done advertising wise over the last 100 or so years must work really well, because I almost always choose coke, even through my taste buds prefer pepsi.
-
"I'd like to teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony."
-
The whole coke vs pepsi thing is weird to me as a buyer for reasons I can't fully explain other than some kind of subconscious deep advertising brain-washing "thing".
For example, sometimes I'm out and about and for whatever reason they don't have my drink of choice, Dr Pepper. So they have coke. I'll drink a coke for the first time in forever and think. that was good.
Next time they'll have pepsi, but not coke. I'll get the pepsi, and think, that was actually really good, I like Pepsi just as much as I like Dr. Pepper. But, when I'm out and about and they have Coke or Pepsi, I always choose the coke, never the pepsi, unless I'm really thinking about it.
So whatever coke has done advertising wise over the last 100 or so years must work really well, because I almost always choose coke, even through my taste buds prefer pepsi.
I'll always have a Pepsi if that's what they serve, it's not a big deal. But it's weird that an inferior brand built their whole thing on being anti-establishment against "Big Soda" and yet they still exist. It feels like a thing that should be "remember in the 80s when Pepsi was a thing for like 5 years?"
-
I'll always have a Pepsi if that's what they serve, it's not a big deal. But it's weird that an inferior brand built their whole thing on being anti-establishment against "Big Soda" and yet they still exist. It feels like a thing that should be "remember in the 80s when Pepsi was a thing for like 5 years?"
I remember it well. Was you around for "New Coke"?
It was actually a boon for Coke, because they were losing market share and going down, and then after New Coke fizzled the demand for OG was back and then got higher.
-
water in plastic bottles sucks
-
In Europe they don't have Diet Coke, they have Coca Cola Light. And it's not the same thing, it actually has some sugar in it, just not as much. It tastes better than the artificially sweetened diet drinks here in the USA.
Coke Zero?
-
Hey now, full-sugar Royal Crown Cola is delicious. You're from the South, sort of. Haven't you ever heard of RC Cola and moonpies?
Not together, no. I used to eat a moonpie at my Granny's house. We never had them at home. They're a bit much.
RC Cola has a horrific aftertaste.
-
Instead of saying "no one buys Pepsi", which is an absolute, one could accurately just say "More folks buy Coke than Pepsi, given the option."
It's a matter of plain English and being accurate, if one is interested in validity.
In communication, precision is often useful over hyperbole and overgeneralizations.
What I said was statistically accurate.
No, 100% of all humans don't prefer Coke. But you're being absurd to take that as my meaning. As you often do.
A 12-inch pizza is only 2 inches 'smaller' than a 14-inch pizza, but it's far, far smaller area-wise. That's like the difference between Pepsi and Coke. Pepsi makes x-millions of dollars. Great. It lags far behind Coke, for a reason.
Pepsi is a 2nd-rate plain soda. Arguing against it is bizarre. 99% of the country prefers Coke. I'll drink both. Both are drinkable, but one is appreciably better, as per the evidence.
-
Pepsi isn't allowed to manufacture cocaine.
-
What I said was statistically accurate.
No, 100% of all humans don't prefer Coke. But you're being absurd to take that as my meaning. As you often do.
A 12-inch pizza is only 2 inches 'smaller' than a 14-inch pizza, but it's far, far smaller area-wise. That's like the difference between Pepsi and Coke. Pepsi makes x-millions of dollars. Great. It lags far behind Coke, for a reason.
Pepsi is a 2nd-rate plain soda. Arguing against it is bizarre. 99% of the country prefers Coke. I'll drink both. Both are drinkable, but one is appreciably better, as per the evidence.
You make almost zero sense. First you argue that 100% of people don’t prefer coke, but then later on you state that 99% do. You’re basically almost contradicting yourself in the same sentence, because it’s not anywhere near 99%, and if were then Pepsi literally would not exist.
FWIW “ coke” has about a 20% market share, Pepsi sits at about 9%.
PS I really enjoy it when these little discussions start and everyone gives their little take about it and then we argue about mostly meaningless points and counterpoints.
I’m just so happy we’re not discussing the many varieties of chili again.
-
Pepsi isn't allowed to manufacture cocaine.
whale shit
-
Anytime you see someone drinking a diet Coke, offer them a Mentos.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/Lw7QFhX3YSxTW/200.gif)
-
You make almost zero sense. First you argue that 100% of people don’t prefer coke, but then later on you state that 99% do. You’re basically almost contradicting yourself in the same sentence, because it’s not anywhere near 99%, and if were then Pepsi literally would not exist.
FWIW “ coke” has about a 20% market share, Pepsi sits at about 9%.
PS I really enjoy it when these little discussions start and everyone gives their little take about it and then we argue about mostly meaningless points and counterpoints.
I’m just so happy we’re not discussing the many varieties of chili again.
