https://twitter.com/maxwellklitzke/status/1542566779062566913?t=I7hnbhXWyh0RCNWtcxcTPQ&s=19
https://twitter.com/clubtrillion/status/1542575154093387777?t=XHrF_29G8bDXPvlU7agPOg&s=19The SEC has been a megaconference.....since 2006, lol.
Love it.Do you really love it? Why? Just curious.
Good move. Just keep going and get Oregon, Washington- get to 20.
The Trojans and Bruins should make Arrowhead Stadium their shared eastern 'home.'Wouldn't be any emptier than playing in LA
Wouldn't be any emptier than playing in LATo be fair, their stadiums are usually pretty full... when playing each other.
Do you really love it? Why? Just curious.Fair question. I guess the best way to answer is to say it like this:
I thought most of you B1Gers were pretty traditional.
Personally I dislike every bit of realignment that's occurred since about 1990.
Fair enough.Yeah, this
For me, I'd describe moves like this, as "making the best of a bad situation." I could never say that I love it. I couldn't even say that I like it. I just accept it as inevitable and will try to make the best of it.
Fair enough.Well said.
For me, I'd describe moves like this, as "making the best of a bad situation." I could never say that I love it. I couldn't even say that I like it. I just accept it as inevitable and will try to make the best of it.
Fair enough.This is where I'm at. A road game in Los Angeles every year will be strange.
For me, I'd describe moves like this, as "making the best of a bad situation." I could never say that I love it. I couldn't even say that I like it. I just accept it as inevitable and will try to make the best of it.
Fair enough.Exactly this! College Sports will never be what I grew up with? But I’m sure previous generations thought the same.
For me, I'd describe moves like this, as "making the best of a bad situation." I could never say that I love it. I couldn't even say that I like it. I just accept it as inevitable and will try to make the best of it.
Exactly this! College Sports will never be what I grew up with? But I’m sure previous generations thought the same.No it's really spun off it's axis
Sounds like Kansas and Oregon
https://twitter.com/wilnerhotline/status/1542597968296964096?s=20&t=8k6spRLI7SNAk9z9URuBLA
The ACC has, maybe, one chance at a hail mary- Notre Dame football.
Well, in the buffet of life, sometimes you get the last piece of tough, dry chicken fried steak and sit down just as they dump a fresh batch of crab legs up there.....This is just one of many reasons NEVER to get CFS at a buffet. Ugh. Nasty.
For expansion, yea, I agree.The ACC will be getting paid so much less than the new SEC and B1G contracts will provide, there's not much chance of them ever keeping up. Same was true of the PAC, which is precisely why USC and UCLA made the choice to jump.
For football they are in decent shape. Clemson has shown they can do it. Put the right people around Florida State or Miami and I'm sure they could win a natty as well.
This is just one of many reasons NEVER to get CFS at a buffet. Ugh. Nasty.I haven't had a non-breakfast buffet in 20 years. You can warm mediocre breakfast food in anything
If the SEC was smart, we wouldn't be so good at football.FIFY
I haven't had a non-breakfast buffet in 20 years. You can warm mediocre breakfast food in anythingMostly agree, although there are a couple of places here that have a fantastic pizza buffet.
Ok, they'd still talk about the best way to get someplace....but change topics of cheating and traffic to how great the Rose Bowl is and how the SEC isn't the best conference.😂😂👍
Just remember, this is all Texas' fault.Obviously.
The ACC will be getting paid so much less than the new SEC and B1G contracts will provide, there's not much chance of them ever keeping up. Same was true of the PAC, which is precisely why USC and UCLA made the choice to jump.Horn and Sooner fans would know
Make's Big Jim's panic grab of Maryland/Rutgers look even worse than we thoughtcan always dump those two for a better looking pair
@ELA (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=55) , I'm not sure why you're looking back.I'm not looking back, in the sense that those are independent conferences couple. I think the move is all over the major football schools merging together and abolishing conferences. Granted the SEC and Big Ten have no incentive to do that
That being said, the only way we can go back is if these super conferences go to 20 programs in 2 ten-team divisions.....we'd have old-school conferences under a larger umbrella. They COULD even keep their divisions separate (like AL/NL used to be in MLB), with the champs facing off in the CCG (a la the first few Super Bowls - NFL/AFL).
So it's possible, but probably unlikely.
can always dump those two for a better looking pairWouldn't be the first established rich guy to ditch what he had for a better looking pair
Horn and Sooner fans would know
Make's Big Jim's panic grab of Maryland/Rutgers look even worse than we thoughtMaybe this will fix that problem.
I think it this point going beyond 16 is contingent on getting ND at 17, then you can pretty much do whatever you want at 18/19/20, and the B1G would likely add something like Washington/Oregon/Stanford to give UCLA/USC travel partners.So get Stanford and Navy to get ND?
ND's TV deal with NBC currently pays it $20M per year, the new B1G deal is rumored to be $100M per year:
https://twitter.com/wilnerhotline/status/1542589074770259968?s=20&t=LwbPmIcgv9-2OXHe__tTsQ
At some point the "ND has money" argument begins to fail - I don't know where that is, but it seems like it at least becomes relevant at 5X with all the new NIL rules. Plus the B1G just grabbed one of ND's longest rivals in USC, and Stanford could be in play as well.
I don't see any scenario where ND would consider the SEC over the B1G now that USC (and maybe Stanford) would be on board. Would they want to compete with their academic standards in the SEC as a northern outpost in a southern conference? Or against many historical rivals with similar academic standards. There really isn't a good "fit" argument for the SEC after this USC add.
ND to the East, Stanford or Washington or Oregon to the west
9 in each division - 9 game sched - one crossover, might as well make it permanent - USC vs ND
get to 10 in each div with a 9 game sched and there you have it, Two conferences under one media contract.
Perfect
I don't like this in football because you basically are two separate conferences then. You would need to go to 4 divisions and rotate, which would work great with 9 conference games.NO!!!
I think it this point going beyond 16 is contingent on getting ND at 17, then you can pretty much do whatever you want at 18/19/20, and the B1G would likely add something like Washington/Oregon/Stanford to give UCLA/USC travel partners.Notre Dame fans think I'm nuts when I say this but the biggest problem with Notre Dame is that their academics don't meet B1G standards.
ND's TV deal with NBC currently pays it $20M per year, the new B1G deal is rumored to be $100M per year:
https://twitter.com/wilnerhotline/status/1542589074770259968?s=20&t=LwbPmIcgv9-2OXHe__tTsQ
At some point the "ND has money" argument begins to fail - I don't know where that is, but it seems like it at least becomes relevant at 5X with all the new NIL rules. Plus the B1G just grabbed one of ND's longest rivals in USC, and Stanford could be in play as well.
I don't see any scenario where ND would consider the SEC over the B1G now that USC (and maybe Stanford) would be on board. Would they want to compete with their academic standards in the SEC as a northern outpost in a southern conference? Or against many historical rivals with similar academic standards. There really isn't a good "fit" argument for the SEC after this USC add.
@ELA (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=55) , I'm not sure why you're looking back.I'm not looking back, I'm talking something where the conferences are dissolved for football purposes
That being said, the only way we can go back is if these super conferences go to 20 programs in 2 ten-team divisions.....we'd have old-school conferences under a larger umbrella. They COULD even keep their divisions separate (like AL/NL used to be in MLB), with the champs facing off in the CCG (a la the first few Super Bowls - NFL/AFL).
So it's possible, but probably unlikely.
Notre Dame fans think I'm nuts when I say this but the biggest problem with Notre Dame is that their academics don't meet B1G standards.
Allow me to explain: Notre Dame has very strong undergraduate academic programs and would easily be one of the top undergraduate institutions in the league. Undergraduate academics, however, are not what this league is about. Academically what the league cares about is graduate/research programs because that is where the money is.
Notre Dame simply isn't a graduate/research institution. I don't mean this to pick on them, it just isn't what they do. Their research programs aren't anywhere close to the B1G.
Which schools out there are the major money makers left hanging?Aside from Notre Dame-- Texas and OU to the SEC, and USC and UCLA to the B1G, are really the last big media rights captures that move the needle all that much.
UNC UVA FSU Miami? Oregon Washington Colorado Oklahoma State? ND Clemson
NCSU BC Kansas? KState?
Think beyond just football.
I don't really feel like Iowa is "rivals" with anyone in the B1G outside of Minnesota/Wisconsin/Nebraska. I'd include NW too, but it's not a trophy game.I agree, but playing the same teams each season builds something that is favorable, especially for the fans.
Everyone outside of those three I consider "like minded associates" who I root for outside of them playing Iowa. I don't think you need more than 3/4 "rivals", otherwise the term gets a bit watered down, wouldn't you agree?
Aside from Notre Dame-- Texas and OU to the SEC, and USC and UCLA to the B1G, are really the last big media rights captures that move the needle all that much.Ed Zachery
Any other additions to a conference would only provide minimal incremental revenue.
Which makes me think the next moves from any conference, will be vanity/prestige adds, or strategic ones to capture Notre Dame. Getting Stanford into the B1G works toward BOTH of those goals.
I don't really see any advantage to adding Oregon to the B1G. They're a dangerously competitive athletics school that doesn't really bring any television markets or recruiting areas to the table. They pose great risk to the existing powers in the B1G, but provide little return. I'd be surprised if Oregon is actually under serious consideration.
Aside from Notre Dame-- Texas and OU to the SEC, and USC and UCLA to the B1G, are really the last big media rights captures that move the needle all that much.You are a smart man.
Any other additions to a conference would only provide minimal incremental revenue.
Which makes me think the next moves from any conference, will be vanity/prestige adds, or strategic ones to capture Notre Dame. Getting Stanford into the B1G works toward BOTH of those goals.
I don't really see any advantage to adding Oregon to the B1G. They're a dangerously competitive school that doesn't really bring any television markets or recruiting areas to the table. They pose great risk to the existing powers in the B1G, but provide little return. I'd be surprised if Oregon is actually under serious consideration.
Ed ZacheryThe only two suitable schools from Texas are in the SEC. Nothing else moves any needle. We don't need another Rutgers.
I'd guess Arizona is the bigger TV market than the other PAC programs
Perhaps the Big could add a program from Texas to force the BTN into that TV market?
The only two suitable schools from Texas are in the SEC. Nothing else moves any needle. We don't need another Rutgers.
agreed, but the same reason we have Rutgers applies to a Texas programThat's no longer occurring in all markets in NY/NJ, some carriers are flat out refusing, and I'd expect the same refusal in the state of Texas unless the B1G had nabbed UT or TAMU. The cable subscriber model is dying anyway. Rutgers was a really bad take, in hindsight.
forced carry of the BTN for the entire state
You are a smart man.
And the whole AAU thing went out the window when UNL was allowed in.
Take Stanford and ND and Washington, and grab one more of either Colorado, Arizona, or ASU.
You now have the ND market, the bay area market, the Seattle market, and the Denver market or the PHX market.
This is all about TV.
I think Oregon delivers more eyeballs than any of Colorado/Arizona/ASU though, and I don't think it's even close.My point is, the amount of eyeballs delivered by Oregon, is a small fraction of the Los Angeles schools. At this point, we've reached the point of diminishing returns for television market consideration. Other than Notre Dame, the final big gets on the board for eyeballs, were Texas/OU and USC/UCLA. And they're now off the board.
The argument could certainly be made that's a byproduct of Phil Knight/Nike money and if that ever goes away, they might be a dumpster fire, but in terms of TV ratings (not market), Oregon is a better bet than Denver/Phoenix, because I don't think Colorado/ASU/Arizona actually deliver those markets.
You guys should LOVE this, every school gets to play in the Rose Bowl every few years!I have complete confidence the gators would get there somehow
I don't like this in football because you basically are two separate conferences then. You would need to go to 4 divisions and rotate, which would work great with 9 conference games. You play everyone in your division every year, then a sister division that rotates every season. Something like:I could see this working.
Pacific
USC
UCLA
Oregon
Stanford
Washington
Great Plains
Wisconsin
Iowa
Nebraska
Minnesota
Illinois
Great Lakes
Ohio State
Michigan
Michigan State
Purdue
Indiana
Atlantic
Penn State
Notre Dame
Northwestern
Rutgers
Maryland
Pretty good competitive balance across the board there. The division you play rotates every season, so you play everyone in the conference twice ever six years, and you play everyone in your division every season.
The only rivalry there that got sacrificed was NW/Illinois - I split them because I figure you'd want to maximize Chicagoland access for most fan bases, plus, Notre Dame's two largest markets are reportedly Chicago & NY - thus why a division with Rutgers/NW would make a lot of sense for them.
No protected crossovers, and never a repeat in the CCG (which would be the winner of the two "paired divisions" each year).
I think Oregon delivers more eyeballs than any of Colorado/Arizona/ASU though, and I don't think it's even close.ratings are one thing and probably more inportant going forward
The argument could certainly be made that's a byproduct of Phil Knight/Nike money and if that ever goes away, they might be a dumpster fire, but in terms of TV ratings (not market), Oregon is a better bet than Denver/Phoenix, because I don't think Colorado/ASU/Arizona actually deliver those markets.
Have the Gators ever played in the Rose before?Florida has, if you append "State".
I rather enjoyed UT's two trips to play in the Rose Bowl game.
Does Rotel get grandfathered in under the original BTN ad fee structure?There was that other one, something about caring for kids with some disorder. That and Rotel were the only commercials, it seemed.
Rotel is okay but one of our regional grocery chains here in Texico has a tastier canned tomato/green chile product. It provides the base for many a chile con queso around here.Is this the spicier diced tomato thing? I don't use it. I do like my chili.
There was that other one, something about caring for kids with some disorder. That and Rotel were the only commercials, it seemed.Wasn't there also an aftershave or cologne in that original mix?
There was that other one, something about caring for kids with some disorder. That and Rotel were the only commercials, it seemed.Barbasol
I'm thinking the SEC grabs Clemson, UNC, Virginia or VT, and Miami or Dook.UNC, Virginia, Oxford and Heidelberg. Screw the Sorbonne, France ain't got no dlinemen.
I would happily trade Rutgers for Virginia. Let the ACC have the "NYC" market.
UNC, Virginia, Oxford and Heidelberg. Screw the Sorbonne, France ain't got no dlinemen.(https://i.imgur.com/dfGnlxD.png)
Is this the spicier diced tomato thing? I don't use it. I do like my chili.
Or whatever it is, no beans.
Stanford, ND, Florida State and Miami?Makes more sense to me than going after Oregon and Washington.
Gets into Florida, where so many alum live.
My Civil War theory remains intactFor now . . .
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTjtmmGy6YUzEq2wm17LrzN7_DpPZwQg9WzIg&usqp=CAU)
I really don't see how ND is going to stay independent or loosely tied to the ACC anymore. They're just not going to be able to remain competitive, making $30M-$40M/year, when the B1G and SEC teams are going to be getting closer to $100M/year. A delta of 10 or 20 per year might be manageable, but a delta of $60M/year? That'd be willingly jumping on the fast-track to irrelevance.perhaps NBC will open the purse a bit wider
perhaps NBC will open the purse a bit widerI mean, they'd have to almost quadruple their current offering. I guess it could happen?
perhaps NBC will open the purse a bit widerThey give them terrible announcers that they hate, and stick some of their games on their Peacock steaming site.
