Sandbagging Steve

1. B1G was all set to add Missouri before Nebraska talked them out of it. 2. In 2021, Nebraska was hanging out below Iowa and right there close to Mississippi St., Stanford, TCU. They are clearly in the third tier with close to a dozen teams. And they've been trending downwards for nearly two decades. 3. I'm not arguing anything other than the B1G isn't just adding teams worth their own weight. It's the guy I'm responding to that is saying that. The fact of the matter is, there's very little that separates 15 to 20 teams in the third tier. LTBear seems to think none of these teams have a shot at going to the B1G. The B1G has already taken some of them. Nebraska and UCLA are two of them.

You said I walked back what I said and that is false. All I've ever said is they would like to go coast to coast with a continuous border and if those programs get rehabbed they may get added. It is that simple. I have never wavered from that statement. This is the reason for my last reply. It's not a secret they would in fact like to do that. It doesn't mean it will happen. I never said it will happen. It would take the right circumstances but it is something they've always wanted to do. Other than that, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. For one, I'm pretty sure the B1G would have made more money by leaving out UCLA and Nebraska but they added them anyway. There is no way UCLA is worth anywhere near 60, 70, or 80 million dollars right now with USC in the fold. But UCLA was a good addition to the conference and probably helped secure USC as well as allowed more teams to play in LA for recruiting purposes. It wasn't just about revenue. They wouldn't be chasing UVA if that was their concern. UVA has never had the numbers to bring that kind of revenue to the B1G. But they will chase them at some point in time. It's always been one of their top priorities (UVA/UNC). Which programs are going to bring $80 million to the B1G? Notre Dame? Yes. Florida State:? I don't think FSU can even get that high. So the B1G is done with expansion forever once they land Notre Dame? Maybe they force the cable providers to pay a premium for the B1GN in San Fran? Bring in tiny little Stanford? And then you believe they are done? Couldn't they just force cable providers to pay a premium in every B1G state at this point? They have more leverage now. That changes the value of more teams moving forward. What teams do you think are worth $80 million per year right now that the B1G will eventually add? Because from what you are saying, that's the requirement.

My original wording was on the previous page. The one where I mentioned Colorado: B1G (24 to 28): Notre Dame, Oregon, Washington, UNC, UVA, Georgia Tech, Miami, Duke (basketball only) *I could see the B1G adding Stanford, Arizona (rehabbed), Utah and Colorado (rehabbed) down the road. The B1G will have 4 of the 5 behemoths in tOSU, Michigan, Penn State and Notre Dame. This allows them to finish their 30+ year plan for a national conference that stretches coast-to-coast with continuous borders. They can afford to take Georgia Tech, and Stanford and fill in geographic territory with a Colorado and Arizona. You are full of shit. I hope you aren't a real professor as you claim.

I'm not writing off anyone. it's not me trying to say that all these added programs bring big bucks to the B1G on their own merit. That's where this argument got started. That the B1G will only add teams that bring massive value to the conference with no help from their bluebloods. My argument is some of the teams they've already added don't really carry their own weight. One poster basically thinks it's Notre Dame and I guess no one else. Maybe FSU? I'm arguing the opposite. B1G is going to grow and it's not going to be just about every program adding some massive amount of money to the conference. And they absolutely want to go coast to coast if they can make it work. I agree and disagree with you. If the wins are equal, UCLA, Arizona and Colorado blow Nebraska out the door. But the wins aren't equal. If UCLA, Arizona and Colorado won at old Nebraska's pace for many decades, they would have a massive following that Nebraska could not match. But none of that is ever happening for any of the 4 programs. Just like there's a 0% chance Nebraska ever wins another national championship and their so-called diehard fan base will continue to shrink. They can win again, but not like the old days and there will be way more ups and downs, which doesn't help their cause in a state in the middle of nowhere with less than 2 million people.

You'd be correct! Next week I'm leaving on a six-month road trip through parks, mountains, and geological formations. I'd be miserable at a party at this point in my life.

I understand those numbers and I get it. It was still a leverage move and doesn't work any other way. The same goes for Maryland. How does Nebraska make T1 revenue anywhere near the B1G per team numbers? For the most part, they have a regional following in the modern era. The national titles are never coming back. The B1G was originally planning to take Missouri until Nebraska got on its knees and begged. There will come a point when the B1G is in enough states across the country that they will start charging everyone the tier 1 price. The states of Colorado and Arizona are doable. This is something I've been arguing about since they first expanded. That's one of the goals IMO. Charge everyone a premium for the B1GN. Also, a revived Colorado/Arizona brings in some decent T1 value. It's not B1G money, but they both have fanbases waiting for wins. Arizona and Colorado had solid ratings in the 90s and even through part of the 2000s. They would be playing bigger programs in the B1G. Arizona State is worth more, but the B1G won't consider them unless they make strides in the classroom. I'm not saying these programs are going to get added, but under the right circumstances, they will be considered.

