TKthunder2

Flex post? I know multiple women who have said they wanted to wait and others who have froze their eggs, only to be devastated when they were unable to conceive in their 30s. This is very common. Some spent thousands of dollars on fertility treatments, others end up adopting and it works out, but all of them go through significant mental anguish because they believed that it would just happen when they were ready. But that is not reality, and society is actively telling these women that they can have it all, which is true, as long as they understand HOW (which many do not). More education and awareness is the answer, I’m not sure how this is a controversial statement.

Women used to care about finding a man who could provide and protect. Our society is generally safe (most crime at historic lows, despite steep rise in property crime) so they don’t need protectors. More women than men are getting advanced degrees and able to support themselves. As a father of a young daughter these are great advancements which are generally beneficial to all. That being said, what is out of whack is women’s understanding of their own priorities. Only 5% of women claim they do NOT want children, however more and more are waiting until their mid to late thirties to pursue that goal. As a country we do a great job of showcasing women’s empowerment in the workforce, but we do a horrible job of explaining the basics of fertility. Honestly this is something that should be required to be taught in high school, reviewed regularly by OBGYN’s with their patients, and something the government should have running on PSAs. If knowing the data, you CHOOSE to wait or not have kids until later then that is okay, but the number of 30 years olds who don’t realize they have already lost 90% of their eggs is astounding and that should not be the norm.

I have nothing against Iowa St. but I also don’t view everything through a lens where I’m taking their program into account when thinking about this topic. I’m an alumnus of a school that doesn’t have to worry about being left out so the considerations are different. To answer your question, a league of 16 would be ridiculous. Yes Texas/OU wanted more big time football programs on their schedule but that does not mean we want ALL of them. It’s all about moderation. If Texas played a conference schedule of LSU, Bama, Tenn, OU, UGA, UF, Aub, FSU, Clemson, aggy it would be lead to a bad product and performance would decline. If every game is a Super Bowl, then no game is. A 9 game 3-6-6 schedule is just about perfect in the SEC. We’d play OU/Arkansas/aggy each year plus some combo of LSU/Bama/Aub or UF/UGA/TN which means our fans would would Immediately care about 2/3rds of the schedule versus 1/3 in the Big 12. I don’t think we’re as concerned about subsidizing those few schools. Sure, it could be better, I’d trade Miss State for UNC in a heartbeat but overall the SEC still very high quality pound for pound. We play Mississippi State this year before back to back games with OU and Georgia followed by Vandy, then Florida, Arkansas, Kentucky, and aggy. Those teams serve a purpose. Also you need some coverage across the other states to keep viewership interest and also for political coverage. One big reason I think the Big 12 will hang around is that it provides that coverage for a good chunk of these schools (WV, CO, UT, AZ, KS) without requiring the Big Ten/SEC to pay/play these schools directly. If the ACC breaks up and the Big 12 adds its tier 2/3 schools like Pitt, Louisville, NCSU, and Virginia Tech that could be a great solution for go from a P4 to a P3 and drops another 6 or so schools from the P3 club in the process increasing postseason revenue for those who remain. Other than trying to keep up financially, the biggest issue standing in the way of the Big 12 now is the postseason. If the SEC decided to run their own 4 team conference tournament and go back to the old bowl system pairing their tournament winner against the Big Ten’s 4 team tournament winner then I don’t really see a way for them to break into that. Which is why it’s in the Big 12 and Notre Dame’s interest to keep the SEC/B1G in the CFP despite all else.

Yes the only tier 3 network that is rated is the Big Ten and now I believe Peacock. The SECN, LHN, PACN, ACCN, and ESPN+ which includes SoonerVision and Big12Now are not rated and do not have totals in the aggregate number.

What year(s) is the data from? I’ll be curious to see this data in 3 years and compare the 2021-23 data with the 2024-26 data especially for the B12. I imagine you’ll see an decrease in schools like Oklahoma State, TCU, and WVU as the Texas/OU bump they’ve historically been able to pad their ratings with an extra 20 million viewers a year (and that’s a conservative estimate) will be no more a most of them will fall below the 100 million mark. That bump could also be transferred to Arkansas, Mississippi State, and South Carolina since they’ll get on ABC/ESPN more often. Maybe they can capitalize on Colorado/Prime having another season of wild expectations and crazy ratings (and without early games against USC/Oregon) but absent that and without an annual blueblood matchups I’m assuming we’re seeing the peak for the Big 12 schools here.