Travel time would be awesome.
We could always add Air Force, with the caveat that they have to fly us around to all these games in every sport.
Kentucky really never seceded, aktually. North Carolina was the last state to secede, they and Virginia went after Sumter. Had Lincoln let South Carolina and the rest go, no war, a kind of small southern country, and still slave states in the US.In a perfectly good realignment thread (which everyone LOVES), did you just advocate for continued slavery the past 160 years?!?!?!
Might have been a better choice?
Land Grant Pod: PSU, MSU, UMd, RUCould work for 16, but not for 20, which is where we are headed.
Woody Schembechler Pod: OSU, UM, IU, PU
Lumberjack Pod: MN, WI, ILL, NW
Surf n Turf Pod: UNL, Iowa, USC, UCLA
.
Each team plays the 3 in their pod and 2 from each of the others (9 gms), and the other 2 from the other pods the next year.
Is this the spicier diced tomato thing? I don't use it. I do like my chili.Don’t hit me with them negative waves so early in the morning.
Or whatever it is, no beans.
Land Grant Pod: PSU, MSU, UMd, RUDon’t hit me with them negative waves so early in the morning.
Woody Schembechler Pod: OSU, UM, IU, PU
Lumberjack Pod: MN, WI, ILL, NW
Surf n Turf Pod: UNL, Iowa, USC, UCLA
.
Each team plays the 3 in their pod and 2 from each of the others (9 gms), and the other 2 from the other pods the next year.
Without USC/UCLA, the PAC is in worse shape than the New Big 12. Both financially, and competitively. If any poaching occurs, it'll likely go the other direction.as with the SWC and the Big 8, it doesn't really matter which conference is a bit stronger, they are both in trouble and need each other's help
as with the SWC and the Big 8, it doesn't really matter which conference is a bit stronger, they are both in trouble and need each other's help
just put together the top 16 or 18 or 20 or whatever programs west of the mississippi and call it a conference
many apply, few are acceptedThis is the Bug Eaters chance to bolt might start racking up some Titles again.They'll even let you bring the Runzas and Bud fat
perhaps, but it'll probably last longer than if both conferences try to continue with a bunch of lesser programsI don't think it really matters one way or the other TBH.
Without USC/UCLA, the PAC is in worse shape than the New Big 12. Both financially, and competitively. If any poaching occurs, it'll likely go the other direction.Maybe the BIG should have left the Bruins and grabbed the Ducks
This is the Bug Eaters chance to bolt might start racking up some Titles again.They'll even let you bring the Runzas and Bud fattrue, now that the Horns and Sooners and Aggies and Buffaloes and Tigers are gone, the Huskers could possibly win the Big 12
Maybe the BIG should have left the Bruins and grabbed the Ducks
I think the Ducks are a terrible add for the B1G. I'd consider that a big mistake. Not Rutgers-bad, but still unnecessary and stupid.Well the whole thing starting a decade ago is stoopid. It just seems like UCLA can't get their collective selves together on the field - hope that changes
I mean BYU might arguably be the helmetiest team in the new Big 12, and they are an elevated mid major. Yet their competition for the honor is OSU2 and West Virginia.You're confusing history with ratings, and in reality it's not working out that way. All that "prestige" in the PAC isn't turning on TV sets. Nobody in California or the west coast gives a shit about watching college football. The B12 leftovers' and newbies' TV ratings are superior to the PAC leftovers.
If they joined the Pac 12, they'd be behind Oregon, UDub and Stanford in prestige at the very least, and there are probably a few others that are ahead of (or at least equal to) OSU2 and WV's prowess. Plus they'd have four other teams in their own time zone, instead of being an extreme geographic outlier in a conference that contains the prestigious brands of UCF and Cincinnati.
I mean, come on. The choice is obvious.
I think in the past, conferences panicked when change started and ended up doing things they later regretted.Other than the B1G adding Rutgers, what else does this apply to?
I suspect we're about to see that again.
So do Big Companies, even Exxon, et al. I've seen some of the PR efforts from the inside.PR for them is spending a few million to continue to bring in billions.
The SEC adding Mizzou.The only thing the SEC didn't like about Mizzou joining was their lucking into 2 East titles before setting into their role of cannon fodder for the name programs.
You're confusing history with ratings, and in reality it's not working out that way. All that "prestige" in the PAC isn't turning on TV sets. Nobody in California or the west coast gives a shit about watching college football. The B12 leftovers' and newbies' TV ratings are superior to the PAC leftovers.
And that's all that matters.
The only thing the SEC didn't like about Mizzou joining was their lucking into 2 East titles before setting into their role of cannon fodder for the name programs.
Getting 2 decent-sized markets' clicks and eyeballs was good.
(https://i.imgur.com/v7hreLW.jpg)
You have tried to pawn Mizzou off on us in multiple realignment threads.
That's called regret.
That logic inspired USC and UCLA, but that was the Big 10 instead of the new Big 12. Big difference.Money is what's enticing and BYU leaving for a PAC leftover conference without USC and UCLA, would result in lower earnings than in the New Big 12.
BYU would be in a conference that contains four teams from their timezone including their primary rival, plus Oregon, Stanford, Cal and UDub.
Probably a little more enticing than chasing the Cincinnati and Orlando markets in a conference where the closest team is two large states away, with nothing that even remotely resembles a rivalry, while OSU2 and W Virginia are your biggest games.
https://twitter.com/BiggerTen/status/1543266491394658307?s=20&t=Wt_mGzmIL54yHQOFhTtAgQ
Money is what's enticing and BYU leaving for a PAC leftover conference without USC and UCLA, would result in lower earnings than in the New Big 12.Schools like Notre Dame, Stanford and BYU are uniquely situated in ways quite different from one another, but it makes predicting what they do a lot more difficult than a Texas or USC.
The television ratings are clear, and that's all that matters.
https://twitter.com/BiggerTen/status/1543266491394658307?s=20&t=Wt_mGzmIL54yHQOFhTtAgQand of the 9, how many were Texas/Oklahoma, USC/ND, and a combination of the Texas, Oklahoma, Notre Dame, USC/UCLA???
Yup. That's pretty much all that needs to be said, about this current topic. The gap between the haves and have nots has never been bigger, and it's only widening every year.I'm not so sure,I guess it depends on who ponies up the endorsement money.For instance this prolly fall right into Oregon/Nike's lap.How will it affect smaller venues such as bama or clemson.I'm guessing the Horns and Aggies should be OK maybe vaulted to the fore front but what about the sooners?I suppose the sooners may or may not be able to keep up So Cal should be fine. Personally i think it's all a bag of snakes. But hey maybe Warren Buffet gets the "Skers but up to snuff again.Catholic Church has a lot of coin doesn't mean its going to south bend.How many donators are there in Lousianna? Could see some perennial contenders where there previously weren't any. Hell the 'Canes might even be in the convo again
I'm not so sure,I guess it depends on who ponies up the endorsement money.For instance this prolly fall right into Oregon/Nike's lap.How will it affect smaller venues such as bama or clemson.I'm guessing the Horns and Aggies should be OK maybe vaulted to the fore front but what about the sooners?I suppose the sooners may or may not be able to keep up So Cal should be fine. Personally i think it's all a bag of snakes. But hey maybe Warren Buffet gets the "Skers but up to snuff again.Catholic Church has a lot of coin doesn't mean its going to south bend.How many donators are there in Lousianna? Could see some perennial contenders where there previously weren't any. Hell the 'Canes might even be in the convo again
Kentucky really never seceded, aktually.
Congrats, guys, you got your college-NFL. ThanksBig 10!!! SEC SEC SEC
I'm thinking the XII is wishing it would have waited to add schools now that the shit has hit the fan. Probably should have added only Cincy and BYU. Then the PAC 10 schools to get to 20.They have to leave room for ND
But, which conference would decide to fold and move to the other?
Abd which schools would the Big PAC XX add when Washington, Oregon and Stanford leave for the B1G, with ND?
Anyway, the B1G has informed Oregon and Washington that it is standing pat. For now.
I'm thinking the XII is wishing it would have waited to add schools now that the shit has hit the fan. Probably should have added only Cincy and BYU. Then the PAC 10 schools to get to 20.
But, which conference would decide to fold and move to the other?
Abd which schools would the Big PAC XX add when Washington, Oregon and Stanford leave for the B1G, with ND?
Anyway, the B1G has informed Oregon and Washington that it is standing pat. For now.
Dixie originally meant south of the MD line between MD and PA.
Anyway, the B1G has informed Oregon and Washington that it is standing pat. For now.Since it's obvious no one in CFB now has dignity,conscience or class just grab them and toss out Rutgers/Maryland. Those two are like going deer hunting and not taking along the accordion .As Lincoln once said too many pigs for the tits
Congrats, guys, you got your college-NFL. Thanks Big 10!!!Speaking of yesterday...
.
Union Conference
East - UVA, UNC, Duke, Md, RU, Syr, PSU, ND
Central - OSU, UM, MSU, IU, PU, ILL, Minn, Wis
West - USCw, UCLA, Stan, Ore, Wash, Neb, Iowa, NW
.
Confederate Conference
East - VT, NCST, USCe, Clem, UGA, Miami, UF, FSU
Central - ALA, Aub, UTK, Vandy, UK, UL, OM, MSU
West - LSU, Ark, Mizz, Texas, A&M, OU, OKST, TCU
Also, don't be shocked if Washington leaves the NW schools in their wake. They consider their peers to be the California Pac schools, and have a long history of refusing to play ball with the other NW schools. UDub has sold them out for far less than the amounts being bandied about here.You'd think some one wants beavers though. GR read up on Alonzo Cushing also took one for the team as did many.
The two NW "state" schools may get left out.Could be? It'll be interesting to see how tied together they are, by their state politicians.
:34:
GaTech of course departed the SEC back when but the GOFH game was continued (goofy name for it). I bet few of us know much at all about Wazzu and Oreozu.Wish PiratesRoost were still around, he'd likely have some insight.
I don't.
I'm thinking the XII is wishing it would have waited to add schools now that the shit has hit the fan. Probably should have added only Cincy and BYU. Then the PAC 10 schools to get to 20.
But, which conference would decide to fold and move to the other?
Abd which schools would the Big PAC XX add when Washington, Oregon and Stanford leave for the B1G, with ND?
Anyway, the B1G has informed Oregon and Washington that it is standing pat. For now.
Also......here's my dream scenario for an expansion to 20 teams. A little different than the typical division format in most leagues since it would incorporate subdivisions. Don't think it would work if they went beyond that number though.Great plan right there.
First......the smart move is to keep as many traditional rivalries in the same subdivision as possible. And as I brought up prior....I think the best thing they could do with four five-team subdivisions is have two of them merge each season to create one of six divisions. Northeast/Southwest, Northwest/Southeast, Northsouth/EastWest. Ten teams....each play every other team for a nine game conference schedule. Removes a lot of the hand wringing with unbalanced schedules. If one division is much stronger than the other....they get to send two teams to the four team playoff as each subdivision is not guaranteed a playoff spot.
Could have a tenth conference game as a protected rivalry if needed. Doesn't count toward division record....but does count in cases of tiebreakers.
Am I the only one who thinks this would kind of kickass? Now you don't really have any other 'faceless' conference opponents as each team will be directly and indirectly competing with every other conference team at least every three years. Obviously subdivision opponents every year.
Great plan right there.
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska and USC.
Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue, Michigan and UCLA.
Indiana, Michigan State, Ohio State, Stanford, Miami.
Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, Florida State, Notre Dame.
Or something like it.
@FearlessF (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=10)
Hell no, you're not blaming the SEC for this. We added 2 schools that came to us, one of which was already inside our footprint and another that borders it.
The B1G making this kind of leap is the beginning of the end of college football as we know it. If the SEC had done this, all you guys would be chiding it as a destructive overreach...because it is. It's lunacy.
@FearlessF (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=10)you think the Big went to USC and the SEC didn't go to Texas?
Hell no, you're not blaming the SEC for this. We added 2 schools that came to us, one of which was already inside our footprint and another that borders it.
The B1G making this kind of leap is the beginning of the end of college football as we know it. If the SEC had done this, all you guys would be chiding it as a destructive overreach...because it is. It's lunacy.
What's the worst way by which they could be divided up into pods?that's ed zachery what might happen
What's the worst way by which they could be divided up into pods?
How's that alliance going? Remember that? I guess the B1G doesn't.
you think the Big went to USC and the SEC didn't go to Texas?You're deflecting. It's already been reported that USC/UCLA came to the Big Ten.
ok
the SEC atking in Texas and OU is extreme, maybe not quite as much, but it set the stage for the BIG to do the sameNo more extreme than adding Missouri and A&M. No more extreme than adding Rutgers (haha) and Maryland. It was status quo, the footprint-adjacent fish we caught just happened to be huge. Sorry/not sorry.
In an attempt to remain the SEC's peer, the B1G took in 2 programs 4 states away from its footprint.
no, it will be much worse than thatWell legends and leaders would be a good start,Right 🤮
You'd rather flat-out lie, publicly, than agree with me. FFS
Four States? California borders Arizona, Nebraska borders Colorado, while Colorado and Arizona give each other a little kiss in the four corners region. They are separated by only two states.
I am surprised that you didn't take an even more scenic route; up through the Dakotas and then counter clockwise around the entire perimeter of the country, lol.
Well legends and leaders would be a good start,Right 🤮
.You must be referring to badge allowing you to post on the this board in which case I'd agree
There is nothing you can say that points the blame for this mess at anyone other than the B1G.
You'd rather flat-out lie, publicly, than agree with me. FFS
Nebraska > Colorado > Utah > Nevada > California.....4 states away. There are 3 states between them.
.
I could have drawn a line from Lincoln to Los Angeles, which goes through 4 states, but I didn't. You're the one pirouetting across the 4 corners area. You're a dishonest interlocutor, and that's about the worst thing I can call someone onine.
You're deflecting. It's already been reported that USC/UCLA came to the Big Ten.
The massive difference, which you all want to sweep under the rug, is that the SEC took in 2 helmet programs that kept with the status quo (the gradually expanding your footprint method) and the B1G taking in 1 helmet program and its red-headed stepchild that is a continental mountain range and a swath of desert away.
In an attempt to remain the SEC's peer, the B1G took in 2 programs 4 states away from its footprint. That's extreme. That's a wacky domino that is now mucking everything up.
.
There is nothing you can say that points the blame for this mess at anyone other than the B1G.
Nebraska started it and DeLoss will finish itNah, Nebraska did a great job of finishing themselves off, all on their own. In your face, DeLoss.
oops
Nah, Nebraska did a great job of finishing themselves off, all on their own. In your face, DeLoss.finished to a good spot
finished to a good spotLOL.
inspite of Deloss and his face
the Big is a good place , chicken or otherwise
enjoy bending over for the SEC SEC SEC
apparently DeLoss didn't want to take it to the SEC back when he was in power
all he finished was his career
yup, would have been a much more admirable thing to wait until now to wait for the Horns to sell out to the SEC SEC SEC and then scramble to find a spot
the Horns have proven they were willing to shit on their conference mates to grab whatever for themselves
and that is what the Huskers did to protect themselves
same/same
neither are better than the other
Huskers just had better foresight than Douchebag DeLoss
my school bailed for more money and a more stable money source long term
I've always admitted this
DeLoss is a douchebag
he might as well have moved for more money back when he was in power. he didn't do anything admirable or worthy of note
he is what he is. Admit it and move on
That Nebraska people still feel the need to rationalize their own greedy move to the B1G and bring up Texas, really tells us every single thing we need to know about the motivations behind that move, and the guilt you still feel about it.
