big no thanks to both.
I understand USC, it's one of the true blue bloods of the sport and located in LA. UCLA- I'm pretty meh about...they don't bring much to the table....but again....they are in LA. 'Crootin' hot beds and all.
Washington and Oregon can get fkd though as far as I'm concerned. Neither bring anything to the table at all. And quite frankly I'd be more than happy if Oregon started to die off and was never heard from again and go back to the basement where they belong.
https://realdawghuskies.com/exclusive-wa...om-pac-12/ (https://realdawghuskies.com/exclusive-washington-oregon-set-to-announce-departure-from-pac-12/)
Actual article behind a paywall and I don't know much about the legitimacy of this website
I dimly recall a game I think it was Cal-Rutgers at 9 AM recently, Cal lost.Rutgers was not in the Big Ten back then. I'm not sure if they played at 9AM. 1999.
Rutgers was not in the Big Ten back then. I'm not sure if they played at 9AM. 1999.It was at 11:30 PST. And Cal won.
Iowa and Iowa St. fans do notAs an Iowa fan, I would personally prefer Iowa continue to play Iowa St every year. I think it makes perfect sense and is good for both fan bases and good for the state as a whole. I would strongly prefer this over Iowa playing 2 MAC/FCS teams every year even if it means giving up the 7th home game every other year.
the Iowa legislature does.
they like the idea of revenue staying inside the state
I dimly recall a game I think it was Cal-Rutgers at 9 AM recently, Cal lost.Cal ain't USC.
FSU and Miami for me.FSU I'm pretty meh about. Northern Florida/Panhandle has talent for sure, but nothing like South Florida. Not sure they are an academic fit either.
Yeah not only does Oregon not bring anything to the table, they actually take away quite a bit. They're dangerous and competitive both on the field and in recruiting and they are light years ahead of most programs in weaponizing NIL. And yet they don't bring net new viewers to the B1G, not in the way USC does.100% agree.
Ever since the UCLA/USC news broke and then everyone speculated that UO/UW were next, I've been stating that I think bringing in UO would be a bad idea. Why bring in someone that doesn't increase incremental TV revenue but threatens your marquee teams both competitively and in recruiting? Makes no sense at all.
FSU I'm pretty meh about. Northern Florida/Panhandle has talent for sure, but nothing like South Florida. Not sure they are an academic fit either.There's P5 talent all over the state. Even over here. It's unreal. If the B1G can get into Florida, the future is bright. I hope they are seriously thinking about it.
Miami to me makes a ton of sense. They are a small private school near a major city, basically like a Northwestern of the South. Oh yeah that city also happens to be without question THE most fertile recruiting ground in the entire fn country. Would be quite the coup for the B1G if they can bring Miami into the fold imo.
academics don't mean squatFootball is king, no doubt, but academics has played a big role, especially with the former "alliance" conferences of the PAC, BIg Ten and ACC. Of course we saw how the alliance worked out.
in this realignment
Football is king, no doubt, but academics has played a big role, especially with the former "alliance" conferences of the PAC, BIg Ten and ACC. Of course we saw how the alliance worked out.Key word HAS.
BUT for the most part the Big Ten still has a rule that a school needs to be an AAU member, with a few exceptions like Notre Dame.
And in a way, the PAC's downfall was a direct result of the academic snobbery of schools like Cal, Stanford and USC. Their refusal to take schools like TT, Ok St, Kan St when the PAC had the chance last year is the reason why the Big 12 now suddenly has the advantage over the PAC IF Wash and Ore leave.
I'd look at a tangible metric like mean SAT scores of incoming. That can indicate the students are solid, or not.
Football is king, no doubt, but academics has played a big role, especially with the former "alliance" conferences of the PAC, BIg Ten and ACC. Of course we saw how the alliance worked out.used to have a rule..
BUT for the most part the Big Ten still has a rule that a school needs to be an AAU member, with a few exceptions like Notre Dame.
This is actually one of the things that bothers me about these rankings. One of the key numbers they use is graduation rate, but that has little IMHO to do with the quality of the school or education, and a LOT to do with the selectivity of the admissions process.Yeah Texas gets dinged in those types of rankings for the exact same reason. I don't worry too much about it, people who get hung up on those rankings aren't actually interested in quality of education, anyway.
Schools like Purdue get knocked down the list because as a large state (and I'd argue co-flagship) school, part of what Purdue and Indiana exist to do is to take as many students from the state that qualify academically as they can. Often that might include taking students who aren't going to graduate. But just as often it means giving an opportunity to a student who is going to work their effing ass off and be a success but couldn't sniff getting into an Ivy.
The Ivies admit the kids who are so high up the academic ladder, and so driven by academics, that they'd rather die than fail at school. Does that mean the school itself is any better? Not in my opinion--it means that their students were the top of the top before they even walked through the door.
We see it often in football. There are some programs with helmet status that will get the 5* and 4* kids lining up in droves to come there, and then they predictably win a lot of games because they had better athletes to begin with. But are those the best coaches in the game? Not IMHO. Some of the best coaches in the game are guys like Dantonio who can develop lesser athletes into reaching their full potential, and who can scheme the team together to make sure the best pieces are put in the best positions for team success.
I hate to see that these rankings penalize educational institutions for offering educational opportunities to those who need them most, instead of trying to lock those students out because it might hurt their graduation rate.
UW is a mid-level B1G team in terms of traditional football achievement, academics, and research monies. Oregon is basically last or nearly last or last by far in these metrics.I'm not sure without looking it up, but I think Washington is VERY strong in research spending, like top-10 or maybe even top-5 strong.
I'm not sure without looking it up, but I think Washington is VERY strong in research spending, like top-10 or maybe even top-5 strong.Yes, if you look at the rankings I posted you will find Washington above every Big Ten school.
The rest of this I agree with.
Yeah Texas gets dinged in those types of rankings for the exact same reason. I don't worry too much about it, people who get hung up on those rankings aren't actually interested in quality of education, anyway.Texas is just fine. Washington too.
This is actually one of the things that bothers me about these rankings. One of the key numbers they use is graduation rate, but that has little IMHO to do with the quality of the school or education, and a LOT to do with the selectivity of the admissions process.This is a longtime pet peeve of mine with academic rankings not just for Universities but for High Schools as well.
Schools like Purdue get knocked down the list because as a large state (and I'd argue co-flagship) school, part of what Purdue and Indiana exist to do is to take as many students from the state that qualify academically as they can. Often that might include taking students who aren't going to graduate. But just as often it means giving an opportunity to a student who is going to work their effing ass off and be a success but couldn't sniff getting into an Ivy.
The Ivies admit the kids who are so high up the academic ladder, and so driven by academics, that they'd rather die than fail at school. Does that mean the school itself is any better? Not in my opinion--it means that their students were the top of the top before they even walked through the door.
Schools like Purdue get knocked down the list because as a large state (and I'd argue co-flagship) school, part of what Purdue and Indiana exist to do is to take as many students from the state that qualify academically as they can. Often that might include taking students who aren't going to graduate. But just as often it means giving an opportunity to a student who is going to work their effing ass off and be a success but couldn't sniff getting into an Ivy.The baby boom was from 1946-1964. After that a combination of social, cultural, and technological factors led to the "baby bust" of the mid-1970's.
But just as often it means giving an opportunity to a student who is going to work their effing ass off and be a success but couldn't sniff getting into an Ivy.Ohio now basically says to these kids "ok, go to Community College for two years and prove it, if you do we'll let you into Ohio State."
US News rankings among Big Ten and PAC
Big Ten
10. NW
20. UCLA (joining)
25. Mich
25. USC (joining)
38. Wisc
41. ILL
49. Ohio St
51. Purdue
55. Rutgers
55. MD
62. Minn
72. Ind
77. PSU
77. MSU
83. Iowa
151. Neb
I used to roughly think of it as "elite", "near elite", "very good", and "maybe so so". Some of the best folks I hired came form maybe so so. A guy from some elite school mayb think the world owes him as a result.I think you are right about ranges. I don't think hiring managers are looking at a graduates from Ohio State and Purdue and saying "forget the Boilermaker, they are only #51, we are going with the Buckeye, they are #49", nor are they saying "forget the Scarlett Knight or Terp, those schools are tied for #55, we are going with the Boilermaker, they are #51."
The absolute worst engineer I've ever worked with graduated from Stanford.Stanford is the UTSA of fancy private schools. It is known.
The best, graduated from directional UT-San Antonio.
better option than CaliThis may be unfair, but I really think there's something to it......players from California "don't fill out the back of their pants."
This may be unfair, but I really think there's something to it......players from California "don't fill out the back of their pants."There is only one OL I can remember UW taking from Cali. He simply could not add weight and was advised to look elsewhere if he wanted to play. He was recruited to UW in 2014 (HC Gary Andersen).
It's not an insult in any other meaning than it seems to me they're far behind on non-Polynesian athletic fat bodies.
Am I alone on that?
I love the 1-person sample sizes, guys.Sorry. That's all I got for OL from California.
Cali seems able to generate at least one decent tight end ...Not this 4* bust. Recruited by the same coach who recruited the 4* OL bust.
I love the 1-person sample sizes, guys.well, when you are listing the "worst".
The topic of the conversation is the larger group - college classes > > > college rankings. You know, tens of thousands of people.I think the samples of one were posted here to illustrate the point that there ARE exceptions, not to try to argue that UTSA Engineers on average are better than Stanford Engineers.
.
I know, I know. I'm wrong again.
Ohio also has a "transfer module" where the core stuff (basically first two years) transfer en-masse between Ohio's colleges and universities. Thus, if you go to Cuyahoga Community College (Cleveland area) or Columbus State (duh) or any other Ohio college or University you can take out the entire module then transfer that module as one piece to any other Ohio College or University.I think this is also huge here in California. The UC (vs the Cal State) programs are much more difficult to get into as a freshman than as a transfer. So a lot of students do gen-ed at community college and then transfer into the UC system.
I think you are right about ranges. I don't think hiring managers are looking at a graduates from Ohio State and Purdue and saying "forget the Boilermaker, they are only #51, we are going with the Buckeye, they are #49", nor are they saying "forget the Scarlett Knight or Terp, those schools are tied for #55, we are going with the Boilermaker, they are #51."However I think once you're 5+ years out of school, the name on the college degree matters a lot less than the work experience after college.
That said, at some point you get far enough apart that it DOES make a difference. A degree from #10 Northwestern is clearly more valuable than a degree from #151 Nebraska.
Where exactly those lines are is hazy and varies by individual.
Our research found that earnings were unrelated to the selectivity of the college that students had attended among those who had comparable options. For example, the average earnings for the 519 students who were accepted by both moderately selective (average College Board scores of 1,000 to 1,099) and highly selective schools (average scores greater than 1,275), varied little, no matter which type of college they attended.
One group of students, however, clearly benefited from attending a highly selective college: those from lower-income families -- defined approximately as the bottom quarter of families who send children to college. For them, attending a more selective school increased earnings significantly.
Restricting the comparison to those with similar choices helps solve the selection bias problem because these students were equivalent in the eyes of the admissions committees.
More important, students who applied to equally selective schools revealed that they had similar aspiration levels and self-confidence. If the comparison is restricted to students who applied to equally selective schools -- regardless of whether they were admitted -- attending a more selective school is still unrelated to earnings.
However I think once you're 5+ years out of school, the name on the college degree matters a lot less than the work experience after college.This general concept is something I've looked into before not just in this context but also on the college/no college question.
Also note that future earnings seem to be unrelated to what school you attend, if you look at individual students rather than averages:
https://www.nytimes.com/2000/04/27/business/economic-scene-children-smart-enough-get-into-elite-schools-may-not-need-bother.html
I thought the last bit was interesting. It can be intuitive that if an individual student applies to a highly-selective and a less-selective school and is admitted to both, their earnings are going to be the same. After all, since much of future earnings relate to their individual ambition and ability, it seems to suggest that a student capable of getting into the highly-selective school is likely to be successful either way.
But it's less intuitive that you can back it down into what schools a student applied to, whether admitted or not. But again it points to individual ambition and ability--if you think you could get into Stanford and UT-SA, and apply to both, you're probably ambitious enough that even though you're not admitted to Stanford, you're likely to be as successful (as measured by earnings) as those who were.
Colleges love to push a stat that college graduates earn almost $1M more in their lifetimes than non-college graduates. This, however, is a true but extremely misleading statistic due to selection bias.Yeah, but it's good marketing because the people who most readily recognize the concept of selection bias are...
I figure the point of a college degree is to get a decent job (or husband).I know this is not a popular opinion and sounds naive, but I kind of wish more people would choose to go to University because, you know, they are really smart, and they want to immerse themselves in a higher education as an intellectual experience. The reward of a higher education is the education itself.
I know this is not a popular opinion and sounds naive, but I kind of wish more people would choose to go to University because, you know, they are really smart, and they want to immerse themselves in a higher education as an intellectual experience. The reward of a higher education is the education itself.It's just an expectations for many here in the States. We send 65% of HS grads to college, in Europe the figure is about 35%. We send folks to college with lower than the median IQs. This is why college here has so much remedial stuff early on. In Europe, the courses are nearly all in your major, if you major in say engineering you take zero courses in language and history etc. None.
High IQ or elitist or smart people are often accused of being smarmy or even pompous and looking down on others.1. Not always true. Let's say you're building a road and there are 6 laborers behind an asphalt paver. One of those guys is busting ass while the others are taking it easy. They all make the same money. The union says so.
.
I find that to be true of hard workers, too, though. Of course, while you can affect how much you learn, you can't do a lot for how smart you are. How hard you work is thought to be completely in one's own hands.
Does that make it more okay to be judgmental though?
It's all fun and games until you drive through a lane closure and hit a cutout in the pavement at speed. We saw the aftermath one morning. Took the front axle right off.
I make fun of highway construction crews, when they aren'y present but the lanes are restricted. I tell the wife they hired "french crews", she chuckles. I see this more often in France than here, "invisible workers". But sure, block off lanes and then do nothing about it.
It's all fun and games until you drive through a lane closure and hit a cutout in the pavement at speed. We saw the aftermath one morning. Took the front axle right off.I've seen that too when I was an engineering inspector. Several times, including a concrete truck on the job!!
If we all agree the only Golden Egg still out there is ND, then I think Stanford should be next target of the B1GG. I would grab UW and Stanford for the next round and have all of ND's traditional rivals put the screws to them.Stanford only. Then Miami and FSU.
I know this is not a popular opinion and sounds naive, but I kind of wish more people would choose to go to University because, you know, they are really smart, and they want to immerse themselves in a higher education as an intellectual experience. The reward of a higher education is the education itself.Although in the modern world, you can basically get an education without ever needing to step foot on a college campus. Go the public library.
big no thanks to both…Washington and Oregon can get fkd though as far as I'm concerned. Neither bring anything to the table at all. And quite frankly I'd be more than happy if Oregon started to die off and was never heard from again and go back to the basement where they belong.
Yeah not only does Oregon not bring anything to the table, they actually take away quite a bit. They're dangerous and competitive both on the field and in recruiting and they are light years ahead of most programs in weaponizing NIL. And yet they don't bring net new viewers to the B1G, not in the way USC does.
1. Should the B1G add two more schools from the Pacific Time Zone, that makes four with long, inconvenient travels over the Rockies. Keep in mind UCLA and USC are already fussing about the longer distance travel. Four of them will team up to magnify their grievances about a lot more than just travel – reffing, title IX, student sections, political hot topics, which leads me to my next point…1. it won't matter, 2 or 4, they will get nothing and like it. just like Nebraska, Rutgers, Maryland. Like UT and OU going to the SEC
2. Think about what you know of California, Oregon, and Washington as states.
4. Why do academics so persistently come up as a talking point when it comes to conference realignment (except for unsurprisingly the SEC)? (See thread pages 2 & 3.) From the standpoint of college sports (which is what leads us to this forum to begin with) there a more important angles: geography, potential for rivalries, and increased TV money. When the subject of academics comes up it’s always as two different types of excuses for not winning. For example 1) should Vanderbilt blame their academic requirements preventing them from recruiting a roster full of JaMarcus Russells and Marcus Vicks and 2) when Delany’s response to the Florida Gators crushing Ohio State in the 2006 Nat’l Championship was to issue a statement about the B1G’s academics.
I bring up Academics and specifically Research dollars, because it's where the money is. (<-- That's a period.)This is why I always question Notre Dame.
yes, but to the point... the B1G would take ND in a heart beatYeah, I mean we took Nebraska. It's clear we're lowing our standards :57:
Yeah, I mean we took Nebraska. It's clear we're lowing our standards :57:He did kinda walk into that didn't he?
He did kinda walk into that didn't he?I suspect he teed it up for us.
2. Think about what you know of California, Oregon, and Washington as states. Think about why so many people are leaving the Pacific Coast’s larger cities and think about the headlines you see warning of what’s going on in the large Pacific Coast cities. Now think about whether those mindsets that have influenced San Francisco, LA, Portland, and Seattle into what they now are won’t (in a general sense) come to be voiced through all four of those schools. Adding the flashy LA schools(?), fine; but the B1G should know better than to invite their pastier NW cousins who liken themselves as “outdoorsy” but can’t fish or hunt deer.
That, and I could drive to a Badger game. Help them fill up their crappy NFL stadium.The fact that I can now drive to a Purdue game is what pisses me off the most about USC/UCLA joining.
They've risen up to Miami-level, but still far behind Florida.
(Before you bash FSU ... on academics, do a little homework. Each has taken large steps in the past ten years.)
It's been out there that the B1G would like to get to 24. Yeah, two Big 12's in one.with 11 game schedules this works
I've heard similar about the SEC.
I'm sure Clemson/FSU would bolt for the SEC given a decent chance. It's a more natural and historic fit, and UGA just signed a deal to play FSU H&A. In the past, teams they sign deals with enter the SEC in two cases anyway.any program not in the SEC or B1G would bolt for either conference right now
ND depends on that TV contract, if that dissipates ...Also depends on whether or not the 48 teams in the SEC and B1G decide to include a 49th.
If the Pac retained all the CA schools and added the B12 schools, they'd be OK.The new B12 is getting much better TV deals than the PAC leftovers, so... why would the B12 teams agree to that?
The new B12 is getting much better TV deals than the PAC leftovers, so... why would the B12 teams agree to that?They wouldn't. Especially when the XII grabs ASU, AZ, UU and UC. They will also take some ACC leftovers. And maybe Memphis?? I don't know enough about that school.
Does Syracuse play football?Yes, in the Carrier Dome with no AC.
I could argue their increased status brought in better recruits which made their coaches look good and attractive to major programs.Yeah, but the increased status comes from being in a better conference, so their competition also got better than they were in G5.
imo my bottom line for B1G expansion is Miami & FSU or don't expand at all. Getting into SoCal was huge for the future of the conference. Getting into Florida would be even bigger.Yes to all of this.
Adding Washington or Oregon would be complete nonsense. Neither brings anything of value to the table at all.
Yes to all of this.I was thinking the same about B1G alums filling Florida stadiums. There are a LOT of retired midwesterners in Florida so I'm guessing every Miami home game against Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, etc would be packed with Nittany Lions, Buckeyes, Wolverines, etc.
It's at 16 now, and the end game is supposedly 24. That leaves 6 more spots if Miami and FSU join the fold.
ND would be the next obvious target. Maybe Virginia next. That's 20.
VT, UNC, Clemson.
GT? Got the East Coast covered from NJ to FL.
Skip Georgia? OK, take Pitt? Similar problem to GT in that the city they are in doesn't care about them. Already have that problem with Northwestern, and UCLA even. Miami would fit into that grouping, but B1G fans down here would change this. Maybe for UCLA too. Lots of alums in FL and CA.
NC State could be the answer here.
Yeah, but the increased status comes from being in a better conference, so their competition also got better than they were in G5.They weren't in a very good conference, the Big East, back when. They were already playing some P5 teams each year. They got a lot of visibility after joining the BE. I went to a Thursday night game that was on ESPN vs WVU, it was fun.
From a recruiting angle, they probably had a leg up on other Ohio schools for in-state athletes that would have been good enough to get recruited by the flagship university in any state where Ohio State (blue blood who recruits nationally) isn't the flagship university in the state lol...
I was thinking the same about B1G alums filling Florida stadiums. There are a LOT of retired midwesterners in Florida so I'm guessing every Miami home game against Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, etc would be packed with Nittany Lions, Buckeyes, Wolverines, etc.Lots of Badgers down here too.
Gatorama told me there were more OSU alumni in the ATL area than any place in the US except Columbus, or maybe he said the Alumni Club here is second biggest. It's not unusual to see someone sporting OSU/UM gear here.I'm not a fan of any #2 in their state program.
Georgia Tech has some potential, I think, it has some history, it's just way down right now. I don't think they can get back short of some miracle. I doubt it adds much beyond serving as a local site for OSU fans to watch their team play.
If the B1G seriously got into it with FSU and/or Miami, the SEC would HAVE to do whatever they had to in order to grab UNC and/or UVA. And probably get greedy and add NC State and Va Tech, too.might as well get used to the crap weather in college than having to learn how/adapt to it when you get drafted by an NFL team in say the AFC North or NFC North and have to play in Lambeau, Buffalo, Gilette, or MetLife in December and January all the time...
.
Those FSU and Miami players won't be enthused about playing B1G road games in November, I can tell you that much.
If the B1G seriously got into it with FSU and/or Miami, the SEC would HAVE to do whatever they had to in order to grab UNC and/or UVA. And probably get greedy and add NC State and Va Tech, too.Watch the 2009 bowl game between Miami and Wisconsin. You'll get a chuckle out of seeing what the Miami kids were wearing versus the sleeveless Wisconsin kids.
.
Those FSU and Miami players won't be enthused about playing B1G road games in November, I can tell you that much.
What would you do if you had to get to 24? Keep in mind you also have to beat the SEC to the punch.The idea of a 24 team conference makes no sense to me.
You might not want to add only powerhouse programs anyway, except for the money thing, so many GaTech is not an awful choice.My issue with GaTech is not wanting to be second fiddle (to the SEC/UGA) in the state of Georgia.
Pecking order of ND, ACC, Big 12, PACI'd rank it:
1. ND
2. UNC
3. Wash
4. Florida St
5. Col
6. Ore
7. Miami
8. Va
9. Clem
My issue with GaTech is not wanting to be second fiddle (to the SEC/UGA) in the state of Georgia.I get that, but I was thinking about how much they could add. And I'm not sure. There is potential unrealized. I don't think it can be.
How would GT not just be another Purdue?More like Rutgers. Just a TV market.
More like Rutgers. Just a TV market.Ah.
Ah.It does, but it took UW being way down, and Minnie, Iowa and Illinois just being meh, and UNL and NU just being bad.
I was going with the engineering/lack of recent success bit.
I guess the Boilers did make it to Indy, so that counts for something.
But also, metro Atlanta is probably the 2nd-most fertile recruiting grounds in the southeast, maybe nationally. So while NJ/NYC, etc are relatively meh there, GT gets you in to a sort of FL-light.NJ produces a lot of talent, actually.
I doubt adding GaTech really allows other programs better access to metro ATL players. The 4 and 5 star guys all know about OSU and UM anyway, and they largely won't think about Purdue or NW either way.Then I guess every move to expand a conference's footprint has been a waste of time.
NJ produces a lot of talent, actually.Relatively a lot, sure. But not actually a lot.
Been great for my UW. Dayne, Anthony Davis, Corey Clement, JT23. PJ Hill was from NY.
I doubt adding GaTech really allows other programs better access to metro ATL players. The 4 and 5 star guys all know about OSU and UM anyway, and they largely won't think about Purdue or NW either way.Hmmm.
Hmmm.He was committed to another program to play hoops. UW stole one there, and then he found trouble. Recently found more trouble, and now his NFL career is toast.
You’d have the “they’ll possibly play in your hometown once every two years” bit.
Of course, ATL is deeply over-recruited, so you’re picking at leftovers. Badgers got a nice receiver out of Ga a few years back. Joked with a friend down south about why: if he had ideal high or speed, he would’ve never escaped the local schools.
