Realignment talk not going away

[closetohumping 17460]

5 hours ago, statsman said:

It’s very clear y’all will be better off without UT and OU. You really need your administrations to push Texas and OU out as soon as possible 

yes they need to kick us leeches errr i mean freeloaders errrr I mean traitors out.

[Gidnik 3285]

Nsiap 

 

[Sandbagging Steve 982]

3 minutes ago, Gidnik said:

Nsiap 

 

This crossed my mind yesterday after Deion to CU and Samples and Carrington to ASU. Certainly seems like both programs could possibly be making plans for a move to the Big 12. 

CU needs revenue to pay their coaching staff.

ASU just hired two recruiters with ties to Texas with 0 conference games in the state. Of course, ASU would have to share their future plans with the new head coach. I can't see that happening, unless the Big 12 announcement is happening soon.

[Hurtlocker 2213]

2 hours ago, bullet said:

Notably, the AAC wasn't far behind the ACC despite the ACC having two well known programs and the AAC having Tulane play opposite LSU and the SEC CCG.  The ACC was opposite the Big 10 game which wasn't expected to be competitive.

Yeah the B1G and ACC probably would have been a bit bigger, had they not shared a slot.   Well, the B1G probably would have had more.

[DFW Horn 6162]

14 minutes ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

This crossed my mind yesterday after Deion to CU and Samples and Carrington to ASU. Certainly seems like both programs could possibly be making plans for a move to the Big 12. 

CU needs revenue to pay their coaching staff.

ASU just hired two recruiters with ties to Texas with 0 conference games in the state. Of course, ASU would have to share their future plans with the new head coach. I can't see that happening, unless the Big 12 announcement is happening soon.

CU, ASU, AZ, and Utah should make the move yesterday.

['stache 21844]

2 hours ago, closetohumping said:

yes they need to kick us leeches errr i mean freeloaders errrr I mean traitors out.

Done.

[TKthunder2 4997]

46 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

Yeah the B1G and ACC probably would have been a bit bigger, had they not shared a slot.   Well, the B1G probably would have had more.

Going head to head with the SEC or B1G is dumb as shit, especially going forward. The new Big 12 has a great spot and they should fight tooth and nail to protect it.

PAC would do better taking the late spot on Saturday versus Friday night and if the ACC can’t get a spot away for the B1G/SEC they might be interested in Friday. Could increase viewership for everyone.

[Hurtlocker 2213]

8 hours ago, Valmy77 said:

You will be.

Our annual payouts in the Big 12 just were not sustainable, that is why we had to move.

Still going to argue it had nothing to do with money, at least for Texas.   This was all about stopping a recruiting advantage that the SEC had built.   Now they can't say, "But do you SEC bro?"   It should cut into Aggy and LSU's gains.    Teams in the top five consistently can pull from everywhere, but now there is more protection at home.

[Texas Wahoo 3403]

3 hours ago, 'stache said:

Pretty impressive overall.

The most viewers since 2018?  I wonder what was different about 2018 to lead to such high viewership. 

[Valmy77 13271]

The money advantage of the SEC and the Big 10 was going to be a big problem for us very soon.

[Valmy77 13271]

Just now, Texas Wahoo said:

The most viewers since 2018?  I wonder what was different about 2018 to lead to such high viewership. 

Exactly. If we weren't sucking shit the Big 12 would have been consistently doing great numbers.

[The Hot Dog Buffet 1291]

10 minutes ago, Texas Wahoo said:

The most viewers since 2018?  I wonder what was different about 2018 to lead to such high viewership. 

I'm seeing that game drew 9.41 million viewers. So 10,000 more, give or take the rounding.

[Al_4_ISU 12478]

9 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

Still going to argue it had nothing to do with money, at least for Texas.   This was all about stopping a recruiting advantage that the SEC had built.   Now they can't say, "But do you SEC bro?"   It should cut into Aggy and LSU's gains.    Teams in the top five consistently can pull from everywhere, but now there is more protection at home.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seemed like you guys were still pulling in top tier recruits in the Big 12.

From my outsider's view, this seemed like a reaction to NIL and a fear that money would become a problem if you weren't proactive about securing the biggest bag out there.  I also think that the perception of the Big 12 portrayed on ESPN and other sports media influenced how Texas fans felt about the home slate and all that jazz.   But I think the biggest factor for the decision makers was proactively preventing Texas from being at a financial disadvantage that had yet to materialize.