Fuck that chicken, fuckboy.
It's funny to see Nebraska being called the greedy one. Wasn't it Texas who demanded their own network so that they didn't have to share profits with other conference members? No wonder Colorado, Nebraska, Mizzou, and Texas A&M bolted. It's quite possible that the Big 12 would have survived mostly intact had they made different choices.
It's funny to see Nebraska being called the greedy one. Wasn't it Texas who demanded their own network so that they didn't have to share profits with other conference members? No wonder Colorado, Nebraska, Mizzou, and Texas A&M bolted. It's quite possible that the Big 12 would have survived mostly intact had they made different choices.to be fair, Nebraska was fine with not sharing and had the jump on Texas for their own network
You might wanna double-check your facts here. Nebraska not only voted against a B12 network, but Tom Osborne has openly and proudly stated that Nebraska was closer to establishing its own single-school network than Texas was, when they chose to bail on the B12.you type faster than I
Don't believe me? Fearless will confirm. He knows it's true.
to be fair, Nebraska was fine with not sharing and had the jump on Texas for their own networkI don't disagree with this at all. Bad choices were shared by everyone in the conference.
but, yes, if Texas and Nebraska would have had a better relationship back in the day, the Big 12 might be together and in a much better place today
yup, the Big 12 was doomed from the start
I blame DeLoss
I'd guess every single Aggie would as well
so, you might be correct, but you're out numbered
;)
You might wanna double-check your facts here. Nebraska not only voted against a B12 network, but Tom Osborne has openly and proudly stated that Nebraska was closer to establishing its own single-school network than Texas was, when they chose to bail on the B12.
On top of that, Nebraska voted FOR unequal revenue sharing that favored themselves, EVERY single time it came up in B12 commissioner conferences.
Don't believe me? Fearless will confirm. He knows it's true.
ya know......
we agree much more often than we ever thought we would back in the 90s
but, it's all good
except that we're old
Well, I'm fuckin old
Did not know all of that. Sounds like it was just a dysfunctional thing all around. The others figured out that sharing profits was in the best interest of the conference.You are 100% correct.
yes, but that didn't save the Big East, the ACC, or the PAC
they're all screwed
No...in the end it didn't. But those conferences also didn't have a mass exodus of teams openly pleading like starving orphans for someone to take them in.Well, there wasn't anything of the Big East left for that to happen, was there?
Well, there wasn't anything of the Big East left for that to happen, was there?
As for the PAC, we're already seeing Oregon and Washington begging the B1G like starving orphans.
And the ACC? It's really just a question of whether or not the B1G and SEC decide to carve them up like Sunday's turkey dinner. It's just a matter of time.
It's the unfortunate truth of conference realignment. Some programs are going to lose. And most of the college football fans lose too.let's stay positive
It's the unfortunate truth of conference realignment. Some programs are going to lose. And most of the college football fans lose too.
and you'd think that would eventually hurt the flow of moneyI think eventually it will.
I think eventually it will.
Universities are already seeing it in the form of declining attendance, especially among actual current students. They've priced average fans out of the market, so dads who love the sport are no longer able to take their kids to games and form that lifelong bond. When those kids get to school, they don't care as much, and they don't attend. They graduate and don't take the next generation of kids to games, and the spiral of decline increases.
TV money is still there, for now, but if you're not creating new fans then you're not creating new television viewers. The whole thing is bound to collapse on itself at some point.
The B1G is standing down for now because they are going to take Texas and Oklahoma before they jump to the SEC.let's GO!!!
LOL.Were you hammered last nite? Lotta "F" bombs
Yeah keep fucking that chicken if you want.
Do you really love it? Why? Just curious.
I thought most of you B1Gers were pretty traditional.
Personally I dislike every bit of realignment that's occurred since about 1990.
Novelties wear off.That's why I don't get married.
What I love about the upcoming season is that Tennessee thinks it's good again. How many times can they cry wolf? It's adorable.
Phil Fulmer got a job with homeland because no one else could empty a place of 100,000 people so fast.
As for home attendance:To hammer home the point.
Washington > Southern Cal (seating capacity +20,000)
Oregon > UCLA (seating capacity +38,000)
And, it is not even close.
Novelties wear off.
That's why I don't get married.Trolling has never worn off but evidently you've suffered from low "T" for quite some time
That's why I don't get married.
That's why I don't get married.Yeah, that's why. :)
As for home attendance:until the novelty wears off, home attendance will increase
Washington > Southern Cal
Oregon > UCLA
And, it is not even close.
I guess this is our de facto Realignment thread, so I'll put this here:The best thing for the strongest remaining teams in both the B12 and PAC would be to get rid of the dead wood by creating a new conference made up of the strongest without the weaker members.
https://twitter.com/TomFornelli/status/1544357573830361090?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1544357573830361090%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.surlyhorns.com%2Fboard%2Findex.php%3Fapp%3Dcoremodule%3Dsystemcontroller%3Dembedurl%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FTomFornelli%2Fstatus%2F1544357573830361090
The best thing for the strongest remaining teams in both the B12 and PAC would be to get rid of the dead wood by creating a new conference made up of the strongest without the weaker members.
Note:
Strong and weak as used herein refer to media rights money generation not on field/court performance.
I don't disagree with the sentiment, but you should probably take a look at television ratings per school. Some of the B12 schools you're proposing to cull, get better TV ratings than every PAC school you listed, other than Oregon.The complication, and I don't know how to solve it, is that the past ratings were based on a different situation. When Texas, Oklahoma, aTm (formerly) etc were in the B12, their fans had a reason to want to know how the other B12 schools looked.
That's the PAC's real problem and there's no solution for it. People just don't want to watch them play football. Not even their own fans.
Baylor and Oklahoma State are better at football than about half of your Pac12 improved Big12. NM or NM State shouldn't even be in the conversation.Honestly, nobody making these decisions cares. It isn't about being "good at football", it is about being good at generating media rights MONEY.
I guess this is our de facto Realignment thread, so I'll put this here:The tables have turned. 12 years ago the PAC almost had 6 Big 12 teams join.
https://twitter.com/TomFornelli/status/1544357573830361090?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1544357573830361090%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.surlyhorns.com%2Fboard%2Findex.php%3Fapp%3Dcoremodule%3Dsystemcontroller%3Dembedurl%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FTomFornelli%2Fstatus%2F1544357573830361090
The complication, and I don't know how to solve it, is that the past ratings were based on a different situation. When Texas, Oklahoma, aTm (formerly) etc were in the B12, their fans had a reason to want to know how the other B12 schools looked.
I don't know how much things will change going forward. Maybe in the past you (and Texas fans generally) watched other B12 games when the Longhorns were not playing and now will you watch the more local B12 teams or your new SEC league-mates?
Californians and West Coasters generally just not caring about CFB is definitely an issue, I agree. My list is guesswork, if I were an actual AD, I think I'd ask multiple networks for estimates and work off of that.
The tables have turned. 12 years ago the PAC almost had 6 Big 12 teams join.Yup. What goes around comes around.
Honestly, nobody making these decisions cares. It isn't about being "good at football", it is about being good at generating media rights MONEY.Well, I think some of the Big12 teams you left out would put plenty of eyes on TV sets since you omitted the Texas TV market at first whack.
Well, I think some of the Big12 teams you left out would put plenty of eyes on TV sets since you omitted the Texas TV market at first whack.Texas is a hugely populous state with 29 million residents as of the 2020 census but I assumed that the three biggest CFB draws in Texas (UT-A, OU, aTm) are all either in the SEC or about-to-be in the SEC and thus basically unavailable.
Texas is a hugely populous state with 29 million residents as of the 2020 census but I assumed that the three biggest CFB draws in Texas (UT-A, OU, aTm) are all either in the SEC or about-to-be in the SEC and thus basically unavailable.
That 29 million figure is huge but it is less than three times the population of each of the four current (before USC/UCLA) most populous B1G states:My contention is that the #4 draw in TX (whoever that may be) simply isn't all that valuable because even starting from 29M, there aren't all that many fans left after the top three.
- PA, 13M
- IL, 12.8M
- OH, 11.8M
- MI, 10.1M
@utee94 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=15) , out of curiosity, how would you rank the biggest CFB draws in Texas.TAMU still likely gets more viewers overall in the state, than OU does, but OU gets more of the Dallas/Fort Worth market than the ags, and the ags get more of the Houston market than OU.
I assume that Texas is a clear #1 but I don't know if #2 would be aTm or OU. After that I'm purely guessing at #4 and below, thoughts?
Does TT and TCU have many fans who are not somehow attached to the school? My guess is Texans with no specific attachment are either UT or A&M fans, more of the former. I'd guess those schools have few fans outside a 50 miles circle from campus.West Texans who don't have any reason to favor a team in Texas, often like Texas Tech. It's very regional.
So from my list above, which schools would get culled?
The two Arizona schools:
I think you'd want a presence in Arizona and if you are dropping just one, I'm not sure which. My impression is that Zona has more BB success while ASU has more CFB success. ASU is in the Phoenix metro area which is substantially more populous than the Tucson metro area so I guess keep ASU and drop Zona.
The two Bay Area schools:
Realistically one or both of these may be off the table anyway. Assuming they are available you might only want one but would you want Stanford or California?
Colorado, I assume stays.
Utah/BYU:
According to Google there are 6.6M Mormons in the US. If that were a state it would be #18 between Indiana and Maryland.
Utah has 3.3M people which is #30 between Connecticut and Iowa.
Both of those sound worth keeping but there is a whole lot of double counting going on here because a little better than half of the people in Utah are Mormons.
My guess is you'd be better off with BYU because they probably have a lot more fans nationally.
The PacNW, Washington and Oregon:
Washington is the 13th and Oregon the 27th most populous state with 7.7M and 4.2M residents respectively.
I see those both as worth keeping for this hypothetical league if only based on potential.
Kansas:
Kansas is the 35th most populous state with under 3M residents but probably worth keeping.
West Virginia:
West Virginia is the 39th most populous state with about 1.8M residents but they seem to draw a lot of fans across Appalachia so I think they are worth keeping.
UCF:
The good is that Florida is immensely populous with 21.6M people as of 2020 and rapid growth. The bad is that you are fighting the SEC (UF) and the ACC (FSU and Miami) for them as fans. I think they are worth keeping based largely on potential.
Non-big3 TX schools (after UT-A, aTm, and OU):
Based on @utee94 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=15) 's response, maybe Baylor is more worthwhile than I thought. This hypothetical league would probably benefit from some connection to Texas but too many Texas schools isn't good and even with utee's input we can't seem to even rank them past the top three, let alone figure out where to draw the line.
After those I suggested some possibilities:
Cincinnati:
The problem here, as I see it, is that Cincinnati has almost zero draw outside the immediate Cincinnati metro area. Moreover, even within that area they are at best #2 behind the Buckeyes.
A New Mexico school:
This may not be worthwhile but bringing in New Mexico's 2.1M population could be.
A Nevada school:
Nevada's 2020 population was #32 at 3.1M and growing rapidly. The Las Vegas media market is #40 in the US. I think UNLV would make sense.
Air Force:
Not sure what their popularity is.
Yup. What goes around comes around.this would be absolutely FABULOUS !!!
There are also rumors around, now, that Texas and OU are going to back out of their proposed move to the SEC, and move to the B1G instead. I'm not going to lend any credibilityto those rumors by posting them here, but if it were to happen, maybe we finally get our Wisconsin-Texas game.
https://twitter.com/bobtrollsby/status/1544387062538846216?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1544387062538846216%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.surlyhorns.com%2Fboard%2Findex.php%3Fapp%3Dcoremodule%3Dsystemcontroller%3Dembedurl%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fbobtrollsby%2Fstatus%2F1544387062538846216%3Fs%3D2026t%3DIgtu1SLNPfcsC0pMPpqvtQSoooo....Oregon State then?
Soooo....Oregon State then?Heh!
Heh!
Soooo....Oregon State then?Seriously, if they are planning to take the six most valuable what would that be?
Seriously, if they are planning to take the six most valuable what would that be?
My guess:
- Oregon
- Stanford
- California
- Washington
- Colorado
- ASU
- Utah
- Arizona
- Washington State
- Oregon State
Maybe?
Why is it a bad add outside of geography? Backers with deep pockets and a rabid fanbase not huge but they bring a level of excitementI think Oregon is a bad add for the B1G because they're TOO competitive. They don't bring significant TV markets nor do they bring any new recruiting grounds that the B1G didn't already gain by adding UCLA/USC. But, they're good enough to challenge the established powers of the B1G and beat them on the field. They're 4-0 in games aginst the B1G over the last 5 years. Why add a potential loss for your top teams and a very likely loss for the bottom 2/3 of your conference, if it's not bringing in any incremental TV dollars and it's not opening up new recruiting grounds?
I think Oregon is a bad add for the B1G because they're TOO competitive. They don't bring significant TV markets nor do they bring any new recruiting grounds that the B1G didn't already gain by adding UCLA/USC. But, they're good enough to challenge the established powers of the B1G and beat them on the field. They're 4-0 in games aginst the B1G over the last 5 years.Hell ya bad add
Seriously, if they are planning to take the six most valuable what would that be?I think WSU is comfortably behind the rest. They had pockets of success with football, but Oregon State has much better investment across the board I believe. Not that either one is much of a catch
My guess:
- Oregon
- Stanford
- California
- Washington
- Colorado
- ASU
- Utah
- Arizona
- Washington State
- Oregon State
Maybe?
Seriously, if they are planning to take the six most valuable what would that be?1. Oregon
My guess:
- Oregon
- Stanford
- California
- Washington
- Colorado
- ASU
- Utah
- Arizona
- Washington State
- Oregon State
Maybe?
Seriously, if they are planning to take the six most valuable what would that be?There ya have it.
My guess:
- Oregon AAU
- Stanford AAU
- California AAU
- Washington AAU
- Colorado AAU
- ASU
- Utah
- Arizona AAU
- Washington State
- Oregon State
Maybe?
I mean, didn't they already have this, with the Big Ten, until the Big Ten just decided to steal their LA teams?
https://twitter.com/dennisdoddcbs/status/1544511263023177728?t=pFpz8PvL-99hbseCDb88YQ&s=19
Notre Dame may lobby to include StanfordStanford would be a great add for numerous reasons. Stanford and Notre Dame together would be a slam dunk.
Stanford as we all know is solid in many other sports besides football - that is a bit attractive to the TV networks
piss poor management
Let's add that guy!
piss poor management
Let's add that guy!
You just did.Eh, without knowing his mission and the directives he received from his superiors I think it is unfair to call it "poor management".
Plus, you're giving him triple the budget, so he can REALLY mess things up!
Eh, without knowing his mission and the directives he received from his superiors I think it is unfair to call it "poor management".Well he was about to have to cut many sports, so he wasn't actually successful at either mission.
Obviously if he was told to run the department with a balanced budget, he didn't. OTOH, if he was told to keep all sports and look for improved revenue, he did a GREAT job.