The new playoff will have guaranteed slots for the top six ranked conference champions .... and we very easily could have only 4 half decent conferences left, that is two very good and two mediocre, and then two from "elsewhere", we're talking about teams with no real business being in the playoff, they could be ranked 16th and 24th.I am OK with this as long as the conference champs are still in the top 25. This makes for a more inclusive field with more nation wide appeal. Especially if the alternative is the 5th place team in the SEC.
the Big Ten is still hesitating because it does not want to be perceived as destroying the PAC conference.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/37693310/big-ten-new-commissioner-television-deal-coaches-uncertainty?platform=amp
Trouble in Big Ten paradise. The TV contract with NBC and CBS is not technically done.
Big Ten Admins and coaches are upset they were not consulted about playing sat night games in November. Sounds like Kevin Warren once again dropped the ball communicating with schools when making decisions. But its wierd some AD"s are playing dumb now with this contract announced months ago. How could any Big Ten school not be aware they were going to be asked to play some Sat night games on NBC in November?
Also another twist is that the Big Ten TV Rights are actually owned by BTN and Fox and not the Big Ten itself. And Fox is upset that NBC got a Big Ten CCG that Fox did not sign off on.
Also TV networks decided to move the PSU-MSU game to Black Friday in 2023 before PSU actually agreed to it.
Such "hit pieces" are irrelevant if not true. Maybe they get clicks.Not IF.
If this all comes down to the B1G VERSUS the SEC, life in CFB will get entertaining, or more boring depending. The chest beating about whose conference is better gets old, for me anyway, folks slinging selective data across the way and ignoring anything contrary to that.
For me it's more of another Kevin Warren is an idiot example.Terrible hire.
For me it's more of another Kevin Warren is an idiot example.Yes, the article paints a picture that Big Ten Admins and coaches did not know there was going to be Sat night games in November, when it's clear the new TV contract calls for that.
Such "hit pieces" are irrelevant if not true. Maybe they get clicks.Regardless of motives, the article had a lot of details. It gives new insite to why the Big Ten has pushed the pause button on further expansion. There are still a lot of issues from the new TV contract that Kevin Warren never sorted out. He had almost a year to fine-tune the contract and sounds like he accomplished nothing in that time.
If this all comes down to the B1G VERSUS the SEC, life in CFB will get entertaining, or more boring depending. The chest beating about whose conference is better gets old, for me anyway, folks slinging selective data across the way and ignoring anything contrary to that.
folks slinging selective data across the way and ignoring anything contrary to that.That's literally every argument here....
That's literally every argument here....When you use the term "literally", what do you mean by it? Do you literally mean "Literally"?
the teams with the best TV ratings?
And sounds like PSU, Mich, MSU and OSU were getting picked on especially with these new night games or Black Friday games in 2023, when I think the expectation was for USC and UCLA to get more of the Sat night home games in Nov, which may become true in 2024.
Yes, the article paints a picture that Big Ten Admins and coaches did not know there was going to be Sat night games in November, when it's clear the new TV contract calls for that.
I think what they are really saying is that when the TV contract was being negotiated, the universities never were consulted about giving up this clause to not play on Sat Night in November. So in their minds they never gave up that clause. Still in the end, every single University President signed off on the contract. So who is really the bad guy here? I still say Kevin Warren for not doing a thorough job just like COVID.
Is it possible for the Bears to suck even more than they do?sucks for Bears fans, but hey at least he's not the B1G CEO anymore....
Yes, now that Kevin Warren is the CEO.
Saturday night games were going to be worth some BIG $$$The other thing that makes the Saturday night complaint seem fake is that it seems obvious that as you add inventory you pretty much HAVE to split it up more or else all your games are on at once.
so, regardless of the communication, it was going to happen
probably just more bitchin than anything else
we all know TV networks set the schedule and time slots for kickoffs
The other thing that makes the Saturday night complaint seem fake is that it seems obvious that as you add inventory you pretty much HAVE to split it up more or else all your games are on at once.Yes, this where adding more West Coast teams will help. Even getting USC and UCLA in the mix in 2024 will help a lot. Every other year you get ND @USC on Thanksgiving weekend Sat night. Other years you get USC-UCLA. Maybe you can alternate Mich, OSU, PSU visiting USC on a Sat night in mid-November. Some of these problems might simply go away.
With 14 teams you are playing a maximum of seven games so even when you take the 8pm slot off the board you still have noon and 3:30 so 3-4 games at a time. If you go to 20 teams you'll have some Saturdays with 10 games so even when using all three times timeslots you'll still have 3-4 games at a time. I would guess that some of the PST vs PST games will end up at 11pm EST which would be 8pm locally just to spread them out and get more total viewers because some EST and CST team fans will stay up late due to having a rooting interest in one of the 11pm games and some PST team fans will start watching over their cornflakes because they have a rooting interest in an EST/CST game.
That gets you four slots with minimal overlap (times are EST):
- noon, 3 games
- 3:30pm, 3 games
- 8pm, 3 games
- 11pm, 1 game
When you use the term "literally", what do you mean by it? Do you literally mean "Literally"?You're going off the rails a bit.
Yes, Wisc and PSU already are planning to add heated fields in 2024. That won't help the fans stay warm, but at least the teams will be comfy. Maybe it's time for OSU, Mich and MSU to do the same. If not, there are NFL stadiums a couple of hours down the road.Well, now we know at least two schools didn't object to night games in November.
Well, now we know at least two schools didn't object to night games in November.Yes, I think the original idea was to upgrade the stadiums to be "winter-ready" just in case the teams ends up hosting a first round playoff game in the CFP. Another reason these recent protests about November night games seem a little fake.
November weather is usually OK, but variable of course, it can be awful. December weather of course leans into not so OK often enough. It could be amusing to watch say Miami playing at Wisconsin in December ... it won't be like Orlando ...Green Bay, Chicago, Cleveland, Buffalo, etc. have no problems attracting fans throughout the month of January.
a heated field will make it a bit softer, but doesn't make it feel warmWill help with injuries, I'd think.
I think is an acknowledgement that Big Ten Thanksgiving weekend games aren't really for the students, and never was.
Yeah I absolutely loved our tradition of playing the ags on Thanksgiving day. It was a great way to kick off the holiday weekend. It wasn't ever quite the same when it moved to T+1, but it was still fun to have a game on that weekend.Yep. I miss that one for sure.
Yeah not only does Oregon not bring anything to the table, they actually take away quite a bit. They're dangerous and competitive both on the field and in recruiting and they are light years ahead of most programs in weaponizing NIL. And yet they don't bring net new viewers to the B1G, not in the way USC does.Great Post you've pulled the scales off my eyes - you get a Yuengling.I remember when BC,V-Tech and the U left the BE for the ACC.It was suppose do drive a stake into all other conferences. At the time that wasn't a stretch the Hokies were feelin' their oats and BC was Solid and the Canes appeared to have locked down S.FLA moving forward. So yrs later when Big Jim grabbed RU/Terps most were like WTF - didn't history teach him anything? And the other empty suits went all in. Anyone who wanted to watch BIG Football in those places already had the cable packages. Unfortunately they just turned into more mouths to feed and brought neither prestige,viewers or coin to the table 🤮 . So on the surface from purely gridiron considerations the DUCKS seem like a win. When if one peeks behind the curtain this could blow up in the BIGs face and circle back around and bite them in the arse
Ever since the UCLA/USC news broke and then everyone speculated that UO/UW were next, I've been stating that I think bringing in UO would be a bad idea. Why bring in someone that doesn't increase incremental TV revenue but threatens your marquee teams both competitively and in recruiting? Makes no sense at all.
Green Bay, Chicago, Cleveland, Buffalo, etc. have no problems attracting fans throughout the month of January.Exactly the COLD 🥶 weather just means throwing on the insulated WALLS coveralls - more places to stash beers
This is a nothingburger as far as I'm concerned.
What happened to Stanford as Notre Dame bait?That was my Hypothesis. I don't think there was any real footing to it.
What happened to Stanford as Notre Dame bait?See response in the 24/24 thread.
When I click on the website, it's totally behind the paywall. But this is what the Google snippet says when you search for the article:Well they did not say exactly on Memorial Day, just "around" Memorial Day. And they did not say which Memorial Day. Maybe they meant Memorial Day 2024. Check back again in 1 year.
RealDawg.com (http://realdawg.com/) has learned that a time “Around Memorial Day” is when there will be an official announcement that both the University of Washington and the University of Oregon are leaving the Pac-12 Conference for the B1G Conference. The move won't occur until 2024 or 2025
As an easterner, I was pretty amazed when flying to LAX through Denver to find Denver wasn't at all close to LAX. They were both "out west somewhere" to me, probably an hours flight time or so ...Yeah, the west is stupid big.
Yeah, the west is stupid big.If the state line drawing guys towed the line of their predecessors, we would have 150 states.
In FL/GA, you can't go 20-30 miles without bumping into the next town. Maybe 45 miles at the most.
Out west, you can drive 2-3 hours without hitting an intersection between 2 main roads, forget a town.
If the state line drawing guys towed the line of their predecessors, we would have 150 states.Of course, way back when, states like Georgia stretched to the Mississippi. I recall driving in Wyoming for about 60 miles not seeing even a driveway, or house, or anything.
If the state line drawing guys towed the line of their predecessors, we would have 150 states.There was a good show on the ?History Channel? about how the states got their shapes.
There was a good show on the ?History Channel? about how the states got their shapes.Fun show.
Fun show.The one most relevant to the historic Big Ten is the Northern border of Illinois/Indiana/Ohio and Southern border of Wisconsin/Michigan.
They covered some oddities like the part of Kentucky that is non-contiguous. This one happened because the border between Kentucky and Tennessee is an East-West line and the border between Kentucky/Tennessee and Missouri is the Mississippi River.
Fun show.Illinois and Kentucky also have a dispute along the Ohio River.
They covered some oddities like the part of Kentucky that is non-contiguous. This one happened because the border between Kentucky and Tennessee is an East-West line and the border between Kentucky/Tennessee and Missouri is the Mississippi River.
Two of our bridges that I've tangentially touched had major cost questions determined by the exact placement in the Mississippi and St Croix Rivers of the Wisconsin border on the date of statehood.So, they thought the St. Croix was the source then?
The Northwest Angle of Minnesota exists because no Europeans knew where the source of the Mississippi River was, or the actual shape of the Lake of the Woods.
This same thought process (border drawn before local geography was known) also produced Point Roberts, Washington.
https://youtu.be/wwJABxjcvUcUmmm, the 80% side gets rain and the 20% side doesn't.
Interesting video about why 80% of people in this country live east of this line, the 98th Meridian.
So, they thought the St. Croix was the source then?Nope. It actually took 30 years of American-backed expeditions to find and rename Lake Itasca.
(https://i.imgur.com/MED25Rd.png)
Plenty of rain (and opioids) in Oregon and Washington.Yeah, that sliver west of the Cascades balances things out...
Yeah, that sliver west of the Cascades balances things out...It's been rainy as Hell out west all year.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwwCulQsvzQThis is the cutoff line where people cease to be crazy for college football.
how many dropped out?As far as I know only 2 schools have ever left the association. Syracuse was voluntary.
Stole this summary from another board regarding AAU membership since the 90'sYep, I just went and looked. The ISU exit was quiet. Clark was a charter member.
from the 90s to 2011 the AAU added 5 (UCI, UCD, UCSB, A&M, Stony Brook) and dropped 2 (Catholic, Clark).
They lost 2 in 2011 (UNL, Syracuse), and Iowa State withdrew in 2022
they have added 12 since 2011 (Georgia Tech, Boston U., Utah, Dartmouth, UCSC, Tufts + the 6 announced today).
So there are 5 former members total, Catholic University of America (Washington DC) Clark University (Mass), Nebraska, Syracuse, Iowa St
The Dawgs had 11 scheduled later this decade but then Texas and Oklahoma got skeered ... and finked out ... they still have 11 in 2030, including Clemson and Ohio State, and in 2026/2027 as well.The HC is going to love those schedules.
The HC is going to love those schedules.He has commented on them, he likes them, they'd be better if Texas and OU had stayed put.
it seems silly to me that the games on the schedule can't stay putMe too, I thought they could just treat them as noncon games and move on. The OU series was odd because they would play this season and then again in 2031.
The HC is going to love those schedules.Seriously. Clemson, Ohio State, and eight SEC games has the potential to be brutal. They could potentially be a top-10 quality team and go 8-4.
Its alive
https://thespun.com/college-football/big-ten-has-reportedly-vetted-10-schools-for-possible-expansion (https://thespun.com/college-football/big-ten-has-reportedly-vetted-10-schools-for-possible-expansion)
There are 10 teams that have been vetted by the Big Ten for possible membership.Using this link (https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?method=rankingBySource&ds=herd), here are the 2021 research spending and research spending rankings for the 16 current and soon-to-be B1G members AND these 10 schools:
Those 10 schools are Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Washington, Georgia Tech, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Utah, and Miami
I am actually surprised that Colorado, Ariz, Ariz St, Kansas, Florida St, and Clemson were not on that list. I mean If Utah was included, what sets Utah apart?
I still don't understand why research spending has any impact on an athletic conference.$$$$
Sure, I understand that, fine, but how does adding say Washington's research budget help Ohio State?But they operate as a research consortium so partnering with #3 Washington is better for Ohio State than partnering with #106 Notre Dame.
Academic research doesn't generate any TV ratings. Most of the grant money is Federal. You apply for a grant and hope you get some NSF or NIH money. Who your football team plays is irrelevant.
How do they partner? I don't understand that. Some Washington professor applies for an NIH grant. Why would some OSU professor know anything about it?I don't know all the details but the analogy I always think of is having a neighbor that you borrow/lend tools with. I have a lot of tools. The ideal tool borrowing/lending neighbor for me is a Wolverine who has even more tools than I do. However a neighbor who was a Turtle who had somewhat less tools than me would still be a helpful partner. What wouldn't help me at all is if my neighbor was a Leprechaun who didn't own any tools at all.
How do they partner? I don't understand that. Some Washington professor applies for an NIH grant. Why would some OSU professor know anything about it?The high-dollar research schools are doing exciting, expensive, new-frontier type of research which costs and yields billions of dollars.
SEC Top 5 is probably:I would say top 1 Bama
Alabama
Oklahoma
Texas
Tennessee
Georgia
6-8 in some order:
Florida
LSU
Auburn
Iowa State ends membership with prestigious Association of American Universities | The Gazette (https://www.thegazette.com/higher-education/iowa-state-ends-membership-with-prestigious-association-of-american-universities/)Yet, perfectly understandable. The AAU did not align with the ISU's mission.
Kinda weird.
I was a bit surprised when the new AAU members were named last week, and FSU was not part of it. It was equally surprising that USF is in.From what I can gather- FSU is working hard towards an invite to AAU. It is a bit of a process- most of the schools have some affiliation with a teaching hospital and can attract research dollars.
Any idea on this @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) @Honestbuckeye (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=37) @Mdot21 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1595) @WhiskeyM (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1624)
Yet, perfectly understandable. The AAU did not align with the ISU's mission.But if you're in the AAU, what is the benefit of then leaving? Were they just anticipating a finality of it?
AAU also does not count research dollars in Agriculture.
I suspect UNC and UVA are attached at the hip, maybe NCSU as well.SEC has the recruiting
Which conference has a better future? SEC or B1G? The USC/UCLA pair is a nice add, but Texas/OU are both elephants. Then it would depend I think on ACC teams.
until the SEC goes to a 9-game schedule and adds ou and ut. Then the TV contract will be much better than the B1GYeah as the cable forced subscriber model dies off and less money flows in from BTN, and after the TX-OU additions and 9-game schedule are factored in, the SEC might surpass the B1G in money. But they'll be pretty close, I don't really see a huge advantage either way, there.
BTN and SEC Network are going to continue flowing huge sums of $$$As traditional linear programming diminishes, so will cable network profits. Just a matter of fact. The SEC and B1G will continue to make plenty of money, of course. They own the content.
with or without traditional CATV
Might we see a day when a conference owns it's own "network" and folks have to pay to watch it? I mean every sport would be on that network.The PAC is basically being forced to experiment with this right now. I don't think it's going to work out well for them, but they also don't drive the eyeballs that the B1G and SEC do.
The only place anyone could view the sports of a conference would be on this channel (or live). Dunno.Sorry CD, my "I'm not sure what you're getting at" response was directed at Fearless, not you. I totally get what you're saying. I think the only two conferences that could do it would be the B1G and the SEC, but even then, I don't believe you can get enough direct subscribers to make up the loss of revenue and exposure on the general sports networks.
Maybe they make more getting "ESPN" et al. to handle it.
BTN, SEC network, NFL network and ESPN are all on youtube TV and all other popular streaming options
ESPN is going to start their own streaming channel
as the CATV numbers dwindle, those customers migrate to streaming
instead of paying the CATV provider for content, they pay the streaming provider for content
how the content is delivered is not important
the BTN will continue to get paid
Yes, but the a la carte model is already proven to NOT pay as well as the forced subscriber model. The difference is simple-- when ESPN and BTN and SECN force their way onto basic tiers, they're actively forcing subscribers who don't care about that content, to pay for it anyway. Women who only watch ice skating, are still paying for your football games. The thousands of viewers who want to watch Minnesota play Iowa, are being subsidized by the scores of millions who don't give a rat's ass.many are still forced by packages
But that's not true as the model switches over to a la carte delivered via streaming.
The forced subscriber model, not the content or delivery mechanism itself, is what's driving those huge profits. And that is going away.
What is the weakest football program in the B1G these days? I could see Rutgers, Illinois, maybe Purdue?From what standpoint? Eyeballs?
In the SEC it's clearly Vandy, the teams up from them can be 8-5ish decent in selected years, even winning ten every so often.
I was idly thinking about a B1G-SEC merger.
No, it won't. It already isn't. The areas moving to a la carte are losing massive amounts of revenue compared to the forced subscriber subsidized model. This is already happening and will continue to happen. This is my entire point.
and when it does arrive, the price of content will go up to match revenue
No, it won't. It already isn't. The areas moving to a la carte are losing massive amounts of revenue compared to the forced subscriber subsidized model. This is already happening and will continue to happen. This is my entire point.and yet the TV contracts just keep paying the conferences more and more????
Live sports are the final stronghold of the linear programming model, for obvious reasons. But that's already getting chipped away and will only get worse going forward.
Just generally the weakest program in terms of wins and losses over time, prospects etc. That probably correlates with eyeballs. I'm wondering if someone could be cut in time.In that case, I would say the Rutgers, Indiana and Northwestern from a football standpoint, are the weakest in the B1G.
and yet the TV contracts just keep paying the conferences more and more????I view this round of TV contracts as a dinosaur, the final legacy of the dying previous model.
The biggest viewership numbers in all of American sports television come from the NFL, and if the NFL hasn't managed to force ALL of their content onto their own network, then I don't believe anyone can.I don't think they can because they'd lose way too many "casual" viewers.
you and I and others on this boardThere ain't enough of us to make a difference. NFL viewership is dramatically higher than collegiate sports viewership and even they have found they are beholden to the masses to keep most of their content on regular OTA networks.
the true college football fans will have to pay to make up the difference
In that case, I would say the Rutgers, Indiana and Northwestern from a football standpoint, are the weakest in the B1G.Here is an alphabetical breakdown of teams in the B1G, in conference-only play.
So, what is the future?Not here, but Chicago did Sunday-Yesterday while we were there. Probably does today, I imagine. Damn Canadiens.
I know predicting is always tough when it's about the future ...
Anyone here having smoky/hazy skies?
Of course, now y'all are stuck with Maryland and Rutgers. It's all well and good as long as the checks keep cashing...when the checks dry up, it could spell a problem for Rutgers.
BTN, SEC network, NFL network and ESPN are all on youtube TV and all other popular streaming optionsI canceled youtube TV after being a proponent of it for a long time.
I was a bit surprised when the new AAU members were named last week, and FSU was not part of it. It was equally surprising that USF is in.I know FSU has been working hard to improve academics and such, and I know South Florida seems kinda random, but I believe USF has some kind of attachment with Florida (at least they used to), which may have had something to do with it.
Any idea on this @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) @Honestbuckeye (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=37) @Mdot21 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1595) @WhiskeyM (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1624)
I'm a Hulu guy, but the prices keep rising. Not sure what to do.changing from Hulu to Youtube to whatever isn't going to save anyone
I know FSU has been working hard to improve academics and such, and I know South Florida seems kinda random, but I believe USF has some kind of attachment with Florida (at least they used to), which may have had something to do with it.I saw that FSU is connected to FAMU for engineering. Like a joint venture. Could this be part of it??
I know AAU seems to really care about on-site stuff. But on its own, USF is like a backup school (or was). For as pedestrian as its normal, undergrad numbers are, it must have some strong research numbers.
Looking it up quickly, USF went big on research 5-6 years ago.
.
I think FSU has been busy improving it's undergrad/traditional metrics and maybe has just focused on research more recently. Idk.
From what I can gather- FSU is working hard towards an invite to AAU. It is a bit of a process- most of the schools have some affiliation with a teaching hospital and can attract research dollars.Does the FAMU connection hurt FSU? I know they are connected with engineering. Are the other colleges/schools connected too?
They have allocated a lot of resources to go in that direction.
Totally unscientific- many of their alumni would prefer the BIG over SEC.
changing from Hulu to Youtube to whatever isn't going to save anyoneYou can get all of these over the air, in most places where humans live.
ditching ESPN, BTN, ABC, NBC, CBS is the only way to save.
when the checks dry up, it could spell a problem for Rutgers.Good luck with that. It would be interesting to see the kinds of lawsuits that would arise when you tell a school you're cutting off the gravy train. I suspect they're the kind of lawsuits that would prevent a conference from even considering it.
we've been through thisThey rarely get kicked out, and certainly not in the current era of billion dollar sports deals and multi billion dollar research grant access.
conference members come and go through history
Here is an alphabetical breakdown of teams in the B1G, in conference-only play.First a question:
Indiana, Maryland, Northwestern and Rutgers all below 40% winning. This is for all-time.
The last 3 decades look different.
First a question:You assume correctly. I did not take the time to see how many times PSU kicked Rutgers' ass before RU joined, for example. Or how many times UNL put a beating on B1G teams in bowl games.
I note that Nebraska, Maryland, and Rutgers have slightly different records all-time and 1993-present but they wouldn't if this was games in the B1G only so I assume that it is actually "games against B1G teams"?
All time:
- .751 Ohio State
- .704 Michigan
- .617 Penn State
- .555 Michigan State
- .513 Nebraska
- .496 Wisconsin
- .484 Iowa
- .479 Purdue
- .453 Minnesota
- .423 Illinois
- .380 Northwestern
- .311 Indiana
- .280 Maryland
- .220 Rutgers
1993-2022 (30 years):
- .827 Ohio State - same
- .669 Michigan - same
- .645 Wisconsin - up from #6
- .623 Penn State - down from #3
- .554 Iowa - up from #7
- .546 Michigan State - down from #4
- .505 Nebraska - down from #5
- .454 Northwestern - up from #11
- .411 Purdue - down from #8
- .369 Minnesota - down from #9
- .302 Illinois - down from #10
- .294 Maryland - up from #13
- .258 Indiana - down from #12
- .182 Rutgers - same
This is more-or-less the answer to @Brutus Buckeye (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=31) 's "helmetiness" question. I'd arbitrarily move Nebraska up a couple spots (ahead of MSU and PSU) because their best years were pre-B1G.
Drawing tiers, I'd go:
- Ohio State and Michigan. Ohio State is definitively ahead of Michigan but the Wolverines are a lot closer to the Buckeyes than they are to anyone behind this.
- Nebraska and Penn State. Very close between these two.
- Wisconsin, Iowa, and Michigan State. Which of these is ahead is a question of eras. Lately UW but Iowa during Hayden Fry's heyday and MSU in the 60's.
- Purdue, Minnesota, Illinois, and Maryland. I've arbitrarily moved Maryland ahead of Indiana and Northwestern because I *THINK* that their B1G era performance is a bit off from their historic abilities and they have an NC that is old but not altogether ancient.
- Northwestern, Indiana, Rutgers.
Of the soon-to-be-members, I would put USC in tier-1 and UCLA in tier-3.
The 10 schools allegedly vetted for addition (see @Temp430 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=131) and @LittlePig (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1540) posts above):
- n/a
- n/a
- Stanford, Oregon, Washington, North Carolina, Miami
- Cal, GaTech (their heyday was more than a century ago), Virginia, Utah
- Dook
Drawing tiers, I'd go:USC has won two Pac titles in 15 years. UCLA haven't won any.
