Several years ago it was widely believed the SEC would not accept FSU because UF was opposed. Perhaps that changed now that money is more important than disadvantaging one's rival.(https://i.gifer.com/DTrJ.gif)
Ok....ignoring the OP about FSU leaving the ACC and what that entails....strictly looking at the apparent reason given in that article, which is missing the playoff....They're just pissed and need a bad guy. They're treating the ACC like we did Iraq after 9/11. It's nonsense.
I need clarification on their thinking. How is it the ACC's fault FSU was left out of the playoff? That's on the CFPC, and clearly they left FSU out because their QB was injured, not because they said FSU played a weak ACC schedule.
My thoughts on FSU:Pennsylvania isnt even close to arguable. I would bet Pitt has a smaller market share in PA, than MSU in Michigan or ISU in Iowa
I like the idea of getting into Florida but I've always been opposed to being an obviously junior conference in ANY state.
As I see it, the only ones that are even arguable is Indiana where ND>IU/PU and Pennsylvania where an argument could be made.
Pennsylvania isnt even close to arguable. I would bet Pitt has a smaller market share in PA, than MSU in Michigan or ISU in IowaYou live there so I'll take your word for it.
If we had to let in another FL team, it would be Miami. EVERYONE would love to play games in the most fertile recruiting ground in the country, right?same reason that I'd much rather prefer Miami if the B1G is looking to get into Florida. Miami is also a better fit academically for the snobs in the B1G that like to tout academics. Plus it's way easier to get to in terms of travel.
Not the SW GA backwoods panhandle.
My thoughts on FSU:I’d wager to guess that ~90% of casual CFB football fans could not tell you what state ND is in. I’d also bet 50% of T shirt ND fans couldn’t tell you what state.
I like the idea of getting into Florida but I've always been opposed to being an obviously junior conference in ANY state.
For now, we aren't:As I see it, the only ones that are even arguable is Indiana where ND>IU/PU and Pennsylvania where an argument could be made.
- Iowa>ISU
- B1G>MAC
- PSU>Pitt
- tOSU>Cincy
- USC/UCLA>rest of Cali
- Washington>WSU
- Oregon>OrSU
The so called bloc was never anything more than a rumor, not even a gentlemen’s agreement.A&M was a johnny-come-lately, and the combo of Texas & OU was overwhelming.
If 24 is the goal, I think the B1G would pursue FSU, Miami, GT, UNC, UVA and ND.No need to add volume just for the sake of it. That's how you end up with Rutgers.
The SEC is at 16.
Clemson and VT are obvious choices. Need 6 more now.
NCSU fits.
Pitt?
WVU, oSu, Kansas, TTU?
No need to add volume just for the sake of it. That's how you end up with Rutgers.So F'ing right on this.
You live there so I'll take your word for it.For small population states, I could see your point. But for Big population states like Florida, Texas or Cal, I think you can make an exception.
In that case Indiana is the only state in our league footprint where we aren't clearly the dominant College sports draw.
Does anyone else share my concern about being second fiddle?
UMass to the MAC for all sports.(https://i.imgur.com/2I0Ul9a.png)
Clearly they were worried about getting locked out of a top 4 spot as an independent
UMass to the MAC for all sports.Only football independents left are Notre Dame and UConn. Well, plus Wash St and Ore St are sorta football independents too.
Clearly they were worried about getting locked out of a top 4 spot as an independent
If UConn goes 10-2 and ND goes 9-3, then the Huskies are better, right?I doubt either one would get a playoff spot in the new 12-team CFP. ND would get a bowl under the ACC bowl agreement deal. UConn would probably end up in some crappy bowl.
How is their fan support?UMass has been averaging under 15k football attendence.
They could make a halfway decent Northeast FBS conferenceBC, Syracuse, Villanova
UConn, UMass, Buffalo, Rutgers, Temple, Army, Navy, Delaware
BC, Syracuse, VillanovaPitt.
