Realignment talk not going away

['stache 21813]

1 hour ago, FartingDreamer said:

You're just an overly neg-repping toxic presence to this forum, you seriously need to get a life.  

You negged multiple posts of mine for proposing realignment scenarios that left out BYU. You can literally go fuck your own face you hypocritical sack of monkey shit.

[clapclapclap 9000]

Gave FD some + rep to counteract Porterhouse neg crapping on this thread.

Edit:  FD-'stache fight could be fun, though.

Edited August 3, 2022 by clapclapclap

[utee94 15820]

Realignment thread is serious bidness.

 

 

[NWAustinDude 2252]

It's a daily durfing.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, clapclapclap said:

Gave FD some + rep to counteract Porterhouse neg crapping on this thread.

Edit:  FD-'stache fight could be fun, though.

Why?  I’m not neg-crapping on this thread. I’m raining hellfire on someone that made terrible points, then started shit with me, all whilst practicing polygamy. 

[clapclapclap 9000]

2 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

Why?  I’m not neg-crapping on this thread. I’m raining hellfire on someone that made terrible points, then started shit with me, all whilst practicing polygamy. 

Troll somewhere else.  CR needs trolling, and they're actually destructive.

Edited August 3, 2022 by clapclapclap

[Guest]

Just now, clapclapclap said:

Go be a retard somewhere else.

I gotta tell you, I just can’t do that. 

[Hurtlocker 2212]

2 hours ago, FartingDreamer said:

Not if what makes CFB different then the NFL, ceases to be.   We already have the NFL, a college version would signal the demise of the sport, since the amatuer version wouldn't have the same appeal of the NFL, which isnt the same as the college game as it once was.

This is truth.   Viewership isn't just brands.   If you take out Pitt and WVU and Maryland, that entire region isn't just going to watch Penn State.   They'll just not watch.   It isn't the NFL where you have one regional team that dominates that local market because its the only game played.

Great CFB teams with subpar records also have subpar audiences.   6-6 Bama vs 6-6 Georgia won't draw anywhere near the audience as the two of them with no losses playing a game close in the 4th with a championship birth on the line.    Along that same vein, 10-0 Vandy vs 10-0 Bama for a birth in the CCG will still draw millions and not just because of Bama.   People watch high profile, high win, high stakes, close until late games more than anything else.   It is the largest reason for most audiences, followed by network/timing, followed by brand.

This is the one issue with consolidation.   There is a benefit for Texas, USC, or Oklahoma playing in leagues they dominate.    They come out with massive records.   The more you play each other, the more likely it is that you trade paint.  Its why they're pushing for 16 in a playoff, "we are stronger we should get our 8-4s in!"   8-4 Oklahoma isn't going to draw the same eyeballs year in and year out as 12-0 or 11-1 Oklahoma does, because the post season changes dramatically.    One or no losses builds more shits than three plus.

Its going to be the interesting piece of this to watch.  I know its fun to say 24-40 teams only make it in the new thing, but that's never going to fly.   Some teams may not make the investment, but we're still going to be in the 60-70 range.   Consolidation may mean more money for some, but that's not new.  Texas already spends twice as much as Oklahoma State.  Unless players become employees, money in a TV contract can't pay players.   You can literally only spend so much on winning, there are diminishing returns after a while.   Winning, at the end of the day, makes it easier to keep winning because that's where recruits go.

This may hurt some schools who don't get paid $100m in TV, but its going to provide a benefit to some too.   Oklahoma State may be one.   They're one of the winningest teams in the past decade and now they don't have to play Oklahoma or Texas every year?    They may become the next Oklahoma if they curb stomp a lower blue-blood conference for a decade or two.  A 13-0, or 12-1 team from the Big 12, ACC, or Pac 12 is still going to make the playoffs.    They may only get two teams to the B1G/SEC's 3, but they'll be there.

The B1G/SEC are adding brands to add money, but they're adding losses too.   Not winning is worse than not being paid.

[closetohumping 17440]

Still dying

[CowtownHorn 5126]

[nunna yo bizness 1687]

2 hours ago, Porterhouse said:

@futureman

[bad_teammate 13195]

2 hours ago, FartingDreamer said:

By having a playoff structure where each team in FBS controls their own destiny by their play on the field (ie winning).  This is the only division or level of football that doesn't allow for that for a majority of the teams.  

Like a single playoff structure that accommodates all 130 FBS teams?

 

[FartingDreamer 138]

15 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Like a single playoff structure that accommodates all 130 FBS teams?

 

Like if you win your conference, you make the playoff.  What I meant to say was a direct path.

[statsman 5462]

16 minutes ago, FartingDreamer said:

Like if you win your conference, you make the playoff.  What I meant to say was a direct path.