- Ohio State and Michigan. Ohio State is definitively ahead of Michigan but the Wolverines are a lot closer to the Buckeyes than they are to anyone behind this.
- Nebraska and Penn State. Very close between these two.
- Wisconsin, Iowa, and Michigan State. Which of these is ahead is a question of eras. Lately UW but Iowa during Hayden Fry's heyday and MSU in the 60's.
- Purdue, Minnesota, Illinois, and Maryland. I've arbitrarily moved Maryland ahead of Indiana and Northwestern because I *THINK* that their B1G era performance is a bit off from their historic abilities and they have an NC that is old but not altogether ancient.
- Northwestern, Indiana, Rutgers.
Of the soon-to-be-members, I would put USC in tier-1 and UCLA in tier-3.
talkin heads might be the most delusional of allYou can only say the same thing so many different ways.
USC has won two Pac titles in 15 years. UCLA haven't won any.I heard this about PSU a LOT more than I did about UNL and more than I have about USC.
Flashback. Penn State is gonna run roughshod over the Big Ten. Flash forward. 4 titles in 30 years.
Flashback. Nebraska is gonna run roughshod over the Big Ten. Flash forward. No titles in 12 years. Closest they got was a trip to Indy and got 70 dropped on them.
Flash forward. USC is gonna run roughshod over the Big Ten. Flashback. Good luck with that.
How precious that M, OSU and PSU all get 5 home games.This is a really silly criticism since it alternates years.
This is a really silly criticism since it alternates years.until a couple more teams are added and the schedule is redone
This is a really silly criticism since it alternates years.
How precious that M, OSU and PSU all get 5 home games.
nuttin for PSUI was surprised PSU-OSU was not kept as a protected rival. Sounds like OSU didn't want to play both Mich and PSU every year.
This is a really silly criticism since it alternates years.In 2016, when the 9-game schedule was started, the East had 5 home games.
In 2016, when the 9-game schedule was started, the East had 5 home games.And when all is said and done it will have been in place for eight years with the B1G-E teams and the B1G-W teams each getting four years of five home games.
Legends and Leaders were designed to have OSU and Michigan in Indy.That was obviously Delaney's hope, for purposes of revenue maximumization which benefits all of us. Your statement of it as "designed to have" implies that tOSU and Michigan had built-in scheduling advantages. They didn't.
It's called preferential treatment.Your argument for this would be a lot better if you didn't constantly "cry wolf" by alleging it in situations where it doesn't actually exist or, at best, is so insignificant as to effectively not exist.
Your argument for this would be a lot better if you didn't constantly "cry wolf" by alleging it in situations where it doesn't actually exist or, at best, is so insignificant as to effectively not exist.Are you denying that OSU and Michigan get and have always gotten preferential treatment?
RedditCFB on Twitter: "A reader went through the 2024 & 2025 Big Ten schedules and found combinations of 3 & 4 teams that all mutually don’t play each other, and could theoretically all go undefeated in conference. https://t.co/4qIvELysA6 https://t.co/6Fzo9eArnH" / Twitter (https://twitter.com/RedditCFB/status/1666941964447813634?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1666941964447813634|twgr^f4e47b3dd52960f6a6001b391f3f55dc9322dcb6|twcon^s1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.surlyhorns.com%2Fboard%2Findex.php%3Fapp%3Dcoremodule%3Dsystemcontroller%3Dembedurl%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fredditcfb%2Fstatus%2F1666941964447813634%3Fs%3D6126t%3DhxQEB54SUgYpv-JONBJbcg)I think the odds of the Big Ten having 3 teams going undefeated are 1 out of 6 million. I would not worry about it. Ok I admit I just made that number up. Medina can probably tell us the real odds.
sucks when your helmet isn't shiny enough to continue to get the perksWe've sucked for so long that I'm surprised we still do, but in college football, money talks. Same as it ever was.
UT and OU will luv the SEC
that's why you were invited to Saban's party
he wants your money
not sure he's going to give you many perks
Looking forward to seeing the 2024 SEC schedules. Texas visits Michigan and hosts Oklahoma in 2024.Of course, just to clarify, all that means is that Texas is the "designated home team" at the neutral site Cotton Bowl in Dallas that year.
Are you denying that OSU and Michigan get and have always gotten preferential treatment?You are changing the discussion and beating up strawmen. I never said that tOSU and Michigan have NEVER gotten preferential treatment.
Helmets get preferential treatment.I'm not arguing that it has never and will never happen. I'm arguing that *THIS* allegation of it is ridiculously weak. It only ends up being preferential on the basis of a possible future contingency happening at a particular time.
Fans of helmet teams really should be able to admit this.
I think the odds of the Big Ten having 3 teams going undefeated are 1 out of 6 million. I would not worry about it. Ok I admit I just made that number up. Medina can probably tell us the real odds.I'm with you in general but I'd be curious about the specifics.
I'm with you in general but I'd be curious about the specifics.taking a page from the SEC book would increase chances of multiple playoff slots
If somebody says that Rutgers, Indiana, and Northwestern all do not play each other in 2027 I wouldn't worry. OTOH, if USC, tOSU and PSU don't play each other in 2025 I'd be more concerned.
Where is the preferential treatment? @847badgerfan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=5) alleged it but he has been unable to back it up and fearless' argument is conditional with the existing precedent disproving it.When the conference went to 9 games, which division was the first to have 5 at home? That actually happened.
If there is so much preferential treatment why don't you give an example where it ACTUALLY happened instead of alleging it where it does not exist.
When the conference went to 9 games, which division was the first to have 5 at home? That actually happened.But that only becomes preferential if:
You're not going to convince me that they flipped a coin, and yes, I know it flips every year.
taking a page from the SEC book would increase chances of multiple playoff slots8 conference games is the way to go, unless/until the selection committee starts to punish you for doing it. It's bad for football fans but good for the conference's pocketbook.
8 conference games is the way to go, unless/until the selection committee starts to punish you for doing it. It's bad for football fans but good for the conference's pocketbook.But if they did that, they couldn't bitch incessantly about the SEC doing it.
8 conference games is the way to go, unless/until the selection committee starts to punish you for doing it. It's bad for football fans but good for the conference's pocketbook.10 would be the way to go.
But that only becomes preferential if:Peace, my friend.Ok, I guess it is hypothetically potentially preferential. That is extremely weak as evidence of preferential treatment.
- The structure lasts an odd number of years, and
- The structure that replaces it fails to balance things out.
When the conference went to 9 games, which division was the first to have 5 at home? That actually happened.I still not sure if you are serious, but I believe they went with East first in 2016 because it work out better with most of the team's existing non-conference schedules.
You're not going to convince me that they flipped a coin, and yes, I know it flips every year.
I still not sure if you are serious.Not really, because I don't actually care.
8 conference games is the way to go, unless/until the selection committee starts to punish you for doing it. It's bad for football fans but good for the conference's pocketbook.With conference expansion, 8 game conference schedules will not buoy up the conference, and will not increase TV revenues. There are enough weak conference members for middling teams to get to a bowl. Fewer conference games dilute the TV schedule.
In the case of 20, just don't have any crossover games. Then a CCG will actually make sense. Like a B1G World Series from back in the day.I personally like the idea of junking the divisions and trying to have everybody play everybody as equally and frequently as they can. As the Big Ten folks kept saying in the rollout, teams in the same conference should want to play each other. The teams in the middle hate geographical divisions because you just drew a line right through the middle of conference where teams on the other side of the line barely play each other. Now you want set it up that they don't play at all. No way. No thank you.
geography can be delt withI remember when the Big 11 was still a thing, and people wanting to play a 9 game schedule in it.
lines on a map
it's important IMO that a group of teams play each other annually - all of them - round robin
those games should be a majority of the season, not 2 or 3 games each season
7 teams in each division - seems to work
why not 8 teams or 10 or 12?
thinkin a 10-game schedule would have been perfect, but 9 would be better than 7 or 8.Jim Delany. He wanted to go to 12 but ND refused. Then the presidents/chancellors put a moratorium on expansion. If not for that, Texas would be a member.
who's idea was it to add an 11th team?
It makes me wonder what the Big Ten will do when they expand to 18 or 20 teams. They will either have to...I proposed a solution way upthread, see below:
expand to 10 conference games
or start playing some teams every 3 years instead of every 2 years.
Or go to just 1 protected rival and play everybody else once every 2 years. I can't see this option working for Michigan.
They have to go to 10 games in that case. Or split in two.There are other alternatives. I proposed one upthread, see below
I don't think I could stomach not having games against UM, OSU, MSU, PSU.Agreed!
And if FSU, Miami or both were to join, I'd want them so I could easily see my guys.
Since the Wolverines shied away from the 2020 game, Penn State is by far OSU's longest running continuous series at 30 years.LoL.
So now that it's finally gaining some of that tradition that it lacked, of course they are pulling the plug.
11 teams cannot play a 9 game schedule.oh yes they can
| Sep 17, 1960 (https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/boxscores/1960-09-17-georgia-tech.html) | Sat | Georgia Tech (https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/georgia-tech/1960.html) | Kentucky (https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/kentucky/1960.html) | SEC (https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/conferences/sec/1960.html) | W | 23 | 13 | 1 | 0 | 0 | W 1 | ||
| Sep 24, 1960 (https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/boxscores/1960-09-24-rice.html) | Sat | (13) Georgia Tech (https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/georgia-tech/1960.html) | @ | Rice (https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/rice/1960.html) | SWC (https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/conferences/swc/1960.html) | W | 16 | 13 | 2 | 0 | 0 | W 2 | |
| Oct 1, 1960 (https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/boxscores/1960-10-01-florida.html) | Sat | (10) Georgia Tech (https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/georgia-tech/1960.html) | @ | Florida (https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/1960.html) | SEC (https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/conferences/sec/1960.html) | L | 17 | 18 | 2 | 1 | 0 | L 1 | |
| Oct 8, 1960 (https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/boxscores/1960-10-08-georgia-tech.html) | Sat | Georgia Tech (https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/georgia-tech/1960.html) | LSU (https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/louisiana-state/1960.html) | SEC (https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/conferences/sec/1960.html) | W | 6 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 0 | W 1 | ||
| Oct 15, 1960 (https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/boxscores/1960-10-15-auburn.html) | Sat | (19) Georgia Tech (https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/georgia-tech/1960.html) | @ | Auburn (https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/auburn/1960.html) | SEC (https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/conferences/sec/1960.html) | L | 7 | 9 | 3 | 2 | 0 | L 1 | |
| Oct 22, 1960 (https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/boxscores/1960-10-22-georgia-tech.html) | Sat | Georgia Tech (https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/georgia-tech/1960.html) | Tulane (https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/tulane/1960.html) | SEC (https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/conferences/sec/1960.html) | W | 14 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 0 | W 1 | ||
| Oct 29, 1960 (https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/boxscores/1960-10-29-duke.html) | Sat | Georgia Tech (https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/georgia-tech/1960.html) | @ | (15) Duke (https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/duke/1960.html) | ACC (https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/conferences/acc/1960.html) | L | 0 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 0 | L 1 | |
| Nov 5, 1960 (https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/boxscores/1960-11-05-georgia-tech.html) | Sat | Georgia Tech (https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/georgia-tech/1960.html) | (8) Tennessee (https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/tennessee/1960.html) | SEC (https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/conferences/sec/1960.html) | W | 14 | 7 | 5 | 3 | 0 | W 1 | ||
| Nov 12, 1960 (https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/boxscores/1960-11-12-georgia-tech.html) | Sat | Georgia Tech (https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/georgia-tech/1960.html) | Alabama (https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/alabama/1960.html) | SEC (https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/conferences/sec/1960.html) | L | 15 | 16 | 5 | 4 | 0 | L 1 | ||
| Nov 26, 1960 (https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/boxscores/1960-11-26-georgia.html) | Sat | Georgia Tech (https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/georgia-tech/1960.html) | @ | Georgia (https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/georgia/1960.html) | SEC (https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/conferences/sec/1960.html) | L | 6 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 0 | L 2 |
I personally like the idea of junking the divisions and trying to have everybody play everybody as equally and frequently as they can. As the Big Ten folks kept saying in the rollout, teams in the same conference should want to play each other. The teams in the middle hate geographical divisions because you just drew a line right through the middle of conference where teams on the other side of the line barely play each other. Now you want set it up that they don't play at all. No way. No thank you.I agree with this particularly the bolded part.
Similarly, @betarhoalphadelta (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19) 's Boilermakers would play in Los Angeles once every three years.Rotten trick. I finally cut ties with my fandom and now they'll be coming into my backyard?
oh yes they canHe is making a mathematical point.
it's not perfect, but it's better than an 8-game schedule
did they play 8 back then? or 7?
He is making a mathematical point.I clearly stated it would not be perfect
11 teams times nine games equals 99 which is not divisible by two and each game has to have two teams. Thus, 11 teams cannot play an 11 game schedule. The closest they could come is to either:
- Play 98 games which is eight for one team and 9 for each of the other 10 teams or
- Play 100 games which is nine for 10 teams and 10 for one team.
IMHO, it would be ridiculous and silly if USC and UCLA joining our league meant that Ohio State would actually play them LESS often.4 H&H games since 64 isn't much.
4 H&H games since 64 isn't much.Maybe not but it is roughly one H&H every 20 years. Also, the Buckeyes and Trojans met eight times in RoseBowls.
it IS ridiculous and silly that teams in one division of a conference CAN'T play teams from the other division unless they are on the "conference" schedule.I do NOT think there is such a rule. I can't think of the specific example but I know that some conferencemates have played non-conference BB games against each other and I would *THINK* that they could do the same thing in Football.
If Colorado backed out of their 09/07/2024 game in Lincoln because they switched conferences or whatever reason, why is it seemingly against the rule for the UNL AD to call the tOSU AD or Maryland AD and schedule a game for that date?
it must be an unwritten ruleI think there is a practical reason.
I don't remember it ever happening
Do the game in Indy, maybe?even if the TV wonks put up enough $$$ to cover the revenue for tickets, parking, and concessions, UNL wouldn't do it because of the lost revenue to the local businesses in Lincoln and Omaha.
even if the TV wonks put up enough $$$ to cover the revenue for tickets, parking, and concessions, UNL wouldn't do it because of the lost revenue to the local businesses in Lincoln and Omaha.Same for tOSU.
I'd love everyone to play two P5 teams OOC each year.Prior to 2015 before the Big Ten went to 9 conference games, it was fairly common for Big Ten teams to play 2 non-conference games against "BCS" level conference opponents. But that was when there was only 8 conference games.
Playing 9 conference games and 1 P5 OOC fills the bill, but I prefer more interesting OOC games usually.'Cause we're skeered!
UGA went a bit crazy scheduling 3 P5 OOC teams later this decade though that got clipped by OU/Texas dropping out.
SDSU sent a letter to the MWC yesterday saying they "intend to resign" from the conference, which I guess is NOT the same thing as saying they resign today.Interesting article about the tension:
Everybody is a little confused, but the MWC decided to interpret as saying SDSU resigned yesterday and will start withholding funds from SDSU starting yesterday.
I think Utah, ASU, UA and UC (CU??) would be a prize for the XII.No doubt, but they also could be considered panickers as well, each conference has its own metrics. (I think of CU as Colorado and UC as Cincinnati.)
I think Utah, ASU, UA and UC (CU??) would be a prize for the XII.and if this happened, SDST would be a prize for the PAC
Nobody left in the PAC brings enough to the table for the B1G. Maybe Stanford?Washington would be decent I think. Oregon would be sort of OK, hence tjhis thread. Clemson? "OK' for the B1G, nice for the SEC.
It's ND, UVA, UNC, FSU and Miami. Maybe Stanford?
I think they had to take UCLA to get USC.I think not
(I think of CU as Colorado and UC as Cincinnati.)I think you have to call them "Colorado" or "UC-Boulder".
I think you have to call them "Colorado" or "UC-Boulder".UChicago agrees.
UC just doesn't sound right.
XII would have jumped at that.yes, but USC wouldn't
How would you rank the potential conference realignment moves, from least to most likely?least likely?
Word is Colorado board is meeting tomorrow Thursday to approve a move to the Big 12.Wrong school and wrong conference and nowhere near Memorial Day, but... okay.
Colorado is CU.Go INDY or join the BIG with ND ¯\_ (ツ)_/¯
I've heard Arizona, but not ASU.
Idk, I feel bad for Utah if the PAC goes to hell. They're a newb and all they've done is win.
why wouldn't the Big 12 want Utah?Because the Big 12 just added BYU and BYU gots the Utah market covered. Big 12 would rather add a school from a different state or maybe its BYU that is blocking Utah. Not sure if BYU has any power as a new member.
more better TV content
the Utes have more passion for football than the Cali schools
They just simply refuse to discuss the idea of jumping to the Big 12.foolishness
why wouldn't the Big 12 want Utah?So do people in Mozambique...
more better TV content
the Utes have more passion for football than the Cali schools
Because the Big 12 just added BYU and BYU gots the Utah market covered. Big 12 would rather add a school from a different state or maybe its BYU that is blocking Utah. Not sure if BYU has any power as a new member.Why leave the place you kick ass in? Let's add Hawai'i Tech and Alaska-Anchorage, keep this baby truckin'!!!!
Plus Utah is being strangely, almost bizarrely loyal to the PAC. They just simply refuse to discuss the idea of jumping to the Big 12.
We used to call teams either P5 or G5 (or battery teams), I think we're going to need a third designation.After USC and UCLA left the PAC for the Big Ten, alot of people starting splitting the P5 into 2 sub categories, P2 and M3.
I'm thinking how the Pac could survive IF they lost say UW, Oregon, and Stanford. They'd be trying to add some sketchy programs at that point I think.The "PAC" may very well survive, but we've just dropped from the P5 to the P4.
The "PAC" may very well survive, but we've just dropped from the P5 to the P4.Hang on a minute.
Hang on a minute.I think this is just a domino. USC/UCLA started the trend, but the question would be if the rest of the conference would stick around in solidarity and try to soldier on. I think this is the first "no" answer to that question.
The PAC just lost its crappiest football member. I'd argue the PAC just improved.
FSU and Clemson still have 13 years remaining on their GOR to the ACC. That's a lot more than the 3 years Texas and OU had left, and even then, Texas and OU only managed to escape one year early.ESPN can be bought out. I hear Mickey could use some cash.
I think you grab Stanford at a discounted rate, and grab FSU. And that's it.Why would the BIG want Miami? good scholastically but no fanny's in the seats and not enough clicks on the tube IMHO. Grab VTech
Then wait on ND and Miami.
Why would the BIG want Miami? good scholastically but no fanny's in the seats and not enough clicks on the tube IMHO. Grab VTechLOL what? The answer is more like why wouldn't they want Miami lol? Miami is probably the #1 school on the B1G wishlist, I'd imagine.
LOL what? The answer is more like why wouldn't they want Miami lol? Miami is probably the #1 school on the B1G wishlist, I'd imagine.It's just too crazy with spiralling prices what about travel from like St Paul to Coral Gables or from there to West Wood Ca? not alot of history or interest in those match ups - just a bad fit as are the left coasters. How many kids from down there are going to want to go that far away from home? Just sort of smacks of Big Jim grabbing Rutgers for NYC clicks when any BIG fans there already had the cable package anyway
It's just too crazy with spiralling prices what about travel from like St Paul to Coral Gables or from there to West Wood Ca?B1G revenue share will pay for a lot of travel costs... And a lot of everything else too.
Travel from LA to Penn St. is worse than Miami or Fort Lauderdalesignificantly worse...
I see FSU as slightly more valuable than MiamiI think they are splitting hairs. And I think I'd rather have Miami.
but nether of them add enough value to split revenues another one or two ways
I'm not one to see much "recruiting value" in adding a team these days. I'd judge everything based on $$$.Yeah but SEC and UGA in particular doesn't have to ever worry about shifting demographics which has become a hinderance to recruiting the very best players the nation has to offer. B1G and the helmets in the B1G footprint like M/OSU/PSU do.
it makes a differenceIt also means Midwest kids who may not want to leave their family for 4 years and have their family be unable to see them play their sport might accept offers from Miami knowing that they'll be coming back to the Midwest multiple times a year for games, and they get to party with bikini-clad South Beach denizens.
it the kid and family know they will get a game in Miami on the upcoming schedule
the Big Ten teams coming to Miami 4 or 5 times a season helps with exposure
My guess is the elite 4 and 5 star guys considered other variables.true. but it can't hurt and can only help with some. B1G needs every little edge they can get to get those types of guys. And it would 100% only help.
it makes a differenceagree 100%.
it the kid and family know they will get a game in Miami on the upcoming schedule
the Big Ten teams coming to Miami 4 or 5 times a season helps with exposure
Yeah but SEC and UGA in particular doesn't have to ever worry about shifting demographics which has become a hinderance to recruiting the very best players the nation has to offer. B1G and the helmets in the B1G footprint like M/OSU/PSU do.I was told by members of this board that this is dead wrong. They even supplied population maps showing how the north and midwest still have far greater numbers of humans and said I should ignore the mass migration happening from the rust belt.
I was told by members of this board that this is dead wrong. They even supplied population maps showing how the north and midwest still have far greater numbers of humans and said I should ignore the mass migration happening from the rust belt.
Not Alabama, but then again, Saban hasn't built his throne of championships with in-state talent.
Balderdash.
Everyone who has ever lived in the North and Midwest recalls those dark days, when all of their neighbors loaded up their family Trucksters, and headed down to Alabama in search of better times.
this is silly and disingenuous and you know it.
Balderdash.
Everyone who has ever lived in the North and Midwest recalls those dark days, when all of their neighbors loaded up their family Trucksters, and headed down to Alabama in search of better times.
You won't find anything in the North or Midwest that is even half as remote as northern Arizona.Montana? The Dakota's? Phoenix alone has more people than those 3 states or close to it and Montana is bigger and the Dakotas together are bigger also
I was told by members of this board that this is dead wrong. They even supplied population maps showing how the north and midwest still have far greater numbers of humans and said I should ignore the mass migration happening from the rust belt.I don't think anyone said to ignore it. But now it's a major factor, since 2020.
It also means Midwest kids who may not want to leave their family for 4 years and have their family be unable to see them play their sport might accept offers from Miami knowing that they'll be coming back to the Midwest multiple times a year for games, and they get to party with bikini-clad South Beach denizens.The weather is much more temperate and conductive to Football in November up here than Florida in late august,early september
I could see this (and USC/UCLA) equally those schools in warmer climes being more able to strip recruits OUT of the Midwest than perhaps it might get Midwest schools access to those recruits to come from warm sunny places to the frozen tundra.
My guess is the elite 4 and 5 star guys considered other variables.Of course. But it is *a* variable. How much weight do they give it? I don't know... Depends on the kid.
Wash and Ore suddenly have to consider should they pursue a Big 12 invite instead of patiently waiting for a Big Ten invite that may never come.Washington and Oregon are a much better fit in a new B12 than the B1G.
Accepting an invite to the Big 12 probably involves signing a GOR until 2029, which is when the current Big 12 media contract runs out. Unless Wash and Ore could negotiate an escape clause in the specific case an invite to the Big Ten comes later. But I am not sure the Big 12 would agree to that. Especially if they could get other PAC schools like Utah or ASU to agree to a GOR without an escape clause.
There might not be an ACC after the poaching is finally done.I view those "football schools" as reasonable "gets," but UNC as sort of the crown jewel. NC expands the footprint for either big-boy conference, it's population is booming, and there's the basketball component. Combined with the academics, and it's pretty sexy.
ACC "football schools" are Pitt, VT, NCSU, Clemson, Florida State and Miami.
Maybe UNC too?? Louisville?
I'm not understanding FSU or Clemson to the B1G at all, if any of the pious academic prerequisites ever meant anything. FSU has done a fantastic job of improving their undergrad reputation in the past 20 years, but they're still not "there" yet. And that's largely irrelevant for the B1G, who only seems to care about AAU/research cred.FSU only makes sense if you can pair them with Miami as a Florida partner imo. It's a fairly large brand in football (which let's be honest, drives EVERYTHING in these discussions), they are an almost helmet in perhaps the fastest growing state in America.
Clemson is still what FSU used to be, so I don't get that at all. They have a strong football program and literally no other desirable attribute.