['stache 21844]

In no world is doubling your revenue not the absolute number one factor. OU and Texas were recruiting just fine these last several years. The lack of a national title hasn’t been about recruiting. Texas’ struggles have been because of missing on some head coaching hires and OU just sucks (or more specifically medium game bob was always medium and gave his mediocre brother too much control over their mediocre defenses). The talent was always there, especially offensively.

Edited December 7, 2022 by 'stache

[Saint Austin 745]

12 hours ago, Gidnik said:

Nsiap 

 

Wouldn't surprise me a bit if CU would make a push to be included as a Big Ten expansion candidate. It's an AAU school, has a significant metropolitan area in the state, and would be a natural bridge between the traditional Big Ten schools and the West Coast add-ons.

Edited December 7, 2022 by Saint Austin
typo

[Al_4_ISU 12478]

50 minutes ago, Saint Austin said:

Wouldn't surprise me a bit if CU would make a push to be included as a Big Ten expansion candidate. It's an AAU school, has a significant metropolitan area in the state, and would be a natural bridge between the traditional Big Ten schools and the West Coast add-ons.

Why would the Big 10 want CU?

The only reason I want them in the Big 12 is just for the comedy of them having to come back eating crow, and to keep as much Big 8 flavor as possible in the new Big 12.

If the Big 10 adds any more out west, it's some combo of Washington, Oregon, Cal, or Stanford.

[hook me 2103]

14 hours ago, 'stache said:

Pretty impressive overall.

Certainly better numbers than what I was expecting. It definitely helps that it was the only major conference game on Saturday that was predicted to be close & had the possibility to affect the playoffs. 

The biggest news out of looking into this for me is just how far the ACC has fallen. Partly due to a lack of someone to rival Clemson & because FSU & Miami are so far down, but man those ratings are BAD BAD & have been bad for a while now. The PAC12 receives a lot of flack for TV viewership but their Friday night championship games have been increasing in TV ratings while the ACC has been falling. Obviously USC being a playoff contender & Williams a Heisman candidate helped this year, but the ACC viewership numbers are just embarrassing. They need to accept their fate & stop contending with the B1G & just move it to noon or Friday night to see if that helps.

[Saint Austin 745]

4 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Why would the Big 10 want CU?

The only reason I want them in the Big 12 is just for the comedy of them having to come back eating crow, and to keep as much Big 8 flavor as possible in the new Big 12.

If the Big 10 adds any more out west, it's some combo of Washington, Oregon, Cal, or Stanford.

Why would the Big Ten want Nebraska? Or Maryland? Or Rutgers?? They care about planting their flag in new territory with AAU schools, and if ND continues to spurn them, then I could definitely see CU as a B1G candidate. 

[LTtxfan 49333]

2 minutes ago, hook me said:

Certainly better numbers than what I was expecting. It definitely helps that it was the only major conference game on Saturday that was predicted to be close & had the possibility to affect the playoffs. 

The biggest news out of looking into this for me is just how far the ACC has fallen. Partly due to a lack of someone to rival Clemson & because FSU & Miami are so far down, but man those ratings are BAD BAD & have been bad for a while now. The PAC12 receives a lot of flack for TV viewership but their Friday night championship games have been increasing in TV ratings while the ACC has been falling. Obviously USC being a playoff contender & Williams a Heisman candidate helped this year, but the ACC viewership numbers are just embarrassing. They need to accept their fate & stop contending with the B1G & just move it to noon or Friday night to see if that helps.

Yeah, it's been surprising to see some good players entering the portal from the Cocks just after good wins over Tennessee and Clemson.  ACC has really hurt themselves with their current TV contract...  

[Texas Wahoo 3403]

2 minutes ago, hook me said:

Certainly better numbers than what I was expecting. It definitely helps that it was the only major conference game on Saturday that was predicted to be close & had the possibility to affect the playoffs. 

The biggest news out of looking into this for me is just how far the ACC has fallen. Partly due to a lack of someone to rival Clemson & because FSU & Miami are so far down, but man those ratings are BAD BAD & have been bad for a while now. The PAC12 receives a lot of flack for TV viewership but their Friday night championship games have been increasing in TV ratings while the ACC has been falling. Obviously USC being a playoff contender & Williams a Heisman candidate helped this year, but the ACC viewership numbers are just embarrassing. They need to accept their fate & stop contending with the B1G & just move it to noon or Friday night to see if that helps.

I'm pretty sure ESPN sets the time for the ACC championship game to fill out the ABC schedule on Saturday.  Big 12 in the morning, SEC in the afternoon (once it shifts to ABC from CBS, but they're not going to have the ACC go against the SEC anyway), and ACC at night.