So, does the CUSA winner make the playoffs? How about an 9-4 Big XII champion? 
Who wants that? The networks? The viewers? The hosting sites?

[BurntOrange&White 39931]

5 hours ago, FartingDreamer said:

And that is what has caused the slow decline in interest in CFB, that its the same dozen teams or so that are actually given a shot in this rigged system that is setup so only the major brands can participate fully.  The sport once drew interest because programs flourished based on their own merits, that is becoming less and less so and becoming more and more predictable, stale and off-putting.  

 

5 hours ago, FartingDreamer said:

Real CFB fans simply don't adopt teams that they have no connection to in some form, like NFL and other pro ports fans do.  

Cfb has never had parity. 

[Murfdogg21 4412]

3 hours ago, Porterhouse said:

@futureman

Pics of Janet?

[TKthunder2 4991]

3 hours ago, FartingDreamer said:

By having a playoff structure where each team in FBS controls their own destiny by their play on the field (ie winning).  This is the only division or level of football that doesn't allow for that for a majority of the teams.  

Basketball is SO great.  They have a grand total of 3 champions since 1967 that were not in the P5+American/Big East. What makes the tournament great is brackets, gambling and multiple major upsets each year. You can’t really reproduce it in football where the bracket is small and upsets are rare.

Basketball is just easier for the little guy to compete since you can only have 5 on the floor and 8 on the bench.  And even then since 1967 only Louisville, Marquette and UNLV are the only outsiders with titles, two of which are now in the ACC and BE (and UNLV has an outside shit at getting a PAC invite).

There are great points to be made about opening the FBS playoff, but comparing it to basketball is moronic.  They are not the same sport, they cannot and should not have the same postseason model.

[Vertigo 20285]

10 hours ago, TrashMaster G said:

Why can't people figure out how to use cameras so that the image isn't reversed?

THAT was your takeaway from that video?

[FartingDreamer 138]

44 minutes ago, statsman said:

So, does the CUSA winner make the playoffs? How about an 9-4 Big XII champion? 
Who wants that? The networks? The viewers? The hosting sites?

I think most fans (except for those of the programs its rigged in favor of) want a season/postseason structure that mirrors those High School, FCS and the NFL where anyone can win a national title by winning their games.  That's how a true champion is determined and how it should be.  In such a system, there wouldn't be this gap, nay, chasm between the CUSA winner and those of any other conference because they can recruit and compete based on a programs merits on a level playing field.  

[closetohumping 17440]

38 minutes ago, FartingDreamer said:

I think most fans (except for those of the programs its rigged in favor of) want a season/postseason structure that mirrors those High School, FCS and the NFL where anyone can win a national title by winning their games.  That's how a true champion is determined and how it should be.  In such a system, there wouldn't be this gap, nay, chasm between the CUSA winner and those of any other conference because they can recruit and compete based on a programs merits on a level playing field.  

At least in Texas, we have divisions 6a, 5a, 4a.   4a teams don’t get to play in the 6a playoffs and vice versa.  Congrats on byu going from 3a to 4a.  Communities still support their he football team though.  Speaking of ha football, careful when you play at Houston.  They have some subpar bleachers. 
 

all that being said , I believe the big 12 should get one automatic north. So should other lesser conferences 

[statsman 5462]

7 hours ago, FartingDreamer said:

I think most fans (except for those of the programs its rigged in favor of) want a season/postseason structure that mirrors those High School, FCS and the NFL where anyone can win a national title by winning their games.  That's how a true champion is determined and how it should be.  In such a system, there wouldn't be this gap, nay, chasm between the CUSA winner and those of any other conference because they can recruit and compete based on a programs merits on a level playing field.  

The NFL doesn’t work this way. If college football were to imitate the NFL, the SEC would be like the NFC and the B10 would be like the AFC. 

Congrats on joining the BXII. Update-NIL has changed everything. There is no salary cap and no restrictions on player movement. 

The gaping chasm between the CUSA conference champ and the SEC champ is going to get wider. 
 

How about this for a playoff? 12 team playoff. All conference champions that are still in the top 16 power ratings get in, and power ratings drive the seedlings. Teams 1-4 get byes. Teams 5-8 host teams 9-12 in the first round. 

[Vermin 3043]

44 minutes ago, statsman said:

The NFL doesn’t work this way. If college football were to imitate the NFL, the SEC would be like the NFC and the B10 would be like the AFC. 

Since the BCS era (1998-) the B1G has won only 2 titles, both by Ohio State. Large fan support and TV ratings don't necessarily translate into winning.

[Texzilla58 4735]

Real CFB fans simply don't adopt teams that they have no connection to in some form, like NFL and other pro ports fans do.  