.
If recruiting means the most, GT and Miami make sense. Not counting TX, the top 2 recruiting grounds are easily south FL and southern Cali. But 3rd would likely be the Atlanta area.
If academics means the most, UNC and UVA make sense. AAU + top undergrad. Miami is right there, too.
All 4 of the above expand the footprint, if that matters anymore.
When it comes to eyeballs, of the proposed programs, it's Miami at the top again.
This is sort of why I see the Canes as the obvious target. Recruiting, AAU, footprint, market size. They check every box.
FSU has 2.5 of those 4 (FL panhandle, south GA/AL are pretty fertile, but not like Miami), not AAU, yes on footprint, no market size).
GT has everyone over Clemson besides football success. Does winning on the field trump EVERYTHING else? Remember, the B1G added RUTGERS.
I sat TX out because it's not in play, not as competition for Miami-Dade. Some would argue DFW or Houston rival Atlanta after Miami-Dade and SoCal in terms of recruiting, that's all.yeah, I'm pretty much all for telling ND fk right off to be honest.
.
Yeah, I don't know why the B1G doesn't tell ND to kick rocks as an unofficial stance. I wouldn't contact them, talk with them or take their calls, ever. Individual schools can schedule them, but that's it.
We don't need a source?yup, and that's 99% of all media period today sadly. and it's been that way for awhile now. 20+ years at least. major news papers & cable tv news ran "WMD's in Iraq!" and "Trump's a Russian Agent!" stories 24/7 for years straight with literally zero sources and zero evidence to back up any of their fantastical claims or insinuations and they got the vast majority of the stupid ass 'Merican public to buy both hook line and sinker. 'Merica baby.
Okay, tomorrow the B1G is adding Hawai'i, New Mexico, FAU, and Holy Cross (to stick it to ND).
The SEC is contracting Vandy, Florida, and Texas, as they've exceeded the conference's academic mediocrity.
Top programs in every conference recruit where they like. Non-top programs don't matter in the equation, at all.yeah this is all 100% true and accurate information, but I still feel like the B1G should tell ND to go fk themselves lol.
Notre Dame is the only school available that brings more to a potential conference than it takes away, in terms of television revenue, which is all that matters.
If the domers called the B1G front office tomorrow and said, "yeah we're on our way" then the B1G would fall all over itself licking the domers' boot heels to make it happen.
And if the domers called the SEC front office tomorrow, the exact same thing would happen.
yeah this is all 100% true and accurate information, but I still feel like the B1G should tell ND to go fk themselves lol.Well sure, it's always appropriate to say eff Notre Dame!
Clemson and FSU will never be invited to join the Big Ten. Maybe Washington and Oregon in a couple years.FSU absolutely would be- especially if it was a condition of getting Miami as well. Clemson? Yeah, probably not.
me eitherYeah good luck with "dumping" a conference member and costing them a billion dollars over 12 years or so.
neither are very appealing
well, unless the B1G was to dump Rutgers and Maryland for that pair in the East
it would be an upgrade
I just heard a rumor that Notre Dame has been offered a spot in the B1G AND ACC!Yeah, that one has been going around for 30 years or so.
Yeah good luck with "dumping" a conference member and costing them a billion dollars over 12 years or so.I know it's not gonna happen, but it would be a great thing for the B1G
The ensuing gigantic lawsuits would make for a lot of entertainment though.
I know it's not gonna happen, but it would be a great thing for the B1GThe B1G considered it a "great thing" when they added those two schools and increased the value of the BTN.
The B1G considered it a "great thing" when they added those two schools and increased the value of the BTN.I supported the addition of Maryland. Still do.
Can't have it both ways, pal.
I supported the addition of Maryland. Still do.
I supported the addition of Maryland. Still do.agreed. Maryland was a rock solid add. they have the potential to be quite good from time to time in both football & basketball, fertile ‘crootin ground and DMV is a very important territory for the future of the B1G.
Rutgers was added too. Enjoy!Nope.
Rutgers was just a play to get NYC market. Which ain’t ever going to happen. No one in NYC gives two flying shits about Rutgers and they never will. I’d venture there are more OSU, ND, Mich, & PSU fans in NYC than there are Rutgers. Like a lot more.This is dated, but from the NYT in 2011:
Nope.I can honestly say that other than the times Texas played Rutgers about 20 years ago, I've never seen a Rutgers football game.
That's for you to enjoy.
I meant from the standpoint of picking on the B1G.I'm not picking on the B1G. Y'all are the ones that keep talking about booting them. I'm just pointing out that your conference benefitted from adding them and you have to take the good with the bad. You can't have it both ways. Life ain't fair.
Even when they play Wisconsin, I don't watch Rutgers. I pretend it's someone else.
I meant from the standpoint of picking on the B1G.I haven't been following...
Even when they play Wisconsin, I don't watch Rutgers. I pretend it's someone else.
I'm not picking on the B1G. Y'all are the ones that keep talking about booting them. I'm just pointing out that your conference benefitted from adding them and you have to take the good with the bad. You can't have it both ways. Life ain't fair.Don't include me on that. I was openly against it from the start - as soon as the rumors started flying.
The article (https://archive.nytimes.com/thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/) that I copied that table from is dated but an interesting reference in all the realignment discussions. According to the article, the largest CFB fanbases (circa 2011) were (fanbase size in millions):I wonder how they came up with this data
- 3.2 Ohio State
- 2.9 Michigan
- 2.6 Penn State
I wonder how they came up with this dataI read the article a long time ago. I think they used clicks and internet site visits.
PAC-12 TV deal is streaming-only on Apple TV. $15 per year, per school.Wow. That's... Uhh.... Looking for the nicest possible way to put this...
Bye bye bye.
Wow. That's... Uhh.... Looking for the nicest possible way to put this...Turns out Larry Scott was not as smart as people thought he was.
Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad.
And that doesn't include Tier3 rights, which B12 schools are free to negotiate on their own. Kansas does really well with Tier3, and BYU probably does as well. The other schools will likely only get a couple of million per year, though, so it's not overly incremental when comparing contracts.
The Big 12 renewed a contract with ESPN and Fox that will pay schools more than $31 million per year on average.
PAC-12 TV deal is streaming-only on Apple TV. $15 mil per year, per school.I think streaming *MIGHT* work for a VERY popular school with a large a rabid fanbase. I'm thinking here of schools like Alabama and Ohio State. Those schools have large fanbases and the fans are interested enough to look into it, figure out where they need to go, and cough up a few bucks to watch their team.
Bye bye bye.
It's apparently still a proposed deal, from what I posted.I'm thinking the remaining membership will not even approve it. Do USC, Colorado, and UCLA still get a vote?
lmao. no one- and I mean absolutetly no one is going to subscribe to Apple TV+ just to watch Pac football. Apple TV+ has been a failure with dogshit content and barely 25 million subscribers. Netflix & Amazon Prime in comparison have basically 10x the subscribers and Disney+ has 7x. This is nothing but a grasping of straws by a company with way too much cash that is beyond desperate to break into streaming and a conference that is desperate and on life support.Agree that nobody (i.e. some people but WAY low numbers) is going to subscribe purely for PAC football content, especially as the conference is flat out dying and everyone's trying to leave.
https://sports.yahoo.com/sources-big-ten-has-begun-preliminary-talks-to-potentially-add-oregon-washington-cal-and-stanford-173934989.html (https://sports.yahoo.com/sources-big-ten-has-begun-preliminary-talks-to-potentially-add-oregon-washington-cal-and-stanford-173934989.html)(https://media.tenor.com/1AblIpbiyAoAAAAC/no-god-please-no-nooooo.gif)
This does not mean it's happening it just means they are talking
Florida State board chairman signals school's intent to leave ACC (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/careersandeducation/florida-state-board-chairman-signals-school-s-intent-to-leave-acc/ar-AA1eHCeI?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=4b27646dbf304051891c5e4bbfa22084&ei=8)c'mon down to the B1G FSU & Miami! Add those two to lock down Florida, then go grab Stanford to get into NorCal and lock down California, and then get UNC and call it fkn day. That's a dream scenario for the B1G imo plus you get to tell ND to go fk off. B1G already killed the PAC by poaching the LA schools, they take FSU, Miami, (already took Maryland), and UNC they'll kill the ACC and then ND will be stuck with nothing but a bunch of crap options lol.
ND will be stuck with nothing but a bunch of crap options lol.This is my favorite part of your suggestion.
Which pair would you prefer?UW/Stanford
UO/UW
Stanford/Cal
I think the Pac could have survived after losing two, but not five. They would have been wounded of course, but "OK". Now they have nothing left and the 2 AZs are apparently headed out. Stanford might go Indy? Can there be a conference of "independents"?I disagree.
I'd guess I'm noncommital on the ACC so far but obviously they could fall apart quickly as well after some legal stuff.
The Big Ten can expand, shuffle and realign all it wants while the SEC will keep winning titles (saturdaydownsouth.com) (https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-football/the-big-ten-can-expand-shuffle-realign-all-wants-while-sec-keeps-winning-championships-2023/?fbclid=IwAR2JrgH1t0l7o0c9kx1L-jLxdto7K2rCd-BI-s_2zmGVGaElrLa1yjnMfyg)The thing this article does that stands out for me is include women's basketball into a "big 4" of sports, lol.
I think this fellow uses the past as prologue, and that isn't always the case obviously.
I really don't understand taking Oregon and not Stanford.same. taking Oregon- it actually blows my mind. makes zero sense.
The Big Ten can expand, shuffle and realign all it wants while the SEC will keep winning titles (saturdaydownsouth.com) (https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-football/the-big-ten-can-expand-shuffle-realign-all-wants-while-sec-keeps-winning-championships-2023/?fbclid=IwAR2JrgH1t0l7o0c9kx1L-jLxdto7K2rCd-BI-s_2zmGVGaElrLa1yjnMfyg)he's right. and it's about demographics.
I think this fellow uses the past as prologue, and that isn't always the case obviously.
The thing this article does that stands out for me is include women's basketball into a "big 4" of sports, lol.Caitlin Clark won't be around after next season
I really don't understand taking Oregon and not Stanford.it's easy math
it's easy mathAlways?
Oregon gets better TV ratings than Stanford
it's easy mathyeah uhm but....they actually don't....
Oregon gets better TV ratings than Stanford
The thing this article does that stands out for me is include women's basketball into a "big 4" of sports, lol.And Baseball.
https://twitter.com/RedditCFB/status/1687628189793693696?s=20Apple overpaid.
Official release from Big Ten. Wash and Ore to join Big Ten in 2024. Wash and Ore will also join the BTAA (CIC)Why?
https://bigten.org/news/2023/8/4/general-big-ten.aspx
Washington is a decent addition.In what way is it a community college?
Oregon is a Community College with temporarily good athletics due go Phil Knight's money. Phil is 80+ and not going to live forever.
It's funny that the Big 12 is taking a hard pass on Stanford and Cal, when just a few years ago they were adding UCF and Cincinnati just to stay afloat.The Big Ten is pausing expansion with Stanford and Cal. It isn't saying no, it is pausing. I think this is why: Report: Florida State exploring capital equity with JPMorgan (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/report-florida-state-exploring-capital-equity-with-jpmorgan/ar-AA1eNHSR?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=8ff79d167ce1450490ed91fd55e35b14&ei=18)
It's funny that the Big 12 is taking a hard pass on Stanford and Cal, when just a few years ago they were adding UCF and Cincinnati just to stay afloat.I don't think that's the B12's choice. Stanford and Cal have made it very clear over the decades that they think B12 schools are beneath them.
In what way is it a community college?In 2021 they were 149th in research spending at $139M.
academic folks think academics outweighs moneyOne thing I've learned over the years is that when it comes down to it, nothing outweighs money.
they are obviously wrong
Big Ten Presidents and Chancellors and such are academic folks
Presuming the AZs are gone, the Pac now has OrSU, Wazzu, Stanford, Utah, and Cal. The first two look to be in serious trouble. Utah can bounce I suspect, Cal and Stanford? Dunno.
In what way is it a community college?Oregon is the lowest B1G school academically (or competing with Nebraska, if you wish).
So is this for next season? Better redo those schedules. Honestly, I like the Pacific Northwest and this gives me an excuse to drag the family out there.Just stay away from the parts that are fire. The arson kind. You'll be fine.
Just stay away from the parts that are fire. The arson kind. You'll be fine.Luckily it rains a lot.
yeah uhm but....they actually don't....
Oregon was #12, USC #14, UCLA #25, and Washington #34 (Stanford was #47).I'm ALL for kicking out Rutgers. Sign me up for that.
The only current B1G teams that had better TV ratings than Oregon and USC were Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State.
The obvious prize still on the table is Notre Dame. Doubt ND gives up it's independent status though.
If I was B1G king I'd kick out Rutgers and Indiana. Then add Virginia Tech, North Carolina, Florida State, and Miami.
That gives The B1G the DMV area, North Florida (great TV market) and South Florida (best recruiting in the country).
That makes 20. B1G could go to a pod set up that rotates 4 pods with 2 divisions.
Then I'd force Notre Dame to split a TV contract. The B1G would control 9/15 of their historical rivals (USC, Michigan ,Purdue, Michigan State, Northwestern, Miami, Florida State, Nebraska, Penn State).
Then sit back and let that sweet $$$ role in as The B1G cements it's place as one of the only two real super conferences.
This is an arms race. Like it or not. Either play the game or gef left out and crumble.
I do not understand the finances behind their exploration of capital equity with JP Morgan, but they must be very serious about leaving the ACC. I am speculating that the best media deal for the Big Ten is to add Clemson or Miami, and FSU, not Stanford and Cal.I didn't find my answer on this thread. I found an answer here: How media rights packages accelerated the Pac-12's collapse (msn.com)
I'm ALL for kicking out Rutgers. Sign me up for that.and ucla
Fearless was correct. They actually do.the only stat that matters to the accountants
These are the highest ranked schools for TV ratings for the 2022 season.
The numbers next to each school indicate the average number of viewers per week for a 12-week regular season.
1 Ohio State — 5.80M
2 Alabama — 5.11M
3 Michigan — 4.37M
4 Tennessee — 4.13M
5 Georgia — 3.50M
6 Notre Dame — 3.30M
7 LSU — 3.22M
8 Texas — 3.06M
9 Penn State — 3.05M
10 Clemson — 2.59M
11 Florida — 2.57M
12 Oregon — 2.21M
13 TCU — 2.20M
14 Southern Cal — 2.07M
15 Florida State — 2.03M
16 Nebraska — 1.98M
In 2021 they were 149th in research spending at $139M.Ahhh. That a community college does not make.
The lowest B1G school was #87 Nebraska at $307M but that doesn't include the $201M at their medical school.
Your school was #8 at $1.4B, mine was #12 at $1.2B.
(https://i.imgur.com/UAr4cv8.png)Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Joel Klatt.
Ahhh. That a community college does not make.Compare the research budgets of Oregon, a Community College, and a B1G school.
Granted, this whole game is a bit silly. So whatever.
Compare the research budgets of Oregon, a Community College, and a B1G school.Ahh, now were just gonna be extra silly. Got it.
Is Oregon closer to the CC or the B1G?
(Tenn is if Neb is)For real?
not quite, according to the numbers
(Tenn is if Neb is)
not quite, according to the numbers
Which numbers? Both are top 10 in win percentage when applying reasonable criteria like FBS teams with >1000 games played.See above. Roughly the same overall win %, bowl appearances, and AP poll finishes.
See above. Roughly the same overall win %, bowl appearances, and AP poll finishes.Yeah they look pretty much the same to me. If Nebraska's a blueblood then so is Tennessee. And if Tennessee isn't, and Nebraska isn't, then there are only 8 true bluebloods in all of college football.
I guess Nebraska has a couple more NCs.
Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Joel Klatt.yeah that was dumb. B1G did improve with the additions, but SEC still better and is getting Texas & OU.
LOL
.
The funny thing is that the SEC doesn't have to do anything further, ever. We have 5 bluebloods (Tenn is if Neb is). Half the conference are top 15 programs, all-time. The HS talent in the southeast + Texas basically supplies the entire nation. It's mostly full of hyper football fanatics and only has 1 basketball school.
texas and OU better than USC and UCLAabsolutely. USC and Texas are debatable as to which program is better overall- they are both excellent adds.
I didn't find my answer on this thread. I found an answer here: How media rights packages accelerated the Pac-12's collapse (msn.com)Worth noting, that JP Morgan thing could very well be saber rattling BS meant to assuage a bananas fanbase.
(https://www.msn.com/en-us/foodanddrink/foodnews/how-media-rights-packages-accelerated-the-pac-12-s-collapse/ar-AA1eQmMI?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=8b466b389f664c4e9ebb2954cd4ba8e1&ei=53)The Big 12's media contracts incentivized them to expand, granting $31.7M for each P-5 team that is added. My conclusion from reading this article is that the Big 12's media contracts were devised in such a way the PAC-12 would be raided, and would collapse, saving the networks some money. The Big Ten had no similar incentive in its television contracts. It appears from this article the Big Ten is simply dividing up revenues from its existing media contracts and extending Washington and Oregon $30M per year through 2029 and then the Big Ten's media contracts, end.
Unless media contracts are renegotiated I would conclude the Big Ten will not expand further until after 2029, whereas the Big 12 could take on more P-5 schools.
This leaves Cal & Stanford in precarious positions. Stanford is not interested in joining the Big 12, because perhaps rightfully so, they are snooty. But, marriages these days are mostly temporary.
Is this going to change the playoff criteria? I'm looking at the "two highest ranked conference champions" after the top four are seeded 1-4. The B12 has basically taken the decent G5 teams. The remaining G5 conferences are crap, and the Pac whatever is crap.I could see it get tweaked to be the 5 best conference champions + 7 at large schools.
Regarding Joel Klatt-- he does, what he does, because of his network affiliation. He's either been asked to be, or has chosen to be, the anti-SEC voice in a pro-SEC world.
Sure it leads him to say some dumb things in the spirit of being provocative, but overall I'm okay with it. Lord knows we need SOMEONE calling out the SEC when the mediots' circle of stoopidity is doing nothing but slobbing SEC knob.
Regarding Joel Klatt-- he does, what he does, because of his network affiliation. He's either been asked to be, or has chosen to be, the anti-SEC voice in a pro-SEC world.imo the thing about the SEC is it's not really miles better than the other conferences, it just usually has the best team at the top most years.
Sure it leads him to say some dumb things in the spirit of being provocative, but overall I'm okay with it. Lord knows we need SOMEONE calling out the SEC when the mediots' circle of stoopidity is doing nothing but slobbing SEC knob.
Klatt does it better than Danny Kanell did.well that's a really low bar....anyone can do it better than Danny Kannell....
Finebaum is consistently very hard on the SEC...dude is a Nick Saban groupie....
dude is a Nick Saban groupie....Yeah, I detect a little sarcasm coming from CD.
https://twitter.com/DanWetzel/status/1688253814447468544?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1688253814447468544%7Ctwgr%5E64234118c230c999ce47a32b398db2b1c7fcdd8f%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.surlyhorns.com%2Fboard%2Findex.php%3Fapp%3Dcoremodule%3Dsystemcontroller%3Dembedurl%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fdanwetzel%2Fstatus%2F1688253814447468544%3Fs%3D4626t%3DoC0-l2xwOjUxAomKreGliAdude is 100% correct. hypocrisy at it's finest....whine and moan and bitch about NIL and transfer portal....when they literally out here transfer portaling conferences. Lol. B1G and B12 just destroyed the Pac and SEC ravaged the B12 for A&M + Missouri first and now Texas + OU. ACC about to get ripped to shreds with FSU and Clemson dying to leave for SEC or B1G.
https://twitter.com/BoardGeniuses/status/1688200432135311360?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1688200432135311360%7Ctwgr%5E85456506ba74a000330a38390578ce26805deb79%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.surlyhorns.com%2Fboard%2Findex.php%3Fapp%3Dcoremodule%3Dsystemcontroller%3Dembedurl%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FBoardGeniuses%2Fstatus%2F1688200432135311360%3Ft%3DjAaKtHAh_zia-2oNWJ1EFQ26s%3D19serious little brother complex going on right there....A&M will never escape the shadow of Texas. Ever. Just is what it is. Doesn't matter what conference they are in...
serious little brother complex going on right there....A&M will never escape the shadow of Texas. Ever. Just is what it is. Doesn't matter what conference they are in...They have a lifetime win% against Texas of about 33%, but you should hear how they talk and talk about what they would have done to Texas over the past decade-- you know, if they hadn't run away from us to the SEC.
The ags have won 33% of games actually played, but 100% of games never played, between the two schools.They have done better than the Dawgs.
I find better "analysis" around here than from any Talking Head.Asked that a week or two ago - cricketts.Maybe cramming to make room for the season
Where is ELA anyway?
Yeah, UW + Stanford would have been as easy as UW + UO.
Who still thinks that Academics is a major factor in Big Ten expansion?
They just took a hard pass on freaking Stanford.
none of it makes sensewell there's that, too
not only that, but they took Nebraska when it was not an AAU member to expand to 12, and then they took RUTGERS to expand to 14.
Who still thinks that Academics is a major factor in Big Ten expansion?
They just took a hard pass on freaking Stanford.
I think Nebraska was still AAU when they joined, if it matters, at all.So is Oregon today. Oregon is a current member of of the AAU.
I think Nebraska was still AAU when they joined, if it matters, at all.True.
Mizzou was already in the SEC when Rutgers was invitedMizzou always wanted to be in the B1G, though. I think they'd have gone ahead and made the jump if invited. No exit fees in the SEC.
Mizzou was already in the SEC when Rutgers was invitedThat is true, but if the Big Ten knew in 2012 that Mizzou was next on its list to add, they could have proactively added Mizzou in 2012. But since the Big Ten had decided its next move was going east, they essentially passed on Mizzou.
if I remember properly, Mizzou publicly begged the B1G for an invite.yup. Nebraska was a phenomenal addition. just like Penn State was and USC is. helmet brands = $$$.
This is what got UNL's attention and Osborne decided to investigate.
For whatever reason, the Big Ten didn't want Mizzou. (maybe Iowa or Illinois had issues?)
The B1G obviously jumped at the chance to add UNL.
It is a testament to the domers' fierce dedication to independence (and their pig-headedness), that they are not a member of the B1G.those dorks are still holding a 100+ year old grudge against Michigan and have refused to join the B1G on multiple occasions all because Michigan's Fielding Yost hated catholics and refused to play ND again for years after they beat him I think once and he tried to keep B1G schools from scheduling them and successfully kept blocking them from joining the B1G.
One B1G school voted NO on Oregon and Washington.kinda blows my mind Michigan, OSU, and Penn State all voted yes to Oregon....a school that continually beats them for 'croots on the trail.
WISCONSIN.
They were fine with Washington, but they wanted Stanford over Oregon. Like way more.
The other 13 schools F'd this up royally.
One B1G school voted NO on Oregon and Washington.Not that I don't trust you, but I'd be interested to read more, do you have a link for this?
WISCONSIN.
They were fine with Washington, but they wanted Stanford over Oregon. Like way more.
The other 13 schools F'd this up royally.
It was like 100+ years ago. Get over it domers.1925: Husker Victory, Hostilities Temporarily Ends Series
That is true, but if the Big Ten knew in 2012 that Mizzou was next on its list to add, they could have proactively added Mizzou in 2012. But since the Big Ten had decided its next move was going east, they essentially passed on Mizzou.
The B1G can retroactively add Mizzou for all I care.we'll trade you Rutgers for Mizzou.
They are bring zero to the SEC, and a bad fit. They are our Rutgers.
we'll trade you Rutgers for Mizzou.
kinda blows my mind Michigan, OSU, and Penn State all voted yes to Oregon....a school that continually beats them for 'croots on the trail.
Plan of action should've been to bury those johnny come lately fks and leave them out in the cold and force them into a dogshit conference like the MWC and then you'd never have to worry about losing a recruit to them ever again...
yup. Nebraska was a phenomenal addition. just like Penn State was and USC is. helmet brands = $$$.Only problem with Nebraska was that they were on a downward trend that has so far shown no signs of stopping.
hate the basterds but ND would be a huge add for the B1G.
Not that I don't trust you, but I'd be interested to read more, do you have a link for this?I still have some connections, and I was also out in LA this past weekend for a wedding. Two prominent USC boosters were there, a VERY wealthy Stanford booster, and a prominent Penn State booster. None of them wanted Oregon, and confirmed what I heard about the UW vote.