Well he was about to have to cut many sports, so he wasn't actually successful at either mission.I'm calling that success at the mission of "keep all sports and look for improved revenue". He kept all sports and found improved revenue.
Unless his plan all along, was "run up the deficit and pray for a bailout from the B1G."
I'm calling that success at the mission of "keep all sports and look for improved revenue". He kept all sports and found improved revenue."Hope is not a plan."
"Hope is not a plan."True
-Abraham Lincoln
Given its perilous athletic department finances, [color=var(--primary-body-link-color)]UCLA (https://www.latimes.com/sports/ucla)[/iurl] faced the prospect of cutting sports had the school not agreed to [color=var(--primary-body-link-color)]bolt for the Big Ten Conference[/color] (https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2022-06-30/full-coverage-usc-ucla-leaving-pac-12-to-join-big-ten).[/font][/size][/color]This is the exact same shyt that happened with Maryland they were on the cusp of folding shop.What does this tell you about either Collegiate Athletics or their departments? Falling back on the games hoping it covers their lack of institutional control or personal ineptness - IMHO
The timing isn’t certain and the number of teams that would have been affected isn’t known, but the Bruins were headed toward an Olympic sports Armageddon [color=var(--primary-body-link-color)]without the infusion of cash (https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2022-07-03/how-much-money-waits-for-ucla-usc-in-the-big-ten)[/iurl] that will accompany its departure from the Pac-12 Conference in 2024.[/font][/size][/color]
"Hope is not a plan.""Hope is not a strategery."
-Abraham Lincoln
This is the exact same shyt that happened with Maryland they were on the cusp of folding shop.What does this tell you about either Collegiate Athletics or their departments? Falling back on the games hoping it covers their lack of institutional control or personal ineptness - IMHOIt isn't that simple.
Per USA Today, top college athletic department revenues for the 2018-2019 (pre-pandemic) fiscal year:seems odd that Nebraska isn't in the top 20
seems odd that Nebraska isn't in the top 20Revenues can fluctuate fairly significantly in any given year. If they grabbed your numbers at just the wrong time, it could misrepresent the true picture.
Per USA Today, top college athletic department revenues for the 2018-2019 (pre-pandemic) fiscal year:12 SEC teams in the top 20? What are these, recruiting rankings??
- $223M, Texas
- $212M, aTm
- $210M, Ohio State
- $197M, Michigan
- $174M, Georgia
- $164M, Penn State
- $164M, Bama
- $163M, Oklahoma
- $159M, Florida
- $157.7M, LSU
- $157.6M, Wisconsin
- $152.7M, Florida State
- $152.5M, Auburn
- $151M, Iowa
- $150M, Kentucky
- $143M, Tennessee
- $140.6M, USCe
- $140M, Michigan State
- $139M, Louisville
- $137M, Arkansas
It isn't that simple.I think women's gymnastics is probably profitable at a handful of universities, but not in the Big Ten. If U of Iowa would hire Shawn Johnson as a coach, or her coach Liang Chow as women's gymnastics coach, I think the sport would take off just like wrestling took off at Iowa in the early 1970s when Dan Gable was abandoned at Iowa State and hired at Iowa.
A lot of Universities, for various reasons, want to offer and to be competitive in a large number of sports. Of those, only CFB and Men's BB have any chance to generate enough revenue to cover their costs. All the others are just expenditures.
Then you have wealthier conference programs spending lavishly on facilities not only for the two revenue sports but for the non-revenue sports as well. Schools from less wealthy leagues simply cannot keep up with what schools from the wealthier leagues can spend so they are confronted with three basic options:
- Subsidize the Athletic Department, or
- Cut some non-revenue sports, or
- Join a wealthier league.
If you or I were AD at Maryland or UCLA prior to their joining the B1G we'd have been confronted with the same problem
Seriously, if they are planning to take the six most valuable what would that be?My guess of value from a sporting standpoint:
My guess:
- Oregon
- Stanford
- California
- Washington
- Colorado
- ASU
- Utah
- Arizona
- Washington State
- Oregon State
Maybe?
I think women's gymnastics is probably profitable at a handful of universities,More profitable from NIL, lol. Football studs 'n hotties!
12 SEC teams in the top 20? What are these, recruiting rankings??I counted 10.
They are not in the SEC yet, and they certainly were not in 2018/19.The same UTee that adamantly insisted that they'd be out of the Big 12 and playing in the SEC by 2022? :D
Ask UTee. There is chatter that they may not go to the SEC anymore.
They are not in the SEC yet, and they certainly were not in 2018/19.
Ask UTee. There is chatter that they may not go to the SEC anymore.
The same UTee that adamantly insisted that they'd be out of the Big 12 and playing in the SEC by 2022? :DI projected 2023 and still have not given that up
I projected 2023 and still have not given that upIt's possible that the announcement of UCLA/USC to the B1G will encourage ESPN to move things along more quickly. The current hangup appears to be OU's inability to come up with the exit penalty/buyout to leave the B12 early, and for numerous reasons both schools plus the SEC want the move to happen all at once. ESPN might be willing to help the Sooners along, in order to keep up with the B1G, and the implications of those new contracts with rival Fox.
More profitable from NIL, lol. Football studs 'n hotties!At Iowa we now have an attractive women's wrestling coach who projects a very positive image so that's something.
TUSCALOOSA, Ala. — Tennessee football (https://www.knoxnews.com/sports/govolsxtra/) didn’t back down from No. 4 Alabama Saturday. But it still didn’t win, suffering a 15th straight loss since Nick Saban took the helm in 2007.I won't lie, we had some rough stretches against some really good rivals. UT from the late 90's until we left the Big 12, and OU from the time Bob Stoops got there. I think we are like 4-20 something against them. But even winning once every 4-6 years is still much better than 15 in a row. And I think going beyond that, wasn't there like only one win in 5 in the immediate time before that? Heck our record of 2-8 vs Alabama in the SEC ain't great, but there are many teams in the same time period that are 0-10 over the same time period or even 0-20.
The Vols lost 52-24 (https://www.knoxnews.com/story/sports/college/university-of-tennessee/football/2021/10/23/tennessee-football-vs-alabama-score-live-updates-game/8453633002/) in UT coach Josh Heupel first taste of the annual rivalry with the Crimson Tide.
It was a respectable showing for more than three quarters by UT (4-4, 2-3 SEC). But it remains the Vols' longest losing streak in their series with Alabama (7-1, 4-1), which began in 1901.
Florida had 11 in a row over UTK, and still 16 of 17.UTK-Is that what we're calling the first UT now? LOL.
That's tough times - penciling in 2 conf losses before the season starts.
But Fat Phil Fulmer had a hand in Spurrier leaving to the NFL.And the funny thing is that Spurrier made Florida what it is. Prior to Spurrier hadn't they only won like one conference title in their entire history? And it was shared or something? Florida was very much a sleeping giant, if even that because they hadn't done much prior to the late 80's early 90's. So it wasn't like the expectations of fans from a school like say Texas or OU who had won big in the past. So in ~12 years he made the monster what it was.
2001 was his last year in Gainesville and UT beat the Gators (somehow). That '01 team destroyed a 1-loss Maryland team in the Orange Bowl and finished 3rd in the country....but it wasn't good enough for Gator fans. That really irked Spurrier.
Gymnastics is a pretty popular "sport" aside from the Olympics.Uhh...relatively? Relative to track & field? Relative to lacrosse?
I don't disagree with this at all. Bad choices were shared by everyone in the conference.Was conference networks even a thing when A&M left the Big 12? Because as I recall the SEC network didn’t even exist until 2013. Does the Big 12 even have a network now? Surely if they wanted it they could have gotten it 10 years later.
You know who else voted AGAINST a conference network and FOR unequal revenue sharing EVERY single time it came up? Texas A&M.
BTN launched in 2006.I think BTN was 2007.
I think BTN was 2007.
And everyone thought it was a dumb idea, which is why it took so long for others. Nobody even had a plan in place IF it worked, because they all assumed it wouldn't. Pac 12 was 2012, and SEC was 2014
Yep, I do recall the Big Ten (and Delany) taking flack on that. Turns out it was genius.I got mixed emotions about the BTN. On one hand, it has been a huge financial success. On the other hand, the Big Ten's identity has changed. Is the Big Ten now an athletic conference or is it a TV network that constantly needs to grow its market/revenue. Plus it was the temporary need for new cable subscribers that led to adding Rutgers. An addition I am still getting used to.
I hate when BTN has an old replay, but its basketball and not football. I wish they'd include the sport in the description. I need to watch old basketball like I need a hole in the head.I'm good with it during basketball season. But from the second one shining moment plays through New Year's Day, why play anything but classic college football. Yesterday they were playing classic college field hockey for some reason. Is there some sort of mandate in their bylines that they have to do that? There can't be any way in hell anyone is watching that. I played soccer. I love soccer. I watch soccer when Michigan State is playing on BTN. When they play Michigan State advancing to the final four or winning a big 10 title in soccer as a classic, there is no chance in hell I'm watching that.
I'm good with it during basketball season. But from the second one shining moment plays through New Year's Day, why play anything but classic college football. Yesterday they were playing classic college field hockey for some reason. Is there some sort of mandate in their bylines that they have to do that? There can't be any way in hell anyone is watching that. I played soccer. I love soccer. I watch soccer when Michigan State is playing on BTN. When they play Michigan State advancing to the final four or winning a big 10 title in soccer as a classic, there is no chance in hell I'm watching that.Yup, that's what makes it fun to watch. Having no idea who won or even who is good. You have no idea what is going to happen.
The If they have to have access to all of the archives, so why keep replying the same ? I cannot watch Michigan State beat Georgia in triple overtime in the outback Bowl. One more time. But hell, show me a random meaningless game from 1993 where Indiana beat Illinois on a late field goal. I likely didn't watch it at the time, probably knew it happened, and would definitely watch it now. I don't need to see the overplayed "classics" again
many Hawk alums in ChitownThis is true. Typically, in my era about 20-25% of the entering freshman were from the Chicago area. And, there is geography: Northwestern is the 2nd closest Big Ten school to Iowa City, after Wisconsin.
Is Minnesota coming up with anymore trophies for these new additions?You should be asking that question about Iowa because it has 4-trophy games, and I sure as heck hope not. Iowa has enough trophy games, for now.
nice tryIf you begin by realizing someone's going to get screwed, then it's not such a crime.
the mississippi schools along with Arkansas and Mizzou get screwed
PJ likes water sportsWhich kind of water sports? :D
Ok, seriously we can figure this out for the SEC
3 fixed rivals
FL - SCar, GA, LSU
SCar - FL, Ga, Vandy
Ga - FL, SCar, Aub
Aub - Bama, Ga, MSU
Bama - Aub, Tenn, Ole Miss
Ole Miss - MSU, Bama, LSU
MSU - Ole Miss, Arky, Aub
LSU - A&M, Ole Miss, FL
Arky - Mizzou, MSU, Tex
A&M - LSU, Tex, Ok
Tex - Ok, A&M, Arky
Ok - Tex, Mizzou, A&M
Mizzou - Ok, Arky, Ky
Tenn - Vandy, Bama, Ky
Vandy - Tenn, SCar, Ky
KY - Mizzou, Vandy, Tenn
I think the Aggies have a fighting chance now that they're paying players
if Saban is upset, they're better than Texas and OU
well, with Arky trending up
the Horns are going to have a tough roe to hoe
but, that's Ed Zachery what the SEC SEC SEC wants for Texas and Oklahoma
OU getting Mizzou is a bit of a break, but not an automatic
One can't be totally sure who will be strong in 20 years, but one can look back 20 years and see how things have changed, to some extent.20 years ago Miami thought that they would bulldoze a trash ACC. We all know how that went.
Ok, seriously we can figure this out for the SEC
3 fixed rivals
FL - SCar, GA, LSU
SCar - FL, Ga, Vandy
Ga - FL, SCar, Aub
Aub - Bama, Ga, MSU
Bama - Aub, Tenn, Ole Miss
Ole Miss - MSU, Bama, LSU
MSU - Ole Miss, Arky, Aub
LSU - A&M, Ole Miss, FL
Arky - Mizzou, MSU, Tex
A&M - LSU, Tex, Ok
Tex - Ok, A&M, Arky
Ok - Tex, Mizzou, A&M
Mizzou - Ok, Arky, Ky
Tenn - Vandy, Bama, Ky
Vandy - Tenn, SCar, Ky
KY - Mizzou, Vandy, Tenn
I'd say UGA's rivals are UF, Auburn, and Tennessee, historically. Fourth might be Ole Miss or Kentucky.Yes, but somebody needs to be paired up with South Carolina. Until Clemson and NCSU are added to the SEC, Georgia is the closest school to South Carolina geographicly (I think)
For Big Ten I would guess for the 3 fixed rivalsCaptain Kirk won't like it one bit!
For Big Ten I would guess for the 3 fixed rivalsDo you have no respect for the Land Grant Trophy rivalry?:)
With USC and NW both being private schools in large metro areas, they could be considered rivals, right?
MSU - Mich, Indy, MD
PSU - OSU, MD, Rut
RIP TAM :)Why RIP A&M? We already have played in the sec west for the last 10 years, no doubt the toughest division in CFb. I’d trade OU and Tex for Alabama and some of the other teams any day.
Why RIP A&M? We already have played in the sec west for the last 10 years, no doubt the toughest division in CFb. I’d trade OU and Tex for Alabama and some of the other teams any day.I definitely prefer this idea of playing 3 non-rotating games that are NOT locked into pods, so TAMU could annually play Texas and LSU and not necessarily OU or Arkansas.
Personally I’d like to play Texas and LSU and somebody other than OU. Perhaps Arkansas or Georgia or even Florida.
how about no "F" ing pods and you simply play everyone in your stinkin division - every stinkin seasonIt could be very simple and this is easier position to take for a Nebraska, Rutgers, or Maryland fan, than it is for the rest of the Big Ten fans, I would guess. We are accustomed to playing the traditional Big Ten teams, and as we expand we lose those traditional Big Ten games.
it's VERY simple
I'd say UGA's rivals are UF, Auburn, and Tennessee, historically. Fourth might be Ole Miss or Kentucky.And Florida's are Georgia, Auburn, and Tennessee.
For Big Ten I would guess for the 3 fixed rivalsPenn State would snap that up in a second.They already play tOSU every season so you'd be scheduling 2 automatic Ws
PSU - OSU, MD, Rut
I know it's a full magnitude tougher as the number of teams increase, but I'd much rather schedule 4 or more teams that play annually like the Iowa AD is pushing.For many, many decades, the SEC was more a loose federation of teams that agreed to mostly the same rules. There were teams in the SEC in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, that shared a conference but played each other seldom, or not at all.
watering it down to only 3 teams in an attempt to be able to play Rutgers and Maryland somewhat regularly, every 5 or 6 seasons maybe more just because they're in "the same" conference is a stretch that doesn't help
I know it's a full magnitude tougher as the number of teams increase, but I'd much rather schedule 4 or more teams that play annually like the Iowa AD is pushing.I think that pods are the compromise here.
watering it down to only 3 teams in an attempt to be able to play Rutgers and Maryland somewhat regularly, every 5 or 6 seasons maybe more just because they're in "the same" conference is a stretch that doesn't help
I think that pods are the compromise here.I think this will happen
I think that pods are the compromise here.