They brought in that money because B1G/Fox had the power and the leverage to force it down cable providers' throats. It wasn't Maryland and Rutgers. If a powerful entity with all the leverage wants to make something work, it can usually find a way to make it work. Rutgers would not bring that money to the ACC Network or the PACN because they can't really bring that market. If the B1G wants to add a team, and as long as they can just find a slither of an argument to sell it, they'll make it happen. It's why Texas got $300 million for the LHN, which had no real value in any unleveraged business deal. That's my point. Nebraska LULZ UCLA? a sidekick If the B1G lands UNC/UVA (UVA is actually a loss leader as well) and Notre Dame, they would take a rehabbed Colorado/Arizona and make it work. They would no doubt consider Georgia Tech. That's a long, long way away anyway. They have enough leverage and they want the borders closed. You can't sell it in its current state, but any kind of revival (CU, Arizona) and they will force it some way or another. There are 3 million people in the Denver metro alone and over 7 million in the state of Arizona. We see this kind of stuff play out in the business world every day. Leverage and power can sometimes trump reality.

I said that has always been their plan and they would take a REHABBED Colorado and Arizona from the Big 12 IF those programs showed any progress. To add to it, they wouldn't take them, even rehabbed, if they were located in Boise, Idaho. And they've already done it! They've taken a bunch shitty schools that bring nothing without the big programs in the B1G. You're reading what you want to read and selectively avoiding certain facts that appease the Big 12. "a coast-to-coast conference with continuous borders" isn't really my thing. It's what the B1G prefers and it's been the case for a very long time. It doesn't mean it will happen, but they are going to try and make it happen. I've never seen someone not only change what someone said but also dispute prior facts. Nebraska did not bring in the money. UCLA did not bring in the money. Rutgers did not really bring in the money. Maryland most certainly did not bring in the money. The B1G brands brought in the money and it helped them create chaos and eventually land USC and will help them eventually land Notre Dame. The B1G had to expand to survive. They could see the future and they needed more than the Rust Belt.

You better hope that's not the case because we all know Bear Bryant can't beat St. Darrell anywhere near a football field! 3-0-1 If it's a burnt-orange sunset, ballgame over.

Their football program has way more potential than Kansas, although it isn't a power player. Their basketball program is one of probably 2 or 3 in America big enough to make a difference. North Carolina and Kentucky, maybe Syracuse and Kansas. UCLA could be there but they just don't care enough Not even Duke basketball has a fan base large enough to make a difference UNC can recruit and play solid football. In a better conference, they will produce solid football numbers for such a powerhouse in basketball. Kansas spends too much time getting blown out in a high school stadium in a state of 3 million. If they could fix that issue, they'd be in the SEC/B1G. UNC's value would actually go up with no cable TV. That massive, rabid basketball fan base in a state of 11.5 million and growing, not to count their national following. They will reach borderline top 25 football attendance numbers in the SEC/B1G. They typically average 50k to 55k in attendance while playing a terrible ACC schedule. I think they see the importance of their football program moving forward. They don't need to win championships, but just remain competitive in order for UNC basketball to pull the rest of the weight. They are an upgraded version of Kentucky in the SEC.

I'll give a few: Because Cal cares about CR more than football. Because politics shouldn't be allowed in these decisions. Because the UC system includes nine campuses and Cal is already one of the most privileged of those nine. Cal-Berkeley wipes their ass with money. Any issues they're having are of their own stupidity. Maybe the politicians should ask why Cal needs the money so badly. And because UCLA is only going to the B1G because USC got an invite and the B1G wants 2 teams in LA. In other words, UCLA doesn't have much say in this and the PAC is dead man walking. Despite all that, the politics in California did get involved and may force UCLA to give B1G revenue to Cal every year., which should be against the damn law.

Not a terrible look at it, but... I can't see UNC staying in that conference if FSU/Clemson leaves for the SEC. And if UNC leaves, UVA is probably going with them. Short term, the ACC could dissolve and kick out Wake Forest, Duke and Boston College (maybe one more), play a 9-game conference schedule and probably add $10+ million dollars per team to a "new" ACC. It would be a short-term stopgap.