Here you are wrong. Do you think every Longhorn fan is an alum? No even close. Or Bama? Arkansas? Oklahoma? Do students at East Texas State or Trinity root only for their teams? Nope. I went to a small private college and everyone maintained their major college football allegiance, mostly Tennessee, Ole Miss, or Bama. I’ve lived all over and in Oregon, folks with no ties had a oU/OSU split, mostly lackadaisical allegiance without alum status. In Denver it was CU. In San Fran most of them didn’t give a shit, even alums. The fact is most college fans aren’t alums; it’s the paradox of CFB. Look at the SEC. The area with the fewest college grads has the most fanatical CFB fans. I believe CFB is about to have a resurgence as networks like the concentration of conferences and the teams that matter; those that matter are in, the story is easier to follow, it is very on trend.

[statsman 5462]

6 minutes ago, Vermin said:

Since the BCS era (1998-) the B1G has won only 2 titles, both by Ohio State. Large fan support and TV ratings don't necessarily translate into winning.

For one, USC (2 more NCs) will be in the B10. For another, money is about to matter a whole lot more. 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Texzilla58 said:

Here you are wrong. Do you think every Longhorn fan is an alum? No even close. Or Bama? Arkansas? Oklahoma? Do students at East Texas State or Trinity root only for their teams? Nope. I went to a small private college and everyone maintained their major college football allegiance, mostly Tennessee, Ole Miss, or Bama. I’ve lived all over and in Oregon, folks with no ties had a oU/OSU split, mostly lackadaisical allegiance without alum status. In Denver it was CU. In San Fran most of them didn’t give a shit, even alums. The fact is most college fans aren’t alums; it’s the paradox of CFB. Look at the SEC. The area with the fewest college grads has the most fanatical CFB fans. I believe CFB is about to have a resurgence as networks like the concentration of conferences and the teams that matter; those that matter are in, the story is easier to follow, it is very on trend.

 

I'll never be a Texas fan, save for that one night in Pasadena and that was more of "Shut these motherfuckers up in the media with all of their annointing and shit!"

Manipulation of the hierarchy of college football is driving me away as a fan, not drawing me in.  They are removing more and more of what makes college sports great.  If it's just NFL minor leagues, then fuck it, I'll watch the NFL( I already do.)  I will watch less of college football though too.

[Vermin 3043]

11 minutes ago, statsman said:

For one, USC (2 more NCs) will be in the B10. For another, money is about to matter a whole lot more. 

We shall see how flying 5 hours every other week is conducive to winning.

[FartingDreamer 138]

11 minutes ago, statsman said:

For one, USC (2 more NCs) will be in the B10. For another, money is about to matter a whole lot more. 

What happened to One-Pete or No-Pete?

[statsman 5462]

11 minutes ago, slorch said:

 

I'll never be a Texas fan, save for that one night in Pasadena and that was more of "Shut these motherfuckers up in the media with all of their annointing and shit!"

Manipulation of the hierarchy of college football is driving me away as a fan, not drawing me in.  They are removing more and more of what makes college sports great.  If it's just NFL minor leagues, then fuck it, I'll watch the NFL( I already do.)  I will watch less of college football though too.

TT will be playing football. It will be on a TV channel. You’ll watch that, right? 
TT will be in a conference, probably the Big XII. You’ll watch those games, right?

When college football breaks into new tiers, I expect alums to continue to follow their alma maters enthusiastically. The main difference is that Odessa and Midland t shirt fans will probably end up rooting for top tier teams instead of local ones (Texas instead of TT). 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, statsman said:

TT will be playing football. It will be on a TV channel. You’ll watch that, right? 
TT will be in a conference, probably the Big XII. You’ll watch those games, right?

When college football breaks into new tiers, I expect alums to continue to follow their alma maters enthusiastically. The main difference is that Odessa and Midland t shirt fans will probably end up rooting for top tier teams instead of local ones (Texas instead of TT). 

The past 12 years of Tech football has generally sucked.  I have attended 3, maybe 4 games at the most; 2 of which were because they werefor free in Houston. One was at UH and I had a connection to the athletic dept so we went for free. Another was against Ole Miss and same connection had moved on to Ole Miss athletic Dept. We also attended the  Texas Bowl with Mahomes & Company vs LSU.  I have attended two games in Lubbock in those 12 years, and both were for free; so out of 5 games, we bought tix to one of them.

I have lost interest in Tech football.  I casually watch them now.  I don't know half the players or where they came from, nor do I really give a fuck.  I don't watch Alabama just because they are on.  The current playoff format sucks and bores me.

You're post seems to suggest that if I( the average football fan) is  addicted, I'll keep hitting the drip.  Yeah, that shit got yanked out years ago.  