LIke you, I think it is best to have a group of teams that you play annually because that feeds rivalry.
OTOH, I think it would be ridiculous if Ohio State becomes conference-mates with USC and UCLA and plays them LESS frequently than back when they were in a different league.
Pods split the difference by giving each team a group of annual games and still playing all league teams once in a while.
I don't think you need strict, formal pods to do this. That's why I like the idea of each team having 3 (or 4, for Fearless) set, annual games, but they don't have to be the same set teams as others in a specific group. Then rotate the rest of the schedule as you like, without the formality and limitations of ensuring pod boundaries are maintained. It accomplishes the same goal, but allows more flexibility.In theory I like your idea but I think there is a potentially major practical problem:
If I set up the following pod: Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, and Minnesota, those teams are forced to use up some of their annual slots against teams that might or might not be that important to them.
But if I just say, every year Michigan plays Ohio State, Michigan State, and Minnesota, but Ohio State gets to play Michigan, Penn State, and Wisconsin, and every year Wisconsin gets to play Ohio State, Minnesota, and Nebraska, it's a lot more flexible. (yeah I made up the perma-rivals, they probably don't make complete sense, forgive me I'm not a B1Ger... ;) ).
Additionally, I really do like FF's suggestion of simply admitting you don't need to schedule every team in the conference. Why should Nebraska ever play Rutgers? Let's admit it's an undesirable game, admit that in a 16-team or 20-team conference, the idea of playing everyone is silly and antiquated, and just try to schedule some fun games!
As I see it, the solution is to split into two groups (divisions) where all members of each group play all of the other members. That way, at least within each group/division the schedules will either be identical or similar enough that we can be confident that there isn't a 6-3 team that is actually better than the 9-0 champion.this
I generally like what @LittlePig (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1540) came up with and I want to add that I've done lists like his and it isn't easy. Compromises have to be made.Kick out Maryland and Rutgers?
It is easy to pick one or two "rivalries" from the list to criticize but MUCH harder to come up with a better alternative.
I think it's highly unlikely you'll ever get a 6-3 team better than a 9-0 champion, in a randomized schedule drawing within the future B1G or SEC conference, which is all we're actually talking about, here. It's a statistical corner case and not worth addressing in any scheduling solutions.Well, I honestly think the need to avoid the possibility of three undefeated teams is a more pressing concern. As a practical matter the only way to avoid that in a league of 20 teams is to have two groups each of which all play each other.
Just my opinion of course, but I wouldn't spend a single joule of brainpower worrying about it.
I was surprised Cal would like UCLA disappear without a trace and looks like so was Cal.Figured this would come up at some point.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/07/12/pac-12-here-come-the-uc-regents-governing-board-to-discuss-uclas-move-to-the-big-ten-litigation-cited/
Well, I honestly think the need to avoid the possibility of three undefeated teams is a more pressing concern. As a practical matter the only way to avoid that in a league of 20 teams is to have two groups each of which all play each other.
On your point about schedules I'm more concerned about it than you are. As league sizes increase the percentage of teams played decreases which necessarily increases the variability of league schedules.
Assuming nine league games:
- With 10 members you play 100% and miss 0%
- With 12 members you play 82% and miss 18%
- With 14 members you play 69% and miss 31%
- With 16 members you play 60% and miss 40%
- With 18 members you play 53% and miss 47%
- With 20 members you play 47% and miss 53%
With 18 members you * COULD* end up with two teams that didn't play each other and have only one common opponent. Obviously that is a worst case scenario but that would make it quite difficult to compare the teams. I think that with 16or more teams you really need divisions.
Kick out Maryland and Rutgers?please - just do the right thing for once
please - just do the right thing for once
for the Big Ten Commish, this would show some balls
legal shitstorm???
Lawyers LOVE those
I'm guessing there are provisions
plenty of schools have been kicked out of conferences in past history
not many lately, but it's about time
Have they? I'm not so sure. If you're gonna make that claim, you're gonna have to back it up. Because I've seen scores of examples in history of a team voluntarily leaving a conference, but I can't recall a time when a team was kicked out of a conference.Didn't the Big East kick Temple out?
And as far as provisions? I'm guessing there AREN'T any, otherwise every hack internet writer in the country would be dredging them up. And yet, silence on that front.
Amen!
The older we get, the more often Utee and I agree on things
never woulda thunk it 20 years ago
Have they? I'm not so sure. If you're gonna make that claim, you're gonna have to back it up. Because I've seen scores of examples in history of a team voluntarily leaving a conference, but I can't recall a time when a team was kicked out of a conference.Spoke too soon FF
Didn't the Big East kick Temple out?
Yes, but, and I could be making this up, there were some rules regarding attendance because Temple was a football-only member. So Temple didn't have a ton of recourseWell there's one example, anyway. Are there any others?
I mean, you understand why D3 is absolutely nothing like D1-A FBS. It's, like, literally, a BILLION times different.I'll agree with absolutely nothing like, but literally a billion times different is going too far
I just assumed that the Big Ten with all the history and arrogance had probably sometime in it's existence had tossed a member for something unwanted
or the SEC or SWAC of Big 6 or someone
maybe it's never happened in the history of P5 conferences
seems a bit odd
I'd still guess that the lawyers that work on those types of memberships have clauses to boot a program for various reasons and in this day and age I could see monetary value as a reason
well, there's gotta be a way
I'm guessing that if 13 of the 14 Big programs wanted UNL expelled, ,they would Git'R done
Bottom line, talk of expulsion of Maryland and Rutgers simply because they're boring and crappy athletic brands, is silly and unproductive.yup.
That former B1G commissioner what's-his-name saddled you with Maryland and Rutgers and there's really nothing you can do about it. You accepted the scores of millions of dollars given to the BTN with their admission, and you'll accept whatever downsides they bring to the conference as well.
Buyer's remorse sucks and all, but these two have a no-cancellation no-return policy. You're stuck.
Bottom line, talk of expulsion of Maryland and Rutgers simply because they're boring and crappy athletic brands, is silly and unproductive.
That former B1G commissioner what's-his-name saddled you with Maryland and Rutgers
Still mad about that. The divisions should have been Rotel/Velveeta.BigDickJim Delany,well can we sue him - class action like? Hell he even tipped us off when he forced Leaders/Legends on us for a few seasons
Just success.meh. Oklahoma gets ass blasted in the playoff every time they make it- just like every B1G team has not named Ohio State.
Still mad about that. The divisions should have been Rotel/Velveeta.
Great Taste/Less FillingHoagies/Grinders
Hoagies/GrindersLive Oak/Tito's
Are they saying that to each other?Yup. Apparently Sections O and P have an extremely bitter rivalry. Makes an EPL derby looks like chicken scratch.
Never thought Texas would go to the SEC. But here we are.I did. After the realignment round of 2011, I thought it was inevitable, and I said it here many times. The B12 was never going to be able to provide enough resources for Texas to keep up with the B1G and the SEC. That's just a financial truism. And with two of Texas' traditional rivals already in the SEC, plus the geographical continuity, there really wasn't ever any other option that would make sense.
Texas was a bit of a stretch
Notre Dame would be a huge stretch
there would have to be a much larger money discrepancy over the Big Ten, it's certainly not large enough now.
Academically I'm sure Texas would have preferred the B1G but if we focus on academics then Oklahoma couldn't have come along and they'd have been left with no long-term in conference rivals.
Texas' most frequent opponents:
- Oklahoma, joining SEC with them
- aTm, SEC
- Baylor, B12
- Rice, CUSA
- TCU, B12
- Arkansas, SEC
- SMU, AAC
- TxTech, B12
- OkSU, B12
- Houston, B12
- KSU, B12
Their most frequent B1G opponent is Nebraska with 14 games. 10 of the 14 were played while both were in the B12 including three B12CG's.
Right. The geographical and historical rivalry fit for Texas is clearly in the SEC, especially with Oklahoma moving at the same time.I would also guess, you could give your view, that the average Texas alum/fan doesn't much care about losing the "rivalries" with Baylor, Rice, TCU, SMU, TxTech, OkSU, Houston, and KSU.
And the Texas administration views conference affiliation as being athletically focused, for the most part. There's really no premium placed on "academic fit." Texas has many academic partnerships and affiliations that are not related to athletic conference participation.
Doesn't change my opinion that I would have enjoyed playing in the B1G. But, nobody asks me about these things.
I would also guess, you could give your view, that the average Texas alum/fan doesn't much care about losing the "rivalries" with Baylor, Rice, TCU, SMU, TxTech, OkSU, Houston, and KSU.when youve seen one upside down Horns sign youve seen them all
I would also guess, you could give your view, that the average Texas alum/fan doesn't much care about losing the "rivalries" with Baylor, Rice, TCU, SMU, TxTech, OkSU, Houston, and KSU.Right. How many schools view tOSU as a "rival?" And then, how many schools does tOSU view as a "rival?"
when youve seen one upside down Horns sign youve seen them allAgree I've liked playing the oSu Cowboys, there have been some classic games between our two schools over the past two decades. And I have plenty of friends that went to Texas Tech, or have kids going to Texas Tech. I like those games and I'll miss them.
I will miss Texas Tech and the Cowboys and because we dont play Rice, SMU or Houston every year they wont be missed but we probably will continue to play them occasionally
I just don't imagine ND joining the SECYeah, the Irish probably don't want to go 3-9 ever year.
it's either independence with a hook to the ACC, or Big Ten
and I'm sure Finebaum doesn't like it
Texas should sack Sark and take Aranda away from Baylor.Sure why not. There's a lot of things Texas should do, and/or should have done. What a long string of crappy coaching hires, it's truly mind boggling. Maybe someday we'll get it right.
Sure why not. There's a lot of things Texas should do, and/or should have done. What a long string of crappy coaching hires, it's truly mind boggling. Maybe someday we'll get it right.Just remember DKRs 1st year was not good
Academically I'm sure Texas would have preferred the B1G but if we focus on academics then Oklahoma couldn't have come along and they'd have been left with no long-term in conference rivals.Just seeing this while I agree with most of your takes i don't this one.It looks smashing in print make one point clear these conferences are getting realigned for football and ratings = MULAH. That has nothing to do with Prep courses/curriculum/SATs/GPAs/Admissions/Jello Shots/Beer pong or anything else.Like Jimmy Johnson use to say "Ya but can he play"
agree with NubbzI'm sure Bug eaters have a Noodling league - some where
UNL in got
about the same football history and academics
just w/o the noodlin chicks and the rednecks
Just remember DKRs 1st year was not goodAs always I'll believe it when I see it and not a moment before. I'm pulling for Texas so I'm certainly not rooting against Sark. It's entirely within his own power to change my mind and I'll be hoping he does.
Im not a Sark fan yet but we'll see what this year brings
As always I'll believe it when I see it and not a moment before. I'm pulling for Texas so I'm certainly not rooting against Sark. It's entirely within his own power to change my mind and I'll be hoping he does.This is such a healthy attitude about college football. An athletic department would absolutely hate to see it.
You serious, Clark?Burny was in town the last couple of days. He would say the same thing. The only acceptable hire to him is someone who has a NC ring on his finger as a head coach.
The guy who just won the national championship?
If you toss him, we'll take him...
I'm still kind of on the fence about K. Smart. He certainly recruits well.If you don't have the horses you can't win the race and he knows enough to be dangerous. I wouldn't compare him to Richt or Cooper
Burny was in town the last couple of days. He would say the same thing. The only acceptable hire to him is someone who has a NC ring on his finger as a head coach.Meyer shouldn't be allowed under a head set on a CFB sideline again. Was Burnt Eyes in FLA or Illinois not sure where you're at did you hook up with him?
Meyer is out there, with baggage. Orgeron is out there. Les Miles? Jimbo is at aTm. Gene Chizik?
Meyer shouldn't be allowed under a head set on a CFB sideline again. Was Burnt Eyes in FLA or Illinois not sure where you're at did you hook up with him?Kenosha. Yep, we hung out, went to a summer concert and broke bread a few times. Also went to the Civil War museum here in town. Never been. It was really nice, and somber at the same time.
I'm still kind of on the fence about K. Smart.This is why being a big-time HC isn't fun. No matter what you do, it's not enough.
Others try to be him, but they can't. See Mullen. Great offensive mind, but not so good that he didn't need elite recruits.
Spurrier didn't focus on recruiting, but he was a helluva game manager.
Burny lives in Tennessee now. On some acreage, away from civilization. He's living my dream, man. :)He doesn't use the internet much anymore. I asked him to join us. He won't be doing that. I get it.
He doesn't use the internet much anymore. I asked him to join us. He won't be doing that. I get it.I call and text him every couple of months. He doesn't really even come in for games anymore, not that there's been much to come in for lately.
I got some good advice on that topic while he was here. I will follow through for sure.Yup he recommended the exact handgun that was completely right for my i s c & a aggie wife.
Yup he recommended the exact handgun that was completely right for my i s c & a aggie wife.this blows me away
I stuck with my grandad's M1911 service gun from back in the day. It's not all the concealable, but I don't conceal carry anyway. Open carry for the win. ;)
this blows me awayI have a lot of guns. Inherited most of them from my grandfathers. My favorite is a nasty Russian sniper rifle my mom's dad brought back from Europe after WW2. It's got way more kick than my 30-06. It's what my dad called "an angry gun."
utee I never took you for gun person
just when you think you know somebody up jumps something new
92?There's a guy I wouldn't jump off a cliff for ...
Probably have to lean on Tom Lemming for those rankings. Not sure anyone else was doing those back then.
This is why being a big-time HC isn't fun. No matter what you do, it's not enough.Hey, he lost a game, AND they allowed opponents to score on them often.
92?I still wonder what he was basing anything on? Offers? He couldn't have had much film. My guess is he had contacts at helmet schools who could tell him who they had actually offered.
Probably have to lean on Tom Lemming for those rankings. Not sure anyone else was doing those back then.
I got some good advice on that topic while he was here. I will follow through for sure.breath out aim slowly squeeze gently don't pull,and of course make sure you hit what you're shooting at. Specially if it's shooting back or charging
I stuck with my grandad's M1911 service gun from back in the day. It's not all the concealable, but I don't conceal carry anyway. Open carry for the win. ;)So much for me robbing your liquor cabinet or Live Oak stash.I'll send 320 :67:
[img width=206.991 height=499.977]https://i.imgur.com/oRiH6NG.png[/img]Thanks. I guess it'd have been the 93 class with 4 SEC and 1 NC. Luckily, Florida's site has media guides going back to the 40s.
I stuck with my grandad's M1911 service gun from back in the day. It's not all the concealable, but I don't conceal carry anyway.I wish he had kept it, my dad once owned a 1911 made during WWII by Singer. What really made it rare and collectible is that it had been a Lend-Lease gun sent to Britain so it had "Not British Made" stamped on the slide.
I posted this above but nobody seemed interestedI saw and read the article. Sounds like grandstanding to me.
seems kinda big to me
I saw and read the article. Sounds like grandstanding to me.
Texas state leg did the same thing to UT back in 2021. Everybody wants their public pound of flesh, but nothing can really come of it.Theres a big diff between California and Texas
Yeah. Texans are known for their prudence. :72:at least we know what a woman is
I saw and read the article. Sounds like grandstanding to me.He's just mad because everything is leaving California.