Good job Wisconsin, can we make King Barry our Commissioner and allow him retroactive power to change this recent decision?
I still have some connections, and I was also out in LA this past weekend for a wedding. Two prominent USC boosters were there, a VERY wealthy Stanford booster, and a prominent Penn State booster. None of them wanted Oregon, and confirmed what I heard about the UW vote.Ok, thanks.
USC despises Oregon much the same way OSU, UM, PSU, etc. will come to despise them.
The wedding was at the Bel Air Club. Lots of money and clout in that room.
But the comments that Oregon is not much better than a junior college are just ridiculous.Intentionally so of course, jusy hyperbole. Those rankings do have them in the lower part of the B1G academically. And a lot of schools ranked above Oregon are not AAU schools as it pertains to graduate programs.
I honestly am not getting the extreme hatred for Oregon. Academically they are no Stanford but they are AAU members and have USNews ranking of #105, which is similar to Col, Ariz, ASU, Utah and better than Nebraska.I was the one who called them a Community College so I'll answer for it.
Ok, So academically it probably made more sense for the Big Ten to add the snobs at Stanford and Berkley and have Oregon go to the Big 12. But the comments that Oregon is not much better than a junior college are just ridiculous.
Why on earth would you want Cal????The only reason would be to keep the XII or ACC out of California. That's it.
Yeah, I'm not sure Cal was offered?They were not, but if Stanford came, they may have come attached. This I do not know.
A little more on Stanford, which I forgot to get into earlier.they should just go ivy. better fit across the board for that school. plus they would probably dominate at that level. this level they pretty much sucked ass forever except for a great run sparked by Jeem and kept going for awhile there by Shaw.
Stanford did NOT want to be a part of the BTAA (formerly CIC). Stanford would be IN if not for that. And I think it's a major F up on their part. Yeah, GREAT school. But it's not like the B1G is a big bag of slouches.
Maybe they should just go IVY or UChicago and be done with it.
I don't know about Cal, but UCLA is joining so I don't see why Cal wouldn't.
Kudos to Wisconsin for apparently being the only B1G institution to see the stupidity of this move and voting not to allow it.maybe Wisconsin didn't get a blowjob?
I am surprised Wisconsin did not try to block Washington because there is only room for one UW in this league. :)Washington likes to go by UDub.
What are all the abbreviaters going to do now? What in the world is Medina going to do when he posts his power rankings? This is going to lead to mass confusion! How can we possibly function with 2 UW's in the conference?
A little more on Stanford, which I forgot to get into earlier.I'm not calling you a liar, I am sure that's what you were told, but I simply refuse to believe that was the only reason Stanford was not picked over Oregon.
Stanford did NOT want to be a part of the BTAA (formerly CIC). Stanford would be IN if not for that. And I think it's a major F up on their part. Yeah, GREAT school. But it's not like the B1G is a big bag of slouches.
Maybe they should just go IVY or UChicago and be done with it.
I don't know about Cal, but UCLA is joining so I don't see why Cal wouldn't.
maybe Wisconsin didn't get a blowjob?Ya like the Nebraska vote
One B1G school voted NO on Oregon and Washington.Not picking a fight with you or this, but this is like passing on dessert in the grand scheme of the (more than 13) schools that F'd this up royally.
WISCONSIN.
They were fine with Washington, but they wanted Stanford over Oregon. Like way more.
The other 13 schools F'd this up royally.
A little more on Stanford, which I forgot to get into earlier.Two things:
Stanford did NOT want to be a part of the BTAA (formerly CIC). Stanford would be IN if not for that. And I think it's a major F up on their part. Yeah, GREAT school. But it's not like the B1G is a big bag of slouches.
Maybe they should just go IVY or UChicago and be done with it.
I don't know about Cal, but UCLA is joining so I don't see why Cal wouldn't.
A little more on Stanford, which I forgot to get into earlier.
Stanford did NOT want to be a part of the BTAA (formerly CIC). Stanford would be IN if not for that. And I think it's a major F up on their part. Yeah, GREAT school. But it's not like the B1G is a big bag of slouches.
Maybe they should just go IVY or UChicago and be done with it.
I don't know about Cal, but UCLA is joining so I don't see why Cal wouldn't.
Two things:Ok, so Stanford people are snobs relative to us B1G folks.
1. The most central Stanford trait, in my deeply biased opinion is the desire to feel better than others. To a Stanford-ian, the Big Ten is a big bag of slouches. Their opinion of our schools likely isn't far from Medina's opinion of Oregon.
A $139 million research budget is pretty pitiful for a P5 school. Maybe Phil Knight sweetened the deal?
Right. But of course all these B1G moves are "about the money-- the research money."Apparently you are right because otherwise Oregon wouldn't be a member.
LOL
Like we keep saying, we understand why Oregon and Nebraska and Rutgers would want to be in the B1G and gain more access to larger research funding. That's a no-brainer. But the B1G didn't target those schools for their well-below-B1G average research budgets, and in Oregon's case it's absolutely pitiful research budget.
The fact that UCLA and Washington are such heavy research schools certainly is nice for the B1G, of course. But it's not at all why they were targeted.
It's an athletics conference. The academics are irrelevant when choosing targets for acquisition.
Apparently you are right because otherwise Oregon wouldn't be a member.It's just so baffling. Oregon doesn't make sense by any metrics I can imagine.
That said, I think it was the wrong decision.
It's just so baffling. Oregon doesn't make sense by any metrics I can imagine.Well you're not trying very hard. Adding Washington and Oregon moves the school colors balance a little bit in the right direction away from red. About the only positive I can think of. Although neon green and yellow aint much better than red.
list of research spending by institutions (https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?method=rankingBySource&ds=herd):the list of athletic spending is obviously much different
- 3, 1.6B Michigan
- 5, 1.5B, Washington
- 6, 1.5B, UCLA
- 8, 1.4B, Wisconsin
- 9. 1.3B, Stanford
- 12, 1.2B, Ohio State
- 17, 1.1B, Maryland
- 22, 1.1B, Minnesota
- 26, 971M, Penn State
- 28, 956M, USC
- 30, 913M, Northwestern
- 37, 731M, Illinois
- 39, 710M, Michigan State
- 40, 695M, Indiana
- 41, 679M, Purdue
- 45, 644M, Rutgers
- 50, 554M, Iowa
- 87, 307M, Nebraska (their Medical center is another $201M, reported separately)
- 149, 139M, Oregon
the list of athletic spending is obviously much differentYou assume correctly. medina's link goes back ten years, so you can see year by year what the differences are.
I know TV money is spread pretty evenly amongst programs within the conference athletically
is research money spread evenly at all?
I assume Nebraska is benefiting with more research dollars than back in 2010.
It's just so baffling. Oregon doesn't make sense by any metrics I can imagine.I *THINK* that what happened was basically this:
I previously posted on this thread that the Big 12 had a clause in their TV contracts that gave them more cash if new teams joined the Big 12, and that what I read online is that the Big Ten's contracts did not have such a clause.That's weird since Fox has the noon ET game every week and it's not that likely Wash and Ore will play in the noon game. You would think NBC and CBS would be the ones paying more.
Well -- Ohio State's Gene Smith just let the cat out of the bag -- Fox Sports paid more to allow Oregon and Washington to come into the Big Ten receiving $30-35M per year, less than the full share of the other Big Ten teams, until the TV contracts expire circa 2029 as I recall. Ohio State AD Gene Smith says Fox paid the tab to bring Oregon, Washington to Big Ten (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/ohio-state-ad-gene-smith-says-fox-paid-the-tab-to-bring-oregon-washington-to-big-ten/ar-AA1f6iW7?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=4bcc5770d7ee49c495f648f091f62d10&ei=31)
I previously posted on this thread that the Big 12 had a clause in their TV contracts that gave them more cash if new teams joined the Big 12, and that what I read online is that the Big Ten's contracts did not have such a clause.I saw that too and it just ticked me off more.
Well -- Ohio State's Gene Smith just let the cat out of the bag -- Fox Sports paid more to allow Oregon and Washington to come into the Big Ten receiving $30-35M per year, less than the full share of the other Big Ten teams, until the TV contracts expire circa 2029 as I recall. Ohio State AD Gene Smith says Fox paid the tab to bring Oregon, Washington to Big Ten (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/ohio-state-ad-gene-smith-says-fox-paid-the-tab-to-bring-oregon-washington-to-big-ten/ar-AA1f6iW7?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=4bcc5770d7ee49c495f648f091f62d10&ei=31)
The home of the Big Ten Conference Football championship game may no longer be solely Indianapolis.I have given up on Tradition, so I am ok with this. I can get a cheap flight to Vegas and see the game live. I already do that for some pro games.
Des Moines-based radio show "Miller and Condon" reports that future Big Ten title games will be played at Allegiant Stadium in Las Vegas.
"I think that the Big Ten football people are getting very, very close — in fact, maybe dotting I's and crossing T's — that the Big Ten Football championship is coming to Las Vegas," Ken Miller said Thursday from a remote broadcast from Las Vegas. "Potentially twice in the next five years."
CCGs have no real tradition anyway, so I certainly never cared where they were played. I liked the ones that were close enough to drive, and when they rotated further away I was fine watching them on TV.I agree on this. The only issue is for fans following their team. If you are going just to go, you can plan that months or even years in advance. However, if you were say a Michigan or Ohio State fan last year, you didn't know whether or not your team would be in until their game ended which means that you only have <a week to plan your trip. That can make airfare tricky but being in Vegas would probably help with that anyway.
...but not that hard, because it's not like the Boilers are ever going to be in the B1GCCG anyway.Wait, didn't that happen?
It was a long drive to Indy (9 1/2 hours) but, I'm not driving to VegasI imagine this would depend a lot even for instate fans on exactly where in Nebraska one lives.
many Husker fans would drive (only 18 hrs from Lincoln)
Wait, didn't that happen?Managed to sneak in with a 6-3 conference record in a 7-team division and 9 conference games. Sounds like we're going to 9-team divisions with 10 conference games, making it MUCH harder to sneak in. As evidence of how "strong" that team was, they lost the CCG by 21 points.
I imagine this would depend a lot even for instate fans on exactly where in Nebraska one lives.I was shocked by the number of fans that drove from Nebraska to Pasadena for the Rose Bowl in 2001
Lincoln, as you said, is 18 hours and Omaha (where a substantial portion of the state's population lives) is about 19. If you lived in extreme western Nebraska you'd only be ~13 hours from Vegas.
I was shocked by the number of fans that drove from Nebraska to Pasadena for the Rose Bowl in 2001My family drove to the RoseBowl in 1996 (96 season, 1997 RoseBowl so we drove there in 96 and back home in 97).
Wait, didn't that happen?He forgot to add the words...
He forgot to add the words...That's true. 2022 is probably the spur that will cause the conference to somehow go to "top two teams."
Or any team from the old Western Division, ever again after 2023
That is funny because when we did it in 1996 we had no cellphones and got our directions out of a triptick from AAA and a US road Atlas.Pre-GPS one of the greatest things about the Interstate Highway System is that you hardly need a map to use it. Here are off-the-top-of-my-head directions from Ohio to the RoseBowl:
That's true. 2022 is probably the spur that will cause the conference to somehow go to "top two teams."It would probably benefit my team to go to two best teams. IE, tOSU would have made it in:
"Holy shit! Purdue made it into the CCG?! Okay, we gotta fix the system so that NEVER happens again!"
Pre-GPS one of the greatest things about the Interstate Highway System is that you hardly need a map to use it. Here are off-the-top-of-my-head directions from Ohio to the RoseBowl:Sorry, you'll end up in San Diego...
- Head toward Columbus (unless you live West of Columbus in which case head for Indianapolis).
- I70W to St. Louis.
- I44W to OKC.
- I40W until it ends in Barstow, CA.
- I15S toward LA (I15 might not be right but just follow signs for LA).
- Get off in Pasadena.
- RoseBowl is at the bottom of the hill, you really can't miss it and there are probably signs.
Sorry, you'll end up in San Diego...
Gotta get off the 15 and take the 210W to Pasadena once you get to the bottom of the mountains.
Sorry, you'll end up in San Diego...Is 210W the San Bernardino freeway?
Gotta get off the 15 and take the 210W to Pasadena once you get to the bottom of the mountains.
Pre-GPS one of the greatest things about the Interstate Highway System is that you hardly need a map to use it. Here are off-the-top-of-my-head directions from Ohio to the RoseBowl:I-70 west to I 15 south. Then what Bwarb said, regarding SoCal.
- Head toward Columbus (unless you live West of Columbus in which case head for Indianapolis).
- I70W to St. Louis.
- I44W to OKC.
- I40W until it ends in Barstow, CA.
- I15S toward LA (I15 might not be right but just follow signs for LA).
- Get off in Pasadena.
- RoseBowl is at the bottom of the hill, you really can't miss it and there are probably signs.
If you ever plan to motor west,Drove it from Downtown Chicago to the Santa Monica Pier.
Travel my way, take the highway that is best.
Get your kicks on route sixty-six.
It winds from chicago to la,
More than two thousand miles all the way.
Get your kicks on route sixty-six.
Now you go through saint looey
Joplin, missouri,
And oklahoma city is mighty pretty.
You see amarillo,
Gallup, new mexico,
Flagstaff, arizona.
Don't forget winona,
Kingman, barstow, san bernandino.
Won't you get hip to this timely tip
When you make that california trip
Get your kicks on route sixty-six.
Won't you get hip to this timely tip:
When you make that california trip
Get your kicks on route sixty-six.
Get your kicks on route sixty-six.
Get your kicks on route sixty-six.
I-70 west to I 15 south. Then what Bwarb said, regarding SoCal.Depends on season. The 44/44 route is further South. In winter (RoseBowl) that is generally preferable.
Iowa is in trouble. Their ENTIRE offensive playbook got released online. I’m not sure how they are going to achieve their goal of 25 points per game when all of their opponents have all their plays. Their defense is going to have to put up some points to reach that goalThat doesn't look like Iowa's offensive playbook. Iowa's is run, run, pass punt.
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/365212375_817134076508340_3957830104499235203_n.jpg?stp=cp6_dst-jpg&_nc_cat=111&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=Pb4fLHFvZDEAX9zvjh2&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&oh=00_AfBbPjE86nuny7qtNHeD9_-76C8ijDeMuDF5up8E5mE-PA&oe=64DB4C3F)
Ok, so Stanford people are snobs relative to us B1G folks.Wisconsin is better than Stanford. Stanford obviously sucks.
Fine, Michigan people are snobs relative to a lot of other schools.
I was once in the Horseshoe watching the Buckeyes beat the snot out of the Badgers when a visiting fan loudly referred to the host academic institution as a "Community College". So Wisconsin people can be snobs too.
You might say I'm a snob relative to Oregon.
That is all well and good, but I don't see myself as a snob, I see myself as a calculating realist. Here, once again, is the full list of research spending by institutions (https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?method=rankingBySource&ds=herd):Which snobs are right and which ones are just talk?
- 3, 1.6B Michigan
- 5, 1.5B, Washington
- 6, 1.5B, UCLA
- 8, 1.4B, Wisconsin
- 9. 1.3B, Stanford
- 12, 1.2B, Ohio State
- 17, 1.1B, Maryland
- 22, 1.1B, Minnesota
- 26, 971M, Penn State
- 28, 956M, USC
- 30, 913M, Northwestern
- 37, 731M, Illinois
- 39, 710M, Michigan State
- 40, 695M, Indiana
- 41, 679M, Purdue
- 45, 644M, Rutgers
- 50, 554M, Iowa
- 87, 307M, Nebraska (their Medical center is another $201M, reported separately)
- 149, 139M, Oregon
Well you're not trying very hard. Adding Washington and Oregon moves the school colors balance a little bit in the right direction away from red. About the only positive I can think of. Although neon green and yellow aint much better than red.You're right, if you're talking politics. ;)
That's weird since Fox has the noon ET game every week and it's not that likely Wash and Ore will play in the noon game. You would think NBC and CBS would be the ones paying more.Fox also owns half of the BTN. BTN could have a really good night game every Saturday.
On the other hand, I guess it does create more overall games for NBC and CBS and Fox and FS1 to choose from.
I ended up making my way into LA, exit Wilshire, pulling up right behind a (IIRC) Ferrari 360 Modena while I'm in my 1985 Chrysler LeBaron Turbo thinking "I don't belong here"https://youtu.be/M11SvDtPBhA
Drove it from Downtown Chicago to the Santa Monica Pier.I was on the pier last weekend.
Fox also owns half of the BTN. BTN could have a really good night game every Saturday.I'm good with this
Why do people in Cali find the need to but a "the" in front of road number? To hear themselves more?I think there is an actual historical reason for that and most modern Californians probably don't know it.
Cali people are just weird.
For real.
I think there is an actual historical reason for that and most modern Californians probably don't know it.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAUUy7NMnaY
I *THINK* the reason is that parts of California's Interstate system predate to Federal Interstate Highway System. When, for example, the San Bernardino Freeway was built, there was no US numbering system for interstates because there were no Federal Interstates. Consequently, rather than being numbered, they were originally known by names instead.
AFAIK, the freeways in the LA area were typically named based on where they took you from LA. Ie, the San Bernardino Freeway goes out to . . . San Bernardino. There was also a Pasadena Freeway that was part of a reroute of Route 66 and went to . . . Pasadena.
I *THINK* that when the Federal Interstate Highway System numbered all these preexisting California highways, the locals probably at first ignored the numbers and just kept using their names. Over time there has been a gradual switch to the numbers but the "The" remains as a holdover from when they were:
- The San Bernardino Freeway
- The Pasadena Freeway
- Etc.
I'm good with thisYeah there are definitely some good games that are not going to make it onto the mainstream carriers.
I think there is an actual historical reason for that and most modern Californians probably don't know it.I-90 from Chicago to O'Hare is known as The Kennedy Expressway. After that it turns into a Tollway, to the Wisconsin border. Nobody calls it "The 90". You take the Kennedy to O'Hare and stay on 90 to Wisconsin.
I *THINK* the reason is that parts of California's Interstate system predate to Federal Interstate Highway System. When, for example, the San Bernardino Freeway was built, there was no US numbering system for interstates because there were no Federal Interstates. Consequently, rather than being numbered, they were originally known by names instead.
AFAIK, the freeways in the LA area were typically named based on where they took you from LA. Ie, the San Bernardino Freeway goes out to . . . San Bernardino. There was also a Pasadena Freeway that was part of a reroute of Route 66 and went to . . . Pasadena.
I *THINK* that when the Federal Interstate Highway System numbered all these preexisting California highways, the locals probably at first ignored the numbers and just kept using their names. Over time there has been a gradual switch to the numbers but the "The" remains as a holdover from when they were:
- The San Bernardino Freeway
- The Pasadena Freeway
- Etc.
I-90 from Chicago to O'Hare is known as The Kennedy Expressway. After that it turns into a Tollway, to the Wisconsin border. Nobody calls it "The 90". You take the Kennedy to O'Hare and stay on 90 to Wisconsin.I get it and there were a few interstates outside of California also preexisting the Federal Interstate Highway System but I think California had a much greater concentration so for whatever reason in California the "The" carried on but most everywhere else we just say "take ##".
Get me from Midway to Barrington now.
It'd be a mouthful to tell someone to do it that way, and then you have to remember which are interstates and which are California highways. Using "the" for all of them is just easier.
One other aspect here in SoCal... There are a lot of major freeways that are NOT part of the interstate system, they're California highways (or 101 which is a US highway not an interstate).I've never lived there but I've driven around it a few times and I think part of this is that, for whatever reason, downtown LA is NOT on the coast. That means that there are twice as many ways you can go from downtown LA as compared to most large cities.
So in the LA Basin you've got I-5, I-405, I-10, I-210, I-710, I-605, I-15, I-215, I-105, I-110 etc.
But you also have major freeways of CA-91, CA-60, CA-22, CA-55, CA-2, CA-57, CA-134, CA-118, US-101. And you even have CA-110, which is the northern end of I-110 but isn't officially an interstate designation.
That's a LOT of major roads. Moreso IMHO than probably any other metro area in the entire US.
It's unwieldy to name them all by the I-## or CA-## designations. Whereas growing up in the Chicago area you might tell someone to take I-88 to the Eisenhower to get into the city from the western suburbs, here you might literally have a route to avoid traffic like I-5N to CA-22W to I-405N to I-605N to CA-91W to I-710N to I-105W. That's a pretty convoluted (but routing around heavy traffic, plausible) route for me to get from home to LAX.
It'd be a mouthful to tell someone to do it that way, and then you have to remember which are interstates and which are California highways. Using "the" for all of them is just easier.
Get me from Midway to Barrington now.Been a while--I usually only had to get from there to Wheaton or West Chicago, not to Barrington. To get to Wheaton/West Chicago, it was usually the Stevenson to the North-South to the East-West.
If you like traffic you would go that route, but you're not taking the Tri-State to the Kennedy. You're taking it to 90 West. The Stevenson (I-55) absolutely sucks, especially at the I-294 interchange.Fair 'nuff. I haven't had to think seriously about Chicago traffic in over 20 years, so I don't know the current patterns. And considering I only had about 6 years total driving there and in practice much less i.e. 2 years of HS, then 4 years at Purdue where I was only home summers/breaks, I'm not going to call myself an expert on it.
Me?
I'd go 55th Street East to Cicero (IL-50) North to the Eisenhauer (I-290) West to the Eisenhauer Extension (I-290) West to IL-53 North to Lake-Cook Road.
Pretty simple.
https://trojanswire.usatoday.com/lists/report-dollar-figure-finally-emerges-on-significant-espn-deal-pac-12-rejected/Chancellors F'd up.
Article claims that ESPN offered the Pac $30M/school AFTER USC/UCLA left and the Chancellors turned it down.
If true that, IMHO, exonerates the PAC Commissioner as it wasn't his fault.
https://trojanswire.usatoday.com/lists/report-dollar-figure-finally-emerges-on-significant-espn-deal-pac-12-rejected/That doesn't make any sense at all. If there was a $30M/school offer in late 2022, then why wouldn't there have still been an offer in July of 2023? Even if ESPN decided to decrease the number, even a $20M/school offer would have been better than nothing, and nothing is what they were offered from ALL parties in July of 2023 (I'm not counting Apple's terrible deal).
Article claims that ESPN offered the Pac $30M/school AFTER USC/UCLA left and the Chancellors turned it down.
If true that, IMHO, exonerates the PAC Commissioner as it wasn't his fault.
Larry should have taken Texas and Oklahoma when he had his chance
That doesn't make any sense at all. If there was a $30M/school offer in late 2022, then why wouldn't there have still been an offer in July of 2023? Even if ESPN decided to decrease the number, even a $20M/school offer would have been better than nothing, and nothing is what they were offered from ALL parties in July of 2023 (I'm not counting Apple's terrible deal).This doesn't entirely make sense to me but, according to Joel Klatt the networks needed one (but not two) more deals for their inventory. As I understand the argument, in late 2022 that last deal was going to either the Pac or the B12. The B12 struck first and nobody needed inventory after that.
Larry never really had a shot at Texas, because once ESPN and Fox came back with more acceptable numbers for the B12 contract in 2010, Texas wasn't going anywhere.
This doesn't entirely make sense to me but, according to Joel Klatt the networks needed one (but not two) more deals for their inventory. As I understand the argument, in late 2022 that last deal was going to either the Pac or the B12. The B12 struck first and nobody needed inventory after that.That sounds like bulljive to me, but we'll likely never know.
That sounds like bulljive to me, but we'll likely never know.The part of it that makes some sense is that I don't think that PAC football as a standalone makes sense for a network. They just don't have the volume of passionate fans that will tune in like your school/conference and mine. Thus, I think it mostly only works if, like ESPN, you can air larger draws (like your school) early then try to keep some viewers around late at night after your school's game ends.
So if Klatt is right, I think that is why. Once they locked down the B12 they simply had no remaining need for additional content with a relatively weak draw.And then, why try to make a deal with the PAC? If you make a deal with the PAC, you end up with all the crappy PAC schools that you were holding your nose to pay off in order to get the few schools you want.