[Al_4_ISU 12478]

2 minutes ago, Saint Austin said:

Why would the Big Ten want Nebraska? Or Maryland? Or Rutgers?? They care about planting their flag in new territory with AAU schools, and if ND continues to spurn them, then I could definitely see CU as a B1G candidate. 

Nebraska was a massive brand in 2010.  Maryland and Rutgers allowed them to get on basic cable networks in highly populated states.

Colorado is not a massive brand, and the cable subscription model that lead them to add Maryland and Rutgers doesn't really exist today.

['stache 21844]

3 minutes ago, hook me said:

Certainly better numbers than what I was expecting. It definitely helps that it was the only major conference game on Saturday that was predicted to be close & had the possibility to affect the playoffs. 

The biggest news out of looking into this for me is just how far the ACC has fallen. Partly due to a lack of someone to rival Clemson & because FSU & Miami are so far down, but man those ratings are BAD BAD & have been bad for a while now. The PAC12 receives a lot of flack for TV viewership but their Friday night championship games have been increasing in TV ratings while the ACC has been falling. Obviously USC being a playoff contender & Williams a Heisman candidate helped this year, but the ACC viewership numbers are just embarrassing. They need to accept their fate & stop contending with the B1G & just move it to noon or Friday night to see if that helps.

I'd be curious to see if Friday night works for the ACC. It's hard to tell if the PAC's ratings are because of Friday or because of overall lack of interest. I think the PAC is clearly the least interesting to viewers, but maybe not quite as atrocious as these ratings. Like the Big 12 it was supposed to be a good game and had playoff implications, but unlike the Big 12 it had one of the blueblood national brands, which you'd expect to give them a boost. The PAC is in a ton of trouble after USC/UCLA leave. I'd like to see the Big 12 go after CU and Utah. Not sure about the Zona schools, but at least one for Phoenix. 

[Al_4_ISU 12478]

6 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I'd be curious to see if Friday night works for the ACC. It's hard to tell if the PAC's ratings are because of Friday or because of overall lack of interest. I think the PAC is clearly the least interesting to viewers, but maybe not quite as atrocious as these ratings. Like the Big 12 it was supposed to be a good game and had playoff implications, but unlike the Big 12 it had one of the blueblood national brands, which you'd expect to give them a boost. The PAC is in a ton of trouble after USC/UCLA leave. I'd like to see the Big 12 go after CU and Utah. Not sure about the Zona schools, but at least one for Phoenix. 

I selfishly want AZ because my folks have a winter home in Tucson and I could schedule visits around road basketball games.

[hook me 2103]

21 minutes ago, Texas Wahoo said:

I'm pretty sure ESPN sets the time for the ACC championship game to fill out the ABC schedule on Saturday.  Big 12 in the morning, SEC in the afternoon (once it shifts to ABC from CBS, but they're not going to have the ACC go against the SEC anyway), and ACC at night.

I'm sure the ACC could lobby for Friday night vs. PAC 12 on FOX. I understand ESPN wanting to have coverage all day but going up against the B1G is just beating your head against the wall with regards to ratings. 

[Trojan Man 429]

12 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

Still going to argue it had nothing to do with money, at least for Texas.   This was all about stopping a recruiting advantage that the SEC had built.   Now they can't say, "But do you SEC bro?"   It should cut into Aggy and LSU's gains.    Teams in the top five consistently can pull from everywhere, but now there is more protection at home.

It's absolutely about money.  There can still be secondary benefits like better recruiting, but money is #1.  Texas, Oklahoma and USC saw the writing on the wall and reacted accordingly.  It would be unacceptable for schools like that to be getting conference payouts half the size of what Mississippi State and Illinois get while continuing to subsidize the equivalents of Mississippi State and Illinois in their current conference.

1 hour ago, Saint Austin said:

Wouldn't surprise me a bit if CU would make a push to be included as a Big Ten expansion candidate. It's an AAU school, has a significant metropolitan area in the state, and would be a natural bridge between the traditional Big Ten schools and the West Coast add-ons.

I'm certain that's the motivation behind the Prime Time hire.  They finally realized that having a perennially trash football program and being content to put in the minimum effort necessary to get your conference check has consequences.  I hope this Hail Mary doesn't get Colorado into the B1G.  They were a worthless addition to the Pac 12 and the same would be true in the B1G.  Maybe if they started caring about football when they joined the Pac 12 back in 2011 things would be different because like you said Colorado checks a lot of boxes for the B1G, but one thing the B1G has more than enough of are shitty football teams.  Stanford, Washington and Utah are the only Pac schools that should get any B1G consideration.

