Sandbagging Steve

Swarbrick said he thinks both the Big Ten and SEC eventually will grow and get around 20 teams but doesn't think other additions are "imminent." ^^^^^^ I think Swarbrick is giving everyone a hint with the above statement. You don't hold a presser the day after a huge realignment leak to say "I think they will eventually grow to around 20 teams" unless you're preparing the masses for change. Why would a CEO hold a presser to announce/speculate on another CEO's future moves unless he's been a part of the talks and preparing his base? Leak info to a reporter? Sure. Make such statements in front of the public? It doesn't make sense, unless you're at war with someone and trying to win the perception game (PAC/Big12/ACC). ND is planting the seed with the alumni before making a move IMO. They need to massage the BMDs and fan base behind closed doors and in front of the public before making this move. If they make it too quickly, it could cost them donations. They may also give the greenlight and let Stanford join first. ND has to make it look like they have no other choice. It could be in a month, later this season or a few years from now (2025?)

Not taking sides, but this doesn't pass the smell test. If Watts was the best corner, he could have just moved back to starting corner after Banks' second injury. It wouldn't be the first time that's happened. What am I missing here? Many defensive backs cross train, when the ability is there. I've been hearing this all off season. Sounds like either tOSU making an excuse to get him to change positions or Watts releasing a story that best fits his narrative. I'm not saying he can't play corner. He's got a lot of the tools to play the position. But we've had way too much excuse making to justify recruiting moves. I can remember the whole Marcus Washington narrative here a few years ago. All the excuses in the world to justify his combined 4.7 speed and slight build. tOSU wanted him! He was injured! Watts has size and decent speed, although you'd like to see him shave another tenth off his verified times. He was a very good pickup by the staff. I'm not sure if he's a corner or safety. It doesn't take much to play corner better than last year's starting lineup. It still doesn't change the fact that the narrative being sold here doesn't hold water unless there's missing info. Last year, I really felt like Crawford and Barron were our most talented defensive backs. I guess they weren't as ready as I thought; or the wrong players got on the field.

I think that former executive has shown to be a little biased toward the PAC in his responses. When looking at history, I think it does come into play. It's just one of many variables. I think ESPN's bottom line was hurt during realignment chaos over a decade ago. As much as they want these moves, in the sort term it hurts their bottom line. No company likes that much chaos/surprises in the middle of a contract. The networks want to eventually get all this realignment out of the way to create stable conferences in the future. Like-minded athletic programs playing against like-minded programs Looking at more than just a short period of success when expanding is one factor in creating that stability.

... or maybe we land Damon Wilson and he has to live with his decision. I kind of like our position. Swing for the fences and try to land an immediate difference-maker at pass rusher. If it doesn't work out, circle back to Shelby right before signing day. Texas has a lot of advantages in this recruitment, if Sark can't land something better. A Terror off the edge would change the entire direction of this defense in a hurry.

Just call it a difference of opinion. Prior to the start of NIL, we hadn't recruited at a Blueblood level in a long time. Recruiting services are FOS, immoral, money making schemes. Texas recruited like **** from the mid-80s until nearly the mid-90s for the same reasons. This idea that Texas is some amazing recruiting machine is exaggerated. There's very little that separates most of these coaches. Elite talent and depth are the biggest factors in winning games at a Blueblood. Good schemes, especially on offense, can help. Defense is typically about talent, although you can get too cute for your own good. There's a long list of average coaches who've won national titles in college football. A very long list. They tend to buy the best players year after year. Two of the last three national championship coaches are no better, and maybe worse, than Tom Herman. But their administrations support paying the talent top dollar.

I can see your point, but I wish them well. Overall, they are about as good of a partner as you can expect from a school with their disadvantages at this level of athletics. Most of my issues are directed at the media and the misinformation coming out of the administrations at Nebraska, Missouri, Colorado and A&M. Of course, A&M is also just an immoral clown show. Some of the fans in the new Big 12 need to get over it though. Texas/OU didn't kill the Big 12. And it was always going to die at some point.

For the most part, I like Tech and their administrators probably complain less than most. Texas has done way more than is required to attempt to help TT and A&M academics over the past 30 years. Texas has wanted nothing more than to help TT on their bumpy road to Tier 1 status. Texas has done way more than is required to assist in the inclusion of TT in major college athletics. Texas has tried to maintain a good relationship with the Red Raiders. And for the most part it is a good relationship, unlike the immoral assholes to the East. The LHN game is not a good example of being a bad partner. But you have a few fans on here reinventing history to blame Texas for Tech's problems. With that said, let's look at that LHN scenario from the Texas POV. First, Big 12 Commissioner Kevin Weiberg, Texas and Nebraska offered Tech and the other members an opportunity to be a member of the Big 12 Network. Tech and the other members declined. In fact, I've been told they laughed in our faces about it. We lost the only good commissioner in the history of the conference to the Big 10 because A&M and the small schools didn't care about the long term stability of the league. Fast forward a decade or so and ESPN asked you to play a game on ESPN/LHN. It was a road game and really shouldn't have been up to you. It hurt Tech in no way. Financially? Nope. In fact, it probably hurt financially not to play the game on LHN. Recruiting? Nope. We don't recruit the same players. It hurt your pride. You were jealous. By not playing the game on LHN, Tech not only hurt themselves but they hurt the chances of the Big 12 surviving in the future. Congrats, I guess? It wasn't going to survive, but Tech's decisions certainly didn't help its chances. I don't see how you can celebrate the move. Bluebloods can't let other bluebloods get too far ahead financially or it hurts recruiting at some point in time. The LHN was one of Tech's chances to remain in a power conference with Texas and OU. You should have loved LHN. Tech fans are now bitching about not getting to play in that same conference. All the leftover programs in the Big 12 are making up every excuse in the book to blame Texas/OU for their problems. We're just tired of it, that's all.