One can argue the B1G was getting the revenue with or without Rutgers. Many can argue some of the teams I put on my list are worth more to the B1G than Rutgers. Rutgers and Maryland absolutely are filler programs being propped up by the big brands in the B1G. It's why that model works. B1GN works because the big brands play ball in that conference. It has nothing to do with Rutgers, Maryland, Nebraska or UCLA. Rutgers and Maryland give them a pathway to the ACC all the way down Florida. Nebraska gives them a gateway to the West. That's been one of their plans all along. It isn't a secret the B1G wants continuous borders if they can pull it off and make it work financially. Like, it's never been a secret that's the desire, whether they can make it work or not is another story. They want UVA desperately, which is a net loser for the conference. But they won't be because they will be propped up by the big programs in the B1G. Why do they want UVA? Because academics matter to them and mainly because UVA opens up the possibility to UNC, the next state over! Nowhere did I say anything about Notre Dame wanting to play in Arizona. Where did you get that? You seem mad? If Arizona were to start winning in football again, with their basketball program, it will be something they absolutely consider. I never said Arizona, Utah or Colorado were going to the B1G, btw.

Very true, but the $40 million is what FSU is worth in a losing decade and playing in a terrible conference against terrible opponents. In other words, as you said, it's a long-term play and we know they're really worth way more than that in the long run. Take their average winning/losing over a 50-year period, and look at what the viewership would be when they play with that average record against the type of teams they would play in the B1G/SEC and that's the long-term value. That's how these decisions will be made.

They've already done it and they'll do it again. You've already been proven wrong (Rutgers/Maryland/Nebraska). The big programs can carry a certain amount of slightly lesser programs. I revived Colorado playing big brands in the B1G close to Denver isn't losing money for the B1G. B1G brands playing in Atlanta aren't losing money for the conference. Notre Dame is going to want a national conference as well and they can carry at least 2 (maybe 3) teams with their value. The less percentage of B1G games that includes Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, and Rutgers creates some value for the conference. You are forgetting that not only will these teams need to rehab their programs, but: 1. Large B1G teams will be playing them, which drives big TV viewership. 2. That the B1G owns a large stake in the B1GN. 3. That Notre Dame is a BEHEMOTH and they will want some of those teams in the conference (Stanford, GT, Miami and national schedule). 4. More conference teams allow them to force 10, 11, or 12 conference games on their peers, which increases revenue. 5. This was their whole reason for expanding in the first place!!

Sure it does. My post wasn't a short-term move. I'm looking down the road. As I stated in my post, the B1G started realignment over 30 years ago with a long-term plan of building a coast-to-coast conference of like-minded teams with continuous borders. That's what started all of this. That is the "mission statement" of conference realignment. First, Georgia Tech, Utah and ASU are never going any lower than the Big 12. And UNC is a slam dunk to the P2. B1G, with Notre Dame, will have 4 of the 5 BEHEMOTHS of college athletics. I don't think some of you realized just how much those 5 are worth to the landscape of college athletics. B1G brings in as much or more money than the SEC despite having several deadweight teams in their conference. That's because of tOSU, Michigan and PSU. Once they add Notre Dame, to go along with the entire LA metroplex, they can afford to add some filler programs to round out their long-term plan of a coast-to-coast conference with continuous borders. I didn't write that post as if it were about to happen. As I said, Colorado and Arizona would have to rehab their programs in the Big 12 first. It's not a slam dunk all those teams will be added to the B1G on the first round of ACC realignment. And if UNC/UVA goes to the SEC, the B1G's dream is dead in the water...until the SEC and B1G consolidate their brands.

The long-term goal isn't about a conference. It's about consolidating brands to create rules by like-minded programs and create a much more exciting brand of football. The long-term goal is to take the schedule out of the hands of the universities in order to maximize profits by playing more conference opponents. It just takes time to get there because there are a lot of different agendas with some say in the process. When push comes to shove, the bluebloods, commissioners and TV execs always get their way.

I looked at the realignment posts before Bob Thompson and the posts after Bob Thompson and it's amazing what a little brainwashing can do to the human population. A complete reversal of program evaluation on message boards across the country. Night and day difference. All because one guy released some propaganda to give his sources leverage. We see it every day in CR and it's very effective. Humans can't help but allow themselves to be brainwashed and influenced by people of a certain status. They forget many times that person has an agenda. We see it in recruiting every year and fanatics never learn their lesson. There are way too many basic assumptions using way too narrow a focus to determine program value. This wasn't happening before Bob Thompson. Now everyone is looking for numbers that back up Bob Thompson and they are forgetting all the variables that determine valuation. Value investing is a long-term strategy. Many of these are very easy to predict. You aren't giving some of these teams nearly enough credit. Whether the program is at a low/high point on the field triggers a mistake of value. The conference opponents (the schedule) can and do create a mistake of value. The channels played on (because of the conference or current team standing) gives off a mistake of value. You aren't giving these teams a fair value. It's a long-term investment and the new conference creates a brand new value.