[statsman 5477]

You guys aren’t getting it. There are two main reasons for UT leaving-

1. NIL and portal. This is a new era, and the fans of the Left Behind don’t get it, yet. Players are paid and can transfer easier than players in any other pro sports league in the world. There will be differentiation, based on financial resources. The SEC and Big 10 are the leagues with the most money and most willingness to pay to compete. It’s either move up or face relegation. It’s OK- the second place League in England still has a cool name (“Championship League”); it’s just not the Premier League. 
 
2. The RRS ties Texas to OU in ways other teams (and often even fans of these teams) don’t get. OU wanted out; they dominated the Big 12, but felt it was holding them back. Yet, OU lacks the attractiveness (fan quantity, regional recruiting) to move to the SEC on its own (and no way does the Big 10 accept them). They were moving and they needed Texas to come with them (and Texas wasn’t letting it’s biggest frenemy get away). 

[Hurtlocker 2213]

3 hours ago, Trojan Man said:

It's absolutely about money.  There can still be secondary benefits like better recruiting, but money is #1.  Texas, Oklahoma and USC saw the writing on the wall and reacted accordingly.  It would be unacceptable for schools like that to be getting conference payouts half the size of what Mississippi State and Illinois get while continuing to subsidize the equivalents of Mississippi State and Illinois in their current conference.

 

Yeah, its not though.   USC and Oklahoma's situation is not Texas' situation, by any stretch of the imagination.  

First, a renegotiated deal in the Big 12 with Texas/OU would have netted around $60m per school, about 20% less than the B1G/SEC, BEFORE LHN, which at this point is adding about $18m on top.   So that's $78m.   The Big Ten/SEC are looking at $75m, reaching $100m after additional moneys like the NCAA/playoffs/etc that we're not adding in at this point.   There are schools with a revenue threat here, but Texas is not one of them.

Second, in the last reported fiscal Texas already made $100m more than Mississippi State and $80m more than Illinois - also $80m more than USC and $90m more than UCLA. Texas would have made more without a TV deal, without any conference money - just from tickets and boosters, then nearly every school.   The athletic department is that that sound.   Even making that B1G TV deal, none of those schools will catch Texas without a TV deal.   It's not the same game.   Outside big gifts making yearly numbers look strange, only Ohio State is really in the +$200m/year revenue tier as Texas.   Michigan and Alabama are all within throwing distance, everyone else has some work to do, even with their advantages.

Third, in that same reporting period, Texas ran with a $30m profit - or a 17% margin.   That's the size of Texas State's entire athletics budget and almost half of teams like Washington State or Oregon State.   So making $20-30m more is going to do what exactly?    If expenses are already covered by a sizable amount, and you're pretty much already buying everything you can, what is $30m more going to do?  Schools cannot provide NIL directly, so its not that.   Put another TV in each locker?

What this is about for Texas is the most important thing in TV contracts.... exposure, period.   Playing Alabama this year provided more exposure than the entire B12 schedule, including the OU game.   Exposure is like free marketing, and it is the key to all of this because it adds up to billions in value to the entire university, not tiny little millions of dollars in a yearly check.  With the move, Texas will now have like 4 Red Rivers a year, instead of one.   THAT matters.   Even if moving to the SEC paid nothing, the exposure is worth it and then some.

Exposure does more than just help schools, exposure is what drives recruiting.  The exposure the SEC receives is much, much higher than the Big 12.   Only the Big Ten is close.   A&M saw an explosion of exposure moving to the SEC and it started to drain long held advantages.   In 2010 Texas had 21 blue chips in that class, in 2014 they had 8.   There were more blue chips from 2010-2012, than 2013-2016.   And a lot of those went to A&M and other SEC teams.   Granted, still the 800lb gorilla in the state, but there are now schools who were getting more exposure coming in to snipe players they never could sniff before.

So, while Texas doesn't need more money, is Oklahoma moving for money?  Definitely.   They're top ten revenue, but they spend all they make.   Most importantly though, they rely heavily on being 2 hours from DFW and are at greater risk of losing out of top end talent without more exposure.   Without Texas their recruiting goes to shit.  This is why they choose the River over their long time rivalry with Nebraska when they joined the Big 12.   Big game is nice, but long term health is all about recruiting.