 

[Sandman 3403]

16 hours ago, closetohumping said:

There was one osu/ou game where I thought osu gave up at the end.   

There have been several where I thought we gave up before kickoff.

[Francisco 2.0 32389]

 

 

https://theathletic.com/3468035/2022/08/02/college-football-realignment/

 

 

Quote

Their working relationship dated back nearly two decades to a sports management program at Stanford — John Swofford, mentor, and Kevin Anderson, mentee. There was history. Camaraderie. And strong mutual respect.

So when the ACC decided to expand in 2011, Swofford, the ACC commissioner, designated Anderson, Maryland’s athletic director, as one of his point people. The result was a stunning moment for college athletics: the addition of Syracuse and Pittsburgh to the league.

 

Quote

Anderson had completed his mission. But he soon turned to his own secret plan: engineering Maryland’s departure from the ACC, of which it was a charter member, to the Big Ten. It was a move that — by design — caught almost everyone by surprise, including Swofford.

A few months later, Swofford approached Anderson at a conference.

“Why didn’t you tell me?” Swofford asked.

Anderson looked at his former mentor matter-of-factly.

“John, I learned a lot of this from you,” he answered. “I saw what happened and how you did it.”

 

Quote

And that’s the way conference realignment is still being done — in closed-door meetings with only a chosen few in the loop. On June 30, USC and UCLA submitted formal applications to join the Big Ten, and school presidents unanimously approved their applications that same day. A source involved in the Big Ten’s discussions with USC estimated only about 10 people at the school were aware of the talks until a week before, when preparations for the announcement began.

 

 

Spoiler

“The biggest surprise to me on that whole thing was that it got kept quiet,” Iowa football coach Kirk Ferentz said.

One year ago, the bombshell news that Texas and Oklahoma were joining the SEC, adding two of the strongest brands in college football to its most powerful league, broke after months of discretion. These moves that alter the landscape, creating a ripple effect among other conferences, increasingly are made with the knowledge of only a select few.

In talking to a cross-section of individuals involved in realignment discussions, a picture emerges of how and why secrecy is maintained. But should it be that way? California Gov. Gavin Newsom recently demanded that UCLA explain how its decision will benefit all student-athletes. Others pointed to the general lack of input from the public, including those playing the games.

“This is the least student-athlete centric process,” said Tom McMillen, president of Lead1, an organization of college athletic directors. “Who knows what’s going to happen to the Big Ten, whether these volleyball and softball players have to fly across the country. But I think the lack of transparency in the process needs to be concerning to the higher educators.”

The realignment process used to be conducted publicly.

Penn State joining the Big Ten was a prolonged process that barely passed in 1990, and that was as an independent university. Nineteen years later, the Big Ten announced in a press release its presidents had authorized the league to explore expansion options. That set off a flurry of speculation for months before Nebraska became the 12th member.

But there was one fundamental problem with an open process: politicians.

On May 16, 2003, the ACC announced it would begin a “formal discussion” with Miami, Syracuse and Boston College. Three weeks later, then-Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal stood on the steps of the statehouse with UConn athletic director Lew Perkins, vowing to file a lawsuit on behalf of the remaining Big East football schools. Blumenthal did just that. Meanwhile, then-Virginia Gov. Mark Warner ordered the University of Virginia not to vote for any expansion that did not include Virginia Tech. Warner also worked the phones to lobby other ACC schools.

After more than a month of public haggling, the ACC invited Miami (its main target, fresh off of two national championship game appearances) and Virginia Tech. A year later Boston College got its invitation, but Syracuse was left out, and the ACC had learned its lesson. Swofford and ACC presidents tweaked the conference bylaws so that in-person visits to prospective members were no longer required. They formed an expansion committee, but everyone was “sworn to secrecy,” according to a former ACC administrator.

The news that Pitt and Syracuse were joining broke on a Saturday during the 2011 football season and was announced the following morning. Big East commissioner John Marinatto, whose conference was being raided, was as shocked as anyone. The ACC had pulled off expansion with no chance for political interference.

“Once it becomes really well known, the politicians get involved. That’s the problem,” says R. Bowen Loftin, the former president at Texas A&M and Missouri. “Look at California right now. That’s not surprising. And I’m not surprised they wanted to keep it quiet, because they wanted a fait accompli in place before they actually had to let (Gov. Newsom) know about it. And of course he’s mad about it. And I understand that, too.”

Loftin experienced it firsthand. Texas A&M was first interested in joining the SEC in the summer of 2010, but then-Texas Gov. Rick Perry “shut it down with one phone call,” as Loftin puts it. This was also during the Pac-10’s attempt to raid the Big 12 and form a super conference, a process that played out over various media reports and eventually failed.