I will put what I think has at least a realistic option in the long run and that is best for college football I also see 10/11/12-plus-game conference schedules in the future with few to no OOC games before the playoff. SEC (20): VT, NC State, FSU, Clemson *But I could see UNC/UVA added or taking the place of VT, NC State. *VT and NC State could also end up in the Big 12 B1G (24 to 28): Notre Dame, Oregon, Washington, UNC, UVA, Georgia Tech, Miami, Duke (basketball only) *I could see the B1G adding Stanford, Arizona (rehabbed), Utah and Colorado (rehabbed) down the road. The B1G will have 4 of the 5 behemoths in tOSU, Michigan, Penn State and Notre Dame. This allows them to finish their 30+ year plan for a national conference that stretches coast-to-coast with continuous borders. They can afford to take Georgia Tech, and Stanford and fill in geographic territory with a Colorado and Arizona. *I gave the B1G UNC/UVA not because I'm confident they go there, but because I think it's best for college football. The more I think about it, the more VT and NC State fit in the SEC and the more the B1G really needs UNC/UVA to fill in geography to reach Flordia and help their lagging recruiting efforts. With the Big 12, we first must look at the long-term new goals of the new, aggressive commissioner. He's looking to build a national conference of programs that bring stabilization and financial security. What kind of profile fits this description? 1. Big public universities OR large geographical areas and new territory 2. Competitive on the field but not necessarily measured in wins 3. Investment in football/basketball facilities and hiring of coaches 4. Basketball success with a solid football program 5. Potential for growth Big 12 (20-22 + 3 basketball giants): SDSU, Fresno State, Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, Colorado, Pitt, Louisville, Memphis, South Florida, UCONN (all sports but football), Gonzaga (all sports but football), Syracuse (all sports but football) *This may be harder to predict. Will the B1G eventually come back and fill in geography? Will the B1G take GT to get to Atlanta and open the gate to Florida? I think GT is 50/50 to the B1G vs. Big 12 in the long run. Will Cal be forced to put their academic snobbery on hold, get desperate and hold their nose while joining the Big 12? Will VT and NC State get left out of the P2 and end up in the Big 12? Does Oregon State eventually get an invite? I don't think so. SDSU, Memphis, South Florida, and Fresno State are down-the-road picks based on potential. *I would like to see the Big 12 play a 12 or 13-game conference schedule and no OOC games. Add a 4 team conference playoff at the end up of the season. Teams worthy of the national playoff get invited. Some of this stuff, if anything like it ever happens, is still down the road. 66 teams + 4 basketball programs breakaway but still invite some other conferences to the Big Dance. All conference game schedules (no more than one OOC game) in order to increase competitiveness, which increases revenue generated and makes for happy fans.

Not all those teams should be added but the worst part of this idea is 8 conference games. The future is actually 10, 11, 12 conference games and that's a win for all involved. Taking the game selection out of the hands of the universities and forcing them to lineup and play each other.