They could make a halfway decent Northeast FBS conference
UConn, UMass, Buffalo, Rutgers, Temple, Army, Navy, Delaware
and Maryland
And Rhode Island and Maine and Boston College...
BC, Syracuse, Villanova
let's get Rutgers & Maryland first
;)
Pitt.You guys should get one of these
UConn could possibly eventually join the ACC or Big 12 in the future depending on how how expansion goes. But in the short term UConn is kinda screwed. UConn may have to consider joining the MAC for football only in the short term.Or the PAC-2. There was something about the concept of geography and regional conferences that I once understood.
and MarylandMaryland is leagues better than Rutgers.
Do you think the ACC will survive mostly as it is today for five more years?No.
Do you think the ACC will survive mostly as it is today for five more years?As an FSU graduate, I actually think the ACC will survive mostly as is until their grant of rights expires in 2036 if the ACC holds the line, and doesn't negotiate a settlement. FSU signed over all its media rights to the ACC in 2016, meaning that if they leave, and go to another conference, whatever they are paid for television, is to be paid to the ACC. The estimated payout FSU would have to pay the ACC is circa $550M to $600M. In its lawsuit against the ACC, FSU contends this grant of rights provision constitutes an illegal unconscionable penalty. It is not a set exit fee, so I am not so sure it constitutes an illegal unconscionable penalty; FSU signed the contract.
Well, no better source than some CFB "radio host" ...It's Greg Swaim, who is possibly even LESS credible than just some "unnamed CFB radio host."
It's Greg Swaim, who is possibly even LESS credible than just some "unnamed CFB radio host."No, we are very happy with the SEC, even with the "Old Guard Bias". We feel that we have just barely even arrived, and now it appears that the GOAT (Saban) has left the building and maybe some new blood can shake things up. It may just be trading Smart for Saban, but we played Bama every year for 12 years. This new conference seems intriguing.
But still, we've talked about how the B1G could obviously have some interest in that. The question is, do the Ags reciprocate it at all?
Regional rivalries are the backbone of college football. Abandoning them just makes it a worse version of the NFL.I guess I'm not overly thrilled about Texas and Oklahoma playing an exhibition game when both are likely top 4 SEC teams. And is there any guarantee that Texas is playing all three of those teams every year?
There's a lot I don't love about Texas moving to the SEC, but one thing I AM happy about, is reestablishing the annual regional rivalries against Texas A&M and Arkansas, while maintaining the annual regional rivalry against Oklahoma.
At some point the Big Boys in the Big Ten SEC, ACC and ND are going to leave their conferences to form a new 16-team P1 football conference. Texas A&M and FSU will both be border line calls to make the cut because the P1 conference will already have Texas and Florida.Honestly, I would very much like it if that happened, and I would like for A&M to put the College back in College Football. Let the other teams be NFL lite, I don't even care if we don't get on TV, and I really don't care if the coach makes $1 Million (or 10.5 Million). It's not what I grew up with, not what I experienced during college, and not where I want to go.
Big Boy P1 conference
Tex, OK, LSU, Bama,
Georgia, Florida, Tenn, Clem,
PSU, OhSt, Mich, ND,
USC, Wash + 2 more
Texas would be a much better fit for the Big 10 to be honest, and I'm surprised that they did not go that route instead of being with us lowly Southeasterners. After all, they are the same team that wanted to join the Pac 10 when the conference swapping started. Allegedly.People say this a lot, but it shouldn't be surprising at all. The B1G is a poor fit geographically compared to the SEC, and more importantly, the B1G doesn't command anywhere close to the same amount of mindshare among Texas high school recruits, as the SEC does. This has been a key contributor to the Ags' success in recruiting over the past ten years, and you surely know that, so it's more than a little disingenuous and self-serving for you to suggest that Texas should be doing something that would actually hurt us in relative recruiting.
I guess I'm not overly thrilled about Texas and Oklahoma playing an exhibition game when both are likely top 4 SEC teams. And is there any guarantee that Texas is playing all three of those teams every year?