Yeah. Texans are known for their prudence. :72:Well we ain't Florida Man, that's true enough...
I think Newsom basically is running for a higher office.I mean, yes, but I don't see how this does anything outside of California. It actually makes me think he's waiting until 2028, which mean I'm guessing he's heard from the powers that be that Biden is going to run again.
He's going to "look into it", this lack of transparency, because you know, programs should come out in public each time they consider such a move.
Biden and Trump are bad choices, but one or both will find their way onto the ticketyep I hate winning
it's embarrassing
Young voters flee Biden — but who is the alternative? | The Hill (https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/3562456-young-voters-flee-biden-but-who-is-the-alternative/)I think my cat could run as a republican and win
I'm really hard pressed to see how Biden runs again. I know he can't say he's not going to now, but I'm pretty sure he will in another year and a bit.
I think my cat could run as a republican and winThat's how Biden won last time. If we can't do better than Trump-Biden, we deserve everything coming our way. Two losers who only won when they went up against someone Americans hated more than them...and we give them another go at it? Puke
That's how Biden won last time. If we can't do better than Trump-Biden, we deserve everything coming our way. Two losers who only won when they went up against someone Americans hated more than them...and we give them another go at it? Pukeisnt this country great
yep I hate winningCould we take our faith in political parties back to the thread where it’s supposed to live? I know you didn’t start it, but best to send it there.
and wont know what to do if the border is secure
not to mention lower gas prices and bringing inflation down
yes youre right I hate winning
Could we take our faith in political parties back to the thread where it’s supposed to live? I know you didn’t start it, but best to send it there.Amen brutha
yep I hate winningtrump is not a win for the country - more division
and wont know what to do if the border is secure
not to mention lower gas prices and bringing inflation down
yes youre right I hate winning
I figure once you get to 20, you're really two conferences, in effect.I believe as long as all the football teams play ar least 50% of the time, it can be considered one conference. So it is possible with 20 teams if you play 10 conference games and have only 1 fixed annual rival. Then you could do a 1-9-9 schedule.
The SEC claims it's done, but that obviously is "subject to review".
Anyway, they don't ask me.
The money would drop off considerably, and there are sports beyond football that need it. Sure, maybe a team goes 11-1, but is broke in effect.I mean from a fan perspective.
The program is better off going 6-6 in a real conference.
Oregon is not as prime as it likes to think it is. They are scrambling now, just like Oregon State is scrambling.This.
It's a balancing act no doubt, but would Missouri want to be in the Big 12 future conference just to have a better shot at being 10-2?I mean, the admins would not. And I suppose the fans would probably not be happy about it because fans are predisposed to not be happy about things.
Maybe 7-5 is near their upper limit in the SEC barring exceptional years, but they won't move out.
I believe as long as all the football teams play ar least 50% of the time, it can be considered one conference. So it is possible with 20 teams if you play 10 conference games and have only 1 fixed annual rival. Then you could do a 1-9-9 schedule.I just don't see 10, let alone 11-game league schedules happening for two reasons:
With that said, a lot of teams would have an issue with only 1 fixed annual rival and many would push for at least 2 or 3 rivals. So that suggests with 20 conference teams, you would have to do at least 11 conference games, then you could do a 3-8-8 schedule.
I just don't see 10, let alone 11-game league schedules happening for two reasons:I don't think this matters at all...unfortunately
- A number of teams have OOC rivalries such as IA/ISU, PU/ND, etc. Hard to do that with only one or two OOC slots available.
- At least for now, you need to go .500 to go bowling. Most teams schedule for that by playing just one marquee OOC game and two bodybags. If Purdue was scheduled to play 11 B1G games and ND then even a pretty good PU team could end up ineligible to bowl at 5-7.
Bowl games are a joke period, a hold-over from the last century. Mostly meaningless, I'm glad A&M cancelled ours.I disagree, for obvious reasons. And come midDecember I find myself watching 6-6 Arizona State playing Akron in the Poulan Weedeater - Buceess Extravaganza Visit Boise Idaho Bowl.
I don't know if I mind players sitting out. It gives you a chance to see the guys who will be on the team next year. I like that bowl practices are also setting up for the following year. The strange one to me is Emory Jones, who was already in the transfer portal, playing in the bowl game for Florida.I like this aspect. I think (hope) the RoseBowl gave us a good preview of tOSU's 2022 offense.
Players sitting out for 7-5 or even 9-3 teams are a positive I think. If you are in a playoff game, obviously not, a Big Bowl Game? It matters a bit I suppose.I think I'd rather play the new guys and lose, but set things up for next year than play the returning guys and win to get some artificial ranking. Obviously, I'm not trying to kick out seniors that want to play, but it can be better for the team next year if they sit out.
You lose and end up ranked 11th instead of 6th.
I don't know if I mind players sitting out. It gives you a chance to see the guys who will be on the team next year. I like that bowl practices are also setting up for the following year. The strange one to me is Emory Jones, who was already in the transfer portal, playing in the bowl game for Florida.Guy wants to play ball with his guys, one last ride.
I think I'd rather play the new guys and lose, but set things up for next year than play the returning guys and win to get some artificial ranking. Obviously, I'm not trying to kick out seniors that want to play, but it can be better for the team next year if they sit out.The psychology of this kind of thing has always fascinated me. I described it as Christmas present theory. The new guy could be anything, and when they play in bowls, we get to tear off the wrapping paper.
The psychology of this kind of thing has always fascinated me. I described it as Christmas present theory. The new guy could be anything, and when they play in bowls, we get to tear off the wrapping paper.The anticipation for the vacation is better than the vacation itself.
The anticipation for the vacation is better than the vacation itself.Watching a freshman QB show flashes while struggling brings more joy than a senior playing decent to above average.
The difference between 10-3 and 11-2 is roughly ending ranked 12th versus 6-7th. The latter is a top ten finish of course if you count such things.I hate how much bowls swing that last ranking.
I don't blame top draft picks sitting out.
I think I'd rather play the new guys and lose, but set things up for next year than play the returning guys and win to get some artificial ranking. Obviously, I'm not trying to kick out seniors that want to play, but it can be better for the team next year if they sit out.the bowl practices are more important than the game
Ranking all 69 Power 5 schools by college sports value - Sports Illustrated (https://www.si.com/college/2022/07/14/power-5-desirability-rankings-sec-big-ten-acc)This ranking has Kansas ranked 2nd last which tells me it is weighted heavily based on recent football sucesss. Cause every discussion I have seen regarding realignment has had Kansas ranked higher than Kansas St and Iowa St in the pecking order. This tells me that fans consider Kansas football issues are just a temporary issue that can be easily solved with the right coach. Kind of like Matt Campbell has helped Iowa State.
Another list, a bit crude as the criteria are not weighted, but I guess it's roughly OK. Ish.
King Barry put a lot of emphasis on winning bowl games. I don't think Bielema did as much. Chryst seems to.Haven't been following recruiting an buddy's son said so did the OSU but he didn't know who.Hopefully it was the same guy hate to think they got 2 prized recruits frommus good guys
In USC news, UW lost a prized recruit to them last night. Thought UW for sure until a couple of days ago.
LB Tackitt Curtis. I guess the kid wanted to play in the B1G.
The Horror
ku vs ksu is hoops vs football
Haven't been following recruiting an buddy's son said so did the OSU but he didn't know who.Hopefully it was the same guy hate to think they got 2 prized recruits frommus good guysSame kid.
The Horror
What was the worst conference realignment move of all time?Either the WAC going to 16 teams or the B1G adding Rutgers.
What was the worst conference realignment move of all time?Suwanee leaving the SEC?
What was the worst conference realignment move of all time?The Big East turning down PSU by one vote.
Either the WAC going to 16 teams or the B1G adding Rutgers.Although the WAC-16 was ultimately a disaster for the WAC conference itself, all 16 teams today that were part of the WAC-16, are still in FBS conferences in 2023.
I thought about that too. I'd say the Rose Bowl is now dead.It's just another bowl now. I'm surprised anyone would think USC/UCLA should alert the governor or the RB or the press about this move.
It's just another bowl now. I'm surprised anyone would think USC/UCLA should alert the governor or the RB or the press about this move.
I thought about that too. I'd say the Rose Bowl is now dead.It will live on as a high tier bowl on New Year's day in terms of the teams playing but i believe it's days of hosting NCG and CFP semi-finals are over.
I believe it's days of hosting NCG and CFP semi-finals are over.why?
It's just another bowl now. I'm surprised anyone would think USC/UCLA should alert the governor or the RB or the press about this move.UCLA has political fall-out to deal with. USC is a private school, so probably not as much.
why?Good teams playing in it at the end of the year.
I certainly think it will still be held in high regard
what would any other bowl destination have over Pasadena?
Good teams playing in it at the end of the year.Beginning in 2015, the Rose Bowl has been part of the College Football Playoff (CFP) as one of the New Year's Six bowls—the top six major bowl games in the national championship system—hosting one of the semifinal games every three years. During non-CFP years, the Rose Bowl reverts to its traditional Pac-12/Big Ten matchup, unless the champions from those conferences are selected to play in the College Football Playoff.
Beginning in 2015, the Rose Bowl has been part of the College Football Playoff (CFP) as one of the New Year's Six bowls—the top six major bowl games in the national championship system—hosting one of the semifinal games every three years. During non-CFP years, the Rose Bowl reverts to its traditional Pac-12/Big Ten matchup, unless the champions from those conferences are selected to play in the College Football Playoff.And even when it's not part of the playoff, its television ratings remain huge.
"Targeting" and "leaving the door open" are 2 verrrrrry different things.
Yay, clickbait!!!
There's zero doubt in my mind that they're targeting one of those 4 schools-- to come along with Notre Dame.agree 100%. My guess is their wet dream would be Washington or Stanford and of course Notre Dame.
https://twitter.com/dennisdoddcbs/status/1552303716409253889?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1552303716409253889%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.surlyhorns.com%2Fboard%2Findex.php%3Fapp%3Dcoremodule%3Dsystemcontroller%3Dembedurl%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fdennisdoddcbs%2Fstatus%2F1552303716409253889%3Fref_src%3Dtwsrc255Etfw257Ctwcamp255Etweetembed257Ctwterm255E1552303716409253889257Ctwgr255E257Ctwcon255Es1_26ref_url%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2F247sports.com%2Fcollege%2Ftexas%2Fboard%2F21%2FContents%2Ftoday-on-twitter-for-7272022-190580913%2F%3Fpage%3D1I read the article and it said something about these programs, having a lesser value, would receive a smaller share of the pie than the other Big Ten teams because they dilute revenue rather than adding to the revenue. However, the article concluded that in a sense they would find the Big Ten a safe haven, and join despite their small share of the pie.
Is Cal worth more than the legal battle to just let UCLA go?
Not sure exactly what you mean here?I *think* he's saying that if Newsome/California are going to fight in court over UCLA, maybe we should just pass on UCLA and take Cal instead.
I *think* he's saying that if Newsome/California are going to fight in court over UCLA, maybe we should just pass on UCLA and take Cal instead.OK I thought that's what he was saying.
I don't think that works though because I think Cal (UC-Berkley) is also a state school so the same issues would attach.
Stanford, however, is private.
I like UCLA, but if Newsome/California are going to make it difficult, we might be better off taking Stanford instead and keeping our options open beyond that.
He can, and will, make some noise, and perhaps appoint a committee to investigate something, and then whoosh.Sure he'll bloviate about it, as politicians do.
I'd leave UCLA out and just add ND with USCToo late for that.
I read the article and it said something about these programs, having a lesser value, would receive a smaller share of the pie than the other Big Ten teams because they dilute revenue rather than adding to the revenue.USC and UCLA gain 100% share immediately unlike Nebraska, Rutgers, and Maryland, who had to wait a few years to get to 100%.
Too late for that.I agree, but I don't have to like it.
Notre Dame will always be a target, I'd say adding Stanford and ND as the next two would be ideal for the B1G.
I bet 70% B1G >> 100% Pac.Oh yeah, for sure.
Meanwhile 70% of the next B1G deal is thought to be around $70M/yr.probably more with USC and undoubtedly more if Notre Dame joins
probably more with USC and undoubtedly more if Notre Dame joinsNo the $100M/year estimate includes USC and UCLA. So 70% is $70M.
it's an estimateSure it's an estimate, but it's coming from the TV folks who are directing the show. I don't think it'll be much more than $100M, which represents a massive jump over the current contract. Maybe a couple percentage points here and there, but the TV guys have done extensive analysis on market value.
I'm guessing it will be more in the end
but then it seems it's likely there will be more additions before it's signed
I don't think FSU or Miami add much - obviously more than Stanford or WashingtonYou seem really hung up on UCLA. I don't think you get USC without UCLA. USC wanted at least one traveling partner, just to minimize at least a small amount of their travel obligations. Especially for the non-football sports.
neither are helmets - neither garner huge TV ratings
neither does UCLA
I don't think FSU or Miami add much - obviously more than Stanford or WashingtonThe only thing Miami adds that might be a net positive to the league is research on tropical cyclones.
neither are helmets - neither garner huge TV ratings
neither does UCLA
The only thing Miami adds that might be a net positive to the league is research on tropical cyclones.Yeah.
Otherwise, they are smaller than Northwestern, their endowment is chicken scratch, and they haven't been relevant on the gridiron in 20 years.
I would go to Badger games in Florida.
I would go to Badger games in Florida.especially in late November
I would go to Badger games in Florida.Games weren't meant for the infernal regions,you go to the Camp
“I was asked earlier today,” said Chryst. “How are you going to feel when you play your first conference game at SC? Just hope I’m f—ing still there.”Who does he think he is with that mouth Callahan/Pelini?
Games weren't meant for the infernal regions,you go to the CampEh, Miami's not that hot. Average high in September is only 89. :)
Who does he think he is with that mouth Callahan/Pelini?most coaches would love to talk like Pelini
I knew you'd bite - defending the Infernal regions.Avg temps? so during the day it still could be in the high '90s.That's beisbol weatherNope, 95 and sunny is straight up football weather.
One of my favorite bowl memories is the Outback I think a few years back, Wisconsin and Miami. I think it was in the 30s and Badger players were in short sleeves, Miami players were huddled around the heaters. They had no chance.Champs Sports Bowl, Orlando. 2009 season.
I would go to Badger games in Florida.I would think that there are enough Midwestern retirees in Florida for this to be a factor when considering Florida schools.
Everyone on the Gulf Coast is from the Midwest. Orlando is loaded too.The
The NE people seem to end up in Miami-Dade, Broward or Palm Beach counties. The rest are mostly Midwest.
I would think that there are enough Midwestern retirees in Florida for this to be a factor when considering Florida schools.Rutgers fans are there
One of my favorite bowl memories is the Outback I think a few years back, Wisconsin and Miami. I think it was in the 30s and Badger players were in short sleeves, Miami players were huddled around the heaters. They had no chance.I thought that it was low 50s.
I've never seen one eitherHere ya go!