TT? The program that hired a man from the shady world of lobbyists and politicians; a man well known to have been one involved in the shenanigans that led to the SMU death penalty. The program that hired this man, Kent Ronald Hance, as their Chancellor, who then proceeded to take the sides of his friend Craig James, the former SMU player known for taking some of these payments (CJK5H); and because this former players' son wasn't good enough to play at TT, they fired Mike Leach, the greatest coach in the history of Texas Texas football. They not only fired the school's greatest coach for not playing some scrub because his daddy had money and was friend's with Hance, but because Mike Leach was just too damn popular. They were jealous that the coach was more popular than the program. He was too successful to remain the head coach at TT. Years later they hid behind sovereign immunity instead of admitting their sins in the court of law. This genius of a man, Kent Ronald Hance, now has a campus chapel named after him on campus and, when he retired, they gave him chancellor-emeritus for life. All this after his involvement in destroying TT football to the point it has zero chance of Power 2 inclusion. TT, the program that never looks in the mirror but has no issue blaming Texas for everything.

I'm going to mark my territory before the bags show up

SEC has an all for one attitude because the majority of the teams have similar monetary value. That's how business works. It's why LSU would never leave the SEC for the SWC. There weren't enough teams in the SWC with Blueblood value. Here's a fairly accurate list of program value. Notice how many SEC and B1G teams are in the top 32? 12 of 14 teams in the SEC ranked in the top 32 14 of 16 if including Texas 7 of 14 teams in the B1G ranked in the top 32, including 3 of the top 5 juggernaut programs that are way bigger than everyone else. 9 of 16 if including USC/UCLA 5 of 14 teams in the ACC ranked in the top 32, not including Notre Dame The bottom of the conference is very weak 5 of 14 teams in the PAC 12 ranked in the top 32 3 of 14 if excluding USC/UCLA but one can make an argument that ASU could be a little overrated on the list...but not much. One could also say Colorado could turn it around at some point and would be on the list. The bottom few teams and the geography remain an issue here 2 of 10 teams in the Big 12-4+2 ranked in the top 32 0 of 12 in the new Big 12-4+2-2+4. The new Big 12-4+2-2+4 is a very competitive league with a bunch of teams with similar value that can offer stability and the ability to expand from any direction with its current geography. 5 of 10 teams in the old Big 12 ranked in the top 32 There's no way the Big 12 was ever going to be the SEC or the B1G. Nebraska and Missouri barely register on this list. There were/are both declining programs with nowhere to recruit in the modern game. Nebraska's decline and value diminished in the Big 12 and the B1G. Does NIL change their fortune? It's too early to tell. ACC - PAC - Big 12 were all getting raided Ohio State Texas Notre Dame Michigan Penn State Florida Georgia USC Alabama LSU Tennessee Wisconsin Oklahoma Florida State TAMU Auburn Washington Oregon Michigan State North Carolina Miami Clemson UCLA South Carolina Virginia Tech Missouri Nebraska Iowa Arkansas Kentucky Arizona State Ole Miss

Good post. If sports journalists would look at realignment this way, and add other factors to the equation, they'd write much better articles. It's why these top programs need to play each other more often. There's too many OOC games with teams outside the P5 and then a few weak teams within the P5 that are taking away from the competitiveness of the sport. It's getting worse because the internet has allowed the cheaters to recruit everyone else's recruiting territory with much more success, which has weakened some of the P5 programs. Back in the day, a conference mate had a much better chance of pulling off an upset over a top ranked Blueblood. And then there's the fact that teams used to play a tough OOC schedule. Nowadays it's mostly cupcakes. The viewers are fed up with it. If they want more revenue and more butts in the seats then line up and play teams your own size. It has to be the standard across the board or it won't work. I'm in favor of going to more conference games to help accomplish this. I don't think college football needs a 16 team playoff. Increase the number of regular season games, the number of conference games per season and limit the playoffs to somewhere between 4 and 8 teams. If you increase the number of games for every team, with much more competitive games, you'll get a much more proven title winner and you'll probably make as much or more money than a 16-team playoff.

And didn't Big 12 Commissioner Kevin Weiberg basically leave to help start the Big 10 Network because most of the Big 12 laughed at the idea of starting a conference network? Texas and Nebraska were the only two with interest. I'm not sure if I'm remembering that correctly. The Big 12 also has the rights to the Big 14 and the Big 16. BYU was supposed to be an addition but Baylor didn't want another private school in the conference. Kevin Weiberg was a good commissioner dealing with a bunch of out of date presidents from small programs that just didn't understand where college football was heading. And then they blamed Texas for all their problems. I still don't think the league would have made it.