People say this a lot, but it shouldn't be surprising at all. The B1G is a poor fit geographically compared to the SEC, and more importantly, the B1G doesn't command anywhere close to the same amount of mindshare among Texas high school recruits, as the SEC does. This has been a key contributor to the Ags' success in recruiting over the past ten years, and you surely know that, so it's more than a little disingenuous and self-serving for you to suggest that Texas should be doing something that would actually hurt us in relative recruiting.And I don't disagree with you at all. At this point, my goal is having as many meaningful games as possible. Everything else has already been burned to the ground. I can't even really dislike rivals, when a bunch of their team is one year mercenaries, who maybe already played at 3 different schools, and that is only going to increase.
I care far more about the regular season annual matchups than any potential playoff interaction, so that's what is informing my opinions. And yes the SEC intends to have Texas play OU, Arkansas, and A&M every year. The SEC is banking on those rivalry games creating additional excitement and therefore additional viewership.
People say this a lot, but it shouldn't be surprising at all. The B1G is a poor fit geographically compared to the SEC, and more importantly, the B1G doesn't command anywhere close to the same amount of mindshare among Texas high school recruits, as the SEC does. This has been a key contributor to the Ags' success in recruiting over the past ten years, and you surely know that, so it's more than a little disingenuous and self-serving for you to suggest that Texas should be doing something that would actually hurt us in relative recruiting.I don't follow rankings very closely at all, but you and I both know that the main reason why Texas recruiting sucked during that time was because, well, the team sucked. The last few years of Mack Brown, then Charlie Strong (your version of Fran), and then Tom Herman pretty much put the nail in the lid. But I do think that Texas recruited well during that time. You just had bad coaching. I'd venture to guess that Texas never fell out of the top 20, and probably not even the top 10 in recruiting during most of the 2009-2021 period, and certainly never behind anyone other than OU, and still let Baylor, TCU, and even Kansas outplay you during much of that time.
I care far more about the regular season annual matchups than any potential playoff interaction, so that's what is informing my opinions. And yes the SEC intends to have Texas play OU, Arkansas, and A&M every year. The SEC is banking on those rivalry games creating additional excitement and therefore additional viewership.
I don't follow rankings very closely at all, but you and I both know that the main reason why Texas recruiting sucked during that time was because, well, the team sucked. The last few years of Mack Brown, then Charlie Strong (your version of Fran), and then Tom Herman pretty much put the nail in the lid. But I do think that Texas recruited well during that time. You just had bad coaching. I'd venture to guess that Texas never fell out of the top 20, and probably not even the top 10 in recruiting during most of the 2009-2021 period, and certainly never behind anyone other than OU, and still let Baylor, TCU, and even Kansas outplay you during much of that time.
OU was in the Big 12 during those same years and seemed to recruit and play pretty well on the field, even coming close to knocking off a few SEC teams in the playoffs.
I recall years ago when people were listing their favorite team other than their own, you listed Michigan. I don't ever remember anybody that is a Texas fan on this board or in real life being any kind of fan of the SEC, but I do know lots of Aggie fans that were fans of the SEC before we joined including myself.
Culturally, A&M was a fit in the SEC. Your president and AD wanted to go to the PAC 10, it was reported. I don't know how much truth there is to that, but we can both agree that A&M would never even think about going to the PAC 10, and any leader that even breathed as much would be shown the door.
There is no more such thing as a regional conference, we know that. Texas being the Big 10, with fellow members Nebraska, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio State doesn't seem too far fetched to me. The Big 10 I think seems to be more of an elegant conference, if there is such a thing. The SEC is a bunch of Brutes, brawn over beauty. Big 10 (more Michigan than anybody else) will beat you with brains and strength, as Michigan just demonstrated.
I think you're projecting some of your own personal desires onto the situation. Suffice to say, Texas to the B1G would be extremely far-fetched. If it weren't, then it already would have happened.You were already in a conference with Nebraska and Iowa (State). And Kansas, and Colorado. And I'm guessing that if Texas went North, so would OU. I'm not certain why you think it's so absurd for someone else to think that Texas to the Big 10 made more sense. As an outsider, it seems to be a reasonable position. Texas seriously considered joining the Pac 10 (per reports from the era, not all Aggie biased), even if they eventually turned it down.