The game displayed a sharp contrast in the locations of the two schools. Although played in the typical warm weather city of Orlando (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando,_Florida), the game time temperature was only about 40 degrees. Most Miami players wore long sleeves and would stand by heaters on the sidelines, however almost all Wisconsin players wore short sleeves and stated prior to the game that it felt like spring. The 56,747 fans in attendance was the highest total to ever watch a Champs Sports Bowl game since the game moved to Orlando in 2001. The attendance number also ranks second overall in bowl history as the only other game with more fans present was the 1990 Blockbuster Bowl (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990_Blockbuster_Bowl) played between Florida State (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990_Florida_State_Seminoles_football_team) and Penn State (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990_Penn_State_Nittany_Lions_football_team) in Miami (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami).When I first moved out to the Phoenix Area, I officiated a High School Game up in Payson (quite a bit higher in elevation) and game time temps were in the low 50s. The rest of my crew wanted to wear long sleeves but I insisted that we wear short sleeves.
Here ya go!I looked at the picture and I realized I have no idea what Rutgers calls their sports teams. Which is strange because I can name probably every other D1 and a lot of D2 program names.
(https://i.imgur.com/TnJN6xr.jpg)
I looked at the picture and I realized I have no idea what Rutgers calls their sports teams. Which is strange because I can name probably every other D1 and a lot of D2 program names.
Geez that looks extremely silly.
You don't wanna tangle with the Rutgers mascot.
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/H1Emi4ZD4bwwH_u2RJ07ZRSnpYw=/0x94:4000x2761/1200x800/filters:focal(0x94:4000x2761)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/35412108/20131102_jla_sn3_439.0.jpg)
At -40°. you can skip the F and C.Fooking Cold? CD was that winter '94? Because it was the same up here.Lots of frozen pipes as it was sustained there 6 days straight of no school as it was too cold to wait for buses buses,specially with the wind chill
The coldest temperature ever recorded in Minnesota is -60F, up at Tower on the morning of February 2, 1996. A quirk in the geography of the Mesabi Range allows super cold air to pool near the town. The coldest temperature ever recorded in what is now the Twin Cities is -34F on January 12, 1970.Yup. When I was working in Minneapolis one year, I was there from late October until December 23rd. When I flew out it was around 20 degrees and hadn't been above freezing in several days. The locals told me, "You're lucky you're leaving before it gets really cold."
During undergrad, there was a week in January 2004 was one of those weeks where it didn't get above zero even for a high. Classes continued as normal. Finally, on Friday, it was sunny and it warmed up into the 20s. We were walking to our DBM class when we passed a campus tour going the other way. Someone was heard to remark that if someone from Florida was in that group and heard us talking about how warm it was when they were freezing, they would turn tail and run.
Schiano will have them playing good football, but they won't ever win a conference title.I am not sure about "never," but perhaps never in our lifetime.
I don't think there will be a Big Ten in 20 years.The Big 20 ? The Big 24 ?
If the Big Ten were to expel six members in order to get back to 10, and the criteria were "$$$" instead of tradition/academics, which six would get the ax?Throwing out academics and tradition, football attendance might be a good measure
If the Big Ten were to expel six members in order to get back to 10, and the criteria were "$$$" instead of tradition/academics, which six would get the ax?let's do it
I suspect that a school like Minnesota would precede the "basketball" trio of Indiana, Purdue and/or Illinois.Whoops, yeah I missed them.
Throwing out academics and tradition, football attendance might be a good measureDoes UCLA really outdraw NU and Minnie?
In - OSU, Mich, PSU, MSU, Neb, Wisc, Iowa, USC, UCLA, Notre Dame
OUT - RUT, MD, Indy, Pur, Minn, ILL, NW
Kicking out Indy, Purdue, ILL, NW, Minn leaves some voids with the states of IND, ILL, Minn left out. I think the only answer is add Notre Dame as #10 to help fill the void.
Does UCLA really outdraw NU and Minnie?I kind of gave USC and UCLA a pass and was working off memory for Big Ten teams but decided to look it up for Big Ten, PAC and Notre Dame. This was 5 year average from before pandemic. So numbers may seem off if you are using 2021 numbers instead.
I mean, I don't mind dropping NU. Chicago just isn't the road trip it used to be, now that you cannot go out at night.
Vandy often sells out their stadettes.The same way Miami does...
I'd guess UCLA/USC attendance figures will pick up playing in the B1G, in part B1G fans will go out there I suspect, or live there.Yes, I could see a lot fans who have never been to the real Rose Bowl flying out for a UCLA game where at least you can check out the Rose Bowl stadium. Not exactly the same as going to THE Rose Bowl, but it might be on some fans bucket lists.
I'd guess UCLA/USC attendance figures will pick up playing in the B1G, in part B1G fans will go out there I suspect, or live there. We obviously have a ton of B1G fans locally who would show up for games between say UGA and Wisconsin, even GaTech and Wisconsin, and Tech doesn't usually sell out unless they play UGA/Clemson.
They could sell out their stadium to some visiting Big Ten fan bases.
I mean, I don't mind dropping NU. Chicago just isn't the road trip it used to be, now that you cannot go out at night.
Only until the novelty wears off after a season or two. It will only take one trip to LA for Big Ten fans to decidedly spend their travel money on the usual rivals after realizing Pasadena is ripping them off.Does that even matter anymore?
Northwestern isn't going anywhere. They are a Big Ten charter member.
Only until the novelty wears off after a season or two. It will only take one trip to LA for Big Ten fans to decidedly spend their travel money on the usual rivals after realizing Pasadena is ripping them off.Fans of Big Ten schools will boost UCLA attendance without anyone boarding a plane. Part of the reason you want a market with 18 million people in it is that your fanbases are already there, by default.
Does that even matter anymore?Any charter member of any major conference getting booted would be unprecedented in the current environment. So it matters.....until it doesn't. The last time a charter member of any conference left was what...back in the 60s? Before that?
Illinois, Purdue and Minnesota are also charters (along with Michigan, Wisconsin and Chicago).
Temple was booted from a 13-year old conference. Northwestern has been in the Big Ten since 1896.Plus Temple was a football-only member of the Big East and not a full member when it was booted from Big East football.
Not exactly comparable.
Temple was booted from a 13-year old conference. Northwestern has been in the Big Ten since 1896.Of course it's unrealistic. It's a hypothetical, and this is a message board.
Not exactly comparable.
Who would the SEC boot in order to get back to ten if the criteria were money instead of tradition?I'd take the teams out that have under average attendance and income. Simple.
Based on the below, and current alignment, I'd say OSU, UW, MSU, UM, PSU, Iowa, and USC are in the club of ten - the latter two being on the cusp. That leaves 3 spots.Looking at this chart, it is clear to me that that Wisconsin does not get enough credit as the clear #2 in the Big Ten. Although if this only went back 10 years to 2012, it may not be quite as clear.
Who gets them? I see ND and Stanford in the far left column. If they join the B1G, there is one spot left. Does that spot go to an existing member, or does it go to a new school like FSU?
Seems to me that based on the below, Maryland, Indiana, Rutgers and Purdue have no shot. NU, UNL and MN are clustered in the 78-82 win spot.
[img width=234.333 height=500]https://i.imgur.com/0cac02x.png[/img]
Based on the below, and current alignment, I'd say OSU, UW, MSU, UM, PSU, Iowa, and USC are in the club of ten - the latter two being on the cusp. That leaves 3 spots.It would be tempting to give the final 2 spots to Washington and Oregon and leave Iowa out.
Who gets them? I see ND and Stanford in the far left column. If they join the B1G, there is one spot left. Does that spot go to an existing member, or does it go to a new school like FSU?
Seems to me that based on the below, Maryland, Indiana, Rutgers and Purdue have no shot. NU, UNL and MN are clustered in the 78-82 win spot.
[img width=234.328 height=500]https://i.imgur.com/0cac02x.png[/img]
Looking at this chart, it is clear to me that that Wisconsin does not get enough credit as the clear #2 in the Big Ten. Although if this only went back 10 years to 2012, it may not be quite as clear.Still #6 among the P5. G5 noted with a red dot.
It would be tempting to give the final 2 spots to Washington and Oregon and leave Iowa out.King Barry* is not leaving Iowa out.
I'd take the teams out that have under average attendance and income. Simple.Using that criteria, football attendence, for the SEC, I am guessing the 6 expelled would be
Using that criteria, football attendence, for the SEC, I am guessing the 6 expelled would beKentucky and Arky draw pretty well, no?
Vandy, Mizzou, Miss St, Ole Miss, Kentucky, Ark
So the final 10 would be
FL, S Car, Ga, Aub, Bama, Tenn, LSU, Tex A&M, Tex, Ok
If tradition or basketball were a factor, then Kentucky would probably replace South Carolina but the rule is we should ignore that (I think)
Kentucky and Arky draw pretty well, no?Yes, in any other conference besides the SEC, Kentucky and Arkansas would be in the top 10 easy. Even Mizzou, Miss ST, and Ole Miss would be in the top 10 of many conferences. But the SEC is a whole another level.
Vandy can do pretty well in baseball and sometimes basketball. Kentucky does pretty well at the latter, if we count other sports.Nobody really cares about baseball, and a lot of people don't care about basketball. For college teams. Without looking I bet the CFP draws 4x the audience the NCAA final 4 does.
Nobody really cares about baseball, and a lot of people don't care about basketball. For college teams. Without looking I bet the CFP draws 4x the audience the NCAA final 4 does.Well I just checked and proved myself very wrong about BB. BB draws as many viewers as the CFP does for the final 4.
If you really think about it nobody has to kick anybody out, the teams that are going to evolve will simply form a new conference with partners of their choosing, pick a name that pays homage to the old one or whatever floats your boat, and jump ship. The old teams will remain in the old conference and the new teams will have all the money and TV deals like they want. They can achieve it in any number of ways. It's going to happen eventually, the Vanderbilts of the world can only ride the coat-tails for so long.but, it's not really a "conference" in the traditional sense - it's just football scheduling and a football only TV contract
but, it's not really a "conference" in the traditional sense - it's just football scheduling and a football only TV contractBut isn’t that where we already are? With WV being in the XII and usc and UCLA going to the B1G I think that ship sailed long ago.
I recall thinking Mizzou was a weird addition to the SEC on geographic grounds. But whatever, man, it's $$$$$$$$$.I guess I don't get that. It's bordered on three sides by SEC states. Kentucky, Arkansas, and Tennessee. Probably not the greatest fit, but probably the best available school when the SEC needed that 14th team.
We had too many Marys and not enough Williams.
You'd get fired saying that today?
nobody really wanted MizzouI never really think of them. 15 years in the same conference and they made pretty much zero impression on me.
for obvious reasons
Iowa hates them, Kansas hates them, I'd be shocked if Arkansas doesn't hate them
I never really think of them. 15 years in the same conference and they made pretty much zero impression on me.Oddly I feel the same way about them. I guess they were as odd in the Big 12 as they are in the SEC.
When I'm listing the teams that have previously left the B12, I know it's four, but I can usually only ever remember Nebraska, Texas A&M, and Colorado.
I guess I don't get that. It's bordered on three sides by SEC states. Kentucky, Arkansas, and Tennessee. Probably not the greatest fit, but probably the best available school when the SEC needed that 14th team.You're not good at geography.
Oh, sure, I just thought it a weird addition at that time. I didn't know much about Mizzou. They won the East twice in a row of course and showed they could compete, initially. Mizzou to me is more of a northern kind of team, probably bordered Canada or something.This is roughly accurate.
Fans of Big Ten schools will boost UCLA attendance without anyone boarding a plane. Part of the reason you want a market with 18 million people in it is that your fanbases are already there, by default.
Plenty of locals will suddenly get the chance to drive to see their team in the Rose Bowl now. That's massive.
It’s debatable how much will attendance really be boosted – and for how long before UCLA’s numbers return to continual decline?
Attendance pessimisms aside, what I more confidently foresee is how unprepared UCLA football will be for a more physical Big Ten schedule once they join in 2024. The program is in the midst of a down recruiting cycle going on two straight years. A sizable backlog of experience and talent exhaust their eligibility this year. Meaning, with a likely rebuild in store for 2023, Chip Kelly could be fired due to not keeping up with an under recruited roster.
The Bruins’ inaugural Big Ten season could coincide with a new coaching staff and thinnest roster in the conference. More details in the Pac 12 thread:
https://www.cfb51.com/big-ten/2022-pac-12-thread/56/
It’s debatable how much will attendance really be boosted – and for how long before UCLA’s numbers return to continual decline?
Attendance pessimisms aside, what I more confidently foresee is how unprepared UCLA football will be for a more physical Big Ten schedule once they join in 2024. The program is in the midst of a down recruiting cycle going on two straight years. A sizable backlog of experience and talent exhaust their eligibility this year. Meaning, with a likely rebuild in store for 2023, Chip Kelly could be fired due to not keeping up with an under recruited roster.
The Bruins’ inaugural Big Ten season could coincide with a new coaching staff and thinnest roster in the conference. More details in the Pac 12 thread:
https://www.cfb51.com/big-ten/2022-pac-12-thread/56/
I don't hate them like I do Eastern Michigan.You're a bad man
So don't be shocked by a Rutgers 42, UCLA 10 score in the near future?Hey if Schiano could keep the locals there that might not be a stretch
You're not good at geography.Quite the niggle.
Quite the niggle.It is kind of interesting 160 years after the Civil War that Missouri still has this cultural dilemma of whether they want to be considered part of the south or not.
How about this instead:
Big 12 Member West Virginia shares no borders with any other Big 12 Institution States while Missouri shares a border with 3 other SEC states.
It is kind of interesting 160 years after the Civil War that Missouri still has this cultural dilemma of whether they want to be considered part of the south or not.I did a little checking on their civil war role and I found some interesting stuff. I'd like to hear what the more educated civil war historians on here think about it but apparently there was quite a bit of sentiment for Missouri to join the confederacy but Lincoln jumped on it early and got control of state gov't early and forced a kind of martial law.
One of the slave states that decided to stay with the Union during the Civil War. I always thought Missouri would be good state for a first in the nation primary in presidential election years. Average in population and size. With both urban and rural areas. Farmlands in north. Ozark hillbilly area in south. What an interesting mix of cultures.
I did a little checking on their civil war role and I found some interesting stuff. I'd like to hear what the more educated civil war historians on here think about it but apparently there was quite a bit of sentiment for Missouri to join the confederacy but Lincoln jumped on it early and got control of state gov't early and forced a kind of martial law.I bet @CWSooner (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1544) probably has some knowledge on the subject.
Obviously a quick and dirty reference From Wikipedia:
During the American Civil War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War), Missouri (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri) was a hotly contested border state (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_states_(Civil_War)) populated by both Union (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_(American_Civil_War)) and Confederate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America) sympathizers. It sent armies, generals, and supplies to both sides, was represented with a star on both flags, maintained dual governments, and endured a bloody neighbor-against-neighbor intrastate war within the larger national war.
I bet @CWSooner (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1544) probably has some knowledge on the subject.I'm sure he does.
I did a little checking on their civil war role and I found some interesting stuff. I'd like to hear what the more educated civil war historians on here think about it but apparently there was quite a bit of sentiment for Missouri to join the confederacy but Lincoln jumped on it early and got control of state gov't early and forced a kind of martial law.I know the James Boys were born & raised in Missouri and rode with Quantrill's Raiders and Bloody Bill Anderson. Is that a comforting narrative or what?
nobody really wanted MizzouYa but they have such good "Q"
for obvious reasons
Iowa hates them, Kansas hates them, I'd be shocked if Arkansas doesn't hate them
Most of their commerce was from agriculture and R.E.Lee was from Virginia,both states had strongly leaned toward the Confederate P.O.V.Yup, VA was pretty clearly aligned with the Confeds before secession and they might have dropped out anyway. NC was the last to secede.