Anytime Loftin discussed expansion with the athletic department, it seemed to show up on a Texas fan site. There was a leak in the athletic department, he presumed. So the next year, as he quietly kept talking with the SEC, he kept the circle of knowledge tight, even excluding his athletic director in many conversations.

“Much to his anger,” Loftin said.

Behind the scenes, Loftin spoke every morning with then-SEC commissioner Mike Slive, as the two laid the groundwork and waited for the right time. By late summer of 2011, public support had swung toward leaving the Big 12 and the shadow of the Longhorns. Loftin was greeted at an event with chants of “S-E-C, S-E-C!” So while the process wasn’t completely private, it was at least less tumultuous, and this time the governor didn’t shut it down.

“If they’re public, or at least well known among a variety of people, it makes things more complicated,” Loftin said. “You can argue, you’re a reporter, you want transparency, that’s your bread and butter. But understand that getting things done is a different matter. So you try your best within the laws you’re living with to get things done.”

In fact, realignment was becoming so confidential that Loftin would find out another move was brewing before almost anyone else. At a meeting of college presidents whose schools were in the prestigious Association of Academic Universities, the seating was alphabetical, and Loftin was hit up for advice on leaving a conference by the man next to him: Wallace Loh of Maryland.

McMillen is still annoyed about it. Whether it was a good idea to make the move is one thing. But McMillen, as a member of Maryland’s board of regents and a notable alum, was peeved at both the timing and the lack of transparency in the university’s move to the Big Ten. The board was notified the night before the vote and given little information.

“Maryland got one page on that decision that has enormous consequences to the school. That’s about how much you get from a phone company asking you to switch,” McMillen says.

Anderson’s counter to that, a decade later: “Let’s just say it was public, everybody knew from the beginning to the end: I don’t think it would have happened.”

McMillen agrees with the sentiment, but says college sports need a higher level of transparency because of its impact beyond the athletes. The counter to that, however, is maybe some things shouldn’t get done.

“As (former Supreme Court Justice) Louis Brandeis said: ‘(Sunlight) is the great disinfectant,’” McMillen said.

The Big Ten’s talks with Maryland were not new. Then-commissioner Jim Delany had presented the idea to administrators earlier in the decade, and there was no interest.

But when Loh and Anderson came on board, the thinking changed. And after the ACC added Syracuse and Pitt, along with Notre Dame for sports other than football, Delany again called Maryland.

Anderson understood that taking Maryland to the Big Ten would have opposition. This was where his experience with the ACC expansion process helped.

“The more people you had, the more likely it was to be exposed,” Anderson says. “We had to get everything together before we did it.”

The few in the loop included the president of the board of regents, the chancellor of the University of Maryland system, the present of the state Senate, one trusted donor and Gary Williams, the recently retired basketball head coach whose public support for the move would help quell at least some of the dissent.

Money was a big part of the decision, grants Anderson, who is now an associate AD at Air Force. But there were other factors, such as academic collaboration. There’s also the football component, where the ACC has struggled to get anyone besides Clemson contending on a national level. Traditional powers Florida State and Miami have lagged, and others haven’t risen to fill the void. Anderson looks at the ACC now and thinks there wasn’t enough commitment among school presidents, and that the conference in general could have done more to send a message.

“Football was not given the attention that it should have,” Anderson said. “You have to sit everybody in the room, the presidents and the ADs, and you have to say what’s important, and one of the things that’s important is driving revenue, and driving revenue is through the media, and if you have a good product you’re going to have these networks make the investment.”

Those TV networks also being key to the secrecy process.

“The USC and UCLA situation was completely done by Fox,” says Chuck Neinas, the former commissioner of the Big 12 and, in its earlier iteration, the Big Eight.

That’s just Neinas’ opinion, of course, because he’s long retired and not privy to the process. But he’s far from alone in suspecting that.

“Let’s face it, TV is running college football these days,” Neinas says. “No matter what disclaimer you get, you know damn well ESPN was supporting the SEC grabbing Oklahoma and Texas. The same way FOX was involved in the Big Ten getting the two LA schools.”

The feeling around Texas is it was able to keep things quiet this time in large part because of Kevin Etife, the board of regents chairman who helped arrange the move while keeping the loop small enough to prevent leaks. Athletic director Chris Del Conte had been through the expansion process when he was the AD at TCU, which moved from the Mountain West to the Big 12.

That was Neinas’ experience with expansion. He was appointed head of the Big 12 after Texas A&M left and Missouri was on the way out. TCU was the easy call to be the first replacement. But the final spot came down to West Virginia and Louisville, and it was so public that Sens. Joe Manchin and Mitch McConnell had an argument on the Senate floor.

Was that a better process than the cloak-and-dagger way? Neinas pauses a few beats.