You're having trouble understanding that not literally 100% of all people prefer Coke, but that 99% of areas do?
That's on you, friend.
The population of the areas that prefer Pepsi make up under 1% of the population. I can't believe I'm taking the time to type this out, but okay. You and cincy require it. Sure, people within the areas most people prefer Pepsi have people that prefer Coke, and yes, there are people in the entire rest of the country (99%+ of the overall population) that prefer Coke have some that prefer Pepsi. But Coke is the preferred soda in areas that contain 99% of the population.
Pepsi still exists because sometimes people buy it when it's the only option available. Or if it's on sale. Or if their taste buds are as wrecked as Badge's. Your market share numbers include diet drinks and other flavored-sodas, which skew the data. Pepsi's market share was 15% in 1985 and has halved since then. It's virtually equal with Dr Pepper, Diet Coke, and Sprite.
I can't find just Coke vs just Pepsi sales, but it's dramatically more radical than 20% vs 8%.
Pepsi exists just for the sake of variety. For the <1% who prefer it. But the industry is so big, it makes tons of money. Good on them.
But swinging this absurd tangent all the way back around to the original point, college football should not aim to be Pepsi. It should, to keep the drink thing going, aspire to stay different, a la a Sprite or Gatorade or whatever the fuck.
Being the same product as the NFL, but a worse one, may make plenty of money. But it sucks. You can make as much money being related, but different, as college football has been leading up to today.
-
cfb is still football. Sprite and Gatorade would be baseball and basketball.
-
In 2023, volume of Pepsi flagship fell by 4.7%, allowing Dr Pepper, which saw a 0.2% decline in volume, to finish the year with a slight market share advantage over Pepsi (8.34% to Pepsi's 8.31%; Coca-Cola was first by far with 19.2% share).
Apparently, a lot of folks do buy Pepsi even if Coke is right there at Kroger. And yes, Coke has been in first place for a long time. One can actually use posted figures to support one's position, they are readily available with this search function. One also can be somewhat nuanced and less absolutist when the data are in fact not 100% either way.
-
You're having trouble understanding that not literally 100% of all people prefer Coke, but that 99% of areas do?
That's on you, friend.
The population of the areas that prefer Pepsi make up under 1% of the population. I can't believe I'm taking the time to type this out, but okay. You and cincy require it. Sure, people within the areas most people prefer Pepsi have people that prefer Coke, and yes, there are people in the entire rest of the country (99%+ of the overall population) that prefer Coke have some that prefer Pepsi. But Coke is the preferred soda in areas that contain 99% of the population.
Pepsi still exists because sometimes people buy it when it's the only option available. Or if it's on sale. Or if their taste buds are as wrecked as Badge's. Your market share numbers include diet drinks and other flavored-sodas, which skew the data. Pepsi's market share was 15% in 1985 and has halved since then. It's virtually equal with Dr Pepper, Diet Coke, and Sprite.
I can't find just Coke vs just Pepsi sales, but it's dramatically more radical than 20% vs 8%.
Pepsi exists just for the sake of variety. For the <1% who prefer it. But the industry is so big, it makes tons of money. Good on them.
But swinging this absurd tangent all the way back around to the original point, college football should not aim to be Pepsi. It should, to keep the drink thing going, aspire to stay different, a la a Sprite or Gatorade or whatever the fuck.
Being the same product as the NFL, but a worse one, may make plenty of money. But it sucks. You can make as much money being related, but different, as college football has been leading up to today.
Well, from your original argument it wasn't clear you were speaking about "99%" of the areas prefer coke, so that is a little more plausible.
Here is the info I found:
"In 2023, volume of Pepsi flagship fell by 4.7%, allowing Dr Pepper, which saw a 0.2% decline in volume, to finish the year with a slight market share advantage over Pepsi (8.34% to Pepsi's 8.31%; Coca-Cola was first by far with 19.2% share).[color=var(--IXoxUe)]Sep 30, 2024"[/color]
-
The reality of it is that there is no such thing as "Pepsi vs Coke" anymore because not even 99%, or 75%, or 50%, or even 25% of the country prefers coke. What they prefer is variety, energy drinks, some like Dr. Pepper like myself, some like Gatorade (a pepsi product), some like tea, some like Sprite or 7-Up.
-
There is a plethora of drink options, sure, but there still are data on Pepsi vs Coke.
The story of Coke is pretty interesting, it's a pretty basic product. I wouldn't have thought it could dominate the market decade after decade. And of course it's not good for us healthwise. Marketing.
-
Chili does not contain beans.
-
There are all sorts of "soup-like" dishes that folks call "chili". When I was a kid, the term "coke" meant soft drink. It might be Sprite or Nehi or Mt. Doo.
They were all cokes.
Coke probably means something different in Miami.
-
I think those days are over, for Miami.