And then, why try to make a deal with the PAC? If you make a deal with the PAC, you end up with all the crappy PAC schools that you were holding your nose to pay off in order to get the few schools you want.I wonder when the XII, B1G and SEC start cutting some dead weight.
If you have already made a B12 deal, it's a lot better for the B12 and B1G to dismember the PAC and take the valuable properties so you can cut the dead weight.
You make the deal with the B12. Then you don't offer the PAC anything, in the hopes that the lack of an offer causes what we saw--the exodus of the best properties to the B12 and B1G.
I wonder when the XII, B1G and SEC start cutting some dead weight.Don't see it happening.
40 years ago, my school was dead weight. And we all know there is dead weight in the B1G today. SEC too.
I wonder when the XII, B1G and SEC start cutting some dead weight.Never gonna happen. Maybe 30-40 years ago, but as we've discussed many times, the contracts are just too big now. In the near future, a full-share B1G school is going to be getting $80M/year or more. Over a decade, that's almost a billion dollars. There's not a school in the country that's going to allow itself to get cut out of a billion dollars. The legal implications would be enormous and the conference would get bankrupted fighting off even one school, much less many.
Alternatively, what I'd see is the non-deadweight leaving for a super conference of some sort, and so they're not "cutting" the dead weight, they're just leaving it on the vine to die.This.
So instead of a 24-team B1G and 24-team SEC, you end up with a 24-team "whatever the name is" that takes the best of the B1G, SEC, ACC, and B12, and schools like mine are still in the B1G but it's a raped conference.
Don't see it happening.The B1G TV deal runs for 8-9 years, I think.
Alternatively, what I'd see is the non-deadweight leaving for a super conference of some sort, and so they're not "cutting" the dead weight, they're just leaving it on the vine to die.
So instead of a 24-team B1G and 24-team SEC, you end up with a 24-team "whatever the name is" that takes the best of the B1G, SEC, ACC, and B12, and schools like mine are still in the B1G but it's a raped conference.
The B1G TV deal runs for 8-9 years, I think.I think it more likely the SEC helmets cut dead weight first to get larger shares of TV revenue to stay ahead of the B1G.
What if Fox, NBC and CBS go to the B1G wonks and demand that the dead weight be cut?
Medina talks about not having two schools in one state. That takes out IU or PU*, UM or MSU, UI or NU. Obviously, there's a Rutgers issue too, and maybe an Oregon issue once Uncle Phil is no longer a factor.
* Or both, should ND come.
(https://i.imgur.com/zqhGomw.png)Hmm....those seem like 2 pairs in very different positions atm.
(https://i.imgur.com/zqhGomw.png)This, if true, is profoundly insane. Would show the admins really running things.
The B1G TV deal runs for 8-9 years, I think.Question--does the B1G have a GOR that restricts schools from leaving without massive penalties? I understand the SEC doesn't, right? The ACC does, which is a big sticking point in trying to raid them.
What if Fox, NBC and CBS go to the B1G wonks and demand that the dead weight be cut?
Medina talks about not having two schools in one state. That takes out IU or PU*, UM or MSU, UI or NU. Obviously, there's a Rutgers issue too, and maybe an Oregon issue once Uncle Phil is no longer a factor.
* Or both, should ND come.
I see cutting dead weight as a bad idea, due to wins and losses.This is true and will go unacknowledged until we’re off the cliff.
OSU and UM et al are what they are because they tend to win the most games year-in and year-out. Part of the reason is that they beat up on the lesser programs.
Without lesser programs, some of those OSU and UM wins turn to losses. Year over year. And when your peak programs have extra losses here and there, the elite of your conference isn't as elite.
So it winds up being good for the conference/TV wallet to keep those programs around. They help your elite teams remain elite. They serve a purpose.
And then, why try to make a deal with the PAC? If you make a deal with the PAC, you end up with all the crappy PAC schools that you were holding your nose to pay off in order to get the few schools you want.On May 25, 1929, Iowa was expelled from the Big Ten effective January 1, 1930 for what is believed to have been a player compensation issue. Iowa Stadium, n/k/a Kinnick Stadium opened October 5, 1929 in what would have been Iowa's last year in the conference. On December 11, 1929, Iowa disqualified 27 players.
If you have already made a B12 deal, it's a lot better for the B12 and B1G to dismember the PAC and take the valuable properties so you can cut the dead weight.
You make the deal with the B12. Then you don't offer the PAC anything, in the hopes that the lack of an offer causes what we saw--the exodus of the best properties to the B12 and B1G.
Even as a fan/alum of one of the biggest, if not the biggest, ratings draw in the league I'm not currently in favor of cutting dead weight.Good post but with the exception of a handfull of teams nationwide it seems the script could be flipped every couple of yrs.Hell Miami,SC,ND even the Horns haven't been rattling any sabres for 10-15 yrs. I and believe most here were never on board with the Rutgers/Maryland move - Big Jim's pipe dream who didn't think it thru.Rutgers wasn't bringing any eyeballs from the East Coast.And the Terps ATH.Dept was in danger of getting the Axe. So pushing them back to their natural digs wouldn't be to upsetting.Penn St in the east & Nebraska in the west were helmets and made sense though it would be nice if they ramped it up.....but not too much
I doubt I ever would be but, if the situation demanded it, I could see the big draws demanding unequal shares.
On May 25, 1929, Iowa was expelled from the Big Ten effective January 1, 1930 for what is believed to have been a player compensation issue. Iowa Stadium, n/k/a Kinnick Stadium opened October 5, 1929 in what would have been Iowa's last year in the conference. On December 11, 1929, Iowa disqualified 27 players.Out with the NERDS!!
On February 1, 1930, the Big Ten Faculty Committee unanimously voted to reinstate Iowa after a one-month expulsion. During the 1929-30 basketball season, no Big Ten teams were on Iowa's schedule. 1929-1930 Season Summary for Iowa Hawkeyes | basketball - Summary of Iowa football and basketball games (hawkeyerecap.com) (https://hawkeyerecap.com/season.asp?sport=basketball&season=1929-1930) Iowa played several Big Ten teams in the 1930-31 season, so there was some effect to the expulsion in 1930.
I mention this because misconduct could require the Big Ten to suspend or expel a member. Shortly after Rutgers joined I thought they might be expelled after its athletic director was accused of abusing players as a coach, and after its basketball coach Mike Rice was captured on video shoving, grabbing, and throwing balls at players, and using gay slurs, but Rutgers took action. What an auspicious start in the Big Ten.
Now Northwestern has a player hazing / sexual misconduct controversy on its football team, and while the head coach was fired, all the assistants seem to have retained their jobs, and it appears no players involved have been disciplined.
The bar is high for expulsion, but the bar is somewhere.
Out with the NERDS!!Says the engineering nerd...
I also think that the shift to NIL has taken an unlevel playing field and tilted it even further, making a number of programs (like my own) pastries in the grand scheme of things.Not to pile on, but I think the transfer rules will tilt it further in the long-term as well. If some, let's say WR isn't all that on the radar in HS, Purdue may grab him. In the old days (like two years ago) that meant he was going to play for Purdue for four or maybe five years. Now?
CFB has always been unlevel due to recruiting, compared to pro sports where there are drafts, salary caps, collective bargaining agreements, etc. In CFB the helmets already have a recruiting advantage, but then the $$$ they get by virtue of being helmets allows them to extend via winning the arms race too. The 85-scholarship limit helped somewhat, but it was still tilted.
Now we have NIL. Which was supposed to allow players to profit off their NIL (i.e. endorsements), but retain the "amateurism" ideal where schools can't pay players to play for them. But instead what it's become is a way for boosters to pay players to play for a school, just without requiring secrecy and bagmen and violating NCAA rules.
And who has the most and wealthiest boosters? Helmets, of course!
Then you add huge conferences, CCGs, and the CFP. Now the lesser schools have almost no chance at backdooring their way into, for example, the Rose Bowl. And not only that, it diminishes the value of something like the Rose Bowl. Even if you backdoor your way into a conference championship (for example let's say that Michigan suffered a couple key injuries in the CCG and Purdue played out of their minds and squeaked to victory), the goal is an NCG and winning a CFP quarterfinal is hot garbage... And a team like Purdue will NEVER get beyond that sort of level. Not only that, if they scrap divisions champions getting into the CCG and make it top two teams, a team like Purdue will NEVER even backdoor their way into the CCG by winning a weak division.
So... What's the point? What are half of the teams in theP5P4 even playing for? Almost impossible to win your conference, and if you do it only gets you to the next stage of the meat grinder where you'll get pulverized into dust.
Might as well join the f%&^@g Peace Corps...
Not to pile on, but I think the transfer rules will tilt it further in the long-term as well. If some, let's say WR isn't all that on the radar in HS, Purdue may grab him. In the old days (like two years ago) that meant he was going to play for Purdue for four or maybe five years. Now?Good point. I forgot about the transfer portal.
There is nothing to stop him from transferring to a helmet once he shows how good he is at Purdue.
Not only that, if they scrap divisions champions getting into the CCG and make it top two teams, a team like Purdue will NEVER even backdoor their way into the CCG by winning a weak division.But then TCU got into the playoff. Never say never.
Been sayin' it fer years...
So... What's the point? What are half of the teams in theP5P4 even playing for? Almost impossible to win your conference, and if you do it only gets you to the next stage of the meat grinder where you'll get pulverized into dust.
Might as well join the f%&^@g Peace Corps...
Then you add huge conferences, CCGs, and the CFP. Now the lesser schools have almost no chance at backdooring their way into, for example, the Rose Bowl. And not only that, it diminishes the value of something like the Rose Bowl. Even if you backdoor your way into a conference championship (for example let's say that Michigan suffered a couple key injuries in the CCG and Purdue played out of their minds and squeaked to victory), the goal is an NCG and winning a CFP quarterfinal is hot garbage... And a team like Purdue will NEVER get beyond that sort of level. Not only that, if they scrap divisions champions getting into the CCG and make it top two teams, a team like Purdue will NEVER even backdoor their way into the CCG by winning a weak division.This fascinates me, I guess because I had become so attuned to it already. After a few years of disappointing after preseason hype, I found the joy in just watching good teams. Or sometimes OK teams. Maybe there's some element of having tasted some pro sports disappointment, where a team finishing a game away from a title against a similar team didn't fill me with thrill that a title was close. It left me more mad that a chance to win was missed, and the contender was soon to atrophy. So if OSU or Michigan has a death machine, I understand the play.
So... What's the point? What are half of the teams in theP5P4 even playing for? Almost impossible to win your conference, and if you do it only gets you to the next stage of the meat grinder where you'll get pulverized into dust.
Might as well join the f%&^@g Peace Corps...
UNL AD f'n Trev Alberta claims there will someday be one superconference with 35-40 of the biggest brands.
Football will be separated from other sports for this conference.
Who are these brands?
UNL AD f'n Trev Alberta claims there will someday be one superconference with 35-40 of the biggest brands.Trev can give you the list
Football will be separated from other sports for this conference.
Who are these brands?
This fascinates me, I guess because I had become so attuned to it already. After a few years of disappointing after preseason hype, I found the joy in just watching good teams. Or sometimes OK teams. Maybe there's some element of having tasted some pro sports disappointment, where a team finishing a game away from a title against a similar team didn't fill me with thrill that a title was close. It left me more mad that a chance to win was missed, and the contender was soon to atrophy. So if OSU or Michigan has a death machine, I understand the play.Yeah, I'm attuned to it. Which is why I have no rooting interest in pro sports. I watch just for the entertainment. There is no emotional attachment to any team.
Yeah, I'm attuned to it. Which is why I have no rooting interest in pro sports. I watch just for the entertainment. There is no emotional attachment to any team.
I'm now the same way with college sports. When I watch, it's purely for entertainment value. I have no emotional high nor low that comes from being attached to the outcome for either team.
Some would say that my life is less rich because I've stopped seeking pleasure (in sports). I would say that it's more content since I've eliminated pain (in sports).
Is Trev Alberta, related to Trev Alberts? Perhaps his Canadian cousin?Her name is Trev Alberta, and I can't stand her.
Wow, strong reaction. I've never given Trev enough thought to have an opinion.yeah skip is so bad he made me like shannon sharpe
Only mediot I really can't stand, in that way, is Skip Bayless.
Oh yeah, I think many schools will be dropping football 20 years from now.i think this is accurate. more and more parents aren't going to want their kids playing football because of CTE.
And not just the scrubs.
College football attendance has been dropping for years now. Younger generations show less and less interest. New fans aren't being created at the rate they were 30-40 years ago when most of us were kids.
The sport is also going to change. CTE and other severe injury implications are only just now beginning to manifest. I view the elimination of kickoffs as inevitable. More and more rules to protect vulnerable players, shifting the sport much closer to a flag football version of itself. So older fans begin to lose interest, too.
Loss of younger fans, loss of older fans, means diminishing revenues across the board. At some point, flagging TV ratings and/or diminishing streaming revenue will make a lot of schools question-- is it worth it anymore?
THAT, is what will ultimately be College Football Armageddon.
(Maybe. I'm just speculating here)
i think this is accurate. more and more parents aren't going to want their kids playing football because of CTE.I'll call you crazy for many other reasons, but not for this one. :)
call me crazy but i think soccer could explode in popularity in the US in the next 20-30 years. seeing it happen in South FL right now with Messi. ticket sales and tv viewership has exploded for InterMiami and they are about to build a $1 billion stadium downtown off his back.
if they can actually figure out a way to get the very best players from Europe and South America into the MLS it will take off here. no one wants to watch the scrubs who can't cut it at the highest level. everyone wants to watch the best of the best compete.
I'll call you crazy for many other reasons, but not for this one. :)Lol. Guilty as charged.
Soccer is definitely increasing in popularity, it's really big here in Texico as well.
That would be great, but a good start, would be just keeping the best American players at home.
The home of the Big Ten Conference Football championship game may no longer be solely Indianapolis.move it to Vegas permanently and be done with it already. Indianapolis sucks. Las Vegas doesn't. Pretty simple. What we doing here man.
Des Moines-based radio show "Miller and Condon" reports that future Big Ten title games will be played at Allegiant Stadium in Las Vegas.
"I think that the Big Ten football people are getting very, very close — in fact, maybe dotting I's and crossing T's — that the Big Ten Football championship is coming to Las Vegas," Ken Miller said Thursday from a remote broadcast from Las Vegas. "Potentially twice in the next five years."
I'm not a Vegas fan - at all.Same same. I try to avoid it as much as possible. Despite it being a 4 hr drive / 1 hr (cheap) flight, I only go there if there's something I *really* want to see, like going to the Adele concert next month. Vegas sucks.
I'll call you crazy for many other reasons, but not for this one. :)call me crazy but i think soccer could explode in popularity in the US in the next 20-30 years. seeing it happen in South FL right now with Messi. ticket sales and tv viewership has exploded for InterMiami and they are about to build a $1 billion stadium downtown off his back.Quote from: Mdot21 8/16/2023, 11:36:44 AM
Soccer is definitely increasing in popularity, it's really big here in Texico as well.
That would be great, but a good start, would be just keeping the best American players at home.
Boxing?I would watch boxing or for that matter paint drying before I'd watch soccer.
I would watch boxing or for that matter paint drying before I'd watch soccer.Of course.
Yeah I don't get the appeal of soccer. Let's run around around for 90 minutes and then add an extra 30 minutes and still end up in a zero-zero tie. Then change the rules to shootout because that's the only way to break the tie. Who wins seems so much based on luck.I like watching hockey, which is generally not high scoring. But the action is very packed in and very fast. That's what makes it great.
I just don't like games where nobody scores. To appeal to me, the rules need to change to average about 10 goals a game. Then you have a clear winner most of the time. I don't care how you do it. You can make the goal bigger, or not let the goalie use his hands, or let the other players bat the ball volley ball style with their hands. But do something.
I'd put watching soccer right up there with watching a marching bandI'll take the band.
Yeah I don't get the appeal of soccer. Let's run around around for 90 minutes and then add an extra 30 minutes and still end up in a zero-zero tie. Then change the rules to shootout because that's the only way to break the tie. Who wins seems so much based on luck.I think there's a goldilocks point. I.e. basketball there is so much scoring that it's almost like no individual score is meaningful, and if one team is dominant the game becomes uninteresting. If one team isn't dominant, then the game is boring up until the last 5 minutes because any individual run doesn't really portend much as the other team might well answer.
I just don't like games where nobody scores. To appeal to me, the rules need to change to average about 10 goals a game. Then you have a clear winner most of the time. I don't care how you do it. You can make the goal bigger, or not let the goalie use his hands, or let the other players bat the ball volley ball style with their hands. But do something.
call me crazy but i think soccer could explode in popularity in the US in the next 20-30 years.Haven't people been saying this since the 70s?
I like watching hockey, which is generally not high scoring. But the action is very packed in and very fast. That's what makes it great.As much as I hate soccer, at least one good thing about it is you can at least see the ball. In hockey I never can see the Puck.
I think there's a goldilocks point. I.e. basketball there is so much scoring that it's almost like no individual score is meaningful, and if one team is dominant the game becomes uninteresting. If one team isn't dominant, then the game is boring up until the last 5 minutes because any individual run doesn't really portend much as the other team might well answer.Although some people find tennis to be super boring, I like the fact in order for the match to progress points need to be won (or lost depending how you look at it) Eventually games are won and sets are won. Finally the match is won. There is a nice progression to it even if 1 player dominates. Same with VOLLEYBALL, or ping pong, I guess.
Football and baseball IMHO are in the goldilocks zone. Scoring is intermittent enough that every score is meaningful. And scoring generally is a result of building momentum (driving the field in football and getting runners on base and in scoring position in baseball), although there are obviously big plays and dingers that are individual. And scoring is meaningful enough that driving the field and settling for a field goal, or leaving runners stranded at the end of the inning, actually seem like REAL letdowns.
I feel like both soccer and hockey suffer from scoring that is so minimal that it depends more on the goalie having a good day than the better team winning, at least much of the time. A team can control the flow of the game, get 15 shots on goal but the goalie blocks them all, while the other team only manages 2 shots on goal but they sneak past and that team wins 2-0. It seems like a lot of randomness of outcome, which is fine when you play a series of 7 (like in hockey), but not so much when you're playing single matches (like in soccer).
it was actually 1981,You are correct.
the only reason I remember is the Hawks upset the Huskers the first game of the season and went on to the Rose Bowl
my freshman year at UNL, being from Iowa
I was on a rant because I have arrived at the conclusion this latest realignment of PAC-12 schools is bad for college football.most of the realignment since the 90s has been bad for college football
If Notre Dame were a rational actor they would lobby for Stanford and California to join the Big Ten, with Notre Dame.Idk why people keep expecting the 70 year old bachelor to get married...
when Indiana and Purdue are both making more money, ND will be forced to do somethingNotre Dame's media rights are not as good at the Big Ten. However, from an annual report I read online Notre Dame has more overall revenue than the U of Iowa, much of it coming from donations. Their football ticket prices are sky high. Notre Dame's only sport operating in the black is football. I suppose all this means they can do what they want.
Notre Dame's media rights are not as good at the Big Ten. However, from an annual report I read online Notre Dame has more overall revenue than the U of Iowa, much of it coming from donations. Their football ticket prices are sky high. Notre Dame's only sport operating in the black is football. I suppose all this means they can do what they want.Taht may me throw up in my mouth.
Trying to preserve Stanford and Cal's P-5 status by lobbying for their entry into the ACC still seems completely irrational to me. Notre Dame would ultimately make more money in the Big Ten than as an independent/partial ACC member. And, geographically Cal and Stanford now make more sense in the Big Ten, as does Notre Dame. I don't think realignment will be solved before 2036, and some of us here won't be alive to see what happens.
yup, I suppose ND won't be scheduling the Big and SEC teams - USC??The B1G makes money on ND when the game is in a B1G stadium.
NBC or another network isn't going to pay ND the big money for their watered down schedule going forward
at that time, Iowa will be making more football money than ND
forcing them to join
The B1G makes money on ND when the game is in a B1G stadium.yup, but I see that ending.
ND historically has scheduled pretty well when it comes to Big Names, aside from the usual USC rivalry. I'm interested in what Stanford does of course. But the whole thing is so weird now, to me, anything seems plausible. Almost.that's where this thing is headed....B1G and SEC are going to swallow up every team out there left worth a shit in the near future, ND will ultimately join one of the two and they will merge into a super-league with 48-50 teams. Something like that is bound to happen- that's where this is all heading.
Would any SEC teams bolt for this enlarged B1G? Would Missouri be a candidate? Florida? Imagine FSU slides out and to the B1G ...
Why not just combine the B1G and SEC? Weirdness.
You can't put a price on autonomy.And that is the key. The conferences need to set it up so they don't have a path
As long as they have a path to the party, it's worth it not to get hitched.
Assuming the ACC exists.it will until a few of the top football schools get offers from the B1G and the SEC
it will until a few of the top football schools get offers from the B1G and the SECI think it will take court action to get around the rights clause, if that can be traversed at all.
Breaking news from Brett Mcmurphy.Hard to believe they bent over like that. No money for 7 years? A reduced share of a little bit of money?
ACC will add Cal, Stanford and SMU in 2024. SMU agrees to receive no media revenue for 7 years. Cal and Stan will receive a reduced share.
Stanford might be better served to just go independent.Absolutely. They would get on a lot of schedules. Cal too.
If the B1G ever TRULY wants to make the move to grab Stanford as an enticement to Notre Dame, they're running out of time.I think that ship sailed.
I think that ship sailed.Could be. And it could also be that it was never going to be an enticement for ND anyway. But if Stanford actually accepts the ACC bid then it's a might have been that might never be.
Stanford might be better served to just go independent.Word is the Pac-10 turned down an offer from ESPN last year for $30M each. They could have all stayed together and got the same or more money than they all got splitting up. It will go down as one of classical blunders in college realignment history even if just would have only pushed out a breakup for 6 years.
Word is the Pac-10 turned down an offer from ESPN last year for $30M each. They could have all stayed together and got the same or more money than they all got splitting up. It will go down as one of classical blunders in college realignment history even if just would have only pushed out a breakup for 6 years.I thought it was more like $35M each, but that might have been just for UCLA and USC.
Word is the Pac-10 turned down an offer from ESPN last year for $30M each. They could have all stayed together and got the same or more money than they all got splitting up. It will go down as one of classical blunders in college realignment history even if just would have only pushed out a breakup for 6 years.
Yeah we talked about that but I don't believe it for a second. If they saw enough value in the PAC to offer $30M in Fall of 2022, then they would see enough value in the PAC to offer $30M in the summer of 2023. Occam's razor at play here.The key thing that changed in that time was the Big 12 signed a deal first for $31M each. After that ESPN said it had limited space left for their inventory at $30M each. Well actually as it turned out, ESPN still had room for 4 more at $30M each but not 10 more. Which is why 4 PAC schools defected to the Big 12.
The truth is evident in the ratings-- nobody was watching PAC football. There simply was not $30M/school worth of value there after USC and UCLA split.
Honestly this "$30M/school turned down" story sounds more like rumor-mongering from outside parties in order to sow discontent and mistrust among the PAC presidents, to hasten along the destruction of that conference.
The key thing that changed in that time was the Big 12 signed a deal first for $31M each. After that ESPN said it had limited space left for their inventory at $30M each. Well actually as it turned out, ESPN still had room for 4 more at $30M each but not 10 more. Which is why 4 PAC schools defected to the Big 12.The ratings showed that the B12 without Texas and OU was a better television draw than the PAC without UCLA and USC. That was true in the Fall of 2022, and it was true in the Summer of 2023.
Does Stanford gain much if they join the ACC? I don't really understand that move if it happens.Well, they stay in a "Top 4" conference rather than going to the Mountain West. There's probably some marketing advantages to that, maintaining mindshare within the football community and whatnot. Being relegated to the MWC is clearly a demotion and would likely affect the opinions of a lot of people.
And Wazzu/OrSU ........
I wonder if they will have to sign that ACC grant of rights garbage?If I were Stanford, I absolutely would not. If there's one thing we know for sure, it's that the tides of realignment will shift again. No way I'd tie myself to the ACC if I thought there was any chance at joining the B1G somewhere down the line.