“Do you incur the wrath with advance notice or doing it secretly? I don’t know,” Neinas says. “Either way it’s going to be unpopular with the conference you leave.”

The Big Ten’s process of secrecy was guided by something commissioner Kevin Warren had been told during his NFL days by Joe Brown, the league’s longtime head of public affairs.

“When we were working on the acquisition of the Vikings, he had me take out a piece of paper and he said, ‘Draw a line … If one person knows, that’s how many people know,’” Warren said. “Then, I drew a line next to it. And he said, ‘If two people know, 11 people know.’ And then he drew a line next to it. He said, ‘If three people know, 111 people know.’ … I have never forgotten that.”

Fewer than 15 people in the Big Ten were aware of the negotiations. Among those who weren’t told were some athletic directors and other high-ranking administrators. But Warren said the behind-the-scenes experience with COVID in 2020 was beneficial because people trusted the process more this time.

“(After COVID), I knew I had to have the trust of our athletic directors and our chancellors and presidents to be able to work on this kind of stuff, and half the people weren’t going to be offended when I came and said, ‘Here’s where we are. We got to get together. Here’s the presentation, and we need to vote on it,’” Warren said. “That there wasn’t going to be anyone in the room where like, ‘I didn’t know this. This is the first time I’m hearing about this.’”

In fact, Warren’s daughter didn’t know until the story broke. “Peri calls me and goes, ‘This is bizarre. We just had dinner together, and you were so calm,’” Warren said. “She actually texted me, like, WTF?”

Even high-profile coaches usually are kept out of the loop until the last minute. With such large staffs, the news could spread quickly.

As Gene DeFilippo, the former athletic director at Boston College, says: “You would like it to be an open process if it could be. But that is just not the real world.

“You cannot afford to lose the confidentiality because what’ll happen is it may deter this business decision that is best for an institution for many, many, many years to come.”

Maryland’s move remains debated, internally and externally. Anderson and Loh have moved on; critics see them as brief visitors to Maryland who made a long-lasting decision. Anderson says he saw himself as the caretaker, one who saw a structural financial problem at the school that moving to the Big Ten could fix.

Maryland lost traditional rivals Virginia and Duke and hasn’t quite gotten the same traction in its new league. But the move brought financial stability, and Anderson points to facility improvements, including converting legendary Cole Field House into an indoor football facility.

One definitive loss was Anderson’s relationship with Swofford, his former mentor.

“He’s been cordial, but we don’t have the same relationship we had,” Anderson said. “But that’s the price you pay.”

 

[BurntOrange&White 39931]

2 hours ago, Vermin said:

Since the BCS era (1998-) the B1G has won only 2 titles, both by Ohio State. Large fan support and TV ratings don't necessarily translate into winning.

The BIG needs Joe Namath? 

[FartingDreamer 138]

36 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

The BIG needs Joe Namath? 

No, they need hotter women.  

[DFW Horn 6123]

Quote

Behind the scenes, Loftin spoke every morning with then-SEC commissioner Mike Slive, as the two laid the groundwork and waited for the right time. By late summer of 2011, public support had swung toward leaving the Big 12 and the shadow of the Longhorns. Loftin was greeted at an event with chants of “S-E-C, S-E-C!” So while the process wasn’t completely private, it was at least less tumultuous, and this time the governor didn’t shut it down.

Bowtie Loftin still craves the spotlight, huh? Taking credit for something aggy has wanted for a generation, if not longer. Fuck that guy.

 

Edited August 3, 2022 by DFW Horn

[Murfdogg21 4412]

3 hours ago, slorch said:

[paraphrase:] Tech football sucks and I don’t attend games unless I get free tickets.

Sounds like realignment won’t impact your viewership or fandom at all, then. 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Murfdogg21 said:

Sounds like realignment won’t impact your viewership or fandom at all, then. 

It is waning.  The new superideas have been accelerating that downturn. Nothing on yhe horizon is going positively change that trajectory. 

[Hurtlocker 2212]

4 hours ago, statsman said:

TT will be playing football. It will be on a TV channel. You’ll watch that, right? 
TT will be in a conference, probably the Big XII. You’ll watch those games, right?

When college football breaks into new tiers, I expect alums to continue to follow their alma maters enthusiastically. The main difference is that Odessa and Midland t shirt fans will probably end up rooting for top tier teams instead of local ones (Texas instead of TT). 

Like always, they'll root for the ones that win most consistently over time.   That's how T-Shirt fans are made.

[closetohumping 17440]

4 hours ago, Vermin said:

Since the BCS era (1998-) the B1G has won only 2 titles, both by Ohio State. Large fan support and TV ratings don't necessarily translate into winning.