The only way increased revenue matters here for Texas, literally the only way, is if the P5 moves to a situation where they are paying players directly.   The Big Ten has hinted it's on its radar.   Once that happens, this entire game changes, again.    And while the Indianas and UCLAs of the world will be positioned better to handle it than before, they still won't be able to compete with Ohio State, Michigan, Alabama, or Texas.  

 

Edited December 7, 2022 by Hurtlocker

[Sandbagging Steve 982]

9 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seemed like you guys were still pulling in top tier recruits in the Big 12.

 

The 250th national recruit ranked by a group of fat-nerd-journalists isn't any better than the 900th national recruit. It comes down to evaluation and scheme fit. The truly elite talent, top 50 to top 100 recruits with verifiable times, measurements, film and pass a background check? No, Texas was not landing their fair share of those blue-chip recruits that the Alabamas, Ohio States, Georgias of the world get every cycle. Not even close.

The recruiting websites are a fucking fraud. They just rank the big programs at the top of the team rankings every cycle and collect checks. If the 900th ranked player commits to a cash cow, said recruit just shoots up at least a few hundred spots, and some way more than that, and the said cash cow ends up with a top 15 team ranking!

[thunderlounge 7916]

Oklahoma chose what by joining the Big12?

Are you high?

 

 

4 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

So, while Texas doesn't need more money, is Oklahoma moving for money?  Definitely.   They're top ten revenue, but they spend all they make.   Most importantly though, they rely heavily on being 2 hours from DFW and are at greater risk of losing out of top end talent without more exposure.   Without Texas their recruiting goes to shit.  This is why they choose the River over their long time rivalry with Nebraska when they joined the Big 12.   Big game is nice, but long term health is all about recruiting.

 

 

You know, since they were already there and all. 

[bullet 1597]

20 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

Still going to argue it had nothing to do with money, at least for Texas.   This was all about stopping a recruiting advantage that the SEC had built.   Now they can't say, "But do you SEC bro?"   It should cut into Aggy and LSU's gains.    Teams in the top five consistently can pull from everywhere, but now there is more protection at home.

Agree.  Although it was as much Alabama, Georgia, Clemson and Ohio St., the CFP participants, who were siphoning off top talent in Texas.  Last year, after the announced move, Texas and Texas A&M dominated the top talent in Texas more than I ever remember.

Per 247 In 2021, Ohio St. got the top 2.  Alabama had 4 of the top 18.  TN #6, LSU #19.  A&M had 6 in the top 20, OU 4, UT 1 and Texas Tech 1.

In 2022, LSU got the top player, Clemson got #3, Ohio St. got 2, but they were 12 and 13.  Alabama only picked up a #14 and UGA a #17.  But you had to go down to #24 to find someone else who didn't commit to A&M (10 of top 23) or UT (7 of top 23).

[bullet 1597]

10 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seemed like you guys were still pulling in top tier recruits in the Big 12.

From my outsider's view, this seemed like a reaction to NIL and a fear that money would become a problem if you weren't proactive about securing the biggest bag out there.  I also think that the perception of the Big 12 portrayed on ESPN and other sports media influenced how Texas fans felt about the home slate and all that jazz.   But I think the biggest factor for the decision makers was proactively preventing Texas from being at a financial disadvantage that had yet to materialize.

NIL, conference perception, having a voice in setting the future rules in this new world of college football (and the rules will be determined by the SEC and Big 10) as well as recruiting.

We would likely continue to make more than anyone even in the Big 12.  And if not, nobody would be far ahead of us.

[bullet 1597]

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/35204361/alabama-ad-see-sec-expanding-term

"...SEC commissioner Greg Sankey, also speaking at the conference Wednesday, said he echoed Byrne's comments regarding expansion.

"I'm not a recruiter," Sankey said. "We're focused on the growth to 16. We don't have a number in mind, we think we're really well-positioned ... but I won't predict what others will do."

When Big Ten commissioner Kevin Warren was asked Wednesday on a separate panel at the conference whether the Big Ten was done expanding, Warren said: "For now."

ACC commissioner Jim Phillips said the conference is "always looking" when it comes to expanding.

"We're always assessing our institution and assessing to see if there are moves that would benefit the ACC in the long term," Phillips said. "But bigger is not necessarily always better....""

No definition of what "for now" means.  Until January?  Until next summer?  Until the next contract?

 

[Steelers Roll Left 1182]

On 12/6/2022 at 6:35 PM, 'stache said:

Pretty impressive overall.

I saw the matchup and opted for World Cup…..