If I were Stanford, I absolutely would not. If there's one thing we know for sure, it's that the tides of realignment will shift again. No way I'd tie myself to the ACC if I thought there was any chance at joining the B1G somewhere down the line.FSU wants out, but I don't think they can find a way out until 2036 when the media rights for the ACC ends. It is possible the media companies go belly up and a quicker solution is at hand to this nonsense. I just cannot imagine Stanford and Cal basketball teams traveling to the east coast for mid-week games. Maybe the ACC-Western teams will play conference basketball road games on Fridays and Sundays to reduce the burdens excessive travel has on academic studies.
FSU wants out, but I don't think they can find a way out until 2036 when the media rights for the ACC ends. It is possible the media companies go belly up and a quicker solution is at hand to this nonsense. I just cannot imagine Stanford and Cal basketball teams traveling to the east coast for mid-week games. Maybe the ACC-Western teams will play conference basketball road games on Fridays and Sundays to reduce the burdens excessive travel has on academic studies.Yeah, this is bad. Folks talked about the B1G going West, but at least most of the schools are in the middle.
Yeah, this is bad. Folks talked about the B1G going West, but at least most of the schools are in the middle.I found a nonstop San Francisco to Miami airline flight: 5 hours 41 mins. Add to that the time to get players on a bus, travel time to the airport, and then to the hotel, arena, or stadium. Can you imagine taking a team directly to the arena on game day for one and done game, and returning to San Francisco? Not going to happen. They will fly through 4-time zones.
Almost the entire ACC is on the East Coast.
Travel from SFO to MIA and back is not gonna be fun for anyone. Travel to play FSU is a nightmare.
Does Stanford gain much if they join the ACC? I don't really understand that move if it happens.not really....Stanford honestly should just go FCS and join the Ivy or kill the football program- they don't make sense as a major FBS/P5 program and never have imo
all this realignment should've been in football only and kept all the other sports in the regional conferences they are already in.Exactly.
all this realignment should NOT HAVE been done in football and kept all the other sports in the regional conferences they are already in.fixed
fixedidk I do like having Nebraska and Penn State in the B1G. can we keep those two plus Maryland, make the PAC go back and then kick out Rutgers and say Northwestern (RIP) and call it an even trade?
idk I do like having Nebraska and Penn State in the B1G. can we keep those two plus Maryland, make the PAC go back and then kick out Rutgers and say Northwestern (RIP) and call it an even trade?
NoACC? Big East?
Nebraska to the Big 8. Oklahoma back to Big 8. PAC teams back to the PAC. Texas, Arkie, TAMU back to SWC. Penn State back to independent or whatever.
B1G back to Big Ten.
SEC back to 10.
PAC back to 10
SWC back to 9
Big 8 back to 8.
Fin
ACC? Big East?Will be fine basketball conferences.
NoI'd make a few tweaks from the 70s
Nebraska to the Big 8. Oklahoma back to Big 8. PAC teams back to the PAC. Texas, Arkie, TAMU back to SWC. Penn State back to independent or whatever.
B1G back to Big Ten.
SEC back to 10.
PAC back to 10
SWC back to 9
Big 8 back to 8.
I'd make a few tweaks from the 70sNo tweaks, no sir.
PSU and ND to the TEN
but, I really feel that overall TV ratings for the networks would be better if the regional rivalries were still intact.
Texas vs Arkie and Texas vs TAMU = better ratings than diluted in the SEC
Nebraska vs Colorado and K-State and OU, better ratings obviously
Mizzou vs the KAnsas schools better than SEC programs
No tweaks, no sir.I'm good with this because it preserves the rivalries that have been built over the decades
The Big Ten is the Big Ten. No Big Televen. No Big Notre Dameten. Just the Big Ten.
PSU can go form the Eastern Conference that JoePa always talked about. Other independents like Miami and FSU can join if they like.
Notre Dame should stay independent, because that is the way it has always been and should be.
Tweaks are bad for college football, tweaks are how we end up with Oregon and Rutgers in the B1G and Cal and Stanford in the Atlantic Coast Conference. No tweaks allowed.
I'd make a few tweaks from the 70sThis is now the only hope.
PSU and ND to the TEN
but, I really feel that overall TV ratings for the networks would be better if the regional rivalries were still intact.
Texas vs Arkie and Texas vs TAMU = better ratings than diluted in the SEC
Nebraska vs Colorado and K-State and OU, better ratings obviously
Mizzou vs the KAnsas schools better than SEC programs
This is now the only hope.the networks
But who is in charge?!?
This.
Tweaks are bad for college football, tweaks are how we end up with Oregon and Rutgers in the B1G and Cal and Stanford in the Atlantic Coast Conference. No tweaks allowed.
This.
Near-sighted money grabs. No master plan. Just unfettered evolution. That's how you wind up with cuddlefish, platypus, and narwhals.
Looking back, it's funny. The SWC decided to disband when the alternative was for everyone to stop cheating.All joking aside, I believe the real reason the SWC conference disbanded is because everybody left. Ark left for the SEC and Tex, Tex A&M, TT and Baylor left for the Big 8/Big 12. TCU, SMU, Rice decided to join the WAC. The only school left was Houston, which decided to join a new conference called CUSA. So the SWC just died.
I know, I know, there's more to it.
But that's kind of a big part of it, no?
Looking back, it's funny. The SWC decided to disband when the alternative was for everyone to stop cheating.No.
I know, I know, there's more to it.
But that's kind of a big part of it, no?
No.ed zachery
Both the SWC and the Big 8 were not economically viable when staring down the new television revenue contracts that the Big Ten and SEC were bringing in.
That should sound familiar.
I'll get right on it.Yes, then you will have to come up with rules where suddenly a conference in the Midwest can somehow take over Southern California and a conference along the Atlantic coast can some how take over northern California. Not to mention how a P5 Pacific Coast conference can leave itself so vulnerable.
But the map would be uneven from the start. OSU gets a big, populace state all to itself, while Mississippi and Iowa are divided in 2?
Gimmie a break! lol
All joking aside, I believe the real reason the SWC conference disbanded is because everybody left. Ark left for the SEC and Tex, Tex A&M, TT and Baylor left for the Big 8/Big 12. TCU, SMU, Rice decided to join the WAC. The only school left was Houston, which decided to join a new conference called CUSA. So the SWC just died.I had totally forgotten about SMUw to the Acc.
Of course one of the keys reasons they all left is that they believed they could not get a decent TV contract if they would have stayed together. 8 Texas schools plus Arkansas. Not a lot of cable TV markets there for ESPN.
The interesting thing is that 8 out of 9 SWC schools have now made it back to a P4 conference. 3 in the SEC. 4 in the Big 12. 1 in the ACC. Only Rice has been left behind.
Don't know this guy, or how credible he is, but... Ouch if this is true.So many of you keep saying that they need to keep patsies around for the creampuff wins to pad the schedule, and I said no, they're not going to dilute the money just for cheap wins. They're gonna find a way to get rid of the creampuffs.
(https://i.imgur.com/MMumgM3.png)
$$$ will decide the lineYep. Neither Vandy nor Purdue bring the money. I'd say Purdue is closer being a larger state institution with a much larger alumni base, but it's also in a state where everyone who DIDN'T go to Purdue is a Notre Dame Football and Indiana Basketball fan. So we're out. So is Indiana because basketball doesn't move the needle for $$$.
So many of you keep saying that they need to keep patsies around for the creampuff wins to pad the schedule, and I said no, they're not going to dilute the money just for cheap wins. They're gonna find a way to get rid of the creampuffs.They shouldn’t if they know what’s good for them.
I'm gonna enjoy this cooking forum.
They shouldn’t if they know what’s god for them.They do know what's god to them
However …
Fake news.I know. Just joking.
(https://i.imgur.com/sPxxREK.png)Yeah, but what does he know about saving a failing college football model?
Barry Alvarez calls for NIL changes to save college football (badgerextra.com) (https://badgerextra.com/sports/football/wisconsin-football-nil-barry-alvarez/article_8f722208-dcac-11ee-9d7d-8f586f99674e.html?utm_campaign=snd-autopilot&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter_BadgerExtra)
(https://i.imgur.com/SHE9kcW.png)
He's still alive?Old husker linebackers are tough
Old husker linebackers are toughLike the livers of old Husker fans
No.(https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1290/1*NZEeBKkm_x-hobrbByKxKg.jpeg)
Both the SWC and the Big 8 were not economically viable when staring down the new television revenue contracts that the Big Ten and SEC were bringing in.
That should sound familiar.
Friday = HS footballI don't watch HS football
Saturday = NFL Light
Sunday = NFL
I don't watch HS footballJust watch the Bears then.
I only watch one NFL game on Sunday - I'd rather have an NFL Light game on Sunday to watch
-The POV of the Olympic movement on college football wasn't clear at first, but it's tied in because most American Olympians are trained at universities at the expense of college football.This is especially true for women's sports because most other countries don't have a Title IX equivalent. Title IX forces universities to spend a lot of dollars subsidizing women's sports.
Earlier this week on his podcast, Bill Simmons interviewed Casey Wasserman, owner of a large talent agency and CEO of the LA 2028 Olympic Organizing Committee. It was interesting to hear the perspective of the agents and the Olympic movement.
https://www.theringer.com/the-bill-simmons-podcast/2024/3/6/24091964/boston-celtics-flop-best-oscars-story-lines-2028-olympics-fall-of-college-sports-casey-wasserman
-The sheer size of the Summer Olympics is humbling. LA2028 will be the largest gathering of humanity ever in peacetime, he compared it to 7 Super Bowls every day for 30 days.
-Basically, college football has unrestricted free agency, no salary cap, no contracts, and no ability for coaches to keep players longer than a year. Big Ten and SEC look a lot like the AFC and NFC and that's not by accident. Paying players as employees is a non-starter. Universities can't keep eating $100M or more a year on sports.
-The POV of the Olympic movement on college football wasn't clear at first, but it's tied in because most American Olympians are trained at universities at the expense of college football.
-The big question does CFB become it's own entity, or does CFB monetize it's rights differently and use the money to fix the system? Wasserman sees that if CFB keeps all the money, college sports turn into Ivy League non-scholarship clubs, and no one wants that. Amateur sports is in a very tenuous place right now.
-Any solution to college sports involves federal legislation, and when Congress cant even agree on the time of day how do you think they'll fix this?
-College football, even in it's current form, is much larger than either the music or motion picture business.
Very interesting discussion.
How is one person somehow just as valid as another? What does that even mean? It’s about money.I could be wrong, but I thought Title IX had to do with equal number of spots for athletes, not equal spending.
Now Title IX is ironically being used to wreck women's sports by allowing the Fros of the world to compete as women by simply pretending to be one.You really suck at this.
-The big question does CFB become it's own entity, or does CFB monetize it's rights differently and use the money to fix the system? Wasserman sees that if CFB keeps all the money, college sports turn into Ivy League non-scholarship clubs, and no one wants that. Amateur sports is in a very tenuous place right now.fck Wasserman and what "no one" wants.
fck Wasserman and what "no one" wants.
This is America. We're not fcking commies over here. If CFB generates all the money (they do) then the players who generate that money should get all the benefits of it and it alone. Fck what everybody else wants and their "feelings".
You can certainly have the opinion that the football players alone should receive all that money, but it's obvious the power brokers at the universities don't agree with that sentiment.Judges have a strong influence over these decisions
Judges have a strong influence over these decisions
Judges decided women get equal number of scholarshipsNone of that has anything to do with players being paid directly as employees by the university.
Judges decided NIL, so far
Judges decided women get equal number of scholarshipsdon't forget...
Judges decided NIL, so far
None of that has anything to do with players being paid directly as employees by the university.they haven't yet, probably will eventually, as they seem to decide everything else
they haven't yet, probably will eventually, as they seem to decide everything else
The lawsuits must appear first. Not sure how they're going to be worded in a way that makes them appear meritorious.The NLRB ruled a month ago that Dartmouth basketball players could unionize if they wish. Dartmouth is appealing that ruling and it could take years and possibly get all the way to the supreme court. it's an initial step, but first domino to fall. have a feeling the courts will side with the players and against the schools/ncaa as they have in almost every case.
If players DO attempt to make the case that they're employees, then it's going to be pretty sticky for a court to attempt to mandate how much of the profits the employer is forced to share with the employees. Especially since the volleyball players and the soccer players would also have to be considered employees as well under those circumstances.
The NLRB ruled a month ago that Dartmouth basketball players could unionize if they wish. Dartmouth is appealing that ruling and it could take years and possibly get all the way to the supreme court. it's an initial step, but first domino to fall. have a feeling the courts will side with the players and against the schools/ncaa as they have in almost every case.It would almost certainly cause many schools to opt out of the top division of football. And I'm not talking about just the "undesirable" schools.
The courts won't have to decide how much profits the employer is forced to share with the employees. The college football player unions that are coming down the pike will collective bargain that and demand a greater share and then get a much greater share then they do now. this will cause a chain reaction and domino to cut back on other sports programs imo.
The lawsuits must appear first. Not sure how they're going to be worded in a way that makes them appear meritorious.The basketball players at Dartmouth just got their court ruling, and organized into a union before the ink dried on the ruling.
If players DO attempt to make the case that they're employees, then it's going to be pretty sticky for a court to attempt to mandate how much of the profits the employer is forced to share with the employees. Especially since the volleyball players and the soccer players would also have to be considered employees as well under those circumstances.
Judges decided women get equal number of scholarshipsTitle IX is federal legislation. NIL laws were initially state government legislation (haven't paid close attention to whether it's expanded from there).
Judges decided NIL, so far
don't forget...If the previous television structure violated the Sherman Act, and a lawsuit was brought alleging anti-competitive price-fixing practices, and the judges applied the Sherman Act to college football, that's exactly what judges are employed to do.
judges decided how college football was shown on television.
and....
judges are about to decide on transfer eligibility rules...
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-joins-lawsuit-challenging-national-collegiate-athletics-associations-ncaa
The basketball players at Dartmouth just got their court ruling, and organized into a union before the ink dried on the ruling.Under appeal and far from decided though, correct?
Under appeal and far from decided though, correct?correct. Dartmouth is appealing that decision and taking the NLRB to court.
Judges have a strong influence over these decisionsYeah, so maybe stacking them one way or the other way isn't such a great idea.
Yeah, so maybe stacking them one way or the other way isn't such a great idea.(https://i.imgur.com/MamBvbM.png)
But honestly I think college football is going to implode even before then. It's not on a sustainable path, and the administrators know it, which is why they're working right now to extract every bit of cash they can from the product, before the golden goose is dead.it's 100000% unsustainable. the tv money ruined it. even in the 80s and 90s the tv money was miniscule. especially compared to what it is now. conferences were making millions. now they are making billions. once mickey mouse, nbc, cbs, fox injected billions of dollars into it- the vultures were bound to come out and the thing was bound to become a sh*t show- especially when the entire sport is devoid of leadership.
Yeah, you're probably right.Rejoin the Big East with a football arm
So what do Syracuse, Pitt, BC and WVU do? Let alone Dook and Wake?
(It's possible I'm joking around a bit)I know. But if the B1G picked up Notre Dame, why would they bother keeping either of the schools in Indiana?
I know. But if the B1G picked up Notre Dame, why would they bother keeping either of the schools in Indiana?Sigh. I really hate this new-look college football.
Sigh. I really hate this new-look college football.You won't need to worry much longer.
You won't need to worry much longer.Sad but true.
My understanding is that IU has a ton of NIL money.So? They don't have football fans. They have basketball fans who root for Notre Dame every fall.
So? They don't have football fans. They have basketball fans who root for Notre Dame every fall.I'm not suggesting anything other than they have NIL money.
And for as mediocre as Purdue is in football, IU is miles worse.
In the B1G you cut:If you are keeping the LA schools, I think you keep Oregon/Washington
Northwestern
Rutgers
Maryland
Oregon
Washington
Indiana
Illinois
Purdue
Minnesota
So? They don't have football fans. They have basketball fans who root for Notre Dame every fall.I have a co-worker whose husband is a diehard IU basketball/ND football fan. Goes to their tournament/bowl every year.
And for as mediocre as Purdue is in football, IU is miles worse.
If you are keeping the LA schools, I think you keep Oregon/WashingtonYeah, I see MSU as being right on that bubble... Just enough historic success that they'd probably be safe if they were in a standalone market like Wisconsin, but being little brother in their state makes them a LOT more expendable.
I'm not sure MSU survives that situation, if the conferences are just tv networks, maintaining media markets.
I have a co-worker whose husband is a diehard IU basketball/ND football fan. Goes to their tournament/bowl every year.I can sort of understand that if someone is a lifelong reversible jacket fan like that, but can actually math the math, so they come to the school with the good STEM program.
He is a Purdue alum
I knew a girl at Purdue though who was from Carmel and was a big Notre Dame fan (she was an Irish redhead), and came to Purdue. But she was there as an education major... Still don't understand why she didn't go to IU with that major. It's socially acceptable there to be an Irish fan. Especially since at the time Purdue and Notre Dame played annually whereas IU and Notre Dame haven't played each other since 1991 before she or I were in school.Or IUPUI or Ball State or Indiana State or...
Was she an actual education major, or was she just looking for an MRS degree? If it's the latter, then she's wise to go to a STEM school that would feature higher potential earners as possible mates...If that was what she was after, she failed... Didn't get married until WELL after Purdue, and not to someone she met there.
Hot redheads find engineers to be irresistible, I've found.I only specified she was a redhead.
I only specified she was a redhead.No worries, I filled in the blanks using my imagination.
I can't even remember her name. Honest.For the longest time, I couldn't remember the last name of a girl I dated for 15 months in college. I think it was my brain trying to protect me from the social media age and looking her up.
Clemson Sues The Acc (rivals.com) (https://clemson.rivals.com/news/the-moment-we-ve-been-waiting-for-1)I read some of the FSU pleadings, not the Clemson pleadings. If the ACC has the money to defend, they would have a reasonable chance of winning, and holding on until 2036. In any event, I see no way the ACC continues as is beyond 2036.
How much longer can that conference go?
The B1G would probably take at least 4 schools, probably 5 with Georgia Tech.
So, UNC, UVA, FSU, Miami and GT all want out as a result. Possibly Notre Dame?
Clemson wants out.
That's 7 including ND.
The SEC will take (in addition to Clemson) NCSU and VT.
That's 9. Can the remaining members even stop them?
Will Stanford and Cal bail and re-join the PAC, which could merge with the MWC?
For the longest time, I couldn't remember the last name of a girl I dated for 15 months in college. I think it was my brain trying to protect me from the social media age and looking her up.
I ended up meeting up with a mutual acquaintance who ended up out here in SoCal during my divorce, who I think thought she and I might hook up at the time (although I had already met / was dating / had my now wife at the event) and found out her name.
And then I looked her up. I dodged a bullet getting out of that college relationship!
Who are the idiots who still fund the NIL groups? I cant imagine giving two shits how MSU does. If they are good, Ill bandwagon. If not, whatever. If I didnt go to the school I truly have no idea how you could possibly care. Its just a random collection of kodsThere should be contracts with NIL. This would be a breach. F that kid and the idiots who enabled him.
https://twitter.com/LateKickJosh/status/1770217192841179586?t=PfTH9Xar83Hec6vZNyG8uw&s=19
There should be contracts with NIL. This would be a breach. F that kid and the idiots who enabled him.There are contracts for NIL. They're typically one-year deals, and they often require some kind of action by the athlete, in order to remain valid. Public appearances, endorsement videos, etc. If those aren't fulfilled, then the contract is in breach.
I didnt even know Purdue offered education majors. During my one year at IU, I assumed I met the full spectrum of aspiring teachers in the state of Indiana. And it was a WIDE spectrum
That should cover the football team's toilet paper costs.If you have a curtious coach who is worried about saving his school money, maybe even double ply
Na he prolly paling around & fishing with Jimmy JohnsonTwo Miami Dolphins legends
The biggest, positive difference college football has (had?) vs the NFL is the importance of every regular season game. That's the key, and it's slipping away.You and I (among plenty of others here) have been pointing this out for years so it is nothing new but the loss of the "Do or die" feeling around individual regular season games is the thing that I'm the saddest about.
You and I (among plenty of others here) have been pointing this out for years so it is nothing new but the loss of the "Do or die" feeling around individual regular season games is the thing that I'm the saddest about.That and the gap between the haves/have nots,the old on any given day is being put out to pasture
That and the gap between the haves/have nots,the old on any given day is being put out to pastureThe gap has always been there. The mitigating factor is what medina mentioned. That you might get got on a rainy October afternoon in Columbia, Missouri, and that was it. The more mulligans the top teams get, the more likely they are just going to wind up taking advantage.
How much does czar of college football play? I'll get my resume ready.I actually think you'd do a pretty good job. I think in 5 years you could remake the sport into something we'd all want it to be.
The gap has always been there. The mitigating factor is what medina mentioned. That you might get got on a rainy October afternoon in Columbia, Missouri, and that was it. The more mulligans the top teams get, the more likely they are just going to wind up taking advantage.I'll add two things:
Medina mentioned OSU examples, but even as a neutral fan, why get too invested in a random upset, when South Carolina upsetting Georgia, might just make Georgia a slightly worse seed in the tournament.
Even if your team didn't win the NC or even if you believe as @betarhoalphadelta (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19) does that your team could never win an NC, your team and his did meaningfully impact the NC race with wins over Ohio State in recent years.And I've said this before, but I could give two shits about "impacting the NC race". The value of beating OSU in 2018 was getting a highly improbable, really fun win. I didn't worry at the time what it meant to the NC race, nor did I care or gloat at CFP selection time that we "ruined" your NC chances. College football as a Purdue fan isn't, and never really was, about winning the NC.
being a doormat for the helmetsAnd collecting a lot of coin for it!
And I've said this before, but I could give two shits about "impacting the NC race". The value of beating OSU in 2018 was getting a highly improbable, really fun win. I didn't worry at the time what it meant to the NC race, nor did I care or gloat at CFP selection time that we "ruined" your NC chances. College football as a Purdue fan isn't, and never really was, about winning the NC.But wasn't part of what made it a highly improbable and really fun the fact that it REALLY mattered to Ohio State and nationally?
But wasn't part of what made it a highly improbable and really fun the fact that it REALLY mattered to Ohio State and nationally?No. It was highly improbable and really fun because it was a REALLY good team and we walked away from it with a W. A game where literally nobody expected that we'd have a chance, and it turned into a 29-point rout. It was fun watching Rondale Moore make a mockery of the entire OSU defense. It was fun because it was the plucky underdog shoving a sharp stick into the eye of a helmet team. It was fun for one glorious night not to be a speedbump; rather to be a spike strip and shred your tires.
No. It was highly improbable and really fun because it was a REALLY good team and we walked away from it with a W. A game where literally nobody expected that we'd have a chance, and it turned into a 29-point rout. It was fun watching Rondale Moore make a mockery of the entire OSU defense. It was fun because it was the plucky underdog shoving a sharp stick into the eye of a helmet team. It was fun for one glorious night not to be a speedbump; rather to be a spike strip and shred your tires.I do realize that I'm spoiled and I appreciate getting alternative viewpoints here. One reason I've always been hesitant to agree with your theory that Purdue could NEVER win an NC is that part of the "lore" of Ohio State's 1968 National Championship is that they beat #1 Purdue. I've always kinda thought that if you could get to #1 then you could probably end up there but they didn't so maybe not.
I literally did not care what it did to your NC chances. I was happy to watch Purdue win, not to watch OSU lose.
Per your point, admittedly there are other teams and fan bases who had teams in the CFP hunt and they were all excited to watch OSU lose, and didn't care if it was Purdue or Northwestern or Minnesota lined up across the LOS.
But for Purdue fans, it was celebrating about a Purdue win, not what it did to your NC hopes.
I think helmet team fans don't get that. We're not like you. The NC is something that happens at the end of the year to other teams. We're not in the discussion. It's irrelevant to how we view our team each year. To us, it just doesn't really matter much at all.
So perhaps OKC interests are pushing this? I cant imagine that having your sports arena 20 miles off campus in a nearby but different town would be good for student attendance.Pitt plays in the same city, but WELL off campus, and students simply don't go. Particularly after the Steelers put heavy restrictions on tailgating in the surrounding lots.
OKC and Norman aren't really separated
I don't see it as a big deal
20 miles from campus
...and a massive increase in alumni attendance.Massive?
It might help not having to sit by the frat boys.Eh, frat boys attract sorority girls
Eh, frat boys attract sorority girlsI'm a frat boy, but I'm not sure you want to attract sorority girls. Hello, high maintenance!