No but it did help tOSU get in over TCU.  And tv ratings and fan support translates to the only thing that matters to networks:  money,.

[bullet 1596]

4 hours ago, slorch said:

The past 12 years of Tech football has generally sucked.  I have attended 3, maybe 4 games at the most; 2 of which were because they werefor free in Houston. One was at UH and I had a connection to the athletic dept so we went for free. Another was against Ole Miss and same connection had moved on to Ole Miss athletic Dept. We also attended the  Texas Bowl with Mahomes & Company vs LSU.  I have attended two games in Lubbock in those 12 years, and both were for free; so out of 5 games, we bought tix to one of them.

I have lost interest in Tech football.  I casually watch them now.  I don't know half the players or where they came from, nor do I really give a fuck.  I don't watch Alabama just because they are on.  The current playoff format sucks and bores me.

You're post seems to suggest that if I( the average football fan) is  addicted, I'll keep hitting the drip.  Yeah, that shit got yanked out years ago.  

 

yet you are here posting repeatedly on a Texas board?

[Hank Chinaski 6314]

4 hours ago, slorch said:

I have lost interest in Tech football.  I casually watch them now.  I don't know half the players or where they came from, nor do I really give a fuck.  I don't watch Alabama just because they are on.  The current playoff format sucks and bores me.

 

Pretty much describes me as well. The transfers, the player payments, the conference shifting, etc…it’s all good for the players, and I’m glad for them, but it makes the sport far less interesting to me. It doesn’t help that I’m getting older and that Texas has not only sucked for a decade, but been excruciatingly aggravating and boring too, but the money has kind of ruined the sport in a lot of ways. Not saying anyone should see it the same way, just my view.

[Sandman 3403]

10 minutes ago, Hank Chinaski said:

It doesn’t help that I’m getting older

This is the whole thing for me. I used to watch College Gameday, then every game from 11 till whenever the last one finished. Didn't care who was playing. Now I'm pushing 50 and I only watch the teams I really about, but I don't mind if other plans interrupt me watching a game. My interest level has plummeted, in all sports. 

[Al_4_ISU 12463]

34 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

No but it did help tOSU get in over TCU.  And tv ratings and fan support translates to the only thing that matters to networks:  money,.

TV ratings are the only reason tOSU got in over TCU.

That's what's idiotic about this sport, and going down some road where there's no reward for tangible performance is only going to make it worse.

[bullet 1596]

22 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

TV ratings are the only reason tOSU got in over TCU.

That's what's idiotic about this sport, and going down some road where there's no reward for tangible performance is only going to make it worse.

That's one of the reasons playoff expansion is important.

[bullet 1596]

https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/08/03/former-utah-ad-says-no-reason-to-jump-into-big-12-unless-the-goal-is-to-destroy-the-pac-12/

"...Asked specifically about the Utah administration’s preference, Hill offered:

 

“They all want to stay. They love the schools they’re associated with and the areas they recruit and play. Utah has a lot of alumni in the Bay Area. There aren’t alumni in Waco. Those things matter.”

Nor does Hill believe it’s essential for Utah to partner with rival Brigham Young, which is set to enter the Big 12 next year.

“They just need to play each other,” he said. “Do they need to be in the same league to do that? Maybe, but maybe not.”

Hill believes football should be treated as a separate business within college sports and will eventually feature a 48-team upper division. That bifurcation could happen in the next few years — or not for a decade.

Unless the Big Ten or SEC come calling, the 36 schools remaining in the Pac-12, Big 12 and ACC must recalibrate their strategy and beware of lifeboats that aren’t as sturdy as they appear.

 

“Their market is their market,” Hill said, referring to the media rights value held by any given school. “Arizona’s worth in the Big 12 is the same as it is in the Pac-12. The finances of moving won’t help anybody.

“What difference does it make if you’re getting $35 million a year in the Pac-12 versus $40 million a year in the Big 12? Either way, it’s not going to move the dial for you.

“The only benefit from switching is to destroy the other league.”

Hill isn’t convinced the Pac-12 must expand following the departures of USC and UCLA in 2024. The schools currently in the Big 12 could be difficult to poach because of the league’s bylaws, which feature a 99-year commitment...."

[Al_4_ISU 12463]

My big takeaway there is people in Pac land acknowledging that the Big 12 is going to make more.

[closetohumping 17440]

4 minutes ago, bullet said:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/08/03/former-utah-ad-says-no-reason-to-jump-into-big-12-unless-the-goal-is-to-destroy-the-pac-12/

"...Asked specifically about the Utah administration’s preference, Hill offered:

 

“They all want to stay. They love the schools they’re associated with and the areas they recruit and play. Utah has a lot of alumni in the Bay Area. There aren’t alumni in Waco. Those things matter.”