Big 10 (more Michigan than anybody else) will beat you with brains and strength, as Michigan just demonstrated.Yikes
YikesMy impression is that Big 10 cares more about academics, such as AAU membership, than other conferences.
You were already in a conference with Nebraska and Iowa (State). And Kansas, and Colorado. And I'm guessing that if Texas went North, so would OU. I'm not certain why you think it's so absurd for someone else to think that Texas to the Big 10 made more sense. As an outsider, it seems to be a reasonable position. Texas seriously considered joining the Pac 10 (per reports from the era, not all Aggie biased), even if they eventually turned it down.Texas only ever considered joining the PAC when it thought it would need a soft landing spot if the B12 split up. Then Fox and ESPN came through and made the B12 TV money close enough to the B1G and the SEC for the time being, that it stabilized the conference, and that was that.
You're now in a conference with South Carolina, 1,100 miles away. And Knoxville, 1,037 miles away. Regionally, the SEC makes much more sense. I do agree with that. But I think Texas to the Big 10 adds much more value to each other than just another big program in the SEC. The Big 10 is basically Ohio State and Michigan. With Texas, it would be Ohio State, Michigan, and Texas.
FWIW, I really don't like the current membership of the Big 10. The far flung members, like Rutgers and Maryland, do nothing for the conference except spread it out. I'm sure the people who pull the strings are happy about it, but at least the SEC makes sense from a regional standpoint, mostly.
One more thing to add, I'm not even sure any of it matters, because it seems apparent to me that it's all going to implode and conferences won't mean shit in the next decade. We are headed to a smaller, upper tier league, which may or may not be affiliated with the NCAA, or maybe even the NFL. These conferences arrangements are really just temporary. So just enjoy things while they last, because it won't be long.Well I certainly agree that the current structure starting in the 2024 academic year, will only be a temporary one.
My impression is that Big 10 cares more about academics, such as AAU membership, than other conferences.Yes, I guess. You just picked a weird example
Yes, I guess. You just picked a weird exampleB1G flagship representative and the most consistent blueblood college football program of all time is Ohio State. I'm not trying to offend our Buckeye friends, but nobody out there really thinks of tOSU as an elite university focused on academics over athletics. Certainly, none of us have ever forgotten this gem:
We still need Vandy's on our schedules at times.I still don't get this... Some of you are fans of literally the bluest of the blue blood schools in the country.
B1G flagship representative and the most consistent blueblood college football program of all time is Ohio State. I'm not trying to offend our Buckeye friends, but nobody out there really thinks of tOSU as an elite university focused on academics over athletics. Certainly, none of us have ever forgotten this gem:Oh, no I agree, pretending like the football players are held to any sort of academic standards as the general student population is laughable, across the board. I would say the only difference is a Bruce Pearl type probably wouldn't be palatable at a Big Ten school. Beyond that, blah
(https://i.imgur.com/zzdpZVm.png)
I still don't get this... Some of you are fans of literally the bluest of the blue blood schools in the country.What you need to do right here is go ahead and hitch this idear to the debate on anudder thread about wins and losses mattering, SOS be damned or some such nonsense.
Are the fans of these teams SO thin-skinned that if you don't have a steady stream of pastries to fatten up your win totals that it'll be a massive blow to your ego?
Is it really better to go 10-2 when 8 of those wins are teams that should NEVER remotely threaten you compared to going 7-5 against a schedule of heavyweights? Especially when 7-5 in that scenario probably gets you into a playoff (as it would in the NFL)?
It seems like admitting that you need Vandy's on your schedule should be a mark of shame, not a badge of honor.