It would have been fun for a time. I don't see that small a conference lasting long term when you need to expand the eyeballs across the country. The Dallas Cowboys became America's team because they got the chance to play the NY Giants, Philadelphia Eagles and Washington Redskins. Playing in those big markets is a very big deal. The revenue is getting too big to remain so marginal in viewership. Add to it NIL and the impending formation of a players' union, and I don't see that conference lasting long term. A&M would still have looked for any excuse to join the SEC. It's where they've always wanted to be. Nebraska would have one leg out the door. Texas and OU would now be worried about additional revenue with NIL/unions. I think in the end we are going to get more competitive national games with most of our regional rivalries back in the fold. It's just chaotic getting there.

I don't think you should lose interest. Your team is going to be in the third conference. You'll still have a shot at the playoffs. Did you have a shot before this? Only if they were forced to take you. I honestly believe OSU and TCU had the best teams in the country about a decade ago and were left out for no other reason than fan size. You will have a better shot now, with an expanded playoff, than in the current format. You will still play everyone but Texas, unless your administration turns down a chance to play OU. You won't make as much money. Well, is your team a threat to even sign and outbid Bluebloods for top recruits? if not, it shouldn't matter to you. As with the dickheads, there are some OSU (I don't recall which ones), TT and Iowa State fans blaming everyone for conference realignment, including Texas. I think that's why some of the Texas fans started being dickheads. After what seems like at least a hundred pages of the same, it's getting a little tiring to keep reading the same whining and blame game from Al and a few others. LTBear is a great example of how you should handle your team in expansion. My mom lived in Oregon while growing up, so the Ducks have always been my second team. Texas will always have my heart, but I've been a diehard Ducks fan since the 80s. I lived through some tough times as a fan. I'm not an alum, but I've always had a connection to the program. You won't see me here whining about their current state of affairs, even though Oregon and Washington probably have the best case for Power 2 admittance out of the leftover PAC/Big12 programs. It's no one's fault they are in this position. It's just business. And I think they will be just fine wherever they end up. I think the geography is one of the hardest things for them to overcome. I do think they will get over it at some point, but it's just business one way or another. Geography is an issue in athletics, but for me there's no better place to spend a summer than California/Oregon/Washington. I wouldn't trade the mix of the outdoors and world class cities in California, Oregon and Washington. We can talk about politics. I typically don't let politics get in my way. I live my life and stay out of it. If geography keeps them out of the Big 2, so be it. I'll still enjoy Ducks football, unless they're playing Texas.

Well, I forgot Rutgers landed in the B1G. Definitely a surprise, although I think everyone understands what they were trying to accomplish at the time.

Big 12 Conference was never going to survive. There was never enough viewers to keep up with the B1G/SEC. It was only matter of when the B1G/SEC/PAC were ready to expand again. Everyone knew at some point the NCAA was going to lose and kids would get paid. Revenue generation is a driving force in business. The only somewhat surprising move in the history of conference realignment the past 30+ years was Missouri to the SEC. But if the B1G was going to turn them down, and ATM needed a partner, it made sense in real time. This has all been a slow progress because the NCAA is a mess. All of this should have happened 30 to 40 years ago. Once basketball lost its title as the breadwinner, the ACC has been doomed. Every team in that conference has had a wandering eye for nearly two decades now. Every member of the Big 8 not named Colorado has begged for entrance into the B1G for over half a century or longer. Colorado has begged for entrance into the PAC for the same time period. Every time Texas and Texas ATM tried to leave the SWC, either the other conference couldn't get the votes for Texas/ATM, wasn't ready to expand just yet or Texas politics got in the way. ATM has wanted to be in the SEC for generations. The SWC could never lure LSU and it was doomed. Texas couldn't figure out where they wanted to land, but there was a time period where the PAC was the landing spot but Stanford is the fucking weirdo we know they are... Texas has always had more in common with the SEC as a state, athletics-wise and from a geographical standpoint. Academics and administrators were the holdup. USC has never liked the PAC but had nowhere else to go because of geography. USC/Texas was always a rumor of starting a conference or expanding the PAC, but it never happened. Once Texas/OU landed in the SEC, it was no-brainer, with planes and no cross country drives/trains of yesteryear, that USC/UCLA would be heading to the B1G at some point. It's no surprise they're trying their hardest to block some other PAC members. They all hate each other, for generations. It's always been that way. I don't think it's going to work though. I don't get the continued anger and pissing contest. If OSU got an offer to the B1G at any point, they would have jumped in a heartbeat. Iowa State would have jumped in a heartbeat. Big 12 was not a long term solution. It was a placeholder until the stars aligned perfectly for the teams that were wanted. ACC, the past 15 years, has turned into the same story on the East Coast. You can't sit here and act holy. OSU wasn't getting along any more than the other programs in the Big 12. There's no one to blame for the breakup. There should be no hate from anyone. It's simply business. It's a game of survival.