Nor does Hill believe it’s essential for Utah to partner with rival Brigham Young, which is set to enter the Big 12 next year.

“They just need to play each other,” he said. “Do they need to be in the same league to do that? Maybe, but maybe not.”

Hill believes football should be treated as a separate business within college sports and will eventually feature a 48-team upper division. That bifurcation could happen in the next few years — or not for a decade.

Unless the Big Ten or SEC come calling, the 36 schools remaining in the Pac-12, Big 12 and ACC must recalibrate their strategy and beware of lifeboats that aren’t as sturdy as they appear.

 

“Their market is their market,” Hill said, referring to the media rights value held by any given school. “Arizona’s worth in the Big 12 is the same as it is in the Pac-12. The finances of moving won’t help anybody.

“What difference does it make if you’re getting $35 million a year in the Pac-12 versus $40 million a year in the Big 12? Either way, it’s not going to move the dial for you.

“The only benefit from switching is to destroy the other league.”

Hill isn’t convinced the Pac-12 must expand following the departures of USC and UCLA in 2024. The schools currently in the Big 12 could be difficult to poach because of the league’s bylaws, which feature a 99-year commitment...."

1 this guy must not care bout money 

2 he’s also never seen that show with chip and Joanna.   San Francisco is a fading cesspool.   Waco is an up and coming city that probably has at least one utah grad

[Hagbard Celine 10859]

6 hours ago, slorch said:

 

I'll never be a Texas fan, save for that one night in Pasadena and that was more of "Shut these motherfuckers up in the media with all of their annointing and shit!"

Manipulation of the hierarchy of college football is driving me away as a fan, not drawing me in.  They are removing more and more of what makes college sports great.  If it's just NFL minor leagues, then fuck it, I'll watch the NFL( I already do.)  I will watch less of college football though too.

SLORCH!  good to see you buddy.  Thanks for the Pasadena support.  For avoidance of doubt, you have the opportunity to review your posts and my responses to your posts in this thread and acknowledge your transgression, or we can go another way.  Fair warning.

Simply apologize and acknowledge you were incorrect and the matter is dropped.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

SLORCH!  good to see you buddy.  Thanks for the Pasadena support.  For avoidance of doubt, you have the opportunity to review your posts and my responses to your posts in this thread and acknowledge your transgression, or we can go another way.  Fair warning.

Simply apologize and acknowledge you were incorrect and the matter is dropped.

Alexa via Surly is creepy AF.

Say what you're gonna say, Boo...

[notre dame joe 187]

21 hours ago, FartingDreamer said:

Fans of most teams, will simply lose interest in the sport since their team(s) would be cut out of the picture.  They aren't going to simply adopt new teams and follow with the same passion or interest, even if they did adopt another team.  Viewership, etc will simply decline.

 

18 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

This is truth.   Viewership isn't just brands.   If you take out Pitt and WVU and Maryland, that entire region isn't just going to watch Penn State.   They'll just not watch.   It isn't the NFL where you have one regional team that dominates that local market because its the only game played.

Great CFB teams with subpar records also have subpar audiences.   6-6 Bama vs 6-6 Georgia won't draw anywhere near the audience as the two of them with no losses playing a game close in the 4th with a championship birth on the line.    Along that same vein, 10-0 Vandy vs 10-0 Bama for a birth in the CCG will still draw millions and not just because of Bama.   People watch high profile, high win, high stakes, close until late games more than anything else.   It is the largest reason for most audiences, followed by network/timing, followed by brand.

This is the one issue with consolidation.   There is a benefit for Texas, USC, or Oklahoma playing in leagues they dominate.    They come out with massive records.   The more you play each other, the more likely it is that you trade paint.  Its why they're pushing for 16 in a playoff, "we are stronger we should get our 8-4s in!"   8-4 Oklahoma isn't going to draw the same eyeballs year in and year out as 12-0 or 11-1 Oklahoma does, because the post season changes dramatically.    One or no losses builds more shits than three plus.

I

That's the $64 million dollar question.   Texas for example wants the benefits of beating Tech and SMU but not paying them a conference share.  The fans have always cared as long as the B schools played in the same league as the blue bloods.  Teams like 6-6 Oregon State could fill a stadium because they know they get: regular visits from USC, an annual game against their rival Oregon, and a major Bowl   once a generation. 

 

Under the NFL-Lite model, that is all gone because the big boys left and were corralled into super conferences.  So why would the fans of the University of Arizona pay attention at all?  The media take over of the sport has removed everything they used to play for?

 

[Deej 76768]

18 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

 Texas for example wants the benefits of beating Tech and SMU but not paying them a conference share

Considering we haven't played SMU since 1995, I think, you might be a little off here. 

Edited August 3, 2022 by Deej