B1G flagship representative and the most consistent blueblood college football program of all time is Ohio State. I'm not trying to offend our Buckeye friends, but nobody out there really thinks of tOSU as an elite university focused on academics over athletics. Certainly, none of us have ever forgotten this gem:I’m under no impression any of them care about academics. But, if you had to grade the athletes at all conferences, it would not surprise me if the SEC had the “dumbest” and the B1G/PAC had the smartest. Ohio State aligns with the SEC WRT academics.
(https://i.imgur.com/zzdpZVm.png)
What you need to do right here is go ahead and hitch this idear to the debate on anudder thread about wins and losses mattering, SOS be damned or some such nonsense.I posted about this in that thread too. You told me that helmet team fans will just not accept a world in which they don't have an automatic 9+ wins every year. Thus they need the pastries to pad their egos.
I am utterly flabbergasted that you'd post this and lecture me elsewhere about how ranking teams by number of losses isn't a vapid, childish idea.
Jesus fucking Christ.
I posted about this in that thread too. You told me that helmet team fans will just not accept a world in which they don't have an automatic 9+ wins every year. Thus they need the pastries to pad their egos.On what planet and in what epoch has any collection of voters ever shown the tact or even willingness to do so?!?
I presume the future CFB "utopia" will be a very selective league where the riff-raff are kept out and playoff inclusion is mathematical (like the NFL) based on record. And where you might just get into a playoff at 8-4 or 7-5 but where every single one of those wins was earned, not just a foregone conclusion because you're playing Northeast Southwest Alabama State Technical College (or Vandy).
MaybePossibly
I’m under no impression any of them care about academics. But, if you had to grade the athletes at all conferences, it would not surprise me if the SEC had the “dumbest” and the B1G/PAC had the smartest. Ohio State aligns with the SEC WRT academics.Not even close.
And, Cardale wasn’t wrong.
The B1G has a depth problem. Even with more programs than the SEC. Doesn't seem to matter. It's always OSU and UM. Nobody else. Ever. Since Penn State went undefeated (and won nothing) in 1994, and then going back to WWII, the B1G has jack squat for depth.Before it was unfortunately MNC or bust (which apparently you like??), the B1G was very deep. Look at the Rose Bowl participants from 1991 through 2013.
Hell, even Oregon hasn't won shit. Got close. Lotsa money. No natties. Warshington won one, 32 years ago.
But they have USC now. A down USC, but it's still USC. They've won stuff. That add actually makes sense.
I wonder if it'll help with the depth.
If the same 2 guys are battling for the top of the mountain and everyone else is dicking around at the base camp, that's kind of lame.
Not even close.I understand that Ohio St has a very good academic reputation.
OSU is a very good school. Been an AAU member since 1916.
From the AAU site:
The Ohio State University | Association of American Universities (AAU)
(https://www.aau.edu/who-we-are/our-members/ohio-state-university)
I understand that Ohio St has a very good academic reputation.They cleaned that up quite a bit, but like most schools, admissions are relaxed for athletes.
I always thought OSU had a reputation for its athletes being dumber than the stereotypical jock.
The AAU thing is of course a measure of graduate programs. A school can be very good and not be AAU though it's unusual to have the reverse.You can't do that with so many schools no longer requiring testing.
I'd rank schools based on the average SAT (etc.) of the incoming classes. At least it's a metric, not an opinion.
I don't put too much stock in "rankings" obviously, there are several for colleges around, and sometimes folks quip about one being #33 say and another being #50, which might well be splitting hairs.
I can't imagine how anyone can differentiate between #80 and #140.
Before it was unfortunately MNC or bust (which apparently you like??), the B1G was very deep. Look at the Rose Bowl participants from 1991 through 2013.be cause they had some silly rule
You can't do that with so many schools no longer requiring testing.we have an entire thread devoted to rankings and how meaningless they are
You can't do that with so many schools no longer requiring testing.The majority of schools do, and some that dropped it are bringing it back. I personally think it's more reliable than other "rankings".
be cause they had some silly ruleStill, a champion or co-champion always went.
yes, but when you can't send the same team the next season it encourages more participationThat was never a rule.
which was the obvious goal
someone here with more time than i could probably track how many times it happened
I personally think it's more reliable than other "rankings".Of course test scores are more reliable than HS GPA because the tests are standardized, it is right there in the name, standardized tests.