-
Yup in most of Texas, coke was a generic term for soft drink/pop/soda. I think that's changing though, and largely because kids these days aren't drinking nearly as much coke.
-
It was pop in Illinois.
-
Had a few transplants through the years offer me a can of pop. I had no idea what they were referring to the first time or two.
-
Yup in most of Texas, coke was a generic term for soft drink/pop/soda. I think that's changing though, and largely because kids these days aren't drinking nearly as much coke.
why would that matter?
if the term wasn't about coke
-
https://youtu.be/TnXArm-NViI?si=uT5zi7eaERUlX30-
-
why would that matter?
if the term wasn't about coke
Many of them aren't drinking soft drinks at all, anymore. Nobody is going to call an energy drink a coke, for whatever reason. Just soda pops, I guess.
-
https://youtu.be/TnXArm-NViI?si=uT5zi7eaERUlX30-
Ha! Back when there was cola wars- some thee commercials were pretty good.
-
Rock-and-roller Cola Wars, I can't take it anymore
-
Here is SW Tennessee:
"What can I get for ya?"
"I'll have a Coke."
"Sure. What flavor?
"Uh....Sprite."
"You got it hun. Coming right up."
-
Here is SW Tennessee:
"I'll have a Coke."
"Sure. What flavor?
"Uh....Sprite."
"You got it hun. Coming right up."
Yup, same here for Texico, at least when I was growing up.
"Hey everybody, I'm going to the corner store to grab some cokes before the game starts. Anybody want one?"
"Sure!"
"Ok, what do you want?"
"I'll take a Dr. Pepper, thanks!"
-
Here is SW Tennessee:
"What can I get for ya?"
"I'll have a Coke."
"Sure. What flavor?
"Uh....Sprite."
"You got it hun. Coming right up."
Got rid of the wasted words for ya.
Around here, if I order a Coke, I'm getting a Coke.
-
Got rid of the wasted words for ya.
Around here, if I order a Coke, I'm getting a Coke.
Yeah, we know. We've already acknowledged you're a yankee "pop" guy.
Around here, if you say the word "pop," you'll get laughed at and branded as a silly yankee.
-
It is remarkable here how prevalent "sweet tea" is on menus. My wife adores the stuff.
-
It is remarkable here how prevalent "sweet tea" is on menus. My wife adores the stuff.
It's so gross.
It wasn't even a thing in Austin two decades ago. If you ordered "tea" it was iced tea, plain, no sweetener added. On your table, was a little wire basket that held packets of sugar, sweet 'n' low, or later splenda, to stir into your tea, if you so desired.
Nowadays, that sickly diabetes juice is everywhere. If you order "tea" the next question is "sweet or unsweet?" It's a damn shame it's come to this.
That's probably another reason I just drink water instead.
-
Yeah, we know. We've already acknowledged you're a yankee "pop" guy.
Around here, if you say the word "pop," you'll get laughed at and branded as a silly yankee.
You ask for a "pop" in the South, and you might get popped upside the head.
-
I would never order a "pop".
When asked, I say Diet Pepsi, because nobody likes Coke.
-
I would never order a "pop".
When asked, I say Diet Pepsi, because nobody likes Coke.
And down here they'd look at you funny and say, "we serve Coke not Pepsi" unless you're at a Taco Bell I guess. Because nobody likes Pepsi.
-
I would never order a "pop".
When asked, I say Diet Pepsi, because nobody likes Coke.
So, IOW -- I'll have the shittiest tasting beverage on your menu, please. Thanks! :)
-
Full disclosure.
I used to drink Diet Coke. Then it turned into Diet Woke.
So, Diet Pepsi it is.
If I'm drinking pop, that is.
-
Full disclosure.
I used to drink Diet Coke. Then it turned into Diet Woke.
So, Diet Pepsi it is.
If I'm drinking pop, that is.
My wife is the same way. Except it was regular Coke, now Pepsi.
She didn't want to be less white. Go figure.
Myself -- I try not to touch the stuff. Rare occasions only.
-
Full disclosure.
I used to drink Diet Coke. Then it turned into Diet Woke.
So, Diet Pepsi it is.
If I'm drinking pop, that is.
Yeah I'm just jawing with you. It's been over 20 years since I regularly drank Coca Cola or any other soft drinks.
I'll occasionally get a fountain coke at a restaurant at lunchtime, when it's mixed right and has a really nice carbonated burn. But that' only a couple of times per year.
-
I don't stock it at home. I generally get water when we are out to lunch, and add my own decaf tea mix to it. Unless they have decaf tea (they never do).
-
I don't stock it at home. I generally get water when we are out to lunch, and add my own decaf tea mix to it. Unless they have decaf tea (they never do).
If you have 5 minutes...worth a listen. LOL
https://youtu.be/T-8p2-se3Ik?si=gB2DrNMjvU51E5zd
-
That's pretty good.