I was reviewing the new 2022 attendance numbers. These aren't TV viewership numbers, but sometimes TV viewership numbers don't tell the full story. Some teams have no choice but to play below-average and uncompetitive conference teams while the SEC/B1G play large fan base vs large fan base in competitive contests. Some teams are on a historical losing streak and others are on a historical winning streak. Some teams have to play on generic channels in bad time slots and others play in much better positions. Just watch Texas/OU and their massive jump in viewership in the SEC. ATM has already shown major improvement from their Big 12 days. It's not all the other teams, it's two big fan bases playing competitive football that draws the full viewership from both fan bases and attracts new viewers from around the country. 2022 Top 25 in attendance https://badgerswire.usatoday.com/lists/top-25-college-football-teams-in-home-attendance-for-2022-season Some thoughts: Despite a decade of losing and a 3-8 season, Virginia Tech still ranks in the top 25 in attendance and pulled as much as USC while they were on a playoff run with their new hotshot coach. 23. Virginia Tech (3-8) 64,356 22. USC (11-3) 64,487 SEC/B1G made up 20 of the 25 teams on the list. Incredible SEC: 12 B1G: 8 B1G strength is they will more than likely control 4 of only 5 behemoth fan bases in college athletics tOSU, Michigan, Penn State, Notre Dame (national brand but not yet in the B1G) SEC only has Texas B1G will control 5 of the 8 bluebloods in college football, but Nebraska is to be determined. SEC strength is big brands with competitive history. Vanderbilt is the only weak point in the SEC and Mississippi State is the only other program that is average. State is typically competitive, so it makes it hard to complain. SEC: 12 of the 25 with numbers 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 18, 25 I might add that Missouri and Mississippi State crack the top 25 from time to time and Kentucky, a basketball blueblood, typically averages close to 55,000 fans. That's 7,000 to 10,000 more than the average of the entire PAC 12 Conference! Vanderbilt is the only pure deadweight in the entire conference. I'd guesstimate that Vanderbilt football costs the SEC $85,000,000 per year moving forward. Every time an SEC team has to play them, it's costing the conference a ton of money. Every game against Vandy could be against a FSU or Clemson instead of a team that not only lacks a fan base but isn't competitive on the field. I'm not talking wins, I'm talking just avoiding blowouts that keep viewers away. 5 teams on the list not in the P2: 24. Washington 23. Virginia Tech 21. Florida State 15. Notre Dame 14. Clemson Florida State is still trying to recover from an abysmal run. All these teams play in conferences and against competition that hurts their overall attendance and TV viewership. They all have the potential for improvement in the stands and on the TV sets in a better conference. This is why Oregon hasn't expanded its stadium. They would be on this list with huge draws in the few big games every year, but they don't want empty seats against 4-8/7-5 Arizona, Stanford, Cal, Arizona State, Colorado, etc. For some reason, the 2019 season is the last year showing up for all attendance records straight from the NCAA http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/Attendance/2019.pdf Only major changes: 21. Iowa State 22. BYU 25. NC State Virginia Tech and USC are once again neck-and-neck at 23 and 24 I post the NCAA list to review the schools that missed the top 25 26. Mississippi State 27. West Virginia 28. Oklahoma State 29. Missouri 30. Purdue The one outlier, Purdue on an uptick is the one that ranks much higher in attendance than they can probably get in TV viewership. Their numbers also fall off a cliff when losing. There's an argument that there's less a gap between UNC/UVA and VT/NC State than some perception leads the fanatics to believe. If Duke has to tag along, it may actually be more beneficial to add VT/NC State. One could also argue VT and NC State could be "rehabbed" with more like-minded culture in the SEC. And with the SEC stacked with very little deadweight, two large public universities in healthy new states bordering SEC country aren't going to cost the conference at the box office. 2019 Conference Attendance: Average attendance per game SEC: 72,723 B1G: 65,065 Big 12: 57,467 ACC: 48,243 PAC: 46,080 ACC/PAC can't even average 50,000 attendance and that includes USC/UCLA in the PAC. You can see the challenges facing the top-tier teams in both of these conferences. They play uncompetitive teams with small fan bases on obscure channels in bad time slots way too often. Just think about what they could bring to the SEC/B1G. Heck, even the Big 12 would be a major improvement in the stands and on TV for the top-tier in the PAC/ACC. SEC/B1G increase their long-term potential every time they add a competitive football program with a large fan base from a flagship university. Every team added that meets this profile (or Notre Dame), brings down the percentage of conference games played against net negative football programs like Vanderbilt, Indiana and usually Purdue. You can even throw in current Maryland, Rutgers, Illinois and Northwestern. Oregon and Washington added to the B1G means less times tOSU and company play the above net negative teams. Florida State and Clemson added to the SEC means less times Alabama and company play Vanderbilt. The long-term potential of adding big brands pays off down the road, especially with added conference games and less OOC games no doubt on the horizon in the future. Take it out of the hands of the universities and the money goes up. Where are you going to put these games? Lots of places. The premium channels now get a bigger selection to make sure they get massive ratings every single week. And then you can sell lesser packages to streaming services and cable channels like USA Network, if needed. Live TV is KING. I don't see any way the P2 passes on any of the five teams on this top 25 list plus Oregon/UNC. I also cannot see Miami being left out when the B1G needs helmet programs that can recruit and bring speed to the conference. They can get that in one of the largest states in the country. No way they turn that down, if it's an option. I'd put it at less than 5% any of these teams get left behind

The Ross Dellenger article stands out in a world of deceit and manipulation as the best-written word on the subject for probably the last six months. I didn't see it posted, but it's worth another paste even if it has been posted here. But before I post it, here's a new P5 map that I like Dellenger's SI article https://www.si.com/college/2023/05/15/college-football-expansion-whats-next-power-5-conferences

It makes no sense that an entity would have no voting power over its own future. As you said, this isn't just a football issue. Notre Dame plays sports in the ACC other than football. They would almost certainly have voting power in those sports, which gives them voting power in this process. If they signed that away, heads need to roll in South Bend. I have a hard time believing that to be the case.