I think it's stupid not to use the data.That is a feature not a bug. The people pushing this aren't actually stupid so when they do something that appears to be nonsensical, they are doing it for a reason.
Still, a champion or co-champion always went.Um, no.
Not anymore.
That was never a rule.Yes, it was. They dropped it in the early 70's but before that the BigTen had a "no repeat" rule Vis-a-vis RoseBowl participation.
Um, no.Yes, it was. They dropped it in the early 70's but before that the BigTen had a "no repeat" rule Vis-a-vis RoseBowl participation.That's a LONG time ago. Back then, only one school was even allowed to go to a bowl game. I skip that era for a reason.
For example, the Buckeyes won the league, RoseBowl, and National Championship in 1968. Then, in 1969, they were prohibited from going to the RoseBowl by the no repeat rule. They were also prohibited from going to any other Bowl by the RoseBowl only rule so their regular season finale against Schembechler's Wolverines was it, nothing after that regardless of outcome.
The top 12 colleges that don’t require standardized test scores include:Which Colleges Don't Require SAT/ACT Scores for 2022-2023 Admissions? (prepscholar.com) (https://blog.prepscholar.com/colleges-dont-require-sat-act-scores-2020-admissions-covid)
- Princeton
- Harvard
- Yale
- University of Chicago
- Brown
- Dartmouth
- Northwestern
- Dule
- John Hopkins
- Vanderbilt
- Rice
- Carnell
- Columbia
- Notre Dame
There are more than I thought, but a lot of these are small and down the list. I think it's stupid not to use the data.
On what planet and in what epoch has any collection of voters ever shown the tact or even willingness to do so?!?You're talking about the past where we had a large number of teams playing in disparate conferences working towards a very limited playoff (2 teams in the BCS or 4 teams in the CFP), where any legitimate helmet is only playing 3-4 games a year at most against quality opponents.
If you somehow drop the current "Vandys" from BB schedules, do you not generate more Vandys as an eventuality? A lot of programs are pretty far ahead of Vandy, but they still are no generally competitive with the elite group of teams. In this terrible new world, does Minnesota and Iowa get left out? Florida? Miss State?Purdue and Vandy are only still major conference schools because major conferences don't kick schools out. Major conferences shed poor schools when the rich schools from those conferences leave (USC->B1G / UTA/OU->SEC).
Hard to say, but the elite teams won't be playing elite opponents 12 times a year, they might play four, and then eight near pastries. So, 10-2 would be a pretty great record for them. I dunno, hate to see it really.
What to do with Nebraska? Could you really leave them out? Been a rough 20+ years. Tennessee?Remember... The more you basically create a league that is designed for parity, and is very limited in number of teams, the more that parity becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. ESPECIALLY if you have some sort of unionization/CBA/contracts involved where the idea of "recruiting" becomes a completely different thing than what we've seen for the last 100 years of CFB.
Snipping off one end of the bell curve will simply, in time, become a new bell curve.Hey, in any league you've gotta have the Cleveland Browns.
A Clemson or a Penn State or an LSU will become the new Vandy.
Explain that to their alumni and fans. I'm sure they'll respond well to the lowered expectations.Again, you claim their alumni and fans have such fragile egos that they're incapable of understanding that 8-4 against a tough schedule is better than 11-1 when you play 9 cupcakes.
Again, you claim their alumni and fans have such fragile egos that they're incapable of understanding that 8-4 against a tough schedule is better than 11-1 when you play 9 cupcakes.If expert committee members aren't capable, why on earth would alumni and fans be?
I think you'd have to look at the past 30 or so years for performance, as to who makes the cut.It's not about performance on the field
Who has played in the BCS bowls and NYD6 bowls/playoffs.
I'd think Iowa and my school would make the cut, and get beat up a lot, of course.
What to do with Nebraska? Could you really leave them out? Been a rough 20+ years. Tennessee?