I guess I don't get that. It's bordered on three sides by SEC states. Kentucky, Arkansas, and Tennessee. Probably not the greatest fit, but probably the best available school when the SEC needed that 14th team.
You're not good at geography.Well it does have borders with KY,Arkansas & Tennessee,so perhaps you teach Social Studies or Phys.Ed.
UCLA Regents may block move to Big Ten.I doubt this will happen, but if it does, you gotta go with Stanford.
https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2022-08-17/ucla-big-ten-move-uc-impact (https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2022-08-17/ucla-big-ten-move-uc-impact)
I doubt this will happen, but if it does, you gotta go with Stanford.Just more regents and politicians being blowhards. Not sure how they're going to hold UCLA retroactively to a rule that didn't exist when they made the choice. That's got "court case" written all over it, and I'm pretty sure none of them actually want to end up in court.
UCLA Regents may block move to Big Ten.LoL.
https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2022-08-17/ucla-big-ten-move-uc-impact (https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2022-08-17/ucla-big-ten-move-uc-impact)
It is kind of interesting 160 years after the Civil War that Missouri still has this cultural dilemma of whether they want to be considered part of the south or not.I also find it interesting that universities in the deep Confederacy (most notably Auburn and Georgia) use the Battle Hymn of the Republic as their fight song.
One of the slave states that decided to stay with the Union during the Civil War. I always thought Missouri would be good state for a first in the nation primary in presidential election years. Average in population and size. With both urban and rural areas. Farmlands in north. Ozark hillbilly area in south. What an interesting mix of cultures.
I also find it interesting that universities in the deep Confederacy (most notably Auburn and Georgia) use the Battle Hymn of the Republic as their fight song.Yeah, this struck me as interesting as well. When those two play, it's often called "The Oldest Rivalry in the DEEP South". UVA-UNC have an older one.
NIL was just the start. Sooner or later they will have to pay the players directly.
^^^^^That's the time they prefer to play it. I remember when it got moved to the 3:30 slot one year, and the coaches and fans went ape shit.
The above is important. Some of the initial speculation was that Fox would always get first pick, the way CBS does for the SEC. And since Fox loves their Big Noon, that would mean that Ohio State and Michigan would be doomed to that noon/11 AM game forever and ever.
But if they rotate, that will mean that the biggest name-brand games will have shots to be on CBS at 2:30/3:30, and presumably NBC at night, as well.
But it definitely seems like you BiG folks don't hate that noon/11 AM timeslot as much as the rest of the country. I suppose it's because it's noon local time for a lot of the games, but that one hour wouldn't make a whole lot of difference to me. I really dislike any kickoffs before 2:30 to be honest. And in Austin, all games before October, really should be night kickoffs. But TV broadcaster don't give a shit about harming the fans in the stands...The one thing that Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa fans all agree on is that 11 AM kickoffs are too damn early. Games in that slot should be reserved for the Eastern Time Zone.
Just more regents and politicians being blowhards. Not sure how they're going to hold UCLA retroactively to a rule that didn't exist when they made the choice. That's got "court case" written all over it, and I'm pretty sure none of them actually want to end up in court.
Much ado about nothing.
Well I wasn't talking specifically about that one game, but rather any games. For ratings purposes, whoever gets first pick is going to like to take Michigan and Ohio State and to a lesser extent Penn State. So if Fox always got first pick, then an unusually high percentage of their games would end up at noon/11 AM.For me it depends whether I am going or watching at home.
But it definitely seems like you BiG folks don't hate that noon/11 AM timeslot as much as the rest of the country. I suppose it's because it's noon local time for a lot of the games, but that one hour wouldn't make a whole lot of difference to me. I really dislike any kickoffs before 2:30 to be honest. And in Austin, all games before October, really should be night kickoffs. But TV broadcaster don't give a shit about harming the fans in the stands...
Is there any practicable limit on conference size?
Could the "new NCAA" simply be a ginourmous conference?
The one thing that Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa fans all agree on is that 11 AM kickoffs are too damn early. Games in that slot should be reserved for the Eastern Time Zone.Not all.
The thing about this is that this new TV deal sets the price for Disney and the SEC.
Can Disney afford it? What else would they have money for?
Right, and then they will add four more to get to 20.
Can Disney afford this?
The B1G has a clause to up the money as it adds schools. ND would be the biggest money, of course. From what I gather, every school on the expansion list has a price with it. Money per school cannot be decreased. It's interesting.
That seems to be where it's headed.I think it should be three major conferences. One West Coast Centric, One East Coast Centric, and one that is a mix of SouthEast and Midwest. Kick out the Vanderbilts and TCU's and any school that doesn't meet certain criteria. One of which should be attendance.
There are even some traditionalists that are now embracing the idea of huge "super-conferences" because in practice, what that will almost invariably look like, is smaller subsets of teams playing each other. And the most logical way to determine those smaller subsets, is geographically.
So the future state could very well end up looking a lot like the past state, just with all schools under one or two umbrellas, rather than 5 or 7.
Right, and then they will add four more to get to 20.Is this a serious question?
Can Disney afford this?
Is this a serious question?Yes, it is.
Disney could afford to buy all of college football. Hell, I'm pretty sure Disney bought Thailand already. If we colonize Mars, guess what your neighborhood will be called: Disney Gardens.
GTF outta here with that question.
OAM evidences a rather odd view of corporations, to me anyway, one that is grounded more in fantasies than reality. To him, they are all evil, awash in bucks, and able to buy anything on a minor whim.Just write everything off. Simple.
Those three were given a gift. They got stability and they got more money than they were getting prior - even with the reduced share.Right, I get it. As long as it's the members of YOUR chosen tribe doing the unequal revenue sharing, it's fine, and in fact it's even good for football.
OAM evidences a rather odd view of corporations, to me anyway, one that is grounded more in fantasies than reality. To him, they are all evil, awash in bucks, and able to buy anything on a minor whim.Wow, I sound like an idiot.
If USC and UCLA are getting full shares from Day 1 then I'd say they have a legitimate complaint.
Wow, I sound like an idiot.Nothing magical about corporations. They do in fact go out of business all the time.
Evil? No. They take advantage of a certain half of the country that holds corporations as pious things and enjoy a gov't financial attitude that's basically one big, long financial blowjob.
Yes, that financial gov't bj does make them awash in bucks, except for tax time, in which they're poorer than the homeless tent city down the street from me. They don't make any money, simply create wealth. That's called semantics, and it enables corporations that are worth more than most countries pay less taxes than you or I do.
Corporation: dick :: gov't : mouth
They can't buy anything on a minor whim, but thanks for putting those words in my mouth. But some months out, if Disney wanted to buy something, it would put into place a series of actions that would enable it to buy just about anything it wanted. You could probably count on one hand the things Disney couldn't acquire in its industry if it really wanted to and had time to plan it out and make it happen.
But I'm an idiot.
yup, Nebraska left the Big 12 which was unequalThat's pretty much the size of it.
and gladly joined the Big Ten which at the time was unequal
Texas was blamed
They are not. All new members of the B1G staring with MSU came into the conference on a probationary status, and not full members. When PSU was added this also included a reduce portion of the media rights until they became full fledge members. I read an article several years ago that Nebraska was now a full member, and assumed that the other two have been upgraded to full status as well.
EDIT: Did even you read the article?!? Rutgers is getting a reduced shared because upon entry they took out a 50 million dollar loan from the B1G, and the reduced amount is to pay back said loan. There is no uneven revenue sharing in the B1G, both Rutgers and Maryland are full members in status and getting an equal share of the media money.
EDIT 2: I stand corrected on the USC and UCLA probationary status. FOX has requested as part of the media deal that both school enter as full media partners in 2024. (Even if they are probationary members of the conference in other areas.) If FOX is writing the checks, kinda hard to say no, we are going keep doing it the old way. Curious, PSU isn't complaining about getting a reduce media contract for their 3 years on probation....
That's pretty much the size of it.I honestly don’t remember anything being said about unequal revenue sharing.
Hence my amusement at the current situation.
I honestly don’t remember anything being said about unequal revenue sharing.Yes, ags weren't the ones laughing at the unequal revenue sharing. For obvious reasons.
The big one that I remember for A&M is that it seemed like there were lots of great Aggie games that seemed t not make it on tv whereas Kansas vs ISU would. Thus even though we benefited from unequal sharing a lot of Aggies felt the Big 12 was deliberately not televising our games or influencing the network. Please note this inasmuch not necessarily my opinion.
I think long term equal revenue sharing is the best model.
Everyone pay their fair share....unless they're too successful, I guess.Define "fair share" please.
That is true, it's rare that some brilliant tax lawyer finds some obscure loophole for an individual. Folks use them because they income taxes are complex.From each according to his means, to each according to his needs.
The loopholes in the code are pretty obvious and commonly used.
I also wonder what is our "fair share" ...
Come on man. Nebraska, Rutgers, and Maryland all came into the B1G with reduced shares. That's the very definition of unequal revenue sharing. This is all well-known and well-documented-- table stakes for continuing the conversation.There was a 3 year probation period(for want of a better term) - that was my understanding.Maryland was literally in very deep finacial mess as far as the Athl.Dept. was concerned and never balked.i'm not against the BIG doing the same here, even a partial financial haul from the BIG is prolly better than a full haul from the PAC,just sayin'
I'm sure he does.Just noticed the tag message for this in my inbox, Medina.
A good starting point is the 1860 census (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_United_States_census) because it lists both slave and free populations.
Missouri's slave population in 1860 was <10% of their total population which indicates that slavery was NOT a major contributor to Missouri's pre-war economy. Compare that to:
- Over half: SC, MS
- Over 40%: LA, AL, FL, GA
- Over 30%: NC, VA, TX
- Over 20%: AR, TN
- Over 10%: KY, MD
Big Ten fans for sure.Yep.
The only other B12 fans around were sooners, ags, and huskers. And all of those schools voted in favor of unequal revenue sharing, every time it came up.
Yep.Yes indeed. You were critical of every school in the B12 that helped perpetuate unequal revenue sharing, including your own.
But at least one out-of-synch Big 12 Sooner fan criticized it.
I might not criticize an incentive program based on scheduling and/or TV ratings, though.
Just noticed the tag message for this in my inbox, Medina.Sadly, my own country is very dark in that map.
So, those stats would seem to indicate that Missourians had little reason to keep slavery legal, or to join in the rebellion to keep it as a permanent system.
But, by the 1850s, slavery was being defended (in all the slave states) more for social reasons than economic ones. There's a lot of primary-source material from that period that acknowledged that slavery was an inefficient way to organize labor. There was the truism that you could get more work out of a mule than a slave. Few slaves had any incentive to work efficiently, so most didn't. Their incentive was to avoid punishment. Many resisted slavery by "accidentally" breaking their tools, leaning on the hoe, etc.
But the social system, where the poorest, dumbest, least-educated white man could feel superior to every black man was very important for slave-state whites to maintain, even if they saw no economic benefit from the system.
You might find this interesting.
(https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/files/2010/12/slaves.jpg)
You can see where most of Missouri's slaves were--along the Missouri River.
USC and UCLA to the Big Ten makes a lot of sense if you look at a map from 1856.better than being in the "Know nothing" camp
Sorry Minnie and Nebby. You're out.
better than being in the "Know nothing" campSheesh, Maryland. Figures...
It doesn't matter to me one way or the other, I'm just noting the duality or, to put it less kindly, the hypocrisy.
B12 voted to have to unequal revenue sharing leading to conference instability and the departure of numerous members.
.
maybe Nebraska has an offer with the SEC?Maybe but they damn sure won't allow your fillabustering "Welcoming UNL to the SEC thread" if that happens they'll be sorry ;D
Maybe but they damn sure won't allow your fillabustering "Welcoming UNL to the SEC thread" if that happens they'll be sorry ;DI'd be delighted to see Nebraska in the SEC. They could join the "Hate Pod" alongside Texas, OU, A&M, and Arkansas!
There is no hypocrisy.there were many B12 votes that led to instability from the start - those are why Texas was blamed early and often
B12 voted to have to unequal revenue sharing leading to conference instability and the departure of numerous members.
there were many B12 votes that led to instability from the start - those are why Texas was blamed early and often
it was easy from there to blame the Horns for the unequal revenue bit, especially when the Unicorn network reared it pretty little head
but, revenue issues alone didn't doom the conference
and yes, some of the teams that left the conference voted for unequal revenue sharing such as UNL and much later A&M
of course Mizzou and Colorado wanted equal revenue and w/o Mizzou going to the Big and asking for an invite, perhaps UNL doesn't play that card so early.
It was all a mess from the inception - poor leadership from the commish and the powers that controlled that office
I'm not going to say that blaming Texas is the right thing to do, but I'm fine with that.
it's easy enough to cornfuse Bug Ten fans(https://c.tenor.com/7QhoA9wcstgAAAAM/confused-no.gif)
For many of those, the numbers are skewed based on who they are playing.Yeah, I've actually seen analyses that do a better job of isolating the dependent variables, and the order/rankings shift around a bit.
People are gonna watch Bama play College of Charleston, but they won't watch Arky play College of Charleston.
The B1G East and SEC West get boosted here, simply due to the quality of programs in those divisions.
Yeah, I've actually seen analyses that do a better job of isolating the dependent variables, and the order/rankings shift around a bit.Right.
But even so, the raw numbers do tell the general story. The numbers for the B1G East and SEC West are high, because a lot of people want to watch several of those teams play football.
Swap inStanford, Washington, or Oregon and call it a day.
Stanford and Washington.Really,none of them belong near this decision
Oregon doesn't belong anywhere near this discussion.
we don't need any stinkin trojansYou are starting to sound like your dad
we don't need any stinkin trojans
You are starting to sound like your dadWell he didn't mention Beavers,so.....
Take USC, Stanford, Oregon and Washington from the PAC.
Take Miami and FSU from the ACC.
It's out there that Warren wants to get to 24.
ND, UVA, UNC and GT round that out.
That's not even a conference anymore. It's a giant cluster of teams who say they're in the same conference. There wouldn't be any meaningful similarity of schedule tying them together.The SEC will do the same thing by poaching ACC and Big 12 schools.
It's out there that Warren wants to get to 24.Warren is involved, but it is the television networks who control realignment, subject to approval of the university presidents.
Take USC, Stanford, Oregon and Washington from the PAC.If you had to go that route and don't think the BIG should leave Miami and take VTech,good school/venue/fans
Take Miami and FSU from the ACC.
It's out there that Warren wants to get to 24.
ND, UVA, UNC and GT round that out.
The SEC will do the same thing by poaching ACC and Big 12 schools.
If you had to go that route and don't think the BIG should leave Miami and take VTech,good school/venue/fansPerhaps. I was more thinking of recruiting.
Don't see many teams there that add value, other than Texas and Oklahoma, which we're already getting. The point would be the same though....why even bother calling it a conference? Several geographically close or historically linked schools will play each other and then somehow sort out who wins the "conference." It won't be very different than what we have now with bowls/playoffs.Agree.
Top B24W and top B24E teams play to get into the "B1GBowl", which would be in Pasadena.The Rotel B1G Bowl