I've been advised to avoid caffeine due to my condition, which should change soon.
-
My wife developed a caffeine allergy in her mid 20s, which greatly reduced my pop intake. We mostly only had it around for her. Now that our oldest is 11, I imagine it will start sneaking back in
-
My wife developed a caffeine allergy in her mid 20s, which greatly reduced my pop intake. We mostly only had it around for her. Now that our oldest is 11, I imagine it will start sneaking back in
Oof. That's rough. I can't imagine. I'm dependent enough that I can't cut caffeine out or I'll end up with withdrawal headaches...
How bad is the allergy? I assume she also then can't have anything chocolate? I'm not a huge sweets eater, but aggressively bitter dark chocolate is one of my soft spots...
-
Oof. That's rough. I can't imagine. I'm dependent enough that I can't cut caffeine out or I'll end up with withdrawal headaches...
How bad is the allergy? I assume she also then can't have anything chocolate? I'm not a huge sweets eater, but aggressively bitter dark chocolate is one of my soft spots...
Chocolate gives her a slight headache. Fortunately for both of us, her thing is fruity, gummy stuff, so she didn't have to change, and you can put a whole pile of that stuff out, and it won't tempt me.
She never liked coffee, but she loves tea and pop. We keep decaf coffee in the house, but there are so many places that don't have anything caffeine free except Sprite or Hi-C. We ate lunch on Tuesday at a small sandwich shop by us, that had 8 different teas, including peach tea, which is her favorite, but no decaf
-
I got on a caffeine test group at work long ago. I fonud the project interesting, so I started attending their meetings. Tea, I learned, has a "dampening" effect on caffeine metabolism (and it has less than coffee to start). Their idea was to develop a soft drink with the same impact, rather than a caffeine rush and then nothing, a drawn out impact over time.
I started following another project to develop artificial sweeteners so sweet you'd only need a tiny amount making the safety concerns less. They had some good candidates, but they all had a lingering aftertaste. Those folks would make compounds in the lab and then taste them. Oof.
The other interesting thing is how many molecules taste sweet and look nothing like the others that taste about the same. Saccharine structurally is very different from sucrose.
-
Full disclosure.
I used to drink Diet Coke. Then it turned into Diet Woke.
So, Diet Pepsi it is.
If I'm drinking pop, that is.
Jesus christ. You're a pill.
-
There is a plethora of drink options, sure, but there still are data on Pepsi vs Coke.
The story of Coke is pretty interesting, it's a pretty basic product. I wouldn't have thought it could dominate the market decade after decade. And of course it's not good for us healthwise. Marketing.
It's bubbly candy water. That has something to do with it.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/lLa7x2n.png)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/grE4Np2.jpeg)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/grE4Np2.jpeg)
😂😂
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xffOCZYX6F8
-
(https://i.imgur.com/lLa7x2n.png)
I've been to a handful of Penguins games, but they always do an "ask the player" and they ask "Pop or Soda?" Pop gets a standing ovation, soda gets booed. But I think Philly calls is soda, so that's probably the cruz of it
-
I got on a caffeine test group at work long ago. I fonud the project interesting, so I started attending their meetings. Tea, I learned, has a "dampening" effect on caffeine metabolism (and it has less than coffee to start). Their idea was to develop a soft drink with the same impact, rather than a caffeine rush and then nothing, a drawn out impact over time.
I started following another project to develop artificial sweeteners so sweet you'd only need a tiny amount making the safety concerns less. They had some good candidates, but they all had a lingering aftertaste. Those folks would make compounds in the lab and then taste them. Oof.
The other interesting thing is how many molecules taste sweet and look nothing like the others that taste about the same. Saccharine structurally is very different from sucrose.
I’ve got this vision in my head of you being like Chevy Chase from “ Vacation “. He was a food additive chemist.
-
(https://y.yarn.co/ba757605-7ff9-4b47-a15d-c9eb8808dfb2_text.gif)
-
You're a pill.
Looking in the mirror again?
-
Looking in the mirror again?
You changed which diet soda you drink based on politics. 'Nuff said.
-
I remember liking the new Coke OK as an elementary school aged little twerp, which is weird because I didn't care for Pepsi all that much, and that's supposedly what they were going for. In fact I typically favored the new Coke over the Classic at that age, because it had a better can.
Did it actually taste like Pepsi? Or not even close?
The only time I messed with Pepsi back then was when they unleashed the "cool cans"
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/58/f4/0a/58f40a87dabedfe61a2416285d66a334.jpg)
-
You changed which diet soda you drink based on politics. 'Nuff said.
Politics?
Nope.
Policy.
-
New Coke won in blind taste panels, so does Pepsi, as I understand it. Apparently it's not that close, if you taste the two blind most of "us" prefer Pepsi.
Humans like sweeter things.
-
most humans