16-18 is too small. You could cut schools like Vandy and Northwestern sure, but those schools serve a purpose of providing wins and great travel destinations to population centers in the middle of the conference. You could still cut a school like Mississippi State or Purdue who doesn’t check many boxes but there is not a lot of fat in the SEC/B1G that the presidents want to unanimously reject as it sets a bad president for those historically less successful teams. I think 40-48 schools is as close as you’ll get to your “big brands breakaway league”. The SEC/B1G it sits at 34 so an easy jump to 40 would be ND, FSU, Clemson, UNC, UVA and then a wildcard school like Miami or Stanford. If they go to 48 you’d likely see some others from the B12/ACC as well, but I doubt it gets that big without a true league forming which could collectively agree that they need representation in the Four Corner states for viewership and political cover.

I also want a piece of that revenue sharing for me too if we’re just giving things away…and a line of super models ready to blow me on demand whenever I feel like it, while we’re at it.

There are 32 NFL teams. Talk to fans in San Diego and St. Louis and previous other cities/markets like Cleveland, Baltimore, and Houston about them never alienating viewers (as a former Oiler fan but not Texan fan I laugh at that). If people don’t go to games, buy merchandise, or watch they pack up and leave. Acting like the NFL would NEVER pull a Super League plan out of its ass is folly. If they expanded from 32 to 60 teams and half the league was being subsidized you can absolutely bet that the Dallas Cowboys and most successful friends would cut bait and abandon ship. The NFL is also not a good model for CFB due to their TV deals and market agreements. Without the Sunday ticket most people can only watch 6 games a week live. It’s not the same.

Yep. A super league of all teams isn’t a super league. The whole plan where they say the teams with the most eyeballs takes home the biggest paycheck and regional divisions don’t align. USC will get more eyeballs in the Big Ten than they did in the P10, Texas will get more in the SEC than the SWC. That’s of the big reasons why reverting back to regional conferences would not happen.

https://www.sportico.com/leagues/college-sports/2024/college-football-super-league-pitch-deck-1234775652/amp/

Look I’m fine if the answer is it’s not cost effective BUT again we’re spending millions upon millions in water conservation, recovery, and reuse efforts that would be far less effective. The potential proposal of the desalination effort is also NOT cost effective but we keep reviewing that every decade or so.

About 5 years ago when last flooded, they left the flood gates open for FOUR WEEKS. We absolutely could have used more capacity.

On3 has them at 44 https://www.on3.com/transfer-portal/team-rankings/football/2024/

May 6th, I feel poor

Great flick seen it at least 30 times now.

BYU can travel but Texas fans have outnumbered them in their own stadium before.

How about you just not ban our fans from buying tickets on the open market? https://kslsports.com/500666/big-12-tcu-byu-tickets-single-game-keep-it-purple/ TCU, Baylor, and Houston pull this type of bush league bullshit regularly (Tech too to a different extent but since nobody wants to travel to Lubbock they don’t do this). This happens regularly to Texas fans that I couldn’t easily find a UT site complaining about this since it’s fairly normal for us. Just because you don’t see it doesn’t mean it ain’t real.

Isn’t this similar to how the Big 12 was setup before everybody cried about mean old Texas back in 2010 and the unequal revenue sharing? Back then you guys wanted equal revenue sharing because you thought you could run the same “lucky” scam as Vandy and Northwestern but it backfired spectacularly and now you want to try and put all the toothpaste back in the tube? Shortsighted greed appears to have caused long term consequences.