I'm a frat boy, but I'm not sure you want to attract sorority girls. Hello, high maintenance!That's why you lease
That's why you leaseIf it flies, floats, or $^@%$, it's better to rent.
A rental woman is called an OSU coedFIFY
...and a massive increase in alumni attendance.There will not be a massive increase in alumni attendance. OU alumni live in Dallas.
Quote from: Brutus Buckeye on Today at 09:48:52 PMWell at least they get called unlike East Landfill :13:
A rental woman is called an OSU coed
-------------------------
FIFY
Inside the college football ‘Super League,’ one powerful group’s idea to fix a ‘dead’ system - The Athletic (https://theathletic.com/5383639/2024/04/03/college-football-super-league-cst-realignment/?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=facebookhq&source=fbhq&fbclid=IwAR2Uv8mZwro35Mq8Y7bXuCAKZmRcn_1xqKeY2XyVinkRhXOctE11jxmhz8o_aem_ASBG3CPSI2608D-bU1Bg-qsBw6YFJVuadUl_su2FOJsVMkThs6U6KqsqLVh2OkdG6kjJhw_4QzfAdSfLu6GHqPpX)Some good, and some bad in all of this. Mostly bad.
One league overseeing college football’s highest level. No more conferences as we’ve known them. Playoff berths being decided solely on the field. Promotion and relegation for smaller schools. Players being paid directly. NIL and the transfer portal, managed.
A group of influential leaders wants to make all this happen soon — and they are pitching it as the best way forward for a sport they believe needs saving.
One league overseeing college football’s highest level. No more conferences as we’ve known them. Playoff berths being decided solely on the field. Promotion and relegation for smaller schools. Players being paid directly. NIL and the transfer portal, managed.One league - OK with me I guess.
Bad:This is why relegation is impossible in major college football and people really need to shut up about it.
Unlike the soccer league, the revenue distribution would not be an even split among all competitors, as top brands like Alabama (https://theathletic.com/college-football/team/alabama-crimson-tide-college-football/) and Notre Dame would receive more of the financial pie.
The NFL shares equally, correct?
The bigger issue IMHO isn't necessarily revenue, but salary cap.It *MIGHT* be possible to have a NIL/Salary cap by class. I think the schools would LOVE this because as it stands now HS all stars are going to demand boku bucks to come to your school but we all know that plenty of "can't miss" HS phenoms end up as college busts so a stratified cap by class would prevent ridiculous bidding wars for totally unproven (at this level) players.
It *MIGHT* be possible to have a NIL/Salary cap by class. I think the schools would LOVE this because as it stands now HS all stars are going to demand boku bucks to come to your school but we all know that plenty of "can't miss" HS phenoms end up as college busts so a stratified cap by class would prevent ridiculous bidding wars for totally unproven (at this level) players.OK, this could work, but I'd put in some more teeth. You leave after your freshman season, you get freshman pay in year two. And so on.
I'm thinking something like:
- $90k for freshmen
- $270k for sophomores
- $810,000 for juniors
- $2,030,000 for seniors
This is why relegation is impossible in major college football and people really need to shut up about it.I think it is very possible and I will not shut up about it. They said home field in playoff games was impossible, too. In effect, it is pretty easy to do a lot of these things if there is broad agreement. The biggest impediment for promotion/relegation won't be from schools and their budgets, it will be from television networks.
I think it is very possible and I will not shut up about it. They said home field in playoff games was impossible, too. In effect, it is pretty easy to do a lot of these things if there is broad agreement. The biggest impediment for promotion/relegation won't be from schools and their budgets, it will be from television networks.
That would be the situation in college too. Of course, OSU is gonna make more money selling tickets than Northwestern. And Texas more than Vandy. No change there.Sure, I'm not saying that part is different. But with a super-league the TV revenue is no longer going to be just a part of a school's budget, it's going to be the majority of it. And those revenue streams need to be known, and stable, 10-15 years out, in order to plan budget not only for football, but for the other 10-20 sports that a university sponsors.
No. It doesn't work, and it's a stupid idea for college athletics.It's not random chance. Relegation is based on certain factors, not a lottery. They don't plan on being relegated. A lot of protections would likely be in place for major brands like Notre Dame to avoid relegation. However, it helps with a thorny issue in football, where most of the brands aren't Notre Dame, and are either hanging on to the other bigger brands or can't develop into that no matter what they do. It is very possible, and makes more sense in college than anywhere else.
Notre Dame can't plan its budget for the next 10-15 years for its entire offering of athletics, and then get relegated 2 years from now and lose half or more of the budget playing down in the lower league.
So unless EVERY school that's in both the upper league and the lower league is being paid exactly the same and they know exactly what those revenue payments will be over the next 10-15 years, then relegation is impossible.
It's not random chance. Relegation is based on certain factors, not a lottery. They don't plan on being relegated. A lot of protections would likely be in place for major brands like Notre Dame to avoid relegation. However, it helps with a thorny issue in football, where most of the brands aren't Notre Dame, and are either hanging on to the other bigger brands or can't develop into that no matter what they do. It is very possible, and makes more sense in college than anywhere else.Again, no. No how, no way. They're talking about 80 schools? What motivation do all but the Top 10 have to buy into this? None.
It *MIGHT* be possible to have a NIL/Salary cap by class. I think the schools would LOVE this because as it stands now HS all stars are going to demand boku bucks to come to your school but we all know that plenty of "can't miss" HS phenoms end up as college busts so a stratified cap by class would prevent ridiculous bidding wars for totally unproven (at this level) players.
I'm thinking something like:
- $90k for freshmen
- $270k for sophomores
- $810,000 for juniors
- $2,030,000 for seniors
Again, no. No how, no way. They're talking about 80 schools? What motivation do all but the Top 10 have to buy into this? None.The Bottom 70 or so schools stand to make a tremendous amount of money if they are grouped with the big schools as compared to each other. They have all the motivation in the world. It's the top schools that would have to be convinced there is merit to the idea, not the other way around. But OSU shares revenue with Rutgers, so it isn't impossible.
The Bottom 70 or so schools stand to make a tremendous amount of money if they are grouped with the big schools as compared to each other. They have all the motivation in the world. It's the top schools that would have to be convinced there is merit to the idea, not the other way around. But OSU shares revenue with Rutgers, so it isn't impossible.
Eh, the idea that the bottom 50 wouldn't jump on anything that could drastically increase their income seems pretty naive, to me. "Sorry, we aren't interested in all your dollars, as it doesn't work with our business model."
If you're right and the top schools get so many guarantees it won't happen to them, then they won't care about it one way or the other.
So the organizers go to the next 70 schools who all say, "We love the idea, we're in, but we line-item veto the relegation aspect because it's a terrible idea that doesn't work at all for our business models."
Then the organizers go to the Top 10 and say, "Hey, the rest of the guys are in, but they said no effin' way to relegation."
And the Top 10 say, "Fine, it doesn't affect us either way, and we agree it's a terrible idea for the way a college athletic department has to work, can't believe you actually pitched it to them, we were laughing the entire time. We're happy to go forward without the stupid relegation thing."
And the Top 80 league is formed, without relegation, which would be terrible for all but the Top 10 or so.
Again, I like relegation in Euro soccer. And theoretically I like the idea of how it could affect competition in college football.
But in reality, that's a completely different business model that simply doesn't work for college athletics.
Eh, the idea that the bottom 50 wouldn't jump on anything that could drastically increase their income seems pretty naive, to me. "Sorry, we aren't interested in all your dollars, as it doesn't work with our business model."Who's going to force them into it? The Top 10 won't care, it's not a hill they're going to die on. They wouldn't scuttle the deal on an issue that they have zero interest in.
My proposal for "promotion/relegation" was just in terms of divisional play. Once you get to whatever the final number is, maybe 60? You just have 6 divisions of 10. Only the top division is playing for a title, but there is promotion/relegation for the other tiers. It's all one league with total revenue sharing. You make the same money in Division 1, 2, 3, whatever, in terms of shared revenue. Would Notre Dame struggle to sell tickets in Division 3? Maybe, but I doubt it. But would a game between Purdue and Michigan State, with promotion from Division 3 to Division 2 on the line sell more tickets than a random game right now between a 5-6 MSU and a 5-6 Purdue? Absolutely
Who's going to force them into it? The Top 10 won't care, it's not a hill they're going to die on. They wouldn't scuttle the deal on an issue that they have zero interest in.The Top 10 need enough running partners to have a league and make deals and make money. No way they plan on sharing revenue with 70 other programs.
So the Bottom 50 get in regardless.
The Top 10 need enough running partners to have a league and make deals and make money. No way they plan on sharing revenue with 70 other programs.80 came from the proposal in the link. The number doesn't really matter, the premise is the same. If the agreements insulate the Top 10 from relegation, then they have no reason to care about the "relegation provision" being in the contract, or not. Meanwhile everyone outside the Top 10 has a very legitimate concern. So if the Top 10 aren't going to force it as an issue (and why would they?), then it's not going to make it into the final contract.
80 teams with relegation (meaning including the other 50 FBS teams who can going to the dream of promotion) is 0% likely no matter what they said.Like my 60-team proposal some pages back. This thing looks a lot like mine. I don't care about a G5 relegation conference, though. I don't think it matters either way. 80 IS too many, I agree. It's just to reset expectations. As it gains traction, fat will be trimmed off.
80 is already too many schools.
This is just step 1 in negotiation to get enough critical mass before they split in two with far fewer schools.
In that Athletic Article, it says the top 70 are guaranteed to not be relegated. The other 60 or so would be subject to being relegated.
This proposal is going nowhere anytime soon.
We have pondered why the NBA is as popular as it is, it's not really basketball. I think the reasons are:The visibility of the biggest stars. That's why the marquee games aren't the best teams, its the biggest stars.
1. Habit
2. Your team happens to be good.
3. Gambling
4. Fantasy leagues.
I think those things will keep CFB around in whatever guise.
We have pondered why the NBA is as popular as it is, it's not really basketball. I think the reasons are:
1. Habit
2. Your team happens to be good.
3. Gambling
4. Fantasy leagues.
The visibility of the biggest stars. That's why the marquee games aren't the best teams, its the biggest stars.That's what has also really killed college basketball for me. I used to love the tournament all the way through, even if my team was out, and my bracket was busted, because you knew the players.
The NFL format is okay IF AND ONLY IF you play everyone else in your division/conference.I would anticipate the highest league will continue to consolidate and shrink. Which means the teams play each other more, which means more losses. The playoffs will not shrink. They will stay or grow no matter if there are 130 teams or 20. The biggest question will be what sort of relationship exists among the top league and the teams that aren't in it. Glorified cannon fodder? Promotion/relegation? The soccer model makes sense because it makes playoffs among the lower teams something that works, plus provides meaningful stakes to the games.
In the NFL, you play a bunch of teams twice, and possibly a third time in the playoffs.
You also have a bunch of non-division winners in there.
College football can have leagues/conferences or conferences/divisions, but the #1 most important difference is to keep the playoffs exclusive.
Even under the umbrellas of bloated, super conferences (B1G & SEC), we can keep the divisions regional/traditional and only champs get in, or champs and 1-2 total at-large teams.
The sanctity of the regular season is the key. It will either be reinstated or ignored to the detriment of the sport.
Well, no doubt the masses are impressed with your brilliance.NO idea why you're getting pissy here.
Tell you what. I’d be just fine if a group of college teams said no thanks, we’re just interested in playing college football and left all the TV and bullshit behind. Pack the stadiums, sell beer for $12 each or whatever, regional rivalries/conferences, real but few bowl games. I sincerely wish A&M chooses that group. Even if it means losing exciting games with longtime rivals and big time programs.
Whatever money they generate, they keep. And the coaches and AD May only make $100,000 and we may not be able to have 25 different sports. But I think it’d be funnier.
Some friends and I talked about how we preferred watching the FCS and lower division playoffs over the FBS bowl games and playoffs.I've always put more interest in to a good game at any level than just top 10 or Blue Bloods NFL Lite really squaring off or padding their resume'
(https://i.imgur.com/QKM2U8h.png)Whoever came up with this should be forced to get a vasectomy.
(https://i.imgur.com/QKM2U8h.png)Not only is this just plain stupid, it's clear that whoever made this up does know geography at all.
In 1990 you hadI love it. I'd probably swap New Mexico for Boise to the SWC.
ACC, Big 8 - 8 teams
SWC - 9 teams
Big 10, Pac 10, SEC - 10 teams
Big East - didn't yet exist.
South Carolina had left the ACC, FSU hadn't joined yet, so put them there
Add rivals BYU and Utah to the Big 8
Make a 10 team Big East out of the original 8 minus Temple (BC, Miami, Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse, VT, WVU) + ND, PSU, Louisville
Not sure who you add to the SWC? Boise?
There, 7 "regions" of 10
Atlantic (ACC)
East (Big East)
Great Plains (Big 8)
Midwest (Big 10)
Pacific (Pac 10)
Southeast (SEC)
Southwest (SWC)
Why do the conferences need to be the same size? College football was great for 100 years without that.Everyone plays the same number of conference and OOC games.
Why do the conferences need to be the same size? College football was great for 100 years without that.This is if there is the breakaway NFL lite with "divisions"
Everyone plays the same number of conference and OOC games.wasn't fair this past season or will be next season
The final CG would go to where the money is of course.Probably so.
But we're never going back to fewer than 12 teams in the PO.
Everyone plays the same number of conference and OOC games.So what, who cares, why bother? Some conferences are tougher than others. It'll never be equal so why bother pretending like it could be or should be?
Yeah I don't care so much about that.I don't think anyone here disagrees with you. This is IF it's going to NFL lite inevitably, what is the most palatable model
NFL Lite sucks
College football was best with conferences of different sizes and the postseason bowl games determined by deals made in seedy smoke-filled back rooms between guys in ugly sports coats.
I don't think anyone here disagrees with you. This is IF it's going to NFL lite inevitably, what is the most palatable modelThe one with enforced parity (collective bargaining agreement, fair method for acquiring talent like a draft, a salary cap, etc) so that the "helmets" can't just hoover up all the STARZ and so the rest of the sport actually has a chance.
The final CG would go to where the money is of course.That's just dumb move it really is, the Networks/Univeristy just whoring themselves out for more coin. Guys gonna do this that many/myself have trumeted for a LONG time - https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/12/06/jaylon-smith-jake-butt-skipping-bowl-games-injuries-draft-mccaffrey-fournette
But we're never going back to fewer than 12 teams in the PO.
Why do the conferences need to be the same size? College football was great for 100 years without that.Just get in the corner common sense isn't related to the matter at hand or much else in this country anymore
How much TV revenue would be gained if the major teams played ONLY (nearly) other major teams versus today where out of 12 opponents, maybe 3 are highly ranked, 3 more are major teams a bit down that year, and 3 are pastries?
Today, we have a kind of "game of the week" where #1 plays at #8, and maybe #3 hosts #7. Then you have #12 playing #8, etc. Meanwhile, a lot of the other numbers are playing #~45-85. Those others are potential major upsets and draw eyes if they turn out to be that possibly.
In some future, number 1-10 would be playing number 2-50 or so, it could get boring?
But there are only so many eyeballs on a Saturday. In most weeks, there are "games of the week" which get placed in prime time periods, and they get high ratings. Then you have some games like "UGA at South Carolina" that might be on ESPN2, and would get noticed if the game ends up tight. Then you have UGA playing Eastern Michigan, which would be on "Jefferson Pilot" (SECN) and only Dawg fans would watch.Seems to work fine for the 32-team NFL.
I'm not sure the new model has enough space to attract more viewers unless you move heavily into Thu/Fri night games.
I bet most still watch the game on TV. I watch every UGA game on TV if I'm not traveling. If they play Charleston Southern, I still watch, I'll even go to a sports bar if I don't get the channel.I watch every Ohio State game unless I am traveling, many times going out to a local Ohio State Restaurant/Bar to cheer with other fans.
I can only watch so much CFB in a day, no matter who is playing who.
I watch usually from noon to about 9:30, later if it's a really good game. I can't watch any more.Well, it could coalesce the same number of fans into fewer broadcasts, which would increase the ratings of those games.
I'll watch Thursday night if I'm bored and it's a decent game. Unless this rearrangement leads to more nonfans watching, or more casual fans watching more games, it won't help ratings.
But the I'm told that their poor fans can't tell the difference between going 8-4 and making a playoff where every one of those 8 wins was earned and every one of those 4 losses was to a quality team, and going 11-1 where only 3 teams on your schedule can challenge you, so 9 of those 11 wins were against teams that can't field a competitive roster against you.I'm continually amazed that you doubt this.
I'm continually amazed that you doubt this.There's a part of me that actually does doubt this. I think fans would adjust. Just as they'll adjust to the 12-team CFP and the idea that making it into the CFP is the mark of a successful season even if that's 10-2, whereas those same programs ONLY considered the season to be a success if they made it into the BCSCG or the 4-team CFP which was nearly impossible unless you were 11-1 or better.
There's a part of me that actually does doubt this. I think fans would adjust. Just as they'll adjust to the 12-team CFP and the idea that making it into the CFP is the mark of a successful season even if that's 10-2, whereas those same programs ONLY considered the season to be a success if they made it into the BCSCG or the 4-team CFP which was nearly impossible unless you were 11-1 or better.Sure....but it's been this way for over a century.
But the part of me that doesn't doubt this, that I keep harping on it over, is that if it's actually true, it's pathetic. The idea that fans of these programs are so fragile and simple-minded that they absolutely require piling up garbage wins over overmatched opponents that aren't fielding a competitive roster in order to feel good about their team says a LOT about those fan bases. What a bunch of damn snowflakes.
But the part of me that doesn't doubt this, that I keep harping on it over, is that if it's actually true, it's pathetic. The idea that fans of these programs are so fragile and simple-minded that they absolutely require piling up garbage wins over overmatched opponents that aren't fielding a competitive roster in order to feel good about their team says a LOT about those fan bases. What a bunch of damn snowflakes.Good Post almost to a man tOSU Fans I know aren't looking forward as it's nothing more than the Yankees/Dodgers out spending the opposition. The once great game that was hanging by it's fingernails has slipped into the abyss. Just not the same and everyone knows it
Husker fans are crazy but a certain percentage will take a weekend off when playing Northern Illinois or South Dakota StateOr 1-11 Colorado :cheer:
There's a part of me that actually does doubt this. I think fans would adjust. Just as they'll adjust to the 12-team CFP and the idea that making it into the CFP is the mark of a successful season even if that's 10-2, whereas those same programs ONLY considered the season to be a success if they made it into the BCSCG or the 4-team CFP which was nearly impossible unless you were 11-1 or better.
But the part of me that doesn't doubt this, that I keep harping on it over, is that if it's actually true, it's pathetic. The idea that fans of these programs are so fragile and simple-minded that they absolutely require piling up garbage wins over overmatched opponents that aren't fielding a competitive roster in order to feel good about their team says a LOT about those fan bases. What a bunch of damn snowflakes.
These various efforts at conferences seem like they're created by people born after 2000.Who are the +1 and +2 for the SWC and Big 8? I can't see any. And the Big East + whatever?
It's not that hard.
PAC-10
SWC + 1
Old SEC
Old B1G
ACC + 1
Big East + whatever
Big 8 + 2
and then the rubbish revolving door conference
Duh.
Who are the +1 and +2 for the SWC and Big 8? I can't see any. And the Big East + whatever?Says my plan makes little sense.
This plan makes little sense.
Take it to 66 schools - 11 per conference - and call it NFL Lite. Miller/Coors can sponsor that.
Pac 10 + Utah
1990 Big Ten + Nebraska
1996 Big 12 - Nebraska
1992 SEC - USCe
2001 ACC + USCe + ND
2001 Big East + PSU + Louisville + Cincinnati
These various efforts at conferences seem like they're created by people born after 2000.Apparently, it is for you.
It's not that hard.
PAC-10
SWC + 1
Old SEC
Old B1G
ACC + 1
Big East + whatever
Big 8 + 2
and then the rubbish revolving door conference
Duh.
Says my plan makes little sense.
Immediately posts the same plan +1 more team per conference.
You're losing respect by the minute. I hope your downfall is normal aging and not something more tragic.
(https://i.imgur.com/qdVXTUO.png)Everyone thinks they're the excpetion. Just ask them.
I am reminded of my Dad, who in his later years would go to McDonald's and meet up with 3-4 older men who would basically talk about how everything is going to H. And yet, somehow, most stuff muddles along anyway.
yup, I try to not sound like my father in that way
it's difficult at times
Yup it's remarkable how everything in this country has been going to H in a handbasket for the past 75 years, and yet people in this country are living at a higher standard than ever before.Grumpy Old Man 1 - Saturday Night Live (youtube.com)
It's possible that people are myopic morons that love to scream into echo chambers.
I think it true, as one ages, one often starts to think Things are going to H, the young people today are awful. Memories are short.Well in-stadium attendance is trending down on a 20-year decline, young people aren't getting into the sport at the same rate as their older peers did, so I don't think this is a case where you can say "the old people just don't get it and the world has passed them by."
I suspect most here think CFB is being degraded, and I agree to an extent, but I wonder how much of that reflects our ages. Maybe it's not THAT bad.
Maybe it's worse.
In stadium attendance could decline because some programs with large capacities have been "down" for 20 years, and their attendance has suffered. Other programs that perhaps are doing well can't sell more tickets as they are at capacity. And some places are reducing capacity to build more luxo boxes.In-stadium attendance numbers are down across the board, even at Alabama which certainly can't be accused of being "down" over the past 20 years.
Geargia Tech is reducing capacity to build a student center, or something.
And it could be down because we have more programs competing at the "Division 1" level now and they tend to have low attendance.
Does "across the board" mean literally at every venue for every program?
I am reminded of my Dad, who in his later years would go to McDonald's and meet up with 3-4 older men who would basically talk about how everything is going to H. And yet, somehow, most stuff muddles along anyway.Everything is going to where?
Everything is going to where?Houston. Or Hell.
The language here. Heavens to BetsyWhy does heaven go to Betsy and not the rest of us? What the hell
Does the Internet go back that far?
Dunno, ask Al Gore, the man who invented it.I've still never seen him, Pete Fiutak and badge in the same room
I'd bet that revenue for CFB is going up even if attendance is drifting lower. And that is why we're seeing so many changes, at least some of them.I think that revenue may shrink overall, but become more concentrated in the biggest programs.
Anyone like to bet that inflation adjusted revenue in CFB is UP a decade from now, or not?
What are Oregon State and Wazzu fans thinking these days?
I'm not sure why it would shrink overall, but it's possible. I'd bet it increases, after inflation. But I could easily be wrong.What I'm thinking in that hypothesis:
What I'm thinking in that hypothesis:they will not cut volume
- If you cut volume by not televising 60%+ of current FBS, you simply have less ad space to sell. This could result in an overall loss of revenue.
they will not cut volumeOk, so they'll cut production value / announcer talent. You won't get 75 different camera angles and the announcers will be the D- squad. They'll reduce cost.
just like they won't cut number of bowl games = volume
it will just be a different pie to divide
Ok, so they'll cut production value / announcer talent. You won't get 75 different camera angles and the announcers will be the D- squad. They'll reduce cost.The one COVID pivot I figured was going to stay was remote announcers. It was bad, but was anyone turning it off? You could have the same crew do multiple games, so you save on labor. But then travel, lodging, expenses. I figured aside from the absolute top broadcasts, that was going to be the new norm, and it turned out not to be
And they'll broadcast it only on subscriber-only ESPN+ or subscriber-only BTN+, so that it makes it hard for anyone except die hard fans of those lesser schools to watch, again funneling casual viewers to the "real" schools.
I wonder what was going on. I guess I'll check the UL boards.That's one way to make room for some new portal talent to come in.
(https://i.imgur.com/4sajr6r.png)
Even if they are stuck until 2036, you don't believe they'd be welcomed in by the B1G and/or SEC in 2037?12 years is a long time. Especially in a completely unconstrained arms race where the rich win, get more fans, continue to outspend the non rich, win more, get more fans, continue to outspend, etc etc. Positive feedback loop. While FSU/Clem spend a decade falling into obscurity because they're in the "wrong league".
I can't see them being left out. The rural south has a lot of eyeballs pointed at college football.