[redswingline 1063]

23 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

Still going to argue it had nothing to do with money, at least for Texas.

[bullet 1597]

 

 

 

Realignment talk not going away:

 

 

 

Dennis Dodd

 

@dennisdoddcbs

·

2h

 

Brett Yormark on expansion: "Over the course of the not too distant future, I would expect things to happen."

 

 

 

 

['stache 21844]

4 hours ago, Steelers Roll Left said:

I saw the matchup and opted for World Cup…..

[closetohumping 17460]

10 hours ago, bullet said:

 

 

 

Realignment talk not going away:

 

 

 

Dennis Dodd

 

@dennisdoddcbs

·

2h

 

Brett Yormark on expansion: "Over the course of the not too distant future, I would expect things to happen."

 

 

 

 

[Gidnik 3285]

 

[Gidnik 3285]

 

[Satchel 6948]

19 hours ago, bullet said:

NIL, conference perception, having a voice in setting the future rules in this new world of college football (and the rules will be determined by the SEC and Big 10) as well as recruiting.

We would likely continue to make more than anyone even in the Big 12.  And if not, nobody would be far ahead of us.

The new rules will continue to be set by the networks who will continue to determine winners and losers. The B1G and the Sec are along for the ride.

[bullet 1597]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brett McMurphy

 

@Brett_McMurphy

·

20h

 

Big 12 commish Brett Yormark on Big 12's four new schools & what lies ahead: "We'd love to get into that fourth (Pacific) time zone & we will at some point"

 

 

 

Brett McMurphy

 

@Brett_McMurphy

·

21h

 

Pac-12's George Kliavkoff said a decision on Pac-12 expansion will be determined after the league's media rights deal is done

 

 

 

 

Brett McMurphy

 

@Brett_McMurphy

·

22h

 

Pac-12 commish George Kliavkoff said he "doesn't sense any sense of urgency" regarding media rights deal completion

 

 

 

 

[oSuJeff97 3435]

1 hour ago, bullet said:

 

Pac-12 commish George Kliavkoff said he "doesn't sense any sense of urgency" regarding media rights deal completion

 

George Kliavkoff giving very strong Dan Beebe/Bob Bowlsby vibes.

[redswingline 1063]

Kliavkoff is either a comedian or was high as fuck the last time I saw him.

When asked about expansion/realignment and the Big 12 reportedly looking to make moves he said something like, "We haven't decided if we are going to add teams from the Big 12 or not".

 

[bullet 1597]

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/35216756/atlantic-sun-wac-teams-pairing-move-fbs-sources-say

 

Seems everybody and their dog wants to be FBS.  Abilene Christian?  Tarleton St.?  Utah Tech?  Austin Peay?

At some point the power conferences just need to leave the neighborhood and find a gated community.

[closetohumping 17460]

1 hour ago, bullet said:

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/35216756/atlantic-sun-wac-teams-pairing-move-fbs-sources-say

 

Seems everybody and their dog wants to be FBS.  Abilene Christian?  Tarleton St.?  Utah Tech?  Austin Peay?

At some point the power conferences just need to leave the neighborhood and find a gated community.

Can we fit a double wide through them gates?  Asking for certain soon to be former conference mates 

['stache 21844]

Is anybody in charge of deciding which leagues can be FBS, or can a league just say they want to be FBS? I seem to recall there used to be an attendance requirement, like 15,000 average, even though the numbers were usually fudged. I doubt some of these could meet that standard. I've literally never heard of Utah Tech.

[bullet 1597]

50 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Is anybody in charge of deciding which leagues can be FBS, or can a league just say they want to be FBS? I seem to recall there used to be an attendance requirement, like 15,000 average, even though the numbers were usually fudged. I doubt some of these could meet that standard. I've literally never heard of Utah Tech.

Utah Tech used to be Dixie State.  That portion of Utah was known as Dixie because of the large number of southern settlers.  But nobody outside Utah had any idea where it was.  And "Dixie" is not politically correct anymore.

They don't really enforce the attendance standard or the stadium standard.  I don't know if their plan can work because they do have to play a certain number of FBS schools who are not in transition.  Maybe if they moved up 2 or 3 at a time and then came back together in a conference later it could work.

[OB3 3629]

 

[mdmost 43035]

Let's go then. Fuck.

Edited December 12, 2022 by mdmost

[Al_4_ISU 12478]

Makes me wonder if there's some Big 12 news pending that would make whomever needs to sign off on these negotiations more inclined to do so.