20. SEC adds FSU, Clemson, UNC, UVA = 20 (if you go to 24 that’s likely Kansas, Duke, VA Tech, and WVU which isn’t very appealing for football/expansion) B1G adds ND and Miami (or Stanford)= 20 From the B12 point of view, if they take the best ACC leftovers in Pitt, Louisville, NCSU, and VA Tech they will clearly have the best fb brands remaining at 20, and if they overextend to 24 (which they probably would if those+Miami is available and if the rumor that BY is already talking with Duke are true) to get the stretch/basketball brands like Duke, Syracuse, GA Tech and maybe UConn or in their dream scenario ND’s nonfb sports then that’s really all they need. Why add in SMU and their 30k seat stadium who you already turned down and when you have 4 schools in TX? Why add Cal/Stanford who have never wanted to join and were too prideful and overbearing when in the PAC? Why add legacy leeches like Wake or BC (it’s not like they extended that olive branch to WSU/OrSU)?

UTRGV is leaving the WAC for the Southland Conference. Very confused on what SFA, ACU, and Tarleton, and UTA are still doing in the WAC with those random Utah schools.

Oakland plays in the Horizon League Princeton plays in the Ivy League Both conferences would not be in the bottom 10 that get cut. Why do we have divisions? DII schools can beat DI schools (Chaminade says hello). It doesn’t cost a lot to field a basketball team. What does the number/amount of scholarships, size of arena, or number of other sports matter when you can only have 5 guys on the hardwood at any given time. Let’s have one big tournament for all divisions. We have divided before and we WILL divide again. Fighting for a conference to keep its bid because Fairleigh Dickinson pulled off an upset that one time is ridiculous. 99% of people reading this don’t have any idea what conference they play in or who else is in their conference without pulling it up on Wikipedia. If a conference falls out of DI and nobody notices does it really matter? There will still be plenty of Cinderellas around AND the games will be better and more profitable.

This is where we disagree completely. Last year Oklahoma (who missed the tournament) literally beat Alabama (who was a #1 seed). The tournament would have been better if you could include more at large teams and fewer AQs. Based on Bullet’s list above this would/should be an easy compromise. Take all 10 FBS conference and add in any conference who has made a Sweet16 in the last 40 years: Big East, A10, WCC, Horizon, Ivy, MAAC, Patriot, Southern, and the Summit League. That would free up 11 AQ spots. If you get rid of the First Four that removes 4 teams which means we could go back to the basic 64 team setup and still have 7 additional at large bids for Oklahoma, Indiana St, Seton Hall, Pitt, St John’s, Providence, and Wake Forest. Yes, I think that would have been a better product and the average fan wouldn’t know any better since there would still be more than enough non traditional brands in the tournament to satisfy their Cinderella dreams. I’m very knowledgeable on most conferences in Division I and was only able to name 8 of the 11 conferences that were left out without looking it up. We have too many conferences in Division I which is the problem here.

I didn’t cite an actual statistic but many times you’ll hear/read when the media will says “2 million people across the world watched the buzzer beater last night”, only to find that when the rating are released it’s calculated with less than a quarter of that. As far as I’m aware the minute by minute Nielsen ratings are not publicly available. But close games and big names draws viewers, I’m sure I could source that if you’d like.

Again, sportswriters and common fans like to romanticize underdog upsets but the cold hard fact are that no one watches those games outside the final minute or two. Oakland like St Peters and Fairleigh Dickinson, Abilene Christian, or insert random school here…are fun to talk about after the fact but the next game they play also has horrible viewership too because those casual fans despite talking about the tournament and the bracket socially…don’t watch. They see the final shot/miss on sportscenter or YouTube/tictok or twitter/fb but none of that brings in any money to the NCAA or P4+BigEast. The data doesn’t lie.

Take a look at the ratings because they agree with him. Nobody watches the small school until the final two minutes. While that fun for fans and sport writers to romanticize these games have lower rating than your standard 8/9 matchup which means advertisers don’t pay for them. What is memorable and what makes money aren’t always the same thing. I don’t think they need to fully split from all of DI, but I think you could drop 10 historically one bid leagues and the tournament would be far more interesting and profitable. We have divisions for a reason. DII schools can upset DI schools, it doesn’t mean we should include them in the tournament. Shrinking the number of DI leagues is likely healthy for the NCAA.